I agree, but for different reasons.
There is, and it does.
However, the principle of “Fair Use” does not apply to making cover versions of songs.
As I said before, any “performance” of a copyright song whether it is in a theatre, on a street corner, or on the Internet requires you to have licence. The copyright owner asserting ownership of such cover versions on YouTube is entirely legal and, arguably, reasonable.
What is, IMO, unreasonable is the way they do it which is heavy handed, extremely error-prone, not subject to reasonable review or dispute.
This leads to abuses of the system, such as when smaller artists have their material stolen by big record labels who then copyright-strike the original songwriter leaving them with an uphill battle to regain ownership of their music.
Another good example of abuse, where they don’t own copyright. In this case to a public domain piece of work.
Part of the problem is there are no penalties for big companies who abuse the system YouTube has put in place, and another problem is that the original copyright owner who issues the strike is the judge and jury who, if you decide to dispute it, decides whether to accept your dispute or not.
Where the “fair use” part does come into play is when creating a YouTube video which is a “transformative” piece of work that is substantially different from the original such as for commentary, criticism, or parody.
So, a cover song isn’t “fair use” because it’s not transformative, but a parody version of the same song with substantially different lyrics could be.
It also depends on the jurisdiction. Fair use in the US falls under specific laws, but different countries have different laws.
In the US, for instance, fair use covers “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research”.
So, an example of where fair use is being trampled all over is Rick Beato’s “What Makes This Song Great” videos where he provides commentary, criticism (usually positive), and education by breaking down famous songs.
P.S. A reminder: IANAL