This is the same argument people make about piracy. About potential revenue. The fact of the matter is, if I couldn't watch the video without either watching ads or paying for premium, I wouldn't watch it at all. So, the creator gets no money either way. Same thing when I pirate software or a movie or a game. I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so the amount of money the creator gets is the same, zero.
So don't watch it then. Serving video is not cheap and you're increasing costs for everyone else. I don't get to jump the fence at a music festival just because I wouldn't have gone if I had to pay.
Sure we are. If you make your content available on a public platform, where it is both possible and legal to watch it for free, then we are entitled to it if we choose to utilize the tools that make it possible, until or unless it becomes illegal or impossible.
It’s possible but not legal, just unenforced. We understand that you feel entitled to use things without paying for them but don’t try to dress it up as anything more noble or pretend to be surprised if enforcement escalates.
Good news, they aren’t. Tons of content is on multiple services - if you really have a principled objection to Google, you should show that by supporting those services rather than boosting YouTube’s popularity.
"Tons of content on multiple services" =/= "Tons of alternative services"
There is only one viable alternative to Youtube that I'm aware of. I use it whenever I can, but that doesn't change the fact that Youtube holds a monopoly.
