No thanks. Not so long as the service is owned by a corporation who does not respect users.
If I pay for something then I own it. Therefore I should receive a copy of it and can view it as many times as I like on any device I like. Youtube does not do this, so I won't pay for it. I see no value in paying for a delivery mechanism when the mechanism itself is hostile to owning the content.
I'll pay for the content by paying the producers directly if I see value in the content. I have done exactly this.
Do you apply the same "If I pay for something then I own it" rule to content you consume via TV subscription services? What about if you pay to view a movie in a theater?
Yes. I don't pay for TV subscription services. What little TV I watch is freely received from broadcasts and can quite simply, and legally, be recorded.
> What about if you pay to view a movie in a theater?
No. I pay for the experience of being at the theater. The movie is irrelevant. It's like paying for the experience of being at a well groomed park with staff paid to maintain the grounds. Also, I rarely go to theaters because their experiences are terrible and aren't well groomed parks; I only go with friends which is then a group activity. Group activities certainly don't convey the same type of ownership.
Quite simply: I do not believe in renting.