YouTube is still based on copyright violation but there is no way to stop it so publishers play ball. There is no way music companies would allow their stuff on there for so cheap if they could stop it.

>> There is no way music companies would allow their stuff on there for so cheap if they could stop it.

Which is just another way of saying "Music Companies would stop technological progress itself if it affects their bottom line (and they can figure out a way to do it)."

Youtube is paying royalties though.

they are now, yes. But that was not the case in the beginning, before Google bought it, people uploaded content completely without any regard to intellectual property and YouTube became the dominant streaming media platform and a couple of otherwise fairly skilled but hardly exceptional software engineers were made multi-millionaires) because it was the place to get free stuff that you'd otherwise have to pay for.

Yes and what we're talking about here is that the NYT is trying to get paid royalties as well, just like music & film publishers tried (successfully) to get Youtube to pay them. The long-term survival of ChatGPT may well depend on paying those royalties.

I came here to say that. At some point I could literally what full movies on Youtube, pretty much anything I searched.

You can still do it.