Nope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Department_of_Element...
I'm curious if you know of any court cases that back up your position. I've connected to a lot of servers today and downloaded all the information they sent me.
Connecting to the Public Internet, serving content to any and every connection, without login, means you are effectively broadcasting your content and have no legal basis to impose terms. This is why scraping is legal; the only defense against scraping is to put up a login wall - Gate Down. If the gate is down, you can impose your own conditions and agreements with the binding legal force of a contract.
"By continuing to use this site you're agreeing to blah blah blah" is cute fiction and has no legal bearing in the US. The internet works the way it does because it's empowered and protected by law and convention.
I have the right to manage traffic to and from a device I own. If your server sends me traffic, it's communicating something. If it sends me content on request without my having entered into a contract, then the default case is that I'm entitled to that content, full stop. It's up to you, the provider, to decide and manage how your content gets served, and whether you want to participate in the default mode of public access. By not incorporating a login on a server you connect to the internet, you are choosing, defacto, to participate in the public access mode of content serving, and are responsible for doing so. You are expressly granting anyone connected to the internet permission to download that content, making them entitled to it by the mere fact of connecting to the world wide web, in the same way that projecting a photograph on a public wall is expressly granting the public permission to view said projection, or by speaking in public, thereby granting the public the right to hear what you say, and so on, and so forth.
I'd hazard that a vast majority of users of the internet are completely ignorant about what servers and clients are doing, and the laws and systems which govern them. I can choose to block signals from ad servers, and i can choose to access content from a server over protocols which it's prepared to serve. Youtube does this; it's too valuable for them to remain gate up, thereby leaving third party clients and other methods of access on the table. It's perfectly legal, respectable, ethical, and moral to skip ads. I'd even go so far as to say it's immoral to participate in adtech, so by avoiding it, you're actively making the world a better place, even if it's only yourself.
YouTube or any of the others could simply put up a login gate, and then nobody could access any of the content unless they're logged in, and have agreed to additional terms of use.
As it stands, all the content is free and public. In legal terms, as per the Supreme Court of the US, the gate is up, and they are not entitled to impose additional restrictions except where allowed or required by law, such as age restriction, moderation, or copyright situations.
You are entitled to get those videos for free unless or until YouTube decides to lower the gate. That's how the internet works, and it's a wonderful, good thing.
Fuck ads. Block them all. Eventually they're going to be regulated and companies will be forced to stop mass commercial surveillance under threat of fines and hopefully prison time. Absent surveillance and mass data harvesting, adtech becomes much less lucrative, and maybe we'll see markets develop that compete on product quality, and value to the consumer, instead of the endless cycle of enshittified garbage and attempts to derail the open and free public internet.