[complex_exp]

Your comment is very valid. I'd just add that AI tools are clearly taking the "YouTube approach": they provide a large value added, ignore copyright for the moment, and hope to resolve it peacefully at some later point in time. This worked very well for YouTube.

[rezonant]

I wouldn't describe the Content ID regime and the myriad lawsuits and backroom deals as "peaceful".

[complex_exp]

YouTube wasn't killed and thrived as a platform throughout the process. Meanwhile YT ads funded the lawsuits and negotiations, with a surplus. It is pretty much a solved problem now. This is as peaceful as it gets when you genuinely infringe on someone's very valuable rights.

[rezonant]

Yeah they survived but I think we're worse off in a world of Content ID, copystrikes, erosion of fair use, theft of ad revenue by game companies. The list goes on. YouTube should probably be a lesson, not a model to copy.

[nbrycnb]

Yes, the lesson is not to contribute anything of value to open source or another person's platform.

Creators need to use restrictive licenses, then all of these parasitical corporations will cease to exist.

[muxator]

Limiting the scope to software, I'd say it's fair to distinguish MIT licenses from GPL. The latter provides way more freedom for the user (as opposed to corporations willing to profit without giving back). I am fair more comfortable contributing to an AGPLv3 software as opposed to a MIT licensed one.

I can't talk about licensing for content creators (like youtube), because I do not have much experience about it.

[complex_exp]

You're right, but I don't see how we could not have those things with the copyright laws as they stand and people being what they are. Maybe it could be a little bit better, but not substantially better.