> The problem is 100% the use of LLMs to pull the content in an unsanctioned manner
If the public facing web wasn't crawlable Google and many other things wouldn't be possible. What are you saying that YouTube should not be viewable unless someone is properly authed? Take it up with YouTube - they could require logins to view videos if they wanted but it would be a worse product.
When a user posts something on YouTube and checks "Allow embeds" they have not only given their video to YouTube but are totally cool with people sharing it around. Who are you - their lawyer? Even most YouTube creators do not share your opinion as I can see most are allowing embeds. The point of mentioning embeds is it's both:
1) Credit to the creator, including the revenue share which you were incorrect when you said it lowers their revenues - they still get the ad revenue from an embed
2) An indicator that the creator wants their content to be shared, since they have the option to disable them if they want and choose not to
The adjacent point you seem to be making is that nobody should be allowed to crawl information and present it as their own. But that's what a lot of the internet is. It's what a search engine is, it's the source of most online encyclopedias, news sites, and so-on.
It just doesn't logically follow that if somebody uploads a video to YouTube, that nobody is allowed to summarize it in text form. That's a very normal thing that is done online.
This isn’t Google though. This is some guy creating a website that will allow him to trend for your term on Google, without the support of the ads that would be financially supporting your content, or any engagement opportunities.
By using LLM he has created a method to literally outclass every video on YouTube. People will not watch the video, because what’s the point, all the information is already there, taken so fully as to likely not pass fair use claims.
Please stop throwing whataboutisms into this argument. You keep doing it, and they aren’t sticking. This is about this specific site, which takes the full content that people make (not a summary, enough so you can follow along without watching the video, which would go beyond fair use), strips out the ads, and puts them into a format the creator didn’t intend. It is not about embeds, it is not about Google, or aggregators, or scrapers. It is not promotional, and nor does it have any side benefits. It is just taking content that isn’t theirs and packaging it as a modest benefit to the end user.
This site is extremely unethical as is, with limited benefit to the people who actually made the content. No sidestepping or whataboutisms will change that.
I'll steelman the opposite side; YouTube creators have no rights.
When you upload a video to YouTube, you are licensing Google to redistribute a copy of your content at their whims. The uploader agrees to give Google "a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform" your video.
The video you upload to YouTube isn't yours anymore. You can pretend it is, and play around with it like a little paper doll for all it's worth. You don't own it anymore though, and your right to judge where it is and belongs is stripped the moment you click "Upload".
To the extent taking notes on a video without permission is a thing?
The outcome is not competing with the source video. Anyone's who's interested in the topic would likely still choose which video they want to delve into further.
If the public facing web wasn't crawlable Google and many other things wouldn't be possible. What are you saying that YouTube should not be viewable unless someone is properly authed? Take it up with YouTube - they could require logins to view videos if they wanted but it would be a worse product.
When a user posts something on YouTube and checks "Allow embeds" they have not only given their video to YouTube but are totally cool with people sharing it around. Who are you - their lawyer? Even most YouTube creators do not share your opinion as I can see most are allowing embeds. The point of mentioning embeds is it's both:
1) Credit to the creator, including the revenue share which you were incorrect when you said it lowers their revenues - they still get the ad revenue from an embed
2) An indicator that the creator wants their content to be shared, since they have the option to disable them if they want and choose not to
The adjacent point you seem to be making is that nobody should be allowed to crawl information and present it as their own. But that's what a lot of the internet is. It's what a search engine is, it's the source of most online encyclopedias, news sites, and so-on.
It just doesn't logically follow that if somebody uploads a video to YouTube, that nobody is allowed to summarize it in text form. That's a very normal thing that is done online.