I don't want YouTube, I want the content. YouTube has the content it has because it's public. Netflix et al are simple models: they pay upstream providers like

I don't want YouTube, I want the content. YouTube has the content it has because it's public. Netflix et al are simple models: they pay upstream providers like Hollywood studios for works and they charge viewers to access them. It is a private space; it's like showing a film in a cinema. They get to charge access, but they also have to pay for the films. YouTube doesn't pay upstream providers anything, nor do they produce anything (of worth) themselves. They get their content for free because they are a public space. It's like a town square: they get performances for free, but they don't get to charge access. Except they do want to charge access. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too. I'm not a compulsive viewer. It's simply not worth it to me to pay a subscription fee for something I use sporadically. That's why I don't pay for Netflix etc. or any other subscription I don't get value from. A pay by usage model I would be more likely to get behind. In fact, I already do pay some uploaders via Patreon. But I would also expect to be able to download the videos and play them on repeat without incurring extra costs (after all, it's a waste of bandwidth to watch stuff on repeat and I have my own storage space). This way I could also be sure my payment is going towards worthwhile contributions and not the brain rotting garbage they seem to want me to watch.