My "lawyer" (gpt4o) claims that since YouTube is merely a non-exclusive licensee of the user content upload to their service, even if they have such restriction

My "lawyer" (gpt4o) claims that since YouTube is merely a non-exclusive licensee of the user content upload to their service, even if they have such restrictions in their ToS (they do), they likely would not hold up in court, citing [0]. Something about that non-exclusivity meaning they cannot constrain the copyright further on their own terms. Which I guess makes sense? And since scraping of publicly available data is not illegal (in the US, according to the aforementioned "lawyer"), it seems like it's okay? Not legal advice. [0] https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2024/05/district-court-adopts-broad-view https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2024/05/distri...