>And nobody is forcing you to watch the ads -- you can get rid of them for $12/mo. Or are you saying that you expect people to produce quality content for you for free?
They are not. And I generally don't. In fact, I rarely watch YouTube. When I do, it's generally to find a specific song or video clip (both usually decades old) to forward along to someone else.
In those situations, I would be shocked if the "owner" of the content (the YT channel owner) had actually paid license fees to the actual copyright owner.
As for paying $12/month to get rid of ads, that seems an awful lot like a protection racket. "It'd be a real shame if you had to waste all that time watching ads. We don't care about the money, we just want to help you make your viewing experience better."
Given that the video in question[0] wasn't actually created (or even directly licensed) by the owner of the YT channel, your point is moot for that particular piece of content.
As for actual content creators, I absolutely believe they should be fairly compensated for their work.
However, simply repackaging the work of others isn't "content creation."
Regardless, I make every effort to shun all platforms that attempt to show me ads. That's my choice. Because I don't care to be presented with a bunch of garbage or pay the same people who profit from it to not see such crap.
If there's something I want, I'll buy (not stream or rent or license) it.
There's far too much of that going on and I refuse to support it. If I buy music or a phone or a car or a tractor or seed or anything else, I should be able to use it as I see fit, without restriction, data exfiltration or a bunch of scum trying to sell me stuff.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va8Uz6MoKLg