I had a coworker who used to work for a direct competitor of Youtube. He left that competitor (as they were struggling) as Youtube was taking off. His older company had been founded by a Hollywood exec/veteran, meaning he made sure to keep out copyrighted material.
The way he put it, he said Youtube got big Because Youtube initially allowed copyrighted material.
This led Youtube gaining more videos -> more traffic -> more videos -> repeat.
Almost every day I watch something on Youtube that breaks copyright law and think that society is better off as a result, so I think this is a positive outcome. I wouldn't sacrifice all the old adverts, rare blues music etc. just so that big corps can have a better bargaining position over their copyrights.
This sort of thinking only encourages more breaking of copyright law, the vast majority of which is of content that is neither rare nor in danger of being lost. I don't think society is better off for that, as it simply exacerbates this specific freerider problem. "Big corps" (and small creators) are investing their resources into providing content that you like? What are you giving back in return?
The way he put it, he said Youtube got big Because Youtube initially allowed copyrighted material.
This led Youtube gaining more videos -> more traffic -> more videos -> repeat.