Yeah he either doesn't understand the process and hasnt decided to work out what's happening, or he's intentionally deceptive. Either way, I think it's very stereotypical American thinking to presume everything is binary and no nuanced conversations can happen. "You asserted a thing, but didn't specify x while doing so, therefore you're against x". It's letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Another thing is that law can and should be left open to interpretation in many cases. That's not always the best thing, see financial law etc, but you can't set up a framework for every scenario. However, you can define a list of obvious things and if someone does something against the spirit of the law, it can be amended and/or someone can prosecute to further define. Laws can be changed and judges make rulings that set precedent.

Idk, I'm coming into this late but it's arguing in bad faith so im frustrated.

Yeah, at my work we have a legal department who does all the lawyer writing, but as a cyber analyst I have to do analyst writing. We don't conflate the two, I never write legal stuff and would never try. They don't pretend to understand technical stuff and wouldn't bother trying. No random youtuber would be capable of writing law, except maybe legal eagle?

I had a think about some of the 'licensed content has to go away after x years' which he talked about with the cars in the Crew. Before live service was possible, there were similar deals to put content in games. Think GTA etc. What licensing model was used there and why can't it be used today. His arguments assume you know nothing about the industry and take things at face value. They also assume that it's a binary situation. Not a fan of that kind of thinking personally.