If I may counter to flesh this out:

Take books. Authors have copyright laws to protect the content but they also have to accept that humans will look at, remember, and catalog the content of their books.

And we ended up with libraries which catalog on a large scale, as well as laws that dictate how people can use the content of those books (especially when they do borrow them).

But Google could be considered as a company that borrows all the books, has people transcribe and file them, returns the books, and then advertises that they are “better than the library” because they have hired the best and fastest librarians in the world. However, they charge a cover fee. (In reality this fee is paid by advertisers, but it’s still there and Google is still a for-profit company)

I think that it would be hard to argue that that type of business is reasonable or expected, and to bring it back to the example of a content creator: I think many of us would push back if a reclusive author brought a manuscript back to the city after 20 years of being a hermit, had it turned in to a book, and then found out that every single person who read it did so without paying him, without him being able to connect with those readers, and without him even being able to know how many people because this for-profit library chose not to tell him.