At least, some of the recent controversies.

  • Chozo@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Which if blocking ads is piracy then at that point the word just becomes diluted, and at that point who even cares.

    Isn’t “taking something without paying” what piracy is? With YouTube, the “payment” is your time spent watching an ad. If you bypass that “payment”, are you not effectively pirating the content?

    It doesn’t seem that diluted to me. I actually agree with Linus’s take that adblocking is piracy. It’s just a much more socially and legally-acceptable form of piracy.

    If anything, I feel like adblocking on YouTube does even more direct damage to content creators than pirating blockbuster movies does to movie studios, honestly. If ten thousand people pirate a new Marvel movie, Disney’s not going to hurt too bad from that. But if ten thousand people adblock a YouTuber, that can significantly hurt their income by damaging their ad impression ranking. Advertisers on YouTube set their rates based on the engagement they get from a channel, and drops in engagement will typically result in drops in CPM.

    It’s the reason I pay for YouTube Premium, myself. I use YouTube pretty much all day long, and I want the creators whose content I spend my day watching to get paid for their work. And if not for YTP, I would 100% be adblocking YouTube, otherwise.

    • klubsanwich@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      If I tune into an NFL game using an OTA antenna, then turn off my TV during commercials and turn it back on for the game, would that be piracy?

      • the_third@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is no back channel to measure that so the impact to the content producer is way less direct.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The measurement of the act doesn’t change the act.

          I think the difference is websites have a terms of service they expect you to follow. If you have an account you have agreed to that. TV doesn’t.

    • NightOwl@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a whole lot of words for what in the end is not piracy with no laws being broken. There’s a difference between a moral argument and law breaking.

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lots of piracy is also not breaking the law. Copyright violations are illegal, but that involves making copies, which you don’t do when you stream a movie from a pirate site. It’s the site provider that is breaking the law, not the viewer at the other end.

        In the end it doesn’t matter if you call it freeloading, piracy or whatever. You can twist the definitions of those words any way you want. What matters is that the content provider isn’t getting paid.

        • NightOwl@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not what’s being discussed. It’s whether laws are being broken. That’s why the discussion is about piracy not payment.

    • ditty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not illegal to look away from a billboard or to close my eyes during a trailer at the movies, which seems more akin to using an adblocker in a browser.

      • Chozo@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Not acknowledging” and “directly interfering with” something are two different things.