230
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
230 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37728 readers
612 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Guess, I am out of the loop.
After Linus blasted people using ad-blockers (fucking hypocrite), I uh, just blocked his channel.
When did he do that?
About a year ago.
The uh, irony.... is this:
Believe it or not, I think he has a point and isn't at all a hypocrite. He'd show you how to pirate and torrent stuff (and has before) while also telling you he doesn't recommend stealing. What he was saying is that the content isn't meant to be free. The ads pay for the content. So not watching ads means the producer doesn't get paid. Its a soft form of piracy but he wasn't telling you what to do about that. He just said "Be aware you're not giving people anything for their content". I don't know why thats controversial, he's not even suggesting its illegal or even immoral. I never understood the arguments here but I also dont visit twitter
Piracy I associate as an illegal act that carries penalties of fines and imprisonment. Like real piracy...
As blocking is legal and something even the FBI recommends. This is more a website shortcoming than an act of piracy. 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.
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?
There is no back channel to measure that so the impact to the content producer is way less direct.
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.
Also a valid point.
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.
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.
That's not what's being discussed. It's whether laws are being broken. That's why the discussion is about piracy not payment.
Did you miss the part where "Lots of piracy is also not breaking the law."?
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.
"Not acknowledging" and "directly interfering with" something are two different things.
No, taking something without paying is theft. Piracy has many definitions, but none of them that simple.
-Robbery or other serious acts of violence committed at sea.
-The hijacking of an airplane.
-Copyright or patent infringement.
-The illegal interception or use of radio or television signals.
-An instance of piracy.
-In geology, that process whereby, because of a higher natural gradient, and therefore more efficient eroding power, one stream cuts back a divide and taps off the head-waters or a tributary of another stream. The captured stream usually turns a sharp angle into its new course and leaves a wind-gap where it formerly flowed. Also called stream-piracy.
-Robbery upon the sea; robbery by pirates; the practice of robbing on the high seas.
-Literary theft; any unauthorized appropriation of the mental or artistic conceptions or productions of another; specifically, an infringement of the law of copyright.
Possibly a hot take, but as I understand it, content creators of his size should be viewed that the viewer is the product, content creator is the seller, and the sponsor/advertiser is the buyer. It's the content creators job to sell our eye balls and brain space. However, just as a fish resists being captured by a fisher, I resist being sold. Adblocking is my resistance as a product. So producers of said product need to work harder to get enough of their product to be profitable. Should their be a drought, or if my tools are not maintained properly, then is it stealing if my crops die? Did my wheat fields steal from me when they didn't grow enough for me to be a profitable farmer? I am the product being sold, I don't "owe" them anything for harvesting me. It's up to THEM to make my eyes and data worth harvesting to be sold to advertisers.
I see what you mean but I don’t agree. The deal being made here is obvious and you’re signing up to give them data in exchange for watching a video. You’re also signing up to view their ads. You have an option not to be the product at all. You already have the wheat, but you’re giving the middleman less than what was arranged, not just producing less.
And if you view it as okay to not give them what they’re asking for while getting the content anyways, that’s chill. Just recognize that you’re paying less for the content than they’re asking. This is even more enforced by YouTube and news papers who charge for ad free experiences.
If I DuckDuckGo something and a video pops up and I watch it, I made no affirmative assent to giving them any data. Even if I go to YouTube.com, I made no agreement. Only if I make an account do I make any sort of contractual agreement with Google. If they only want to show their videos to those who agree to their policies, that’s their perogative. That they haven’t done so suggests that they know and allow people who haven’t done so to watch anyway.
Purchasing and pirating don’t have contractural agreements. You don’t have to have a ToS to pirate something.
If DuckDuckGo does block the ad in their browser, they’ve done the work for you. And if they do not but instead Google decides to serve it to you without ads in a browser, it’s not piracy to not have ads.
As long as the intended revenue of the content you’re viewing is being blocked, you’re pretty much pirating it. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it’s just a definitional thing.
I don't buy this rhetoric. By your view, then if I don't watch an ad, then I don't get the content. Yet on YouTube I get the content inspite of declining to view the ad. Some websites do not let me see the content, unless I see their ads. That's fine, I just go to a different site or spend my time doing something else. This rhetoric is to help businesses make money, which is fine, but I have no interest in furthering their narrative. If websites block me from using ad block, then it is entirely within their right to deny me access to their content. *
If you are not paying for a good or service, you are the product. That is my claim. The ad is not the price paid, it is the medium someone is using to collect my market value. Were I to walk to a store, and tell them I wanted something in exchange for seeing their billboard on the highway I'd be laughed out the building.
*Yes there are ways around this, but I think that is outside the scope of this discussion on ads.
I want to be clear still, piracy isn’t a problem or wrong necessarily. I’m not pushing a corporate narrative by saying this, I’m more concerned about creators and other sites that use ads for revenue such as newspapers. So if you want to “pay” a site without money, don’t pirate their content. That’s all. That’s similar to what Linus has said.
But I think this is somewhat similar to asking you for a ticket at the door for a movie. If the “ticket” is watching the ad and they’re asking you to buy the ticket (with premium) or get it from ads, bypassing the doorman would mean it’s piracy. Doesn’t even matter if the doorman doesn’t try to stop you. Doesn’t matter if they don’t pull you out of the movie.
You being the product is irrelevant to the piracy thing. But it is relevant to the moral thing
I don't think you understand my position. I've no argument about piracy or not.
If they don't want me to view their content, then don't allow me to. Netflix has no problem keeping me off their service, because I don't pay the fee. Several other sites block me from viewing their site if I block their ads. That's fine, I leave knowing they don't want me consuming their content. 100% A okay by me. I pay for services I like, and creators I like.
My argument is that watching an ad, is not a form of payment. If it not a payment, it can't be piracy. To take your movie analogy. Let's say a park has a movie screen setup so that anyone can watch the movie, and before the movies starts, someone comes in front and tells everyone about the company sponsoring this public viewing. In the context of youtube, it is not a ticketed event. If I, in the audience, am typing on my phone with my headphones on so that I don't see/hear their sponsor, did I pirate the movie? What if I purposely show up a few minutes late, knowing in advance they would have the sponsor at the start? Is that piracy? I would claim no, but as I understand you, you would say yes.
If YouTube blocks a video from playing because I blocked the ad, then I don't watch the video. If it doesnt, then I can watch the video. My argument is specifically, that what is being sold is not the content. Content creators are creating audiences, with which to capture and sell to advertisers. Advertisers have spent uncountable amounts of money, and decades on propaganda to convince you of your current position, as I understand it, because it benefits them the most.
An advertiser is buying my time, that the content creator is selling. I am not paying a content creator by watching an ad. Full stop. I am paying an advertiser my time, then an advertiser pays the content creator. There is a complete fundamental difference between this relationship, and a simple pay a fee to watch a video, and that complexity is very profitable.
You’re not wrong. But I was just pointing out the validity of talking about the semantics of piracy. I ultimately don’t care what people decide to do, just be aware of what it is you’re doing by blocking ads. Which is most of what Linus was saying.
I do not block ads. I however use Privacy Badger to block tracking cookies, which means that I don't see ads. I will see all ads that are not tracking me, which seems to be none. Is protecting my privacy also piracy?
It is, yes. It’s a separate conversation of if it should be illegal or immoral to keep your privacy this way. But as long as you are violating the intended method of revenue for the content you’re viewing, that’s piracy to me.
I think most people hear piracy and think it’s immoral or illegal, but there are very valid reasons to pirate content such as game and movie preservation.
Yup, illegal does not mean immoral or unethical. It just means some rich or powerful person doesn't like what you're doing. There's a lot of overlap, of course. Many illegal acts are also immoral or unethical. But it's not a 100% overlapping Venn diagram. Also YT is kind of evil, so it's piracy against an evil corporation as much as the content creator. The smarter content creators have sponsors and embedded ads and don't rely on YT for anything.
The implicit contract is to show an ad for a service, but they are actually violating the contract by attaching other things to the ads. They then use the ads to steal information that they then sell without my consent. So, if anything we are discussing honor amongst thieves.
It’s not like you see the ads that have trackers, they get blocked. So it’s still part of the agreement sort of. And you’re also aware that it’s revenue for them. People assume it’s a moral argument, it’s not. You can pirate from absolutely evil people, but it’s still piracy. That’s why I don’t view it as worth arguing over for the most part. I WANT people to realize that it’s piracy but that they’re actually doing something ethical.