311–320 of 422 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a nitpick, the word it's does not imply possession, you are looking for 'its'. If you cannot substitute your usage of it's with 'it is' then it is the wrong one to use.
English spelling is so fucked up. Possessives normally have the apostrophe, except the possessive pronouns. Just because.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they only deserve to be sued in your ethical system. To me, adding features that I can't even get if I pay isn't unethical, it's commendable.
I'm a NewPipe user. I just think distributing a cracked version of somebody else's app calls for being sued.
And to alter it, sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I draw the line before sponserblock. At that point you are taking money directly from the content creators, not YT or other platforms. I held out on blocking ads for some time, until it became impractical to avoid drive-by attacks other ways and the amount of stalking involved got _really_ creepy. If sponsor segments irritate me enough that I'd consider sponsorblock then I choose between paying for the content direct…
Sponsorblock looks pretty harmless as far as affecting creators getting paid, it doesn't seem to do anything that can't be replicated by hitting your right arrow key a couple times so weird place to draw the line in my opinion. Pretty sure sponsors can't tell if people fast forwarded through the sponsored section.
I’m guessing that sponsors probably look at click through or view count. I believe sponsors that care about views will ask to see this chart in the future if they don’t ask for it now.
Wow, this is a real shame. Love Vanced. I've been testing the grounds with NewPipe lately, and it's surprisingly good compared to when I last used it years ago. If anyone from the Vanced team reads these threads, I understand, and don't feel bad about it. I'm just grateful for your work. You made YouTube usable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Financially supporting Google is the last thing I want to do. I'd rather flush the money down the toilet than pay for Youtube.
How about financially supporting the people whose content you consume?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I draw the line before sponserblock. At that point you are taking money directly from the content creators, not YT or other platforms. I held out on blocking ads for some time, until it became impractical to avoid drive-by attacks other ways and the amount of stalking involved got _really_ creepy. If sponsor segments irritate me enough that I'd consider sponsorblock then I choose between paying for the content direct…
Isn't that a contradictory argument that it's okay to "take money" from platforms but not content creators? They are both service providers with the objective to earn revenue. However, I do not believe that blocking ads is taking money from providers. I think if your business model involves displaying ads, you must factor in the cases where consumers are not interested in said ads. Otherwise where do we draw the line…
On just that, yes.
But at least sponsor spots are just that, payment for advertising. They are not directly part of the global stalking networks. I don't object to advertising as a way of paying for things, I object to being followed around in everything I do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The diff patches would be considered derivative, since you cannot make it without knowing the original.
If I sold a transparency with nothing but a twirly mustache on it, sized & positioned so that it perfectly placed the mustache on the original Mona Lisa if placed within the frame, would that be a derivative work? (Assume for this question that the Mona Lisa was currently protected by U.S. copyright.)
To the extent that it's "based on" copyrightable expression in the Mona Lisa, yes. AIUI the key question is: would a viewer recognise the Mona Lisa from your transparency? And that would be a question of fact for the jury; personally guessing I'd say probably not from just the position of a mustache in a frame, probably yes if you included e.g. an outline of the pose. (In which case it might still be protected fair use, but it would be a derivative work, and you'd have to make that positive defence).
NewPipe [1] is an open-source alternative, although latest versions of Vanced will supposedly keep working for the foreseeable future [2]. [1]: https://newpipe.net/ [2]: https://nitter.net/YTVanced/status/1503055442506915846#m
A great issue for me with NewPipe is the fact that it does not support signing into an account. The developers claim it's a feature that will not be implemented. Without the great music recommendation system I might as well just listen to my Jellyfin song collection. What value does YouTube even have without recommendations?
It pushes trash to my feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vanced was proprietary, it's too bad for users but I won't shed a tear for its developers and would actually advise against doing anything that keeps it living. The very fact that there is a need to get apk archives before the links die is an artifact of being proprietary and would not have been an issue with Libre Software. The only way that makes sense for all of us as a democratic society is to keep control, and t…
I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. Food is required for a healthy society but would anyone here advocate for farmers to give away all of their produce for free? Text-tiles are necessary for society but would you advocate that clothing be provided by the creators free of charge? The only thing different about soft…
Libre Software can totally be funded, through individual donations or through public funding; in fact, because Libre Software is a common, it is only normal that time spent improving them should be time paid by the entire society. I see no problem with the idea of taking from private property to further common property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Define "cracked" here. Is it a crack to add a feature to an app, for example?
Not grandparent poster, but I think the easiest definition would be: "Removing the revenue stream for the original app author through modification or bypass." Just because you're paying through advertising rather than cash doesn't make it any less of a crack or any less piracy.