221–230 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creators have their own e-stores, I've supported those. Your suggestion is like buying a record from Walmart to support the artist, instead of buying it directly at a show.
Your suggestion is like stealing records from Walmart and rationalizing that by saying you send money to the artists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your suggestion is like stealing records from Walmart and rationalizing that by saying you send money to the artists.
I disagree with your assertion that blocking ads is equivalent to stealing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And who would pay for Premium non-Pro? The situation really isn't comparable because YouTube is already available for free with ads. Paying to get less ads isn't a great value add. > Later on the current premium will definitely have ads. I take it you work on the strategy of YouTube?
> And who would pay for Premium non-Pro? The situation really isn't comparable because YouTube is already available for free with ads. Paying to get less ads isn't a great value add. To get Youtube Original content like Kobra Kai (it moved to netflix in the end) https://deadline.com/2020/06/cobra-kai-moves-netflix-youtube... Or for non-premium user will get 5 ads before start of video whereas Premium user will get 1…
Do a lot of people want that?
I subscribe to YouTube premium but I've never been tempted to watch any of the original content. None of it is what I go to YouTube for. But I'm a sample size of one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> TV didn't go away because of ads but because consumers shifted to a different model of consuming content. Perhaps. But a nontrivial percentage of people I know stopped watching TV because of the ads (especially the overlay ads) well before there were any serious alternatives to TV. So, at least some audience was driven away by them.
A lot of them would not have made the switch if the only way to watch your favorite TV show on Netflix was to login at the exact time that it airs every week, and you couldn't watch the old episodes, and they only had a catalog of a few dozen shows at a time. It was the same with music before streaming. It was literally faster and easier to pirate it than to rip the songs from your legally purchased CD if you had an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with your assertion that blocking ads is equivalent to stealing.
sure - let's have a debate about it. either way you're depriving the creator of revenue. what's your argument? probably something about the fact that since it can be copied for free then it's not worth anything?
> either way you're depriving the creator of revenue.
That may be the case -- but doesn't mean you're stealing. It may mean the creator might want to find a better way of monetizing, though.
> probably something about the fact that since it can be copied for free then it's not worth anything?
Not at all. The ease of duplication has no relevance to the value of a thing.
My argument is simple. It's my machine, and I get to say what bits do and do not get processed.
I should also point out that I don't block YouTube ads, personally. I pay for YouTube Premium instead. I like to reimburse the creators.
However, at least outside of YouTube, advertising is a scummy, spying business. I don't block ads there, either, but I absolutely do block JS and other means of tracking me. That has the side-effect of blocking ads, but if an ad isn't spying, I'll see it. It's telling how few don't, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sure - let's have a debate about it. either way you're depriving the creator of revenue. what's your argument? probably something about the fact that since it can be copied for free then it's not worth anything?
Edited to add this: > either way you're depriving the creator of revenue. That may be the case -- but doesn't mean you're stealing. It may mean the creator might want to find a better way of monetizing, though. > probably something about the fact that since it can be copied for free then it's not worth anything? Not at all. The ease of duplication has no relevance to the value of a thing. My argument is simple. It's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edited to add this: > either way you're depriving the creator of revenue. That may be the case -- but doesn't mean you're stealing. It may mean the creator might want to find a better way of monetizing, though. > probably something about the fact that since it can be copied for free then it's not worth anything? Not at all. The ease of duplication has no relevance to the value of a thing. My argument is simple. It's…
so I assume you believe software cannot be stolen, per your definition? piracy is OK, etc?
The analogy I would make is that, once I've obtained a piece of software, there is no ethical issue with me deciding to modify my copy of it, perhaps to remove assets I don't want included.
So what is your argument that adblocking is a form of theft?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so I assume you believe software cannot be stolen, per your definition? piracy is OK, etc?
No, that's not my stance. Pirated software is software that was obtained through fraudulent means. YouTube is not streaming bits to me because I tricked it to. It's doing so willingly. The analogy I would make is that, once I've obtained a piece of software, there is no ethical issue with me deciding to modify my copy of it, perhaps to remove assets I don't want included. So what is your argument that adblocking is a…
if circumventing it is not theft, then piracy is not a problem for the same reason.
> The analogy I would make is that, once I've obtained a piece of software, there is no ethical issue with me deciding to modify my copy of it, perhaps to remove assets I don't want included.
your analogy, is also piracy, since by your stance here removing restrictions that might requirement payment is OK even though that too is piracy.
though if you want to be pedantic all adblocking can be considered fraud since you're deceiving the content provider (by blocking ads) for personal gain (not seeing ads).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's not my stance. Pirated software is software that was obtained through fraudulent means. YouTube is not streaming bits to me because I tricked it to. It's doing so willingly. The analogy I would make is that, once I've obtained a piece of software, there is no ethical issue with me deciding to modify my copy of it, perhaps to remove assets I don't want included. So what is your argument that adblocking is a…
my argument isn't that adblocking is theft, my argument is specifically that if you're watching a video and circumvent the ad through technology, that is, since it is. clicking skip isn't. not watching it isn't. scrolling down and reading the comments isn't, same with just muting the sound. certainly you're not obligated to engage with the ad. if circumventing it is not theft, then piracy is not a problem for the sam…
That's your assertion, but what is your reasoning? This is an honest question, because it's not at all clear to me why it should be considered theft.
> your analogy, is also piracy, since by your stance here removing restrictions that might requirement payment is OK even though that too is piracy.
And I have the same question here. Why should that be considered theft?
At worst, it's a violation of terms of service, it seems to me.
> though if you want to be pedantic all adblocking can be considered fraud since you're deceiving the content provider (by blocking ads) for personal gain (not seeing ads).
I disagree that it's fraud, too. I'm not deceiving anybody. And the "personal gain" aspect seems strained to me. "Personal gain" typically means "material gain" -- that is, being materially enriched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my argument isn't that adblocking is theft, my argument is specifically that if you're watching a video and circumvent the ad through technology, that is, since it is. clicking skip isn't. not watching it isn't. scrolling down and reading the comments isn't, same with just muting the sound. certainly you're not obligated to engage with the ad. if circumventing it is not theft, then piracy is not a problem for the sam…
> my argument is specifically that if you're watching a video and circumvent the ad through technology, that is, since it is That's your assertion, but what is your reasoning? This is an honest question, because it's not at all clear to me why it should be considered theft. > your analogy, is also piracy, since by your stance here removing restrictions that might requirement payment is OK even though that too is pira…
it's theft to me because you're taking things - the product of effort, labor, electricity, etc - without any payment when requested, in this case, ads. same reason I think sneaking into a theater or amusement park without paying is also theft.
> I disagree that it's fraud, too. I'm not deceiving anybody. And the "personal gain" aspect seems strained to me. "Personal gain" typically means "material gain" -- that is, being materially enriched.
are you not materially enriched if you get access to sites without paying? if you don't gain anything, then there would be no reason to do it. the preference is the indication that something has been gained.
obviously you can believe whatever you want, but there's really nothing different about avoiding ads and cracking software, aka piracy. and if you're OK with that, fundamentally there's really nothing special about digital goods, including money whose existence for many exists primarily virtually.
there are people who think theft is OK, all land is stolen, etc. that's fine, I guess, I just have a different opinion.