Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

#51

Post by ghusto »

westurner wrote: post #17

Why do you pretend that you are entitled to free video storage and bandwidth from YouTube? You haven't been sleighted. That service costs money to provide. No, you don't have a right to free service either. Do you pay your other bills while you demand free rendered services from these companies? Having a disability or similar does not entitle you to an unsubsidized Times Square with no ads. (NASA is running their own…

I'm not entitled to free anything, and I find that a disingenuous framing.

If a monopoly uses it's monopolistic powers to squash all competition, then forces model a don't want, then the idea of a free market and my choice in provider is a deliberate illusion.

So no, I'm not entitled to free stuff, but neither are they entitled for me to play by their rules. You're on the web? Great, good luck in the adblocking arms race.

Re: YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

#52

Post by westurner »

cseleborg wrote: post #40
westurner wrote: post #17

Why do you pretend that you are entitled to free video storage and bandwidth from YouTube? You haven't been sleighted. That service costs money to provide. No, you don't have a right to free service either. Do you pay your other bills while you demand free rendered services from these companies? Having a disability or similar does not entitle you to an unsubsidized Times Square with no ads. (NASA is running their own…

That's not the issue here. The issue is that YT is (arguably) using illegal measures to enforce their own rights. Just because someone infringes on your rights doesn't make it legal for you to infringe back on theirs.

You do not have the right to stream video for free from YouTube.com.

That they offer an ad-supported service does not entitle us to an ad-free service.

Limiting playback without ads is not beyond the rights of the information service provider.

Re: YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

#53

Post by Larrikin »

zazazache wrote: post #4

While ads suck and I think this is a shitty move by YouTube, I I find it hard to argue against a company that runs on ads not having a legitimate interest in making sure that they are being able to display them on their own website. I think you could even make a good argument that YouTube MUST take appropriate measures to ensure that they display ads that have been paid for. To count impressions so they are able to b…

If I use Ad Nauseam, Google gets to deliver the ad on their website, the ad buyer gets the click so their marketing department can show how successful their campaign is, and I get to control what is displayed on MY computer with the side benefit of poisoning the data profile that attempts to track me around the entire internet regardless of whether I am paying for an ad free experience or not. Seems like a win for everyone.

Re: YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

#54

Post by Teever »

MiddleEndian wrote: post #28
Teever wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a monopolist. Why shouldn't we regulate it differently than we regulate other companies?

Because sometimes legislation can end up with regulatory capture. If the govt reaches some sort of agreement with tech companies that results in some things (that we can already block) becoming illegal to display on their end, but other things now becoming illegal to block, that would be a worse result than the govt just doing nothing. Historically, when the govt gets involved, this is the result. Back when cable TV…

Regulatory capture sounds like a criminal activity to me.

I'm concerned with the mindet that we shouldn't punish criminal activity because the response from the criminals may be more criminal activity.

I think that if we put criminals in jail they will have less opporunity to commit crime, both while they're in jail, and afterwards when they are released and still have a criminal record.

Criminals should go to jail for criminal activities is not a controversial opinion.

Re: YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

#55

Post by westurner »

pravus wrote: post #29
westurner wrote: post #17

Why do you pretend that you are entitled to free video storage and bandwidth from YouTube? You haven't been sleighted. That service costs money to provide. No, you don't have a right to free service either. Do you pay your other bills while you demand free rendered services from these companies? Having a disability or similar does not entitle you to an unsubsidized Times Square with no ads. (NASA is running their own…

> Why do you pretend that you are entitled to free video storage and bandwidth from YouTube? Because they offered it for free. YouTube can close the doors any time. If they want my money, they can make a service offering that meets my needs. They could charge content providers for bandwidth and storage and meter it with assisted ad-support networks. They could charge a price I'm willing to pay. But they don't and I w…

An idignant victim compensating for taking without compensating.

How many other people or services do we use for hours a month for free?

Are we mad at them - and entitled - for offering an ad-supported option?

Re: YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

#56

Post by Thorrez »

glenstein wrote: post #44
pravus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you pretend that you are entitled to free video storage and bandwidth from YouTube? Because they offered it for free. YouTube can close the doors any time. If they want my money, they can make a service offering that meets my needs. They could charge content providers for bandwidth and storage and meter it with assisted ad-support networks. They could charge a price I'm willing to pay. But they don't and I w…

You can get a Youtube Premium family plan for $15/mo that works for 6 people. I'm as against ads as anybody, in the sense that (1) in general I think ads are unhealthy (2) I want infrastructure that makes access to content without ads possible (3) being able to disable ad blockers is one reason it's bad to let one company control how your browser works. I can't say I disagree with Youtube's right to monetize, it's mo…

>You can get a Youtube Premium family plan for $15/mo that works for 6 people.

The family plan is $23/month in the US. The regular plan is $14/month.

Re: YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

#57

Post by westurner »

jart wrote: post #50
pasabagi wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most content creators are either doing it for free, or getting a percentile of a cent on the dollar. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it communication infrastructure, not service provision. Youtube is providing the infrastructure, the creators are providing the service. As I think that infrastructure should be publically owned, I'm happy to do my bit for nationalization, and use adblock.

Then watch PBS lool.

Yeah pay for propaganda from the man.

Re: YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

#58

Post by Thorrez »

pravus wrote: post #29
westurner wrote: post #17

Why do you pretend that you are entitled to free video storage and bandwidth from YouTube? You haven't been sleighted. That service costs money to provide. No, you don't have a right to free service either. Do you pay your other bills while you demand free rendered services from these companies? Having a disability or similar does not entitle you to an unsubsidized Times Square with no ads. (NASA is running their own…

> Why do you pretend that you are entitled to free video storage and bandwidth from YouTube? Because they offered it for free. YouTube can close the doors any time. If they want my money, they can make a service offering that meets my needs. They could charge content providers for bandwidth and storage and meter it with assisted ad-support networks. They could charge a price I'm willing to pay. But they don't and I w…

>They could charge a price I'm willing to pay.

So if the price of Premium was lower you'd be ok with this? Premium costs about the same as Netflix.

Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on Youtube.

Re: YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

#59

Post by nvm0n2 »

Thorrez wrote: post #58
pravus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you pretend that you are entitled to free video storage and bandwidth from YouTube? Because they offered it for free. YouTube can close the doors any time. If they want my money, they can make a service offering that meets my needs. They could charge content providers for bandwidth and storage and meter it with assisted ad-support networks. They could charge a price I'm willing to pay. But they don't and I w…

>They could charge a price I'm willing to pay. So if the price of Premium was lower you'd be ok with this? Premium costs about the same as Netflix. Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on Youtube.

Come on. People like that always have one price in mind for what they're willing to pay: zero.

Re: YouTube may face criminal complaints in EU for using ad-block detection scripts

#60

Post by cseleborg »

westurner wrote: post #52
cseleborg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the issue here. The issue is that YT is (arguably) using illegal measures to enforce their own rights. Just because someone infringes on your rights doesn't make it legal for you to infringe back on theirs.

You do not have the right to stream video for free from YouTube.com. That they offer an ad-supported service does not entitle us to an ad-free service. Limiting playback without ads is not beyond the rights of the information service provider.

I'm not contesting the legitimacy of YT fighting ad blockers. I'm merely pointing out that the claim here is that they are doing so using illegal means (by using what can be legally seen as spyware without the user's consent, which is illegal in the EU, according to the plaintiff).

In other words, the issue is not that YT fights back, it's how they do it.

Post reply on HN