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

Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

jayd.ml

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 728 posts

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#291

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

danpalmer wrote: post #59
tcfhgj wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking ads is hardly "pirating" content

To be clear, this is not a value judgement. I pirate content sometimes, and I use adblockers, but ad blocking is definitely piracy – you're circumventing the method of paying for content. I realise that online ads have other implications such as tracking that, say, a blu-ray rip downloaded from a torrent doesn't have, but the reason for piracy doesn't change the fact that it is.

Ad blockers are recommended by the FBI as safety measures. I follow the FBI's advice. Internet ads are a vector for executing untrusted code that can invoke exploits and engage in invasive fingerprinting. Revert back to the 90s web with dumb ads and I'll look at them. It's amazing how blinkered people will be about potentially malicious programs downloaded from the internet just because it's hidden behind a browser interface.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#292

Post by aspaviento »

danpalmer wrote: post #255
tailrecursion wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, piracy is defined as stealing a vendor's exclusivity by making copies and putting them up on a web site. Ad blocking is not the same as making copies and distributing. You might as well argue that covering your ears during a TV advertisement is piracy. That's a strange definition of the word if I ever saw one.

I think content piracy is generally accepted to not require re-distributing. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if I search "watch free movies online" and find a site streaming bad DVD rips, I fully believe that I am pirating that content against the wishes of the content owner.

Generally accepted by whom? There are many countries that only consider distribution illegal so I don't think it's generally accepted at all.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#293

Post by mc3301 »

mvdtnz wrote: post #268
mc3301 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turning search history off on youtube about a year ago has been one of my best personal "digital life upgrades" in a while.

We know. Believe me, we know. Because you guys will tell us, every single time YouTube is mentioned.

Excellent, now the collective "we" all know about it, and it never needs to be mentioned again[0].

[0]https://xkcd.com/1053/>

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#294

Post by Dylan16807 »

JAlexoid wrote: post #238
Dylan16807 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes it different from VHS?

[flagged]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....

I don't know if you're making some edge case argument without elaborating, or if you're just being ridiculous.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#295

Post by sidrag22 »

Brendinooo wrote: post #197
danpalmer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, this is not a value judgement. I pirate content sometimes, and I use adblockers, but ad blocking is definitely piracy – you're circumventing the method of paying for content. I realise that online ads have other implications such as tracking that, say, a blu-ray rip downloaded from a torrent doesn't have, but the reason for piracy doesn't change the fact that it is.

I'm pretty anti-piracy, and I don't think ad-blocking is piracy. Metaphors are dangerous, but, for the purposes of this specific comparison, I see piracy as breaking into a video store and taking a disc, and ad blocking as allowing some people into my house but not others. YouTube is free to block me as a user or put its content behind a paywall if it doesn't like me doing this, but I am also free to decide what come…

and they won't block you, because they understand that their dominance of this particular style of video content requires allowing everyone in.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#296

Post by _vertigo »

charcircuit wrote: post #177
schmuckonwheels wrote: post #120

It's difficult to capture into words how much contempt I hold for Google and Amazon, two companies which lost their way long ago and are now actively user-hostile. YouTube has gotten worse with every release. Endless, pointless UI changes. Sneaky resolution downgrades. When your video says "Auto 1080p" it's like 480p quality, manually choose 1080p and watch it change. Amazon has been working overtime to make your exp…

>entire energy is devoted to making their customer's lives more miserable If these changes are not hurting user metrics are they really making their lives miserable? When you are optimizing an experience for billions of users, numbers are the only thing you can trust.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#297

Post by Dylan16807 »

JAlexoid wrote: post #234
Dylan16807 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what distribution means. I am allowed to splice up my personal copies of videos.

You are allowed to splice it up, when you have a legally acquired personal copy. But in this case you don't have one in the first place.

They are sending the data for me to watch.

Legally able to watch and legally able to splice up are at the same level, as far as copyright is concerned. And I don't even need to make an extra copy to do the kind of live splicing an ad blocker does.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#298

Post by cwillu »

danpalmer wrote: post #255
tailrecursion wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, piracy is defined as stealing a vendor's exclusivity by making copies and putting them up on a web site. Ad blocking is not the same as making copies and distributing. You might as well argue that covering your ears during a TV advertisement is piracy. That's a strange definition of the word if I ever saw one.

I think content piracy is generally accepted to not require re-distributing. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if I search "watch free movies online" and find a site streaming bad DVD rips, I fully believe that I am pirating that content against the wishes of the content owner.

> a site streaming bad DVD rips

This is redistributing.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#299

Post by baumy »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #260
baumy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm going to state the truth that I never agreed to be shown ads, and you are extremely weird for lying and claiming that I did. Google wants to show me ads. I don't want to see them. I demonstrated this by blocking them. Google continues to show me videos anyway. Clearly they're ok with the arrangement. They are free to present me with written terms, or gate all their videos behind a login, but they choose not t…

[flagged]

This is juvenile nonsense.

I can point directly to the law in whatever jurisdiction you care to name that makes doing what you describe illegal.

You cannot point to anything that makes it illegal to view videos on a publicly accessible website without watching the ads that usually play before them.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#300

Post by its_ethan »

aspaviento wrote: post #292
danpalmer wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think content piracy is generally accepted to not require re-distributing. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if I search "watch free movies online" and find a site streaming bad DVD rips, I fully believe that I am pirating that content against the wishes of the content owner.

Generally accepted by whom? There are many countries that only consider distribution illegal so I don't think it's generally accepted at all.

I'd say generally accepted by the majority of English speaking/western society? If someone said they were going to "pirate a movie" there's next to zero chance they are referring to the distribution side of that endeavor.

I feel like OP isn't asserting anything even remotely controversial in that definition lol

Post reply on HN