this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
260 points (92.2% liked)
Technology
59298 readers
4773 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't it? You're not paying for a service / product.
That's the service's problem. VCRs and DVRs had ad-block ages ago, and those were commercial products sold at regular retail stores, so it's totally a non-issue.
An ad-blocker just means I'm not running optional extras. The web server says, "please display X, Y, and Z," and the ad-blocker says, "nah to Y and Z, but I'll render X." It's the same idea as safe-search filters to block websites, but it runs within "trusted" pages instead of just blocking certain domains.
It's the same with sponser blockers, but I personally don't use them and prefer to manually skip them instead unless the creator generally has good recs (e.g. I often watch them once/twice on Gamers Nexus, because they only recommend good products, but block the others).
Piracy is sharing content that you don't have the rights to share. Ad-block just blocks content you don't want to see. Those are not the same thing at all.
I'd classify watching something on piracysite.com as piracy.
I'd also class bypassing Netflix's login requirements to watch their catalogue as piracy. But I guess that's more a semantics thing.
Sure, because in those cases you're gaining access to content that you don't have permission to access.
Ad-block isn't that, it's just blocking content you don't want. You still have permission to the content.
You don't have permission to modify any of the content YouTube sends you.
https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#eb887a967c
Section: Permissions and Restrictions Point 2
Yes, it's a violation of their TOS, but TOS is often illegal anyway.
I'm not modifying any of the content they send, I'm merely not rendering it. That's a very different thing. It's just like blocking fonts (I do that too), if I don't want an asset, I won't download it. If they want to block me because I'm blocking part of their page from loading, that's on them.
Piracy isn't only a legal thing. It's just dealt with through the legal system.
Sorry, I was wrong. You are however circumventing YouTube's playing ads.
Yes, I'm violating their TOS, but I also never signed their TOS agreement. I don't use a YouTube account, I just access their webpage. Nothing here is illegal, I'm just not rendering content that I don't want to see. I have no legal obligation here. Google doesn't get to decide what gets run on my machine, I do. If they don't want me to view their content, they should lock it behind a paywall or something.
I've not argued any of those points. Just that not watching ads on YouTube is piracy.
In the UK, piracy isn't a legally defined term, and the way that I would define piracy as the illegitimate procurement of media.
Right, and I'm arguing that it's not piracy. Piracy is a copyright violation, and blocking ads isn't violating copyright, it's only violating TOS. "Piracy" is the informal term for "copyright infringement," at least in my jurisdiction (US).
Here's a law stack exchange answer about it:
So I might be violating the DMCA by circumventing protections on the website, depending on what exactly the ad-blocker is doing, but just blocking URLs isn't a copyright violation, it's a TOS violation, which may or may not hold up in court. Therefore, not piracy.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/t/terms#eb887a967c
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It's not.
Thank God for this comment. I almost thought it was.
If they want money from sponsors and advertising they could do it without all the trackers.
You should read a clockwork orange.
Why would I reduce quality of my life tho?
If all this engagement slop went out of business tomorrow, my life wouldn't change lol
This is shit ain't food or house. I decide how I pay for it and if I pay at all. There is jack shit anyone can do about that. These companies and slop generators need to learn their place in the economy haha
Your life would probably improve.
Not saying you shouldn't block ads, just questioning the OCs comment. If you don't pay for the service monetarily or through data then imo it's piracy.
Piracy is just a PR term by used by the industry that hates its users... Why would you care as consumer about some shiti companies?
I'm a pedantic asshole.
Alright then.
What definition for piracy are your relying on and where did you source it?
Does DMCA even have a definition for this?
The illegitimate procurement of media.
My ass.
Can't help you there, I'm not American.
💯
I think the internet is broken in this regard. Adverts and all of the tracking is horrific. Pay walling a website for $5-10 a month is not appealing for those who only want to read a couple of articles a month. But, without monetization good content from people who are good at their job will disappear.
Don't get me wrong, I'm team adblock everything but I am willing to pay if there is a new sensible solution to the problem figured out.