• piccolo@ani.socialEnglish
      303·
      2 months ago

      Its not piracy though… its the same as if you recorded television and then… skip over the ads. TiVo was doing that 25 years ago. You have no obligation to watch ads.

      If content relies purely on ad revenue and viewer ship disappears, perhaps its time to rethink the revenue stream.

      • redisdead@lemmy.worldEnglish
        36·
        2 months ago

        We all fucking know what ‘piracy’ means in terms of software piracy and copyright infringement.

        People like you are just being pedantic for the sake of derailing the argument.

        Just admit you are a fucking leech and move on.

        • piccolo@ani.socialEnglish
          22·
          2 months ago

          Except you do not know what copyright infringement is. One must be depriving the owner their rights, such as distributing copyright material. The real loser here is youtube. By not watching ads, youre costing them bandwidth and violates theyre ToS. But theyre a multi billion dollar tech giant that has no quams about fucking society over. So fuckem.

          • redisdead@lemmy.worldEnglish
            23·
            2 months ago

            Me: stop being a pedantic twat, we all know what everyone means by piracy in this case

            You: let me be even more pedantic

            It’s ok bro just admit you’re a leech and move on.

            You literally do not have to use YouTube.

    • GaMEChld@lemmy.worldEnglish
      261·
      2 months ago

      This is correct, he both explained how ad blocking hurts creators, and how ultimately he doesn’t mind because purchasing merch is way more beneficial to them then the adsense money.

      All he was saying is do what you want to do but don’t pretend your actions don’t impact other people. Do it with open eyes if you’re going to do it.

      • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.eeEnglish
        812·
        2 months ago

        To be clear, blocking ads isn’t directly denying anyone money. YouTube decides how video creators are paid and they choose to not pay if ads are blocked. You can agree or disagree with that decision, but the user has no role in it.

        Personally I think it’s shitty that YouTube can just refuse to pay for the content people create for them.

          • Unchanged3656@infosec.pubEnglish
            105·
            2 months ago

            I did not agree to anything. When I open the site they just start serving videos to me (even autoplay is activated by default). If they don’t want me to watch their videos without ads they should stop serving them to me (ie, put them behind a paywall)

          • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
            43·
            2 months ago

            Ownership implies a device should be controlled by the user. I don’t just mean not playing adverts but how about not recording my voice (or other data) to send it to Google servers for them to keep and exploit? You’re free to believe in this implied agreement but I doubt that’s in your best interests.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
      217·
      2 months ago

      You’re bypassing payment (in the form of watching ads)

      By this argument going to the bathroom during a commercial break is piracy.

      This isnt “someone being offended when accused of piracy”

      This is " People getting upset when an idiot tries to blame end users, instead of holding the people who created the problem accountable"

      Cause adblock isnt a user problem.

      Its an ad service problem. They created a hostile environment where people had to run adblockers to protect themselves against unmoderated and unpoliced content and malicious/infected advertising.

      If you have issues, blame the people who caused it, not the end users trying to protect themselves.

      • tb_@lemmy.worldEnglish
        103·
        2 months ago

        This is " People getting upset when an idiot tries to blame end users, instead of holding the people who created the problem accountable"

        Did Linus blame anyone though?
        No. He simply stated a fact.

    • berengal@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, him calling it piracy or not doesn’t matter, it’s just a stupid semantic argument that doesn’t matter at all to his overall point. And while I think it’s a stupid take of him, it’s also the reason people are still bringing up his opinion on the matter, so good job of him spreading his message I guess?

    • futatorius@lemm.eeEnglish
      33·
      2 months ago

      If they want payment, they can require registration, agreement to payment and authentication. Nothing’s stopping them. If they put something on the open web and try to monetize it, nobody owes them a living. If I put a display in a shop window, and include wording that says that looking at the display means you’re obligated to also hear a sales pitch, everyone will rightly tell me to fuck off.

      Choosing not to load potential spyware, malware and bloatware while looking at free content is no more piracy than is crossing the street while shopping to avoid a tout.