Adblocking Does Not Constitute Copyright Infringement, Court Rules

[IPD]

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

I would like to lift another cat on the table called YouTube demonetizing creators and still monetizing their content for themselves.

 

At least couple creators I follow have a hard time monetizing their content to the point they don't even try it anymore because they upload a video and YouTube automatically deems it "not ad-friendly". Still I turn my uBlock off and I get served ads on their content. So, YouTube bot deems their content not able to be monetized for them, so they cannot make a single cent out of it, but completely fine to monetize it by YouTube. Some of the time they maybe able to plead the case and get their content monetized for themselves but we then talk about week old content that YouTube has milked dry during the critical time the content is relevant and generating the most revenue.

 

Oh boy would this be juicy if, for example, Apple would go: "This iOS app you made goes against our monetization rules that we refuse to make Crystal Pepsi -clear for you and instead give you some random vague reason why you cannot make a single cent out of this app... But we will put couple ads here and there into your app and take 100% of the income to ourselves. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!" People would not only rip their pants but would be very, very, very pissed off and probably ripping Cupertino down. But when it's only 21st richest company in the world, not the 6th (by Fortune), no one bats an eye for it.

No, when we talk about Alphabet, people even defend its vague policies surrounding YouTube.

 

And those who say that YouTube adds more ads to make out the money they loose by people running adblocks, let me introduce you some business logic. That is their current narrative. If no one was running adblocks, they would for sure go with "people love watching ads and it's so nice that we decided to add more ads so people can enjoy even more watching them".

And most likely why they don't run ads from the same source as the actual content isn't their "good will" ("good will" and companies.... LoL, maybe if we talked about charities, definedly not when we talk about a company in the Fotune500 lists top end). They run the ads from their own ad servers because it's cheaper for them and they can serve the same ad on any platform from YouTube videos to Android games to websites using Google Ads.

Been saying that all along too.  YT's arbitrary and capricious rules about monetization means that me disabling adblock is complicitly sanctioning their BS rules.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Wow, you're a total piece of shit! Do you not understand that you are robbing those poor millionaires of their hard earned cash? Those billion dollar companies paid for you to see their ad, and now you're ignoring it, thus wasting their money? How can you sleep at night? I hope you end up behind bars, where you belong!

 

(Shouldn't have to say this but I am being sarcastic. This is what people like Linus sounds like to me though when he sits in a multi-million dollar home complaining that people are blocking ads on his videos).

IKR,  How dare I not let them dictate to me what shows to watch, what food to eat and how I should treat company X or politician Y.    

 

[RedRound2]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:27 PM, aDoomGuy said:

Well I for my part do not watch 200 videos a month. Maybe someone who spends that much time on youtube should consider a little donation. Like today I haven't watched a single tube. But yeah, if someone sits all day watching content on Youtube they should consider contributing but I firmly think a direct donation to a live stream or something is much more beneficial to the likes of LTT. HOWEVER, I would not go as far and call it piracy.

 

Well, I am only me. Not everybody uses Youtube equally. Also I never said everybody does that as far as I know. I would assume most people use adblock. But hey. I don't mind what other people do with their own things.

Well, that calculation went completely over your head didn't it?

 

The point of taking 200 videos into consideration was intentional. That is a person squeezing out as much as they can out of YouTube Premium. Most people dont watch even a 100 videos, and as a result the portion for each creator will double in essence (5.6x times revenue compared to ad supported videos)

 

And if you for some reason think YouTube Premium does not involve a significant income for creators, well I've linked Linus's latest stream where he exactly states so (1:42:30 mark)

 

Quote

Is piracy illegal in many western countries? Yes it is. Is adblock illegal. Well according to European courts it is not. So there you go.

This is just legal technicality. Piracy may not be the exact right word, but in both the cases it involves you as a user consuming media that you were supposed to pay something for, which by using ad block - you dont pay for

 

On 2/7/2022 at 11:51 PM, leadeater said:

snip

Yeah, honestly, I'm not going down the path wasting my time with you. Why do you write so much unnecessary nonsense?? Like I know by now that English isn't your exact strong suite, but good god the content you write makes my eye roll and I have absolutely no idea what you are even trying to say.

 

Can you describe in one line what I said and in one line what you stand for and why you disagree with it. If you can't then just go away. You are not going to convince me anything with some ranty fat filled hypothetical nonsense, nor am I going to convince you anything (which is why I never even replied to you in the thread in the first place, but someone else - and then you came in body rolled yourself in between).

 

I have already described many times on what exact particular user behaviors I am talking about, and then you go on to talk about world issues.

You making up with patreon on LTT merch, is exactly like comparing the situation Linus already described where you pirate Stranger things and buy its merch instead. Except in the latter case, Netflix still makes money since its their own studio, while a service like Youtube (which is extremely expensive to operate as reliably as it does) gets nothing. 

 

You all love to go and stroll around the store, steal some chocolates coz the security guards allow you to, and then try to act like 'angles' coz you donated directly to the chocolate company through web, while completely disregarding the service (ie the shop) that pays its rent, electricity, spend money on stocking, staffing, etc that even allowed you the find the chocolate in the first place. How pathetic.

 

And funnily enough all your problems against ads and you not wanting to be a part of ad operation could be completely avoided if you actually bypassed all these things with YouTube Premium.

Inb4 AARRGNNNNG, I DONT SUPPORT ORGANIZATION THAT RUNS ADS

Sure man, I presume you never use Google or its services? If you didn't know YouTube belongs to Google

[darknessblade]

 

18 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

 

Quote

Is piracy illegal in many western countries? Yes it is. Is adblock illegal. Well according to European courts it is not. So there you go.

 

 

This is just legal technicality. Piracy may not be the exact right word, but in both the cases it involves you as a user consuming media that you were supposed to pay something for, which by using ad block - you dont pay for

 

Ironically Blocking people from using adblockers might even be more Illegal than the use of adblockers [at least in the EU]

https://www.businessinsider.com/ad-blocker-blockers-may-be-illegal-in-europe-2016-4?

https://digiday.com/media/blocking-ad-blockers-really-illegal-europe/

 

[RedRound2]

10 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

 

 

Ironically Blocking people from using adblockers might even be more Illegal than the use of adblockers [at least in the EU]

https://www.businessinsider.com/ad-blocker-blockers-may-be-illegal-in-europe-2016-4?

https://digiday.com/media/blocking-ad-blockers-really-illegal-europe/

 

Never said anything about blocking ad blocker.

Just pointing the the action (using ad blocker) and the consequence of it (people not getting revenue as much as they should)

And by previous observation of how the transaction takes place in the earlier reply, it does look exactly like piracy, no matter how hard y'll try to spin it into some evangelical protest. It is just how the world works and deal with it unless you have some better idea (and if you do have a better idea, do a startup and prove your idea in the market rather than sitting like a spoilt child inside your basement in front of LTT forums)

[Kisai]

14 hours ago, Thaldor said:

I would like to lift another cat on the table called YouTube demonetizing creators and still monetizing their content for themselves.

 

At least couple creators I follow have a hard time monetizing their content to the point they don't even try it anymore because they upload a video and YouTube automatically deems it "not ad-friendly". Still I turn my uBlock off and I get served ads on their content. So, YouTube bot deems their content not able to be monetized for them, so they cannot make a single cent out of it, but completely fine to monetize it by YouTube. Some of the time they maybe able to plead the case and get their content monetized for themselves but we then talk about week old content that YouTube has milked dry during the critical time the content is relevant and generating the most revenue.

This is one of those collective-evil things that Youtube seems to impose.

 

Advertisers do not want their ads to be on hate, political, potentially-dangerous, sexy(eg ASMR, and horny clickbait) or religious content, because it harms their brands. So if Youtube deemed a video not monetizable, it should have NO ADS on it, period. But because of the way ads on youtube are handled, there will always be shit-tier advertisers who are more than happy to advertise on garbage. You're not going to see Coke and Pepsi advertising on right-wing troll or left-wing gatekeeping videos, but you will see the absolutely shameless cryptobros and people pushing other scammy products on them. That's how you get the 30 minute ad on a 5 minute video. They are so damn lazy to inflate their video count that they they just use their videos AS THE AD.

 

I wish Youtube would just slap a time limit on an ad, where by anything over 15 seconds, skips at the 15 second mark, and when the ad has been skipped 75% of the times presented, it kicks it back to advertiser to edit the video. Give a bit of leeway for a 30 second ad on a 2 hour video, but if the ad runtime is longer than the video, something is clearly wrong.

 

What this ultimately results in, is that Youtube dictating the kind of content that they are allowing on the platform. You're free to upload it, but you'll never see a dime from youtube. That should be fine if you're uploading your own personal videos to share with grandma, but not if you're producing Jackass-like content where people are hurt.

 

To that end, Unless you're producing a TV show or a Feature film, that you can absolutely clear all the copyrights involved with, youtube is an absolute shitshow now. Basically everyone is being forced into "livestreaming" because that side-steps a lot of contentID claims by claiming it's incidental, rather than purpose.

 

 

[Stahlmann]

I wouldn't even mind skipping some ads at the beginning of videos, but somehow as soon as i'm not able to skip (autoplay on 2nd monitor while playing another game for example) i always get these 30-60minute ads. (i even had one that was just over 2 hours once) I know it sounds kinda like a conspiracy theory but somehow i think it detects inactive users. I happens quite frequently that i fall asleep on the couch just to wake up and see that YouTuve autoplay has just been watching an ad for the last 20 minutes or so where some cryptobro explains how everyone can get as rich as he is in just one day.

 

The fact they even ALLOW ads to be more than 1 or 2 minutes tells me a whole lot about what they care most about. Not the user experience, but the money from advertisers.

 

And sadly YouTube is way too big at this point, so instead of giving in to community feedback (or even reacting to it for that matter) they just ignore user complains because they know there is no competition. So they can do what they want without siginificant consequences. The recent dislike counter fiasco is the best example of this behavior. YouTube literally didn't care about 90% of their community saying this is not the right move. They completely ignored it until the main media coverage wave is over, now everything is "back to normal". Or at least that's what it seems to me.

 

And for this scummy behavior i'm happy to use 4 adblockers overlapping each other if i have to. As long as i'm using any google service, i just to make sure to do my best so they do not make any money off me. At this point i couldn't care less about what i do is technically legal or not.

[Kisai]

28 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

 YouTube literally didn't care about 90% of their community saying this is not the right move. They completely ignored it until the main media coverage wave is over, now everything is "back to normal".

90% of the community that wasn't in the top 1000 wanted the dislike button gone entirely. Not to retread that thread either, but you don't want to give people tools to abuse others. "Dislike","downvote", and various kinds of systems that actually show the effect of clicking on it, is abuse. Youtube should have completely scrubbed downvoting from the system so that none of it's tracked or seen except by the user who pressed the downvote button.

 

We have proven, time and time again, that negative feedback tools only result in people using it as a weapon or bargaining chip "Gee nice video you got here, sure would be a shame if I made it the most downvoted video on youtube unless you pay me to go away, but I'll just be back next week." You'd think after eBay removed negative feedback for sellers, that we would have learned this is exactly what people use negative reinforcement for on the internet, and people defending it, don't want their power taken away.

 

But you know what would also have solved it? Having a karma system like reddit and slashdot have so that "negatively weighted" videos, are not promoted by the algorithm if you have contributed to that negative weight. eg, If I "dislike" a LTT video on something, it would stop recommending me ALL LTT videos until I "like" another one to bring that weighting back to zero. The same for commenters. If you downvote a commenter, then that commenter's threads and replies should disappear from that video, and any video on that channel. But it should only affect YOUR experience, not everyone's. Youtube can build a much better "profile" of you when you are logged in and decide what videos to recommend and what ads to show you, if you use the like and dislike features. It should not affect other peoples experiences.

 

Hell, it's a pity they don't do this with ad videos, because they would get exactly the kind of feedback they want on the effectiveness of the ad.

[joaopt]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

90% of the community that wasn't in the top 1000 wanted the dislike button gone entirely. Not to retread that thread either, but you don't want to give people tools to abuse others. "Dislike","downvote", and various kinds of systems that actually show the effect of clicking on it, is abuse. Youtube should have completely scrubbed downvoting from the system so that none of it's tracked or seen except by the user who pressed the downvote button.

 

We have proven, time and time again, that negative feedback tools only result in people using it as a weapon or bargaining chip "Gee nice video you got here, sure would be a shame if I made it the most downvoted video on youtube unless you pay me to go away, but I'll just be back next week." You'd think after eBay removed negative feedback for sellers, that we would have learned this is exactly what people use negative reinforcement for on the internet, and people defending it, don't want their power taken away.

 

But you know what would also have solved it? Having a karma system like reddit and slashdot have so that "negatively weighted" videos, are not promoted by the algorithm if you have contributed to that negative weight. eg, If I "dislike" a LTT video on something, it would stop recommending me ALL LTT videos until I "like" another one to bring that weighting back to zero. The same for commenters. If you downvote a commenter, then that commenter's threads and replies should disappear from that video, and any video on that channel. But it should only affect YOUR experience, not everyone's. Youtube can build a much better "profile" of you when you are logged in and decide what videos to recommend and what ads to show you, if you use the like and dislike features. It should not affect other peoples experiences.

 

 

i doubt anyone video was being dislike without a cause, can you give an example of the "bargaining chip "Gee nice video you got here, sure would be a shame if I made it the most downvoted video on youtube unless you pay me to go away". That seems like an absurd statement to make

 

Downvotes helped to avoid bad videos, especially when it involves some tutorial for example.

[Stahlmann]

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

90% of the community that wasn't in the top 1000 wanted the dislike button gone entirely. Not to retread that thread either, but you don't want to give people tools to abuse others. "Dislike","downvote", and various kinds of systems that actually show the effect of clicking on it, is abuse. Youtube should have completely scrubbed downvoting from the system so that none of it's tracked or seen except by the user who pressed the downvote button.

 

We have proven, time and time again, that negative feedback tools only result in people using it as a weapon or bargaining chip "Gee nice video you got here, sure would be a shame if I made it the most downvoted video on youtube unless you pay me to go away, but I'll just be back next week." You'd think after eBay removed negative feedback for sellers, that we would have learned this is exactly what people use negative reinforcement for on the internet, and people defending it, don't want their power taken away.

 

But you know what would also have solved it? Having a karma system like reddit and slashdot have so that "negatively weighted" videos, are not promoted by the algorithm if you have contributed to that negative weight. eg, If I "dislike" a LTT video on something, it would stop recommending me ALL LTT videos until I "like" another one to bring that weighting back to zero. The same for commenters. If you downvote a commenter, then that commenter's threads and replies should disappear from that video, and any video on that channel. But it should only affect YOUR experience, not everyone's. Youtube can build a much better "profile" of you when you are logged in and decide what videos to recommend and what ads to show you, if you use the like and dislike features. It should not affect other peoples experiences.

 

Hell, it's a pity they don't do this with ad videos, because they would get exactly the kind of feedback they want on the effectiveness of the ad.

There will always be people wanting to abuse others. And those people will ALWAYS find a way to do so. That's not a reason to take away the one thing that helps users find the right videos and avoid BS content like tutorials that don't work anymore or never have. I disagree that a public showing of how good or bad a video does is abuse. It's just wrong taking away everyones voice because there are a few outliers that actually show abusive behavior.

 

But alas, that's not what YouTube cares about. The enormous amount of bot comments is just another example of YouTube showing they don't care about useability of their service/site. As the dislike count is gone, the comments are the next best thing to determine a video's worth so to say. But as every comment section is filled with bot spam, this method also becomes more and more unuseable...

 

And now one person develops an extremely effective comment moderating tool while youtube couldn't be bothered. Again: It's obvious they simply DO NOT CARE.

 

They can build a profile all they want but they will never be able to replace my own ability to determine what content is useful for me and what not. The only way they can do it better than myself is if they take all the tools i have, which is exactly what they're doing in removing the dislike count and not bothering with comment spam.

[BetteBalterZen]

And f*ck ads btw

[aDoomGuy]

4 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

This is just legal technicality. Piracy may not be the exact right word

LOL legal technicality? Well legal "technicalities" tend to get people convicted. Clearly european courts say there is no ground for convictions here. The word you are looking for is leeching. Youtube leeches if you will. You'll find leeches everywhere, you probably pay leeches money ever single day.

 

Look mate. No matter what business you're into you can't expect your product to make you 100% of the potential profit. You got a factory? Products will fail QC. You run an airline? You can't always fill every seat. You run a Youtube or a TV channel? You can't get everybody to watch your excessive advertisements.

 

If you're saying that YT Premium is the bulk of content creators income, they should be happy that their business model is working instead of yapping at the few that maybe don't watch their advertisment. One can always make more money and whenever I watch these big channels. I must say they don't strike me as poor .......to put it that way. So be happy. If the adbloickers would stop watching the content they would make less even money and not more so there is also that.

[RedRound2]

13 hours ago, aDoomGuy said:

LOL legal technicality? Well legal "technicalities" tend to get people convicted. Clearly european courts say there is no ground for convictions here. The word you are looking for is leeching. Youtube leeches if you will. You'll find leeches everywhere, you probably pay leeches money ever single day.

 

Look mate. No matter what business you're into you can't expect your product to make you 100% of the potential profit. You got a factory? Products will fail QC. You run an airline? You can't always fill every seat. You run a Youtube or a TV channel? You can't get everybody to watch your excessive advertisements.

 

If you're saying that YT Premium is the bulk of content creators income, they should be happy that their business model is working instead of yapping at the few that maybe don't watch their advertisment. One can always make more money and whenever I watch these big channels. I must say they don't strike me as poor .......to put it that way. So be happy. If the adbloickers would stop watching the content they would make less even money and not more so there is also that.

Lol, I love how you ignore everything else I say and just pounce on something you *think* you have an argument for.

 

Legal technicalities is also how people get off the hook for crimes they may have committed. And if you consider laws to be supremely fair and delicately balanced, to keep referring to as a *proof*, lol

 

So you do agree, that you are leeching off a content creators and youtube? That's it, that was entire point, that you all are basically filthy pirates, and you all to stubborn to admit so. QC fails in factories are inevitable, just like how bad apples are inevitable in the world - you know the people who steal, murder, pirates, etc. People trying to get high of off someone else's hard work without their fair share in payments

 

I was never here to convince you to stop using adblock. I was only here to make you admit to yourself that you are pirate and a leech, which you exactly did. Be proud of your life.

[aDoomGuy]

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

Lol, I love how you ignore everything else I say and just pounce on something you *think* you have an argument for.

 

Legal technicalities is also how people get off the hook for crimes they may have committed. And if you consider laws to be supremely fair and delicately balanced, to keep referring to as a *proof*, lol

 

So you do agree, that you are leeching off a content creators and youtube? That's it, that was entire point, that you all are basically filthy pirates, and you all to stubborn to admit so. QC fails in factories are inevitable, just like how bad apples are inevitable in the world - you know the people who steal, murder, pirates, etc. People trying to get high of off someone else's hard work without their fair share in payments

 

I was never here to convince you to stop using adblock. I was only here to make you admit to yourself that you are pirate and a leech, which you exactly did. Be proud of your life.

Wow how utterly ignorant a person can be.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, aDoomGuy said:

Wow how utterly ignorant a person can be.

Well they are correct about leeching off YouTube, not off the creator. Math all they like YouTube will literally give zero money to the creator if you/we 1) Skip the Ads, 2) Don't watch 50% of it, 3) It's a CPC Ad and you don't click on it. So other than the tiny fraction of non-skippable and non-CPC Ads no creator was ever going to get money from me ever and the meagre fraction I would represent does not out way the valid reasons why I won't support solely, 99.99%, YouTube while their policies directly hurt creators not help.

 

My justifications for what I do is in my opinion stronger than any argument given for not doing what I do, and every Ad blocked view of a video directly helps the creator become more successful and more valuable to the market. That is my fair share, I can and have chosen to give more than my fair share directly to the creator. YouTube Premium results in money going to YouTube that I do not wish to give them so it's not a valid option. I will change my mind on this when they change their policies and start addressing the issue properly.

 

YouTube the platform is great, the fundamental service quality is beyond any that can compare, it already allows an entire job market that didn't exist before and that will continue to be so with or without YouTube Ads. Creators will not go away if YouTube Ad revenue ceases, not saying it should or will, but the market itself will just change and adapt.

 

Going on some silly crusade to "support" the creator or YouTube when every argument is so weak and disproven is just disappointing to see. Some people just happen to like inflicting pain on themselves, what I hope they realize is that is something for them and maybe not others.

[leadeater]

21 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Yeah, honestly, I'm not going down the path wasting my time with you. Why do you write so much unnecessary nonsense?? Like I know by now that English isn't your exact strong suite, but good god the content you write makes my eye roll and I have absolutely no idea what you are even trying to say.

Incorrect, my English is perfectly fine. What I write is well understood in my profession, where everyone has one or multiple degrees in all manor of fields and I happen to work in a university. In fact I quite often get complement for writing high quality technical documentation about systems. Maybe the problem is with yourself. I suggest taking more care in reading, don't try and blast through it skimming it so you take in nothing and cannot understand it. That's probably the issue.

 

None of what I wrote was unnecessary, it was to address most of everything you leveled, it's simply a case of you not willing to read it because you're not liking the discussion with me. Not unexpected, I don't particularly enjoy a conversation I categorically know the other person isn't reading the conversion.

 

Also no I'm not going to give you a one line, it's not a one line discussion. It's not simple, there is nuance, there is a good deal of justification and reasoning here but you don't want to hear it so I wouldn't bother asking for it again. But it's all answered in posts before you commented in this topic, before I replied to you, and after I replied to you. If you shall wish to go find out it is all there. At this point it is up to you to seek the knowledge you have been asking for or to not. I will not repeat it again for it to be not read.

 

21 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

And funnily enough all your problems against ads and you not wanting to be a part of ad operation could be completely avoided if you actually bypassed all these things with YouTube Premium.

YouTube Premium does not solve all my problems with it, in fact it solves very few, only one actually. Showing me useless or offensive Ads that were never going to get me to buy the product and in many cases ensures I avoid the product and buy from the competing brand.

[RedRound2]

1 hour ago, aDoomGuy said:

Wow how utterly ignorant a person can be.

So our conversation here is concluded. Glad you came to the realization and had absolutely nothing to say but to just try some last desperate attempt at attacking a person's character. It's okay, I've heard that it hurts when your self designed bubble bursts. Think deep, admit that to yourself and lets move on with our lives

[RedRound2]

46 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Incorrect, my English is perfectly fine. What I write is well understood in my profession, where everyone has one or multiple degrees in all manor of fields and I happen to work in a university. In fact I quite often get complement for writing high quality technical documentation about systems. Maybe the problem is with yourself. I suggest taking more care in reading, don't try and blast through it skimming it so you take in nothing and cannot understand it. That's probably the issue.

Okay, bud. You can say that I have no way of verifying it. But its not only me who had this problem before

46 minutes ago, leadeater said:

None of what I wrote was unnecessary, it was to address most of everything you leveled, it's simply a case of you not willing to read it because you're not liking the discussion with me. Not unexpected, I don't particularly enjoy a conversation I categorically know the other person isn't reading the conversion.

 

Also no I'm not going to give you a one line, it's not a one line discussion. It's not simple, there is nuance, there is a good deal of justification and reasoning here but you don't want to hear it so I wouldn't bother asking for it again. But it's all answered in posts before you commented in this topic, before I replied to you, and after I replied to you. If you shall wish to go find out it is all there. At this point it is up to you to seek the knowledge you have been asking for or to not. I will not repeat it again for it to be not read.

If you wanted to talk about nuances, you should should structure it in a way. Gobbling up some random words from dictionary doesnt turn into english automatically. Your posts dont have any structure at all and you keep jumping from one point to another without any correlation.

 

And just to prove this to you in some small capacity I copied you're entire post (minus the quotes) into Grammarly. And even grammarly says its unclear. Its not the most accurate tool in the world, but it good at giving pointers on how to improve

 

 

Also, to be fair to you, you did finally write something that seems a little more clear about where you stand and what you are arguing for. For which I will quote below

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Well they are correct about leeching off YouTube, not off the creator. Math all they like YouTube will literally give zero money to the creator if you/we 1) Skip the Ads, 2) Don't watch 50% of it, 3) It's a CPC Ad and you don't click on it. So other than the tiny fraction of non-skippable and non-CPC Ads no creator was ever going to get money from me ever and the meagre fraction I would represent does not out way the valid reasons why I won't support solely, 99.99%, YouTube while their policies directly hurt creators not help.

Skipped ads (if skipped), they dont make money. But for non skippable and banner ads, I believe creator does.

It may be a tiny fraction, but it is quite significant when you look at company as huge as LMG having adsense still as a significant income

 

YouTube ad policies are another topic and I'm not here to talk about that right now.

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

My justifications for what I do is in my opinion stronger than any argument given for not doing what I do, and every Ad blocked view of a video directly helps the creator become more successful and more valuable to the market. That is my fair share, I can and have chosen to give more than my fair share directly to the creator. YouTube Premium results in money going to YouTube that I do not wish to give them so it's not a valid option. I will change my mind on this when they change their policies and start addressing the issue properly.

 

YouTube the platform is great, the fundamental service quality is beyond any that can compare, it already allows an entire job market that didn't exist before and that will continue to be so with or without YouTube Ads. Creators will not go away if YouTube Ad revenue ceases, not saying it should or will, but the market itself will just change and adapt.

You say in your first paragraph that you wont give a single penny to youtube

 

In the second para you talk about how great youtube is. Juxtaposition much?

 

Second, you seem to clearly display a lack of not knowing how businesses are run. Do you for some reason think that YouTube is the most profitable business? That they make so much shit ton of money and dont pay creators? Their policies are debatable, yes, but margins are fair given how much of work offloading YouTube does for creators.

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Going on some silly crusade to "support" the creator or YouTube when every argument is so weak and disproven is just disappointing to see.

Lol, not entirely sure who you are referring to, but what is weak? If Walmart is only your shop in the neighborhood, then you inevitable have to end up paying Walmart some fraction. You can't keep complaining that they're so big, they dont need money.

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Some people just happen to like inflicting pain on themselves, what I hope they realize is that is something for them and maybe not others.

What? Who? An example of your very unclear sentence. Who is hurting themselves? I as a consumer, will pay my share for the great content hosted on youtube and youtube platform itself. If you guys refuse to pay your share, its fine. I dont really give a shit. But be mature enough to admit to yourself that you're leeching off the platform whatever may be your angelic justifications

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

snip

OMG, did you seriously put a forum post into grammerly to prove an argument?

 

[leadeater]

20 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Second, you seem to clearly display a lack of not knowing how businesses are run. Do you for some reason think that YouTube is the most profitable business? That they make so much shit ton of money and dont pay creators? Their policies are debatable, yes, but margins are fair given how much of work offloading YouTube does for creators.

That's some fine logic you are applying there, I know how businesses are run and I'm a key stakeholder in extremely large procurement contracts. My objections does not mean I do not understand nor do I not realize that running YouTube costs a lot of money. That is entirely their problem not mine. While they make it free access with no obligation under any Terms of Service for me to watch their Ads then I shall not watch them.

 

Stop trying to make YouTube's problems mine, how they fund and operate their business is their problem, how I react to how they run their business is also their problem too.

 

Assumptions do what again? 

 

20 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

But be mature enough to admit to yourself that you're leeching off

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Well they are correct about leeching off YouTube,

Umm?  Not the only time either. I'd have a real strong think about how mature you have been acting.

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

OMG, did you seriously put a forum post into grammerly to prove an argument?

Well putting aside the issue that Grammarly couldn't possibly know what the discussion was about, 'fine' was only ever my claim. I certainly agree with 'A Bit Bland' and 'Slightly Off' on the delivery. People are not perfect by any means. Grammarly isn't for that matter either and a few of the correctness flags are false because it's assessing it as a piece of formal writing and also doesn't know or understand the topic discussion. Formal, informal, and conversational writing are different things with their own conventions and rules. Not that I need to tell you that though. Anyway please just leave that discussion area alone. I don't particularly feel the need to defend that beyond what I did, neither is it constructive to the topic.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well putting aside the issue that Grammarly couldn't possibly know what the discussion was about, 'fine' was only ever my claim. I certainly agree with 'A Bit Bland' and 'Slightly Off; on the delivery. People are not perfect by any means. Grammarly isn't for that matter either and a few of the correctness flags are false because it's assessing it as a piece of formal writing and also doesn't know or understand the topic discussion. Formal, informal, and conversational writing are different things with their own conventions and rules. Not that I need to tell you that though. Anyway please just leave that discussion area alone. I don't particularly feel the need to defend that beyond what I did, neither is it contractive to the topic.

 

Grammerly knows nothing about the argument or the facts surrounding it and grammar and spelling means absolutely nothing on an internet forum.  You can be very right while making more grammar and spelling mistakes than a 3 year old.  Ergo using a program that at best might accurately pickup some grammar mistakes to deflect from the argument means the poster cannot actually argue your points.  Hence why I find is stupendously amusing.  It's like the most ironic version of  "you clearly don't understand X".

 

And this is something we are starting to see way too much of on these forums,  people think an opposing opinion must be because the other person doesn't understand (we could never be wrong could we?). Or people can't debate the actual issue at hand so they turn it into a personal attack and simply accuse you of only hating or shilling etc.  There are also posters who take umbrage at a comment simply because of the person who made it. 

 

 

 

 

[RedRound2]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

That's some fine logic you are applying there, I know how businesses are run and I'm a key stakeholder in extremely large procurement contracts. My objections does not mean I do not understand nor do I not realize that running YouTube costs a lot of money. That is entirely their problem not mine. While they make it free access with no obligation under any Terms of Service for me to watch their Ads then I shall not watch them.

 

Stop trying to make YouTube's problems mine, how they fund and operate their business is their problem, how I react to how they run their business is also their problem too.

 

Assumptions do what again? 

Didn't you just say you had some problem with how youtube pays creators very little? That's only a valid argument, if they themselves were making a crap ton of profit, which they clearly aren't. The expenses in this business is extremely high.

 

You have some issue with ad policies. Fine. But I dont think Youtube is taking an unfair amount from creators. Sure, if their margins increases in the future, then maybe. But currently its fine.

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Umm?  Not the only time either. I'd have a real strong think about how mature you have been acting.

So why did you even jump in and reply in the original post. That's literally something I've been repeating in almost every post

 

Sure, please think on how mature I have been acting. This forum has just resorted to boys locker room gang sort of thing where they hate on what is popular to hate, with almost no actual facts, or solid data to show anything

[RedRound2]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Grammerly knows nothing about the argument or the facts surrounding it and grammar and spelling means absolutely nothing on an internet forum.  You can be very right while making more grammar and spelling mistakes than a 3 year old.  Ergo using a program that at best might accurately pickup some grammar mistakes to deflect from the argument means the poster cannot actually argue your points.  Hence why I find is stupendously amusing.  It's like the most ironic version of  "you clearly don't understand X".

Lol, if you think grammarly wanted to know facts about situation to assess grammatical correctness, boy you must be delusional. I can write absolute nonsense like the sun rises on the west, and grammarly would be totally okay with it.

 

Please, since you seem to have a pHD in English, go on do an analysis and a word by word explanation. If you can't communicate properly (ergo with good grammar and structure) then you're no different to a jar half filled with pennies making noises.

 

Of course since you're part of the aforementioned locker room gang, I can't ever expect you be objective, so I'll leave this at that.

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

And this is something we are starting to see way too much of on these forums,  people think an opposing opinion must be because the other person doesn't understand (we could never be wrong could we?). Or people can't debate the actual issue at hand so they turn it into a personal attack and simply accuse you of only hating or shilling etc.  There are also posters who take umbrage at a comment simply because of the person who made it. 

Funny how this applies so well, the the people ive been having conversations with.

aDoomGuy never understood basic math (and facts) and when I went on to explain it to him, he called me arrogant

I told leadeater that I did not understand what he was trying to say and if he could summarize it in one line about what hes standing for, what i am standing for, etc. He again refused to do that and then proceeded to do some boasting about how he was praised about writing documentations. To which I replied with grammarly (I mean if you write professional documentation, having a good Grammarly score about delivery and clarity a must, but of course you kids wouldn't that, would you )

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Lol, if you think grammarly wanted to know facts about situation to assess grammatical correctness, boy you must be delusional. I can write absolute nonsense like the sun rises on the west, and grammarly would be totally okay with it.

 

Please, since you seem to have a pHD in English, go on do an analysis and a word by word explanation. If you can't communicate properly (ergo with good grammar and structure) then you're no different to a jar half filled with pennies making noises.

 

Of course since you're part of the aforementioned locker room gang, I can't ever expect you be objective, so I'll leave this at that.

Funny how this applies so well, the the people ive been having conversations with.

aDoomGuy never understood basic math (and facts) and when I went on to explain it to him, he called me arrogant

I told leadeater that I did not understand what he was trying to say and if he could summarize it in one line about what hes standing for, what i am standing for, etc. He again refused to do that and then proceeded to do some boasting about how he was praised about writing documentations. To which I replied with grammarly (I mean if you write professional documentation, having a good Grammarly score about delivery and clarity a must, but of course you kids wouldn't that, would you )

Grammarly cannot help you with comprehension skills.