Are we pirates?

[Middcore]

13 minutes ago, summoned said:

I am mad at being called out a pirate, while I am using Internet with legit way, but at te same time not giving me a reasonable solution. 

 

You will find some reason why any solution invented is unreasonable, because from your perspective there is no problem to be solved. You like the way things are. You get LTT's content without paying anything for it because other are picking up the tab. And you can keep on doing it. Nothing is changing. Linus just called you a mean word and it made you mad, because you think that your "love" for LTT and all the videos you've watched should make him your friend, and he should fawn all over you for your love and loyalty, even if it never makes him a dollar to keep a roof over his family's head or pay his employees. But he's past that point as a creator. 

 

Parasocial relationships are a helluva drug. 

 

8 minutes ago, tikker said:

I'm curious why people find it so "unreasonable" to be asked to watch an ad.

 

Earlier in the thread he basically claimed watching ads actually makes him ill. 

 

[tikker]

2 minutes ago, Middcore said:

Earlier in the thread he basically claimed watching ads actually makes him ill. 

I can't say for sure of course, but to me the ads being described as "disturbing content", "stealing our time", the "they drive me crazy" turning into "I'm sacrificing my health watching them" etc. flagged it as hyperboles to me.

[Blademaster91]

4 minutes ago, tikker said:

I can't say for sure of course, but to me the ads being described as "disturbing content", "stealing our time", the "they drive me crazy" turning into "I'm sacrificing my health watching them" etc. flagged it as hyperboles to me.

Calling people pirates for using an adblocker is also hyperbole, and a false use of the term pirate.

16 minutes ago, tikker said:

I'm curious why people find it so "unreasonable" to be asked to watch an ad.

And i'm curious why people would sit through an ad, to watch even more ads already in the video, and the video itself might even be an ad for some product.

[MultiGamerClub]

4 hours ago, summoned said:

crap, flashy and disturbing content is bad?

When ads wasnt this today, we didnt need one.

[Middcore]

9 minutes ago, summoned said:

I know some great solutions which are reasonable, adblocker is one of them. 

 

Like I said, you're fine with things as they are. Your implications that you would support LTT for the content they give you if only someone came up with a "reasonable" way to do it are disingenuous. 

 

Linus just hurt your feelings because you considered yourself such a big fan of his. That's all this is about. 

 

Making this point again: 99% of the people upset about Linus calling them pirates are pirates of movies and TV shows and such. That piracy just doesn't hurt anybody they care about. It's not being called pirates they mind because they don't see anything wrong with being a pirate, they mind that Linus is pointing out their choices have an impact on people they think they like. 

[tikker]

13 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

And i'm curious why people would sit through an ad, to watch even more ads already in the video

It's not surprising that blocking ads that provide part of their income leads to ads being incorporated differently. Let's be real, all of us using adblock have brought this on our own and people should have been fully aware that sooner or later this would result in alternative ways of incorporating ads.

13 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

and the video itself might even be an ad for some product.

I regularly feel like people have become overly zealous calling things an ad and forget are watching a tech entertainment channel. As for sponsored videos, if you don't like those then just click away when you see "SPONSORED BY" appearing?

[GDRRiley]

I find this debate so odd, its rather clear cut.

you are receiving a service while refusing to pay, thats what blocking ads does. It means the site hosing doesn't get money to support themselves, the creator doesn't. If you care about a free service that relys on ads or donations and you want to keep it around you have to support those options.

While buying merch or using an affiliate program gives the creator money it still leave the video hosting site with 0. (note I'm really avoiding being specific about just YT it applies to any of the free video hosting sites). Video is insanely expensive to host, even with all the best tricks its not cheap, why do you think googles put so much time and money into custom hardware and new software stacks to allow more compress video to look the same or better?

 

42 minutes ago, summoned said:

I would consider going to the Floatplane but:

- Website is terrible, no information what so ever about the possible content until you make an account

- After making account it is not possible to remove it immidiatelly (which is illegal in EU)

- I have no preview of actual quality of content and streaming performance

- There is not enough content creators, why should i bother?

1. its not designed for you to explore but find existing creators and support them

2. I'm going to ignore your miss understanding of EU law

3. at 1080p its better than YT 4k, other than leaving open videos for an hour or 2 and needing to refresh before they resume I've had 0 issues over the last year.

4. you pay per content creator, just like patron or any of the other fan sites

42 minutes ago, summoned said:

So even if i try to skip the YT Adblocked part, inhouse made option is just badly developed. 

its not badly developed, floatplane is great and given its got a comment section better than Nebula (another site I use but thats 1 payment for everyone)

42 minutes ago, summoned said:

Now go ahead and slam me that it is my fault as im using an adblocker

using an addblocker is a choice you make, I often run one as well but I try my best to allow sites I know and trust and want to support to get ads or I pay for them.

 

(quick note, one of the few perks as mod is free LMG floatplane so while yes I don't pay its my choice to use it or YT)

 

[GDRRiley]

8 minutes ago, tikker said:

I regularly feel like people have become overly zealous calling things an ad and forget are watching a tech entertainment channel. As for sponsored videos, if you don't like those then just click away when you see "SPONSORED BY" appearing?

I'll add TV and movies are crazy embedded with ads and have been for decade, you just never really know if when a brand got up was it paid or not in them. they'll be some mention of oh so and so supported it, but you'll never know about the level of control

SNL has paid skits that go though approval by the company IE ad. they also have skits that just randomly mention a company because they though it was funny or fit

[wanderingfool2]

26 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I don't see how stealing a physical item is equivalent to something free to watch, blocking ads doesn't hurt companies, and for creators that are trying to be successful the ad payout isn't enough for most people to pay bills or buy food anyway.

It was to serve a point in regards to the rhetoric that was being made.  Specifically, there are people who steal from big box stores and their rational behind it was that it's not hurting anyone and the stores could just have better security if they wanted it to stop.  It was the same argument he was making regarding to why it's okay to skip ads on youtube (because to him, YouTube doesn't do enough to prevent it so it magically makes it okay).

 

28 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I see youtube premium keeps getting mentioned, however Youtube doesn't even disclose how much of the profit creators get from Youtube Premium, so I don't see why I would want to throw money at a corporation which doesn't say where my money even goes. And youtube already makes the viewer the product, you're paying for it through viewership, analytics, and clicking on videos, and recently youtube has ruined their search by showing you things their alogrithm wants you to watch instead of things related to what you're searching for.

Well the algo switch up could very well be that they are being allowed less and less to analyze user data, which would mean less and less chances of showing more related content.  Anyways though is that there is an alternative form to watching ads, and that's a payment through premium...but the bigger point being that it's to address the people who are all high and mighty saying that they are the userbase but they don't buy merch, they don't subscribe to floatplane, and they block ads.  They effectively contribute zero, except view count, towards LMG...and on top of that it also prevents up and coming creators.

 

35 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Well ads aren't the same as they were in the early days of LTT, ads have become awful to sit through, which only pushes people to use an adblocker or use a browser that includes one by default. Instead of content creators chastising their viewers for using an adblocker, people should complain at youtube instead, because its on youtube for pushing ads that only makes watching videos with ads an infuriating experience.

I'd argue as well though that ads have progressively gotten worse because of ad-blockers though.  Ignoring the safety aspect of ad-block (because realistically I think the majority of people who use it aren't doing it for the safety of their PC), ad-blockers means that companies who do rely on ad-revenue are forced to go towards more and more in your face ads and ones that will generate clicks.

 

26 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Calling people pirates for using an adblocker is also hyperbole, and a false use of the term pirate.

I think that still misses the point though that he is talking about thinking of the implications of doing so.  An example being if everyone went to using ad-blockers LMG would have 18% less revenue...and I can tell you now a business losing 18% revenue would have some downstream effects.  (An example being TKOR, while it has gone downhill for a long time now they let go of 2 of the hosts effectively because their salaries didn't justify the number...and also some other backroom stuff going on).

 

p.s. I do want to thank you for at least approaching this with a more rational mindset

[Middcore]

7 minutes ago, summoned said:

So my quick note, i've showed this website to my gf, she is an UX designer (media and enterntaiment) 

 

You wouldn't know her. She goes to another school. 

[adarw]

3 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Except it isn't. I have no agreement with any single content creator. YouTube is an open platform that offers me content for free. It implements ads the same way every other website does. My dealings are with YouTube, not with any one content creator on the platform. And I choose to block YouTube's ads.

 

Honestly, this just seems like Linus once again put his foot in his mouth. Why alienate anyone who would be content to support your business if it meant offsetting ads and sponsor segments by encouraging buying merch as a better alternative? Yeah no, let's make a dumb comparison to a TV show that isn't offered on a free service to begin with that isn't paid for with ads. To pretend like there's an equivalence between a streaming service behind a paywall and blocking ads on YouTube is disingenuous at best.

 

 

Honestly, this pretty much ensures that I'll never whitelist your channel from either adblock or sponsorblock. And no, again, my payment for the content isn't ads. I get to watch it for free. Linus is paid by Google for the opportunity to show me ads. He's not paid by me watching the ads. This is such a hilariously wrongheaded way of framing this entire scenario. If a service is free for me to use, I'm the product being sold. That's the long and short of it. And I choose not to be sold. Hence why I block ads everywhere possible. If Linus isn't happy with that arrangement, he's more than welcome to take all his content off YouTube and put it behind his Floatplane paywall. If that's a sustainable business move for him, good for him. I won't mourn his disappearance from YouTube. Every YouTuber is replaceable and there are more than enough people ready to jump into his niche if he were to pack up and leave. But to call it piracy is wrong by every metric imaginable. Words mean things and you don't just get to redefine them to suit your whims. 

i feel like linus is similar to jk rowling on twitter, like just enjoy your millions without getting cancel by posting stupid stuff on Twitter.

[Mattias Edeslatt]

24 minutes ago, summoned said:

So my quick note, i've showed this website to my gf, she is an UX designer (media and enterntaiment) and she asked me if this site is from 2010.

You registered to this forum about 4 hours ago to start this topic on a site you think looks like shit complaining about you are being butthurt for being called out for not supporting a channel you obviously likes and follows but refuse to support in any form or way....

 

OK, good for you....

 

And to everyone that is complaining about there is no way of supporting LTT, there are plenty of ways, one is buying merch, one is to use YT Premium, one is to subscribe to Floatplane for just LTT content, or shopping through their affiliate links and so on....

I agree, there is truly no other way to support LTT even if you love them and watches everything they produce. Yes, you are truly a die-hard fan.... /S

[LTTFan16538228]

5 hours ago, lewdicrous said:

This guy taught me, and others, how to be pirates.

Well, he stated that you "should" buy their merch if you do decide to send all your ads down PiHole.

 

I use AdGuard but YouTube still slips though AdGuard's blacklist.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, tikker said:

It's not surprising that blocking ads that provide part of their income leads to ads being incorporated differently. Let's be real, all of us using adblock have brought this on our own and people should have been fully aware that sooner or later this would result in alternative ways of incorporating ads.

I wouldn't blame it completely on ad blockers, ad companies are at fault for pushing people to block ads, and youtube is also for not integrating less intrusive ads, i'd be fine with some adblock proof ads, just don't force long ads which can't be skipped.

1 hour ago, tikker said:

I regularly feel like people have become overly zealous calling things an ad and forget are watching a tech entertainment channel. As for sponsored videos, if you don't like those then just click away when you see "SPONSORED BY" appearing?

If I have to click on the video and watch it to find its a "SPONSORED BY" ad, its kind of misleading IMO, and I don't even bother watching most videos. Other tech channels exist and I would rather watch something educational than some ad for a gaming laptop.

 

[Mattias Edeslatt]

15 minutes ago, summoned said:

Last note: calm down guys, because it looks like a fanatic dank den

We are not fanatic, hell most of us is probably using Ad-blocking in some form. I can only speak for myself and I try to support content creators via Patreon or making donations if they stream live if the stream is on a time that matches with my timezone. And I am paying Google for YT Premium so that is also a way of supporting the creators that i watch videos from. YT is telling just as little about how much they are paying the creators if you pay for Premium or you are watching ads. All that we know is the get some money and Google is most likely keeping the most, as they are the service-provider. 

 

And yes, I am aware that I hurt the revenue for many sites that i visit as I use ad-block, so if the owners of the site calls me out on it, I don't get offended. But is there a way to support the site, I try to do it, in some form or way.

[Heliian]

Advertisements will always be a part of free content. 

 

The ads will keep coming in new and inventive ways.

 

When DVRs became popular, admakers were worried that people would just skip the commercials so they started to embed banner ads over the show.  

[tikker]

5 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I wouldn't blame it completely on ad blockers, ad companies are at fault for pushing people to block ads, and youtube is also for not integrating less intrusive ads, i'd be fine with some adblock proof ads, just don't force long ads which can't be skipped.

I understand. There are indeed many sites that I don't trust without adblockers on, even some local news sites turn into times square if you turn them off. What once was a sleek design with a single centred column with nice not distracting white on either side has turned into white space designed purposely to cram as many ads in there as possible that I don't feel like I can trust. I do also dislike very long unskippable ads, although I can't recall the last time I got one that I couldn't skip after 30 seconds. Finally those videos (not LTT, just in general) that have an ad what seems like literally every two minutes... It's certainly not perfect, but most of the time it doesn't bother me.

10 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

If I have to click on the video and watch it to find its a "SPONSORED BY" ad, its kind of misleading IMO, and I don't even bother watching most videos. Other tech channels exist and I would rather watch something educational than some ad for a gaming laptop.

I'm willing to chalk this down to the system of YouTube (I don't know how they name things on Floatplane). It is a genuine click-bait war and you'll get the really short end of the stick if you don't join them. Adding something like [SPONSORED] in the video title would hurt performance I guess and as lots of videos are sponsored one way or another doesn't say much anyway. If I see a video of an LG OLED and hear "sponsored by LG" or 8k gaming mentiones "sponsored by Nvidia" that doesn't change the video much for me. I'll just know that they got paid to show it off and that I should wait/look for an actual review before drawing any real conclusions. If that's not your liking then as you say we have the benefit of other tech channels existing.

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, summoned said:

So my quick note, i've showed this website to my gf, she is an UX designer (media and enterntaiment) and she asked me if this site is from 2010.

thats mostly due to the fact its based on Invision Community, which isn't exactly an amazing base

do you see just how much the skins change it over IPS default?

[TetraSky]

Yup. And as long as ads are obnoxious, opening popups, demanding access to my notifications and what not... I will be keeping adblock. No shame.

[Kilrah]

I think a lot of this is due to misunderstanding caused by the limitations of Twitter and the written word.

 

The tweet in question taken on its own also seemed off to me compared to what Linus has been saying usually, but some of the answers clarify things as being a technicality. I'm sure it'll be discussed on WAN show later and that will set things straight.

 

It's simple, on youtube if a creator enables monetizing with ads then there are 2 possibilities to watch the content as per the terms of service of the platform, either you watch the ads or you pay for Youtube Premium, that's it. Circumventing the ads is thus technically the same as circumventing conditions placed on watching other types of media like paying for a license to watch it, which is usually called piracy.

There's nothing more to it. 

[adarw]

1 hour ago, summoned said:

So my quick note, i've showed this website to my gf, she is an UX designer (media and enterntaiment) and she asked me if this site is from 2010.

i dont understand why you would think this website is from 2010, its a forum, its not something thats trying to make money with.

[Avocado Diaboli]

20 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

ircumventing the ads is thus technically the same as circumventing conditions placed on watching other types of media like paying for a license to watch it, which is usually called piracy.

Not really. The term piracy is strictly used in the context of copyright infringement. Blocking ads on YouTube does not infringe on any copyright. It is per definition not piracy, not under any interpretation of the term. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#"Piracy"

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-piracy?r=US&IR=T

 

If people wish to insinuate that blocking ads is piracy, then I expect someone to quickly file a lawsuit against anyone providing ad blockers. Then we'll see if a court agrees that the task of blocking ads constitutes piracy. Because I still remain unconvinced. 

[Kilrah]

18 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Not really. The term piracy is strictly used in the context of copyright infringement.

From the Wikipedia link:

 

Quote

Copyright infringement (at times referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required

The permission to watch a video on Youtube is given to you at the condition you either watch the ads or pay for Premium, it can be argued that if you're skipping the ads you're watching without permission i.e. it's copyright infringement/piracy.

 

18 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

If people wish to insinuate that blocking ads is piracy, then I expect someone to quickly file a lawsuit against anyone providing ad blockers.

It wouldn't be about the provider of an ad blocker, but each user's responsibility to use it or not where the conditions allow or not... obviously extremely complex, much more so than say a torrent site, and likely so much so that it'd be completely unenforceable. But if you stick to the definitions it does make sense...

[tikker]

So from the context of the tweet, which of course is left out both in the OP and on reddit, to me what was meant was that the results are the same. That is, a view with ads blocked is missed income just like a pirated copy of a movie is missed income.

 

The wording for sure could've been better, but haven't people gone a bit too much out of context with this one?

[wanderingfool2]

14 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Not really. The term piracy is strictly used in the context of copyright infringement. Blocking ads on YouTube does not infringe on any copyright. It is per definition not piracy, not under any interpretation of the term.

Piracy doesn't not equate to just copyright infringement, it's just a major part of what is talked about.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/piracy

Quote

An infringement, usually intentional, of the intellectual property rights of others, such as an authorized copy of book or movie.

Intellectual property goes much more than simple copyright.

 

Also, blocking ads on YouTube hasn't been established to whether or not it is copyright infringement.  The case against ABP essentially boils down to the company claiming that ABP violated copyright by modifying the code.  That doesn't mean using ad-blocking is in fact not copyright infringement though.  The thing is though you can still violate IP laws without violating copyright in itself