Experimental Youtube "feature" detects and blocks some users of ad blocking browser extensions on Youtube

[Obioban]

Hopefully this significantly impacts Chrome's dominance. One company commanding so much of the internet browsing experience, especially THE company that also sells the Internet's ads, is not a healthy situation.

[dalekphalm]

On 10/29/2023 at 12:39 PM, Donut417 said:

Disney +, Paramount+, etc. They all were ad free. Then most added ads on the current tiers of service making people pay more for ad free. Netflix is the only one who did it right and made an ad free option cheaper then the previous cheaper option.

I can't say about all of them, but I just looked up the D+ "Basic" plan (which is unavailable in Canada) and it's definitely cheaper than the regular plan.

 

I'm not sure about the chain of events, so I cannot say whether they raised the regular plan's price first and then introduced a cheaper plan after, or if they did it at the same time.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I can't say about all of them, but I just looked up the D+ "Basic" plan (which is unavailable in Canada) and it's definitely cheaper than the regular plan.

 

I'm not sure about the chain of events, so I cannot say whether they raised the regular plan's price first and then introduced a cheaper plan after, or if they did it at the same time.

I had D+ when it first came out. We had no ads. Period. Even if you had an Ad plan on Hulu, you had no ads on Disney.

[PocketNerd]

For me it seems like if I try to block the pop-up then the video doesn't load.

 

Like... 0:00 / 0:00

[CarlBar]

10 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

For me it seems like if I try to block the pop-up then the video doesn't load.

 

Like... 0:00 / 0:00

 

Force update your adblocker. it's an ongoing war between the blockers and youtube with both updating a few times a day. UBlock has been good for the last few days for me, but was having to update every day for a few days before that.

[Heats with Nvidia]

I use Firefox and UBlock Origin. I got the Popup a couple of times and then just blocked the frame it came in with UBlock. I had no issues since then.

[Donut417]

32 minutes ago, Heats with Nvidia said:

I use Firefox and UBlock Origin. I got the Popup a couple of times and then just blocked the frame it came in with UBlock. I had no issues since then.

I found the pop ups were not consistent. Because I tried the same thing. But eventually they got me. Though YouTube still works on private browsing with not being logged in. So I think it could also be account based as well. 

[Heats with Nvidia]

10 hours ago, Donut417 said:

I found the pop ups were not consistent. Because I tried the same thing. But eventually they got me. Though YouTube still works on private browsing with not being logged in. So I think it could also be account based as well. 

I don`t have or use a Youtube account.

[Dracarris]

21 hours ago, Heats with Nvidia said:

I use Firefox and UBlock Origin. I got the Popup a couple of times and then just blocked the frame it came in with UBlock. I had no issues since then.

Just checked in a private window with this configuration (so not logged in) and absolutely no difference to when they started all this. Unobtrusive ad-free experience.

[Rocketdog2112]

For those who feel Ad Blockers are a form of Piracy, you need to refresh yourself with the definition of Piracy... 

"the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work" 

Blocking ads on a website that is free to view on the internet does not fit the definition of Piracy. 

 

[Spotty]

15 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

For those who feel Ad Blockers are a form of Piracy, you need to refresh yourself with the definition of Piracy... 

"the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work" 

Blocking ads on a website that is free to view on the internet does not fit the definition of Piracy. 

Youtube is stating that to be authorised to view ("use") content on Youtube you must either view advertisements or pay for a subscription. By accessing the content without a subscription and while blocking ads you are accessing ("using") the content in a way that has not been authorised by the provider (Youtube). By the definition you provided this is piracy.

[Rocketdog2112]

55 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Youtube is stating that to be authorised to view ("use") content on Youtube you must either view advertisements or pay for a subscription. By accessing the content without a subscription and while blocking ads you are accessing ("using") the content in a way that has not been authorised by the provider (Youtube). By the definition you provided this is piracy.

Where exactly does this written policy and the checkbox agreeing to this policy reside?

 

Does their policy expressly prohibit Ad Blockers? 

Obviously no. According to their unwritten policy... 

"When you block YouTube ads, you violate YouTube’s Terms of Service. If you use ad blockers, we’ll ask you to allow ads on YouTube or sign up for YouTube Premium."

 

Using an Ad Blocker does not result in a full on ban of using YouTubes' services. They can ask me not to use an Ad Blocker, but they cannot prohibit me from doing so. 

 

 

 

Does their policy state i can be prosecuted for using Ad Blockers? 

Again obviously no. Sure, YouTube can ban Ad Blockers. But Ad Blockers and their use of does not constitute a crime or Piracy. 

 

I have not used their product inappropriatly or for purposes of financial gain. Nothing has been stolen or pirated. 

 

They may "state" it, but if i am not made aware of it while accessing or viewing YouTube, or have a way to acknowledge their policy, then i consider their policy void. 

 

I actually just read YouTubes' Terms of Service and nowhere is the explicit use of Ad Blockers mentioned or stated. 

 

The definition of Piracy has not been met. 

 

[Spotty]

7 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Where exactly does this written policy and the checkbox agreeing to this policy reside?

 

Does their policy expressly prohibit Ad Blockers? 

Obviously no. According to their unwritten policy... 

"When you block YouTube ads, you violate YouTube’s Terms of Service. If you use ad blockers, we’ll ask you to allow ads on YouTube or sign up for YouTube Premium."

 

Using an Ad Blocker does not result in a full on ban of using YouTubes' services. They can ask me not to use an Ad Blocker, but they cannot prohibit me from doing so. 

 

 

 

Does their policy state i can be prosecuted for using Ad Blockers? 

Again obviously no. Sure, YouTube can ban Ad Blockers. But Ad Blockers and their use of does not constitute a crime or Piracy. 

 

I have not used their product inappropriatly or for purposes of financial gain. Nothing has been stolen or pirated. 

 

They may "state" it, but if i am not made aware of it while accessing or viewing YouTube, or have a way to acknowledge their policy, then i consider their policy void. 

 

I actually just read YouTubes' Terms of Service and nowhere is the explicit use of Ad Blockers mentioned or stated. 

 

The definition of Piracy has not been met. 

 

 

See the messages being rolled out and displayed to ad block users on Youtube:

 

The messages above states that ad blockers are not allowed. Youtube does not authorise you to use their service with an adblocker. Your definition stated "unauthorised use or copy...", not "The company has to prevent you from using or copying...". The onus is on you to receive authorisation to do it, not for them to successfully prevent you from doing it. You would need authorisation from Youtube to use Youtube with an adblocker for it to not be piracy. Youtube does not provide that authorisation and actively informs their users they are not authorised to access their service or content with an ad blocker.

 

The legal definition of piracy might be different and may have a higher bar (and may vary based on local laws), but according to the definition of piracy that you provided using ad blocker on Youtube would be an unauthorised use of that content and would be considered piracy.

 

 

This whole debate about whether or not it's piracy is so strange to me. If you want to use an ad blocker then do it. Just don't act entitled about it trying to argue that you have a right to access things for free and without ads. I use an ad blocker because browsing the internet without an ad blocker is a worse experience. I understand that doing so may negatively impact the websites that I visit but my personal experience is something I value more than the impact it may have on the websites I visit. I really don't understand why it needs to be more complicated than that or why you need to try and argue that you're entitled to it.

[Rocketdog2112]

26 minutes ago, Spotty said:

 

See the messages being rolled out and displayed to ad block users on Youtube:

 

The messages above states that ad blockers are not allowed. Youtube does not authorise you to use their service with an adblocker. Your definition stated "unauthorised use or copy...", not "The company has to prevent you from using or copying...". The onus is on you to receive authorisation to do it, not for them to successfully prevent you from doing it. You would need authorisation from Youtube to use Youtube with an adblocker for it to not be piracy. Youtube does not provide that authorisation and actively informs their users they are not authorised to access their service or content with an ad blocker.

 

The legal definition of piracy might be different and may have a higher bar (and may vary based on local laws), but according to the definition of piracy that you provided using ad blocker on Youtube would be an unauthorised use of that content and would be considered piracy.

 

 

This whole debate about whether or not it's piracy is so strange to me. If you want to use an ad blocker then do it. Just don't act entitled about it trying to argue that you have a right to access things for free and without ads. I use an ad blocker because browsing the internet without an ad blocker is a worse experience. I understand that doing so may negatively impact the websites that I visit but my personal experience is something I value more than the impact it may have on the websites I visit. I really don't understand why it needs to be more complicated than that or why you need to try and argue that you're entitled to it.

This pretty much sums up Digital Piracy. Watching a video and blocking ads is not done for profit by the end user.

 

All youtube can do is block my access to videos. They can't bring charges or have me arrested because using an Ad Blocker does not constitute a crime or Piracy. 

 

Even YouTube is smart enough not to use the word Piracy. 

 

You also assumed i use Ad Blockers on YouTube. I actually don't. My only argument is the spread of misinformation concerning the Piracy issue. 

 

"unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work.

A pirate is defined as a person who appropriates or reproduces the work of another for profit without permission, usually in contravention of a patent or copyright" 

 

https://www.muso.com/magazine/digital-piracy

 

 

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

This pretty much sums up Digital Piracy. Watching a video and blocking ads is not done for profit by the end user... 

 

"unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work.

A pirate is defined as a person who appropriates or reproduces the work of another for profit without permission, usually in contravention of a patent or copyright" 

 

https://www.muso.com/magazine/digital-piracy

Now you're just changing the definition to move the goal posts.

2 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

For those who feel Ad Blockers are a form of Piracy, you need to refresh yourself with the definition of Piracy... 

"the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work" 

You're the one who wanted to stress that piracy was defined as the unauthorised use or reproduction. Now you want to change the definition because that definition doesn't fit your argument.

 

I actually had a feeling you would try to find other definitions of the word piracy that were more favourable to your argument and try to move the goal posts, that's why I made sure to clarify in both of my posts that it was for the definition you provided.

[Rocketdog2112]

17 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Now you're just changing the definition to move the goal posts.

You're the one who wanted to stress that piracy was defined as the unauthorised use or reproduction. Now you want to change the definition because that definition doesn't fit your argument.

 

I actually had a feeling you would try to find other definitions of the word piracy that were more favourable to your argument and try to move the goal posts, that's why I made sure to clarify in both of my posts that it was for the definition you provided.

What change. Just because i included the word Digital? We are using computers... Right? YouTube is digital content, Right? 

Now you're just grabbing for straws. Time to come off your high horse. 

[MarvinKMooney]

Just popped up, them ( Youtube/Google ) might be violating EU's privacy law YouTube’s ad blocking crackdown is facing a new challenge: privacy laws - The Verge

[Seccedonien]

36 minutes ago, MarvinKMooney said:

Just popped up, them ( Youtube/Google ) might be violating EU's privacy law YouTube’s ad blocking crackdown is facing a new challenge: privacy laws - The Verge

I wonder about that since (especially) news websites have been doing the same for a couple of years now and none has actually made that point before afaik.

I guess we will find out if and when it does make it to EU regulators. But at that point they might just put up a paywall for EU and be done with it.

[Arika]

1 hour ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

A pirate is defined as a person who appropriates or reproduces the work of another for profit without permission, usually in contravention of a patent or copyright" 

given that muso seems to be an extremely rare case that says that it has to be for profit your argument is on very shaky ground.

 

You might have had a better argument in pushing the "it's not piracy if you only download and not distribute" as the aruments and laws are much more vague about that. profit on the other hand very rarely comes into it.

[jagdtigger]

4 hours ago, Seccedonien said:

I wonder about that since (especially) news websites have been doing the same for a couple of years now and none has actually made that point before afaik.

That trend died down quite a while ago, havent seen an anti-adblock popup for a while now. Guess they finally realized how pointless of a whack-a-mole game it is really.....

[Donut417]

23 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Does their policy state i can be prosecuted for using Ad Blockers? 

Even under the draconian DMCA Im pretty sure you can only be prosecuted if you "Distribute" copyrighted material. Even then these cases are hard to try and the government most likely wouldn't waste its time. The most YouTube could do is sue, but again hard to win these types of cases. All they will do is piss and moan about ad blockers and spend what ever amount of money it will cost to attempt to win against the ad blockers. 

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Even under the draconian DMCA Im pretty sure you can only be prosecuted if you "Distribute" copyrighted material. Even then these cases are hard to try and the government most likely wouldn't waste its time. The most YouTube could do is sue, but again hard to win these types of cases. All they will do is piss and moan about ad blockers and spend what ever amount of money it will cost to attempt to win against the ad blockers. 

Youtube isn't sueing anyone. They do not own the majority of the content on the platform. Only the video owners can DMCA someone watching their videos without paying the entry fee. 

 

And I'm sure youtube could "ask" big creators to go after certain targets, but I think that would backfire greatly. It's already trying to thread a camel through the eye of a needle when it comes to not getting sued itself, it's not gonna do it on the behalf of any creator that isn't making them a lot of money in the first place.

 

 

[Donut417]

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

Youtube isn't sueing anyone. They do not own the majority of the content on the platform. Only the video owners can DMCA someone watching their videos without paying the entry fee. 

 

And I'm sure youtube could "ask" big creators to go after certain targets, but I think that would backfire greatly. It's already trying to thread a camel through the eye of a needle when it comes to not getting sued itself, it's not gonna do it on the behalf of any creator that isn't making them a lot of money in the first place.

 

 

You missed the point of the post. Even the studios cant get people put in jail for downloading content. The government only goes after the distributor. So there is no avenue where YouTube could get a user prosecuted for using Ad Block.

 

As @Rocketdog2112 asked "If their policy states that you can be prosecuted?"

 

Like I pointed out the most they can do is a civil action. Even then its hard for them to do that.

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, Donut417 said:

You missed the point of the post. Even the studios cant get people put in jail for downloading content. The government only goes after the distributor. So there is no avenue where YouTube could get a user prosecuted for using Ad Block.

 

As @Rocketdog2112 asked "If their policy states that you can be prosecuted?"

 

Like I pointed out the most they can do is a civil action. Even then its hard for them to do that.

And what I said is "Youtube is not going to do anything"

 

They can put it in their ToS they will, but they aren't. They do not have the rights to anything on their platform big enough to be worth doing that. Youtube is not going to reach out to LTT and go "hey, do you mind if we sue your 50 or so dimwitted viewers  in the US who are using a video downloader and reposting your content to TPB?"

 

No, that's just stupid and a waste of time to sue someone on behalf of a creator who you don't even have the exclusive rights to. They can't, because they may not realize that LTT has permitted those 50 viewers to upload those videos somewhere else.

 

This is why exclusivity clauses exist. If, say, youtube really wanted xQc, and paid a billion dollars for him to move to youtube, they would likely make him sign an exclusivity agreement that they could shut down his twitch and kick channels AND anyone re-streaming his content, because they need to make sure that nobody is watching him anywhere but youtube.

 

It is not worth Youtube paying a creator a huge sum of money without getting globally exclusive access to them. Even then, why would they go after the viewers? They're not going to recover more than a few hundred dollars from maybe a select few US-based pirates watching the content without paying for premium and not watching the ads.

 

People want to complain about ads till they are blue in the face, but that is the cost of entry. But to argue that it's some massive revenue theft is laughable. It's closer to not paying the bus fare and sneaking in the rear door of the bus. Nobody is going to say anything, and the bus driver doesn't have the time to fight with you to get off the bus. They might radio ahead to the transit police to grab you if they see you, but that's still on you.