YouTube ads during WAN show replay

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, GoStormPlays said:

This is an interesting path you're on. Next stop, pirating games because what're the chances you're going to be arrested for it.

Again ads are NOT covered under the DMCA. Games are. Thats the difference. You dont like my stance? Tough shit. 

 

2 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

If they didn't like it as much as you think, then they wouldn't license their programming for broadcast to you.

OR they put DRM in the ATSC 3.0 spec, which they have done, but as ATSC 3.0 has kinda stalled when it comes to adoption they are in a catch 22. 

[IkeaGnome]

46 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

This is an interesting path you're on. Next stop, pirating games because what're the chances you're going to be arrested for it.

If they didn't like it as much as you think, then they wouldn't license their programming for broadcast to you.

Please cite the law saying you legally have to watch ads. 
Keep in mind, I’m on both sides of the fence here. I’ve got premium, I’ve got Spotify Premium for downloads and I’ve got floatplane. 
 

If I decided to drop that stuff, I’d like to see what law would make me skipping ads illegal. If you’re going to say it is, share the law. 

[GoStormPlays]

56 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Again ads are NOT covered under the DMCA. Games are. Thats the difference. You dont like my stance? Tough shit. 

 

They don't have to be covered by the DMCA to still be taking money from the creator. In both instances, you are skipping out on the thing that gives them the money they rightfully owe for the thing that they created. One is covered under law and one isn't, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one is wrong and one isn't.

14 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

Please cite the law saying you legally have to watch ads. 

I'm not saying there's a law for it. Not everything morally wrong has to be cited by the law. Being a tool in public isn't against the law, but that doesn't make it morally right or even morally good.

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Erioch said:

Didn't Linus call it piracy?

Yes, but Linus uses a lot of words incorrectly.

 

 

6 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

Watching an ad is the cost of using the content. Maintaining the platform isn't free or even cheap.

I can agree with that, but that doesn't make adblocking equal to piracy.

 

 

 

  

4 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

I'm not saying there's a law for it. Not everything morally wrong has to be cited by the law. Being a tool in public isn't against the law, but that doesn't make it morally right or even morally good.

But the word "piracy" has a specific meaning.

Piracy, when talking about computers and software, means copyright infringement, which is regulated by several laws and international trade agreements.

 

There have been some court cases which have debated this such as the lawsuit against Eyeo (the company behind Adblock Plus) and in that case the court found that adblocking was not copyright infringement.

 

 

If we Google "software piracy" pretty much every single link you can find will talk about copyright laws. Because that is what software piracy is. Breaking copyright law.

 

 

You can talk about how you think adblocking isn't "morally good" if you want, but that is a very different argument from claiming it is piracy. When you make a claim that something is piracy, you are making a claim that it breaks a certain type of law.

[Donut417]

7 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

They don't have to be covered by the DMCA to still be taking money from the creator.

Im going to telll you what the older generation has been telling us young pups for years. If the job doesnt pay enough, Find a better one. It's like those people who do Door Dash you get mad about tips. Tips are not required under the law. If you cant make enough money at your job then you find a job that does pay you enough or at least better than what you have. Furthermore, this is Youtube's problem. They are the ones who allow my work around to work. All they have to do is make the damn site members only, but they dont. Not my problem. 

 

At the end of the day it's a moral decision. You can claim that I have no morals. But looking at who runs the country the questionable decisions that go on in DC, I have to say Im probably still fairly morally in the clear considering. 

[GoStormPlays]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I can agree with that, but that doesn't make adblocking equal to piracy.

 

If the cost of the content is watching the ad, then bypassing the ad is the same as pirating a video game. Thus, skipping ads is piracy of YouTube content.

3 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Tips are not required under the law.

Sure, tips are not required by law, but they required by society's standards. 

 

3 hours ago, Donut417 said:

At the end of the day it's a moral decision. You can claim that I have no morals. But looking at who runs the country the questionable decisions that go on in DC, I have to say Im probably still fairly morally in the clear considering. 

Saying "well they do something worse" is a fallacy and isn't a way to condone something. If there's bigger problems going on with people in the government, that doesn't mean you get to do something still morally wrong, even if that thing isn't as morally wrong as the thing the leadership is doing.

 

Plus, if there are problems with the government right now, then why would you wait for them to make a law against skipping YouTube ads? Do the right thing in advance, because in a country where the people are the government, you need to institute doing the right thing.

[LAwLz]

28 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

If the cost of the content is watching the ad, then bypassing the ad is the same as pirating a video game. Thus, skipping ads is piracy of YouTube content.

No, it isn't.

Is bocking ads breaking copyright law? If no, then it is incorrect to call it piracy.

 

You can call it a dick move, immoral, or whatever, but don't call it piracy because that has a specific meaning and the meaning does not fit here.

Downloading a game without paying for it is piracy because it goes against the DMCA (or similar laws depending on where you live). Blocking ads have been tested in court and found to not be against copyright law.

 

You are using words incorrectly.

[GoStormPlays]

42 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, it isn't.

Is bocking ads breaking copyright law? If no, then it is incorrect to call it piracy.

 

You can call it a dick move, immoral, or whatever, but don't call it piracy because that has a specific meaning and the meaning does not fit here.

Downloading a game without paying for it is piracy because it goes against the DMCA (or similar laws depending on where you live). Blocking ads have been tested in court and found to not be against copyright law.

 

You are using words incorrectly.

It doesn’t have to be law to still be wrong. At its core, it’s the same thing as pirating a game, whether a legal court says so or not. Just because it won’t put you in jail doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do that thing.

[LAwLz]

46 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

It doesn’t have to be law to still be wrong. At its core, it’s the same thing as pirating a game, whether a legal court says so or not. Just because it won’t put you in jail doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do that thing.

I don't think you understand the point me and others have made.

Piracy, the word piracy, means that it breaks the law. You are free to call it a thing you shouldn't do, but you shouldn't call it "piracy" because the definition of "piracy" do not fit what adblocking is.

 

I am not objecting to you saying that adblocking is bad, immoral or whatever else you feel about it. I am objecting to you using the specific word "piracy" because adblocking does not fit the definition of piracy.

 

And no, at its core it is not like pirating a game. There are very big differences both legally and morally. Legally they are very different things, and morally I don't have any issues with adblocking.

 

Everyone is free to draw their own moral lines wherever they feel comfortable. For example, I might say you are doing a bad thing by clicking "skip" on ads and that it is a thing you shouldn't do.

I am not sure how Youtube does it these days, but once upon a time creators didn't get paid anything if you clicked on the skip button. In those cases, someone clicking skip did the exact same amount of "damage" to the creator as someone who blocked ads.

If we assume that creators still get paid even if ads are skipped then someone could argue that it is immoral to do so because you are basically taking money from the company who paid for the ad. 

 

If we extend the analogy to TVs or radios then some could argue that it is immoral to change channels when the ads come on. A company paid to have those ads shown/heard, right? So if you switch to a different channel you are harming them. They paid to have you see/hear a commercial, and by switching to a different channel you are causing the ad to not be transmitted to you. Is that also a bad thing you shouldn't do in your eyes?

[GoStormPlays]

32 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

There are very big differences both legally and morally.

Sure, they're different legally, but how are they different morally?

 

32 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Piracy, the word piracy, means that it breaks the law. You are free to call it a thing you shouldn't do, but you shouldn't call it "piracy" because the definition of "piracy" do not fit what adblocking is.

 

I am not objecting to you saying that adblocking is bad, immoral or whatever else you feel about it. I am objecting to you using the specific word "piracy" because adblocking does not fit the definition of piracy.

I see. What word should I use?

 

32 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Everyone is free to draw their own moral lines wherever they feel comfortable. For example, I might say you are doing a bad thing by clicking "skip" on ads and that it is a thing you shouldn't do.

 

YouTube gives you the option to, and so does creators. Something creators and YouTube unanimously don't want you to do is block ads. Plus, a lot of ads nowadays aren't ads you can skip.

 

The ones that you can skip are ones that YouTube specifically gave you the option to skip, but that isn't your choice.

[LAwLz]

15 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

Sure, they're different legally, but how are they different morally?

That is up to every individual to decide, but if you want an example, pirating a game deprives the developers of all the income. In the case of YouTubers a large portion of their income comes from sources other than the built-in ad system. Sponsor spots among others. I would argue that there is a big difference between taking away 100% of someone's income vs taking away ~18% (last time I checked their income breakdown).

 

 

15 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

I see. What word should I use?

I don't know. Maybe just call it a bad or mean thing to do if that's how you feel?

 

 

15 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

YouTube gives you the option to, and so does creators. Something creators and YouTube unanimously don't want you to do is block ads. Plus, a lot of ads nowadays aren't ads you can skip.

 

The ones that you can skip are ones that YouTube specifically gave you the option to skip, but that isn't your choice.

I see your point about creators and YouTube preferring that viewers don't block ads. However, consider that advertisers also don't want viewers to change channels during TV commercials, yet it's generally accepted as a part of watching TV. Both actions, using an ad blocker and changing channels, stem from a viewer’s preference for how they consume content, even though both can affect ad revenues similarly.

 

I believe that people are more okay with things that impact the advertisers negatively than things that negatively impact Youtube creators. My guess is that this is because a lot of people feel like the Youtubers are their friends, so it is the responsibility of the viewers to make sure the creator earns money. 

 

If we are going to talk about what responsibility the viewers have to make sure some company makes money, shouldn't we also be championing the idea that we shouldn't change channels on our TVs when the ads start running? I am sure that if it was possible and the ad companies were in control, they would prevent us from changing the channel. 

[Helly]

Personally, i block ads for my own mental well being. Ads drive me f*cking insane! They're annoying, the actors are annoying, their voices are annoying, everything that happens in them is meant to annoy you. So i've banned all ads from my life for a long time now. I don't watch TV anymore, when i listen to the radio i turn it off or mute it as soon as the ads start.

I use an ad blocker but for those video's that have ads in them that i can't skip i just turn off the audio and go do something else while the ad plays.

 

Sure, here and there i still hear/see ads sometimes, but they only remind me why i f*cking hate them in the first place. I understand they are trying to make money but imho they should do it without annoying the shit out of you. The only ads i actually remember are the ones that entertained me, made me laugh.

 

something else ads did is completely ruin most songs for me because they use them in the most annoying ways, and you see/hear them 100 times a day. I have a bad case of getting songs stuck in my head, so another reason to ban ads from my life as much as possible.

 

So calling ad blocking morally wrong is a f*cking joke and it needs to stop. Creating these annoying f*cking ads is far more morally wrong.

 

sorry about the rant... just adding $0.02