this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2022
4 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43856 readers
1784 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I want to hear your thoughts

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Sal@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I don't.

The argument for adblockers being a form of piracy is that there is an implicit contract. The content creator gives us the permission to watch the content with the implied requirement that we watch the ad that comes with it. So, we are paying for the content with our time and attention when watching the ad. By using an adblocker, we refuse to pay this price, violating the terms of the implied contract, thereby forgoing the permission to watch it. In this argument, the definition of piracy used is that of using (by watching) a work protected by copyright without permission.

I don't agree that there is an implied contract for watching an ad any more than there is an implied contract for watching the full video. Not watching a full video impacts the statistics of the creator in a negative way, so there is an implied contract that if you begin watching the video you will watch it all. By this logic, it is also a form of piracy to stop watching. There are many things that the creator or YouTube might like you to do, but that does not spawn an implied contract. If they want a contract, they will have to add it to YouTube's ToS. Then it might be piracy by some of the looser definitions.

[โ€“] olive@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This comment sums up my feelings really well. In general, ad blocking in no way constitutes piracy because most piracy laws focus on the redistribution of pirated content and not the consumption. It's why piracy cases are so difficult to persecute.

[โ€“] toneverends@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Perhaps at worst it's like ~~sneaking~~ walking in to a movie theatre without paying โ€” one without attendants checking your tickets.

And the tickets are free coupons you cut out of your junk mail. No one cares, because the film creator only gets 1ยข per coupon anyway.

You'd throw a few dollars in an honesty box on the way out, but either they couldn't be bothered setting one up or the theatre wouldn't let them put one there.

I've never heard the above situation referred to as piracy.