this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024

1342 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

technology@lemmy.world

88,015 readers

15,573 active

3,214 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

moderators

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

Linus Tech Tips uploaded a video showing how to block ads on Youtube. Which was removed by Youtube for community guidelines violations. (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by hal_5700X@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

424 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://files.catbox.moe/a6111d.png / https://nitter.poast.org/LinusTech/status/1825956050685800834

If you go the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjHMzGl-VY. You will see it's gone. So Youtube being Youtube.

Here's a Odysee mirror of the video, https://odysee.com/@jopec:7/linus-tech-tips-degoogle-your-life-part-2-adfree-youtube:0.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 8 points 2 years ago (41 children)

...So, you skip the ads using an external program, which prevents the youtube channel you're watching from getting their money.

That's the part that makes it piracy. Of course you have the right to do this, I have no ethical problem with it, i'm doing it now, but you have to understand that when you're doing this you're preventing the youtube channels you're watching from getting paid, you're taking their content without paying them what they asked for in return.

If the youtube channel disables the ads themselves, that's one thing, but you not watching those ads is not what the youtube channels want... because that's how they get paid. Getting free content without paying the content maker is... piracy.

parent

hideshow 41 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (28 children)

There's no external program, it's just an extension on my browser, which uses APIs within the browser to instruct it which content to load and which not to load. I tell it to block all kinds of things, from malware to large media elements to ads. YouTube doesn't get to decide what content it displays in my browser, I do, because it's my computer.

Yes, I'm preventing channels from getting ad-revenue, but that doesn't make it piracy. What we call "piracy" is more correctly called "copyright infringement." I'm not violating anyone's copyright, the video is freely available to load and watch, I'm just choosing to not load and watch the optional extras that get shipped along with the video. I'm violating YouTube's TOS, but that doesn't mean I'm violating copyright in any way, and I don't even need to login to YouTube to do this either, so it's not like I formally agreed to anything here.

What the channels want isn't my concern. If they want to enforce payment, LTT can post the videos to floatplane exclusively, or join up with Nebula.

Getting free content without paying the content maker is… piracy.

That's absolutely not true. Piracy is copyright infringement, and I'm not infringing anyone's copyright here.

Here are examples of things that would be piracy/copyright infringement:

downloading the video and reposting it as my own
downloading the video and uploading it to another site
downloading the video and sending it to someone else

Each of those violates copyright because I'm sharing the video with people I am not authorized to share it with. Just watching the content and refusing to load the ads doesn't violate anyone's copyright, it just violates YouTube's TOS, which, AFAIK, isn't legally binding in any way. They can choose to block me from the platform, but not loading optional extras doesn't violate any copyright.

parent

hideshow 28 child comments

[–] kalleboo@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

Your copyright license to download the video content from YouTube is granted to you by the YouTube Terms of Service. By not agreeing to them, you do not get a license to watch the content.

Copyright law may be dumb and over-reaching but that doesn't mean you get to redefine it to just avoid an icky word.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago

If that was true, I would have to agree to YouTube's TOS to watch videos. That's not required, so there's no legally binding agreement between me and YouTube since I haven't actually signed or accepted anything. My understanding is, I'm not bound to something that's hidden in a link somewhere and never presented to me.

But even if I were legally bound to the TOS, nothing in the TOS says copyright is granted on the condition that I watch ads. This is the closest that I could see:

The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to:

...

circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;

I don't think blocking ads counts as "disable... any part of the Service," it's just blocking certain web requests. It's close I guess, but it seems they're more worried about "hacks" on the service to get access to things you're not supposed to. For example, accessing adult content w/o making an account would probably count as a violation under this TOS.

parent

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Honestly you’re just showing your complete lack of knowledge on the topic. Using your logic, downloading a pirated movie and watching it myself, then immediately deleting it, is not copyright infringement.

Despite the fact that it literally is.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] _cnt0@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Not according to German, French, and I suspect most of other european countries laws. Only torrenting copyright-protected content is against the law because you're uploading the content (distributing) while downloading.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago

I can torrent without seeding btw

parent

[+] tabular@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago

That… isn’t at all what is being talked about here.

parent

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* (14 children)

There’s no external program, it’s just an extension on my browser

That's... external software. But even if it wasn't, it's still circumventing the youtube terms of service with software.

You're breaking the terms of service of youtube by doing this... that makes it piracy...

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (13 children)

No, breaking TOS doesn't make it piracy, those are two completely separate concepts.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (12 children)

The part where the content creator doesn't get paid and is supposed to according to the rules of the platform is the part where it's piracy.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (11 children)

It's really not. Piracy is copyright violation, and an ad blocker doesn't violate copyright, it just violates the platform's TOS.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (10 children)

Your definition of piracy is not correct

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (9 children)

How so? This is straight from the dictionary:

3
a: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

unauthorized - I'm not hacking around any YouTube authentication, nor did I agree to any additional terms of service
infringement of copyright - again, I'm not sharing it, reposting it, etc; I'm just accessing it as normal
illicit - I'm not breaking any laws

So which part is incorrect?

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (8 children)

You continue defining yet more terms to avoid saying another. You do you, but that's not how the world works

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago

Okay the dictionary is wrong, do you have a better dictionary?

parent

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (6 children)

What am I avoiding? You said my definition of piracy was incorrect. So I provided a commonly used dictionary definition of piracy to show my point.

If you have another definition that is widely used, I'm happy to discuss it. But something isn't piracy just because someone isn't getting paid when they expect to be paid, it's only piracy if you actually meet the definition of piracy.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

You say you did, but you lie.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Where's the lie? I provided the definition, and explained how what I said relates to it. If you disagree, point it out.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

The part where your text wasn't from a cited agreed upon source, but your own ass. God damn give it a rest and take your ADHD meds ffs.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

You mentioned my definition, so I linked a commonly used dictionary definition. Here it is again in case you missed it:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy

I even copy/pasted the relevant part of the definition, ignoring the high seas definition. I don't know what more you expect. If you have an issue with the source I cited, cite your own. If you have an issue with my interpretation of that definition, articulate it.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Are you daft? You chose one fourth of the definition, dismissing the parts that made you sound like a retard. Im sick and tired of having to engange with autistic pricks like yourself. Fucking take a hint.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago*

Ok, here's the rest:

1: an act of robbery on the high seas
also : an act resembling such robbery

2: robbery on the high seas

3
a: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

Definitions 1 & 2 absolutely do not apply here, so I initially only copied the third, because it's the only thing that could apply.

And here's the legal definition (I usually don't copy this because people tend to use the colloquial definition):

1: an act of robbery especially on the high seas
specifically : an illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends by crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state see also air piracy

2
a: the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of another's production (as a film) especially in infringement of a copyright software piracy
b: the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) especially to avoid paying fees for use
the statute's purpose is to proscribe the piracy of programming signals—
United States v. Harrell, 983 F.2d 36 (1993)

3: the crime of committing piracy

Again, 1 and 3 aren't relevant. 2a also doesn't apply because there's no copying or distribution.

So we're left with 2b. To decide whether it applies would require deciding whether TOS applies merely when accessing a website. I argue it doesn't, and it would require some form of pop-up or something that the user would agree to before using the service to apply. This is typically done when creating an account, but I use YouTube without an acocunt, and YouTube never prompts me to agree to any form of TOS. So the layperson's understanding here is that the content is fine to access over their app using the tools available in their app, and that any extensions in my browser should be fine since there's no reason to suspect that they wouldn't be (again, no TOS or measures on the website to prevent or discourage their use).

So the strongest argument is the legal definition 2b. There, that's the type of rebuttal I was expecting you to make, and I went ahead and did that for you, as well as providing my own rebuttal to that argument. I could cite a bunch of prior art as well (e.g. DVRs, which were totally legal when they were common), but I'm guessing you're not interested in having that discussion given your comments.

And no, I'm not autistic. I just prefer to have constructive discussions, and I'm not afraid of putting in some work to have them. It seems you are here for a different reason.

TL;DR - According to the common definition of piracy, blocking ads doesn't apply. According to the legal definition, blocking ads could apply, but that depends on whether the TOS applies and is legally enforceable.

parent

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

You're really spending a lot of energy calling piracy not piracy.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] _cnt0@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Would you call it piracy to yank out the ad insert from a free newspaper and throw it into the trash without looking at it? Because that's the exact analog from the non-digital world. Just because the mode of payment changes with the technical abilities of the medium doesn't change that.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No because the content creator got paid for the ad.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] _cnt0@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Just because the mode of payment changes with the technical abilities of the medium doesn't change that.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 2 years ago

Of course it does, the part where the content creator doesn't get paid and is supposed to according to the rules of the platform is the part where it's piracy.

parent

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 2 points 2 years ago

If you show me how that's physically possible I will concede your point, but until then: No, that's not nearly the same. You can't just selectively block physical ads.

While the comparison may make sense when not thinking it through, print is a completely different medium than digital where comparisons only make limited sense. In this one they don't at all.

Physical media does not track views (directly) or click through numbers, for example.

parent

[–] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

It's like a free booth that offers products and says donations welcome. It legally is not stealing if you take a free product and don't give a donation. The enrichment of the creator legally has nothing to do with whether skipping ads is piracy. The creator has the option to stop offering their content for free in the future if they don't like the money they're getting from the amount of people watching the ads.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

...except that's violating youtubes terms of service, and skipping paying the content creators.

Which makes it for all intents and purposes piracy.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

A restaurant has a sign that says "no shirt no shoes no service". I walk in barefoot and order a burger. They serve me the burger. They had the right to deny me but they served me anyway. The responsibly to enforce their own terms of service is on them. Similarly youtube has the right to deny service to people blocking ads and sometimes does. That does not make ad blocking piracy for all intents and purposes. The onus to enforce their own terms of service is on them. And it would be very easy for them to take more drastic measures but they don't.

I get that you're trying to make an argument that morally it can feel like piracy, but it's just not actually piracy. No copyright was violated. Youtube's TOS doesn't change that.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 point 2 years ago

It's actually not easy for them to take more drastic measures, and they're actively working on enforcing it.

The part where the content creator doesn't get paid and is supposed to according to the rules of the platform that you're violating is the part where it's piracy.

parent

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

I understand your reasoning for calling ad-blocking for piracy, but I'm not sure I agree, or else we have to split "piracy" into degrees.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

So what if it has to be split into degrees? The world is a complex place and wishing it was simple doesn't make it so.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[+] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

[removed by mod]

parent

[–] tabular@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

By describing what you mean, instead of a word which often leads to discussions on word definitions, you can avoid the latter.

I found saying "homophobia" lead to talk about "I don't fear them" (phobia) rather than discussion on mistreatment. So instead I would say "aversion to homosexuality".

parent

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago

2pt... Had an important point: piracy = copyright infringement.

Blocking ads is a ToS violation, not piracy.

parent

[–] tabular@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Request I watch an ad but give me content either way means I can decline the ad. Demand I watch ad and withhold until I do, then I have to watch the ad (or seek another distributor). They asked for a donation, not payment.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

If they could they would do that, they just can't stop you.

They're trying desperately these days, it's just a hard problem.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Paywalling content would easily make this a transaction, but they choose to make this optional.

If Google didn't have such influence over web browser specifications maybe they would give up on adverts - while users are the ones in control of their computers then it will never be up to YouTube what is played on our machines.

parent