• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    99·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • kalleboo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      107·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        34·
        4 months 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:

        …

        1. 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.

    • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzEnglish
      108·
      4 months ago

      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…

    • 0xD@infosec.pubEnglish
      99·
      4 months ago

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

      • _cnt0@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        65·
        4 months ago

        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.

          • _cnt0@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            24·
            4 months ago

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

            • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzEnglish
              31·
              4 months 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.

        • 0xD@infosec.pubEnglish
          53·
          4 months 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.