5 ms·

Or you could pay for YouTube Premium to support the creators :)

rchaud 4y ago
Creators have their own e-stores, I've supported those. Your suggestion is like buying a record from Walmart to support the artist, instead of buying it directly at a show.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Your suggestion is like stealing records from Walmart and rationalizing that by saying you send money to the artists.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    It is not my responsibility to make sure a company is profitable. If COSTCO willingly gives me enough free samples to feed my entire family, it is not my responsibility to then buy a bunch of COSTCO products to pay them back. Youtube chooses to give away video content for free. If they can't afford to do that because I don't watch their ads, they have every right to stop giving away their content for free. I am not required to support their current revenue strategy.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      There’s not really the same thing. The samples you speak of is the equivalent of going to YouTube and seeing previews or thumbnails, not watching videos I honestly don’t understand your logic. You could say the same about stealing food, or electronics.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        No you can't. How about another analogy. Many bars pay licensing fees to television providers to show sports and other content to their patrons. When you watch a game in the bar, you usually spend money for drinks, which pays for the bar and pays for the bar owner to pay the television providers. If I walk into that bar, and watch the game, but don't buy anything, I am not stealing anything. Sure, the owner can kick me out, but they can't take me to court or blame me if nobody buys their drinks while watching the game. It's not my responsibility to make sure the bar profits.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        Again your analogy is flawed. YouTube displays ads and you circumvent them in some way and take the product, in this case a video. Similarly you go to Walmart, the equivalent of YouTube.com, find a product, analogous to finding a video, and take it without paying? Analogous to watching the advertisement. Your analogy makes more sense for Google search in that you can search and see results and simply choose to not click ads, whereas on YouTube you cannot choose to not watch some of an ad, without paying. The key part in a metaphor around this is that you must circumvent in your comparison, since that's the main thing being done here. Simply choosing to not do something isn't circumvention unless that's the implicit expectation (e.g. paying for something you took).
        marssaxman 4y ago
        Your analogy fails because digital goods are non-rivalrous. Were I to shoplift a video from Walmart, they would no longer possess the video; my gain would be their loss. Obviously this is not true in the digital domain, so moral reasoning about physical stores is unhelpful. What I receive, when I visit YouTube, is a list of links: invitations to stream certain videos. Google hopes that I will choose to accept all of its offers, since some of the videos are paid advertisements: but it's my computer, and my network connection, and I can do what I wish. Google cannot obligate me to receive any of its videos, any more than I can force Google to supply anything its servers don't want to share; the streaming operation must be mutually agreed. As it happens, I do not care to spend my time or my bandwidth streaming the ads Google offers me, and I have therefore configured my browser, which runs on my computer, which I own, to act in accordance with my preferences. If Google does not like this arrangement, they are free to change it; nobody is forcing them to supply me with video content.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        Again this argument that digital goods are worthless. Google doesn’t hope anything - Google places ads, and people use technology means to get through.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    I disagree with your assertion that blocking ads is equivalent to stealing.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      sure - let's have a debate about it. either way you're depriving the creator of revenue. what's your argument? probably something about the fact that since it can be copied for free then it's not worth anything?
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        Edited to add this: > either way you're depriving the creator of revenue. That may be the case -- but doesn't mean you're stealing. It may mean the creator might want to find a better way of monetizing, though. > probably something about the fact that since it can be copied for free then it's not worth anything? Not at all. The ease of duplication has no relevance to the value of a thing. My argument is simple. It's my machine, and I get to say what bits do and do not get processed. I should also point out that I don't block YouTube ads, personally. I pay for YouTube Premium instead. I like to reimburse the creators. However, at least outside of YouTube, advertising is a scummy, spying business. I don't block ads there, either, but I absolutely do block JS and other means of tracking me. That has the side-effect of blocking ads, but if an ad isn't spying, I'll see it. It's telling how few don't, though.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        so I assume you believe software cannot be stolen, per your definition? piracy is OK, etc?
        JohnFen 4y ago
        No, that's not my stance. Pirated software is software that was obtained through fraudulent means. YouTube is not streaming bits to me because I tricked it to. It's doing so willingly. The analogy I would make is that, once I've obtained a piece of software, there is no ethical issue with me deciding to modify my copy of it, perhaps to remove assets I don't want included. So what is your argument that adblocking is a form of theft?
  - rchaud 4y ago
    I think of it as walking into the store and ignore the person shilling their Walmart rewards card. Some people will stop and chat, others won't. I'm the second category.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      That’s not the same thing at all lol
      - rchaud 4y ago
        The outcome is identical. I am able to navigate to the thing I'm looking for, without needless time-wasting. Like any business, Youtube's free to deny me service if what I'm doing is sufficiently detrimental to their business.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        Again your logic is nonsensical. Going into a cvs and stealing and saying it’s ok because they don’t do more to stop you isn’t justification
        rchaud 4y ago
        For me to have stolen something, there needs to be less of a product in the store between the time I arrived, and the time I left. In this scenario, CVS' inventory stays exactly the same. You are in "you wouldn't download a car" territory, so nothing I say is likely to convince you. These points have been argued since time immemorial, i.e. 2000, Lars Ulrich v Napster. Youtube isn't any different.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        So your opinion is basically that as long as it’s not physical, it’s free to take. Good thing others think differently or software wouldn’t be a viable business.

Creators have their own e-stores, I've supported those. Your suggestion is like buying a record from Walmart to support the artist, instead of buying it directly at a show.

endisneigh 4y ago
Your suggestion is like stealing records from Walmart and rationalizing that by saying you send money to the artists.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  It is not my responsibility to make sure a company is profitable. If COSTCO willingly gives me enough free samples to feed my entire family, it is not my responsibility to then buy a bunch of COSTCO products to pay them back. Youtube chooses to give away video content for free. If they can't afford to do that because I don't watch their ads, they have every right to stop giving away their content for free. I am not required to support their current revenue strategy.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    There’s not really the same thing. The samples you speak of is the equivalent of going to YouTube and seeing previews or thumbnails, not watching videos I honestly don’t understand your logic. You could say the same about stealing food, or electronics.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      No you can't. How about another analogy. Many bars pay licensing fees to television providers to show sports and other content to their patrons. When you watch a game in the bar, you usually spend money for drinks, which pays for the bar and pays for the bar owner to pay the television providers. If I walk into that bar, and watch the game, but don't buy anything, I am not stealing anything. Sure, the owner can kick me out, but they can't take me to court or blame me if nobody buys their drinks while watching the game. It's not my responsibility to make sure the bar profits.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Again your analogy is flawed. YouTube displays ads and you circumvent them in some way and take the product, in this case a video. Similarly you go to Walmart, the equivalent of YouTube.com, find a product, analogous to finding a video, and take it without paying? Analogous to watching the advertisement. Your analogy makes more sense for Google search in that you can search and see results and simply choose to not click ads, whereas on YouTube you cannot choose to not watch some of an ad, without paying. The key part in a metaphor around this is that you must circumvent in your comparison, since that's the main thing being done here. Simply choosing to not do something isn't circumvention unless that's the implicit expectation (e.g. paying for something you took).
        marssaxman 4y ago
        Your analogy fails because digital goods are non-rivalrous. Were I to shoplift a video from Walmart, they would no longer possess the video; my gain would be their loss. Obviously this is not true in the digital domain, so moral reasoning about physical stores is unhelpful. What I receive, when I visit YouTube, is a list of links: invitations to stream certain videos. Google hopes that I will choose to accept all of its offers, since some of the videos are paid advertisements: but it's my computer, and my network connection, and I can do what I wish. Google cannot obligate me to receive any of its videos, any more than I can force Google to supply anything its servers don't want to share; the streaming operation must be mutually agreed. As it happens, I do not care to spend my time or my bandwidth streaming the ads Google offers me, and I have therefore configured my browser, which runs on my computer, which I own, to act in accordance with my preferences. If Google does not like this arrangement, they are free to change it; nobody is forcing them to supply me with video content.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        Again this argument that digital goods are worthless. Google doesn’t hope anything - Google places ads, and people use technology means to get through.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I disagree with your assertion that blocking ads is equivalent to stealing.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    sure - let's have a debate about it. either way you're depriving the creator of revenue. what's your argument? probably something about the fact that since it can be copied for free then it's not worth anything?
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      Edited to add this: > either way you're depriving the creator of revenue. That may be the case -- but doesn't mean you're stealing. It may mean the creator might want to find a better way of monetizing, though. > probably something about the fact that since it can be copied for free then it's not worth anything? Not at all. The ease of duplication has no relevance to the value of a thing. My argument is simple. It's my machine, and I get to say what bits do and do not get processed. I should also point out that I don't block YouTube ads, personally. I pay for YouTube Premium instead. I like to reimburse the creators. However, at least outside of YouTube, advertising is a scummy, spying business. I don't block ads there, either, but I absolutely do block JS and other means of tracking me. That has the side-effect of blocking ads, but if an ad isn't spying, I'll see it. It's telling how few don't, though.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        so I assume you believe software cannot be stolen, per your definition? piracy is OK, etc?
        JohnFen 4y ago
        No, that's not my stance. Pirated software is software that was obtained through fraudulent means. YouTube is not streaming bits to me because I tricked it to. It's doing so willingly. The analogy I would make is that, once I've obtained a piece of software, there is no ethical issue with me deciding to modify my copy of it, perhaps to remove assets I don't want included. So what is your argument that adblocking is a form of theft?
- rchaud 4y ago
  I think of it as walking into the store and ignore the person shilling their Walmart rewards card. Some people will stop and chat, others won't. I'm the second category.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    That’s not the same thing at all lol
    - rchaud 4y ago
      The outcome is identical. I am able to navigate to the thing I'm looking for, without needless time-wasting. Like any business, Youtube's free to deny me service if what I'm doing is sufficiently detrimental to their business.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Again your logic is nonsensical. Going into a cvs and stealing and saying it’s ok because they don’t do more to stop you isn’t justification
        rchaud 4y ago
        For me to have stolen something, there needs to be less of a product in the store between the time I arrived, and the time I left. In this scenario, CVS' inventory stays exactly the same. You are in "you wouldn't download a car" territory, so nothing I say is likely to convince you. These points have been argued since time immemorial, i.e. 2000, Lars Ulrich v Napster. Youtube isn't any different.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        So your opinion is basically that as long as it’s not physical, it’s free to take. Good thing others think differently or software wouldn’t be a viable business.