5 ms·

It is stealing. You're stealing the bandwidth from the company, and you're stealing the commission for video play from the content creator.

by pb7 3y ago

vehemenz 3y ago
Your understanding of theft is so broad that viewing parties would be theft too.
- pb7 3y ago
  Please enlighten me, what payment do you provide in exchange for the services you are using? You are circumnavigating the payment system in place and providing nothing in return. That's theft.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    No, it's legal. That makes it not theft. In fact Google and all other big tech themselves do similar things too. They funnel all their proceeds through tax havens so they avoid paying corporate tax in the countries they turn over in. Yet it's fully legal, because tax avoidance is not evasion and loopholes are loopholes. And thus they're not stealing from the countries they're depriving of their tax revenue. When they do it it's totally fine. When I avoid paying it's not? You're confusing your moral sense with the law. Sure it's unethical, depending on your views immoral but it's not illegal.
    - pb7 3y ago
      Unprosecuted theft is still theft. You are breaking the terms of service, it's just not practical or cost effective to go after every person that does so because each individual damages are low. I'm glad you agree it's unethical though. Keep that in mind when you see companies do unethical things because they think just like you. Everyone wants something for nothing. In any case, this is why they're testing blocking ad-blockers. It's cost effective.
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        Theft is a criminal law term. So is the act of prosecution. Terms of Service are a civil law thing. IANAL but this still makes it not theft in my view, but breach of contract. It's questionable how enforceable a ToS is though that is only clicked with a button and in some cases (eg NewPipe) not shown at all. But either way it's civil law not criminal. YouTube is totally within their rights to block adblocking viewers though. Which is a fine solution for this problem IMO. No need to get the law involved. More and more sites are doing this now though on most of them it's easily bypassed (on the site I use the most I can just turn off JavaScript :) )
        pb7 3y ago
        Theft is both criminal and civil. If you steal something from me, I can sue you in civil court to recoup the cost, and if it's a significant enough something, then I can also try to file a police report and get the DA to press charges against you. You're right, "prosecution" refers to criminal court, but you know what I meant.
  - vehemenz 3y ago
    Everyone uses an adblocker. It's not really circumvention if everyone is doing it. You know it, I know it, Google knows it. It's how they've been able to keep their YouTube monopoly intact. If everyone had ads from day one, YouTube would be another failed Google venture. The bait-and-switch is built on the idea that they can serve ads to people that will tolerate them and enjoy the network effects of having tech-literate people on board too. YouTube is living counterfactually. I can live counterfactually, too. If YouTube were never free, then I would have never used it. They're trying to have it both ways, and so am I.
    - pb7 3y ago
      No, not everyone uses an adblocker, otherwise services like YouTube wouldn't exist. You are trying really hard to absolve yourself of culpability but nothing you're saying makes any sense.
      - vehemenz 3y ago
        Do you mean legally or morally? Because adblocking is legal and moral realism is not a tenable position.
  - chownie 3y ago
    It's not theft for the simple reason that the video producer isn't deprived of anything. If I rewatch the same video a million times can I bankrupt that creator? If I sit five other people in the room with me while I watch does the creator lose something in proportion to the the number of "thieves" present? Nope, turns out it doesn't actually share that much in common with theft, it's a simple EULA breach at most. I'm sure it feels righteous to point the finger and yell thief but it's such a sloppy argument. I'm not sure why anyone's still dying on this hill, people were unsuccessfully arguing this on IRC in 2004 with regards to DMCA, it's still not convincing decades down the line.
    - pb7 3y ago
      If everyone blocked ads, do you think content creators would continue making videos? If I ski at a resort without a ticket, did the resort lose money? If I jump over a turnstile to get on the subway, did the city lose money? If I sneak into a music festival, did the artist lose money? They're all theft of services.
      - danShumway 3y ago
        That rule falls apart as soon as you start extrapolating out any further. If everyone stops riding the subway, the city will lose the same amount of money and the subway will be underfunded. If everyone stops skiing and instead decides to build snowpeople in their back yard, the resort will go out of business. If no one shows up for the music festival, the artist will make zero dollars. So is that theft? Generally most people would say no. None of those things are theft of service. Deprivation of revenue on its own is not theft. That's not to say there's no moral implications behind watching public content without paying for it -- there is a moral implication -- but "morally problematic" is not the same as "theft". And a definition of theft that boils down to "loss of potential revenue" is not a definition that stands up to any serious scrutiny.
        pb7 3y ago
        >If everyone stops riding the subway, the city will lose the same amount of money and the subway will be underfunded. If everyone stops skiing and instead decides to build snowpeople in their back yard, the resort will go out of business. If no one shows up for the music festival, the artist will make zero dollars. So there will be no more subway, no more ski resort, no more music, and in this case, no more YouTube. Is that what you want? It's theft because you're not paying your fair share of the usage of the service. If the system remains in balance, you're either stealing from all other users (because they have to pay more for the recipients to earn the same amount), or stealing from YouTube/content creators (because they make less per view but the costs are higher).
Danjoe4 3y ago
It is not stealing. I am the ultimate arbiter of what data I accept to be downloaded and viewed on my computer. YouTube offers, free of charge, many pieces of data. I accept the ones I want and politely decline the ones I don't want.

It is stealing. You're stealing the bandwidth from the company, and you're stealing the commission for video play from the content creator.

by pb7 3y ago

It is stealing. You're stealing the bandwidth from the company, and you're stealing the commission for video play from the content creator.

vehemenz 3y ago

Your understanding of theft is so broad that viewing parties would be theft too.

pb7 3y ago
Please enlighten me, what payment do you provide in exchange for the services you are using? You are circumnavigating the payment system in place and providing nothing in return. That's theft.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  No, it's legal. That makes it not theft. In fact Google and all other big tech themselves do similar things too. They funnel all their proceeds through tax havens so they avoid paying corporate tax in the countries they turn over in. Yet it's fully legal, because tax avoidance is not evasion and loopholes are loopholes. And thus they're not stealing from the countries they're depriving of their tax revenue. When they do it it's totally fine. When I avoid paying it's not? You're confusing your moral sense with the law. Sure it's unethical, depending on your views immoral but it's not illegal.
  - pb7 3y ago
    Unprosecuted theft is still theft. You are breaking the terms of service, it's just not practical or cost effective to go after every person that does so because each individual damages are low. I'm glad you agree it's unethical though. Keep that in mind when you see companies do unethical things because they think just like you. Everyone wants something for nothing. In any case, this is why they're testing blocking ad-blockers. It's cost effective.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Theft is a criminal law term. So is the act of prosecution. Terms of Service are a civil law thing. IANAL but this still makes it not theft in my view, but breach of contract. It's questionable how enforceable a ToS is though that is only clicked with a button and in some cases (eg NewPipe) not shown at all. But either way it's civil law not criminal. YouTube is totally within their rights to block adblocking viewers though. Which is a fine solution for this problem IMO. No need to get the law involved. More and more sites are doing this now though on most of them it's easily bypassed (on the site I use the most I can just turn off JavaScript :) )
      - pb7 3y ago
        Theft is both criminal and civil. If you steal something from me, I can sue you in civil court to recoup the cost, and if it's a significant enough something, then I can also try to file a police report and get the DA to press charges against you. You're right, "prosecution" refers to criminal court, but you know what I meant.
- vehemenz 3y ago
  Everyone uses an adblocker. It's not really circumvention if everyone is doing it. You know it, I know it, Google knows it. It's how they've been able to keep their YouTube monopoly intact. If everyone had ads from day one, YouTube would be another failed Google venture. The bait-and-switch is built on the idea that they can serve ads to people that will tolerate them and enjoy the network effects of having tech-literate people on board too. YouTube is living counterfactually. I can live counterfactually, too. If YouTube were never free, then I would have never used it. They're trying to have it both ways, and so am I.
  - pb7 3y ago
    No, not everyone uses an adblocker, otherwise services like YouTube wouldn't exist. You are trying really hard to absolve yourself of culpability but nothing you're saying makes any sense.
    - vehemenz 3y ago
      Do you mean legally or morally? Because adblocking is legal and moral realism is not a tenable position.
- chownie 3y ago
  It's not theft for the simple reason that the video producer isn't deprived of anything. If I rewatch the same video a million times can I bankrupt that creator? If I sit five other people in the room with me while I watch does the creator lose something in proportion to the the number of "thieves" present? Nope, turns out it doesn't actually share that much in common with theft, it's a simple EULA breach at most. I'm sure it feels righteous to point the finger and yell thief but it's such a sloppy argument. I'm not sure why anyone's still dying on this hill, people were unsuccessfully arguing this on IRC in 2004 with regards to DMCA, it's still not convincing decades down the line.
  - pb7 3y ago
    If everyone blocked ads, do you think content creators would continue making videos? If I ski at a resort without a ticket, did the resort lose money? If I jump over a turnstile to get on the subway, did the city lose money? If I sneak into a music festival, did the artist lose money? They're all theft of services.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      That rule falls apart as soon as you start extrapolating out any further. If everyone stops riding the subway, the city will lose the same amount of money and the subway will be underfunded. If everyone stops skiing and instead decides to build snowpeople in their back yard, the resort will go out of business. If no one shows up for the music festival, the artist will make zero dollars. So is that theft? Generally most people would say no. None of those things are theft of service. Deprivation of revenue on its own is not theft. That's not to say there's no moral implications behind watching public content without paying for it -- there is a moral implication -- but "morally problematic" is not the same as "theft". And a definition of theft that boils down to "loss of potential revenue" is not a definition that stands up to any serious scrutiny.
      - pb7 3y ago
        >If everyone stops riding the subway, the city will lose the same amount of money and the subway will be underfunded. If everyone stops skiing and instead decides to build snowpeople in their back yard, the resort will go out of business. If no one shows up for the music festival, the artist will make zero dollars. So there will be no more subway, no more ski resort, no more music, and in this case, no more YouTube. Is that what you want? It's theft because you're not paying your fair share of the usage of the service. If the system remains in balance, you're either stealing from all other users (because they have to pay more for the recipients to earn the same amount), or stealing from YouTube/content creators (because they make less per view but the costs are higher).

Danjoe4 3y ago

It is not stealing. I am the ultimate arbiter of what data I accept to be downloaded and viewed on my computer. YouTube offers, free of charge, many pieces of data. I accept the ones I want and politely decline the ones I don't want.