3 ms·

I was once a security engineer at Google. So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. Got into an argument about that with my manager once

I was once a security engineer at Google. So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. Got into an argument about that with my manager once lol.

ffsm8 3y ago
> So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. If copyright infringement is considered theft, then AdBlock would've to be considered akin to theft too. They're inherently the same thing. You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner. From my perspective, neither can be considered theft. Which is why I use AdBlock, too. But if either is theft, then the other would've to be too. You could very well argue that AdBlock is technically worse then copyright infringement, because you're still using the bandwidth of the provider. With "piracy" you're sharing the content through other avenues.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner. Just nitpicking here, but that does not make adblocking and copyright infringement similar. Copyright is not inherently about revenue. It's about who has legal control over the distribution of the work.
  - ffsm8 3y ago
    Isn't that a difference without a distinction? All copyright infringement lawsuits are centered around the loss of revenue the infringement caused.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Not at all. The distinction is very real. Many copyright infringement lawsuits are not about the money, but are about the use of copyrighted material in a way, or by an entity, that the copyright holder doesn't approve of. They aren't upset that they weren't getting paid, they're upset at their work being used in a way they oppose. It's also true that (outside of criminal copyright infringement) the only remedy that a court can offer is monetary. But that fact doesn't mean that money was the real issue at hand.
      - foobarbaz321 3y ago
        And to provide a concrete example: Rage Against The Machine demanded that Rush Limbaugh stop using their music on air. Because those performances were not licensed, they qualified as an illegal performance of the work. But RATM certainly didn't issue that cease and desist because they were concerned about lost revenue.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- foobarbaz321 3y ago
  That's not how copyright works. Copyright is violated when a work is distributed or reproduced (or performed or... there's a few categories). If I take a website, duplicate it, then publish it myself, I am engaging in copyright infringement. If another person comes along and views my website, they are not engaging in an illegal act. It's the act of distribution that is infringing, not the act of receiving. In your example, if a publisher creates a website and distributes their content, that publisher is exercising their rights to distribute that work. But there's no strings attached, there. Unless I sign some sort of binding contract that stipulates that I must view ads in order to receive the content, there is nothing in copyright law that says I'm in any way stealing or breaking the law by blocking those ads. And if such a contract was in place (say, a click-through ToS... though whether those are enforceable is a question), my blocking those ads would be a contractual violation but it would not be "theft" in any meaningful sense, nor would it violate copyright law (it would be a violation of that specific contract). So no, they are not "inherently the same thing". A publisher publishes their content. As a receiver of that content, I can do whatever I wish with it, including censoring/redacting the portions I don't want to view. Similarly, if I bought a newspaper and cut out all the ads before I read it, no reasonable person would consider that "theft".
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Courts disagree with you there.
rokkitmensch 3y ago
So is the excess consumption of my CPU cycles with asinine JS.
blitzar 3y ago
Then google is stealing my time, by showing me ads - I am very happy to bill them at my going hourly rate.

I was once a security engineer at Google. So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. Got into an argument about that with my manager once lol.

ffsm8 3y ago

> So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. If copyright infringement is considered theft, then AdBlock would've to be considered akin to theft too. They're inherently the same thing. You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner. From my perspective, neither can be considered theft. Which is why I use AdBlock, too. But if either is theft, then the other would've to be too. You could very well argue that AdBlock is technically worse then copyright infringement, because you're still using the bandwidth of the provider. With "piracy" you're sharing the content through other avenues.

JohnFen 3y ago
> You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner. Just nitpicking here, but that does not make adblocking and copyright infringement similar. Copyright is not inherently about revenue. It's about who has legal control over the distribution of the work.
- ffsm8 3y ago
  Isn't that a difference without a distinction? All copyright infringement lawsuits are centered around the loss of revenue the infringement caused.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Not at all. The distinction is very real. Many copyright infringement lawsuits are not about the money, but are about the use of copyrighted material in a way, or by an entity, that the copyright holder doesn't approve of. They aren't upset that they weren't getting paid, they're upset at their work being used in a way they oppose. It's also true that (outside of criminal copyright infringement) the only remedy that a court can offer is monetary. But that fact doesn't mean that money was the real issue at hand.
    - foobarbaz321 3y ago
      And to provide a concrete example: Rage Against The Machine demanded that Rush Limbaugh stop using their music on air. Because those performances were not licensed, they qualified as an illegal performance of the work. But RATM certainly didn't issue that cease and desist because they were concerned about lost revenue.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
foobarbaz321 3y ago
That's not how copyright works. Copyright is violated when a work is distributed or reproduced (or performed or... there's a few categories). If I take a website, duplicate it, then publish it myself, I am engaging in copyright infringement. If another person comes along and views my website, they are not engaging in an illegal act. It's the act of distribution that is infringing, not the act of receiving. In your example, if a publisher creates a website and distributes their content, that publisher is exercising their rights to distribute that work. But there's no strings attached, there. Unless I sign some sort of binding contract that stipulates that I must view ads in order to receive the content, there is nothing in copyright law that says I'm in any way stealing or breaking the law by blocking those ads. And if such a contract was in place (say, a click-through ToS... though whether those are enforceable is a question), my blocking those ads would be a contractual violation but it would not be "theft" in any meaningful sense, nor would it violate copyright law (it would be a violation of that specific contract). So no, they are not "inherently the same thing". A publisher publishes their content. As a receiver of that content, I can do whatever I wish with it, including censoring/redacting the portions I don't want to view. Similarly, if I bought a newspaper and cut out all the ads before I read it, no reasonable person would consider that "theft".
aaomidi 3y ago
Courts disagree with you there.

rokkitmensch 3y ago

So is the excess consumption of my CPU cycles with asinine JS.

blitzar 3y ago

Then google is stealing my time, by showing me ads - I am very happy to bill them at my going hourly rate.