3 ms·

There is an agreement in the "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots" sense. I.e., by connecting to YouTube Goo

There is an agreement in the "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots" sense. I.e., by connecting to YouTube Google's lawyers feel you implicitly agreed to do so under Google's terms only... and Google can hire better lawyers than you can.

idle_zealot 3y ago
> Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots" That's not actually the contract though. You're not breaking contract if you get up to use the bathroom during an ad break, with TV or YouTube.
- bitwize 3y ago
  The originator of the quote, Warner exec Jamie Kellner, said that there was some allowance for going to the bathroom... but that routinely skipping ads, as the brand-new TiVo DVR could do, constituted theft of programming. Honestly, he wasn't wrong: if content is provided on an ad-supported basis, there's a give and take. The content was provided with the understanding that the advertisers who paid the network in lieu of the viewer would have the viewer's attention during ad breaks. If the viewer should screen out the advertisements, they are getting the benefits of programming while depriving the network of the benefits it hoped to realize by providing the content. This is morally equivalent to stealing. Everybody seems to understand this except for tech nerds, who for literally half a century have been creatively interpreting IP law and its philosophical underpinning in their favor. I expect some browser fingerprinting and remote attestation tech to be deployed by Google in order to catch content thieves, and some scathing DMCA lawsuits to result in the wake of the inevitable attempts to circumvent said tech.
  - lambdaxyzw 3y ago
    If it's not possible to ethically deliver content on an ad-supported basis, then maybe we shouldn't allow it to exist, instead of excusing immoral thinks because "that's the only way to do it". >If the viewer should screen out the advertisements, they are getting the benefits of programming while depriving the network of the benefits it hoped to realize by providing the content. I find this idea disgusting. There are many kinds of contracts we don't allow - for example you can't sell yourself into slavery, even if you want to. Similarly I think that the "contract" you describe should not be allowed to exist, even assuming it's legally binding right now (and I doubt it). >Everybody seems to understand this except for tech nerds In my experience it's the other way around - everybody disagrees, except a tiny minority of people who benefit from the ad-supported monopoles.
simtel20 3y ago
That would be a uniquely stupid interpretation of the law to try to set as a precedent but a company that blindly connects to everything on the Internet constantly. If making an http connection to a server and receiving content constituted acceptance of a license, Google would be the biggest and dumbest ATM ever

idle_zealot 3y ago

> Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots" That's not actually the contract though. You're not breaking contract if you get up to use the bathroom during an ad break, with TV or YouTube.

bitwize 3y ago
The originator of the quote, Warner exec Jamie Kellner, said that there was some allowance for going to the bathroom... but that routinely skipping ads, as the brand-new TiVo DVR could do, constituted theft of programming. Honestly, he wasn't wrong: if content is provided on an ad-supported basis, there's a give and take. The content was provided with the understanding that the advertisers who paid the network in lieu of the viewer would have the viewer's attention during ad breaks. If the viewer should screen out the advertisements, they are getting the benefits of programming while depriving the network of the benefits it hoped to realize by providing the content. This is morally equivalent to stealing. Everybody seems to understand this except for tech nerds, who for literally half a century have been creatively interpreting IP law and its philosophical underpinning in their favor. I expect some browser fingerprinting and remote attestation tech to be deployed by Google in order to catch content thieves, and some scathing DMCA lawsuits to result in the wake of the inevitable attempts to circumvent said tech.
- lambdaxyzw 3y ago
  If it's not possible to ethically deliver content on an ad-supported basis, then maybe we shouldn't allow it to exist, instead of excusing immoral thinks because "that's the only way to do it". >If the viewer should screen out the advertisements, they are getting the benefits of programming while depriving the network of the benefits it hoped to realize by providing the content. I find this idea disgusting. There are many kinds of contracts we don't allow - for example you can't sell yourself into slavery, even if you want to. Similarly I think that the "contract" you describe should not be allowed to exist, even assuming it's legally binding right now (and I doubt it). >Everybody seems to understand this except for tech nerds In my experience it's the other way around - everybody disagrees, except a tiny minority of people who benefit from the ad-supported monopoles.

simtel20 3y ago

That would be a uniquely stupid interpretation of the law to try to set as a precedent but a company that blindly connects to everything on the Internet constantly. If making an http connection to a server and receiving content constituted acceptance of a license, Google would be the biggest and dumbest ATM ever