• @2pt_perversion
    link
    English
    110 days ago

    It’s like a free booth that offers products and says donations welcome. It legally is not stealing if you take a free product and don’t give a donation. The enrichment of the creator legally has nothing to do with whether skipping ads is piracy. The creator has the option to stop offering their content for free in the future if they don’t like the money they’re getting from the amount of people watching the ads.

    • Communist
      link
      fedilink
      English
      210 days ago

      …except that’s violating youtubes terms of service, and skipping paying the content creators.

      Which makes it for all intents and purposes piracy.

      • @2pt_perversion
        link
        English
        310 days ago

        A restaurant has a sign that says “no shirt no shoes no service”. I walk in barefoot and order a burger. They serve me the burger. They had the right to deny me but they served me anyway. The responsibly to enforce their own terms of service is on them. Similarly youtube has the right to deny service to people blocking ads and sometimes does. That does not make ad blocking piracy for all intents and purposes. The onus to enforce their own terms of service is on them. And it would be very easy for them to take more drastic measures but they don’t.

        I get that you’re trying to make an argument that morally it can feel like piracy, but it’s just not actually piracy. No copyright was violated. Youtube’s TOS doesn’t change that.

        • Communist
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 days ago

          It’s actually not easy for them to take more drastic measures, and they’re actively working on enforcing it.

          The part where the content creator doesn’t get paid and is supposed to according to the rules of the platform that you’re violating is the part where it’s piracy.