Morally, it is piracy IMO. If you applied the rule universally, the site would go out of business and then there would be no video to see.

▲

kryptiskt an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Google doesn't care about right and wrong, only what they can get away with. They don't deserve to be treated as a moral subject by you, because they will not reciprocate. You're free to be as shameless as they are in your interactions with them if you can get away with it, you're just playing the game at the same level as they are.

I'm paying for Youtube Premium, but its a plain utilitarian decision after they started hassling me with captchas and intimidations that someone at my IP address was using an ad blocker. So yeah, I'm paying protection money. But I don't feel in the least good about it.

▲

aspaviento 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Many people used to go to the bathroom during commercial breaks while watching a movie on TV. Was that considered piracy? Was it immoral?

▲

Saigonautica 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I find this argument fascinating overall!

I don't really use YouTube, but when ads play on random videos and it irritates me, I just close my eyes, the simplest version of content-blocking. (If the ad is painfully loud, I may also cover my ears in contexts where this is not extremely socially awkward)

Can we say it's immoral for me to close my eyes? Can someone's business model be the basis of an argument that it's immoral for me to exert this simple bodily function?

Is there some contract that I've signed where people have the right to my attention in any context? If they've based their business model on the assumption that this consent exists, and it does not, is it fair to say that the business model should fail?

▲

usefulcat 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No one if forcing them to use ads for revenue; they could choose to start charging directly for the content. Seems to be working ok for Netflix.

	▲	rkomorn 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The same Netflix that started offering an ad-supported tier that's climbed to 190M global users?

▲

wintermutestwin 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it piracy to pirate a pirate? Most of the content that I view on YT is old live concerts uploaded by fans. Did goog pay a license for those pirate recordings? Who should goog pay? The label? The pirate who uploaded? The OG pirate who recorded the show? So doesn’t this make them pirates too?

These are honest questions and it seems way too fuzzy to me to be making moral judgments about the whole mess.

	▲	drdeca 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think saying that it is morally piracy is a little bit of an overstatement. I think one does have the right to block ads on one’s machine if one chooses. However, personally, because of the “if ad blocking was universalized, the services I appreciate would likely not exist” reasoning, I choose not to block ads. As for other things like “muting/covering ads on screen”, yeah, that does seem a bit fuzzy. Sometimes I’ll even use a browser extension to fast forward an ad somewhat. I do think this is something for the individual to decide how they will deal with ads. When I mute an ad, I don’t think I’m really free riding? For one thing, I don’t think it is contrary to the expectations of those being sold the ad slot. Me fast forwarding the ads a bit probably is contrary to their expectations, so I don’t have as good justification for it, but I don’t feel like I’m cheating when I do it. (Or, if I do, it is because the particular ad is objectionable enough that I’m willing to stick it to the advertiser)
	▲	jonners00 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>Did goog pay a license for those pirate recordings? If their copyright monitoring algorithm recognises the tracks being performed and the licence holders have opted to receive a share of ad revenue rather than issue a takedown notice, then I think the answer might well be yes.

▲

brokenmachine 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I didn't look at the billboards when I was driving today.

Did I just pirate my drive to work?

	▲	drdeca 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Do the billboard ads fund the road maintenance? I didn’t think they did. I thought people just bought land next to the road and installed signs there.

▲

sidrag22 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

perhaps it should be out of business then? it captured its market share on an ad free model... it would not have gotten to this size with this model from the start.

if tomorrow youtube decides only paid subscribers can view videos... do they maintain that market share?

▲

weregiraffe 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

All things supported by ads should go out of business. Ads are 100% morally wrong.