• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    Sure, because in those cases you’re gaining access to content that you don’t have permission to access.

    Ad-block isn’t that, it’s just blocking content you don’t want. You still have permission to the content.

    • Devorlon
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      You don’t have permission to modify any of the content YouTube sends you.

      https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#eb887a967c

      Section: Permissions and Restrictions Point 2

      circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage, or otherwise interfere with the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that: (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content; or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes, it’s a violation of their TOS, but TOS is often illegal anyway.

        I’m not modifying any of the content they send, I’m merely not rendering it. That’s a very different thing. It’s just like blocking fonts (I do that too), if I don’t want an asset, I won’t download it. If they want to block me because I’m blocking part of their page from loading, that’s on them.

        • Devorlon
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          but TOS is often illegal anyway.

          Piracy isn’t only a legal thing. It’s just dealt with through the legal system.

          I’m not modifying any of the content

          Sorry, I was wrong. You are however circumventing YouTube’s playing ads.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yes, I’m violating their TOS, but I also never signed their TOS agreement. I don’t use a YouTube account, I just access their webpage. Nothing here is illegal, I’m just not rendering content that I don’t want to see. I have no legal obligation here. Google doesn’t get to decide what gets run on my machine, I do. If they don’t want me to view their content, they should lock it behind a paywall or something.

            • Devorlon
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              I’ve not argued any of those points. Just that not watching ads on YouTube is piracy.

              In the UK, piracy isn’t a legally defined term, and the way that I would define piracy as the illegitimate procurement of media.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                Right, and I’m arguing that it’s not piracy. Piracy is a copyright violation, and blocking ads isn’t violating copyright, it’s only violating TOS. “Piracy” is the informal term for “copyright infringement,” at least in my jurisdiction (US).

                Here’s a law stack exchange answer about it:

                First the broad strokes: It’s not illegal to block ads.

                But… that doesn’t mean your use of an adblocker isn’t in violation of US law.

                The crucial issue with legality when it comes to adblockers is less about blocking ads, and more about circumventing a websites measures to defeat adblockers.

                So I might be violating the DMCA by circumventing protections on the website, depending on what exactly the ad-blocker is doing, but just blocking URLs isn’t a copyright violation, it’s a TOS violation, which may or may not hold up in court. Therefore, not piracy.