- Given your propensity to point out videos without explaining anything [1][2] I am afraid I also have to discount you as a spammer. Wnt (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Money is too tight, maybe... —PaleoNeonate – 12:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't thinking of the OP as a spammer, I was just interested in how they got sucked in when even their description shouts trashy video made to get clicks and incidentally destroy a few minutes each of millions of lives. Enough of that and they'll spend eight hours a day watching mind-numbing nonsense. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow spammer? You think that's my video? It's called ad block, I see 0 ads on youtube. I was intrigued, never saw anything like it. You people are arrogant and paranoid. Money is tight (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You people? μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider using an ad blocker a form of theft. The price for watching the stuff is those ads. I think it is acceptable to switch off javascript which cuts down the chances of viruses too. Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I whitelist tech sites I visit, but youtube has far too many ads and many without a 5 second skip, I've seen ads where they force you to watch for 2 minutes, and these ads cost time unlike normal display ads on other sites. If they give even 10 second skip option I wouldn't be blocking it. Money is tight (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the clickbaiters paying my monthly internet access fees? No? I didn't think so. Ad blockers are no more "theft" than is call-blocking on your telephone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright infringement then at best. I hardly think you have a real need to visit clickbait sites and you can always close them down again having spotted you've gone onto one by mistake. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What copyright infringement? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright owners have exclusive rights on the performance of their works. That is one way they get their money. An ad blocker is a way of subverting those rights. If someone videos a movie and shows you the result the movie maker does not get the money they might otherwise get from the performance watched by you. There is no essential difference in your watching of clickbait videos. Dmcq (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not required by law to actually watch advertisements. You can close your eyes, get up and take a piss, and there's no law against that! --Jayron32 16:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The point here is that there are ads *in* the video. Ad blockers don't block those ads. Youtube inserts them while you are watching the video. It is easy to see because the progress bar below the video shows yellow where advertisements are inserted. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, DMCQ seems to think that the authorities are going to bust down my door if I get up to get a beer during a commercial, because not watching commercials is theft. --Jayron32 19:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad YOU understand where DMCQ is coming from. Keeping ads away from one's sight is not copyright infringement. I have the right, as the owner of the PC and the payer of the monthly fee, to block anything I want to. Or, as you say, to simply not watch it. Or at least to turn the speakers off until the spam is done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You are entitled to not watch the ads, however you are not entitled to remove the ads. You are breaking the conditions of use and that is copyright infringement. Pay for YouTube Red if you want their ads gone or badger them for the service in your country if it isn't supported there. Dmcq (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you even be able to remove ads embedded in a youtube video? I still don't understand your premise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Google's lawyers believe they enforce advertisements in YouTube videos by this Terms of Service wording:Third-Party Rights. You and your API Client(s) will not, and you will require those acting on your behalf and your users to not, infringe or violate third-party rights, including intellectual property rights and other proprietary right, confidentiality, privacy right, or right of publicity. (My underlining.) Blooteuth (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's for people directly using the API. An ad blocker should follow that but of course doesn't. For the general public the terms of use of the YouTube site are at [3] which has terms like 'You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service' and 'You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate'. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A specific terms of service agreement is quite different from a general legal principle requiring that you MUST watch advertisements lest you break the law. Your initial statements did not include such nuance, and instead seemed a general condemnation of ad avoidance in general. Saying "a specific website has a specific term of service that prohibits a specific use of their materials" is leagues away from saying "avoiding ads is illegal". --Jayron32 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said you had to actually watch the advertisements. As I said above 'You are entitled to not watch the ads, however you are not entitled to remove the ads'. Do you think you are entitled to exploit other people? Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmcq: Absolutely. But first, I should add that I don't understand your position. I typically use NoScript - is blocking Javascript from one site listed on a page but not another a "theft"? Is it a theft only to block an ad, or also to block a spy script or tracking cookie? Is it a theft to clear your cookies routinely to hinder cross-site tracking? So many things a person can do on his computer, so many "thefts".- But I say copyright is a peculiar institution directly comparable to slavery, which holds that you can own a part of a man's mind or a part of his expressions or a part of his freedom to block advertisements. Abolitionists were widely referred to as nigger-stealers in period literature like John Fennimore Cooper's The Illini, because slaves represented a large chunk of the South's overall wealth, and they unabashedly supported stealing it. I support stealing intellectual property, because it is a tyranny over the mind of man, a form of tax farming, a government granted monopoly coupled with a funding program that could be funded in other more efficient ways comparable with freedom of expression. Because copyright cannot be enforced without tracking literally every communication and contact between every two people and having censors hovering over them waiting to punish.
- That said, my opinion, like yours, is quite off topic for this thread, and properly speaking both ought to be hatted. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is interesting that you seem to consider your computer to be part of your mind rather than an external instrument on which you have asked for a performance, I guess there will be some overlap in the future and that will be an interesting problem. Having no Javascript is a recognized part of standards and there is no requirement to keep cookies and suchlike any more than you have to keep a ticket to movie after you leave it. I'm sure it is a wonderful world in which people will do things for the sheer joy instead of so they can get money and perhaps that will come about too eventually. I do think copyright has become too long and rather clumsy, at least it should be reduced to thirty years, but no=one has yet found a way of figuring out how much to pay a person except by charging the people who are interested enough to pay. I'm not interested in having a state bureau controlling the pay of all artists and even the institutions that pay royalties for public performances don't work very well. Figure out some halfway reasonable plan for an alternative rather than just stroking your ego saying how you are opposing slavery. Dmcq (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dmcq: I wasn't suggesting the computer is part of your mind -- however, if you sit down at a blank computer and violate the law by using a patented algorithm in a program you write, where did that come from?
- As long as you asked, the lead idea I have is that the government would determine the amount currently spent on intellectual property and implement that total as a surtax to the income tax. The person filing income taxes would pay that percentage, but could allocate it to any combination of registered funding agencies of his choice. The funding agencies could be existing federal agencies like NIH, NEA, NSF; they could be groups of artists represented by formerly commercial organizations like RIAA; they could be something new. They would be restricted to a very small contribution to an individual content creator per individual taxpayer, to avoid obvious circular abuses; this would limit the value of a single artist seeking support directly on the form for himself through a one-recipient organization, since it would be an aggravation over pennies, though it would still be possible in theory. Note that this is a market mechanism, yet it does not require artificial scarcity, and it limits (though alas does not eliminate) the role of marketing. That said, it is fairly likely that some limits would be imposed legislatively whereby a minimum share of the funding has to go for useful sciences rather than popular music, for example.
- An additional concept is the guaranteed minimum income, in part recognizing the potential creativity of all people. Not every creative work is marketable or fundable through a formal mechanism (such as individual Wikipedia edits). Nonetheless, a national and eventually global population guaranteed a right to life, a right to adequate resources and health care, would doubtless produce many incidental acts of creativity spontaneously. I think these small works filling in the gaps between the larger funded projects have a larger value than commonly appreciated. Wnt (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So the country would have some official organization that pays for this clickbait out of my taxes so people who watch it don't go through the unbearable agony of ignoring some ads. Hmm, somehow that idea doesn't make me feel all that happy. Dmcq (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm physically altering the video in some way, it can't be a copyright violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
