Using ad blockers is piracy, insofar as you’re avoiding paying the price the content provider has set for that content. The price is watching the ads, rather than being something directly monetary, and you’re not paying it.
That said, neither that nor piracy are theft, and in both cases I gladly pirate because the prices in most instances have gotten away too high for what you get. Either in terms of subscription cost, or the time and quantity of ads delivered.
Who pays first? The user, the content creator, or the content host?
I couldn’t care less. If my adblocker is that final straw that caused a company to go out of business, brings on the collapse of the internet as a whole, and ultimately the breakdown of western civilization, then all of it deserves to die. With that knowledge, I’d still update by block lists and donate to adblocking projects.
It can certainly be both. A worse service might be worth a cheaper price. And people will pay extra for good service. That’s literally the airline ticket business model.
It was also 100% a payment issue back when I was a broke student and paying for things simply wasn’t an option. The fact that Steam offered a more convenient service than the pirates at the time was irrelevant because I couldn’t afford it.
If you cannot pay, then you either pirate or not - you don’t buy, because you can’t. In either case, the producer loses nothing, because there is nothing to gain.
In the other case where you could pay, but doing so is much more painful than pirating, the producer is the idiot - they made it painful to buy. They are losing sales not because people don’t want to pay but because they make buying the product painful.
You’re not wrong, it’s kinda like going to McDonald’s or Starbucks just to use the free WiFi — yeah you’re consuming some of their resources which are intended for paying customers, but as long as you’re not a dick about it and hang out for hours during the prime lunch or dinner rush, your presence is costing them nothing extra, or at least not enough to warrant them doing something about it.
I understand that companies are worried about losing business if too many people catch on to adblocking, but the irony is that the more they cry about it, the more people will realize that that was even an option at all (i.e. the infamous Streisand effect will strike again).
Using ad blockers is piracy, insofar as you’re avoiding paying the price the content provider has set for that content. The price is watching the ads, rather than being something directly monetary, and you’re not paying it.
That said, neither that nor piracy are theft, and in both cases I gladly pirate because the prices in most instances have gotten away too high for what you get. Either in terms of subscription cost, or the time and quantity of ads delivered.
deleted by creator
This is a bit of a chicken and an egg scenario. Who pays first? The user, the content creator, or the content host?
I couldn’t care less. If my adblocker is that final straw that caused a company to go out of business, brings on the collapse of the internet as a whole, and ultimately the breakdown of western civilization, then all of it deserves to die. With that knowledge, I’d still update by block lists and donate to adblocking projects.
deleted by creator
Based
From what I understand, Youtube ain’t paying for content anyway. Creators are routinely being de-monitized
Yeah this sentiment can fuck right off
What? That piracy is fine and people should be honest with themselves about doing it?
Piracy is a service issue - just like adblocking, not a payment issue
It can certainly be both. A worse service might be worth a cheaper price. And people will pay extra for good service. That’s literally the airline ticket business model.
It was also 100% a payment issue back when I was a broke student and paying for things simply wasn’t an option. The fact that Steam offered a more convenient service than the pirates at the time was irrelevant because I couldn’t afford it.
This is a good point.
If you cannot pay, then you either pirate or not - you don’t buy, because you can’t. In either case, the producer loses nothing, because there is nothing to gain.
In the other case where you could pay, but doing so is much more painful than pirating, the producer is the idiot - they made it painful to buy. They are losing sales not because people don’t want to pay but because they make buying the product painful.
You’re not wrong, it’s kinda like going to McDonald’s or Starbucks just to use the free WiFi — yeah you’re consuming some of their resources which are intended for paying customers, but as long as you’re not a dick about it and hang out for hours during the prime lunch or dinner rush, your presence is costing them nothing extra, or at least not enough to warrant them doing something about it.
I understand that companies are worried about losing business if too many people catch on to adblocking, but the irony is that the more they cry about it, the more people will realize that that was even an option at all (i.e. the infamous Streisand effect will strike again).