• dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
    669·
    3 months ago

    Friendly reminder that pirates didn’t usually stole gold. Piracy was stealing shipping goods, then selling them for profit at some port. Digital piracy is thus defined as acquiring, and then distributing for profit, media that you don’t own the copyrights of. Ad blocking is categorically not piracy.

    • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      16·
      3 months ago

      Also, “piracy” or “copyright infringement” isn’t theft in any sense.

      A key element of theft is that you deprive the rightful owner of something. You now have it and they no longer do. What makes it wrong is that the person who should have it no longer does. It’s not that you have it. That’s why the punishment for “mischief” where someone completely destroys something belonging to someone else is similar to the punishment for the theft of that same object.

      Copyright infringement is breaking the rule that the state imposed giving someone the exclusive right to control the copying of something. You’re not depriving anyone of anything tangible when you infringe a copyright. They still have the original, they still have any copies they made, any copies they gave out or sold are still where they were. The only thing you’re doing is violating the rule that gave them exclusive control. If you’re depriving someone of anything, it’s depriving them of the opportunity they might have had to make money from selling a copy.

      If anything, copyright infringement is more similar to trespassing than to theft. Just like copyright infringement, trespassing involves not allowing someone to control who accesses their property. If you sneak onto someone’s campground property and have a bonfire party, the person loses the opportunity to rent out the campground for the bonfire, and any money they might have received for doing that. But, if you sneak in and sneak out and leave no trace, you could argue that nobody is harmed.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      5·
      3 months ago

      It doesn’t have to be for profit, but it does require distribution of content you don’t have the rights to redistribute. I think it’s also fine to lump in acquiring content that you don’t have the rights to (i.e. it doesn’t matter which end of the transaction you’re part of).

      Blocking ads is merely a TOS violation, and it only applies if you actually agree to the TOS. If you don’t consent to the TOS and the platform doesn’t make any attempt to prevent you from using the service, then I think you have an argument that the TOS doesn’t apply. I use YouTube w/o a YouTube account, so I don’t consent to their TOS, but they still happily serve up content. So in my understanding, I’m not even violating any TOS because I haven’t agreed to any, I’m just using their website with an add-on that blocks certain URLs. If YouTube decides to prevent me from accessing their content w/o agreeing to their TOS, then I’ll probably stop watching YouTube, or maybe I’ll decide to accept their TOS, idk, because it hasn’t happened yet.

      That said, I do feel bad for creators not making money from me blocking YouTube’s ads, so I tend to donate or buy merch on occasion, and that eases my conscience. Regardless, I’m quite sure that if YouTube tried to argue that blacking ads was somehow a copyright violation, that they’d lose.

      • daellat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        34·
        3 months ago

        Of you didn’t watch the full video, which is fair enough, it’s a point Linus makes which the comment refers to. So Linus is either newborn or braindead? I mean ok maybe. 🗿

        I’m downvoted for pointing out what Linus said in the video, why exactly?

        • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
          26·
          3 months ago

          You have watched his videos, he is not the brightest bulb in the shed. Even on technical topics he sometimes spouts really awful things. Remember when he accidentally made racists remarks because he got confused about the meaning of the words he was using?

            • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
              26·
              3 months ago

              Here, not only did he admit he used to call people the R word, which, nice of him to not do that anymore, but so uncool to have done it in the first place. He also didn’t knew that Hard R refers to a racist slur. Which tells you the kind of background and mind space he comes from. Again, good of him to want to do better, but he has a lot to of catch up to do.

              • can@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                31·
                3 months ago

                Alright, that clip was funny but he said he used the R word, not that he called people it. And it wasn’t an uncommon word at all twenty years ago. There are better points to make.

                • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  22·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s OK. I also used to use the N word. I didn’t call anyone it, I just used it. It wasn’t racist, I don’t use the word anymore, but I never called anyone that.

                  /s