[Youtube Pop-Up] "Ad blockers are not allowed on Youtube"

[eidairaman1]

So, what? Do you have an argument that entitles you to view youtube with an ad-blocker that doesn't consist of "it use to have no ads".

Are you saying that the person who downloads Avengers without paying for it is not pirating the content?
No. Piracy is the unauthorized use or reproduction of someone else's content.

All I'm seeing is a bunch of false entitlement.

And youre being an ass

 

[BSim500]

The legal definition is meaningless

^ Exactly why any further sane debate with you is futile when the word and its meaning is defined by legality... I'll just end this exchange by declaring that the word "robber" should really mean "disabled people who use screen readers that also require adverts removed to read a web page properly". They're clearly both the same thing...

 

[jon_joy_1999]

^ Exactly why any further sane debate with you is futile when the word and its meaning is defined by legality... I'll just end this exchange by declaring that the word "robber" should really mean "disabled people who use screen readers that also require adverts removed to read a web page properly". They're clearly both the same thing...

No, it's not defined by law. There can be a legal definition, and the legal definition is valid in the legal context, but you're the only one talking about a legal situation.

Piracy is the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work.

Youtube says to use Youtube you must have adblocker disabled, and prevents you from viewing the video.

In this situation you are committing piracy if you successfully run adblock on Youtube.

And youre being an ass

Thanks. I don't see it that way, but maybe I am. Honestly, the opinion of someone who's entire response to a legitimate question is "You're being stupid" really means not a lot to me.

 

[Sithlordslim]

I used Edge and have AdGuard in use and I received the pop-up a few days ago and it told me what adblocker I was using.
There are sites that won't let you browse them, if the adblock software is running.
At the same time, we have the option to whitelist them or not.
If Youtube blocks users or prevents their site from use while we use the software, then that's their choice.
Overall it sucks and if that's the case, then so be it.
Damn has the internet changed since the 90's.

 

[freeagent]

Don’t forget to breathe

 

[Deleted member 223428]

Just as valid as it was back in '08......

Duty Calls

xkcd.com

 

[wheresmycar]

I gave up and actually got Youtube Premium. Mo money less problems.

i read your comment and headed off to look into signing up to premium too. F*****g hate ads!

$11.99 per month subscription service. A whopping $144 annually to remove ads just threw me off. Hate subscriptions services more... Ads it is!

EDIT: without reading 5-pages of comments, did anyone work out a method to safely avoid Ads?

 

[Sithlordslim]

i read your comment and headed off to look into signing up to premium too. F*****g hate ads!

$11.99 per month subscription service. A whopping $144 annually to remove ads just threw me off. Hate subscriptions services more... Ads it is!

EDIT: without reading 5-pages of comments, did anyone work out a method to safely avoid Ads?

I didn't see any suggestions reading the forum, just back and forth debates about what "piracy" is and morality of using AdBlock.
I agree the price of admission is too high with youtube.
I spend that once a year for a vpn and an anti-virus.
I'm wrong.
The only suggestion thrown around was to go abstinent from youtube, to avoid the ads.

 

[NSX05]

i read your comment and headed off to look into signing up to premium too. F*****g hate ads!

$11.99 per month subscription service. A whopping $144 annually to remove ads just threw me off. Hate subscriptions services more... Ads it is!

EDIT: without reading 5-pages of comments, did anyone work out a method to safely avoid Ads?

uBlock Origin and apparently Opera GX gives you free YouTube Premium somehow? (I don't use it because the concept/gimmick of a "gaming web browser" is so stupid.)

 

[Lost_Troll]

EDIT: without reading 5-pages of comments, did anyone work out a method to safely avoid Ads?

Don't know if this would work for you, but I see no ad's and do not get a flag from YouTube about using an Adblocker, all I did is make a google account and use it to sign into YouTube. So far it is working just fine for now for me.

 

[Shihab]

In response to the quoted section of your post, whenever websites are even close to considering such actions, they would rather implement a paywall of some kind. That is the better route for them to take. SemiAccurate and a plethora of newspaper websites are great examples of this behavior.

I agree. Much easier and cost-effective to regulate access than litigate the whole world.

Does this fall under your specific of "Explicitly prohibit its users from using adblockers"? Because to me it looks like Youtube is explicitly saying either don't use adblock, or pay for Premium:

An entry in the terms of service (the contract between the user and Youtube) that states so.
Legal status of piracy doesn't drastically change between jurisdictions. But hey! Don't take my word for it...

I've came across countless websites (esp. news websites) doing just that, so I am sure it isn't actionable. It's their site and they are free to let in or not let in whoever they want. But doing so will also reduce web traffic/visits, impacting website rating & interest of add companies. So it's a double edged sword. It's only data protection the EU is very picky about.

For disambiguation: I was thinking more of the ToS than pop up notifications a la OP's. This would make it - I believe - a breach of contract issue. Although, as I implied above, I doubt it would be feasible to take a some million people to court...

I'm not really sure how paywall-style, adblock-blockers would fare.

 

[OneMoar]

No, it's not defined by law. There can be a legal definition, and the legal definition is valid in the legal context, but you're the only one talking about a legal situation.

Piracy is the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work.

Youtube says to use Youtube you must have adblocker disabled, and prevents you from viewing the video.

In this situation you are committing piracy if you successfully run adblock on Youtube.


Thanks. I don't see it that way, but maybe I am. Honestly, the opinion of someone who's entire response to a legitimate question is "You're being stupid" really means not a lot to me.

brauh you are using the same incorrect logic that linus tried and boy did that end well for him.

lookup the explict legal defintion of "video piracy' because that is the only applicable term and not applicable to this case

Morality is not law in this case, Expectations are not legally binding

this is the google version of please turn off your adblocker

and my response is going to be No: please join my ever increasing list of custom script and filters and network level adblocking.

No adversiting agency on the internet should ever be trusted, you idiots blew though that in the 90's you dug this hole you can lay in it

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'm here to teach other people things I know/believe, and to learn from other people, not necessarily in that order.

That's very noble of you, but none of us needs your false information. So kindly keep your nonsense to yourself.

Tweaktown was one of them before.

Yes but they figured out reality and stopped.

Actual piracy is the use or taking of something without the consent of the person who owns it. The legal definition is meaningless insofar as
For example, privateering is piracy.

Blocking ads is not piracy, it's not wrong and it's not theft. You can blather on all you want, you will NEVER be correct.

 

[claes]

An entry in the terms of service (the contract between the user and Youtube) that states so.
Legal status of piracy doesn't drastically change between jurisdictions. But hey! Don't take my word for it...

I read this paper the other day and while nice and all, let’s be real — American courts are not pillars of objectivity and have a bias towards property owners.

For disambiguation: I was thinking more of the ToS than pop up notifications a la OP's. This would make it - I believe - a breach of contract issue. Although, as I implied above, I doubt it would be feasible to take a some million people to court...

In all likelihood they’d probably only take the software devs to court.

So far it looks like only one person has run into this issue? I’m still good with ublock, noscript, and sponsorblock on Firefox.

 

[jon_joy_1999]

That's very noble of you, but none of us needs your false information. So kindly keep your nonsense to yourself.

Thank you for taking the time to establish your position on the latter part of my statement. I have adjusted my settings on your profile appropriately. Have a nice day!

brauh you are using the same incorrect logic that linus tried and boy did that end well for him.

What logic did he use? It sounds to me like it's the correct logic, since it ended well for him.

lookup the explict legal defintion of "video piracy' because that is the only applicable term and not applicable to this case

Morality is not law in this case, Expectations are not legally binding

Once again, the only people talking about legal definitions are you.

this is the google version of please turn off your adblocker

and my response is going to be No: please join my ever increasing list of custom script and filters and network level adblocking.

And be yarr pirate matey.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Thank you for taking the time to establish your position on the latter part of my statement. I have adjusted my settings on your profile appropriately. Have a nice day!

Get knotted.

No adversiting agency on the internet should ever be trusted, you idiots blew though that in the 90's you dug this hole you can lay in it

For once, we agree.

 

[Athlonite]

That'll be a nope when using Vivaldi + built in ad/tracker blocking + uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger

 

[OneMoar]

Thank you for taking the time to establish your position on the latter part of my statement. I have adjusted my settings on your profile appropriately. Have a nice day!


What logic did he use? It sounds to me like it's the correct logic, since it ended well for him.

Once again, the only people talking about legal definitions are you.

And be yarr pirate matey.

sorry but the only rule that matters is the rule of law you don't get to change the definition of words just because you don't agree with something

you have your self a nice day now

 

[the54thvoid]

Okay, one mod already asked to stop side-railing the topic, which is simply YT ad-block pop-ups. The discussion is not about morality.

Please keep future posts to YT ad-block usage discussions. Or perhaps the thread is already chewed up enough to be crapped into oblivion?

 

[OneMoar]

Okay, one mod already asked to stop side-railing the topic, which is simply YT ad-block pop-ups. The discussion is not about morality.

Please keep future posts to YT ad-block usage discussions. Or perhaps the thread is already chewed up enough to be crapped into oblivion?

yes please lock this garbage its bait at best

 

[Laurijan]

I use ublock origins and never got a youtube warning with that

 

[Dragokar]

Well I either use AdBlock on various sites including YouTube if they put too many ads in and on it per e.g. 36s ads in 3-minute video or the ads block the readable and usable part of the website. I have some website in the exception list like TPU and some others. The other solution is to book the "premium" service via VPN and pay much less.

 

[Bomby569]

i read on reddit they are just testing it, only some users will see it

Adblock, revanced, newpipe, sponsorblock user here, i don't care what they try, we will get around it.

 

[bonehead123]

I don't do da Tuber very often, but when I do, I use every Ad Blocker on the planet