• CommunistEnglish
      5•2 months ago

      The part where the content creator doesn’t get paid and is supposed to according to the rules of the platform is the part where it’s piracy.

      • @[email protected]English
        2•2 months ago

        It’s really not. Piracy is copyright violation, and an ad blocker doesn’t violate copyright, it just violates the platform’s TOS.

          • @[email protected]English
            2•2 months ago

            How so? This is straight from the dictionary:

            3
            a: the unauthorized use of another’s production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
            b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

            • unauthorized - I’m not hacking around any YouTube authentication, nor did I agree to any additional terms of service
            • infringement of copyright - again, I’m not sharing it, reposting it, etc; I’m just accessing it as normal
            • illicit - I’m not breaking any laws

            So which part is incorrect?

            • redfellowEnglish
              2•2 months ago

              You continue defining yet more terms to avoid saying another. You do you, but that’s not how the world works

              • @[email protected]English
                1•2 months ago

                What am I avoiding? You said my definition of piracy was incorrect. So I provided a commonly used dictionary definition of piracy to show my point.

                If you have another definition that is widely used, I’m happy to discuss it. But something isn’t piracy just because someone isn’t getting paid when they expect to be paid, it’s only piracy if you actually meet the definition of piracy.

                  • @[email protected]English
                    1•2 months ago

                    Where’s the lie? I provided the definition, and explained how what I said relates to it. If you disagree, point it out.