[wintermutestwin]

Is it piracy to pirate a pirate? Most of the content that I view on YT is old live concerts uploaded by fans. Did goog pay a license for those pirate recordings? Who should goog pay? The label? The pirate who uploaded? The OG pirate who recorded the show? So doesn’t this make them pirates too?

These are honest questions and it seems way too fuzzy to me to be making moral judgments about the whole mess.

[drdeca]

I think saying that it is morally piracy is a little bit of an overstatement.

I think one does have the right to block ads on one’s machine if one chooses.

However, personally, because of the “if ad blocking was universalized, the services I appreciate would likely not exist” reasoning, I choose not to block ads.

As for other things like “muting/covering ads on screen”, yeah, that does seem a bit fuzzy. Sometimes I’ll even use a browser extension to fast forward an ad somewhat.

I do think this is something for the individual to decide how they will deal with ads. When I mute an ad, I don’t think I’m really free riding? For one thing, I don’t think it is contrary to the expectations of those being sold the ad slot. Me fast forwarding the ads a bit probably is contrary to their expectations, so I don’t have as good justification for it, but I don’t feel like I’m cheating when I do it. (Or, if I do, it is because the particular ad is objectionable enough that I’m willing to stick it to the advertiser)

[joquarky]

Kants Categorical Imperative is a terrible way to model reality. People are too stocastic.

It's the same mistake libertarians make when they assume a fully informed and rational society.

[jonners00]

>Did goog pay a license for those pirate recordings?

If their copyright monitoring algorithm recognises the tracks being performed and the licence holders have opted to receive a share of ad revenue rather than issue a takedown notice, then I think the answer might well be yes.