Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's the old problem of I don't care about anything that you advertised to me, don't care about most of the content that is eating your budget and simply won't stand for being called a criminal after being the reason you are a thing in the first place. You're trying to get my money, I'm trying to get your content. We both cheat. That's always been the game.


So if a store is trying to sell products, and you try to steal them, you are both cheating?


If I come to your house, destroy your door, steal your mom's dinner for 4 ppl, are we both cheating?

How about we compare with something actually worth comparing for? For example switching channels when there's the ad break, or turning the sound off, etc.

When I download something, I'm not "stealing it". When I block an ad, I'm not stealing either. I didn't remove 10$ from Google's bank account that was there before.


If you don't pay your electric bills you never removed money from where it was before. Does it now applies?


I signed a contract with my local power company, which I would be breaking if I did not pay them. I signed no such contract with Internet Historian.

That said, I appreciate it when content creators provide alternative ways to support them. I support dozens of creators with monthly donations and I occasionally buy merchandise when they're selling something I'm interested in. Just don't waste my time with ads.


Ah the old "physical objects work the same as digital copies" argument. Yes I would download a car. You can still drive yours. I was trying to pay you for use of the car but you insisted I drive around your deadbeat family and pay for the drive through that I don't eat.


This a a very different situation. Stores are selling products or services, and they explicitly put prices on the products.

Content available freely online is much different, as there is no price and at best the hope is that the consumer sees an ad or sponsorship and that the content creator has accurate analytics as to how many saw the ads.

Your analogy would be more akin to someone stealing access to paywalled content somehow. In that case a price was put on the content and someone took if anyway, much like shoplifting.


Video streaming sites have a cost to create.

The price is ads or paying for a paid service like YouTube premium.

So you're still stealing, you just convince yourself it's ok, and that's fine.


If you go to the store on summer to enjoy the aircon, but you dont buy anything, because you just go there with a book and read your book and leave.

Are you stealing?

The aircon have a cost. Cold fresh air cost electricity that costs money.

The price is to buy stuff from the shopping centre, that gives money to the stores that pay a rent price for the local that pays for the aircon bill.


Stealing, ie theft, requires that you deprive another person of the benefit of their property.

This is precisely why we cannot compare copying to stealing.


I'm not saying that ad blocking isn't stealing, there could be a case for that especially if T&Cs specifically require that ads aren't skipped, blocked, or avoided.

My only point there was that shoplifting and ad blocking are very different things. Stores don't make their products freely available to anyone willing to walk past enough ads along the way.


the store is donating me products with an ad flyer


What is being stolen in the case of a Youtube stream without an ad?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: