Could AdBlocking be considered a form of piracy? If not, why?

[Dom]

In a regular setting, a person has to pay for the content in order to watch it (=gain access to it).
They may buy a DVD, rent a movie from the internet or get a Netflix subscription for instance.

Alternatively, this payment to gain access to the content could also be in a form of watching an advertisement. The content creator gets compensated as well as the company/provider that delivers this content to the viewer gets compensated too.

With AdBlocking, the payment process is completely skipped and the user gains an immediate, free access to this content. It could be argued that the copyright holder has set a precondition to gain the access to their copyrighted intellectual property, in a similar fashion someone selling a movie has set one (to buy it with money). By skipping this precondition and payment, could this be considered piracy?

If not, where would you draw the fundamental difference?
I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

I'm not suggesting it is/isn't piracy, this is just philosophical pondering.

[Xero_Daxter]

Imagine the FBI breaking into your house cuz they found out you had ad blocker.
https://youtu.be/EwqndrbZ4EY?si=dbsGh-7clCSz7GoF

[Dom]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Labyrinth:

What about corporate tax avoidance? By companies like Valve, Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, etc.

I would say that is a separate topic to have.
Or how would you say it relates to this one, specifically?

[Vox]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Dom:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Labyrinth:

What about corporate tax avoidance? By companies like Valve, Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, etc.

I would say that is a separate topic to have.
Or how would you say it relates to this one, specifically?

It's not okay to block ads but it's okay for the same companies to avoid paying taxes?

Good example here would be Google, whining about adblockers on YouTube but paying sod all in corporate taxes.

[Triple G]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Labyrinth:

What about corporate tax avoidance? By companies like Valve, Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, etc.

That´s not achieved with ad blockers though. And it probably depends on which kind of tax avoidance. Usually corporations would use the legal systems, as the laws are made to let them have these loopholes - so it´s technically not tax avoidance, but doing everything what the laws demands, to be law obedient citizens. This is why You pay taxes - as that is what You agreed on, as else You would rebel against the system. But we all like it this way, so we don´t do it, as we think that these corporations just deserve more money, as they´re far better and genius than we ever could be.

So it´s somehow comparable how a platform pay the people who upload content, but it´s not really it.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Dom:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από lankaras:

Yes. How things are intended is just a story basically, technically things are quite different. That's why legal stuff is so weird in these areas. What basically happens is: you ask the website for the page, and it gives it to you. At first this is just HTML, hypertext with links. The links point to things like images and also ads. Your browser will then start to visit those links to retrieve those images and show them on your screen.

This means that YOU (your browser) ask the website for each content item. So if ads would be mandatory, technically they are FORCING you to GET something from them. That is quite weird. And even if you get it from them, your browser still does not have to actually display it.

This is true. Also the blockers are different from each other like was said. Some may block the ad in its entirety, some may simply hide it from the user's sight. In the latter ones, it is sometimes possible that the visit is registered as an ad view and the site even gets paid.

But I think there is still an interesting philosophical question here. Imagine there is a website where you have to pay $5 for the website to display a book or video for you (you would buy access to it). You use a blocker which skips this $5 payment and immediately displays this content for you. Admittedly, this could also be considered bad design by the site and there is certainly some responsibility there to implement proper DRMs but it doesn't change the fact that you have access to something you shouldn't have access to. You are bypassing the paywalls, and getting the content for free.

The difference (perhaps the only difference) here is that ad is not often considered a form of payment I suppose, even though it is what funds the content creator and the platform, in terms of money.

I agree that it's vague, all the legal stuff. Ultimately people are the ones who create the words and definitions. And intentions of course matter as well. Because it is also true that AdBlock wouldn't have grown in popularity without the intrusive ads existing.

Except an ad is not a paywall, that is an important difference. But disregarding that, we actually have a real-world example of this: YouTube. They have been trying to disallow adblockers. I don't believe it is working that well for them. There are lots of arguments to be made like click-through rate and so on. You might want to delve into that if you want to know more.

[Dom]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Labyrinth:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Dom:

I would say that is a separate topic to have.
Or how would you say it relates to this one, specifically?

It's not okay to block ads but it's okay for the same companies to avoid paying taxes?

Good example here would be Google, whining about adblockers on YouTube but paying sod all in corporate taxes.

I think both sides (customers/consumers AND companies) are expected to follow good practices, laws and guidelines. If one side makes a violation, that does not justify other side making a violation.

I know you raise an important question but if everyone acted on the basis of "he/she/they did this so I am justified to do that", the society would be in chaos rather quickly.

[Choko]

I think Finland needs to start a sample as a beta program among the citizens to see if adblock on PC means paying a fine like OP.

Give us the result after 1 year. How much did you get fined ok? 🤣

[Vox]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Triple G:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Labyrinth:

What about corporate tax avoidance? By companies like Valve, Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, etc.

That´s not achieved with ad blockers though. And it probably depends on which kind of tax avoidance. Usually corporations would use the legal systems, as the laws are made to let them have these loopholes - so it´s technically not tax avoidance, but doing everything what the laws demands, to be law obedient citizens. This is why You pay taxes - as that is what You agreed on, as else You would rebel against the system. But we all like it this way, so we don´t do it, as we think that these corporations just deserve more money, as they´re far better and genius than we ever could be.

So it´s somehow comparable how a platform pay the people who upload content, but it´s not really it.

Piracy and adblockers are using loopholes.

[Daenoxiis]

Technically yes, it is a form of piracy, although, it's such a socially accepted form of piracy ENTIRELY because the world of Marketing, Investing, and Advertisement has entirely too much of an iron grip on literally everything else that is essential for life.

Basically what I'm saying is:
Yes, it technically is a form of piracy...BUT, it exists as a form of piracy in the first place because cost of living is too high. If all you ever do is keep the impoverished impoverished, eventually they'll get fed up and just find alternative approaches.

So while I can't say that I endorse or condone piracy, I *CAN* say that I endorse and condone affordable basic living needs and will continue to do so until I either die or the monetary system we're born into is a little more practical.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Labyrinth:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Triple G:

That´s not achieved with ad blockers though. And it probably depends on which kind of tax avoidance. Usually corporations would use the legal systems, as the laws are made to let them have these loopholes - so it´s technically not tax avoidance, but doing everything what the laws demands, to be law obedient citizens. This is why You pay taxes - as that is what You agreed on, as else You would rebel against the system. But we all like it this way, so we don´t do it, as we think that these corporations just deserve more money, as they´re far better and genius than we ever could be.

So it´s somehow comparable how a platform pay the people who upload content, but it´s not really it.

Piracy and adblockers are using loopholes.

I think it's more like the other way around. Online and digital are quite hard to (il)legalize. "You wouldn't download a car" and so on.

[Xero_Daxter]

You know what I do when a ad pops up? I tab out and look at memes for 30 seconds then come back.

[Magma Dragoon]

Is throwing junk mail in the trash without reading it piracy?

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

You should also ask if walking away to get a snack during ad intentionally is stealing

[Triple G]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Labyrinth:

Piracy and adblockers are using loopholes.

No. Ad blockers offer a service. Piracy is illegal.

[Dom]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από lankaras:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Dom:

This is true. Also the blockers are different from each other like was said. Some may block the ad in its entirety, some may simply hide it from the user's sight. In the latter ones, it is sometimes possible that the visit is registered as an ad view and the site even gets paid.

But I think there is still an interesting philosophical question here. Imagine there is a website where you have to pay $5 for the website to display a book or video for you (you would buy access to it). You use a blocker which skips this $5 payment and immediately displays this content for you. Admittedly, this could also be considered bad design by the site and there is certainly some responsibility there to implement proper DRMs but it doesn't change the fact that you have access to something you shouldn't have access to. You are bypassing the paywalls, and getting the content for free.

The difference (perhaps the only difference) here is that ad is not often considered a form of payment I suppose, even though it is what funds the content creator and the platform, in terms of money.

I agree that it's vague, all the legal stuff. Ultimately people are the ones who create the words and definitions. And intentions of course matter as well. Because it is also true that AdBlock wouldn't have grown in popularity without the intrusive ads existing.

Except an ad is not a paywall, that is an important difference. But disregarding that, we actually have a real-world example of this: YouTube. They have been trying to disallow adblockers. I don't believe it is working that well for them. There are lots of arguments to be made like click-through rate and so on. You might want to delve into that if you want to know more.

Yeah that's what I said. The difference is that ad is usually not considered a form of payment so therefore that is not considered a paywall either. But I think there could be some philosophical pondering if it could be considered an alternative payment method or option for money. For instance, in some games and applications, you may get goods by watching ads that you would normally get by paying money. There are even services that list some 'watch ads' programs and various reward programs as legitimate payment methods/options.