Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by toastercat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

toastercat

So, instead of canceling you subscription and using a competing service, you instead choose to... steal? Classy.

View on HN

More like cutting out the funnies from a newspaper and trashing the ads.

But you bought the news paper (or someone else did).

FYI I use revenced as well, it's just your argument doesn't sound very sane.

Newspapers are actually also financed by ads, the few dollars people pay don't cover for the production costs and journalism...

You could argue that paying for the internet service to reach a website is equivalent to buying the newspaper.

It's funny that this poor argument is used as a justification for the use of poor arguments.

It's not really a poor argument. This was the understanding of how the internet worked before we decided to use the internet to replace TV. There was never a guarantee of payment to anyone running a public web server.

But I think you've highlighted exactly why net neutrality is terrible in practice (people effectively stealing bandwidth by blocking ads).

How? Buying the newspaper pays the people printing the newspaper and making the paper. Whereas not a cent from paying for internet service goes to third party websites like YouTube.

It's like saying stealing from stores is okay because paying taxes for the upkeep of roads is equivalent to paying for the stores.

Physical newspapers lost money on printing and distribution. Subscription fees and purchase price did not cover the cost of printing and distributing that bundle of paper. The vast majority of their income was from ads. So your argument is really even worse with that in mind - physical newspapers were more dependent on ads than internet websites. And even with that in mind, I don't think anyone would say having a robot cutting out newspaper ads to be stealing.

Like a sibling comment mentioned, I was considering that newspapers got non-trivial amounts of funding from ads. Classifieds in particular, if I remember correctly. If that's still not satisfactory, then just consider the case of free papers & magazines.

This is a terms of service violation at best. There's no theft, nor even copyright infringement.

The obvious parallel is Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios which established that time shifting - recording a TV broadcast to play back later - is fair use.

Someone using a DVR with a "+30 seconds" button to skip an ad was not stealing from the broadcast company.

What competition? All the videos are on YouTube.

Dailymotion, Vimeo, PeerTube, Odysee, etc.

I’ll give you Dailymotion, but…

Vimeo hasn’t tried being a direct YouTube competitor in years — just look and use their site at any point after 2014? 2016? It’s been a while.

While I’d like to see PeerTube succeed, it is hardly a competitor. The content is very… early.

So, instead of staying sane and do the right thing to vote with wallet, you instead choose to... be the big-corp-bootlicker and shill? Nice.

why are you here? are you lost?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com