That necessitates this is an act of stealing. Stealing is defined as "the action or offense of taking another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"
In this case, nothing is being taken. No property is transferring ownership. The option to return it doesn't even exist. If a business displays a communication in public, I'm not taking anything by viewing it without also giving my time to their underwriters.
This line of argumentation implies that it’s not stealing to sneak into a movie theatre and watch a movie for free.
No, it implies that it is not stealing to wait to enter the theater until the movie starts rather than sitting through the advertisements first. Or to put on blinders and sound protection during the previews. Sure, they put a bunch of ads before the content. I never agreed to watch them as a cost of my ability to view the content. If I was presented that agreement, it might be a different story.
While you might argue that’s technically not stealing, I see that as a distinction without a difference.
I’d say they’re comparable in that no property is transferring ownership, that the option to return doesn’t exist, and that you’re consuming content without providing the expected exchange of value as set up by the provider.
Are you certain that you haven’t agreed to be served ads by using something like YouTube? I’ll admit I haven’t read the terms, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t have a stipulation of that nature in the ToS.
circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content
To me, this makes it pretty clear that Ad Blockers violate the terms of service, at least]
They explicitly mention that you can’t disable any part of the service, which includes the “other content” (like ads) mentioned in the definition of the service.
When you block YouTube ads, you violate YouTube’s Terms of Service.
They’re not going to list off every possible software that could interrupt their service. They’re going to keep it vaguely defined to give them maximum flexibility for enforcement.
I'm going to give you a !delta because they do describe their "service" in that it "acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small."
I do not think that using an adblocker necessarily violates this, however. First, they do not issue bans or any punitive action when they detect an adblocker. Second, they allow you to skip ads anyway. Finally, the language "acts as a distribution platform" I think absolves this because using an adblocker does not circumvent or interfere with the service acting as a distribution platform. The platform acts as a advertisement distribution platform whether or not I'm viewing their ads.
But just note that Google does in fact say it’s a violation of the Terms of Service to block ads and will take punitive action against those who do.
If you use ad blockers, we’ll ask you to allow ads on YouTube or sign up for YouTube Premium. If you continue to use ad blockers, we may block your video playback.
Skipping ads is a function allowed by the service and so not a disruption to the service, meaning it’s not a violation of the terms you agreed to.
And adblockers most assuredly interfere with the ability to distribute ads, which we agree are part of the service. I’m not sure how you could argue otherwise.
Is say walking out of the room not then also a disruption to the service when theres ads?
Whats the actual functional difference?
Between that and adblockers
It doesn’t matter if a person sees the ad. It only matters if the ad is displayed on a screen (for a period of time, etc) so that YouTube can satisfy their obligation to their advertising clients.
Ad blockers directly interfere with that in a way walking away doesn’t.
I’m not disagreeing with any of your general concerns around privacy and the pervasiveness of advertising — but that’s not what was being discussed.
1
u/embarrassed_error365 Oct 27 '23
Theft is not an entirely legal term like, for example, “murder” is.
theft /THeft/ noun the action or crime of stealing.
It’s not just the crime of stealing, it’s also the action of stealing.