circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage, or otherwise interfere with 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;
Yes, it’s a violation of their TOS, but TOS is often illegal anyway.
I’m not modifying any of the content they send, I’m merely not rendering it. That’s a very different thing. It’s just like blocking fonts (I do that too), if I don’t want an asset, I won’t download it. If they want to block me because I’m blocking part of their page from loading, that’s on them.
Yes, I’m violating their TOS, but I also never signed their TOS agreement. I don’t use a YouTube account, I just access their webpage. Nothing here is illegal, I’m just not rendering content that I don’t want to see. I have no legal obligation here. Google doesn’t get to decide what gets run on my machine, I do. If they don’t want me to view their content, they should lock it behind a paywall or something.
Right, and I’m arguing that it’s not piracy. Piracy is a copyright violation, and blocking ads isn’t violating copyright, it’s only violating TOS. “Piracy” is the informal term for “copyright infringement,” at least in my jurisdiction (US).
First the broad strokes: It’s not illegal to block ads.
…
But… that doesn’t mean your use of an adblocker isn’t in violation of US law.
The crucial issue with legality when it comes to adblockers is less about blocking ads, and more about circumventing a websites measures to defeat adblockers.
So I might be violating the DMCA by circumventing protections on the website, depending on what exactly the ad-blocker is doing, but just blocking URLs isn’t a copyright violation, it’s a TOS violation, which may or may not hold up in court. Therefore, not piracy.
You don’t have permission to modify any of the content YouTube sends you.
https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#eb887a967c
Section: Permissions and Restrictions Point 2
Yes, it’s a violation of their TOS, but TOS is often illegal anyway.
I’m not modifying any of the content they send, I’m merely not rendering it. That’s a very different thing. It’s just like blocking fonts (I do that too), if I don’t want an asset, I won’t download it. If they want to block me because I’m blocking part of their page from loading, that’s on them.
Piracy isn’t only a legal thing. It’s just dealt with through the legal system.
Sorry, I was wrong. You are however circumventing YouTube’s playing ads.
Yes, I’m violating their TOS, but I also never signed their TOS agreement. I don’t use a YouTube account, I just access their webpage. Nothing here is illegal, I’m just not rendering content that I don’t want to see. I have no legal obligation here. Google doesn’t get to decide what gets run on my machine, I do. If they don’t want me to view their content, they should lock it behind a paywall or something.
I’ve not argued any of those points. Just that not watching ads on YouTube is piracy.
In the UK, piracy isn’t a legally defined term, and the way that I would define piracy as the illegitimate procurement of media.
Right, and I’m arguing that it’s not piracy. Piracy is a copyright violation, and blocking ads isn’t violating copyright, it’s only violating TOS. “Piracy” is the informal term for “copyright infringement,” at least in my jurisdiction (US).
Here’s a law stack exchange answer about it:
So I might be violating the DMCA by circumventing protections on the website, depending on what exactly the ad-blocker is doing, but just blocking URLs isn’t a copyright violation, it’s a TOS violation, which may or may not hold up in court. Therefore, not piracy.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/t/terms#eb887a967c
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.