lemm.ee

-1 points

15 days ago

It’s really not. Piracy is copyright violation, and an ad blocker doesn’t violate copyright, it just violates the platform’s TOS.

report

[ - ]

redfellow@sopuli.xyz

2 points

14 days ago

Your definition of piracy is not correct

report

[ - ]

0 points

14 days ago

How so? This is straight from the dictionary:

3
a: the unauthorized use of another’s production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

unauthorized - I’m not hacking around any YouTube authentication, nor did I agree to any additional terms of service
infringement of copyright - again, I’m not sharing it, reposting it, etc; I’m just accessing it as normal
illicit - I’m not breaking any laws

So which part is incorrect?

report

[ - ]

redfellow@sopuli.xyz

1 point

14 days ago

You continue defining yet more terms to avoid saying another. You do you, but that’s not how the world works

report

[ - ]

BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca

1 point

13 days ago

Okay the dictionary is wrong, do you have a better dictionary?

report

[ - ]

-1 points

14 days ago

What am I avoiding? You said my definition of piracy was incorrect. So I provided a commonly used dictionary definition of piracy to show my point.

If you have another definition that is widely used, I’m happy to discuss it. But something isn’t piracy just because someone isn’t getting paid when they expect to be paid, it’s only piracy if you actually meet the definition of piracy.

report

[ - ]

redfellow@sopuli.xyz

2 points

14 days ago

You say you did, but you lie.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

14 days ago

Where’s the lie? I provided the definition, and explained how what I said relates to it. If you disagree, point it out.

report