[greggman]

Why isn't it a sufficient reason? If they say "don't watch my video unless you pay $5" are you okay with that or do you just think whatever they made you're entitled to it, you never have to give what they ask in return? Isn't it up to them to decide what they want to charge you (pay $$, watch this ad, etc.) and for you to decide not to watch if you don't want to pay whatever they are asking?

How is this any different than say GPL in that you can either pay the price "make your modified version GPL too" or you can not modify the software. Do you also think that's not for them to decide and that you should just use and modify the software anyway?

PS: please don't turn this into a thread about the minutia of the GPL. That's not the point. The point is whether or not the same concept that lets a creator set a software license and choose the terms, whether that concept also applies to other creations, videos, books, movies, games, magazines, articles, etc..

[rodion_89]

> "don't watch my video unless you pay $5"

This is an explicit agreement between the customer and content provider. YouTube, Google search, etc don't have any explicit agreement with users in this regard -- the ads just show up.

The TOS says it, your understanding of their business model conveys it, but at the end of the day they just shove the ads in there without directly claiming to their customers, "you must see ads and be tracked to get free content".

I think usage would change dramatically if they actually claimed this when a user first uses their service.

[icebraining]

I hope you realized you've proved my point by replying to my copyrighted post, in which I revoked your right to download it (which happens after you reply to it).

When the demands of copyright holders are not reasonable, we are not ethically required to comply. Your words say you disagree, but your actions show otherwise.

[tobltobs]

Aren't you a bit childish today?

[icebraining]

Not just today :)