People typically associate piracy with actions that can land individuals in legal trouble due to it being law breaking. I don’t know that there is a country yet that sentences people for using Adblocker. Even the FBI recommends it.

Like I can see how companies don’t like people consuming their service without seeing ads, but this isn’t people copying or cracking and stealing account credentials to get access to something that is paywalled like some Netflix account. This is a flaw on their end and people are accessing it legally.

It’s like some drive in theater getting mad someone who lives across from there can just watch movies from their backyard without paying and then saying they are committing piracy. They aren’t sneaking into a theater.

I won’t use the term “piracy”. Just because the man says up is down doesn’t make it so. Piracy, historically is using threat of force and/or harm to force capitulation. In history past, pirates would fire across the bow to allow the target to choose to fight/flee or capitulate and pay the pirates, which is extortion. Technically, ransomware hackers are, by the historical definition, the true pirates. Individuals watching videos without ads is, by definition, individuals watching videos without ads.

Another issue which is connected to labeling users “pirates” is the data caps and bandwidth throttling by mobile carriers and ISPs. User make agreements with carriers for data and bandwidth for x.x price, but YouTube “steals” data limits and bandwidth by ads. Shouldn’t we expect them to pay us for our lost bandwidth and data caps?

It can’t be a one way street for a corporation to label users as unethical reprobates or “pirates” while he steals my paid for data limits and bandwidth.

Service is still paid for with user’s data, including the datapoint: is intolerant of ads.