←back to thread

192 points bgstry | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
vages ◴[] No.26887003[source]
I get the technical justification for doing this: You own your player, so you should be able to control it in whatever way you want. But as consumers, how do we expect the uploader to get paid for their work if we use both Adblock and Sponsor-skip (for the lack of a better word)?

Pay to watch is, of course, an option, but that leads to discrimination based on income – unequally distributed between parts of the world and individuals in the same part of the world. (Yes, I am aware that the sponsorship system leads the creators to cater to the more well-off within each bubble, so it's still a bit discriminatory.)

Any ideas or objections?

replies(13): >>26887078 #>>26887113 #>>26887116 #>>26887152 #>>26887154 #>>26887171 #>>26887177 #>>26887263 #>>26894852 #>>26895520 #>>26896735 #>>26899505 #>>26904839 #
Mindwipe ◴[] No.26887152[source]
Ultimately there's only one inevitable consequence of this - YouTube will move to using Widevine on all YouTube streams to stop it happening.
replies(2): >>26887163 #>>26896336 #
Nextgrid ◴[] No.26887163[source]
As far as I understand Widewine "protects" (quotes because piracy websites are proof of the contrary) the video content but wouldn't prevent the player being controlled to skip past ads.
replies(1): >>26895314 #
1. spockz ◴[] No.26895314[source]
Well technically you could only send the data to be buffered up until the sponsored content and only continue sending the stream after the content was supposed to be finished. Or a bit earlier to ensure smooth playback. If the sponsored content is blocked at least the player will not be able to continue until the time for the content or ad has passed.

I can imagine people on a radio would be fine to have sound muted automatically during ads. But how many will wait for a video to continue after 30s of nothingness?