If everyone stops riding the subway, the city will lose the same amount of money and the subway will be underfunded. If everyone stops skiing and instead decides to build snowpeople in their back yard, the resort will go out of business. If no one shows up for the music festival, the artist will make zero dollars. So is that theft?
Generally most people would say no. None of those things are theft of service.
Deprivation of revenue on its own is not theft. That's not to say there's no moral implications behind watching public content without paying for it -- there is a moral implication -- but "morally problematic" is not the same as "theft". And a definition of theft that boils down to "loss of potential revenue" is not a definition that stands up to any serious scrutiny.
So there will be no more subway, no more ski resort, no more music, and in this case, no more YouTube. Is that what you want?
It's theft because you're not paying your fair share of the usage of the service. If the system remains in balance, you're either stealing from all other users (because they have to pay more for the recipients to earn the same amount), or stealing from YouTube/content creators (because they make less per view but the costs are higher).
It would be unequivocally good for the Internet if Google didn't have a monopoly on independent online video hosting.
> If the system remains in balance, you're either stealing from all other users (because they have to pay more for the recipients to earn the same amount), or stealing from YouTube/content creators (because they make less per view but the costs are higher).
This is incoherent. By this logic if I take a car into the city I am stealing from the railroad. I'm either stealing from all of the riders (because the railroad will need to increase fares so that fewer riders cover the same service) or stealing from the service (since they'll have reduced revenue from running the same number of trains).
Heck, by that logic if I build a competing product to another company and its users switch to my product, then I've stolen money from the other company. It's nonsense.
"I could have made more money if you didn't do that" does not work as a definition of stealing.
There are in fact ethical considerations around watching content for free -- even in instances where a creator might be giving explicit permission to watch that content for free, and certainly in instances where they want/need compensation. There's a reason why we try to fund Open Source projects even though they have licenses giving content away for free. There's a reason why we try to fund creators and give them steady revenue streams even in the instances where we know we won't be watching many of their videos for a month. People do have a moral duty to (when possible) support creators that are building things they care about.
Those ethical considerations are real, but they are orthogonal to theft. Theft is not merely deprivation of revenue.
But no, they're not going to close down Youtube. Even operating at a loss, Youtube cements a lot of power and influence for Google that they're not going to give up.
I do hope you're right though.
I could very well be wrong about their internal calculations about that, it depends on whether Youtube sees an actual risk of users going elsewhere (and whether there are enough people blocking ads in the first place for them to care one way or another). It'll be interesting to see what Youtube ultimately does.
> except reduced costs.
This in particular is funny though. I would not hold my breath that Youtube premium is going to get cheaper. That's not going to be a thing :)
Youtube premium is not priced around the cost that it takes to keep Youtube running. It's priced around what the market will bear, just like every product is. The only thing that's ever going to make Youtube's pricing or payout model change is competition. That is the only thing that ever makes price go down.
If Twitch starts offering better hosting options than it currently does, or Nebula somehow manages to take off, or there's some completely random mass-migration to Peertube (unlikely), then maybe you'll see prices go down.
So true. It should never have been permitted to get to this point.
The answer to all of these questions is a solid "no", I don't know if this is the point you're intending to make.
Have I stolen the baker's services when I smell the baked bread on the way to work without buying anything? It's an incoherent idea of theft at best, in which you must falsely represent the exchange as zero-sum to demonize.
If you're hoping that Google will decrease the cost of premium in response to getting more ads on screens, I have a bunch of wonderful bridges to sell you.
If I ski at a resort without a ticket, did the resort lose money? If I jump over a turnstile to get on the subway, did the city lose money? If I sneak into a music festival, did the artist lose money? They're all theft of services.