YouTube first spoke about pause ads last year when it started trialing them in select regions. At the time, the company said that when you pause a video, it will shrink, and an ad will appear next to it.
“In Q1, we saw strong traction from the introduction of a pause ads pilot on connected TVs, a new non-interruptive ad format that appears when users pause their organic content,” Schindler noted. He went on to share that YouTube’s pause ads are “driving strong brand lift results” and “are commanding premium pricing from advertisers.”
Schindler didn’t share any timelines for when pause ads will start appearing on YouTube, but we know they’ll first roll out on smart TVs. The nature of these ads, including their duration, skippability, and more is still unclear. We also don’t know if Google plans to introduce these ads on YouTube’s mobile apps.
Well, let me break this down for you, one part at a time...
FFS
(Click on above link for explanation.)
I'm facepalming the fact that YouTube wants to stick ads in when you do a pause on a video, the same way that Captain Picard from Star Trek the Next Generation does. It's an older but still relevant meme.
I'm apparently annoying some individuals for some strange reason who get triggered and can't handle having a link in someone's comment that points to an open source license.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
It's a waste of screen real estate that does nothing. Your "rights" automatically conflict with the rights of the platform you're posting to, and all the other ones that you federate with. Unfortunately there's no standing for your link to do anything. All your doing is advertising a webpage for no reason. Further, you cannot enter someone into an agreement with your licensing terms without positive consent/agreement, which you're not obtaining nor could ever reasonably obtain on a federated platform where your content is automatically distributed to the entire fediverse.
Buy products from my affiliate link! (except yours does nothing useful at all)
Are you a lawyer? Honestly curious.
It sounds like you're stating that the Creative Commons license is invalid to use whenever it's used online. I'm pretty sure the people who made the license wouldn't agree with that.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
Didn't say that at all. I'm saying that you posting your post to lemmy.world doesn't bind them to any license. And neither does it bind anyone else to it.
If it's your words on your own platform then no problem, you can license it however you see fit. But your post was posted to someone else's server and was federated to my instance. I didn't agree to any license and neither did the lemmy instance you posted to (or anyone else in the federation), I wouldn't have accepted any terms of a license, and will continue not to accept any that limits my ability to distribute content unrestricted (eg. a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, copy, distribute, publicly display, and modify your User Content) specifically because all of that is required in order to distribute content over the fediverse. Regardless of if my lemmy instance makes money or not.
Nobody needs to be a lawyer to understand this. Being bound to licenses requires consent in order to be bound. You published your data to my server knowingly where I do not offer such consent to any user submitted license. This would be akin to you handing me a gift and only after I've used it state that I need to accept terms and conditions. That's not how it works at all.
Lets look at this the other way... If I posted this response to my lemmy instance and grant rights only to lemmy.saik0.com with no rights for distribution, no rights to other instances, and all other rights fully reserved. I cannot now go after every instance in the federation for distributing my content to your screen, I willingly gave the content over and lemmy.saik0.com or lemmy.world didn't necessarily agree to that license. Or another example... Where I want to post restrictive license that grants me rights to someone else's instance even though I have no ownership stake in their instance for posting on their platform. You cannot simply bind someone to a license of ANY TERMS without explicit acceptance. In many cases it's "by continuing to use this product" on a modal pop-up for example. requiring an active closing of the modal to continue operating the site. You're missing that completely... consent... and every server in between me and you would also need to agree to it even if I were to agree to your license terms.
Ultimately I own my server... and you're submission of content pushes data to my server without my consent to your terms. You cannot bind me to them.
Honestly, I'm too exhausted to rebut your various points that I disagree with. Been spending too much time, much more than should be spent, in debating this issue with people, for what we're talking about, a single link.
I'll advocate for being the owner of my own content, and being able to license it the way I see fit, until an actual lawyer with some standing states otherwise.
I do thank you for your input though.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
I just find it hilarious that you post shit like this... https://lemmy.world/comment/9578409
And think that your posts should not be usable for some purpose reason when O'Reilly definitely WOULD have a case over their trademark. And you're distributing that content under your own license. Especially since that image is tagged with a different user in the bottom right.
I don't care for the argument. I'm just outlining why people are downvoting you. You're likely wrong, which you've already admitted in your comment history that you have no idea. And that you are a hypocrite on the matter anyway.
But right... Good luck.
You're overthinking it. I only expected the license declaration to apply to this part of my post, the actual comment...
... and not to the image that was obtained on the Internet.
You're very sure of yourself, for not being a lawyer.
And yet, you seem very invested, spending a lot of time initiating and responding, for a simple usage of a link in a comment.
I wasn't aware I asked you to, but I do appreciate you keeping me informed. I can sleep soundly at night, knowing that you're out there, watching my back.
Also, they're upvoting, etc., too. And honestly, I don't care either way, I do what I think is right, not what's popular.
At the end of the day, it's just a link in a comment, not much to worry about, either way. If it has legal standings, all the better. If not, the only thing I've wasted was the time to do a momentary copy and paste.
So weird how this makes some people get so bent out of shape.
Edit: Finally, looking through your posting history, damn dude, you seem really angry at people who want to protect their rights.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
I'm sure the original creator of that work feels the same way... That their copyright should be acknowledged. But you wouldn't know because you didn't adhere to their rights and definitely do not have distribution rights to the works. But demand that your rights be listened to by attaching a license that nobody agreed to on every post.
So now is the stance that nobody except lawyers should talk? If that's the case, I invite you to set the precedent on the matter. Since I know that you're not one, you should have shut up on the matter a long time ago no? Have you ever even talked to a lawyer on the matter? I have. I've read a lot on it to. Turns out that you have to at least know some of these things when you teach courses that tangentially run into these issues. In my case CyberSecurity. I mean it's not like this topic hasn't been done to death already with forums and stuff over the past 40 years of internet. The only novel thing here is federation. Nowhere is is possible for you to upload content without giving all sorts of rights to distribute your content, and to grant rights to modify your content (eg deleting a post and the post record the deletion.. Modifying your content to state as one such example)
Most of my comment was a copy-paste from another comment against another user who does similar stuff. I've invested very little into this conversation. Much like you claim that copy pasting your url is a non-issue. I also don't consider this very invested at all on my end, all of my knowledge is pre-obtained. Especially in consideration to the comparison of effort you must actually be going through to copy and paste something by hand hundreds of times.
Discussing it in a IANAL sort of way, no not at all.
But you're stating facts that are not in evidence, in an authoritative matter, as is there's no conclusive alternative in interpreting the legal situation. Which is why I keep asking you if you're a lawyer or not.
Long press, select copy, switch to editor, long press, select paste.
I'm spending much more time arguing with people who really hate seeing it in a comment, than the actual act of including it in a comment.
And I wasn't kidding about looking through your post history and seeing your anger towards others that wish to defend their privacy rights.
Assuming you're not astroturfing, you really might want to consider taking a step back, for your own mental health. Trying to 'win' an Internet argument, when the law itself has not been conclusively decided on (court challenged), is not healthy. And its definitely not worth a single URL/link in a comment.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
Ownership of content on the internet has been debated for literally 40 years at this point... both in court and out of court. This is why ToS' exist. It is a solved problem. Once again, the only thing that is novel is the federation factor here... but considering you must hand out distribution rights to your content to all the servers you interact with for federation to even work... and rights to modify your contents for the sake of moderation... You've already handed out more rights than your license claims.
LMFAO. The only thing you'd see recently is about cameras... On someone else's property (in the hypothetical, my own property). There is no right to privacy in that case. You can't defend a right you didn't have. A persons right to their own property supersedes any right to privacy you believe you have. I'm actually a huge proponent of "privacy" in the sense of not giving away your content to others. Thus why I have 400TB of storage at home. I don't rely on google or other mega-corps to store my content. Which is exactly why I run my own lemmy instance as such an example. I'm a huge proponent of privacy in that context, but by means of simply not giving away licenses to private things. Your and my right to privacy does not override someone else's rights to their property. Which coincidentally includes the fact that your content is on my server which is my property under my control. Who owns your post? You do. However you published it to my platform, which grants me rights to that content regardless of what the content itself is and certainly not under your conditions without my consent.
Thank you!