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.
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.