YouTube Pays Music Industry $1 Billion From Ads (cnet.com)

YouTube, the music industry's enemy No. 1 earlier this year, said Tuesday it has paid more than $1 billion in advertising revenue to artists, labels and publishers in the last 12 months. From a report on CNET: The milestone, released in a blog post by business chief Robert Kyncl, is a stab by Google's giant video site at mending fences with music industry critics. At least, it's YouTube hoping to convince some of them that the massive amount of free, ad-supported music listening that happens there is a valuable complement to music subscriptions, the industry's main area of growth right now.

Comments

1 BILLION!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now their singin' my tune!

Re:1 BILLION!

[magarity]

If you're a music company exec, the tune is "where's the rest?"

Re:1 BILLION!

[Anonymous Coward]

and if your an artist the tune is, why I am I only getting paid $0.0019 per play?

Re:1 BILLION!

[Anonymous Coward]

and if your an artist the tune is, why I am I only getting paid $1 dollar per quarter from my music company, where is the smegging rest!!

Re:1 BILLION!

[davester666]

If Google gave the music and video industry every penny in revenue Google received every year, it still would not be enough for them. There's always more coke and whores to buy.

Right

[c]

So, somewhere around $37 trillion dollars less than the music industry thinks they're owed?

Re:Right

[Anonymous Coward]

So, somewhere around $37 trillion dollars less than the music industry thinks they're owed?

I don't know if this "37000000000000$" figure is real or just an exaggeration by you, but i know that i just spend the last 4 hours listening to music in Youtube... and i do it often - i frequently listen covers by amateurs, or professionals that offer their music for free (or get paid by ads), but i also listen to music that i believe it's "stolen" (in the way the "music industry" means it: some -and/or their families- who need to live by their work are deprived their rightfull income).

P.S. great music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwDq2pQtI9Y !!!

Re:Right

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's played on a saxophone, it's not great. Sonically, the saxophone is just a large kazoo. But if you like listening to someone trying to talk with a kazoo, knock yourself out.

Re:Right

[skids]

If they want revenue they should really get with the times and accept micropayments that grant licenses to individual people to use music as underscore in their videos, as webpage ambiance, and add it to the playlist of online games when they are in the session, or in second-life-like environments, play it in their spaces so other players can hear it. That would create a new revenue stream versus only being able to license it for listening.

Re: Right

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

Re:Right

[youngone]

I have always hated the sax and I've never been able to put my finger on quite why.

Thanks for that, now I know why the saxophone is the worst instrument ever. (Apart from the kazoo).

Re:Right

[c]

If they want revenue they should really get with the times and...

The music industry doesn't "get with the times". They'll be dragged into the times kicking and screaming, but not before they shit all over the bed and generally make everyone's lives as miserable as possible.

Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

youtube-dl is wonderful

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you've found what you're looking for, that's fine.
For just searching and watching videos, there's no substitute for uBlock Origin.

Really?

[Jzanu]

Try this.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just it Hoss, with all the hullabaloo lately about anti-adblock efforts on websites, YouTube paid the music industry alone $1,000,000,000.00 USD in the last year.

A billion dollars even with adblock and all our favorite tools being more widely used than ever! For one segment of the entertainment industry. So... either YouTube is losing money paying them, or adblock efforts just don't really matter that much if you have a big enough audience.

Things that make ya go Hmmm....

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this.

Why use a product from a company that clearly states they will pass along advertising that they deem "acceptable" provided the advertisers bribe...er pay them money?

For me it's uBlock origin all the way......

Music industry != artists

[QuietLagoon]

The "music industry" is mostly over-paid execs sitting in ivory towers (some cylindrical), and siphoning off the revenue for their own profits.

.
What percentage of that $billion has gone to the artists who perform the songs? Or the writers who write them?

Re:Music industry != artists

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a big issue with most "talent" based industries. Executives are basically just agents that have been around forever and agents are basically just con men with connections who get talented individuals to sign over rights to them to gain exposure and have the "hard work" done for them.

I could go on but I fault everyone. Artists need to wise up and be willing to do some of the work themselves. There will always be con men and as much as I would love to put all the blame on them - people need to start using a little more critical thought and not just wander through life expecting someone else to solve all your problems.

And finally, the consumer. People need to support independent artists and shun artists backed by the con men. Of course that is exactly the opposite of what most people do because customers are just as lazy as the artists. They have no clue who is little more than a paid whore (literally) for the music industry and who is a real singer / songwriter.

Moral of the story? The con men will keep winning because they are willing to have a diverse skill set, put in some work and take some risk and the majority of artists and customers won't call them on their bullshit.

Re:Music industry != artists

[Anonymous Coward]

The "music industry" is mostly over-paid execs sitting in ivory towers (some cylindrical), and siphoning off the revenue for their own profits.

Are you a communist?

What percentage of that $billion has gone to the artists who perform the songs? Or the writers who write them?

The agreed upon by the parties ("execs", artists/writers, etc) of the "music industry"?

Re:Music industry != artists

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists and song writers get a fractions of a cent (1/100th of a cent), if they actually decide to pay anything.

I think artists of the progressive rock genre are ones that suffer most from streaming, and considering the amount of creativity, musicianship and devotion (time and money) into creating this kind of music, it's hard to imagine how some of them even break even from sales alone. There's no way a non-touring act can sustain doing this for a living.

Re:Music industry != artists

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists and song writers get a fractions of a cent (1/100th of a cent), if they actually decide to pay anything.

I think artists of the progressive rock genre are ones that suffer most from streaming, and considering the amount of creativity, musicianship and devotion (time and money) into creating this kind of music, it's hard to imagine how some of them even break even from sales alone. There's no way a non-touring act can sustain doing this for a living.

Specifically *independent* ones are ones suffering, not ones backed from major labels, aka "industry".

Re:Music industry != artists

[Anonymous Coward]

Ivory towers symbolize university faculty distant from the concerns of everyday people.
I picture music industry execs as sitting in cocaine towers.

Re:Music industry != artists

[swillden]

I think artists of the progressive rock genre are ones that suffer most from streaming

I think they are probably among those who suffer least.

Artists in most of the less mainstream forms of rock have basically never made any money from royalties. Their album sales have always served primarily to feed fan interest in their live shows, and they've made most of their their money from merchandising at the shows. I'd expect prog rock to be in this category. And for artists who make most of their money from touring, YouTube is a *good* thing because it does an even better job of feeding fan interest, enabling a lot more interaction with fans. YouTube does this so well it's enabled artists who would never have made it in the old world to make a decent living with their music. One of my favorite examples is Lindsay Stirling, the dancing pop violinist. She actually makes considerable money from YouTube streaming (because she doesn't go through a label), and sells out concerts in respectable venues worldwide.

The artists who in decades past made their money from royalties rather than touring are the ones who are most hurt by streaming, because their contracts generally pay them a pittance of streaming revenues. On the other hand, the artists in question, the ones to generate massive royalties on album sales, are the big pop acts who are rolling in cash in spite of being ripped off by their labels.

Please don't interpret this as a defense of the labels. I spent a while writing a royalty calculation system for a big label, and it's crazy how much crap they get away with and how badly they rip off the artists, with or without streaming. They suck, and I'm rooting for artists to exploit YouTube, iTMS, Google Play, etc., and social media to reach their fans directly and cut the bloodsucking leeches out completely.

Danegeld

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't pay the Danegeld!

Don't pay those that wail about exploiting artists, yet exploit artists themselves.

Choke them out, starve them, make them expend resources to come after you, and then outlast them.

Why do people patronize the major labels?

[tepples]

I assume that people watch videos containing major label music instead of Creative Commons music because major label music is more familiar to them. Then the question becomes how major label music became more familiar to them in the first place, despite Creative Commons music being readily available for both download and streaming. Is it that people without a big cellular data plan still listen to FM radio, which plays almost entirely major label music?

Re:Why do people patronize the major labels?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because they have bad taste.

Re:Why do people patronize the major labels?

[Coren22]

The main reason I would expect would be visibility. Radio, TV, advertising, etc.

What do you use to stream CC music? I hadn't heard of anything being available for this before, and would dump Amazon Prime Music in a heartbeat. Do CC artists get anything from me streaming? Is there a way to pay so that the artists do get something for their work besides donating to individual artists?

Propaganda

[Tenebrousedge]

So YouTube vs the music industry is an odd fight for public opinion. The music industry is hoping that public pressure will get them a bigger cut of whatever profits are to be had (not that YouTube is profitable, but it could potentially be). However, the media companies are not campaigning for a change in law (this time), they just want a bigger cut. So the question is, why does this article exist? I am fairly certain that Google has made this point before, and that it was posted on Slashdot. Are we concerned that the new administration will be more favorable somehow? Is this just a random dupe?

I am on Google's side here -- legally their position is very clear -- but this is propaganda, not news. Yes, YouTube pays out lots of money, but it's not like they just started doing that today. What's the real story? Why are we seeing this?

Re:Propaganda

[ThatsMyNick]

It is news though, even though it benefits google. If we were to file away anything that benefits the person giving info as propaganda, there will be no news to publish. How it benefits google is unknown right now, we may or may not know in the future, and there is nothing with that.

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you are getting it. Most news is both propaganda AND news. I think recent events have got people thinking about the media differently but this has always been the case.

Let me let you in on a little secret. Most articles are not dreamed up by reporters. They arrive, in final or near final form, on the desk of the reporter. Originally typed up by someone else that benefits from the news. Same goes for political news. This make reporters happy (yay! no real work required) and the people generating the news happy (yay! I got to distribute my narrative) and the news companies happy (lower operation costs, healthy streams of content ready to go, happy potential advertisers and politicians).

There is an entire (large) industry that does only this for a living - called "PR" (public relations) firms. The entire thing is so incestuous I am surprised they can even function but sure enough, day after day we are fed a crock of shit that other people want us to hear, exactly like this article.

Re:Propaganda

[Tenebrousedge]

There is nothing new about YouTube paying $1B to media companies. Literally nothing, and it has been reported here before. So not intending any personal reflection, but you're not going to piss on me and tell me it's raining. I also note a coincidence in that the articles were posted by the same person, although I tend to doubt there is any significance to that. So if it's not new, informative, or current, what is it doing here?

There are Ads on YouTube?

[FunkSoulBrother]

Huh. The more you know. Good on them for monetizing it somehow.

Re:There are Ads on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm always surprised to hear about online advertising. I went to Slashdot on Internet Explorer a while back, and OMG!

Re:There are Ads on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap turned adblock off. your right this site has totally gone crazy.

Re:There are Ads on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Tech website has plenty of people blocking Ads
2) Website staffs adds more Ads to compensate
3) Goto 1

This is especially true for websites sold to larger companies which only care about monetization.
If only they could understand that quality > quantity I wouldn't have had to remove most of my favourite websites from the adblocker whitelist over the years.

Re:There are Ads on YouTube?

[grub]

I recently went to renew my /. subscription because it has been some time since I last had. They are no longer offering subscriptions, not sure if it's temporary or not. One of the nice things with it was the option to turn off ads. I still run uMatrix and uBlock Origin on the site but still wanted to support them.

So it seems like they may be going straight for an ad & tracker supported model.

Mostly yes

[s.petry]

Then again, I don't see this as a "new" thing. Music artists have generally done very poor from record sales, while ad agencies and music execs who own studios do quite well. Musicians tend to make their money from performances, not from record sales. Records unfortunately tend to do much better in sales after tragedy.

Consider that the average record, 60 minutes or so, costs about $10.00US. Bands rarely go "gold", which would mean$10million in record sales. Deduct from that the cost of the studio, material, mastering, editing and engineering, art work, distribution costs, and there is not much left.

Compare that to a Small/Mid sized band selling 2500 seats to a concert at around 70.00 a seat. That's $175,000, and add in concessions, and you are at $200K. Take away venue costs and security, and you have an easy 100K for the band, techs, drivers, etc..

A good few months of touring can make a band very wealthy, but a record does not make much. You need the records to remain relevant and have recognition, but you don't make them so much for the cash.

Re:Mostly yes

[PIBM]

Who's still selling CDs ? They would get 70c per song sale on itunes, no ? I have no idea what are the numbers for streaming like, but the CDs low revenue should not really be looked at that much in those time I believe..

Re:Mostly yes

[Yvan256]

https://slashdot.org/story/06/...

Re:Mostly yes

[PIBM]

That`s over 10 years ago.. And I don`t expect an artist to still need a record producer if they aren`t making records anymore ;)

Re:Mostly yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Gold=500,000 copies sold.

Re:Mostly yes

[Anonymous Coward]

You also wouldn't expect them to get a breakage percentage taken out of their iTunes profits, but they do.

Re:Mostly yes

[PIBM]

I was also winking at the latest slashdot news about vinyls generating more $$$ than downloads (in the UK) =)

Lets say that I start making music, I can just publish it, and no one will have a penny out of it, beside apple and me. If they've signed their rights off, then all bets are off too. (I do not mean I would be successful in anyway doing that though!)

Re:Mostly yes

[s.petry]

Selling CDs has become a generic term for purchasing an album from a digital provider, as well as physical medium. Vinyl is also included in that, which would sell much less than a CD in physical form. I happen to do both, depending on the circumstances. I admit that it's rare for people to purchase physical media, but the numbers for sales of digital+physical are still used to calculate sales volumes. A band going "gold" (as corrected by AC below) requires selling 500,000 copies of a complete record in _any_ format, digital or physical. A band has never made much money from that process, they make money by performing.

Re:Mostly yes

[s.petry]

Yes, thanks for the correction. Platinum is 1,000,000. Bands rarely going gold is still true, so the revenue from an album would be half what I originally stated.

Re:Mostly yes

[youngone]

Who's still selling CDs ?

About 10 years ago I used to sell printing supplies to a guy who had a pretty good business pressing (or burning maybe) CD's for bands directly, and he reckoned one of his customers was the most profitable band in the country*

They all had day jobs during the Winter and spent the Summer on the road, playing bluegrass at mostly country pubs and selling their CD's (also T-Shirts) at the door.

Every year a major label would offer them a contract, and every year they would tell the label the contract they were being offered was going to cost them money.

I can't for the life of me remember the name of the band. He did give me a copy of one of their discs, but I gave it away, because I don't like bluegrass.

* Not the US.

Yeah

[Ryanrule]

Advertising is overvalued by about 99.9%. The people who sell ads are the same ones who rate what they are worth.

Re:Yeah

[grub]

Yep. I have a friend who worked for a now-defunct ad placement firm. They hired people specifically for the purpose of figuring out ways around ad blockers. Of course that was dumb, because for people who are determined not to be tracked and force-fed ads, that simply makes them more determined to find ways to block things.

Copy"right" does not believe in a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's counter to the very underpinning of what is needed for a true democracy: Freedom of communications. Anything that hinders that undermines democracy. The very notion that we need to balance the "rights" of artists with the right to freedom of speech evidences the problem very well. The entertainment industry has undermined the people's freedom to communicate openly routinely over the years by targeting different avenues including anonymity and privacy. Those within have for instance put liability onto ISPs whom are then required to log or at least otherwise censor content to avoid liability (The RCN case I believe).

I have a firm belief that there should be no laws for which there are no actual victims. A victim has to be someone who has been hurt by the means of violence, coercion, theft, or fraud. A polluter of toxic substances for instance would be committing violence against others, but a person whose smoking pot is not.

If you don't support the concept of permission slips (drivers licenses, mandatory licenses for ones livelihood, etc) and want to eliminate the nanny state we have today, including boarder guards, taxes, and put responsibility for oneself back into the hands of individuals (ie you should be free to have sex with whoever you want, marry without permission of the state, marry whoever including male on male etc, however many ie polygamy, etc people you want, etc) rather than this nanny state that we have and get rid of big government then check out www.freestateproject.org which is a migration of those who want to hold personal liberty, privacy, freedom above that of "security" (which is mostly security theatre and an attack on peaceful people and personal liberties that some in our society don't like).

The markets should be open to competition rather than be regulated. We don't need regulation on the internet for instance, we just need more choices and we can get that by eliminating the regulations hindering start ups from rolling out new services/lines/infrastructure. We have the problems we have not because of the lack of regulation. We have them because of regulations that were put in place decades ago and because of industries that have lobbied for more regulations to minimize competition (often arguing safety, children, and similar). The cable monopolies were instituted decades ago (cable companies were granted monopolies by municipalities in the 1970s and 1980s, and probably something similar happened with the telephone industry prior to that, but they claimed "you don't want your roads dug up every other day, it's necessary to institute a monopoly for it to work"). The reality is it isn't and market forces would otherwise solve the problems had we not instituted the monopolies and many of the the regulations we have today.

Re:Copy"right" does not believe in a democracy

[tepples]

We don't need regulation on the internet for instance

Yes you do, even if only to obtain easements to pull your last mile across non-subscribers' land.

we can get that by eliminating the regulations hindering start ups from rolling out new services/lines/infrastructure.

Regulations are needed to allow companies to "roll[] out new services/lines/infrastructure." Otherwise NIMBY holdouts can block anything by reporting a startup to the police for trespassing.

Buy a t-shirt, not a CD!

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to support the bands you love? Buy tickets to see them live, buy a t-shirt from their merch counter at the venue. That is the only way they make real money. Only the top top .01% of recording artists actually make money from CD sales.

Re:Buy a t-shirt, not a CD!

[tepples]

You want to support the bands you love? Buy tickets to see them live

That works only if the band is touring anywhere near you, which is likely not true of foreign bands. It also works only if the band either plays at all-ages venues or is still together after you turn 21.*

* In Slashdot's home country, many smaller music show venues require all attendees to be at least 21 years of age because of state alcohol control laws.

Re:Buy a t-shirt, not a CD!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Slashdot's home country, many smaller music show venues require all attendees to be at least 21 years of age because of state alcohol control laws.

The US never cease to amaze...

Does anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone even buy stuff from online ads? I can't really recall me ever buying anything from an online ad in over a decade of internet use.

I never see ads on YouTube via hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & for the best hosts file creator-> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...

Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).

Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.

Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.

Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.

Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.

Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).

Gets data via 10 security sites.

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )

Re:I never see ads on YouTube via hosts

[Ash-Fox]

Don't be fooled! It doesn't work, it doesn't block this ad!

Your ad is robbing me of "speed, security and privacy", APK!

Youtube paid the music industry $1 Billion....

[Anonymous Coward]

...and the music industry paid the artists $1 each.

Re:Time to destroy you Ash-Fox, again... apk

[Ash-Fox]

See subject: I've cut you to pieces many times before

Good, then you should have no problem proving to us that your hosts file can block your advertisement while allowing us to view Slashdot normally.

Stop your ad in robbing us of "speed, security and privacy", APK!

Re:Time to destroy you Ash-Fox, again... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk's having more fun exposing you're an admitted troll lying about things you've never done but say you did liar https://news.slashdot.org/comm... as he said he was going to. He's a man of his word. You're clearly not. My guess is because apk showed you haven't done anything in programming you can prove you wish you had something to show others like he can but alas you can't. Jealousy on your end is showing Ash-Fox.

Re:Time to destroy you Ash-Fox, again... apk

[Ash-Fox]

Apk's having more fun exposing

See? I'm right, it doesn't work, it doesn't block APK's ad! This is all an attempt at distraction!

APK's ad is robbing us of "speed, security and privacy", just see all this information it's gathered on me in responses and tries to manipulate the conversation!

Re:Time to destroy you Ash-Fox, again... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk's program blocks slashdot ads giving us speed and security. You're stupid if you don't realize that! Slashdot and sourceforge served malvertising ads before. How's apk's post an ad if it's on topic, works to block ads on YouTube and is an informative post? You're admittedly a troll and liar AshFox proven in apk's other post so go away and quit being jealous of apk's success while you languish in being a loser.

Re:Time to destroy you Ash-Fox, again... apk

[Ash-Fox]

Apk's program blocks slashdot ads giving us speed and security.

This is a misdirection, it's not blocking APK's ad, which is what this particular thread is about.

How's apk's post an ad if it's on topic

advertisement
noun
noun: advertisement; plural noun: advertisements
 
    a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.

APK's post is the very definition of "advertisement", that's how. There is no special caveats introduced in the word definition as you are trying to show.

I would argue however this is really not on topic for the story, as the topic is "YouTube Pays Music Industry $1 Billion From Ads", not, "how do I block ads?", so even if there was such a caveat, it wouldn't be relevant.

Re:Time to destroy you Ash-Fox, again... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk's program's free working to block ads (the topic here). Apk's on topic and you're not troll. You're completely off topic and an admitted troll and completely irrelevant in computers from what I have seen about you.

Re:Time to destroy you Ash-Fox, again... apk

[Ash-Fox]

Apk's program's free working to block ads

Don't be fooled! It doesn't work, just look at how it doesn't block his ad!

Time to destroy you again Ash-Fox... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: I've cut you to pieces many times before e.g. -> https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3153677&cid=41553465/

(Where you doubted I have commercially sold code from a certified Microsoft partner out there doing GREAT to this day 20++ yrs. later - have you? Hell no!)

All I saw was "NDA" bullshit there!

(Which is what everyone KNOWS it is from you, w/ nothing to your name you complete zero bullshit artist, lol))

* Want more times I've cut you to pieces to PUBLICLY HUMILIATE YOU HERE in front of all of /.? In YOUR case? I've got literally dozens more examples thereof!

Lastly? The TRUTH comes out:

ROTFLMAO - this got to you didn't it? You had to try "hide it" via unjustifiable downmods https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

APK

P.S.=> FACT: All YOU are is a troll loser (an ADMITTED troll & lying loser) https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5538231&cid=47677913/ ... apk

Re:Time to destroy you again Ash-Fox... apk

[Ash-Fox]

See subject: I've cut you to pieces many times before

Good, then you should have no problem proving to us that your hosts file can block your advertisement while allowing us to view Slashdot normally.

Stop your ad in robbing us of "speed, security and privacy" (as you claimed they do), APK!

I stop /. ads giving you speed & security

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: It's no ad & on topic - You've done better? No. You're an admitted troll I crushed before https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9962449&cid=53439373/ & there's only a FRACTION of the proof I could put out to that effect - what a waste of life you are Ash-Fox!

* Unbelievable...

APK

P.S.=> You ought to be ashamed of yourself, "ne'er-do-well" but then I expect too much from losers like you (you aren't capable of accomplishments I have done before you were born most likely let alone pride, as you have nothing to your credit/name to have pride in it, or shame in being online swine like yourself)... apk

Re:I stop /. ads giving you speed & security

[Ash-Fox]

I stop /. ads giving you speed & security

Your ads concern me more than any advert that Slashdot intentionally promotes and I'll elaborate why.

Your ads are more dangerous. Why you may ask? Because you're worse than a regular advertising company! You keep a dossier on people, tracking all their posts, trying to find out their Internet history and keep records (I mean, just look at your replies on this thread), you've been known since the 90s on the Internet as someone who contacts people's ISPs if you have sufficient details, you contact their webhosting providers, people's companies where they work to make a scene because they dared to disagree with you on the Internet.

You ironically are the antithesis of safety online, you harass, provoke (and don't think I didn't realize that was your sock puppet posts earlier), stalk and it often starts with one of your advertisements. You have people tell you to go away and leave them alone, but you continue to pursue them, make legal threats etc. until you are satisifed. You are one of he few advertisers out there that I can actually point at and show that you are using information gathered against other people!

In summary, the most dangerous advertisements people need to be weary of is yours, APK. Your adblocking solution does nothing to stop them either.

You provided the ammo for me to shoot U with

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Yes, I have literally dozens of screwups from you & "your kind" - you provided that for me to shoot you to pieces with after all... thus, YOU ONLY DID THAT TO YOURSELF!

* Since you're stupid - & hiding behind "FAKE NAMES ONLINE" for your FAKE LIVES (zero accomplishments in the art & science of computing, jealous little "ne'er-do-well" bitches that "your kind" clearly is - trolling ME 1st & NOW YOU'RE "crying VICTIM"? Please... stfu!)

I know how it works here (been here since 2005 & ever since I released this to others in 2011 or so, this trolling kicked in - you're all webmasters or advertisers, so it makes sense... lol, I am KICKING IN YOUR "$" TREE along w/ adblock/ublock etc.) - you & "your kind's" sockpuppets galore too!

Shitbrains like you start it, just as you have here now as always - I just finish it & YOU + "your kind" with it.

APK

P.S.=> Who do you REALLY *think* you're fooling? Anyone reading?? Guess again - you're only fooling yourself as per your stupid usual, nothing more (& you KNOW it)... apk

Re:You provided the ammo for me to shoot U with

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus fuck, you need therapy man.

Re:You provided the ammo for me to shoot U with

[Anonymous Coward]

You need glasses or remedial reading help. Ash-Fox started trouble here with apk. He's shown doing it in links apk posted too.

Re:You provided the ammo for me to shoot U with

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so clearly an APK sock puppet, only APK would think he doesn't look the fool in his examples as his schitzophrenia betrays him.

Re:You provided the ammo for me to shoot U with

[Anonymous Coward]

Ash-Fox you didn't start trouble under apk's first post here trolling apk again in this thread https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9962449&cid=53438541/ ? Deny you didn't start trouble first in other links apk posted as evidence of it too. Good luck with that. It's here in black and white as proof Ash-fox.

Time to destroy you again Ash-Fox... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: I've cut you to pieces many times before e.g. -> https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3153677&cid=41553465/

(Where you doubted I have commercially sold code from a certified Microsoft partner out there doing GREAT to this day 20++ yrs. later - have you? Hell no!)

All I saw was "NDA" bullshit there!

(Which is what everyone KNOWS it is from you, w/ nothing to your name you complete zero bullshit artist, lol))

* Want more times I've cut you to pieces to PUBLICLY HUMILIATE YOU HERE in front of all of /.? In YOUR case? I've got literally dozens more examples thereof!

Lastly? The TRUTH comes out:

ROTFLMAO - this got to you didn't it? You had to try "hide it" via unjustifiable downmods https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

APK

P.S.=> FACT: All YOU are is a BUTTHURT troll loser (an ADMITTED troll & lying loser) https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5538231&cid=47677913/... apk