So basically you're saying he might get paid (even though he's said before he doesn't get paid for this) and is stealing from his company, who have a problem with that (even though Pach Attack has been going on for several years now and there probably would have been consequences, if his company had a real problem with it), because you say so, brilliant.

Youtubers have accepted adblock because they can't do anything about it, that's the more likely explanation.

And, wow he just insulted a large percentage of the internet, man I'm sure this is gonna haunt him, just imagine what those people could do now, they could stop visiting the site... wait, since they're using Adblock their clicks are worthless anyway, welp I guess he won't be losing any sleep over this.

If you don't contribute to the content being created then, don't be surprised if content creators don't value you that much.

"I don't mind ads as long as they are static, but I use ad block on the big animated ones that are in your face. Those are awful"

*poster has multiple large animated .gifs in signature*

Yeah if you have a one dimensional view which states that only 1 factor changes with time and everything else remains static, then yes.

But as I already said in one of my earlier comments, the economics would change to suit the new system where financial gain is not the only reason people create content for. Artistic value, wanting to be an opinion leader, wanting to be a celebrity, showing off talent are just some other factors.

There is NOTHING to say that creating content for these reasons would lead to inferior content over content which is designed to generate advertising revenue.

Yes there is a 'ton more content' on the internet, but most of it use other revenue models, not just advertising.

In the example of breaking bad, if there were no TV adverts, that doesnt mean walter white and co would sit at home doing nothing. They would still be actors but just accept the industry where acting offers a lower wage because it generates less revenue. Maybe they wouldnt agree to it and might protest, but the next generation of actors would because regardless of wages, they still want to be actors and would still act to the best of their ability. And while people might block the TV adverts, they still wouldnt be able to block product placements so it would still be generating income (in addition to other forms including sales of DVD's, blu-rays, digital episodes, franchising and so on)

Wrong. DVR ratings are counted. T.V guide lists the amount of shows watched live and on DVR within 3 days. I've seen several articles over the years claiming DVRs have actually helped certain shows viewership because people are able to watch it on their own schedule so are more likely to be able to follow shows easier.

I guess if you record something and just don't watch it for a long time that might not count but I would assume most people interested in a show watch it pretty quickly like I do.

Don't know how it's elsewhere but for 99% of the TV watching people in Germany it's complete irrelevant if they switch the channel or not since the data (from GFK btw.) is compiled from ~10.000 people with a special instrument.
If the 10.000 don't switch the channel during breaks but all others do, the channels still get the full amount of advert revenue as if the whole nation is watching.

Also on the topic of shows being cancelled because people DVR them, another reason DVR helps shows is because it opens up schedules on certain stations more. Look at Breaking Bad, before the last season AMC started showing a few episodes every night at like 3 in the morning. Hardly prime time.

But it allowed people like me who had never followed the show to get caught up and then become a fan of the show and then, in turn, watched the last season as it happened.

You think that hurt their ratings? Give me a break. We live in a busy world, you can't expect everyone to just stop what they are doing and watch a show right then and there. We have hundreds of channels, DVRs allow you to watch multiple shows from the same period when previously you would watch just one. Smart companies like AMC fully embrace DVR usage because it helps their viewership.

Not to mention ad revenue, which does include DVR ratings, is paid to the network whether you watch the commercials or not. Oh my god, I skipped some commercials for financial retirement consultants, cleaning products and boat insurance.... Man I must be destroying the entire economy.

Edit: in terms if people watching online I'm not sure how you are defining that exactly. People stealing everything and downloading it all illegally? Okay, I'll give you that. But you can't honestly put that in the same catagory as paying a cable provider 100 dollars a month and utilizing a DVR to allow you to watch television on your own schedule. As far as people legitimately watching television online they are either paying for episodes on services like iTunes or watching free streams on websites like NBC or Adult Swim. In either of those scenarios the provider is still benefitting.

It just becomes an arms race, however. Adblock makers then do an end-run around whatever antiadblock protections are in place.

The simpler thing, as somebody mentioned, is for adblock to somehow send a signal to the adserver which registers an ad as "viewed" whether or not you physically saw it.

I do know that because that's how business works in the US. GT isn't going to let him represent them and create content for them without getting him to sign a contract. He is is also a businessman and he is not going to give it away for free. Otherwise he'd be a bad businessman. You even said so you yourself he's admitted he's gotten free games so guess what that is compensation so he said so himself that he got paid.

I started cooking up a bag of popcorn before he even started responding. The only thing that would make this better is if AdBlock+ guy responded to him with another email with a picture of the Your Tears Are Delicious meme. LOL.

I'm not saying he might get paid. I'm saying he is getting paid. he even admitted he gets games which means he has received payment. He's said a lot of things that aren't true like the fact that he said people that use DVR or Adblock are the scum of the earth and the worst kinds of people. I'm pretty sure there are victims of rape and hate crimes that would strongly disagree. He is stealing from his company whether you like it or not because he is on company property on company time and again it wouldn't matter if the people in charge had a problem with it or not. Corporations are treated as separate entities in the US so even if the founder of the company was ok with stealing money from the corporation it still wouldn't be ok. It's not because i say so it's because that's how the law and the world works. You can't sit here and say money makes the world turn and everyone is out to make a profit one second and then turn around and say that Patcher that is a business man in the US that has a contract with GT isn't going to make money for his time, even after the fact that he's admitted hes gotten free games and therefore profited. You must be reeling from all the cognitive dissonance.

Just because those people use adblock doesn't mean they don't share his videos on social networks. I use adblock but I've shared countless videos on G+. I have roughly over 5k followers and a lot of those probably don't use Ad block. I've probably generated them a good deal of profit and it's no different for others that share videos too. It's a fallacy to assume that just because someone uses Adblock or a DVR that they somehow aren't contributing in some way. After all word of mouth is known as the most powerful form of advertising for a reason.  Don't let your man crush on patcher blind you to reality.