Linus tech tips "pirating" OCCT - answer from the dev [Reddit thread]

[Rex Hite]

In defense of Linus's position, he merely thought adblockers should be "aware" of what they are doing. It seems once LMG became aware of a licensing issue, it was rectified. He walked the walk. He's golden on this matter.

[LinusTech]

27 minutes ago, Rex Hite said:

In defense of Linus's position, he merely thought adblockers should be "aware" of what they are doing. It seems once LMG became aware of a licensing issue, it was rectified. He walked the walk. He's golden on this matter.

(listening to what I said) + (reading what I wrote) = this post

 

This ain't rocket surgery. 

[kumicota]

31 minutes ago, Rex Hite said:

In defense of Linus's position, he merely thought adblockers should be "aware" of what they are doing. It seems once LMG became aware of a licensing issue, it was rectified. He walked the walk. He's golden on this matter.

He got away with a non-apology reply.

 

Where he's sorry for pirating it but he thinks is ok because he thinks that he channel is educational and that he can pay by exposure

[Roswell]

8 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

(listening to what I said) + (reading what I wrote) = this post

 

This ain't rocket surgery. 

Except you only rectified this one instance of piracy.

 

You routinely pirate console games, operating systems and other software for profit. When are you going to take accountability for the other offenses?

[Blademaster91]

19 minutes ago, kumicota said:

He got away with a non-apology reply.

 

Where he's sorry for pirating it but he thinks is ok because he thinks that he channel is educational and that he can pay by exposure

A non-apology statement or reply is usually what works for large companies, except Linus still wants to act like he can just screw up and walk away from it, yes people make mistakes but a company the size of LMG shouldn't be making such mistakes if they don't want to get sued.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

A lot of victim blaming in this thread right now.

 

It's the responsibility of the company (LMG) to assure that their use complies with the license agreement. It's not the developers job to ensure that the license agreement is followed. 

 

If I go to pirate Bay and download Windows, it's not Microsoft's fault that I didn't see the EULA. I'm responsible for making sure my use doesn't break the license. 

 

I am getting major "it's your fault for dressing like that" vibes from the last bunch of replies here. 

Yeah I think the victim blaming is just wrong here, if you've seen the Louis Rossmann video discussing this topic, he makes the point the dev could've possibly been too nervous to contact LMG, until the whole ad blocking hot take came up, I can completely understand a developer not wanting to take the risk of dealing with a multi-million dollar company. And a lot of people in the reddit thread have attacked the OCCT dev as if they're in the wrong for wanting people to pay for the software.

[Needfuldoer]

The developer isn't entirely blameless here, because it is their responsibility to make the terms of use for their software clear to the end user. Like I said, you can download OCCT from the official website and use all its features without ever being told "don't use the free version for commercial purposes". You have to go out of your way to find and follow the OCCT EULA. 

 

If the bright yellow 'Download' button on the OCCT website brought you to the Purchase page, which clearly lays out the features and limitations of each edition and contains a link to the EULA, instead of the nearly blank Download page, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the staffer who downloaded it would solely be in the wrong. That's the only change the developer would have to make.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Rex Hite said:

In defense of Linus's position, he merely thought adblockers should be "aware" of what they are doing. It seems once LMG became aware of a licensing issue, it was rectified. He walked the walk. He's golden on this matter.

No it didn't. He called people who used adblock for criminals. When people tried to correct him he also rudely said things like "you're objectively wrong" (even though the one who was wrong was Linus) and "it's literally the same thing" (even though it isn't).

Since then he has tried to backtrack by saying "all I said was that it reduces the revenue for content creators" when that was not the only thing he said, and not the part people took issue with.

He still hasn't responded to any of the valid arguments brought up by people or admitted that he was wrong. All he did was take some cheap shots at some easy to shoot down replies on Twitter and then reluctantly changed the words he used without admitting that he used the incorrect words to begin with.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Yeah I think the victim blaming is just wrong here, if you've seen the Louis Rossmann video discussing this topic, he makes the point the dev could've possibly been too nervous to contact LMG, until the whole ad blocking hot take came up, I can completely understand a developer not wanting to take the risk of dealing with a multi-million dollar company. And a lot of people in the reddit thread have attacked the OCCT dev as if they're in the wrong for wanting people to pay for the software.

I can't blame him. Linus has a lot of really rabid fans that are willing to attack anyone who says anything bad about Linus, even if it is completely justified.

I mean, you just have to look no further than this thread to see people trying to blame the developer even though he did nothing wrong and Linus was the one who screwed up. 

 

I criticise Linus a lot, but I certainly wouldn't do that if my name was known. I would honestly be scared for what his fans would do to me. Linus not discouraging his more zealous fans from blaming the developer is also disappointing. I think he is setting a bad example.

[LAwLz]

25 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

The developer isn't entirely blameless here, because it is their responsibility to make the terms of use for their software clear. Like I said, you can download OCCT from the official website and use all its features without ever being told "don't use the free version for commercial purposes". You have to go out of your way to find and follow the OCCT EULA. 

1) It isn't the developer's responsibility to make sure people read and follow the EULA. It is the users' responsibility. This is especially true for a company. "I didn't know" is not a valid defence in these scenarios because it is your responsibility to look it up. 

2) This is what the official website looked like the week before the video was published:

That is what the first page looked like. It was not under some hidden menu, or some subsection of the website or anything like that. It said, right on the front page in bold letters "OCCT is free for personal use only !".

 

 

I think Linus' response to that was "I didn't download it from the official website", which is why I draw the parallel with downloading Windows from Pirate bay or whatever.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

If the 'Download' button on the OCCT website brought you to the Purchase page, which clearly lays out the features and limitations of each edition and contains a link to the EULA, instead of the nearly blank Download page, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the staffer who downloaded it would solely be in the wrong. That's the only change the developer would have to make on their website to clearly lay out their expectations.

"If the developer didn't want his software pirated he should have made it more clear on his website".

"If the woman didn't want to get sexually harassed she should have dressed less invitingly". 

 

Stop with the victim blaming, please.

 

 

Yes, the developer could (and probably should) make it more clear with the different versions, but it is still the responsibility of the user to make sure their use is complaint with the license.

[Needfuldoer]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

"If the developer didn't want his software pirated he should have made it more clear on his website".

"If the woman didn't want to get sexually harassed she should have dressed less invitingly". 

 

Stop with the victim blaming, please.

Please don't imply I'm equating this situation with sexual harassment.

 

You are correct, there was an explicit note that said the free version is only for personal use around the time version 5.5.7 was released. The site should still be that clear today.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

Please don't imply I'm equating this situation with sexual harassment.

You're using the same logic, so that's why I am drawing parallels. 

The developer is the victim here, and you keep pushing that he did something wrong to deserve it. That is false. The responsibility is on the user. Especially when the user is a multi-million dollar company. 

 

By the way, did you see what the page looked like when LMG downloaded the software? Do you still think it is the developer's fault that LMG missed it, even though it was plastered in bold letters on the front page?

[LinusTech]

Here's a hypothetical:

 

If Serve the Home wanted to test some enterprise-ass simulation or machine learning shit, should they buy a multi-thousand dollar license (or more) for each machine (or core omg) that will run it? 

 

Legally, the answer is yes (which I already acknowledged). 

 

But, for fun, let's apply some basic common sense. Here's an example:

 

STH is not actually in the business of whatever kind of R&D that software is used for. They are not the target customer and thr pricing model of that software (usually based on some kind of RoI calculation) probably makes no sense for their business model - which is using the software to determine which hardware runs it best and monetizing that to ACTUAL potential customers for the hardware and... you got it! The software! 

 

Let's say I'm the software dev. If I refuse to provide a license for my software what have I gained? Nothing. Maybe even exposure for my competitors... Oops. 

 

If I provide a license, what do I gain? 

- valuable feedback on my software (could be compatibility or performance numbers - maybe for a system I haven't tested or don't have access to) 

- potential media partnerships 

- exposure leading to potential sales to my (better educated about the utility of my product) target customers

 

It's a no-brainer, which is why I made the (correct if you were paying attention - see the dev's tweet from back when this actually happened) assumption that the dev would be happy with this sort of exchange. 

 

My main mistake was seeking forgiveness rather than seeking permission *shrug*

 

Someone (many of you as well, apparently) got sand in their butt crack because I made the correct assertion that ad blocking is functionally the same as piracy (using without paying). 

 

$300 mistake. Oh well. I love the tool and probably should have donated to it anyway even if it was free. Would have happily done so if he'd ever emailed me but he didn't as far as I can tell. Again *shrug*

 

Is what I did piracy? Again, sure is. But I consider it to be ethical piracy (which I've never said doesn't exist) for the reasons I stated above, and while not everyone will agree 100% and someone MAY at some point reach out and say "Don't EVER show my software again without a proper license"... That isn't what happened here (if you were paying attention rather than being righteously furious about something else entirely) and I sincerely doubt it ever will. And I promise you no one would be stupid enough to sue me over it - mostly becuase they don't give a shit.

 

We are a commercial entity, but we aren't *really* a user of the product. We are COVERING the product. That doesn't mean we never make mistakes and doesn't make us an educational institution (never said it did, holy fuck have a lot of words been put in my mouth... Like... holy fuck) but it makes the purpose of the content not *just* educational but educational about their product to their customers. This is the key. 

 

Microsoft has my email, phone number, and home address. If they wanted to come harass me about my register windows watermark, they'd do so. They don't and they won't. Chillax. 

 

I've flip-flopped on many things over the years. As we learn we grow, and I'm always happy to hear new perspectives... but I've actual been pretty damn consistent about this. As a creator who is at least partially dependent on ads and who recognizes the hard work that goes into what I do, I don't use any form of AdBlock. Your can do whatever you want, but it IS piracy (sorry... Privateering). 

 

This whole 'but akshually' bullshit is pedantic and completely disconnected from the real world. By the OCCT dev's own words he'd be happy to provide licenses for use in this manner - to not just me but other YouTubers.

 

TLDR - read and apply common sense and this whole thing will make a lot more sense to you. If it doesn't, then I'm sorry I've exhausted all of my cares abuut this subject at this point. I can't help you. 

[LinusTech]

Also I can't be bothered to go find the post, but someone said I never condemned brigading the dev. I'm sorry I can't go find every stupid person on the internet and personally tell them to be less stupid, but yes I did condemn it. Obviously. 

 

 

[Needfuldoer]

16 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

By the way, did you see what the page looked like when LMG downloaded the software? Do you still think it is the developer's fault that LMG missed it, even though it was plastered in bold letters on the front page?

I do not. You are correct about that and I'm sorry for being so obstinate. Either they deliberately ignored the message, or they downloaded it from a mirror (who ignored the message).

 

Do you see the same note on their website today? What is the developer doing to protect themselves from being taken advantage of by another commercial entity, either by malice or ignorance? If anything, their old site was far clearer about OCCT's terms of use than it is today.

 

My point is that by not putting the current Purchase page front and center as part of the download path, they're creating the opportunity for this to happen again, completely innocently.

[LAwLz]

31 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

If I provide a license, what do I gain? 

- valuable feedback on my software (could be compatibility or performance numbers - maybe for a system I haven't tested or don't have access to) 

- potential media partnerships 

- exposure leading to potential sales to my (better educated about the utility of my product) target customers

Oh wow you actually pulled the "I'm paying you in exposure" card. Good one Linus. 

I know you dislike me and think I am a hater, but I was actually on your side on this until you started digging your own grave. I think pretty much every post you have made in this thread has made me feel less and less sorry for you. 

Maybe I am alone in thinking this, but I think it would be best if you just said sorry and then didn't mention this again. Not "sorry, but I'm actually right because...". Just a simple sorry. 

 

 

29 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Also I can't be bothered to go find the post, but someone said I never condemned brigading the dev. I'm sorry I can't go find every stupid person on the internet and personally tell them to be less stupid, but yes I did condemn it. Obviously. 

 

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't use Twitter and I didn't see you do it on reddit or this forum. Good to see you condemn it on at least one platform.

I understand that you can't go around and tell everyone to not be an idiot, but you also have to realize that you are partially responsible for what your fans does to defend you,  at least if you don't discourage it. Whether or not tweeting a reply to one person is enough discouragement is up for debate. 

[Distinctly Average]

33 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Here's a hypothetical:

 

If Serve the Home wanted to test some enterprise-ass simulation or machine learning shit, should they buy a multi-thousand dollar license (or more) for each machine (or core omg) that will run it? 

 

Legally, the answer is yes (which I already acknowledged). 

 

But, for fun, let's apply some basic common sense. Here's an example:

 

STH is not actually in the business of whatever kind of R&D that software is used for. They are not the target customer and thr pricing model of that software (usually based on some kind of RoI calculation) probably makes no sense for their business model - which is using the software to determine which hardware runs it best and monetizing that to ACTUAL potential customers for the hardware and... you got it! The software! 

 

Let's say I'm the software dev. If I refuse to provide a license for my software what have I gained? Nothing. Maybe even exposure for my competitors... Oops. 

 

If I provide a license, what do I gain? 

- valuable feedback on my software (could be compatibility or performance numbers - maybe for a system I haven't tested or don't have access to) 

- potential media partnerships 

- exposure leading to potential sales to my (better educated about the utility of my product) target customers

 

It's a no-brainer, which is why I made the (correct if you were paying attention - see the dev's tweet from back when this actually happened) assumption that the dev would be happy with this sort of exchange. 

 

My main mistake was seeking forgiveness rather than seeking permission *shrug*

 

Someone (many of you as well, apparently) got sand in their butt crack because I made the correct assertion that ad blocking is functionally the same as piracy (using without paying). 

 

$300 mistake. Oh well. I love the tool and probably should have donated to it anyway even if it was free. Would have happily done so if he'd ever emailed me but he didn't as far as I can tell. Again *shrug*

 

Is what I did piracy? Again, sure is. But I consider it to be ethical piracy (which I've never said doesn't exist) for the reasons I stated above, and while not everyone will agree 100% and someone MAY at some point reach out and say "Don't EVER show my software again without a proper license"... That isn't what happened here (if you were paying attention rather than being righteously furious about something else entirely) and I sincerely doubt it ever will. And I promise you no one would be stupid enough to sue me over it - mostly becuase they don't give a shit.

 

 

I totally agree. There is such a thing as ethical piracy. Done it myself a number of times. I hacked a software key on a piece of software I owned because I was getting no response from the dev for instance. Or how about downloading a cracked copy so it can be evaluated before buying, I’ve done that a few times too. How about downloading images of games that used to be on tape, that I actually own, as I cannot be bothered to rip it myself. 
 

In your case I agree, promoting a third parties product could have been very profitable for them. Here I feel while it is ethical piracy, it could have been handled better on both sides. You admitted your part, would be nice to hear from the dev too. Could have helped them make a few extra beer tokens.

33 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

We are a commercial entity, but we aren't *really* a user of the product. We are COVERING the product. That doesn't mean we never make mistakes and doesn't make us an educational institution (never said it did, holy fuck have a lot of words been put in my mouth... Like... holy fuck) but it makes the purpose of the content not *just* educational but educational about their product to their customers. This is the key. 

 

Microsoft has my email, phone number, and home address. If they wanted to come harass me about my register windows watermark, they'd do so. They don't and they won't. Chillax. 

 

Done the same myself, not registered their product for various reasons. Either I have known I will be swapping hardware very soon on customers kit. More often though, it is because kit cannot be connected to any external network for security reasons and using other methods to activate windows it a right royal pain in the Harris. So despite being licensed, we often run boxes not activated. If M$ didn’t want that to be possible with their software I am quite sure they would put a stop to it, instead of a nag a total lockout until you activate. They don’t, and I would even go as far to say they encourage it. They know many people and companies throw money at them, in many cases a shed load more than they actually use, M$ know they are on a good thing so will not rock the boat.

33 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

I've flip-flopped on many things over the years. As we learn we grow, and I'm always happy to hear new perspectives... but I've actual been pretty damn consistent about this. As a creator who is at least partially dependent on ads and who recognizes the hard work that goes into what I do, I don't use any form of AdBlock. Your can do whatever you want, but it IS piracy (sorry... Privateering). 

 

This whole 'but akshually' bullshit is pedantic and completely disconnected from the real world. By the OCCT dev's own words he'd be happy to provide licenses for use in this manner - to not just me but other YouTubers.

 

TLDR - read and apply common sense and this whole thing will make a lot more sense to you. If it doesn't, then I'm sorry I've exhausted all of my cares abuut this subject at this point. I can't help you. 

I hadn’t even heard of OCCT until your film, I am sure many others hadn’t too. So it has worked. Not a bad tool either and one I will certainly remember from now on.

 

Adblockers is a hard one. I don’t use one but I must admit the huge increase of ads on YouTube in the last year or so has been frustrating. I am sure if a YouTuber with only that and maybe Patreon as their revenue stream are hit quite hard if 10% of their viewers started using adblockers. I have wrestled with the idea of using pihole for a while, since seeing on your channel in fact. If I ever did that I would almost certainly send some green via Patreon or channel membership to the channels I watch regularly.

[LinusTech]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Oh wow you actually pulled the "I'm paying you in exposure" card. Good one Linus. 

I know you dislike me and think I am a hater, but I was actually on your side on this until you started digging your own grave. I think pretty much every post you have made in this thread has made me feel less and less sorry for you. 

Maybe I am alone in thinking this, but I think it would be best if you just said sorry and then didn't mention this again. Not "sorry, but I'm actually right because...". Just a simple sorry. 

 

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't use Twitter and I didn't see you do it on reddit or this forum. Good to see you condemn it on at least one platform.

I understand that you can't go around and tell everyone to not be an idiot, but you also have to realize that you are partially responsible for what your fans does to defend you,  at least if you don't discourage it. Whether or not tweeting a reply to one person is enough discouragement is up for debate. 

I'll never win with you so I don't give a shit, frankly. 

 

You're not alone in your determination to see everything I do in the worst possible light. All dozens of you can sit around and talk about how horrible I am. It makes not one lick of difference to me or anyone else. 

 

The OCCT dev and I are on the same page - along with SolidWorks and countless others that we have worked with over the years - that this makes sense. 

 

Deal with it. 

[kumicota]

32 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

If I provide a license, what do I gain? 

- valuable feedback on my software (could be compatibility or performance numbers - maybe for a system I haven't tested or don't have access to) 

- potential media partnerships 

- exposure leading to potential sales to my (better educated about the utility of my product) target customers

The famous entitled person that he thinks that he can pay by exposure without talking with the owner.

 

33 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

but it IS piracy

It isn't, piracy is a crime and unlike you and other people say, there's no such thing as ethical crime. There's a lot of other things that you could say that adblocking is but not piracy.

 

The meaning of "Ethics" is a what a group or society uses as the concept which they say what is right or wrong behavior, ethics changes between groups, states, countries and more. So I and a lot of people can see using adblock on your videos ethical piracy then, which is the reason that doesn't exists a ethical crime 

 

[Moonzy]

39 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

As a creator who is at least partially dependent on ads and who recognizes the hard work that goes into what I do, I don't use any form of AdBlock. Your can do whatever you want, but it IS piracy (sorry... Privateering). 

You do make good points and, imo, is doing the right thing by reminding everyone of the impact of piracy and/or adblocking

 

But please stop calling it piracy, that's not a good boat to die on, call it AdBlocking or something else

[LinusTech]

3 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

You do make good points and, imo, is doing the right thing by reminding everyone of the impact of piracy and/or adblocking

 

But please stop calling it piracy, that's not a good boat to die on, call it AdBlocking or something else

Who cares? It's just semantics at that point. 

 

"Ooh no I don't like that bad bad word woe is me I don't pay for shit but I'm the victim boo hoo now I feel bad." 

 

Get a thicker skin.

 

You made up your own rules and now you cry when you get called on it?

 

Anyone taking this stance has a lot of growing up to do. 

[dilpickle]

34 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Here's a hypothetical:

 

If Serve the Home wanted to test some enterprise-ass simulation or machine learning shit, should they buy a multi-thousand dollar license (or more) for each machine (or core omg) that will run it? 

 

Legally, the answer is yes (which I already acknowledged). 

 

But, for fun, let's apply some basic common sense. Here's an example:

 

STH is not actually in the business of whatever kind of R&D that software is used for. They are not the target customer and thr pricing model of that software (usually based on some kind of RoI calculation) probably makes no sense for their business model - which is using the software to determine which hardware runs it best and monetizing that to ACTUAL potential customers for the hardware and... you got it! The software! 

 

Let's say I'm the software dev. If I refuse to provide a license for my software what have I gained? Nothing. Maybe even exposure for my competitors... Oops. 

 

If I provide a license, what do I gain? 

- valuable feedback on my software (could be compatibility or performance numbers - maybe for a system I haven't tested or don't have access to) 

- potential media partnerships 

- exposure leading to potential sales to my (better educated about the utility of my product) target customers

 

It's a no-brainer, which is why I made the (correct if you were paying attention - see the dev's tweet from back when this actually happened) assumption that the dev would be happy with this sort of exchange. 

 

My main mistake was seeking forgiveness rather than seeking permission *shrug*

 

Someone (many of you as well, apparently) got sand in their butt crack because I made the correct assertion that ad blocking is functionally the same as piracy (using without paying). 

 

$300 mistake. Oh well. I love the tool and probably should have donated to it anyway even if it was free. Would have happily done so if he'd ever emailed me but he didn't as far as I can tell. Again *shrug*

 

Is what I did piracy? Again, sure is. But I consider it to be ethical piracy (which I've never said doesn't exist) for the reasons I stated above, and while not everyone will agree 100% and someone MAY at some point reach out and say "Don't EVER show my software again without a proper license"... That isn't what happened here (if you were paying attention rather than being righteously furious about something else entirely) and I sincerely doubt it ever will. And I promise you no one would be stupid enough to sue me over it - mostly becuase they don't give a shit.

 

We are a commercial entity, but we aren't *really* a user of the product. We are COVERING the product. That doesn't mean we never make mistakes and doesn't make us an educational institution (never said it did, holy fuck have a lot of words been put in my mouth... Like... holy fuck) but it makes the purpose of the content not *just* educational but educational about their product to their customers. This is the key. 

 

Microsoft has my email, phone number, and home address. If they wanted to come harass me about my register windows watermark, they'd do so. They don't and they won't. Chillax. 

 

I've flip-flopped on many things over the years. As we learn we grow, and I'm always happy to hear new perspectives... but I've actual been pretty damn consistent about this. As a creator who is at least partially dependent on ads and who recognizes the hard work that goes into what I do, I don't use any form of AdBlock. Your can do whatever you want, but it IS piracy (sorry... Privateering). 

 

This whole 'but akshually' bullshit is pedantic and completely disconnected from the real world. By the OCCT dev's own words he'd be happy to provide licenses for use in this manner - to not just me but other YouTubers.

 

TLDR - read and apply common sense and this whole thing will make a lot more sense to you. If it doesn't, then I'm sorry I've exhausted all of my cares abuut this subject at this point. I can't help you. 

I mean yeah this is just the same old "sorry but I didn't do anything wrong".

 

I don't even fault you for not knowing the program needed a license. Its your response that keeps putting you into a deeper and deeper hole.

 

All you had to do was say "we weren't aware the program needed a license but now that we are we bought one"

 

But instead you decide to go off on all these tangents blaming everyone but yourself and telling us you're here to educate us about other people's products while whining about lost ads.

[Jr2_]

At the end of the day, you can't skate that it is hypocritical to say that ad blocking is piracy, and then have less of a problem with essentially pirating software, because you make "educational content", which isn't untrue, but doesnt reduce the fact that LMG is a for-profit company pulling in easily 7 figures a year, while also not explicitly making said content for schools. This is clear commercial use. I don't personally have a problem with adblocking or anything of the sort, but I do have a problem when people say things like you did (and defend them so vehemently), while defending things like this. I'm not saying that its the 8th deadly sin to accidentally do things like this time to time, and I am aware that you paid for it later, but I can't support flipping sides when it helps you, like you are doing now. Also, you have a big problem with ad blocking (which does affect you i'm not dumb enough to think that you dont take a loss from it), but can partly stand behind 'pirating' a program that is literally this man's only source of income.

 

I am a fan of the channel, but this seemed like a big problem in my opinion.

 

'I am a influencer, give me the program' doesn't hold a candle to me. I respect comppanies who follow that and who do give programs to increase publicity, but I would consider it common decency to ask, and to not turn a blind eye.

[LinusTech]

6 minutes ago, kumicota said:

The famous entitled person that he thinks that he can pay by exposure without talking with the owner.

 

It isn't, piracy is a crime and unlike you and other people say, there's no such thing as ethical crime. There's a lot of other things that you could say that adblocking is but not piracy.

 

The meaning of "Ethics" is a what a group or society uses as the concept which they say what is right or wrong behavior, ethics changes between groups, states, countries and more. So I and a lot of people can see using adblock on your videos ethical piracy then, which is the reason that doesn't exists a ethical crime 

 

This post is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most obvious is the assertion that there's no such thing as an ethical crime. 

 

If I speed in my car to rush to stop a child from being run over by a train, saving its life is that not an ethical crime? 

 

C'mon. Try harder. 

[LinusTech]

Just now, Jr2_ said:

At the end of the day, you can't skate that it is hypocritical to say that ad blocking is piracy, and then have less of a problem with essentially pirating software, because you make "educational content", which isn't untrue, but doesnt reduce the fact that LMG is a for-profit company pulling in easily 7 figures a year, while also not explicitly making said content for schools. This is clear commercial use. I don't personally have a problem with adblocking or anything of the sort, but I do have a problem when people say things like you did (and defend them so vehemently), while defending things like this. I'm not saying that its the 8th deadly sin to accidentally do things like this time to time, and I am aware that you paid for it later, but I can't support flipping sides when it helps you, like you are doing now. Also, you have a big problem with ad blocking (which does affect you i'm not dumb enough to think that you dont take a loss from it), but can partly stand behind 'pirating' a program that is literally this man's only source of income.

 

I am a fan of the channel, but this seemed like a big problem in my opinion.

 

'I am a influencer, give me the program' doesn't hold a candle to me. I respect comppanies who follow that and who do give programs to increase publicity, but I would consider it common decency to ask, and to not turn a blind eye.

Go read my posts. Literally all of this is addressed. 

[Moonzy]

9 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Who cares? It's just semantics at that point. 

"Ooh no I don't like that bad bad word woe is me I don't pay for shit but I'm the victim boo hoo now I feel bad." 

Get a thicker skin.

You made up your own rules and now you cry when you get called on it?

Anyone taking this stance has a lot of growing up to do. 

Man, good luck

And I mean this in the most respectful way, not sarcasm

 

edit: take a deep breathe

[Kronion]

21 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Oh wow you actually pulled the "I'm paying you in exposure" card. Good one Linus. 

That's a hard one, for sure. But to be fair here, LTT isn't some small tech channel and in his case, exposure actually does mean something. Linus isn't one of these self-declared small-time "influencers" that expect everything be given for free to them so they can review it. Like it or not, being featured in one of LTT's videos actually does provide some value to a software developer.

 

I won't even comment further on the "adblocking is/is not piracy" thing. It's basically just semantics at this point. I do understand the point he was trying to make and do agree to a certain degree (I wouldn't have used the word "piracy" in the first place). Everything else has been discussed to death now.