Adblocking is NOT piracy T-Shirt

[Spotty]

Linus has posted on twitter that they will be doing an Adblock piracy t-shirt for lttstore.com

 

As we've seen over the past few weeks not everyone agrees with Linus' hot take about adblocking being piracy and it has sparked quite the debate, which you can participate in over in the Are we pirates? thread (please not here).

If you're doing a shirt for Adblocking being piracy you should also do a shirt for adblocking not being piracy. Give LTT fans the opportunity to buy the shirt they want to represent. You could even make it a challenge to see which shirt sells better the same way you did with the beadered/shaven Linus t-shirt.

 

 

... Unless of course you're worried an adblock is not piracy t-shirt would sell better

[Chris Pratt]

I disagree. Selling both options dilutes the point. It makes it seem as if it's something that's up for discussion, when it really isn't. I'm not trying to relitigate it here, as there's a separate discussion thread for that, as you mentioned. However, I'll say Linus is 100% right, and I've heard no good argument to the contrary. It's all ads suck, which sure they do. Still piracy. Or, I support the channel in other ways, which doesn't change the fact that it's piracy, only your karma.

[LinusTech]

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

Linus has posted on twitter that they will be doing an Adblock piracy t-shirt for lttstore.com

 

As we've seen over the past few weeks not everyone agrees with Linus' hot take about adblocking being piracy and it has sparked quite the debate, which you can participate in over in the Are we pirates? thread (please not here).

If you're doing a shirt for Adblocking being piracy you should also do a shirt for adblocking not being piracy. Give LTT fans the opportunity to buy the shirt they want to represent. You could even make it a challenge to see which shirt sells better the same way you did with the beadered/shaven Linus t-shirt.

 

 

... Unless of course you're worried an adblock is not piracy t-shirt would sell better

I like the idea of cashing in on this even further, but I want to make it very clear that this shirt is not an "Adblock is piracy" shirt.

 

It's an "A(something obscured)block is privateering" shirt.

Adblock is a registered trademark and we wouldn't consider using it. That would be tantamount to piracy.

 

Also, that's clearly a privateer veseel, not a pirate ship. Get your eyes checked 

[Beerzerker]

2 hours ago, Chris Pratt said:

I disagree. Selling both options dilutes the point. It makes it seem as if it's something that's up for discussion, when it really isn't. I'm not trying to relitigate it here, as there's a separate discussion thread for that, as you mentioned. However, I'll say Linus is 100% right, and I've heard no good argument to the contrary. It's all ads suck, which sure they do. Still piracy. Or, I support the channel in other ways, which doesn't change the fact that it's piracy, only your karma.

As you said yourself I disagree and do respect your view of it, however using an ad blocker doesn't make you a pirate.
BTW does my HWbot avvy make me a pirate?
I guess it does.... Maybe?
ARRRRRR......


Seriously, this is what I have as my avvy over there.
There are arguements that can go either way about it for many reasons and for the sake of this thread I'll leave it at that, further discussion of pros vs cons of it can be done in the indicated thread for such.

 

[Vishera]

4 hours ago, LinusTech said:

but I want to make it very clear that this shirt is not an "Adblock is piracy" shirt.

 

It's an "A(something obscured)block is privateering" shirt.

A lot of people think that pirates and privateers are the same thing,they don't know the difference.

[IPD]

Again, Linus, unless Rumble is giving you a "Letter of Marque" to steal things from YouTube, it isn't privateering.

 

Nor do I think it feels "on the level" for someone to use a preposterous redefinition of words in order to sell hyperbole--and then attempt to cash in on the righteous backlash garnered from such hubris.

[Vishera]

22 minutes ago, IPD said:

Again, Linus, unless Rumble is giving you a "Letter of Marque" to steal things from YouTube, it isn't privateering.

 

Nor do I think it feels "on the level" for someone to use a preposterous redefinition of words in order to sell hyperbole--and then attempt to cash in on the righteous backlash garnered from such hubris.

Overall privateers are like pirates,but legal.

They are only allowed to target certain types of targets according to the law,

We are allowed to target advertisers (scripts and IPs) and "blockade" their ads locally (their commerce ships),but we are not allowed to target video games or YouTube videos and "loot" them from rights holders.

 

The fact that the law allows anyone to block ads is your letter of marque (the permission to do so).

 

Pirates on the other end don't care about the law,so they loot and do blockades as much as they want with no restrictions what so ever.

[Chris Pratt]

3 hours ago, Vishera said:

Overall privateers are like pirates,but legal.

They are only allowed to target certain types of targets according to the law,

We are allowed to target advertisers (scripts and IPs) and "blockade" their ads locally (their commerce ships),but we are not allowed to target video games or YouTube videos and "loot" them from rights holders.

 

The fact that the law allows anyone to block ads is your letter of marque (the permission to do so).

 

Pirates on the other end don't care about the law,so they loot and do blockades as much as they want with no restrictions what so ever.

There is a distinct difference between the law allowing something and merely being silent on it. The law does not in any way "allow" ad blocking; there is simply no law explicitly preventing it. That's entirely beside the point though. If you want to watch a video on YouTube, your options are pay for Premium or watch ads. If you do neither, you pirated the content.

[Vishera]

2 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

There is a distinct difference between the law allowing something and merely being silent on it. The law does not in any way "allow" ad blocking; there is simply no law explicitly preventing it.

If the law doesn't prohibit something - It means that it allows it.

2 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

That's entirely beside the point though. If you want to watch a video on YouTube, your options are pay for Premium or watch ads. If you do neither, you pirated the content.

If it's legal then it's not pirated.

[Chris Pratt]

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

If the law doesn't prohibit something - It means that it allows it.

If it's legal then it's not pirated.

Wrong on both counts, actually.

[Biohazard777]

3 hours ago, IPD said:

Please don't ever run for public office.

Actually he would be excellent at it, say a lot:

5 hours ago, Chris Pratt said:

There is a distinct difference between the law allowing something and merely being silent on it. The law does not in any way "allow" ad blocking; there is simply no law explicitly preventing it.

and yet come to no conclusion, is it legal or illegal? 
Maybe the observer affects the result hah, he could also be a quantum physicist!
Since he is a programmer, I'd love to see some of his code... What kind of nondeterministic code has he been writing ?
 

16 hours ago, Spotty said:

If you're doing a shirt for Adblocking being piracy you should also do a shirt for adblocking not being piracy. Give LTT fans the opportunity to buy the shirt they want to represent.

And thus show support to a man that casually equated some of his fans with criminals, and later went on to redefine what piracy is...
Yeah nah, I'll think I'll pass, but God knows plenty of fans would go for it, hey Supreme is a thing and doing well so why wouldn't LMG.

 

14 hours ago, LinusTech said:

I like the idea of cashing in on this even further

Oh I'm sure you do, btw I "love" what you did with the WAN show set:

Pretty soon we won't be able to see your faces...
Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad thing.  
LTT Ski masks and googles next?

[Spotty]

Everybody chill. I saw they were designing a shirt for it and suggested a way I thought might make it a bit more fun. That's it.

 

1 hour ago, Biohazard777 said:

And thus show support to a man that casually equated some of his fans with criminals, and later went on to redefine what piracy is...
Yeah nah, I'll think I'll pass, but God knows plenty of fans would go for it, hey Supreme is a thing and doing well so why wouldn't LMG.

People that salty about it probably wouldn't be buying LTT merch anyway. I'm sure there's plenty of people who disagree with his thoughts on adblocking but still want to support the channel and like the merch they make, and would think a "not piracy" shirt would be a bit of fun. Just because you disagree with something somebody says doesn't mean you hate them or don't want to support them. He had a hot take about adblocking, it's not like he got #metoo'd or cancelled. Relax.

[Ultraforce]

2 hours ago, Biohazard777 said:

Actually he would be excellent at it, say a lot:

and yet come to no conclusion, is it legal or illegal? 

It might depend on your country. With Canada it is an undecided question where regulatory agencies at probably the federal level such as the CRTC could declare adblocking is illegal copyright infringement and until someone sued claiming that it broke charter rights or something then yeah it'd be illegal. Since the CRTC is able to regulate that. I imagine that even if the Canadian Government tried to do more regulations on intenet content LTT would actually be doing quite fine as there's a few mainstays and memorable sponsors such as DBrand, 45 Drives and others that are Canadian companies.

[Biohazard777]

2 minutes ago, Ultraforce said:

It might depend on your country. With Canada it is an undecided question where regulatory agencies at probably the federal level such as the CRTC could declare adblocking is illegal copyright infringement and until someone sued claiming that it broke charter rights or something then yeah it'd be illegal.

True it would depend on the country. They could declare it to be illegal, but until they do it isn't.
Where I live this applies: "No punishment without law: the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty."

Spoiler

Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights
No punishment without law

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-7-no-punishment-without-law
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_7_ENG.pdf

That also means I don't need to worry about Ex post facto laws, in case they decide to make it illegal everything I did up to that point is irrelevant, only if I continue doing it would it be a crime.
 

32 minutes ago, Ultraforce said:

Government tried to do more regulations on intenet content LTT would actually be doing quite fine as there's a few mainstays and memorable sponsors such as DBrand, 45 Drives and others that are Canadian companies.

I agree, LMG would do just fine.
My (perhaps) unpopular opinion on this subject (internet content regulation) - it should be better regulated.

[Blademaster91]

4 hours ago, Biohazard777 said:

Pretty soon we won't be able to see your faces...
Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad thing.  
LTT Ski masks and googles next?

There needs to be an LED backlit LTTSTORE.COM sign on the WAN show set wall.

16 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

That also means I don't need to worry about Ex post facto laws, in case they decide to make it illegal everything I did up to that point is irrelevant, only if I continue doing it would it be a crime.

Even if ad blocking were made illegal I doubt it would be any different than other forms of actual piracy, and an ISP wouldn't know if you're actually seeing those ads or not.

[Herr.Hoefkens]

i'll share one more take on the situation i havent seen yet , i got many but i wont bore you with all of them.

 

companies pay "add agency's" to promote and display the product they want to be promoted. these agencies pay yet another party to display their add's

in this cae the add agency is youtube or google(alfabet)... and linus media group is getting paid to display the adds on behalf of alfabet or on behalf on one of the other companies skipping the middle man as it were and comming to LMG directly.

now :

another way promoting an add agency can choose to use is by paying owners of big walls  and billboards next to the high way to display big posters of the product , wheter a driver or any and every passenger in a car or bus or ,.... looks and reads the billboard is totally up to that person , the owner of that billboard or wall is getting payed regardless, and its up to the markieting people of that company to come up with adds that do make people watch at them.

calling a blind man in the backseat of a car a prirate because hes using an addblocker is a bit over the top imho , even if he's wearing an eyepatch

[LogicalDrm]

Seeing people are unable to keep this on topic, locked as per request from OP. Linus or anyone from LMG, feel free to unlock if you feel like this could get back on track.

 

To everyone else, here are some threads where you can discuss the "hot take" and your own "take" regarding it. Including local laws (while keeping things out of politics):

(Note that developer has accepted apology and payment from Linus, so anyone discussing in this last one is missing the point hard).