At least to respond to the first segment here, the pinned comment on the VOD does attribute their GN’s reporting for the segment. It does exactly what Linus said he would do in communication with Steve.

Does the pinned comment do a great job? Absolutely not, but it does what Steve agreed to, and he should have spoken up sooner if he didn’t like it.

They didn’t attribute on the clips channel cut, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the result of poor internal communication at LMG (likely by Linus since he likely handled the request on the VOD) to remember to include that attribution in that upload. Again, it would have been good if Steve let them know about it and asked for them to be more careful in the future. Its hard for a large group of people to be organized in that way and reminders are helpful. To bring it up years later in a legal threat is poor form, even if he is technically in the right.

To add onto my last comment though, I like watching the content from both of these creators and will continue to do so. My interpretation is neither is evil nor bad, but that there has been a series of poor communication and differing standards and expectations between them.

Just finished reading. In summary: everyone loses here.

Linus made some silly but understandable mistakes, had some very poor word choices in private communications, and got Steve on the defensive by publicly mentioning he didn’t want to sue but implied he could. LMG is also (in the youtube world) a large company and is likely always working on process improvements, and the improvement Steve seems to want to happen that they are definitely lacking in, is to update old content with corrections or omissions.

Steve poorly or never communicated what he thought were satisfactory resolutions to past comments or incidents and is upset that those resolutions didn’t happen, and is only escalating the situation further by softly threatening legal action, while also hinting that they have way more evidence they are just conveniently leaving out despite their current evidence being mostly empty (specifically receipts 1 and 2).

They both run very different channels with different focuses and staff sizes and production values, and each has made mistakes. None of this spat should have been public, but it seems both parties are just bad at communicating with one another and it has only escalated due to LMG actually publicly responding to public allegations by GN.

If I had to declare a winner so far, Steve is looking worse for wear to me given the poor examples provided as receipts and the continued threat of legal escalation, but again - everyone loses here. Everyone looks worse and this should have been handled privately. Maybe LMG should appoint someone other than Linus to handle fellow media contacts, because it doesn’t seem like he’s the best for that job.

I responded elsewhere in this thread with more commentary and I’m also not done reading yet, but how is receipt 1 anything at all? It seems both parties closed that email chain satisfied with the resolution outlined by Linus. If GN was upset with the resolution, maybe they should have said something?

Edit after further reading: How is receipt 2 anything at all either? Steve literally says in the opening of his email that the information is intended to be useful for future attempts. If he wanted LMG to edit old videos or provide extra detailed information then maybe he should have asked?

Receipt 3 is rough for Linus though, he has to do better when it comes to communicating. Not only with the choice of language but when it comes to understanding the the intent and body of a message before responding himself (the latter not too surprising given his history of wan show live responses to misunderstood chat messages).

I have not finished reading the article, but “Receipt 1” is just embarrassing to GN in my eyes. They claim LMG never addresses the plagierism and provides an email chain where Linus tell him what exactly LMG is going to do in response and GN responds indicating the solution is good. Where is the problem?

Specifically on publicly addressing it, Linus said they will pin a comment and Steve said that’s OK. That’s what happened. Is it truly unresolved? Just reading the emails provided makes it really look like an open and closed case.

I also dont get why they include the additional context in that part of their response. What does GN’s recent criticism of LMG have to do with that interaction?

Sorry, on mobile and just had to type something out before I forgot, because this is a long read.