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

[BaidDSB]

26 minutes ago, Lurick said:

 

And he's also explained at great length how that was a poor choice of words but people will get outraged and angry at whatever is in the moment and ignore anything else that corrects a mistake because logic dictates it?  

 

Does LTT need to be on top of their licenses? Hell yes
Did LTT screw up by not buying a license for commercial use? Yes

Is/was LTT acting with malice in this instance? No, and until people can show otherwise or someone at LTT comes out and clearly shows otherwise, don't just hop on the easy bandwagon.

 

I also have no reason to believe the developer reached out to LTT either in any meaningful manner either. I mean this is a person who, at least on reddit, said they gave PC Building Simulator a (permanent?) license to use OCCT in the game with the only payment being a single key of PC Building Simulator.....

 

Again, I will NOT argue they aren't owed at minimum a purchase of the license from LTT but just note I'm not going to throw any of my energy to the developers defense either when they seem to be so quick to "get paid in exposure" in essence. Both parties are idiots for different reasons.

 

I chatted with someone about this and they mentioned, which I missed, you can also download this software from third party sites and upon launching it on a non-AD connected machine you are prompted with ZERO license information upon or following the install. Techspot for example lets you download OCCT directly but makes no mention of these licensing terms, if someone downloaded from there they would have never even seen the pro version exists without going to the site directly. Is that an excuse? No but it IS something else to consider. Hell the software itself doesn't even mention there is a paid version or any license terms inside:

 

The page literally tells you theres a "purchase" option and in its About page.

 

Man i hate blind defense of a corpo.

[Lurick]

2 minutes ago, BaidDSB said:

The page literally tells you theres a "purchase" option and in its About page.

 

https://i.postimg.cc/kgy8XLSD/Untitled.png

Man i hate blind defense of a corpo.

I downloaded from techspot, guess what's not there?

Guess what's not there in older versions? Support us information!

 

Edit:

Additionally, because I'm a blind person, where did I say LTT gets off scott free?

[joaopt]

skipping ads isn't literally piracy but this is. maybe know he finds the difference

[ToboRobot]

what version was LTT using and what was the license for that version!?

[Lurick]

1 minute ago, ToboRobot said:

what version was LTT using and what was the license for that version!?

Version 5 from what I can tell and around that time there was very limited mention of commercial licenses on the site.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191009225029/https://www.ocbase.com/

 

I will state this again, LTT still did and does owe for a license but a witch hunt isn't called for in my opinion.

[ToboRobot]

5 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Version 5 from what I can tell and around that time there was very limited mention of commercial licenses on the site.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191009225029/https://www.ocbase.com/

 

I will state this again, LTT still did and does owe for a license but a witch hunt isn't called for in my opinion.

If that is true, and LMG bought a perpetual license they should be in the clear?

[Ydfhlx]

It doesn't even matter if the dev has tried communicating linus or not. That's because it is not his responsibility to check who and how is using the software. LTT is breaking the license and RN they could even be sued for the commercial license fees + additional fine. And no court will care that he didn't bother to read the popup that says "no commercial use" (it even is on video that he saw this popup (!) ), nor read license agreement, or even go to "purchase" bookmark on the site. You agree to the license by installing the software.

 

Also, ranting about how not watching ads before videos is piracy and then not paying for software is hyporisy at its best.

[Mark Kaine]

9 minutes ago, BaidDSB said:

The page literally tells you theres a "purchase" option and in its About page.

Wait… you arent the "dev" or are you?

You should definitely change the OP to reflect that, or if you are the "dev" then you should make *that* clearer, just saying because as of now its terribly constructed, and in no way helps to make your case - maybe a honest mistake, but pretty misleading nontheless if i see this right…

 

 

13 minutes ago, BaidDSB said:

Man i hate blind defense of a corpo.

I agree, many will jump to LTT defense here, but thats kinda expected on the "LTT" forum… 

Theres still frequent discussion about LTTs mishaps, something you wouldnt see on many similar forums… and Im sure its one reason people generally respect linus and LTT…

 

Anyways, the post you quoted was right pointing out the discrepancies… i used occt a couple of times (cant say im a fan, it seems rather pointless and unnecessarily convoluted  to me) but i dont remember reading anything about licenses etc, only that they ask for money to "unlock" the complete thing, exactly the way *not* to go about something like this imo - but the point is, its not clear at all that there are different licenses, and if its on the website, well, as mentioned, most people will never see this because  they dont download from the website… this is 100% on the dev, there should be a clear disclaimer when opening the software about the conditions, which to my knowledge there is not.

 

Not saying if you have a point or not, but the missing / unclear information in the app itself doesnt help an awful lot at all…

 

#notashilllmfao… ok

[Lurick]

14 hours ago, Ydfhlx said:

It doesn't even matter if the dev has tried communicating linus or not. That's because it is not his responsibility to check who and how is using the software. LTT is breaking the license and RN they could even be sued for the commercial license fees + additional fine. And no court will care that he didn't bother to read the popup that says "no commercial use", nor read license agreement, or even go to "purchase" bookmark on the site. You agree to the license by installing the software.

 

Also, ranting about how not watching ads before videos is piracy and then not paying for software is hyporisy at its best.

When license terms aren't present during install then what? That's my main question, at no point during the install process then or now are there license terms presented to agree to. There is now a support pop-up upon running a benchmark with mention of commercial use BUT back in the v5 days (when this occurred) there was only a popup asking for support for a $1 but that's it, there was no mention anywhere in the software about free vs commercial use or any license terms. How can you agree to something you don't know exists and doesn't present itself? Nobody knows or can prove either way if OCCT was downloaded from the official site or not even because there are plenty of places and mirrors to download from without going to the official site and if you download from a mirror you could easily never know commercial terms existed without doing more digging.

 

The version 5 software:

[Lurick]

https://www.techspot.com/downloads/4665-overclock-checking-tool.html

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Lurick said:

https://www.techspot.com/downloads/4665-overclock-checking-tool.html

I didn't even realize OCCT had a website before this. 

You also can't just upload software to Techspot. Takes emails to do it. From the DEV. Who has the license listed as freeware.

[Lurick]

<deleted quote>

What's the point? I'm trying to say you could and can download it from third parties and never have the slightest inkling there is a commercial license. That doesn't excuse LMG not getting a license but to say "you can only download software from an official site" is just baffling. See the post above about this!

Edited February 14, 2022 by Spotty

[BaidDSB]

14 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Wait… you arent the "dev" or are you?

You should definitely change the OP to reflect that, or if you are the "dev" then you should make *that* clearer, just saying because as of now its terribly constructed, and in no way helps to make your case - maybe a honest mistake, but pretty misleading nontheless if i see this right…

 

 

I agree, many will jump to LTT defense here, but thats kinda expected on the "LTT" forum… 

Theres still frequent discussion about LTTs mishaps, something you wouldnt see on many similar forums… and Im sure its one reason people generally respect linus and LTT…

 

Anyways, the post you quoted was right pointing out the discrepancies… i used occt a couple of times (cant say im a fan, it seems rather pointless and unnecessarily convoluted  to me) but i dont remember reading anything about licenses etc, only that they ask for money to "unlock" the complete thing, exactly the way *not* to go about something like this imo - but the point is, its not clear at all that there are different licenses, and if its on the website, well, as mentioned, most people will never see this because  they dont download from the website… this is 100% on the dev, there should be a clear disclaimer when opening the software about the conditions, which to my knowledge there is not.

 

Not saying if you have a point or not, but the missing / unclear information in the app itself doesnt help an awful lot at all…

 

#notashilllmfao… ok

of course im not the dev. i saw this on reddit. didnt see a topic here, posted here.

 

Did you like read the title and the first line?

 

 

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, BaidDSB said:

of course im not the dev. i saw this on reddit. didnt see a topic here, posted here.

 

Did you like read the title and the first line?

 

 

6 hours ago, BaidDSB said:

[Copied from Reddit, did NOT see a post on here] [https://old.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/srhalz/linus_tech_tips_pirating_occt_answer_from_the_dev/]

Context :

I'm making this a dedicated post since things blew up in the post about the Newegg controversy, following this comment :

https://old.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/srb92k/holy_sht_people/hwrbhts/

TL;DR : Linus tech tips use OCCT in their videos ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJnrMNCahxc&t=270s

) and they didn't pay for a Pro license, which raised controversy in my Discord at that time, and mixed feelings. Aeryn brings that up, and it blew up, with mentions to their "adblock = piracy" stuff among others.

Seems my answer isn't publicly readable in that thread for some reason, and as it's far in the comments section, I thought it was a good idea to put it here. I jnust hope i'm not wrong. Sorry if I am !

My original answer :

OCCT dev here.

First line says it's copied from Reddit. You don't say you're not the DEV, then "My original answer: OCCT dev here"

 

[Mark Kaine]

11 minutes ago, Lurick said:

The version 5 software:

precisely this… its like people dont even read whats being said, but at the same time expect us to visit some "dev website" to check the conditions…

 

 

Again this particular point is 100% on the dev… they should do away with the timer and ask people directly in the app to donate or join a patreon, they would likely make more money that way too… probably not much because  people  are cheapskates, but still better than this carrot and stick timer tactic.

[Annika]

2 minutes ago, Lurick said:

What's the point? I'm trying to say you could and can download it from third parties and never have the slightest inkling there is a commercial license. That doesn't excuse LMG not getting a license but to say "you can only download software from an official site" is just baffling. See the post above about this!

The point is that the developer does state it up front when you go to download it from them.  The person was implying they don't remember seeing it, so I showed them where it is.   Techspot and other third party sites, who might have permission to upload it if it's not the dev/publisher doing it, aren't always going to put in every little detail that the developer/publisher is going to on their own site.  The point is that it's a thing, and the problem with Linus is that he makes assumptions rather than doing two seconds of research.  Yet, he only wants people to understand it when it hurts him financially.   Linus doesn't care if he hurts people financially as long as he can profit from his cringe clickbait videos for children.

[LinusTech]

My response (copy pasted from reddit): 

 

Linus here.

 

First and foremost, I'm sorry for any upset we caused by using OCCT without paying for a professional license. I've gone ahead and picked up a pro license to cover our use. https://imgur.com/HlDn2Ic

 

The truth is I had no idea OCCT was a paid software. There is a donation prompt in the application, but otherwise no indication that I should have been using a paid version.

Ignorance doesn't excuse our sloppy approach to software licensing here, though. The simple fact is we pirated your software (which as some of you realize I never said we were perfect about, and in fact have pointed out times when my own ethics aren't bothered by it, but whatever) but hopefully our purchase of a paid license will allow us to put this behind us.

 

There are some other aspects of your post that I could probably type out a longer reply to - like the insinuation that (even if we wanted to) LTT could somehow destroy your OCCT business, or that we don't reply to outreach (I searched our public email and we only have two emails containing the characters OCCT, and neither of them are from you), and the fact that honestly I've got a little bit of whiplash right now from how abruptly this went from "thanks for the shout-out" to "I'm upset enough to write a novel on reddit about it".

 

https://twitter.com/OCCT_Ocbase/status/1396932156610469890?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1396932156610469890%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flinustechtips.com%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fmobile.twitter.com%2FOCCT_Ocbase%2Fstatus%2F1396932156610469890

 

Most devs recognize that our use of their software is closer to educational use than it is to commercial use and don't mind us using their software for free if we are demonstrating how to use it and showcasing it to potential customers on the channel. Based on this Twitter post, I assumed you felt the same way. I guess you don't.

 

But assumptions lead to disasters, and we absolutely should have reached out. Hopefully you can understand how the error occurred and we can put this behind us.

[Lurick]

Just now, Annika said:

The point is that the developer does state it up front when you go to download it from them.  The person was implying they don't remember seeing it, so I showed them where it is.   Techspot and other third party sites, who might have permission to upload it if it's not the dev/publisher doing it, aren't always going to put in every little detail that the developer/publisher is going to on their own site.  The point is that it's a thing, and the problem with Linus is that he makes assumptions rather than doing two seconds of research.  Yet, he only wants people to understand it when it hurts him financially.   Linus doesn't care if he hurts people financially as long as he can profit from his cringe clickbait videos for children.

Ok, that's a fair and valid point and I'm not going to dispute that (and if it seemed like I was I'm not), I jumped the gun in assuming your reply was directed to my conversation so I apologize for that.

[Mark Kaine]

<deleted quote>

Has been already pointed out to you several times now that it is not "there" if you download the app from the usual trusted sources like techspot, no one is going to see this disclaimer on the devs website, its really not that hard to understand, its actually perplexing the dev doesnt  realize this and probably lost a lot of money due to his decision to not put that info in the app where everyone would be sure to see it.

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Spotty

[Zoba]

27 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Most devs recognize that our use of their software is closer to educational use than it is to commercial use and don't mind us using their software for free if we are demonstrating how to use it and showcasing it to potential customers on the channel. Based on this Twitter post, I assumed you felt the same way. I guess you don't.

@LinusTechi strongly disagree with this sentiment. You use the software in your video. A video, which you produce to make money with constant ads for your store (even on the "adfree" floatplane), sponsors etc.That is commercial use and there is no way to sugar coat it.

That said, the dev's webpage is badly designed and doesn't make it clear enough and the drama he used to get you to subscribe to his service was stupid as hell.

I don't think it's justified to be outraged about it - i guess you ruffled some feathers with your hot takes and in the end you corrected a simple to fix error.

[LinusTech]

2 minutes ago, Zoba said:

@LinusTechi strongly disagree with this sentiment. You use the software in your video. A video, which you produce to make money with constant ads for your store (even on the "adfree" floatplane), sponsors etc.That is commercial use and there is no way to sugar coat it.

That said, the dev's webpage is badly designed and doesn't make it clear enough and the drama he used to get you to subscribe to his service was stupid as hell.

I don't think it's justified to be outraged about it - i guess you ruffled some feathers with your hot takes and in the end you corrected a simple to fix error.

You can disagree all you want, but it's pretty standard practice.

 

We allow the use of our (unedited) videos in schools - even if they are for-profit and consider it to be just basic common sense. 

[Fasterthannothing]

29 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Most devs recognize that our use of their software is closer to educational use than it is to commercial use and don't mind us using their software for free if we are demonstrating how to use it and showcasing it to potential customers on the channel. Based on this Twitter post, I assumed you felt the same way. I guess you don't.

That's a pretty darn big assumption right there. That's called I'm an influencer and I think I can get away with not paying. Pretty crazy coming from a guy reprimanding people for using AdBlock. By that same assumption everyone can assume your videos are for educational purposes and so we don't need to pay for them or watch ads.

[Dillpickle23422]

Honestly, after looking at the site, I see how one would assume that there is no licence or whatever for the product, hence the misunderstanding. He bought the pro licence thing after he realized that there was one. If they were doing it maliciously, with knowing it, i would be commending them right now, but I think that this was a misunderstanding.

[Squilliam]

35 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

My response (copy pasted from reddit): 

 

Linus here.

 

First and foremost, I'm sorry for any upset we caused by using OCCT without paying for a professional license. I've gone ahead and picked up a pro license to cover our use. https://imgur.com/HlDn2Ic

 

The truth is I had no idea OCCT was a paid software. There is a donation prompt in the application, but otherwise no indication that I should have been using a paid version.

Ignorance doesn't excuse our sloppy approach to software licensing here, though. The simple fact is we pirated your software (which as some of you realize I never said we were perfect about, and in fact have pointed out times when my own ethics aren't bothered by it, but whatever) but hopefully our purchase of a paid license will allow us to put this behind us.

 

There are some other aspects of your post that I could probably type out a longer reply to - like the insinuation that (even if we wanted to) LTT could somehow destroy your OCCT business, or that we don't reply to outreach (I searched our public email and we only have two emails containing the characters OCCT, and neither of them are from you), and the fact that honestly I've got a little bit of whiplash right now from how abruptly this went from "thanks for the shout-out" to "I'm upset enough to write a novel on reddit about it".

 

https://twitter.com/OCCT_Ocbase/status/1396932156610469890?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1396932156610469890%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flinustechtips.com%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fmobile.twitter.com%2FOCCT_Ocbase%2Fstatus%2F1396932156610469890

 

Most devs recognize that our use of their software is closer to educational use than it is to commercial use and don't mind us using their software for free if we are demonstrating how to use it and showcasing it to potential customers on the channel. Based on this Twitter post, I assumed you felt the same way. I guess you don't.

 

But assumptions lead to disasters, and we absolutely should have reached out. Hopefully you can understand how the error occurred and we can put this behind us.

I love this response. I appreciate that you bought the license. I think you did the right thing, and I wholely agree with your original stance on adblockers.

 

Alternatively: My wife who works in corporate communications and does not watch LTT said "I don't like this guy. His response is too ""but you did this...""" She states you should have a PR person, and should have simply said "you're right. We should have paid for the license. We went ahead and bought one. Our intent and understanding were not ill. We're sorry."

[LinusTech]

On 2/13/2022 at 1:14 PM, SlidewaysZ said:

That's a pretty darn big assumption right there. That's called I'm an influencer and I think I can get away with not paying. Pretty crazy coming from a guy reprimanding people for using AdBlock. By that same assumption everyone can assume your videos are for educational purposes and so we don't need to pay for them or watch ads.

A - show me the reprimand. I'll wait. I stated a fact and said 'be aware of the impact'.

 

B - you are ignoring the common sense aspect of this. We make money by producing content and being paid through ads

He makes money through businesses validating their hardware. We never actually used the software for its 'commercial use'. All we did was demonstrate how to use it. We fired it up once and havent touched it since. It's very clearly a flawed parallel you're drawing.