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

[nick name]

Just now, m6_is_me said:

bro who hurt you? Linus is clearly in the right here, at no point was the software used commercially. 

 

This whole thing is people desperately trying to cling to frustration over a non-issue. The dev and his friend also approached the situation wildly immaturely. "we sent dozens of emails" but uhhh they actually didn't. 

If you're gonna make sense then I'm gonna have to ask you to leave, sir or madam.  

[EL02]

imo it doesn't matter how stupid the situation might be. OCCT is a paid software for non-commercial use and developers shouldn't have to reach out to get your attention to purchase their software, especially because the EULA states so.

Also, I don't think the dev's appreciation tweet should grant ltt the right to use their software for free.

I guess there's not much to say left. Linus has accepted ltt is at fault here, but I do think that if there was a bigger company behind OCCT, there would have been no assumptions and the response would have been more mature.

[Haaselh0ff]

People on here crawling onto the forums for the first time just to shit on linus for his comments about piracy and using this occt crap as an excuse to do it lol.

 

Relax guys, nobody hurt you. The damage has been fixed. Nothing more can be done by Linus to "fix this" and the only thing some of you comment is "wah wah linus bad influencer"

[m6_is_me]

1 minute ago, Haaselh0ff said:

People on here crawling onto the forums for the first time just to shit on linus for his comments about piracy and using this occt crap as an excuse to do it lol.

 

Relax guys, nobody hurt you. The damage has been fixed. Nothing more can be done by Linus to "fix this" and the only thing some of you comment is "wah wah linus bad influencer"

People are just virtue signaling. Equating its one-time, passing use in a video as full on theft. Kinda pathetic.

 

Speaking as a new account, I shall bid this thread and the ravenous babies farewell. 

[BaidDSB]

9 minutes ago, m6_is_me said:

bro who hurt you? Linus is clearly in the right here, at no point was the software used commercially. 

 

This whole thing is people desperately trying to cling to frustration over a non-issue. (edit: i think the term is virtue signaling) The dev and his friend also approached the situation wildly immaturely. "we sent dozens of emails" but uhhh they actually didn't. 

Wtf. He used it in a video that's on YouTube AND floatplane 

 

He profited from it

[Haaselh0ff]

2 minutes ago, m6_is_me said:

People are just virtue signaling. Equating its one-time, passing use in a video as full on theft. Kinda pathetic.

 

Speaking as a new account, I shall bid this thread and the ravenous babies farewell. 

It is perfectly fine to join the forums and want to converse on these types of topics. It's just annoying to see people who joined knowing their opinion would not change no matter what just come to spread hate instead of trying to give people the benefit of the doubt. The world isnt always doom and gloom and actions arent always just pure malice.

[Shadess]

18 minutes ago, m6_is_me said:

Terrible logic my dude. By that logic, oops, every single product that ever appears in his videos, he needs to partner with the company to display on the video.

 

Commercial use would require him using it across his business. He clearly said he only used it once on a single machine. Really terrible logic, use your brain a little more. Why are you so adamant about this tiny topic? 

 

Also you might wanna go to a doctor, sounds like you've got some throat irritation B)

You are a 100% wrong about what commercial use is.

 

-----

Don't think this whole thing would really be much of an issue at all without that Linus adblock piracy take. LMG messed up, take the L. They made it kinda right, tho I feel like Linus should briefly address their screw up in a video. Only makes sense based on the adblock being piracy video.

[supergoop]

25 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

basically lol

Quick question about ad revenue. Does YouTube pay you based on clicks on ads/visits to the advertisers website through the link of the ad on your video? Or on how many watch the full ads without skipping after a few seconds?

 

I wouldn't mind tweaking my ad block settings to benefit channels I want to support, but I want to know which tweaks are worth it. For example if it was based on clicks on ads then my ad block has zero affect on your revenue since I would never click. Thanks for any info!

[Colty]

Have I used "for personal use only" software in a work environment? Yes. I was encouraged to by management and when I asked about it, the response was along the lines of "it's not worth getting the caproate card out." 

I do think you should support devs and all that, but you should be attacking *insert place I used to work but don't want to get sued by* instead of someone like Linus.

I'm not saying everyone at LTT was perfect in this instance, but there are much bigger fish to fry and much more important things to get upset about. 

[Blademaster91]

5 minutes ago, Shadess said:

Don't think this whole would really be much of an issue at all without that Linus adblock piracy take. LMG messed up, take the L. They made it kinda right, tho I feel like Linus should briefly address their screw up in a video. Only makes sense based on the adblock being piracy video.

Yeah I think it wouldn't be an issue, but the piracy take kinda fits with this topic, and I think the whole piracy accusation thing deserves an an apology as well, using an ad block isn't piracy at all and calling the viewing audience pirates was a mistake and not really worth complaining about in my opinion.

[WizPip]

Yes and no. Sometimes individuals and companies make mistakes through ignorance, but usually in the first instance there is such a thing as a warning / request to comply / cease and desist / etc, unless you've blatantly done something illegal (e.g. speeding, because your licence was issued based on the fact you knew how to drive). In this instance, a communication - email or letter, should've been enough to settle the matter. The software itself should also include a splash screen denoting terms of use (e.g. "Not for commercial use") because software can change, and it can also be distributed by third parties. Without this notice that alone would be grounds for dismissal if it went to something like a court, unless every version of the product was paid and direct through the supplier (as this would prove liability).

Edited February 14, 2022 by Spotty
removed quote

[Helpful Tech Witch]

<deleted quote>

using a software that the dev marked as freeware when submitting to TPU, that actually has a comercial use licence needed for a buisness, isnt really illegal. At best, LTT would be liable is a civil suit (at least in the US, i get that they're canadian), its not really covered by a law. laws havent really caught up to digital stuff in a lot of ways, its why the apple v epic suit, the sony other os suit, etc were so important, they set the precident for the future. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Spotty

[omucron]

12 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Yeah I think it wouldn't be an issue, but the piracy take kinda fits with this topic, and I think the whole piracy accusation thing deserves an an apology as well, using an ad block isn't piracy at all and calling the viewing audience pirates was a mistake and not really worth complaining about in my opinion.

Linus's takes on piracy and adblock seem to have greatly divided his community, esp with how comfortable he is in the past addressing his use of Plex and his vast collection of media (dubiously acquired or not). The size and reach he has could make a problem, but if he keeps having to issue apology videos for the opinions and actions of Linus Sebastian to protect LMG's face, then there might be more issues up ahead. Addressing it would be a good thing, even in a concise manner.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Spotty

[Symion]

1 hour ago, LinusTech said:

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 axtually 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. 

Quote

It's very clearly a flawed parallel you're drawing. 

The ultimate irony of this entire situation is that you are now under such severe scrutiny because you yourself drew a very flawed parallel that you refuse to back down from. Instead you focused on the more ridiculous responses to your flawed parallel (the viewership knows your stance on piracy writ large so those who claimed you don't abide it were off base) instead of the ones that wanted you to acknowledge the fundamental legal distinctions between piracy and ad blocking/skipping.

[joaopt]

18 minutes ago, Helpful Tech Wiard said:

are you any of those?

 

 

using a software that the dev marked as freeware when submitting to TPU, that actually has a comercial use licence needed for a buisness, isnt really illegal. At best, LTT would be liable is a civil suit (at least in the US, i get that they're canadian), its not really covered by a law. laws havent really caught up to digital stuff in a lot of ways, its why the apple v epic suit, the sony other os suit, etc were so important, they set the precident for the future. 

 

What are you talking about, what he did is most certainly illegal in Canada, is called piracy. Stop making excuses. Especially absurd ones.

[joaopt]

2 hours 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.

 

really hope you appreciate the irony, because this is "literally piracy", ad skipping isn't.

 

getting a version that is behing a paywall without paying for it is a crime mate, literally

 

 

[Blademaster91]

25 minutes ago, omucron said:

Linus's takes on piracy and adblock seem to have greatly divided his community, esp with how comfortable he is in the past addressing his use of Plex and his vast collection of media (dubiously acquired or not). The size and reach he has could make a problem, but if he keeps having to issue apology videos for the opinions and actions of Linus Sebastian to protect LMG's face, then there might be more issues up ahead. Addressing it would be a good thing, even in a concise manner.

True, good point. It might be better to not address the use of ad blockers or this whole OCCT controversy. I think it may be better to let people have their opinion on using ad blockers, I have no issues with using them. As for this whole OCCT controversy I think both are wrong, and even if a developer were to take legal action I'm not really sure but it probably wouldn't amount to much, a company might get a small fine and have to pay for the software.

[joaopt]

7 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

True, good point. It might be better to not address the use of ad blockers or this whole OCCT controversy. I think it may be better to let people have their opinion on using ad blockers, I have no issues with using them. As for this whole OCCT controversy I think both are wrong, and even if a developer were to take legal action I'm not really sure but it probably wouldn't amount to much, a company might get a small fine and have to pay for the software.

 

but is the money the issue here, and not this literally happening days after that absurd position he took? you can't preache the saint and then be doing this that's the damn point.

I couldn't care less about is piracy, even if i think it's absurd for a company that size, still couldn't care less. But it pissed me off that ad block is piracy because it could lead to serious consequences if it took off, and now this. Literally got served his own remedy or something like that.

 

 

[joaopt]

And i would even say the "i didn't know" when there is clearly a enterprise and personal separation on the download page, lets me think people at LTT are sleepwalking at their job, to quote Linus.

[LinusTech]

3 minutes ago, joaopt said:

And i would even say the "i didn't know" when there is clearly a enterprise and personal separation on the download page, lets me think people at LTT are sleepwalking at their job, to quote Linus.

There are lots of places to download OCCT. As the dev noted, we were using an older version - presumably downloaded off techspot or something. There is no indication of any paid version of the software under these circumstances. 

 

It was an honest mistake. We have paid for the software now. I fail to see why this is still an issue. 

[JackDaniel]

58 minutes ago, WizPip said:

Yes and no. Sometimes individuals and companies make mistakes through ignorance, but usually in the first instance there is such a thing as a warning / request to comply / cease and desist / etc, unless you've blatantly done something illegal (e.g. speeding, because your licence was issued based on the fact you knew how to drive). In this instance, a communication - email or letter, should've been enough to settle the matter. The software itself should also include a splash screen denoting terms of use (e.g. "Not for commercial use") because software can change, and it can also be distributed by third parties. Without this notice that alone would be grounds for dismissal if it went to something like a court, unless every version of the product was paid and direct through the supplier (as this would prove liability).

I was talking to my girlfriend about this and she mentioned something similar. She thinks it almost certainly doesn't qualify as personal/non-commercial use (especially because the EULA specifically mentions use in a "professional environment" ). In the video showing the software it's never even explained what it is or where to get it, for example, so it being for educational purposes is probably a bridge too far (and doesn't exclude it from being for commercial use anyhow). Furthermore, the court would likely consider the fact that LTT is a large tech company and thus can be held to a higher standard than an average person. 

 

Nevertheless, the software has already been made freely available by the developer, and you don't have to explicitly accept any agreement before downloading it either. It would be very hard to make a case for any *legal* wrongdoing in front of a court. Doubly so after the tweet by the dev.

 

By the way, the software does have a pop-up that mentions the license agreement, but you only see that after already having downloaded and installed the software which makes it somewhat useless in terms of legality. 

 

All of this is purely hypothetical speculation of course. 

[TopHatProductions115]

7 hours ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

Wait, AD? Azure Directory?

If so, then I doubt that would do anything seeing as LTT uses non-activated installs of Windows for test rigs in general.

Not saying it's the case in this instance but in general

 

I think they mean, if the computer's domain-joined in general. Domain type doesn't matter in this case. In addition to that, non-Activated installs of Windows can be joined to a domain iirc. I remember pulling it off recently. Not suggesting the practice, but it was to test a VM for functionality before pushing a license to it. 

 

Either way, I think that this is the type of thing that a procurement/legal team should be working to prevent. Software licensing research and interpretation should be a regular task for a legally-operated organisation.

[omucron]

21 minutes ago, joaopt said:

 

but is the money the issue here, and not this literally happening days after that absurd position he took? you can't preache the saint and then be doing this that's the damn point.

I couldn't care less about is piracy, even if i think it's absurd for a company that size, still couldn't care less. But it pissed me off that ad block is piracy because it could lead to serious consequences if it took off, and now this. Literally got served his own remedy or something like that.

 

 

Commercial/Educational Use Licensing aside, was it proven that he downloaded it from somewhere that wasn't the Dev's main page, and that it was a paid product at the time of download? I seem to be confused on this part

[Shadess]

13 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

It was an honest mistake. We have paid for the software now. I fail to see why this is still an issue. 

Literally only because of your adblock piracy video.

[LinusTech]

9 minutes ago, Shadess said:

Literally only because of your adblock piracy video.

Meh. I'm not convinced most people have actually listened to what I said. 

 

I never said I was perfect. I never even said not to use AdBlock. 

 

I said I don't. I said it's piracy. 

 

I still don't. It still is. If that bothers you, then you should stop using it. If it doesn't bother you, then:

 

 

 

Edit: Sorry, 'privateer'