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

[DerKleineLeo]

The amount of hilariously bad takes on this already has me excited for the next WAN show.

[omucron]

Assuming the original video was the first and only use of OCCT, and paying for a commercial-use license, I hope it could help any ilk the dev has against LMG, and hopefully bring awareness to the software so it doesn't feel "unfair" (or however the dev originally worded it)

[JackDaniel]

2 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

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:

 

 

Respectfully, I think you're wrong on this one. In ancient times something like this has been tried in courts: skipping ads using DVRs. It was ruled legal and compared to fast-forwarding through ads. The courts have always upheld that it is legal to modify legally acquired copyrighted content (like removing ads from a DVR recording), for personal use. 

 

Only when content is redistributed does it become a legal issue. This has also been tried in the courts, and means that an ISP for example cannot implement global ad blocking for its customers. 

[Xyed]

17 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

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. 

I don't believe it should have ever been an "issue that required something like this reaction, reddit, multiple videos about it and all that".

 

All of this happened (the way I see it) because most people don't have the capability or the mindset to see their own mistakes on a conscious level, but they know a subconscious level that they themselves make mistakes, and it's easier to point "the other guy" then it is to look inward.

 

We all have pirated stuff in the past, present and/or future. Either by mistake or not. Most times people just can't afford to pay for "stuff" because most people live below minimum wage so yeah... feeding the kids takes precedence.

 

I would suggest locking this thread and maybe talking with the dev in question directly over the phone, discord, any voice/video chat and working things out.

 

Then you could also colab with him. If the new version of his software requires platforms to test it out on, you could all colab on it and make a video that is educational and would help everyone involved while at the same time <hopefully> shut up the trolls.

[Legitsu]

in fairness The text that said OCCT Required a commercial License was a `recent` (and by recent I mean like versions after 5.x)  in addition it's hidden at the bottom of the donate menu. 

and I am sorry the OCCT Dev needs to grow a f**** pair if you read his comments on Reddit he's got this passive-aggressive demeanor about how he doesn't want drama and that OCCT Is just his hobby project ect ect  one sentence, and then is crying about how he's not making any money the next.   thefawk? what is it man you can't have it both either the software is paid and you treat it as such that includes paying taxes if applicable ect ect, or is it donationware? a side project 

 

and if he really felt that way he should have done more diligence in ensuring his product is marketed and presented in such a way that makes it known and unless you have updated to a recent version the bit about needing to pay for the commercial version is buried at the bottom of the dam donation window ? 

 

and Microsoft gives you a 30D grace period(up to 180D if you 'reinstall' per-motherboard  they are not in violation whatsoever

but again it was asinine of Linus to make that ad-block comment  he should have known better and he should have just shut his mouth the second he uttered it instead of doubling down for near 40m on stream 

 

Advertising and data collection entities have been testing every limit set for years

the blatant tracking and abuse of personal privacy. + circumventing attempts for people to protect what remains of their online privacy

 

I am sorry but anybody involved with profiting off of that needs the scorched earth treatment because they are so far beyond any sane limits they make Wallstreet look like the boy scouts 

 

for those that haven't been online since the beginning the Advertising agency's were offered ways to play nice they abused the privilege and did as they pleased now it comes time to pay the piper his piece of three 

[warrenr]

2 hours 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.

This sounds awfully close to "I'll pay you in exposure!".  Don't be that guy.

 

[JackDaniel]

. 

[omucron]

8 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

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

 

Was this spoken about anywhere besides WAN and Twitter? I remember bringing up the issue with promoting YouTube Vanced in the dislike button video, but I can't recall what recent LTT-branded video specifically talked about it. Maybe it's a WAN Clip that I can watch, idk

[LinusTech]

Just now, JackDaniel said:

Respectfully, I think you're wrong on this one. In ancient times something like this has been tried in courts: skipping ads using DVRs. It was ruled legal and compared to fast-forwarding through ads. The courts have always upheld that it is legal to modify legally acquired copyrighted content (like removing ads from a DVR recording), for personal use. 

 

Only when content is redistributed does it become a legal issue. This has also been tried in the courts, and means that an ISP for example cannot implement global ad blocking for its customers. 

Depends how you define piracy. If you mean strictly according to the legal definition of software piracy, then technically you're not wrong.

 

But it's clearly benefitting from something and not paying the (obviously, and well understood) price for it. It's in a clever 'hee hee hee it's not technically wrong' way, but isn't that how a pirate (or privateer) might behave?  

[Egg-Roll]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

"I'm not making ends meat with occt, but I'll happily give away free perpetual licenses to youtubers"

NGL that struck me as weird, LMG is a money bag begging to be bleed with the number of screw ups they make, as long as it's against the agreement outlined within the product there is a case for some serious financial repayments...

 

In fact I would say LMG should have known that commercial use was required to be paid for:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200227124958/https://www.ocbase.com/

That's the funny thing about the internet Linus we have the wayback, you can't "lie" your way out of this lol... Even with the wayback overhead I still see this:

Quote

OCCT is free for personal use only !

If you are running OCCT in a corporate or commercial environment, you

And YES Linus, using a piece of software in a commercial building for a video IS in fact COMMERCIAL USE! You didn't install it on your non-work (aka personal) computer and it incidentally showed up in the video, you deliberately PUT it in the video.

 

The hilarious part is assuming Linus paid the current 1 year fee of $1000 CAD by pirating (or better wording illegally using without a commercial license) the software he effectively paid almost $900 more than if he did it properly way back in 2020, and back in 2020 looks like a one time fee as well...

 

The legal aspect in Canada? I would say going after LMG for the wording I used "illegally using without a commercial license" would be their best bet to win against LMG even with such a shitty site (and even after they bought the license they are still on the hook). They could grab something upwards to 250K (tho unlikely) for damages plus legal if won, however the current outcome of Linus paying for a license now is significantly cheaper than legal fees esp in their financial situation.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

56 minutes ago, joaopt said:

 

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

its not absured, its a violation of the tos with occt, not piracy, thusly its not a legal issue, its a civil issue.

[Bitter]

@LinusTech

My 2 Canadian cents on this is that you probably need some kind of licensing admin to make sure all the software you're showing on screen is in fact used appropriately and paid for properly. I think what has the community so riled up is that you said a thing that was a hot take and then found yourself in exactly that situation, the internet thrives on drama especially when fueled by irony. This is like a teenager getting reprimanded for a speeding ticket only watch their parent speed themselves. I know I know, you didn't reprimand anyone but equivocating adblock to piracy and piracy is bad sure feels like being reprimanded. You kind of can't tell people something they're doing is bad without people feeling like they're being put down for it, I'm sure you know this. Put some checks and balances in place to make sure it doesn't happen again and it'll just become a funny footnote I'm sure.

 

As for the dev of OCCT it's possible that they have some kind of social impediment that makes it very difficult for them to deal with people in certain situations and this was brewing for a long time until it just word vomited out all at once in a kind of ugly manner. I think a lot of us can commiserate or have dealt with this or people who have this kind of issue when it comes to potentially stressful interactions with other people.

 

And finally, it's nice to see you here addressing this personally but I feel you're just adding more fuel to the fire in a way.

[Parky1]

This is so dumb jeez 

[high orbital beam]

Likely will be my only post here.
Before anyone would make a wild guess, its no secret i dislike LTT as it is for a huge number of reasons.

To put it simply, being ignorant enough to not even check IF yer software is appropiate to be used (i.e. check licence) only reinforces my dislike.
Very highly likely you do have someone "else" to read these forums, as you are too busy dropping expensive gear like it was nothing. And complaining you pay a lot for batteries. Not that you could not buy commerical licence or was it that expensive that it made any sense not to. You are all just WAY too ignorant.

However, shame on you. realy. You should be dragged to court, any content you produced that had anything to do with the usage of OCCT should be removed.

And just to inform you, i never used OCCT  ever. But, i'm going to buy a commerical licence, since YOU are  ignorant  to just forget about it and consider anything you go by as for granted.

You know whats free, even for commerical use cases ? i offer you something. my rear end you can KISS.

have a fucking nice day.

[Jaesop]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think Linus and the gang still think they are some small startup that plays fast and loose with the rules and as a result don't really care about doing things like checking the license agreements for things they use. If you somehow manage to reach them they will probably pay you at least once and then pay you again if they want to keep using your product, or switch to something else.

I didn't realize things like this had happened before. What other software have they done it with?

[LinusTech]

2 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

NGL that struck me as weird, LMG is a money bag begging to be bleed with the number of screw ups they make, as long as it's against the agreement outlined within the product there is a case for some serious financial repayments...

 

In fact I would say LMG should have known that commercial use was required to be paid for:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200227124958/https://www.ocbase.com/

That's the funny thing about the internet Linus we have the wayback, you can't "lie" your way out of this lol... Even with the wayback overhead I still see this:

And YES Linus, using a piece of software in a commercial building for a video IS in fact COMMERCIAL USE! You didn't install it on your non-work (aka personal) computer and it incidentally showed up in the video, you deliberately PUT it in the video.

 

The hilarious part is assuming Linus paid the current 1 year fee of $1000 CAD by pirating (or better wording illegally using without a commercial license) the software he effectively paid almost $900 more than if he did it properly way back in 2020, and back in 2020 looks like a one time fee as well...

 

The legal aspect in Canada? I would say going after LMG for the wording I used "illegally using without a commercial license" would be their best bet to win against LMG even with such a shitty site (and even after they bought the license they are still on the hook). They could grab something upwards to 250K (tho unlikely) for damages plus legal if won, however the current outcome of Linus paying for a license now is significantly cheaper than legal fees esp in their financial situation.

Why do people keep arguing with me about things I clearly don't disagree with.

 

In *my* post I said we (inadvertently, which is no excuse) engaged in software piracy and I apologized and bought a license. Why are you trying to convince me that we did?

 

HOWEVER, the norm (acknowledged by the developer... ) in the industry is to seed copies of many kinds of software to media outlets for the purposes of showcasing or reviewing them. Those media outlets are NOT the target market, but they have occasional uses for it and a captive audience of potential customers.

 

You can be upset by that, but unless the target market for the software IS creatives (like Adobe would never seed us a license, for example because we are their target customer) then creatives will just use something else for their video and you'll miss out on sales to people who actually NEED your software.

 

I don't make the rules here, and I've already taken steps to ensure that we seek permission rather than forgiveness going forward. Not much else I can do at this point.

[JackDaniel]

12 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Depends how you define piracy. If you mean strictly according to the legal definition of software piracy, then technically you're not wrong.

 

But it's clearly benefitting from something and not paying the (obviously, and well understood) price for it. It's in a clever 'hee hee hee it's not technically wrong' way, but isn't that how a pirate (or privateer) might behave?  

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree about the morality of it. Personally I use YouTube Premium exactly for this reason. If everyone were to use adblock, it would quickly become obvious why it's not a sustainable solution. 

 

But yeah, on the legal side of things it just can't be called piracy. And frankly, there's probably better ways to talk about adblock and its problems for creators anyhow. I actually signed up for YT Premium a few years ago after you talked about it in a video and mentioned how it's a significant share of video revenue despite the small group of people! 

[LinusTech]

1 minute ago, JackDaniel said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree about the morality of it. Personally I use YouTube Premium exactly for this reason. If everyone were to use adblock, it would quickly become obvious why it's not a sustainable solution. 

 

But yeah, on the legal side of things it just can't be called piracy. And frankly, there's probably better ways to talk about adblock and its problems for creators anyhow. I actually signed up for YT Premium a few years ago after you talked about it in a video and mentioned how it's a significant share of video revenue despite the small group of people! 

Yeah I could have worded it better, but that doesn't make the message any less true. 

 

Ppl being mad changes nothing. 

 

There's a shocking amount of outrage about this position, and it's kind of laughable. 

 

Its' also had literally zero impact on our business. There's this misconception that if a comments section is full of some kind of obviously flawed take (like that not paying for stuff is not piracy) take that the community largely agrees about it, but for all the "rawr I'm unsubscribing" there hasn't been so much as a tiny blip in our numbers lol.

 

Storm in a teacup, which is why I'm not too worried about the PR. Most people understood what I said just fine.

[LinusTech]

26 minutes ago, DerKleineLeo said:

The amount of hilariously bad takes on this already has me excited for the next WAN show.

I promise I'm not talking about this on WAN Show lol. I will be giving exactly zero air time to this whole fiasco

[Legitsu]

11 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Depends how you define piracy. If you mean strictly according to the legal definition of software piracy, then technically you're not wrong.

 

But it's clearly benefitting from something and not paying the (obviously, and well understood) price for it. It's in a clever 'hee hee hee it's not technically wrong' way, but isn't that how a pirate (or privateer) might behave?  

No Linus sorry brother that's not what the law says, there is no law anywhere that defines refusing payment for content as piracy and piracy is NOT the same thing as theft 

and it doesn't help the case that while there is a transaction there the terms of the transaction are NOT legally binding 

 

 

copyright infringement is copyright infringement  `piracy` is NOT a crime in this context. copyright infringement and intellectual property (IP) infringement ARE illegal and Tho people often interchange the term piracy for those things piracy(in this context) itself is not illegal 

 

*depending on where you live Which is an entirely different argument 

 

that is the sticking point with a lot of people and one you stepped on 

 

when you make statements like use your own moral compass you effectively imply that your own compass is morally superior regardless of your intent that's how a lot of people took it I strongly suggest you put the shovel down and stop digging because you aren't winning this one 

 

[Stickiler]

21 minutes ago, high orbital beam said:

Likely will be my only post here.
Before anyone would make a wild guess, its no secret i dislike LTT as it is for a huge number of reasons.

To put it simply, being ignorant enough to not even check IF yer software is appropiate to be used (i.e. check licence) only reinforces my dislike.
Very highly likely you do have someone "else" to read these forums, as you are too busy dropping expensive gear like it was nothing. And complaining you pay a lot for batteries. Not that you could not buy commerical licence or was it that expensive that it made any sense not to. You are all just WAY too ignorant.

However, shame on you. realy. You should be dragged to court, any content you produced that had anything to do with the usage of OCCT should be removed.

And just to inform you, i never used OCCT  ever. But, i'm going to buy a commerical licence, since YOU are  ignorant  to just forget about it and consider anything you go by as for granted.

You know whats free, even for commerical use cases ? i offer you something. my rear end you can KISS.

have a fucking nice day.

This is a hilariously dumb take, because by the time you posted this comment Linus had already commented and said they'd bought a commercial licence and it was just an oversight that they didn't have one previously. Learn to read.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour 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.

 

 

No, I don't think money is really the issue, as a company the size of LMG could probably handle legal action and settle it unless they get sued by a company the size of Microsoft.

And yeah I think this is a bad look after the ad block users are pirates hot take, which Linus spent most of a WAN show defending himself on somehow watching free content with no requirement that anyone must pay to watch content on Youtube means you're pirating videos if you block out awful ads that makes youtube annoying to use.  The other issue I have is claiming the channel is educational and getting off with pirating software, thats an interesting take considering I see mentions that LTT gets things wrong. I think LMG should have a legal analyst for things like this to prevent any problems with software licenses.

[LinusTech]

7 minutes ago, Legitsu said:

No Linus sorry brother that's not what the law says, there is no law anywhere that defines refusing payment for content as piracy and piracy is NOT the same thing as theft 

and it doesn't help the case that while there is a transaction there the terms of the transaction are NOT legally binding 

 

 

copyright infringement is copyright infringement  `piracy` is NOT a crime in this context. copyright infringement and intellectual property (IP) infringement ARE illegal and Tho people often interchange the term piracy for those things piracy(in this context) itself is not illegal 

 

*depending on where you live Which is an entirely different argument 

 

that is the sticking point with a lot of people and one you stepped on 

 

when you make statements like use your own moral compass you effectively imply that your own compass is morally superior regardless of your intent that's how a lot of people took it I strongly suggest you put the shovel down and stop digging because you aren't winning this one 

 

Here comes another explanation of how I was wrong without watching what I said

 

I never said it was a crime to use AdBlock on YouTube (or in general). I agreed the choice of the word piracy was poor. 

 

I said people need to be aware of the consequences of their actions. That's it. 

 

Not paying for shit has consequences. 

 

I'm not positioning myself as a moral or ethical authority, but I'm at least trying to do better every day. I'm sure as hell doing better than the people arguing with me about this. 

 

Me: sorry my bad. Here's payment for your work. 

 

Others: reeeee it's not technically illegal lolololol bad take lololol

[APF]

3 hours 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.

 

I do not like this argument. Your company makes enough money to just pay for a proper license if you use the software in a commercial sense, and since you made money from the video, it is a commercial use.
Just because you use something for educational porousness does not mean licenses and copyright does not apply to you. If the Devs are ok with if fine, but if a company that has a use for a piece of software, jet alone makes money using it, doesn't fell like donating alt east a couple of dollars why should I?
Sure a company can't just trow away their money and I didn't donate for every singe piece of software I used, but I think more people should support developers and creators that provide useful software and information for free more, and in my opinion a creator like you should be a kind of role model for that. 

[high orbital beam]

5 minutes ago, Stickiler said:

This is a hilariously dumb take, because by the time you posted this comment Linus had already commented and said they'd bought a commercial licence and it was just an oversight that they didn't have one previously. Learn to read.

i know they did buy a licence WHEN the redit post went viral. does not change the past.  nor my view. and his replys clearly show the ultra hardcore level of being ignorant.