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

[LinusTech]

3 minutes ago, APF said:

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. 

I agree so I bought a license. 

 

More posts explaining how I should do the thing I did. 

 

Realistically tho, at a price of 300 dollars for the functions I need I could have used free software and would have. We don't need some of their more advanced functions. 

[Legitsu]

4 minutes ago, APF said:

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. 

DA here: the dev hasn't helped his case at all while I agree a Twitter post is  shaky ground and occt has a storied history when it comes to licensing it used to require USB d0gle for pro back in the 4.x days if you follow the devs posts he's constantly hemming and hawing about donations and the state of the project one minute and the next he's like eh really don't care 

4 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

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 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

I don't disagree with the not paying for shit has consequences had that been all you said nobody would have batted an AYYYYYE   

Perception is 9/10ths of public opinion 

[LinusTech]

Just now, high orbital beam said:

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.

I bought a license the second this was brought to my attention. Had nothing to do with the post going viral. If you'd read my post you'd know the dev THANKED US for using the software back when the video came out. 

 

Clearly I figured this was a non-issue. Maybe I should have been clairvoyant enough to know that thank you meant "I did not like this" 

[Needfuldoer]

Back in the day, independent software like that would be released as shareware. It would throw a nag screen up every time you launch it unless you register. The program itself made its terms of use clear.

 

Sounds like the dev needs to make up their minds. Is it commercial software that’s only free for personal use? Is it shareware? Do they care about its use and redistribution, or not?

[Chris Pratt]

7 hours ago, joaopt said:

not licensing windows, forgeting to license software, they are all sleepwalking at LTT using his own words from the last wan show

And this proves you're speaking out of bias and not actual knowledge. LMG for sure does not pirate Windows. They've already explained this multiple times. They purchase a license for every test bench, but they don't bother applying it, because it would deactivate constantly anyways. Make sure you know what you're talking about before making snap judgments.

[high orbital beam]

1 minute ago, LinusTech said:

I bought a license the second this was brought to my attention. Had nothing to do with the post going viral. If you'd read my post you'd know the dev THANKED US for using the software back when the video came out. 

 

Clearly I figured this was a non-issue. Maybe I should have been clairvoyant enough to know that thank you meant "I did not like this" 

damage done, can't undo that. in the future i will be very sure to use your situation as defacto a standard for definition of being highly ignorant. you very clearly have NO clue what is wrong with your take on the subject. and that is in its self a huge problem.
and no, purchasing later a licence is of no way solving it.

actualy i realy hope you get sued.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

7 minutes ago, high orbital beam said:

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.

i messaged the OP on reddit before he even made the post on PCMR that this issue will be solved by linus as soon as he hears it (i have receipts), linus would have responded even if the post wasn't made on PCMR

 

[JackDaniel]

1 minute ago, high orbital beam said:

damage done, can't undo that. in the future i will be very sure to use your situation as defacto a standard for definition of being highly ignorant. you very clearly have NO clue what is wrong with your take on the subject. and that is in its self a huge problem.
and no, purchasing later a licence is of no way solving it.

actualy i realy hope you get sued.

Thank you for this totally reasonable and thoughtful contribution to the conversation. 

 

I will be very sure to use this comment as the defacto standard for a highly reasonable comment. 

[HiddenSurface]

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 think that is a reasonable assumption on your part. Software licensing can be confusing and annoying for many, which in my opinion is another good reason to use and support Free and Open Source Software where possible. I also don't think it's that big of a deal if you get it wrong some of the time.

 

There may be a clear legal differentiation between commercial and personal use. I suppose it has to do with whether the software is used as an aid in generating income or profit, and I think educational use, at least legally, is something different entirely but may overlap with commercial use. But from a standpoint of legitimacy, the lines can be blurry.

 

OCCTs licensing model also seems kind of strange to me. 250$ yearly for a"Pro" license is a lot if you are using the software only a few times in that year. This license is clearly meant for a different kind of customer than LTT. Since there's no cheaper, non-subscription based alternative to the Pro license, I'd consider it legitimate to just use the free version for this one instance.

[Egg-Roll]

30 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

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?

Not going to lie I pulled a you(or one of your employees) by selectively looking for what I wanted. For you/employee it was a download link giving little to no care to what else was on the site, for me it was to see if you righted a wrong giving little to no care what you have stated otherwise.

 

31 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

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.

HOWEVER this is not what you did, now is it? As you never made contact nor did they contact you, therefore your actions are not the "norm".

 

34 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

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.

As long as this isn't BS (only time will tell) then there isn't really anything else to discus now is there?

[Chris Pratt]

3 minutes ago, high orbital beam said:

damage done, can't undo that. in the future i will be very sure to use your situation as defacto a standard for definition of being highly ignorant. you very clearly have NO clue what is wrong with your take on the subject. and that is in its self a huge problem.
and no, purchasing later a licence is of no way solving it.

actualy i realy hope you get sued.

Literally WTF? I can't imagine a more ignorant response to such a straightforward response by Linus. How is it damage done? The dev said that he saw +15% traffic just from the mention of OCCT on LTT. That kind of marketing is worth many, many licenses. Imagine the cost the dev would have had to pay to be sponsored, and he got that for free. Regardless, Linus purchased a license anyways, as soon as it was brought to his attention. I'm not sure how that doesn't "solve" it unless you're talking about a few months of missed interest on the $30 that might have been sitting in the devs bank account. Not even sure if that would amount to a full Canadian penny, though. And, you hope LMG gets sued? Really? For what? Even if they didn't purchase a license, which they did, the cost of court filings would be far more than the dev would ever hope to get back. Suing someone for not paying $30 soon enough. If that isn't the most brain-dead thing I've ever heard. Sheesh.

[Guest -Senku-]

what about hwinfo technically not free either anymore.

[Legitsu]

2 minutes ago, HiddenSurface said:

I think that is a reasonable assumption on your part. Software licensing can be confusing and annoying for many, which in my opinion is another good reason to use and support Free and Open Source Software where possible. I also don't think it's that big of a deal if you get it wrong some of the time.

 

There may be a clear legal differentiation between commercial and personal use. I suppose it has to do with whether the software is used as an aid in generating income or profit, and I think educational use, at least legally, is something different entirely but may overlap with commercial use. But from a standpoint of legitimacy, the lines can be blurry.

 

OCCTs licensing model also seems kind of strange to me. 250$ yearly for a"Pro" license is a lot if you are using the software only a few times in that year. This license is clearly meant for a different kind of customer than LTT. Since there's no cheaper, non-subscription based alternative to the Pro license, I'd consider it legitimate to just use the free version for this one instance.

there used to be it used to require a USB Dongle back in the 4.x days 

 

again people need to go back and review the history of the program before making a snap judgment because the dev has been all over the spectrum in regards to licensing 

 

yea LTT(the company) fucked up and honestly, matters like this are probably well below Linus's eye level  at this stage in LTT's life

he should hire a lawyer and have an internal audit done 

 

I think Linus's only real mistake was not recognizing how much he pissed off the community with that hot take and not immediately backing down 

 

I really don't interact with this community much beyond the occasional comment on stream because this community is a raging dumpster fire most days 

[Bitter]

[Stickiler]

2 minutes ago, -Senku- said:

what about hwinfo technically not free either anymore.

The way software licencing works is that a software licence only applies to the specific version of the software that it's shipped with. If older versions of hwinfo were free for commercial purposes, they're free forever, there's nothing the developers can do about that. All Linus has to do is not update his hwinfo and he's fine. He'll probably buy the necessary licences for hwinfo as and when they're needed for the work they're doing.

[Egg-Roll]

Just now, -Senku- said:

what about hwinfo technically not free either anymore.

As long as they are using the a version that was free for their use then no issues, they can't seek compensation. However I don't think they've used HWiNFO in a while, maybe for that very reason (could be wrong).

[high orbital beam]

1 minute ago, Chris Pratt said:

Literally WTF? I can't imagine a more ignorant response to such a straightforward response by Linus. How is it damage done? The dev said that he saw +15% traffic just from the mention of OCCT on LTT. That kind of marketing is worth many, many licenses. Imagine the cost the dev would have had to pay to be sponsored, and he got that for free. Regardless, Linus purchased a license anyways, as soon as it was brought to his attention. I'm not sure how that doesn't "solve" it unless you're talking about a few months of missed interest on the $30 that might have been sitting in the devs bank account. Not even sure if that would amount to a full Canadian penny, though. And, you hope LMG gets sued? Really? For what? Even if they didn't purchase a license, which they did, the cost of court filings would be far more than the dev would ever hope to get back. Suing someone for not paying $30 soon enough. If that isn't the most brain-dead thing I've ever heard. Sheesh.

linus just set the example of "care about nothing, till someone catches you" , you can basicly download any software and never mind licences, you can just pay IF someone catches you on the act. Even than, try to act as if You did a favour by pirateing.
Its not about money , or the costs of the software. nor the 15% more traffic.

might as well just walk into any shop, take what i need, and not pay. But if someone catches me, then just say "hey, its free marketing for the shop" and pay AFTERWARDS , and act as IF i done a favour, and not a crime.

 

[Chris Pratt]

3 minutes ago, Legitsu said:

I really don't interact with this community much beyond the occasional comment on stream because this community is a raging dumpster fire most days 

I'm not sure if I'd go that far. There's some really great folks here: people that truly care and spend their free time helping others. It just these faux controversies that always kick up a hornets nest for some reason. Don't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch for you, though. These forums are great and so is the community.

[fXjZL5]

The people still calling out Linus's adblock=piracy take have either not listened to what he said or are deliberately missing the point for an agenda. I hate to be defending a rich man and his company, but this line of attack is borderline delusional. Linus was not passing a moral condemnation on people that block ads. His was a philosophical point. A semantic point. He was talking about the definitions of words. His point was almost entirely restricted to the realm of linguistics. All he said was by definition, consuming content you agreed to watch ads to access without watching those ads is SEMANTICALLY analogous to using paid software without paying. This was a philosophical, not a moral point. He was not passing moral judgment on anyone. 

 

That said, parts of Linus's response were gratingly passive-aggressive in a way only a Canadian can be (I say this as a Canadian). Either come out and attack someone explicitly or keep your mouth shut. This fake subtle shit is pathetic. Particularly his quip about the dev writing a "novel" on Reddit is underhanded and shameless as all hell. If you think the dev was in the wrong, say it in as many words. Acting like a Machiavellian fox is absolutely bottom-of-the-barrel pathetic.

 

Also, Linus, I am not a lawyer but I find your insistence that you weren't using the product commercially because you weren't using it for its "intended purpose" a flimsy excuse at best. If I rip a YouTuber's thumbnail off because I like the image and use it in my video as a floating graphic, it does not mean I am in the right simply because I did not use it as a thumbnail.

 

However, I am still a fan of Linus and his work, and his channel is one of my favorite on YouTube. I just point out when people I like engage in what I see as bullshit. 

 

Finally, I believe that, in this particular instance, the dev is in the wrong. It seems like he was doing this for clout. It is discourteous and uncalled for to address something like this in public before making an effort to correct it in private when it is clear there is likely no malicious intent behind LMG's actions. Particularly suspect are two of the dev's actions:

 

1. His 180 from thanking Linus on Twitter to attacking him on Reddit. 

2. Ending his response to Linus's comment on Reddit by saying, "I hope we can work together in the future."

 

I do not claim to know the man's mind, but this smells fishy to me. It feels underhanded and like he's doing it for clout, particularly when you consider that he has no problem with YouTubers using his product for free and that he was willing to hand out a license to Linus for free too. Excuse me, but what's the issue? There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid for your work, but if you want that but also in the same breath imply you're okay with not getting paid for your work, what standard are people supposed to judge their actions regarding your product against?  

 

Lastly, @Annika, you are embarrassing yourself. At first you had some semblance of a point, although I disagreed with you, and, honestly, was alarmed at the amount of passion and vitriol you came at LMG with, you have lost the plot entirely now. Spazzing out and frothing at the mouth about your credentials is never a good look. Nobody cares what degrees or position you have. Argue with your points; don't demand people's qualifications and credentials on an anonymous forum. Your occupation is not a citation. 

 

[Forgive typos, can't be bothered to proofread.]

[Chris Pratt]

1 minute ago, high orbital beam said:

linus just set the example of "care about nothing, till someone catches you" , you can basicly download any software and never mind licences, you can just pay IF someone catches you on the act. Even than, try to act as if You did a favour by pirateing.
Its not about money , or the costs of the software. nor the 15% more traffic.

might as well just walk into any shop, take what i need, and not pay. But if someone catches me, then just say "hey, its free marketing for the shop" and pay AFTERWARDS , and act as IF i done a favour, and not a crime.

 

You should just stop while you're behind. Not sure why people with so much obvious and irrational hate for LTT hang out on LTT forums, unless it's just to troll, and that's pretty much what your status is currently: a troll.

[CT854]

This whole controversy is just... bizarre.

 

There's no other word to describe it, really. This turned from being a gripe about how something was communicated in a tweet to a sounding board to air grievances with LMG's past mistakes and business practices.

 

I'm in no capacity a "committed" fan of @LinusTechand LMG at large, but this hasn't been about whether Linus mis-used the word "piracy" for a long time, and digging up old instances in astounding displays of "gotcha-isms" just proves that. I'd say the reasonable response to being confronted with an old mistake is to take steps to rectify it, and people are subsequently free to accept that rectification, or reject it and move on with their lives. Not everybody has to like how Linus handled things, but harping on about it still just reveals that your gripe is irrelevant, and possibly can't be resolved because you've probably already made up your mind on your opinion of Linus/LMG.

 

I get not liking Linus/LMG. What I don't get is having the compulsive need to capitalize on this to air your gripe with them knowing that that's literally your only purpose.

[high orbital beam]

Just now, Chris Pratt said:

You should just stop while you're behind. Not sure why people with so much obvious and irrational hate for LTT hang out on LTT forums, unless it's just to troll, and that's pretty much what your status is currently: a troll.

with licensed software at worse case.

but hey, its free marketing for LTT , is it not ?


however, i'm not an ignorant turd so i do have to address what you are actually right at. Stays here far too long allready. I did allready state my humble and constructive opinion.

[Legitsu]

6 minutes ago, fXjZL5 said:

The people still calling out Linus's adblock=piracy take have either not listened to what he said or are deliberately missing the point for an agenda. I hate to be defending a rich man and his company, but this line of attack is borderline delusional. Linus was not passing a moral condemnation on people that block ads. His was a philosophical point. A semantic point. He was talking about the definitions of words. His point was almost entirely restricted to the realm of linguistics. All he said was by definition, consuming content you agreed to watch ads to access without watching those ads is SEMANTICALLY analogous to using paid software without paying. This was a philosophical, not a moral point. He was not passing moral judgment on anyone. 

 

That said, parts of Linus's response were gratingly passive-aggressive in a way only a Canadian can be (I say this as a Canadian). Either come out and attack someone explicitly or keep your mouth shut. This fake subtle shit is pathetic. Particularly his quip about the dev writing a "novel" on Reddit is underhanded and shameless as all hell. If you think the dev was in the wrong, say it in as many words. Acting like a Machiavellian fox is absolutely bottom-of-the-barrel pathetic.

 

Also, Linus, I am not a lawyer but I find your insistence that you weren't using the product commercially because you weren't using it for its "intended purpose" a flimsy excuse at best. If I rip a YouTuber's thumbnail off because I like the image and use it in my video as a floating graphic, it does not mean I am in the right simply because I did not use it as a thumbnail.

 

However, I am still a fan of Linus and his work, and his channel is one of my favorite on YouTube. I just point out when people I like engage in what I see as bullshit. 

 

Finally, I believe that, in this particular instance, the dev is in the wrong. It seems like he was doing this for clout. It is discourteous and uncalled for to address something like this in public before making an effort to correct it in private when it is clear there is likely no malicious intent behind LMG's actions. Particularly suspect are two of the dev's actions:

 

1. His 180 from thanking Linus on Twitter to attacking him on Reddit. 

2. Ending his response to Linus's comment on Reddit by saying, "I hope we can work together in the future."

 

I do not claim to know the man's mind, but this smells fishy to me. It feels underhanded and like he's doing it for clout, particularly when you consider that he has no problem with YouTubers using his product for free and that he was willing to hand out a license to Linus for free too. Excuse me, but what's the issue? There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid for your work, but if you want that but also in the same breath imply you're okay with not getting paid for your work, what standard are people supposed to judge their actions regarding your product against?  

 

Lastly, @Annika, you are embarrassing yourself. At first you had some semblance of a point, although I disagreed with you, and, honestly, was alarmed at the amount of passion and vitriol you came at LMG with, you have lost the plot entirely now. Spazzing out and frothing at the mouth about your credentials is never a good look. Nobody cares what degrees or position you have. Argue with your points; don't demand people's qualifications and credentials on an anonymous forum. Your occupation is not a citation. 

 

[Forgive typos, can't be bothered to proofread.]

I think defining it as philosophical is a BITTT of a stretch  like I said when he replied had he just said that Not paying for shit is bad there would have been nothing too it 

but he lit a fire when he dropped the p-word and then spent 45m  trying to defend the indefensible faux pass against a horde of angry pitchfork-wielding zombies  and I say that as one of the zombies BRAINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSS USE YOUR BRAINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSS

how something is said is often more important then what was intended 

 

I hate making this assumption but I really feel like the dev has some issues he needs to work through this has been an ongoing thing with OCCT For years he's got that passive-aggressive turned to 11 you just need to read his posts to see that 

is it an excuse for what happened? no it it at all helping his case ALSO NO 

[Chris Pratt]

2 minutes ago, high orbital beam said:

with licensed software at worse case.

but hey, its free marketing for LTT , is it not ?


however, i'm not an ignorant turd so i do have to address what you are actually right at. Stays here far too long allready. I did allready state my humble and constructive opinion.

ROFL. Your opinion was anything but "humble and constructive". It was basically go to hell and die.

 

Quote

i'm not an ignorant turd

Your comments betray that assertion.

[Xirenec]

Interesting to note Creative Commons define "Commercial use" as "one primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation". Was LTT's usage of OCCT intended to gain money? Not really.

Also fun stuff about EULA of OCCT. Because of the wording you can share license(I assume it means Personal-Patreon license) to members of your household... As long as pronouns of person who bought the license are "he/him"
 

Quote

Once acquired, a licensed may be used by the owner of the license, or anyone whose residence is within his household.