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

[Legitsu]

6 minutes ago, 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.

I say that as one of those trolls trust me I am still banned from discord because of something I said I don't even remember what 

and a few years back it was an entirely different LTT, he's matured now I find the content far less cringe-inducing with the occasional exception  

[Fasterthannothing]

3 hours 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. 

A. Webster's definition of repremand: "to reprove sharply or censure formally usually from a position of authority"

 

You said and I quote "Your just objectively wrong. The price is set by the seller not the buyer. You 'can' steal/pirate it, but then just admit it to yourself."

 

Thats a pretty clear repremand in regards to AdBlock.  

 

B. You also just said that your video is made for educational purposes therefore you do not pay for a license. So either you have a business in which you make money through videos and in that case should be buying a business license for every software you ever touched in a video. OR you actually make educational videos and you should allow others to view them for free and or more freely since you cannot be a for profit or commercial enterprise. In that case you can claim education rights to software. To be able to legally use something under an educational license you must meet certain legal requirements. 

 

Quote

What Is an “Educational Use”?

The educational fair use guidelines apply to material used in educational institutions and for educational purposes. Examples of “educational institutions” include K-12 schools, colleges, and universities. Libraries, museums, hospitals, and other nonprofit institutions also are considered educational institutions under most educational fair use guidelines when they engage in nonprofit instructional, research, or scholarly activities for educational purposes.

 

“Educational purposes” are:

 

noncommercial instruction or curriculum-based teaching by educators to students at nonprofit educational institutions

planned noncommercial study or investigation directed toward making a contribution to a field of knowledge, or

presentation of research findings at noncommercial peer conferences, workshops, or seminars.

 

A good resource for this: 

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/academic-and-educational-permissions/non-coursepack/

 

I'm not going to pretend I'm a lawyer but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize your lawyers aren't going to be happy with your company using software without a commercial license when one is available to purchase. 

[fXjZL5]

15 minutes ago, Legitsu said:

I think defining it as philosophical is a BITTT of a stretch

I simply use that word because philosophical arguments are often about definitions or framing of terms, as opposed to, say, a scientific argument, which is more likely to be about substance. There isn't any substantive difference between Linus and his critics' positions here. Linus isn't saying you're morally wrong for pirating. He is simply arguing about definition. That's the ONLY disagreement here. 

 

15 minutes ago, Legitsu said:

45m  trying to defend the indefensible faux pass against a horde of angry pitchfork-wielding zombies

I disagree with this strongly. Is one simply obligated to roll over and take it if one is attacked unfairly? An impassioned defence of oneself or one's innocence is in no way an admission of guilt. This is a dangerous road to go down, imo. 

 

15 minutes ago, Legitsu said:

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

I think you're right about this. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by fXjZL5

[Arika]

1 hour ago, high orbital beam said:

Likely will be my only post here.

* 5 posts

 

 

1 hour ago, high orbital beam said:

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.

do it and provide proof.

[dizmo]

Anyone who thinks he did it intentionally isn't thinking straight. It's highly unlikely he's even in the know about things like this, he just sees the program on there and thinks someone else has dealt with it. He's not going to go to Accounting each time he sees something new.

 

As for the post/rant the dev made? A little misplaced, I think. As soon as you say "I would have given it to them for free" it kind of invalidates the entire reason you posted. Sure, I get that you wanted the reach out, but you can't cry about lost funds after you've said you wouldn't have charged them because you understand the exposure is worth far more than the cost of the license.

[HiddenSurface]

28 minutes ago, Legitsu said:

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

 

To be honest, that even reinforces my stance that a one-off use of the free version is fine or at least understandable. Dongles are a bizarre DRM measure that is just annoying to users.

[TheJogMan]

Can we all take a moment to stop and acknowledge the fact that the dev responded to linus' response in the original reddit thread, and in that response he seemed appreciative of the fact that linus addressed the situation in the way he did, and that he never intended for this to blow up like this? He also said he was open to the possibility of working with LMG in the future, so the way I see it this whole situation has been resolved.

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/srhalz/linus_tech_tips_pirating_occt_answer_from_the_dev/hwtqmhj/

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, TheJogMan said:

Can we all take a moment to stop and acknowledge the fact that the dev responded to linus' response in the original reddit thread, and in that response he seemed appreciative of the fact that linus addressed the situation in the way he did, and that he never intended for this to blow up like this? He also said he was open to the possibility of working with LMG in the future, so the way I see it this whole situation has been resolved.

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/srhalz/linus_tech_tips_pirating_occt_answer_from_the_dev/hwtqmhj/

I think you have too high of hopes for people. There's at least 2 more pages of this. 

[Blademaster91]

15 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Anyone who thinks he did it intentionally isn't thinking straight. It's highly unlikely he's even in the know about things like this, he just sees the program on there and thinks someone else has dealt with it. He's not going to go to Accounting each time he sees something new.

Then if Linus doesn't know he should have an LMG employee that does, going to accounting or whoever deals with it should be normal for a large business.

16 minutes ago, dizmo said:

As for the post/rant the dev made? A little misplaced, I think. As soon as you say "I would have given it to them for free" it kind of invalidates the entire reason you posted. Sure, I get that you wanted the reach out, but you can't cry about lost funds after you've said you wouldn't have charged them because you understand the exposure is worth far more than the cost of the license.

Well software devs giving out review copies of software is usually worth more than someone just paying for the software, but it isn't about paying for it, it's the irony of calling people pirates for using ad block, then actually pirating software.

[Arika]

 

no idea if this has been posted yet, this thread is going by soo freaking fast.

[Goshin2568]

1 hour ago, 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. 

Fast forwarding through an ad with a DVR does not affect how much the television network/creators of the TV show get paid. It is a fundamentally different thing. 

[GDRRiley]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

While I understand the thought process, it is still against the terms of service. A company like LMG should take those license agreements seriously, because if Microsoft decides to go after them they will have to pay really hefty fines.

You are not allowed to take illegal shortcuts just because you feel like it makes your life easier.

you clearly have never been audited by Microsoft, as long as you have enough licenses they really don't care if you activate them or not

they already made their money

 

 

[Egg-Roll]

30 minutes ago, Xirenec said:

Was LTT's usage of OCCT intended to gain money? Not really.

Incorrect, by incorporating it into their video deliberately with the intent to use it to "prove" or "disprove" a claim made by someone/them is in fact using it for monetary gain as one could argue without the software it is hard to say if they could prove or disprove said claims by using other software. Regardless how true or false the last part of that statement is the fact still remains they used a software relying on it at one point to display it in a video as proof of something, and the fact that video is being monetized in some manner (ad spots, YT Money etc) makes it intended use for monetary gains, therefore a commercial license would be required.

 

Does the Creative Commons state the software has to be used for its intended purpose to fall under commercial use? Also wasn't LMG using it for its intended use in a commercial setting? Something specifically stated on the website requiring a commercial license to be done.

 

37 minutes ago, Xirenec said:

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"

I would like to point out that much has changed since the video was recorded to the time this showed up. This is likely what LMG saw when they visited the site:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200227124958/https://www.ocbase.com/

Equally that EULA is clearly meant for personal use, once household is used it's clearly meant for personal.

[Not Your Lawyer]

Some of the legal takes on here are so bad I decided I had to chime in.

I am not your lawyer. this is not legal advice, this is for educational purposes only. All this information is jurisdiction dependent but does give an overview on how different jurisdiction view these issues.

1. In many jurisdiction long form EULA's are not binding, furthermore in basically all jurisdiction if the software can be downloaded and the EULA not viewed it is also not binding. You are not required to seek it out, it has to be prominently displayed for you when you are installing the software and actively inform you of the intended use.

2. Commercial use, is a defined legal term. Obviously this depends on the jurisdiction but just because and entity is commercial in nature does not mean every action it takes is of a commercial nature. It is not clear that LTT's usage of the software was of commercial nature, this is exactly the type of file that would require a court to resolve.

3. Copywrite law is a lot more complicated than you would think, with every jurisdiction having its own particularities. In some jurisdictions to make a copywrite infringement claim you must prove monetary damages, in this case the exact opposite case could be made. If this is the case then no copywrite infringement was actually made.

4. The developer thanked LTT for showcasing his software. Once again this is jurisdiction dependent, but not enforcing a contract claim and appearing to assent to it's breach offers some indemnity to the other party.

5. To show-case the complexity of the law in some jurisdictions, if LTT was to use OCCT again after the Tweet thanking them for their showcase, and then a claim of copywrite or other licensing breach is brought, LTT may have a counter-claim for unjust enrichment against the developer. This could be construed as the developer assented to the free usage of their software in exchange for a demonstration by LTT. Due to the fact that LTT's commercial operation revolves around the selling of add space, the amount of advertising LTT gave the developer is easily provable, coupled with the fact that other software could have been sourced for free or even paid them to showcase, this amount could be claimed against the developer. Once again this would be a very complex file that would require a court to resolve.

In summary, it is much more complicated than LTT pirated Muh software. Should they have paid, obviously for PR reasons. They should also have internal processes to reach out even after paying before they showcase any software, you never know when a developer could get antsy...

[BaidDSB]

Ok as the OP, can we lock this? From what I gathered...

 

The Dev rightfully pointed it out.

 

Linus paid for it ONLY after the issue was blown up. But he did pay.

 

And he remains a hypocrite.

 

A lot of people don't understand what piracy is here.

 

Not sure what else is there to discuss anymore

[LtBeefy]

1 minute ago, TheJogMan said:

Can we all take a moment to stop and acknowledge the fact that the dev responded to linus' response in the original reddit thread, and in that response he seemed appreciative of the fact that linus addressed the situation in the way he did, and that he never intended for this to blow up like this? He also said he was open to the possibility of working with LMG in the future, so the way I see it this whole situation has been resolved.

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/srhalz/linus_tech_tips_pirating_occt_answer_from_the_dev/hwtqmhj/

Once a fire has been started on the internet, you cant bring it under control.

 

First off, Linus used version 5.5.7 of OCCT. Does anyone know if back then if the software had commercial licenses available? Truly asking, as while I see that today, OCCT does have paid versions, it is also on version 11. Just curious if 5.5.7 was free and then later version introduced the commercial license options. Remember, can't go by what there is today, but by what version he was using.

 

From my point of view, and I have little knowledge on this topic, but the original Dev just handled this bad. 

 

My cynical side says the Dev planned for it to be like this. I mean he tweeted about it back in May 24, 2021. Thanking them for it, for a video that took place back in June 2020. 

 

Get why the Dev tweet would come late, as he probably only learned about it then. But if he was dissatisfied enough to write about a big post about it, why did he not ask back then in the tweet?

 

Then, this whole thing seems to have stated from Reddit user Aeryn. Who claims he is a friend of the Dev.

 

Says he tried reaching out to Linus about it, but it seems he never emailed. The only proof I could find of Aeryn trying to contact Linus was through TWITTER, in a imgur Screenshot he uploaded. Aeryn only replied in tweets saying he pirated the software. Claims he never got a response.

 

I believe he never got a response for a few reasons. One, for issues as this you should try contacting the company's email address, or at the very least be the DEV giving the tweet. To my view its just a random person saying sh*t. Bet this would have been solved much faster if they sent an email to them directly.

 

But then again, OCCT wouldnt be getting as much publicity if that happened.

 

 

TLDR:

 

Part of this feels like the Dev or "friend of the dev" purposefully avoided trying to solve this matter privately through email. Why? Because Dev said it himself. He is  not making enough money right now. What better way to bring in more then spread awareness of the product. How to spread awareness? Light the fire's with a well known Tech YouTuber in public and let it free.

 

 

Again, that is my cynical side thinking. Could just be Dev had a friend who tried all the wrong ways to contact LTT for his friend who had previously thanked LTT for using his product, but never brought up any problems, bring up a problem to LTT.

 

 

[fXjZL5]

3 minutes ago, BaidDSB said:

And he remains a hypocrite.

No, he doesn't. He didn't pass a moral judgement. He was making a semantic point. 

[Blademaster91]

29 minutes ago, TheJogMan said:

Can we all take a moment to stop and acknowledge the fact that the dev responded to linus' response in the original reddit thread, and in that response he seemed appreciative of the fact that linus addressed the situation in the way he did, and that he never intended for this to blow up like this? He also said he was open to the possibility of working with LMG in the future, so the way I see it this whole situation has been resolved.

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/srhalz/linus_tech_tips_pirating_occt_answer_from_the_dev/hwtqmhj/

yeah after reading the comment from the OCCT dev, the issue seems to be solved, they seemed to be concerned about making any money from OCCT by being a full time dev which is completely understandable.

[LtBeefy]

23 minutes ago, fXjZL5 said:

My guy, you've been "baa"ing for eight hours. 

 

EXACTLY. I am sympathetic to his plight, in theory, but when he invalidates his premise like this, it becomes quite clear his intention was always clout.

 

Let's not be naïve about this. The exact reason he brought it up after so long out of nowhere is because he wanted it to blow up. Look at what @dizmo said. The entire point of the dev's post was essentially nothing. 

 

Yeah, I will bet my left nut that bridge is well and truly burned. His program will never appear in an LTT video again. And honestly, I can't blame them. 

Do agree with you that the Dev wanted to blow it up. Especially since its for a video from 2020, that had a thank you tweet posted in 2021 by the very Dev who now has a problem. The very dev who himself did not try to contact LTT, but instead had a "friend" Reddit fire about this issue. And that very "Friend" did try to contact them till January 28th of 2022 going by the Imgur of cropped tweets he posted. Many months after the original DEV posted his thank you.

 

If the "Friend" had a problem with how the Dev was treated, why didnt he bring it up back then when the Dev made his tweet. Why not email the company's email, or have the Dev email.

 

Yes, the dark side says this was planned to blow up. I bet you purchases and downloads of OCCT have had a huge jump.

 

Nothing wrong with him wanting LTT to have a paid commercial license for the software, as it was used by Linus Media Group in pursuit of their regular commercial activities. They filmed a video and used the software in the video. They film videos as their business, thus i believe that counts as commercial use.

 

So nothing wrong with point it out to them, and asking them to buy a license. But all of this could have been handled behind the scenes, with no problems. 

[Egg-Roll]

1 minute ago, fXjZL5 said:

No, he doesn't. He didn't pass a moral judgement. He was making a semantic point. 

His moral judgment was the blowing up of the Ad blocker = piracy claim he made (I didn't go down that rabbit hole) regardless what he said afterwards. If he wants his initial words not be spread like wild fire maybe he should learn to choose words better.

 

Equally time and time again esp in the past and more recently his RED battery video he has displayed hypocrisy from past self words, where he'll contradict himself or ignore other factors that have the same issue as though they are a nonissue.

 

8 minutes ago, BaidDSB said:

Ok as the OP, can we lock this? From what I gathered...

For future reference if an active mod is in the topic like @GDRRiley you can request a lock by mentioning them or quoting them.

[SansVarnic]

53 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

For future reference if an active mod is in the topic like @GDRRiley you can request a lock by mentioning them or quoting them.

Not necessary, we have a report button that is present for reason. Mods active in a topic will not participate in its moderation due to bias. Please keep this in mind. 

[Spotty]

Thread cleaned. Criticism and discussion is fine, however personal attacks, insults, and general toxic behaviour is not okay. Please keep in mind the core principals of the forum:

• Ensure a friendly atmosphere to our visitors and forum members
• Encourage the freedom of expression and exchange of information in a mature and responsible manner
• "Don't be a dick" —Wil Wheaton
• "Be excellent to each other" —Bill and Ted
• Remember your audience; both present and future

• No harassment, discrimination, or abuse of any kind.
  • This includes insults and accusations (fanboy, troll, shill etc).

 

For those who might have missed it I have pinned Linus' initial response to the top of the thread.

[LAwLz]

10 hours ago, microtechton said:

@LinusTech Although I understand your point of view from the adblocker scenario and obviously humans aren't perfect. A similar situation occurred like this in one of your videos from last year in the Home Theatre in a Storage Locker video where you were watching a pirated release of a movie ("Your Name") for which the UHD version of the bluray wasn't released in the US or Canada. I understand that, as you are the host and not the writer, you can't be held liable for someone else's actions. But isn't that directly hypocritical to your statement on adblockers. Obviously I'm not posting the screenshot where the pirated release filename was cuz I don't intend folks to pirate that media.

 

Moral or not, everyone can do whatever they want, if it means pirating something, I don't care. But I feel there must be some clarity when it comes to speaking publicly about something controversial like this topic.

 

Just my point of view and I intend no harm.

I just looked at this video to confirm that Linus watched the UHD version of Your Name and it seems like that part of the video is blurred now. Was it blurred when you looked at it?

If it wasn't then LMG might not only have committed piracy, but they are also destroying evidence of them doing so. 

 

Not a good look Linus.

[SansVarnic]

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I just looked at this video to confirm that Linus watched the UHD version of Your Name and it seems like that part of the video is blurred now. Was it blurred when you looked at it?

If it wasn't then LMG might not only have committed piracy, but they are also destroying evidence of them doing so. 

 

Not a good look Linus.

If I recall correctly it was blurred on release to YT. At least it was when I watched a few days after it was posted.

[Stahlmann]

Man people really don't have anything to do with themselves? Stuff like this blowing up is a good sign imo, becuase it means people don't have bigger problems.

 

I take the same stance Luke first took about the whole piracy controversy: "Ok."

I just don't care.

Why DO people care?

 

For me the fact Linus and his team make mistakes just proofs why i still like their content: They're human and their videos feel a lot more personal than other media. (At least at the moment) they're not my first choice for product reviews, but their content is without a doubt entertaining. So for me their videos have value. That might change when the lab is up and running, but i will evaluate that for myself once that content is here.

 

I don't get why people always are so eager to take sides as soon as the opportunity comes up...