[SOLVED] Ericsson slammed me with a Copyright Strike on a Teardown video, help!? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 07:16:45 pm
content: SOLVED ANSWER:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ericsson-slammed-me-with-a-copyright-strike-on-a-teardown-video-help!/msg2917040/#msg2917040My channel for Kaizer Power Electronics:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSukTlgTEWiL-sl0UeYeJvQ/So apparently owning a piece of equipment, taking it apart while filming it and show very little / basic design about it is now breaking intellectual property rights according to Ericsson.I show PCBs, I follow signal and current paths and labelled different ICs and transistors used. I never revealed any software but only what you can see on the hardware. Simple reverse engineering.They slammed a copyright strike on a teardown video of a RBS3202 Base station for cell towers, with a extremely vague reason:"This videoclip include detailed information of the product - Ericsson RBS3202 - which belong to an area where our company holds many IPR rights"I am in doubt would hold up in court, but I got little to no knowledge about that subject and I got no time or money to spend on a possible lawsuit.There is only three things I can do:1) Accept the strike and remove all Ericsson content in fear of getting youtube channel closed forever.2) Contact Ericsson directly, I got a contact email with the strike, but what should I write them? (Clearly they just wanted the video gone)3) Counter-file the strike and that can possible lead to a court case, legal action etc. Which is such a serious step that there basically is no choice for a small youtube channel to go against a international company.I can only come here to hope for help, support or just shred a bit of light over the doom that will soon hit everyone making teardown videos if this is the new normal.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 07:37:43 pm
content: Holding patents in a certain area doesn't mean suppressing any information or discussion about it. It doesn't sound like they're claiming design patents either. If a teardown video isn't fair use I don't know what would be. No reviews or critiques would be possible. This seems malicious abuse of their position but unfortunately YouTube seems eager to facilitate it. If it were me I'd fight it tooth and nail but I admittedly don't have skin in the game.https://www.youtube.com/about/copyright/fair-use/#yt-copyright-protection

author: Benta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 07:53:34 pm
content: Not nice, but I can see no wrongdoing on your side. Taking things apart and describing/filming them is perfectly OK. Reverse engineering as well.To your options:1: is the comfortable one, keeping out of trouble by ducking your head.2: ask Ericsson precisely which IPR "rights" they're referring to. BTW, no such thing as "IPR" exists, although it is often seen in the Media. It can only be Patents, Copyrights/Trademarks or Trade Secrets. None of these seem to apply here.3: file a criminal complaint at the Police aboutcoercion(bagvaskelse, evt. trussel) against Ericsson. This is free of cost and assures that your complaint is registered. Don't expect the Police to do anything, but it's on record.Good Luck with your decision.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 08:01:36 pm
content: Disclaimer: I'm no legal expert. And I have 'no skin in the game'.That's some serious bullshit, likely committed by some overzealous lawyer. Thunderf00t did some videos on fair use, since he has been targeted several times from other youtube channels and other entities, though never by a large corporation of this type. While I'm pretty confident that displaying the guts of a device that I'm guessing you can buy on ebay for a few hundred USD falls well within fair use, the question to what lengths are they willing to go. A good question would be whether they know about the (professional) public backlash that follows this kind of BS.Also: Paging Mr. Jones!

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 09:02:21 pm
content: IANAL, either.This is clearly BS. As pointed out, if they are claiming IP, they must be claiming either Trademark, Copyright, or Patent. YouTube's notice specifically mentions copyright, which makes sense, since the DMCA only applies to copyright, and is almost certainly the legal process by which this has been undertaken. The only copyright protected work remotely related here is probably some firmware, and the PCB artwork, neither of which you are distributing - and fair use would clearly apply anyway to showing some images of the PCBs not intended as reproductions of the artwork.False DMCA takedowns do face some penalties, including your potential legal fees were you to fight this. This case seems totally (again, IANAL) not 'in good faith' as the DMCA requiresunder penalty of perjury. I'm not sure how far I'd take it, but I would certainly push back and demand they specify what protected work has been infringed.Does Google also provide an appeals process? Hopefully they employ people knowledgable enough on copyright to know that this is a bullshit claim, if human eyes actually set upon it. I guess this is the 'Request Retraction' option. I'd pursue that too.

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 09:36:11 pm
content: Thank you for your replies.I got the contact information on a senior group legal counselor at Ericsson, I will contact that person and talk in details about "Patents, Copyrights/Trademarks or Trade Secrets" that they base this on. From a viewpoint that there must be a mistake. I am not going offensive at first, that leads nowhere.I revealed nothing more in those Ericsson base station teardowns than in f.ex. this from Nokia Siemens

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 09:56:00 pm
content: I'd fight the hell out of this on principal, maybe you can find a lawyer willing to volunteer services, otherwise set up a "fuck Ericsson" gofundme and I bet money will roll in.We MUST resist this sort of crap, companies get away with it because most people just roll over.

author: twospoons
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 09:58:18 pm
content: I think thats the right approach. If they insist you've breached their IP, ask for a detailed explanation of what they're objecting to, "so you wont accidentally breach their IP in future". Then you will have ammunition to push back , if their rationale is unreasonable.Frankly, if you are not publishing their software or schematics, or building a copy, I fail to see how you can be infringing their IP since the hardware is clearly easily obtainable by the public and would be of far more use to the competition than your video.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 10:16:06 pm
content: No doubt Ericsson may claim IPR (a general term for the assignment of property rights through patents, copyrights and trademarks) in relation to their product.I would kindly ask Ericsson to grant me a permission to show that stuff in my video. It has no sense to piss against wind.The fact the other Vendors do not claim their IPRs when you do a teardown of their products "without permission" may not necessarily mean they cannot..

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 10:27:13 pm
content: Quote from: imo on February 05, 2020, 10:16:06 pmJust like the rights-to-repair movement, I fail to see the ask-for-permissions, to do with my own property as I see fit. You could take down any video of any product that shows even the slightest "inside" or beyond the warranty void sticker then.I did not post the other video to justify it, but as I said, an example of what was shown in the video I can not show you, as its taken down.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 10:37:32 pm
content: Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 10:45:08 pm
content: The whole YouTube thing says "copyright" multiple times, so I suppose they had to declare that your video infringes on their copyright specifically and when pressed for details, they will try to claim some BS about reproducing images of the PCB or whatever.No harm trying and posting the answer to the Internet for all the armchair lawyers to get outraged about. No idea what they would do if you file a counter notice, find a lawyer familiar with all that American BSI suppose you could also ask YouTube to consider if this notice is even formally valid without any kind of specific claim of what's wrong with your video, though I'm not sure if DMCA cares about such things.

author: nigelwright7557
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 10:49:19 pm
content: They must have shares in a screw company !I am surprised at youtube and the copyright stance as there is loads of copyrighted stuff on youtube.I can see both sides.1/ Want to breakdown a system to see how it works.2/ As a software/hardware designer myself I wouldnt want my software/hardware explained to anyone else so they could copy it.

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 11:10:42 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on February 05, 2020, 10:37:32 pmIt is removed, as well as other Ericsson videos. I did not want to risk channel closure just for that, there is nothing special about those videos. It is their wild, vague and broad claim that made me ask.Quote from: magic on February 05, 2020, 10:45:08 pmThere is no way to contact youtube, other than filing counter claim, which opens the whole legal, court, lawyers and fee package that they threaten with.Quote from: nigelwright7557 on February 05, 2020, 10:49:19 pmThis was a manual takedown, not a AI/bot discovery, so Ericssons legal department is trawling the web for manuals, videos and everything else about their system and try to force it away. This has been seen many times before if anyone knows the website "franks hospital service" that had manuals for many different medical instruments and machines.2) It is all discarded legacy 3G equipment, noone in their right mind would copy it and not at all from watching videos of a RF amateur looking at it. These are widely for sale on ebay if someone wanted one to look at. I never revealed any code, despite having partial software/firmware in my hands, as I know that is copyrighted material.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 11:14:55 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 05, 2020, 07:37:43 pmit pretty much means the exact opposite, a patent is a time limited monopoly in exchange for disclosingan idea and everything about how it works

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 11:21:51 pm
content: Quote from: nigelwright7557 on February 05, 2020, 10:49:19 pmNothing surprising. The DMCA is rigged against the uploader. I suspect that YT would be legally required to take the complaint in good faith even if Ericsson claimed that they own copyright of Mickey Mouse and that the video infringes on that. What YT generally doesn't care that much is content which hasn't been DMCA'd yet.Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 05, 2020, 11:10:42 pmI believe that copying manuals is technically a copyright infringement, unlike this which sounds like total BS. IANAL.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 11:29:10 pm
content: Quote from: nigelwright7557 on February 05, 2020, 10:49:19 pmWhy? If your design can be copied by looking at it in a video, there are already only two options. Either it is trivial but copying would have little monetary value for a plethora of reasons, or it is nontrivial and you have a patent on it.Whether anyone can find a teardown on Youtube is totally irrelevant. If there is money to be made by it, your potential competitors are going to be among your first customers, and they'll be meticulously picking apart your product until they know it better than you do.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2020, 11:40:31 pm
content: This is really a problem of a few semi-monopolistic companies (Youtube, eBay, Amazon and the like) sitting on so much of communications and actual trade/distribution... that they have ended up with disproportionate power to ban legitimate activity for arbitrary/abusive reasons, and there doesn't seem to be any reasonable recourse for ordinary citizens / small business people.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 12:44:32 am
content: Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 05, 2020, 11:10:42 pmisn't it a simple as telling Youtube you don't believe it is violating copyright and why, e.g. fair use and the the claimant has a short period to convince Youtube they are actually serious about it?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 12:49:23 am
content: Quote from: nigelwright7557 on February 05, 2020, 10:49:19 pmJust to be clear,there is no copyright infringement hereanyway. Copyright, trademarks, and patents are different things, and the only one they are even actually sorta claiming ("detailed product information") would fall under patent protection. But a patent does not create confidentiality (on the contrary, itrequirespublishing those details, as langwadt said). Copyright, on the other hand, involves producing copies of a published work. There is no published work here to begin with, and even if there were, describing it does not constitute a violation.IANAL, but: As for your concern about your designs being copied: you have two (and only two!) ways to go about preventing this. One is obfuscation/confidentiality: trying to keep your design secret. This means limiting who can gain access to the information. With some things (like firmware) there are ways to make it hard or essentially impossible to derive the information, even with access to the product. Or potting the electronics in hard compound, or welding a device shut such that opening it is impractical. And you can require customers to sign confidentiality agreements, combined with notsellingthe product to them, but instead offering only rental, such that you always retain ownership of the product. (Otherwise, the first sale doctrine comes into play, which kills off your rights to a product you sold. For example, you cannot prohibit a customer from opening, reselling, or describing a device you sell them, whereas you can make that a condition under a rental.) But in most situations, it's impossible to actually get your product out there without exposing its innards to the world. And this is why the second way is prevalent: patents. These grant you exclusivity to your design,regardless of who knows its details.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 01:00:24 am
content: From the picture in the opening postQuoteI wonder if completing Copyright School will endow you with the knowledge to be able to definitively call this out as BSThen send ericson's lawyer a link to it

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 01:03:52 am
content: That is a clear cut case of abuse of the Copyright Act.Dispute it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 01:10:34 am
content: Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 05, 2020, 07:16:45 pmYour channelcannotbe shut down for Copyright claims.There is no mechanism in Youtube to do that, Copyright claims are not community guidelines strikes against your channel.QuoteSo another video telling them to F off and watch it go viral and watch them backtrack.Don't back down, do #3 and nuke them from orbit.What they have done is abuse of the Copyright Act and that is a crime.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 01:13:16 am
content: There are very few hardware configurations which are "novel"--------most are "Public Domain", as witness how similar the circuitry is from competing companies.Back in the 1920s/'30s, the then, large Radio/Electronics companies tried, & failed, to suppress the propagation of knowledge about this then, new field."Radio" magazines published circuits using the latest designs, Amateur Radio operators made breakthroughs in HF Communications, in many cases, leading the major companies, tube manufacturers published details on all their new components (they wanted to sell them, & restriction of knowledge restricted their sales).In Oz, manufacturers of radios did pay "lip service" to the patent claims, as witness the "ARTS & P" stickers on older radios, but other countries did not.From that time, "Public Domain" reigned supreme, until fairly recently.People take their "IP rights" to ridiculous lengths, sometimes.One company I worked for a few years ago wouldn't let us look at the schematic of their "mother board"(it was really just a interface board), which made troubleshooting a bit difficult.I pointed out to them that if anyone possesed IP rights to the stuff on that board, it would be National Semiconductor, or Texas Instruments.They were adamant, however, & didn't change their ruling till they received a batch of faulty boards from their supplier.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 01:15:26 am
content: Quote from: tooki on February 06, 2020, 12:49:23 amThis is correct, and the Erricson lawyers will know this.You are being strong armed by a bunch of bullies acting illegally, tell them to F off.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 01:56:53 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 06, 2020, 01:15:26 amHow do you tell them to F off, though. The whole system is stacked against you.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 02:23:05 am
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on February 06, 2020, 01:56:53 amStart with making a public video for his 4k subscribers.

author: chickenHeadKnob
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 02:50:41 am
content: It is an absolute standard tactic for lawyers to intentionally conflate copywrite with patent law. They are lying.For those that haven’t read it before, Richard Stallman's article contain clearly written and composed thoughts on this.:https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.htmlFrom the article.In practice, nearly all general statements you encounter that are formulated using “intellectual property” will be false. For instance, you'll see claims that “its” purpose is to “promote innovation”, but that only fits patent law and perhaps plant variety monopolies. Copyright law is not concerned with innovation; a pop song or novel is copyrighted even if there is nothing innovative about it. Trademark law is not concerned with innovation; if I start a tea store and call it “rms tea”, that would be a solid trademark even if I sell the same teas in the same way as everyone else. Trade secret law is not concerned with innovation, except tangentially; my list of tea customers would be a trade secret with nothing to do with innovation.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 07:25:02 am
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on February 05, 2020, 11:40:31 pmDMCA is not a whim of YouTube. Every website operating in the US would take it down.There we go, this is the garbage you are dealing with:https://www.dmca.com/faq/What-is-a-DMCA-Counter-NoticeI'm under impression that the video will stay down even if you submit a "counter notice" and then Ericsson demonstrates within 10 days that they are suing you to take it down, regardless of whether the lawsuit has any merit or ever comes to any conclusion. Welcome to America, I guessAbout your only chance of winning this is to gather a mob with torches and pitchforks and some lawyersbeforefiling the counter notice or "kindly" asking Ericsson to reconsider their claim. Or be ready to threaten them with your own suit for abuse. Maybe EFF would care?

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 09:24:50 am
content: Thank you all for the references and definitions of the various subjects.Things I could try- Make a video about the claim to give Ericsson the publicity they are asking for.- Contact EFF with all the details and ask for advice. Best would be a legally correct written statement to use in a counterfile- Contact Ericsson CEO, far shot, but straight to the top. He describes himself as "engineer by heart" on linkedin.- Report a compliance concern through Ericssons own channel ("Other persons than employees, such as suppliers, customers and other partners involved with Ericsson, may report suspected violations of laws or the Code of Business Ethics to the local operations manager or in accordance with locally established procedure.")- Contact the senior legal group counselor directly, but I guess there is no leverage to gain there.Quote from: langwadt on February 06, 2020, 12:44:32 amThere is no way to contact youtube in these matters, except filing a counterclaim. There is no support on legal matters and you are left on your own against the claimant.I found a way to submit a ticket about copyright claims on videos, its just burried deep down into their support/help section and is no easy find. I tried that as well.Quote from: EEVblog on February 06, 2020, 01:10:34 amCopyright strikes may affect your ability to monetize. In addition, if your live stream is removed for copyright, your access to live streaming will be restricted for 90 days.If you get 3 copyright strikes:Your account, along with any associated channels, is subject to termination.All the videos uploaded to your account will be removed.You can't create new channels.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 09:54:18 am
content: Quote from: magic on February 06, 2020, 07:25:02 amAnd IIRC if you counternotice and they don't respond, you automatically win.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 10:02:39 am
content: Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 06, 2020, 09:24:50 amWrong. I have threatened the legal council of a company (Lily Drones) before about a false Trademark claim citing all the legal references and case law to back it up. They backed down knowing full well they put in an illegal claim.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 10:09:00 am
content: Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 05, 2020, 09:36:11 pmPlease let us know how it goes. If you get no reply I'll do a video calling them out on it.Also, contact several of the Youtube lawyers, they do videos about this stuff.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzGiDDKdphJ0GFvEd82WfYQhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpa-Zb0ZcQjTCPP1Dx_1M8Qhttps://www.youtube.com/user/IanCorzinehttps://www.youtube.com/user/ljfrench009And make sure you have a backup video uploaded somewhere else it can't be touched, like LBRY, so that people can watch it for reference.Every Youtuber should be auto backing up videos on LBRY and Bitchute at a minimum.

author: Kinkless Tetrode
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 10:11:28 am
content: Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 05, 2020, 07:16:45 pmOf course, the best course of action is to pass this annoyance off to your lawyer. But since so very few of us have a lawyer available, if you wish to pursue the matter, the first thing to do is choice #2; contact Ericsson and ask them exactly what intellectual property is being infringed by your video. This is what your lawyer would do first anyway.Reply to them, by e-mail (and by registered post if you like, but e-mail is enough). Be courteous, but firm, and ask that Ericsson point out, specifically and in detail, what intellectual property rights are being infringed by your video. Emphasize that their claim,"This videoclip include detailed information of the product - Ericsson RBS3202 - which belong to an area where our company holds many IPR rights", is inherently vague and indeterminate and such claim cannot withstand any legal challenge under intellectual property law in the United States or in the European Union. See what they say, then you can make a move after that.There is too little information at this point and this is just speculation, but:Their claim can't be for patent infringement. A (US) patent is a grant of the right to exclude others frommaking, using, offering for sale, selling or importingthe invention. So, unless your video does one or more of these things, there is no patent infringement.Their claim can't be for trademark infringement (in the US). You are not using the Ericsson trademark in your course of business, nor are you taking any actions that would lead, or confuse, others to believe that your video is associated with Ericsson in anyway. If you are not saying anything negative or slanderous about the product, then they cannot claim tarnishment of their mark. So, if your video does no such things, there is no trademark infringement.The US First-Sale Doctrine is not relevant since you, as the owner, are not reselling or distributing their product.This leaves copyright infringement as the most likely possibility. But it is unknown exactly what copyrighted material is allegedly being infringed. Are they claiming infringement of their manual?, schematics?, PCB board designs? It may be enough for them that an image of their schematic is shown in the video, but until you hear from Ericsson you just don't know.For US copyright infringement there would likely be, 17 U.S.C. § 107, the Fair Use Doctrine, available to you:https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107[...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.] While the Fair Use Doctrine exception to copyright infringement looks encouraging as a defense, there are four important factors that would need to be evaluated in your specific case. No conclusion can be drawn until you hear specifically what Ericsson is complaining about.Given the above, you may have greater or lesser rights and defenses if this matter were to be dealt with in the EU, so please keep that in mind. I wish you the best of luck in dealing with them.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 10:18:14 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 06, 2020, 10:02:39 amFYI, on this case, I shot and uploaded a video and threatened to release it (for starters) if they didn't remove their illegal claim. The claims was retracted within hours.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 10:31:08 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 06, 2020, 09:54:18 amThat's my impression too, but you don't know how crazy/dumb/stubborn their lawyers are. Filing a counter notice right away is the "war" option which has a potential to drag on for years, so IMO better have the pitchforks and lawyers prepared if you want to go there.I would like to have at least an assessment from a competent lawyer knowledgeable in the theory and actual practice of copyright lawsuits in electronics about what exactly Ericsson might attempt to do and what their chances are. Also how much retaliation you can get if they lose, which might be useful in motivating them to retreat.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 11:02:19 am
content: Quote from: magic on February 06, 2020, 07:25:02 amThe issue, as I see it, is that there is per se no copyright violation, since copyright is about the right to make copies of a copyrighted work. Creatingyour owndocumentation about an object does not violate copyright, since you're notcopyinga copyrighted work, but creating a new one. It's not a patent infringement, since you're not making an unauthorized copy of theobject itself. And it's not a trademark violation, nor is it a trade secret violation, since you're not party to a confidentiality agreement (or other applicable contract, like an employment contract).As such, any DMCA claim is fraudulentper se.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 11:18:09 am
content: Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 05, 2020, 10:27:13 pmFYI - from legal point of view it does not matter whether the product in your video has been taken off a dirty scrapyard for free, or you bought it off ebay for $10, or purchased directly from the manufacturer for $130k with 5years warranty. The IPRs do not get transferred to you, you do not own them. The IPRs are still with the owner, and are usually formulated in a form allowing lawyers to claim anything.And mind the lawyers do like to claim the same way as we do like to watch the teardown videos

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 11:22:32 am
content: Quote from: imo on February 06, 2020, 11:18:09 amCould you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 11:23:25 am
content: Quote from: tooki on February 06, 2020, 11:02:19 amIt's arguable what constitutes a copy. For certain media, like painting or music performance, your own audiovisual "documentation" of the work would likely be considered a derived work and require authorization.I really don't think this should apply to teardown / reverse engineering videos, because in this case the video is not even close in function and utility to the real thing, but they are free to argue any position they want. If there are no clear legislative guidelines (probably) and no similar suit happened yet (maybe), they are also free to become the fist to try and find out. They may even try it despite knowing they will lose, if they think you won't sue for damages if they lose but OTOH have some "metrics" to meet in reducing the spread of their "proprietary knowledge" online, which seems to be their actual motivation.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 11:38:44 am
content: Quote from: imo on February 06, 2020, 11:18:09 amYou don't get it. You seem to think an IP owner has unrestricted rights over all use of anything theyclaimto be IP.I already explained in my reply above why NO IP right applies here, and so have others. But since you're not getting it, let's try again:1. It's not copyright violation, because he's not copying a copyrighted creative work (like a text, photograph, or video) – he isdescribingan object in his possession. As long as he is using his own words in creating this description, it's not a copyright violation.*2. It's not patent violation because he isn't manufacturing devices using the patented designs. (Sharing a patented design is NOT a violation, only MAKING THINGS with the patented design is!)3. It's not trademark violation because he's at no point representing himself as being the manufacturer.4. And it's not a violation of trade secrets, because he's not party to any kind of contract that would create such confidentiality. Confidentiality does not extend to a buyer of an object!!!*For example, you cannot copyright a recipe in the abstract. Theparticular wordingin a given cookbook is copyrighted and cannot be copied verbatim, but the information about the ingredients used and how to use them is not protected. So I could write my own cookbook where I describe the exact same dish, using the exact same ingredients, amounts, and procedure, and as long as I use my own words to explain it, there is no copyright violation. (This is why restaurants and food manufacturers go to insane lengths to keep their recipes/formulas secret.) In other knowledge domains, we decided that being able to protect the idea itself, and not the specific wording, is important, and that's what a patent is. That's why a pharmaceutical company can patent a drug, so nobody else can sell it, even if they know how to make it. But not everything is patentable, and even if it is patentable, it doesn't mean I can't describe it. I could write a book with instructions on how to make every patented drug on the market, and as long as I used my own words, that would not violate copyright. And the patents wouldn't be violated unless I attempted to make and sell one of those drugs.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 11:40:38 am
content: Quote from: wraper on February 06, 2020, 11:22:32 amYou will certainly get the answers when you start the Case with the IPR owner.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 11:54:14 am
content: Quote from: magic on February 06, 2020, 11:23:25 amYes, that's true, though I consider that to be a flaw in copyright law, insofar as the laws lean excessively toward the copyright holder. (For example, I don't think photos of sculptures should constitute copyright violations, since photos, no matter how detailed, cannot replace experiencing the physical sculpture.)But this cell tower amplifier is not a "creative work", it's a product, so copyright isn't the issue. Nor is it a patent violation, since the OP produced documentation, not an amplifier itself.Quote from: magic on February 06, 2020, 11:23:25 amWhile IANAL, I'm pretty sure that this is an area where IP law is generally very well established, with ample case law by precedent. The news industry could not exist if even just reporting about others' intellectual property were illegal. (And you know that companies tried HARD to stop things from being published, and lost.) There have also been recent court cases about whether software APIs can be copyrighted or not. So far, the law has treated APIs as non-copyrightable and non-patentable, such that anyone can write software to work with an API, regardless of permission, and that one can write documentation about the API as well (hence all the unauthorized books on how to program this-or-that language or API). But there has been no definitive (Supreme Court level) case law on APIs, whereas with physical objects, that kind of case law was established long ago, which is why anyone can write a book on how to use or fix something, or make items that interact with a physical object, as long as they don't violate patents. (For example, established case law is why I could make and sell aftermarket auto parts.)

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 11:56:02 am
content: Quote from: imo on February 06, 2020, 11:40:38 amThey cannot possibly win in court. The only way they can screw you is that you won't be able to financially afford legal process.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 11:59:13 am
content: Quote from: imo on February 06, 2020, 11:40:38 amWell, you get the IP owner'sclaims(i.e. wishful thinking) as to what violations are occurring, but that in no way guarantees that any violations haveactuallyoccurred.The fact is, and this is well established case law, that once you sell a product, you cannot stop people from describing it, even in levels of detail you'd like to keep secret, because that's not an intellectual property right you ever had to begin with!Big companies simply rely on the fact that they can afford legal battles that individuals and small companies cannot.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 12:34:08 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on February 06, 2020, 11:22:32 amAgree, I can't see how patent rights would cover that at all. One can infringe the patent by making or selling the patented technology, or using it commercially (without having obtained use rights, e.g. by buying a unit from the patent holder). But disseminating information about the technology -- even offering training commercially -- does not constitute an infringement to my knowledge. Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.One potential caveat: The limitations of "induced infringement" are less clear to me. If you tell people "Here's a great way to implement XYZ, I encourage you to use this technique in your commercial product", without pointing out that XYZ is covered by patents owned by a 3rd party -- could that be construed as induced infringement?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 01:36:41 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on February 06, 2020, 12:34:08 pmAnd even if it was covered under Trademark protection, that means nothing, as they have still knowingly filed a fraudulent Copyright claim, and that's actually a crime.I would point this out to them.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 02:07:06 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 06, 2020, 01:36:41 pmYou cannot argue to the other party they should stop claiming against you because you think they allegedly committed a crime by claiming youYou may file a suit against them because of their alleged crime, but that will be the second Case, independent from the first Case.IMHO - nobody here is an expert in IPR laws, and even a lawyer. What I was always advised by experienced lawyers in past the best you can do is to avoid, at any cost, any legal disputes or strikes or Cases.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 02:08:19 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on February 06, 2020, 11:54:14 amA number of surprising things have been made to be "creative works", like software itself (even if not software APIs) and AFAIK circuit board designs too. Post a high-res pic of a PCB and technically it's a copy of a protected work in a different medium. Now, the copy has little practical use and is in no way a substitute or competitor to the real thing, and fair use provisions apply for the purpose of review and critique, but that's for the courts to decide

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 02:09:46 pm
content: Quote from: magic on February 06, 2020, 07:25:02 amThat whole situation is total BS, though, isn't it. Protecting intellectual property rights is one thing, corporations using the rules to "cheat" with no real practical right to reply is another.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 02:11:17 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 06, 2020, 10:09:00 amLeonard French is an actual Copyright Attorney, but he's US based, so there is a jurisdiction difference. He does seem to spend a fair bit of time in Europe as his OH resides (or resided) in Scotland: ISTBC but I think she has a legal background also.I am sure he would have a view, but I don't know whether or not it would pique his interest enough to make a video about it.A long shot, but doesn't Simone Giertz have an Ericsson connection?

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 02:40:09 pm
content: Quote from: magic on February 06, 2020, 02:08:19 pmNo that is not true. Software is specially included in copyright, even if otherwise it would be described as a "useful article" (ie. not a creative work).Hardware items classed as "useful articles" in general are not covered by copyright, except for some specific exceptions such as the design of yachts, the mask layers of an IC, but PCBs are not protected works under Copyright. They may be covered by a patent, if they embody a patented circuit.I struggle to see what IPR a teardown videocould in theoryviolate. The only thing I can think would be if it demonstrated how to circumvent a copyright protection mechanism, which might fall under DMCA. Otherwise everything would be covered by fair use. Research may also be an exclusion.Tbh, I think Ericcson's legal office had an intern on duty that day with insufficient supervision.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 02:57:12 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on February 06, 2020, 02:40:09 pmOkay, if that's true than my whole argument flies out the window.Am I reading it right that I can sell exact 1:1 clones of any commercial PCB as long as there are no patents and trademarks involved?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 03:59:01 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on February 05, 2020, 10:37:32 pmGive me $20 or I'll punch you. It's not worth the fight, just pay.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 04:31:48 pm
content: Quote from: magic on February 06, 2020, 02:57:12 pmYou have unlocked new research: China.

author: borjam
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 04:34:53 pm
content: This happened in Germany. I am Spanish and I am *not* a lawyer. Of course I have no clue about legal differences with Denmark.And I am writing from memory.Years ago, the ailing SCO Group tried to extort money from companies using Linux systems claiming patent infringement.Curiously, SCO did not specify which patents were being violated. So it was a surreal situation in which the defendant would be unable to fight the case.If I remember well, a German court ordered them to provide a list of the patents they claimed were being violated or withdraw the claims. It seems that malicious litigation is taken very seriously in German law.Turns out, SCO withdrew in Germany.(Added) Groklaw, the website that covered this kerfufle thoroughly, still exists.http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071113135529406I have no idea how it is in Denmark, though. But a malicious threat of litigation might be an offense there?Still speaking as a non lawyer, a patent is a dual edged sword. It provides legal protection against unauthorized use of your invention but it is incompatible with secrecy because, well, patents are published in the first place.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 04:55:08 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 06, 2020, 03:59:01 pmThat is a strawman. Look it up in you favourite dictionary if you do not know what strawman argument is.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 05:11:40 pm
content: Not really, it's a pretty accurate assessment. Every time someone just rolls over and takes it, companies are encouraged to continue this sort of bullying.It's like not bothering to call the police when somebody steals something from you, it emboldens other thieves. Fuck anybody who tries to push me around, I'm happy to spend $1000 worth of effort fighting something that would cost me $10 to just accept.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 05:25:10 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on February 06, 2020, 04:55:08 pmCalling strawman to avoid having to actually refute anything seems to be quite popular nowadays. The comparison is relevant. Someone threatens you unreasonably with undue force and your advice is to back down because it's the easy way way out. It's only $20 and you won't miss it. But it's wrong and does represent a loss, just like removing a teardown does. It also means the bully can come back for more whenever he wants. There's a good chance these lawyers represent more similar companies.

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 07:11:01 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 06, 2020, 10:09:00 amThank you very much Dave. It means the world to me, the support and love a electronics nerd can get from fellows here on eevblog forumYoutube has been contacted with question about the vagueness of their claimEricsson lawyer has been contacted via email, asking them kindly to explain this mistake and finding a solution.Just as a note for someone else that asked about what I showed: Only showed hardware, no schematics, no manuals, only video of it getting taken apart and pictures where I labelled the ICs with their most interesting specs. Thats it.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 07:16:29 pm
content: So if you put up a video showing Ericsson threatening your video, can they then claim "defamation". Talk about David vs. Goliath here. If that's the case, nobody would ever be able to say or do anything and large corporate giants would shut everyone up by threatening to sue and the small guy would hide away in a corner because they would be made bankrupt just hiring a lawyer to defend themselves. Oh wait, that's how it already works!If your goal here is to share information, and you want to protect your main channel from demonetization, can you not set up a "side channel" to publish these types of videos? Chances are you are 100% in the right and Ericsson should go f&ck themselves. However, since YouTube couldn't care less about the plight of the average person and simply wants to appease advertisers, perhaps you can put it on an unlinked secondary YouTube account.Sure, you will take the "hit" of not having any revenue coming from it... but who cares. You will have at least have published the video for everyone in the world to see and download, together with another video stating why you had to do this (so everyone knows) and on top of it you could fight them and worst they could do is shut down that secondary channel and not touch your main one. If they shut it down, then you put it up on another site. One way or the other Ericsson wants to silence you. Show them they can't win.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 08:08:00 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on February 05, 2020, 10:37:32 pmIt‘s not so much about losing the video, but about the „copyright strike“ now on file with YouTube, I would assume. You do understand their “3 strikes, you are out“ policy?

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 09:04:54 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on February 06, 2020, 08:08:00 pmThat's the rub isn't it.... you can have some crazy litigious organization flag a bunch of your videos and get you kicked out of YouTube for nothing. If you put your hands up and say "oh well, move on" then they can keep targeting you again and again. You have to FIGHT unfortunately, it is the only way. Even if it means you lose, you don't go down without causing damage and burning down your opponent. Otherwise they will keep doing this to everyone. Perhaps free legal help, EFF and publicizing this you will create the "Streisand Effect".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effectBy the way, this tends to be happening with dentists who post information about Smile Direct Club and a host of other "home-directed" orthodontics:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/teeth-straightening-lawsuit-manitoba-dentists-1.5265969Individual dentists who posted anything negative about it, on YouTube or otherwise, got hit with take-down requests aggressively. Even dentists who you would think have the means to pay for these types of legal battles, for the most part just scared away and didn't think it was worth it. They went on with their lives. Finally a bunch of them got together and started suing them back:https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2019/09/26/smiledirectclub-ipo-class-action-lawsuit/2445447001/So now it is a huge mess but some companies need to be wrangled into submission because they do not play fair. If you read the second article above you will note one of the reasons Smile Direct Club is being sued is because:The lawsuit further states that the company has responded to criticism with "a deliberate, intentional, and well-lawyered campaign to stifle any legitimate, publicly-stated concerns or criticisms of its product and/or business practices."That's right, this company has threatened EVERYONE aggressively that even thought to mention them and be scientifically objective about them. They wanted to shut down and shut up anyone with some standard Lawyer scary letter threatening to sue you until oblivion.This is another nice article that summarizes it from BuzzFeed:https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nidhisubbaraman/smile-direct-club-lawsuits-dentists

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 09:43:18 pm
content: IANAL but AIUI there is nothing to lose by telling them that you'll only remove it if they can explain exactly why they think they have a valid reason.I don't believe there is any chance they could persue this legally as they would be bound to fail - it's just idle threats.I'd be inclined to re-upload with an opening statement about their bogus claimBTW if anyone has any spare Ericsson basestation kit they'd like to send me, I'd be happy to tear it apart!QuoteOnly if you say something that is not true. Saying they are threatening when all they have done is a bogus copyright claim could be construed that way, so just stick to the facts.QuoteAsk them to state exactly what they are claiming, and tell them that you will not remove content until they have shown there is an infringement, and that failure to reply will constitute acceptance that they have no caseQuoteDon't do this. You do not need permission. An explicit refusal may put you at some sort of disadvantage, though I doubt it.You own it, you can do what you like with it, end of.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 09:51:21 pm
content: Quote from: barycentric on February 06, 2020, 09:48:01 pmThere are no other Ericsson videos.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 09:55:31 pm
content: From the terms for someone filing a copyright complaint :QuoteHas this information been forwarded ?Quote"Not authorised" - but that could cover anything - the issue here is whether any authorisation is required

author: brainstorm
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 09:59:26 pm
content: QuoteWhy would "revealing software" be **that** fundamentally different from the hardware-only teardowns you are doing? I have an Anritsu spectrum analyzer that I would like torepair, hardware is fine but software is not working:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/anritsu-ms2721b-internal-cf-card-missing/msg2638362/#msg2638362https://blogs.nopcode.org/brainstorm/anritsu-ms2721b-spectrum-analyzer/Shall I expect more copyright claims coming my way because I'm trying to fix the **software** instead of the **hardware**? I'm not trying to diminish the whole point of your thread, I think it really sucks you got that copyright claim from Ericsson.This is a honest, curious question on where that "software vs hardware" different treatment in terms of reverse engineering and its perception might come from? :-S

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 10:09:46 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on February 06, 2020, 09:51:21 pmNot anymore.Quote from: brainstorm on February 06, 2020, 09:59:26 pmI got no idea aka IANAL (I learned that from this thread)But reproducing the code would be reproducing their copyrighted material. Showing hardware with patents on it is not reproducing a product.Remember those cases some years back about car companies having copyright over the software in cars to by far extend of the law you never owned your own car.

author: brainstorm
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 10:24:28 pm
content: QuoteIANAL either, but if I write a blog post or a video of me fiddling with radare2, GHidra, Binary Ninja changing assembly opcodes, does that really constitute "reproducing the code"? My insight from a friend who works on infosec was that the legal offense is in **redistributing** their **modified** binaries without permission.This is also why this Ericsson claim does not hold since you are really not redistributing/reselling anything. You are "just" showing facts laid on top of a multilayer copper board as entertainment, nothing else... to my untrained, non-lawyer eyes, that is.Anyway, I guess that a youtube video of a hex editor flipping bits constitutes a channel for (modified) firmware redistribution nowadays :-?

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2020, 10:52:35 pm
content: Modified or unmodified, redistributing binaries would be in violation. The 'problem' is that derivative works are also protected, and you could (not successfully, I would hope) argue that since the video contains 'significant portions' of the copyright work, that it is a derivative, and thus subject to the same copyright protection. I don't think this would fly thanks to fair use, but you could at least make the attempt.The difference with physical objects, unlike software, is that they are not protected by copyright at all. There's no protected work to argue has been distributed.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 02:36:46 am
content: Wow that blows but I'm sadly not surprised. IP law sucks and only caters to the rich. As stupid as it is, it probably is infringement as lot of that tech is probably considered "secret". It kind of goes with the right to repair stuff. In some cases it's illegal for you to open or modify a product. Ex: John Deere stuff. So this probably falls under that. When you own this equipment you're just buying a license to use it, you don't actually own the product. I absolutely hate this crap myself and don't agree with it.Could maybe win if you fought it and had enough money to throw at a lawyer, but not sure if it's worth it. That's the big issue with IP law, it only really caters to the rich. Even if they are legally in the wrong it costs the defendant too much money to win.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 02:48:00 am
content: Quote from: james_s on February 06, 2020, 05:11:40 pmIndeed.Sagon just won a huge legal precedence Youtube case.TLDR; The US court ruled that even a video with no commentary or other text, just 100% original content sliced togetherstilleasily meets the Fair Use guidelines.This is huge. If such a borderline case is easily Fair Use then practically everything else is as well, let alone content that is 100% your own footage.Full legal reading:

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 02:53:40 am
content: Quote from: edy on February 06, 2020, 07:16:29 pmNo, they cannot, unless you are dumb enough to say something that isn't true. Facts arenotdefamation.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 02:55:42 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on February 06, 2020, 09:43:18 pmYes. Dispute the claim and see what happens. Likely they will be so shocked you actually contested it that they won't know what to do next and the time limit will expire and you'll automatically win.QuoteIf they push it, yep, do that.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 03:00:25 am
content: Seriously, this video needs to be re-uploaded to another site so that everyone can see and understand the context, and perhaps other Youtubers can make videos from it. If the OP can't do that then the fight has already been lost.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 03:11:06 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on February 07, 2020, 02:36:46 amThere is a lot of misunderstanding in this post. There are two ways to protect 'trade knowledge'. One of them is patent - your idea is legally protected from others using it for profitbutyou must release full details which are filed at the patent office for anyone interested to read. The other is trade secret, which is protected only by civil agreements (ie. both parties agree to not tell anyone about the thing); it doesn't protect against reverse engineering or other parties that have not agreed to the secrecy sharing information on it that they obtain by legal means (such as tearing down a legally purchased item).Right to repair is about legislation stopping companies from creating technical (cryptographic locks) or policy (refusing to sell replacement parts, especially when cryptographic locks exist) roadblocks, it's not about making things legal that previously weren't. It is never 'illegal' to open a product you own or modify it, but it may be made difficult with strong encryption, etc. - this is no different than using security screws as far as legality is concerned - it doesn't change what it is legal for you to do, it just makes it more challenging. The one caveat here is the DMCA in the US may apply to some cryptographic protections if they can successfully argue that it is a 'copy protection mechanism', which is a huge stretch for a tractor DRMing parts. Lexmark lost a case they brought on similar grounds. But in general, if you own a thing legally, you can do whatever you want with it other than copy and distribute it (if it is a work protected by copyright).

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 03:51:47 am
content: Not exactly the same thing, but Louis Rossman is dealing with this B.S. all the time. It's a miracle his channel continues to exist given the number of corporations (and now lobbyists) he ticks off. One thing Louis does is he doesn't shut up and hide in the corner about it, but gets even more vocal and produces several more videos about it. I think people realise that if they are going to mess with Louis, he will just keep making more and more video rants about it.Perhaps this can be a lesson to those which have to deal with this kind of abuse of the YouTube system.

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 08:39:14 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 07, 2020, 03:00:25 amIf one day I will start a YT channel, I will post on Vimeo too. I do not like how YT is managing videos but everybody (me included) are watching 99% just YT stuff.Quote from: edy on February 07, 2020, 03:51:47 amFunny also good Luis has a parallel Vimeo channel, AND he is mentioning it in his YT Videos even with an overlay Vimeo logo.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 09:05:02 am
content: It could also be reuploaded by anynone to YT, but somebody would need to have downloaded it firstGood case for downloading anything you want to last instead of trusting hosting companies to keep it available to you indefinitely

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 09:37:48 am
content: Quote from: magic on February 07, 2020, 09:05:02 amI have every single master copy of my videos since #1, and even the original raw files.When you download from Youtube it's not the same quality you uploaded it in.

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 09:51:31 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 07, 2020, 03:00:25 amQuote from: EEVblog on February 07, 2020, 09:37:48 amI got all my original files as well, material to 200 videos is a lot of work to just throw out if Youtube threw me outI will upload a copy of video in question with private access via link and post here

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 11:46:34 am
content: The stupidest thing about this claim is that it is totally irrelevant to Ericson, because all their competitors will have already bought/sourced and competely reverse engineed their commercial products anyway!I work in the car industry, all the manufacturers buy each others models and tear them down and reverse engineer them as soon as that product is released onto the public market. For example, Ford release the latest Focus, and VW simply walk into a Ford dealer, and buy one, take it away, and carry out a complete "competitor bench" marking exercise on it. The cost of the car(s) is irrelevant, compared to the cost of the teardown study anmd reporting. I've even seen some of the big OEs buy competitor cars from dealers, and crash them to learn how they perform for example.So the fact that someone on youtube has shown some (minor) details, which frankly wouldn't enable anyone to actually engineer anything, is totally irrelevant. Once the product is in the public domain, then unless it's "Uniqueness" is covered by patents, preventing someone else profiting from those details, it's fair game...... (and as mentioned those patents don't prevent the investigation, discussion or education of those details)

author: LaF0rge
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 02:27:23 pm
content: Hi @madsbarnkob,I've been doing quite a bit of work in the past in the area of open source, copyright, IT security and reverse engineering (seegpl-violations.org). While I'm not a lawayer, I do know quite a number of lawyers who are considered experts in the field of all areas of IT law.I just pointed out this case to them, asking for input. The initial response so far is - as expected - very clear:QuotePlease feel free to reach out to me by private mail in case you have questions or would like to get in touch.btw: In our work of more than a a decade at osmocom.org, we have been doing plenty of investigation of Ericsson [and other] cellular base stations, too - much beyond just looking at circuit boards and we never have been approached by Ericsson. Seehttps://osmocom.org/projects/ericsson-rbs-6xxx/wiki, or the support for Siemens, Nokia and Ericsson Abis in osmo-bsc, ...I'm also behind a number of reverse-engineered wireshark dissectors for Ericsson proprietary protocools, seehttps://github.com/wireshark/wireshark/blob/master/epan/dissectors/packet-gsm_abis_om2000.cand the like. Once again, I've never heard of any Ericsson claims being made.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 07:03:51 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 07, 2020, 09:37:48 amToo late for me... I ran out of space a while ago and only have part of my channel's original files. I will have to rely on YouTube copies to download for backups. I'm not that particular about it as my videos are not Oscar-worthy material and I make practically no income from it (just beer and coffee money). Nevertheless I should try to keep originals if I am going forward. I'll have to compare a YouTube download with my original upload source and see if I can perceive quality difference and if worth the file size difference. Not sure if anyone has done that already and can report on the findings.

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 07:25:13 pm
content: Quote from: LaF0rge on February 07, 2020, 02:27:23 pmI can see you signed up just to help me, that is highly appreciated, thank you for the advice and offer to help further.I am awaiting reply from Ericsson lawyer and youtube support, so for now its mostly waiting. But I must admit that so far into the thread I am no longer that scared from filing a counter claim.I uploaded the video in reduced resolution, due to basic vimeo account limitations. It is almost 3 years old by now and I learned a lot more about RF since then, so take what I say with a grain of salt, maybe its better to stay off the internet, was it not for the principal in not being strong armed(password: eevblog)edit: I can see I also got better at growing a mustache.edit edit: I succeeded with uploading the 3206 video instead of the 3202, but there is no difference in what is shown or how, and now i used my bandwidth on vimeo for the week.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2020, 10:31:32 pm
content: Quote from: ve7xen on February 07, 2020, 03:11:06 amThe corporations don't care though. They will just use whatever law they feel fits and then use that as a reason for the take down or worse, a lawsuit. There's lot of complexity in IP law and what is considered infringement and what is not and you need top notch lawyers to sort it all out, so it's easy for companies to make a claim even if perhaps it's not a valid claim. The worse is the fact that these laws are very over reaching. If you live in another country you still need to follow the US IP laws and they can still sue you or take down your stuff.As a side note I recently setup my channel to auto mirror to LBRY, might be worth looking into as well. At the very least you could make a video that is a very short blurb then link to the full one. (Bet Youtube won't like this though and still take it down, but worth a shot)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 12:11:26 am
content: Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 07, 2020, 07:25:13 pmNot found?

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 12:46:40 am
content: That must be a link just for the owner/creator, try:Code:https://vimeo.com/390045237

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 01:38:37 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 07, 2020, 09:37:48 amCan I ask a silly question? Why wouldn't you? Who spends hours on crafting a 30min video and then dumps the originals after uploading it?

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 01:47:54 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 08, 2020, 01:35:21 amYou didn't get a password entry box with "Submit" button?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 02:14:46 am
content: Quote from: rdl on February 08, 2020, 01:47:54 amOh, yep, scratch that, it works.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 02:18:28 am
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on February 08, 2020, 01:38:37 amTons of creators that I know. Extremely common to just delete the original raw files, and still fairly common not to keep original renders after uploading them.My entire master upload directory for all my videos from #1 over the last decade only takes 1.8TBI can understand not keeping original footage if you one of those crazies that shoot in raw or extreme file rates just because you can, but not keeping master rendered uploads is insane.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 05:24:59 pm
content: Yeah always keep the masters at the very least. I only started doing this a few years ago but I now have a folder for each of my video with a file that has the title, description and other info, and the rendered file as well as a folder with all the original video files. If it started to take too much space I could go and delete those but I would never delete the final renders.This goes for anything really, even stuff I put on my own website or pictures I upload to the internet, I always have a local copy. I never rely on a 3rd party for the sole copy of something.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 06:42:16 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on February 07, 2020, 11:46:34 amRight, I used to go up to Dearborn, MI for an annual meeting. That's Ford's corporate home town. You'd be driving down the street past one of their buildings, and there'd be the totally stripped chassis of some other maker's car sitting on blocks out in the parking lot. It would change every week or two.Jon

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 09:29:06 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on February 06, 2020, 04:55:08 pmNo, it's definitely not a strawman, it's a 1:1 direct same thing - illegal threat, asking someone to give up their legal rights to do normal everyday things (like film videos on Youtube, or walk on the street without getting punched). Quite literally the only difference (in addition to legal punch vs. physical punch) is, in this example,youare now the one being affected, hence your attitude totally changes, showing that you are just being selfish, and ignoring basic human rights when it's not about you, but changing your mind as soon as it's about you.Still, you are likely right in a practical sense. If a large corporation abuses me, I likely give up my rights to be safe just in case, exactly like if a bodybuilder on the street demands $20 or threats punching me, I'll give up as well. But once in a safe place, I may report it; to police, or, for example, by getting publicity. Victim blaming, OTOH, really sucks hard, stop doing it.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 09:37:02 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on February 08, 2020, 09:29:06 pmYou have to face the fact that certain individuals in the society are just coward, lack of strength to fight or stand for even the basic and primitive principal of their own right, it happened all the times.

author: Brent88
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 10:35:46 pm
content: I did a tear down of a sony dvd recorder have not gotten a strike from sonythis recorder had pretty sloppy support from SONY but I figured out how to "fix" them and made bank on itwell tell i could no longer get replacement parts(i replaced the laser dongle ) I made bulk purchase of 40 units lasers (some were dead but was able to salvage a bunch of the lasers)i did atempt to use other DVD rw lasers but sony had some custom rolled stuff

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2020, 11:06:49 pm
content: Quote from: edy on February 07, 2020, 03:51:47 amto some extend they got what they wanted, afaiu per youtube standard the videos are down until the issue has been resolved

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 12:44:05 am
content: Quote from: Brent88 on February 08, 2020, 10:35:46 pmDuh. Sony actuallymakesdrives. Sony makes laser pickups (I assume that’s what you mean by “laser dongle”) that OTHER companies buy and put in their own players. Sony most certainly isn’t going to be buying laser pickups from others! That’d be like BMW buying engines from Ford...

author: Brent88
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 01:26:09 am
content: that was the last year sony rolled it's own for dvd recorders these lasers would self detecute if you put the wrong disc (i.e 8 or 16x disc would brick it you had to use x2 or x4 speed discs)even some Hollywood discs would damage the lasereven the two LARGE circuit boards,PSU were rolled by sony.. the only thing that was not made by sony was the HDD unit it was OEM maxtor drivesthe next sony DVD recorders had Lite-on drives.

author: shakalnokturn
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 01:31:59 am
content: "Don't turn it on, take it to court."

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 02:11:45 am
content: Quote from: Brent88 on February 09, 2020, 01:26:09 amLite-On or Optiarc? Originally, Sony spun off its optical drive unit into a merger with NEC and called it Optiarc, but then bought the rest of it. Apparently (and this was news to me when I read it just now!) So y shut down Optiarc in 2017, but it was quickly bought up by an American company and resurrected.With that said, it’s my understanding that Sony itself still makes optical pickups (few companies are capable of this, I guess), which are bought by many player makers. If you buy some boutique CD player, they may have built the system around it, but the pickup was bought from one of a handful of major companies. But information on this is devilishly hard to find, so I’m not sure if this is still true for Sony. (I know Philips stopped. Sanyo was once one. I can only assume Samsung does since they make everything...)

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 05:06:55 am
content: Quote from: jmelson on February 08, 2020, 06:42:16 pmI would imagine one reason for doing that is to avoid patent lawsuits as well. Need to make sure that your design is not too close to their design. Always hated the IP system for that. When you have multiple people doing the same sort of thing, some ideas are bound to cross paths. Why not just allow them all to work instead of having to walk on egg shells all the time and try to avoid lawsuits. Same with music, if a certain genre is popular it happens where one artist makes a song that sounds similar to another, then they get sued.Yeah you can sometimes win this stuff, but it costs millions and millions of dollars, so the system only really works for the rich.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 02:10:33 pm
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on February 09, 2020, 05:06:55 amThat is what happens in China, essentially - IP is not a "thing", it's all about the implementation and getting it to market. A system like that has some obvious advantages as well as disadvantages.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 02:34:41 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on February 06, 2020, 09:43:18 pmBut the only way he can not remove it is by putting in the counter notice ... which is dangerous, they don't have a case but they do have lawyers who can drag things out. Best he can do to keep it up without running the risk of court proceedings is ask them to retract the notice and give him a legally valid reason to take it down.Maybe someone broke contract by selling it on without a proper NDA.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 06:41:42 pm
content: Youtube will always cave in. They don't want any hassle.If you want to avoid this you have to use another hosting option. It may be that Vimeo are more robust (as well as a much better quality hosting service than Youtube). Otherwise just self host it. Set up a server; you can get 100GB+ for $10/month.The stuff about copyright and IPR is bollox.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 07:18:12 pm
content: Here is a video of how it works for the cars. There are entire companies specialized in tearing down cars and writing extensive reports on everything they have found - every bolt, weld, bearing, .... The manufacturers can either commission them to do a teardown or simply buy a report from the shelf if the car has been analyzed before.Tesla Model 3 teardown:

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 07:45:07 pm
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 09, 2020, 06:41:42 pmThey have to. It is the law in the US (and now also in Europe). If they don't take it down when notified,theywould become liable for any copyright violation the uploader may have committed. And given the possible penalties, pretty much nobody is going to do that.The law is stacked heavily in favor of the copyright owners (there is no need for the notifying party to provide any evidence to get content taken down, only state the claim and declare that they are allowed to act on behalf of the rights owner) but that's not really Google's/Youtube's fault in this case.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 07:59:46 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on February 09, 2020, 07:45:07 pmYeah this is definitely part of the problem and that really needs to change. The host should not be held liable at very least. But also the law needs to change so that frivolous claims actually hold a risk. IMO the way it should work is if you sue for X amount, but you lose the case, you need to give that amount two fold to the defendant + some kind of fixed administrative fee + the defendant's lost money from having to be at court, ex: salary, travel expenses etc. There needs to be a risk involved. Of course if it's a cut and dry case then there is less risk, but it would help prevent all the more ridiculous or questionable cases.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 08:01:55 pm
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 09, 2020, 06:41:42 pmthat's how the DMCA protects hosters, if they remove stuff when someone claims copyright they are safe,if they keep it up they can be sued if there is a violationI don't see how other hosters than Youtube will be any different

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 08:11:10 pm
content: I wonder if hosters outside of the UN/NATO countries would be safe. Would be a case for building a Youtube competitor in one of those places just to stay away from their insane laws. Still enforce clear copyright violation like people trying to host movies, but just don't cater to the ridiculous DMCA stuff.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 08:16:08 pm
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on February 09, 2020, 07:59:46 pmIt's not unreasonable to hold the host accountable when it doesn't act upon information but the problem lies in not requiring any evidence for a claim and being able to submit endless false claims. Just like the receiving end has limited leeway and will be banned for too many infractions, the party making the claim should be penalised for unjust and frivolous claims. If you're obviously abusing the system you should be ousted from it. Unfortunately the system is skewed by intensive lobbying and heavily favouring slap happy content owners.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 08:29:57 pm
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 09, 2020, 06:41:42 pmOr host it on P2P for free.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2020, 10:03:24 pm
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on February 09, 2020, 08:11:10 pmThat has zero to do with UN or NATO. NATO doesn't enforce (fortunately!) copyright yet, that is a military alliance. And there is no uniform copyright regime between UN countries neither, not even between US and Europe, so UN has zero to do with it too. Copyright is partially a matter of WTO and then of each country.You can certainly build a youtube competitor but it would be a tricky proposition:a) Countries outside of US and EU jurisdiction are rarely those where most of your users/viewers are and the infrastructure isn't great neither, especially for hosting video. I mean, you certainly could put a datacenter on some island somewhere but then what? Unless you want to send pigeons with USB sticks it needs to connect to the internet still.b) If you host what is deemed to be illegal content, your service will get blocked by the target countries. E.g. here in France courts routinely order blocks of servers hosting terrorist stuff or illegal movie downloads and such. You would be constantly playing whack-a-mole with this until your connection provider finally cuts you off for being more trouble than you are worth to them. Just look at Mega, PirateBay or SciHub. And given that you want to be in some places outside of "civilization", good luck trying to find multiple ones to diversify ...c) Oh and places outside of countries jurisdictions (international waters and such - if you thinking something akin to pirate radio ...) - that also means that if someone sends a commando there and burns the place/ship down or sinks it, good luck calling cops to help you ... And yes, things like that did happen before (pirate radio ships around UK, Rainbow Warrior, Sealand ...). Governments rarely like smartasses thumbing their noses at them and in international waters you are a fair game.d) Who pays for all of this? Hosting isn't cheap, especially when you need a ton of space and bandwidth, even worse when it is in some remote place where connectivity may be a problem too (did you look how much does a satellite link cost recently?). Advertising (akin to Youtube) isn't an option - serious businesses won't touch shady offshore business and you have no users to sell to a potential advertiser yet anyway.So good luck with that offshore alt-Youtube fantasy but I doubt you have thought this through.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 07:35:08 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 09, 2020, 08:16:08 pmThat's why it's an actual crime to do so (and quite serious, actually).Different thing is, companies tend to get away with such crimes.But it's definitely a crime on paper.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 09:34:31 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on February 10, 2020, 07:35:08 amIt is a crime (perjury). However, it is almost never prosecuted (do you want to try to sue someone like Disney?)

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 09:54:10 am
content: Quote from: janoc on February 10, 2020, 09:34:31 amThe problem is in the process of an individual needing tosuesomeone - another individual or a company - for committing acrime- it shouldn't be that way, as it's not about a legal dispute regarding contracts or like.The police and the public prosecutors exist for this purpose. Or should. In a theoretical state of justice.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 11:07:39 am
content: "that's how the DMCA protects hosters, if they remove stuff when someone claims copyright they are safe,if they keep it up they can be sued if there is a violation"That is correct, in the UK at least, but it doesn't mean that the hosting companymustcave in. It can use its judgementMany years ago I got my internet disconnected. It turned out that the ISP got a complaint of P2P activity.The complaint arrived by email and contained no evidence. Just the IP and the time. That ISP implemented all of these blindly. I asked them if they would disconnect the feed to say a major bank if I sent them such an allegation and they said they would!!! Other ISPs ignored these bulk emails.IMHO, if YT consulted any lawyer they would get a reply that there is no liability for hosting a video of something taken apart.As an example of their duplicity, YT is allowing copyright music to be used on videos. They just say that any income from the video will go to the copyright owners. Fairly obviously they would have to remove most videos if they did otherwise

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 03:08:35 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on February 10, 2020, 09:54:10 amPerjury is a crime, so that wouldn't for an individual to sue (it isn't a civil dispute) but e.g. an attorney general. As you say - they exist for that purpose. However, the practical enforcement of this in the DMCA cases is very lax/nonexistent. Also, someone would have to make an actual criminal complaint about it to bring the matter to their attention first.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 08:26:04 pm
content: In Canada, the DMCA equivalent is notice-and-notice, rather than notice-and-takedown. All the hosting company is required by law to do is to pass the copyright violation notice on to the subscriber and maintain subscriber records for some period of time after receiving the notice in case they decide to pursue an actual legal challenge. The US setup is not the only way, nor the only way in active use.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2020, 09:08:58 pm
content: In the UK you have 5 days to supply the name and address of the poster, to the complainant.If you don't (and usually you can't because he is posting under a nickname) then you get 24hrs to either take it down, or be prepared to defend it.AIUI, IANAL, etc.In practice, most forums have mods who will remove obviously dodgy stuff - even if the forum is run to appear "unmoderated" for cultural reasons (e.g. in Germany, moderation tends to get associated with nazi censorship, so you get hassles) or to drive a lot of advert clicks.On very big sites the mods can't read everything, however.My view is that in most cases the liability - or lack of it - is blindingly obvious. But YT etc can't be bothered. They have enough trouble stopping people posting p0rn and such

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2020, 10:14:24 am
content: Quote from: ve7xen on February 10, 2020, 08:26:04 pmNo, but it depends on the jurisdiction. If the takedown to the hosting company has been served in the US (where Youtube/Google is hosting the content and/or have their HQ) then it has most likely been done according to the US DMCA.That's how even an EU (or e.g. Russian) citizen can have their content taken down based on US law which otherwise wouldn't apply to them. In that case the local differences or even complete absence of such takedown law is a completely moot point - it wasn't the author of the video who has been served.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2020, 10:25:49 am
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 10, 2020, 09:08:58 pmThat's clear-cut when someone posts a rip of movie or something like that. However, when someone uses 20 seconds of some footage, you have a law that makes you liable for their violations unless you take it down ASAP and you have millions of people uploading new stuff every day, nobody is going to review that manually or "be bothered" analyzing whether or not that's fair use. It is just not economically feasible on such scale.Add to that the "carpet bombing" approach of major film and music studios that generate these takedown notices by thousands every day and you will understand quickly why Youtube has introduced things like the ContentID and uses various bots to flag and strike content.And that's just US and copyright - add the various laws about right to get forgotten, extremist and terrorist content, nazi stuff, lese majeste (e.g. Thailand!), Chinese censorship requirements ...It is a terrible approach but when the laws don't reflect physical reality, they don't have many other options how to comply with them. Add to that tons of lawyers salivating over the content of the coffers of Google (and others) and ready to strike at the slightest misstep and you get the situation we have today.You can't compare a business the size of YT with moderation of something like this forum (and I am sure even that is a major chore for the mods).If you don't want to be subject to the arbitrary moderation rules and weird laws in foreign countries, host the content yourself. People cry wolf about censorship but the fact is that these platforms are not a charity, they are doing this for profit, first and foremost. And if there is going to be the slightest trouble, there are very very few channels YT would hesitate to throw under the bus and risk their existence/profit over it. People live in a delusion that having a million of subscribers means they are somehow important.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2020, 09:44:40 am
content: The right to be forgotten is widely misunderstood.A lot of people think it gives them the right to demand deletion of all their forum posts. Like the right for a book author to demand that every library carrying his books burns themIn the UK this was tested and AFAIK the current case law is that only false information about somebody can be demanded to be deleted. Google had to remove search results of a court case which was incorrectly reported and denigrated the defendant (as most are).Every forum should have in its Ts & Cs that the author grants the forum host to display the posts in perpetuity. After all, they were originally posted to become public.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2020, 09:46:14 am
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 12, 2020, 09:44:40 am+1

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2020, 10:52:15 am
content: Quote from: janoc on February 11, 2020, 10:25:49 amConsidering how Youtube currently enjoys a quasi Monopoly on the "Viewers Market", (Alternatives such as Vimeo or Bitchute do not even get close to the views and outreach of Youtube)... IMHO a Company like Youtube (Google) cannot and should not benefit both from acting like a Public Forum - meaning no liability for what an Individuals uploads/expresses on their Platform AND a Private Publisher which can choose who it gives a platform/what to publish.As far as I am aware US courts granted them both Powers due to the Nature of Internet, however in hindsight it may have been a bad Idea.The cries of Censorship, how you call it, IMHO, arecompletely warrantedconsidering the lack of other Platforms with even a closely similar outreach and I really do not believe a single Company (or other entity such as the State) should have that much Power over Public discourse. Especially as it holds that power not only in the US, but world wide.To me, the response: "Publish yourself!" is just a lazy excuse and non-solution to this very real Problem of the monopoly on public discourse/outreach that youtube definetly has.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2020, 10:58:18 am
content: The big boys could always screw you by a simple injunction, and youtube was always going to fold while it was working its way through the court. Law is weighted against the little people and it's somewhere between impossibly hard and plain impossible to fix.If I was in this kind of situation and I was feeling ornery I'd much more readily challenge this than an injunction. The DMCA process is a whole lot clearer.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 12, 2020, 12:44:37 pm
content: Quote from: BravoV on February 12, 2020, 09:46:14 amThis forum does.For practical reason users are allowed to delete or edit their own posts though.

author: vwestlife
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2020, 02:33:14 pm
content: A while back a representative from Warner Music Group demanded that I take down this video, threatening me with a copyright strike if I didn't, because "Natey G" had apparently signed a record deal with them and was embarrassed by his first music video and they wanted all traces of it removed from the Internet. I firmly defended my video as Fair Use and told them to get lost. The ironic thing is that they were threatening to put an illegitimate copyright strike on a video about illegitimate copyright claims!

author: bingo600
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2020, 06:33:13 pm
content: Where did the OP (Mads) go ??DidEget to him/Bingo

author: TheDane
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2020, 07:55:35 pm
content: Perhaps busy creating a 2'nd channel to avoid stuff like this in the future - this is popular amongst some YouTubers to have as a backup planYtringsfrihed gælder også teknisk indsigt

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2020, 08:30:03 pm
content: I wish there was more to tell of this story, than there currently is.1) No reply from Ericsson lawyer, I am not sure if the person is on Winter vacation, as we do have that in Denmark in week 7 and its somewhere between week 7-10 in Sweden. I doubt that is the case though, there was time before week 7 to answer this, but who knows could be 1000+ unanswered emails in the inbox.2) Contacting Youtube support about the issue of claimant not living up to the copyright claim minimum requirements in part 2A: "Detailed and specific description of infringement"Resulted in 3 copy/paste replies from different support workers before the 3rd told me to contact copyright@youtube.com, still awaiting their reply and usually there has been 2 days between replies on the first emails.I will keep you posted

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2020, 02:48:59 pm
content: The pen is mightier than the sword and I am happy that I went here for advise and slept a few times before just firing the email button, disputing and setting all kinds of things in movement.The email sent to Ericsson's lawyer was the following:QuoteToday, 7 days later I saw on socialblade that my views had gone up by a few thousand, checked my email and sure enough, the copyright claim has been withdrawn.Here is, in my own words, a resume of the email I received. Only a resume to not publish a private email.QuoteSo all-in-all it was a hastened mistake by Ericsson and they realized this after a single email about the matter.As Dave also mentioned in one of his posts or videos, that he oringally did not want to publish the videos about the copyright claims that was later on withdrawn, but what do you guys say? Should I make a video about the claim, lack of help from YouTube, IANAL advise from here and the happy ending?It is hard to tell from the almost single line answer from Ericsson what they were trying to do in the first place. Was it just headless actions, trial and error on what can be done or malicious act to quench everything they do not control?All 5 videos are now public again, only 1 was taken down, I quickly set the remaining 4 to private to avoid 3 strikes in a row.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2020, 04:32:41 pm
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 12, 2020, 09:44:40 amDisagreed. You change, your opinions change and the world changes. Your posts remain the same. It's unreasonable to expect people to express themselves in ways that are still relevant and applicable 30 years from now. We've seen people crucified for things they said years ago in a rather different context. Before your statements tended to be very temporary bar a few exceptions and the internet has changed that into near permanence. Luckily the right to be forgotten is a bit broader than you suggest although to actually be forgotten is still neigh on impossible.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2020, 06:20:33 pm
content: Excellent news on the Ericsson saga.They need to be careful re bad publicity in the current Huawei v. Ericsson v. Nokia decision climateWe will have to agree to disagree Mr ScramIf you visit a forum (which, remember, is a site run by somebody else for "your" free enjoyment, and as I well know this is often not a pleasant job due to the activities of a small % of people) and you place something on there, you are publishing it, and you are publishing it for the whole world to see, for eternity. If you don't want to stand behind it, fair enough, but it is not the web server owner's problem to deal with. "You" could post it on your own website where you have total control...Practically speaking this is why nobody should post anywhere on the internet under their full name. And avoid posting details of where you live, etc. If you have a sensitive job then be extra careful; there are evil and vindictive people out there. Posting under a good alias allows you to walk away from a piece of your life, without destroying a resource you once helped to create.There are valid exceptions to the above. For example if you write something which later is embarrassing, or which is illegal. In these cases the admins should allow deletion (I always would on the site I run). One funny example was a guy wrote about some trip he did on which he met a girl and "had a good time". Then a month later he contacts me in a panic, saying his wife might see it. I just laughed and removed the offending passage. Other times, stuff has to be removed because some company threatens to sue. So one has to be somewhat careful what one writes if there is p1ssing off potential in it...A total right to have one's postings deleted would destroy brilliant informative forums like eevblog.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2020, 07:39:33 pm
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 13, 2020, 06:20:33 pmThe law in at least some places luckily seems to disagree at least partially. When you offer a platform for others you have certain responsibilities so it becomes the web server owner's problem to a certain extent. That's not unreasonable either as the website owner is the only person in a position to do anything about it. Aliases are a start but it would definitely be naive to overestimate the little protection those offer. Your behaviour isn't as well hidden as you think even if you take a fair few precautions. Most people don't have a clue to what extent your behaviour is mapped including the website owners mentioned.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2020, 07:55:51 pm
content: You have proved my point to some extent, by quoting my entire post, so if I wanted to edit/delete it, I can'tThis demonstrates that a right to go back and change stuff is worthless if your post, or parts of it, have been quoted by others. And the admin can't be expected to clean up long threads according to one poster's whim.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2020, 08:52:55 pm
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 13, 2020, 07:55:51 pmThey actually legally can, at least wherever the GPDR is applicable. Technical hurdles aren't an excuse, although they do contribute to what's still considered reasonable. Though forum software generally doesn't do this currently it could and may very well retain info about what message was quoted. It's likely a lot of software will need to employ similar mechanisms to remain compliant in the future. We'll likely see something similar for backups so data can be destroyed more selectively and effectively. Right now the status quo still offers some protection but new software will have to be developed with these requirements in mind. If you don't the resulting workload is ultimately on you.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2020, 11:20:41 pm
content: Great you came out ahead! Sadly shows how broken the process is though, that it's basically guilty until proven innocent.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 07:38:37 am
content: As expected, a bunch of dumb arse legal morons who caved in when they realised what they were asking for was not only wrong, but they had probably breached the law in filing the request.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 07:46:02 am
content: Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 13, 2020, 02:48:59 pmDrama gets clicks, but given that it's all settled, I probably wouldn't bother.QuoteUsually it's just an eager in-house legal people who wants to show off they are actually doing something useful. When you point out to them they are wrong, they always back down. They probably got the finger wagged at them from someone higher up.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 07:49:05 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 17, 2020, 07:46:02 amI was thinking along the same lines.This is the sort of thing I have seen before in other areas, especially if there's a new kid on the block.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 08:08:10 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on February 17, 2020, 07:49:05 amI've had half a dozen such incidents, maybe more over the years, both for videos I have done, and for content on this forum.They always back down when told their request has no legal merit, and if they pursue it, the public exposure consequences will be unpleasant for them to say the least.

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 09:09:32 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 17, 2020, 08:08:10 amIt wasn't just some new lawyer with a fresh idea. 8 years in Ericsson (7 as senior legal) and describes one self by "Specialties: Intellectual Property Law, Swedish Authorized IP Attorney, European Trademark & Design Attorney, Domain Name Management, Copyright and Design Protection".But I kept as much documentation of the events as possible. Always good for future use should it come in handyIn the days before they replied, I also had some new ideas for a video series of my capacitor bank vs. Ericsson productsOnce again, thank you all for the support and help sorting out where I stood on IPR/Copyright etc.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 10:33:41 am
content: Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 17, 2020, 09:09:32 amOh, dear.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 11:25:08 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on February 17, 2020, 10:33:41 amThe mind boggles.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 11:36:17 am
content: Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 17, 2020, 09:09:32 amProbably no one wants to copy Ericsson designs, so they had nothing to do, which always looks bad on a quarterly review. So, they tried to get the video taken down in order to get a powerpoint presentation slide titled "How the brave and wise Legal Dept on IP protection destroyed a fiendish attempt at copying Ericsson products by diabolical Internet Hackers!1!!", thereby justifying their existence for another year to the upper management.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 02:06:11 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on February 17, 2020, 11:36:17 amNow that doesn't seem impossible.It sounds like the same response to budget spending in larger organisations: If a department didn't spend all its budget and the company ran OK, then obviously that department can run on a smaller budget.We all know what happens there....

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 04:21:44 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 17, 2020, 11:25:08 amDon't attribute to incompetence what can equally well be explained by malice

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 04:35:59 pm
content: "I've had half a dozen such incidents, maybe more over the years, both for videos I have done, and for content on this forum.They always back down when told their request has no legal merit, and if they pursue it, the public exposure consequences will be unpleasant for them to say the least."That's an interesting approach. I must remember that (seriously)Lots of people threaten legal action, as a bully tactic. But they would not want to have their threat publicly aired.BTW regarding the earlier (OT) discussion about forcing a forum admin to delete past posts, this covers the European situationhttps://law.stackexchange.com/questions/32361/does-a-user-have-the-right-to-request-their-forum-posts-deletedIOW, a poster does NOT have the right to have his posts deleted. He has the right to have his forum profile deleted (nickname replaced with "deleted user" etc).A very sensible approach. Removing past posts would destroy any online community which seeks to create an information resource - EEVBLOG is a great example.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 10:38:09 pm
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 17, 2020, 04:35:59 pmEspecially to a large audience, and even more so to a large on-topic audience in their market space.You have to make it clear to them that:1) You know the law2) You won't back down3) You will make all correspondence public4) They have one chance to back down before you pull the public triggerThe bully will always cave when confronted like this.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 11:32:56 pm
content: It will only take one who will not, and you will be a history.

author: mcovington
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 12:20:31 am
content: I think the key point is that Ericsson has not actually alleged any definite infringement of any copyright!It's not enough for them to say something vague about "intellectual property rights." In fact, that is the kind of talk that comes from a low-level employee not trained in the law.If it had been me I would contact Ericsson and say I am willing to take down the video if you can point out exactly what, in the video, violates a copyright, bearing in mind that publicizing technical details does not violate a patent (in fact patents are intended to be made public) nor does it reveal a trade secret (because they have never given you any trade secrets -- you don't work for them).

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 01:39:09 am
content: Is it legal to publish details to the public of an ongoing legal dispute though? I always thought that was illegal. Often you hear of people in such situation but they need to be very vague as they can't say any details. If you actually can publish it, including emails, then yeah that could serve as a good tactic. I just didn't think that was legal. Of course you also need to know the law yourself if you're going to do this or you're just digging yourself a grave. The law can be complicated, if you think you know it there's always "ifs and buts" and "gotchas" that can bite you in the ass.

author: mcovington
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 03:50:31 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on February 18, 2020, 01:39:09 amThey clam up because they think they can get a better settlement, or otherwise be in a strong position, if they haven't said much. I am not aware of any law against stating your own side of a legal dispute -- in fact aren't court documents public?

author: Veteran68
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 04:31:23 am
content: Quote from: mcovington on February 18, 2020, 12:20:31 am(IANAL) It's not illegal, just ill advised because it could potentially affect the outcome of your case in a negative way. Sort of how in the criminal justice system "anything you say can be used against you," so it goes in civil court. So it's common practice that discussing an ongoing case publicly is generally avoided, although occasionally you'll find people doing it. Now sometimes a judge will impose a gag order, or a settlement will require a NDA be signed else the settlement is voided. But those are specific orders in a specific case, and not a general rule of law.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 07:02:20 am
content: Quote from: mcovington on February 18, 2020, 12:20:31 amYes, they have. They have put in a Copyright claim to Youtubeunder penalty of perjuryunder the copyright act that they have a legitimate claim of copyright. They didn't have a legitimate claim and they know it, and that's a crime.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 07:05:28 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on February 18, 2020, 01:39:09 amIt's not a formal legal dispute until it goes the courts, it's athreatof a legal dispute.QuoteNope, in either case unless there is a legal gag order from a judge.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 07:34:38 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 18, 2020, 07:05:28 amIt's jurisdiction dependant and mostly doesn't need a court order to be sub judice.In most places when an case is lodged with the court sub judice rules are enacted as they preserve the right to a fair trial.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 07:35:51 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on February 18, 2020, 01:39:09 amThe problem with speaking publicly out of court is you run the risk of tainting the jury, which is very illegal. It is why people on the news leaving court don't say anything, just look straight ahead and keep walking.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 08:17:33 am
content: QuoteNot sure how you get that from the 'evidence' (the original regs, not the translated interpretation of same). A forum post is subject to copyright, not something based on privacy. I think there may have been a mistake in conflating personal info in someone elses post (that is, someone posting personal info about the subject) with a post made by the subject.Note that I am not suggesting that, if my interpretation is correct, a postcanbe removed on demand - it would be subject to having assigned copyright to the forum owner when originally posting, etc.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 10:04:49 am
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on February 18, 2020, 07:35:51 amPut the videos out before it goes to trialAgain, athreatof legal action means nothing in this regard.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 11:49:44 am
content: You retain the copyright in all your forum posts, but that doesn't mean you can demand their deletion. The two are quite separate.Take the example of an author whose book is in 100 libraries. He is ashamed of something in there and orders them all to be destroyed. That's just silly.And forum posts are no different. The writer retains copyright (unless assigned, which would be extremely unusual for freely contributed work) but that's the extent of it.Exceptions are where the post identifies the writer, etc.There is a huge amount of stuff all over the www about this, with forum owners running scared that their members have the right to basically trash the forum, by sending a single email demanding post deletion. Most also don't have a feature in the software for deleting all posts by a particular person. Fortunately this is incorrect. They merely need to wipe out his profile, and perhaps replace his nickname with [deleted user] or some such.This is now getting way off topic but this has big implications for forum moderation. It basically means that if you have a troublemaker you need to get rid of him ASAP - before he produces thousands of posts. The typical profile I have seen (as a forum admin) is an egotistical person who has a constant love-hate relationship with the forum.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 11:54:22 am
content: QuoteUmmm... I wonder if you understood the gist of what I posted?Whatever, I don't see how that portion of the GDPR relates to pulling forum posts (or not)other thanwhere the posts contain personal information. AFAICS it's a dead granny in the making.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 02:37:18 pm
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 18, 2020, 11:49:44 amYou seem to have a very forum owner centric view of the world. A copyright holder can very definitely demand content he owns to be taken down. If the contents of a book is posted the copyright owner can have it taken done on the grounds of owning the copyright. The same applies to movies and other media. Thinking you can just host whatever is owned by others is obviously unrealistic.

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 02:42:45 pm
content: Instead of arguing what can or can't be taken down, can someone enlighten please how it ended for the OP vs. Ericsson? I am becoming quite lost in this thread.

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 03:01:48 pm
content: Quote from: Yansi on February 18, 2020, 02:42:45 pmhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ericsson-slammed-me-with-a-copyright-strike-on-a-teardown-video-help!/msg2917040/#msg2917040Ericsson apologized and the video is restored.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 03:01:54 pm
content: Quote from: Yansi on February 18, 2020, 02:42:45 pmIt's 7 pages with what you look for on page 6. How lost can you get?https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ericsson-slammed-me-with-a-copyright-strike-on-a-teardown-video-help!/msg2917040/#msg2917040

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 03:18:44 pm
content: Sorry, I did not follow the thread post by post. Coming back a few pages later and all I see is an argument of what can or can't be taken down on a forum.Glad to hear all got sorted the right way.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2020, 05:42:32 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 18, 2020, 02:37:18 pmNotif the terms of the forum/website stipulated that they are granted a non-exclusive perpetual license etc. You can't just post something under those conditions and then demand they take it down under copyright law.Posting content to Youtube for example:

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2020, 03:03:47 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 19, 2020, 05:42:32 amExactly, that's why must websites will include a clause of similar nature. It's not a given though. It should also be noted that a lot of these clauses have never been tested in court so not everything may hold, although I don't think that hosting messages will be in question under such a clause.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2020, 03:48:01 pm
content: Every forum run by a competent admin will say the above in their Ts & Cs, in the GDPR age.If somebody is not happy about this, they must not participate in such a forum, because they are basically reserving their right to destroy the contributed content (and, by trashing the threads, damaging content contributed by others) at any time of their choosing. The one I run tells people directly to not participate if they don't accept this.I am also not aware of case law, but legal advice to forum admins is uniformly aligned on this, so it's not surprising nobody has had a go at it.As I said, if it was not thus, you would have the "book in 100 libraries" scenario where the libraries are forced to destroy their copy of the book, which is self evidently ridiculous.It would lead to the destruction of all online communities which carry user contributed content. I am well aware there are individuals out there who would enjoy that scenario (typically, ones who were banned for posting offensive stuff) but they must not be allowed to damage a community which the other ~99% enjoy and support. A large % of a mod/admin job is dealing with that 1%.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2020, 04:44:31 pm
content: Quote from: peter-h on February 19, 2020, 03:48:01 pmYou need to check your assumptions as they're incorrect. Views that serve your own interests won't serve you in matters of law no matter how convenient they are. The book example is irrelevant not only because forum posts as copyrighted as books are as was established before, but also because books and a forum are different in the sense that the latter is actively serving up and distributing the information. It's explicitly called copyright and not ownershipright. The ownership of a physical book and the copyright of the text therein are two very different matters. A forum owner can protect himself from copyright claims by obtaining the rights to the material. This is something the forum owner explicitly and actively has to do. Excluding GPDR claims doesn't appear possible but their extent is more limited.

author: madsbarnkob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2020, 02:58:25 pm
content: Quote from: Yansi on February 18, 2020, 02:42:45 pmI updated the thread subject and put a link to the solved answer in OP