226 of my videos copied - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 01:35:50 am
content: by this bastard:https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Minna+Clakley+eevblog

author: Jay_Diddy_B
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:12:13 am
content: Hi,The Bastard seems to have copied a bunch of other videos as well as yours.WTF .. Wow That's Fantastic !!I wonder what he had against the other 284 Videos?Why would he do that? Do you get advertising dollars from the You tube videos?Jay_Diddy_B

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:16:21 am
content: Quote from: Jay_Diddy_B on August 23, 2013, 02:12:13 amNot from his uploads, no, he does.

author: PeterG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:25:34 am
content: Seems this clown has uploaded all the videos in the last 24 hours.Cant see any original content at all.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:33:03 am
content: I know someone who works at Google if needed, but it should be pretty simple to get them removed through normal channels.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:39:57 am
content: Now you have a small taste of how Saleae and others feel when companies in china make clones of their hardware which take advantage of their hard-earned, copyrighted software and other technology. You know - the clones that people often discuss/promote in this very forum. Feels great don't it?The usual rationalization I've heard for the clones is "They should have had more security to prevent it. If they allow me to steal the fruits of their efforts, then I'm entitled to do so". Does that all still make sense to you now?I'm sure this post will draw vitriol, and all kinds of rationalizations, but think about it next time you promote/justify a clone.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:46:41 am
content: Speaking of non-sequiturs,purple!!!

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:48:03 am
content: The issue is more complex than that.Sometimes the official product is $1k and the clone is $100 etc...If a hobbiest could never afford the official version then buying the clone doesn't take money from the official company.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:51:19 am
content: First rationalization:Quote from: Psi on August 23, 2013, 02:48:03 amThe Saleae product is $149. Anyone who genuinely needs it can certainly afford that price.BTW, I'm not associated with Saleae in any way (and don't even own their product). I just see them as an excellent example.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:52:35 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 02:51:19 amYes, i wasn't thinking of the Saleae. It's price is reasonable.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:54:41 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 02:39:57 amGiven the thread this in is. I can only assuming you are talking directly to me here?

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:55:20 am
content: You're like the people who go on cat videos and comment bitching about liberals. For god's sake, Dave hasn't promoted this, many of us do not, and this isn't what this thread is about anyway. Go take it up with someone who promotes cheap clones.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 02:58:01 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 02:54:41 amYes, and mean no disrespect, but you are in prime condition to appreciate the issue at this moment.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 03:01:35 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on August 23, 2013, 02:55:20 amI have seen cheap clones promoted in many threads in this forum, and Dave has the direct ability/right to set policy as to what is appropriate. I've also seen comments from him which to me, appear to defend them. I suspect one is being constructed at this very moment.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 03:03:15 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 03:01:35 amIf Dave starts removing things he does not agree with I will leave, and I suspect a lot of other people will as well.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 03:04:28 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 02:39:57 amNobody is distributing their protected work by cloning the hardware. Reverse engineering isexplicitlyprotected. This is an ignorant and silly analogy to draw. Circuit designs are not protected. Protocol designs are not protected. If the software Salae distributes for free happens to work with unsupported hardware that has been reverse engineered, no wrong has been done.Please GTFO with this off topic trolling BS.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 03:05:45 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 02:58:01 amWhen have I never appreciated this issue?When have I ever promoted this clone?Do you think it's wrong that I allow the clones to be discussed on this forum?Let me set you straight.This is a very hands-off essentially self-moderated forum. I can only moderate posts that are reported or that I see. And in the case of this clone I don't think I'd ever have to or want to moderate such a mention, because the community will do it for me. And IMO, that is abetterresult than the moderators deleting every mention of these clones. Why? Because then it highlights the issue, promotes discussion, and people then might justunderstand and learnwhy it's wrong. If you attempt to just hide the issue, none of that happens.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 03:08:16 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 03:01:35 amAre you saying Dave is getting a taste of his own medicine? I haven't seen him promoting "clones". I remember one guy posting a link to a Salae copy for sale and he got pretty roundly flayed for trying to pass it off as the real thing.I think if you're talking about the Lecroy (and was it Atten? Siglent?) waveform generators, those are not copyright infringements.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 03:09:17 am
content: By the way, Joey, Iagree with youand think you're an ass... so before you start crying about how everyone you're arguing against tries to silence you and blah blah blah....

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 03:09:48 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 03:01:35 amList them.I know you can't because they do not exist. But prove me wrong.I do not support the salae logic clone, and never have.QuoteMy how foolish you look now.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:10:10 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 03:05:45 amI've never seen you appreciate it, but admittedly haven't read every post you've ever made. I did read many of your posts regarding hacking of the Rigol units to get features developed by Rigol, but which were not included in the particular purchased model - which means obtaining them against the will of the manufacturer (ya ya, I've heard the whole "it's a marketing scheme" argument - not buying it). You seemed very much to defend that practice.Here's the bottom line for me: If you are benefiting from others' development efforts against their wishes, you are stealing. Period. Whether it's hacking the security of feature codes for an Agilent scope, hacking the hardware to change a Rigol scope into another member of their family with higher performance, or using the software of someone like Saleae with a clone, you are benefiting from development efforts without paying for them. I realize that many in this forum don't agree with me, but in my mind that's theft. Just like the person who copied your videos is stealing by benefiting from your efforts against your will. I bring it up at this time in this thread because I think you can better appreciate the issue after being stung by it personally.Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 03:05:45 amI didn't say you personally promoted this particular clone. I said that this and others are often promoted in your forum, and that you do have a choice in the matter (as policy maker). Yes, I do think it's wrong to allow them to be promoted. I have not seen any hesitance on your part to delete posts with which you didn't agree either for policy reasons (which is understandable), or political persuasion (or so it seems). You certainly have that right because it's your forum.Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 03:05:45 amThat's a great theory, but my observation is that it just doesn't turn out that way in this forum. One or two will chime in about how it's wrong, but will be badgered for their comments, and the discussion of the clones goes on unimpeded and with great enthusiasm. You personally could change that - if in no other way than to promote the idea that it's actually wrong.If you're saying that there's been no action because you haven't been aware of the posts, then I'd be happy to point them out to you in future.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:11:01 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on August 23, 2013, 03:09:17 amBy the way c4757p, I don't care.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:14:48 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 04:10:10 amSurely you can see that for someone who does not agree with your definition of theft, that is not equivalent to directly copying someone's videos.....? Because most of us do not agree with that.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:15:29 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 04:10:10 amWhenever people go for the "it's stealing" argument, they automatically lose the debate.There is a reason that IP theft and tangible property theft are very different. While I am sure Dave is not happy that someone infringed his copyrights by taking his videos, he is not as upset as he would be if he showed up at the lab tomorrow and it was cleaned out.When people want to equate IP infringement with theft, they are - by definition - overstating their case. It's just like when people drag out hitler/nazi references whenever they feel wronged

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:25:54 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on August 23, 2013, 04:15:29 amI don't agree. If someone cleans out my lab, I can buy new stuff. But for example, if someone happened to have just one great idea in their life, and turned it into a product, and someone killed it with a clone - they've taken away that person's livelihood, which is far more valuable than the stuff in a lab. When you steal IP, you steal "time" spent developing it. Since we don't live forever, time is far more precious than that "tangible" stuff in the lab.

author: all_repair
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:28:01 am
content: @JoeyP, what is your position on refilling your ink and toner for the printer? and on using compatible catridges, and consumerable? I think the ultimate fairness is in the heart, but what the designer and manufacturer trying to claim. There are too many things that anti-monopolistic law cannot guard against, and end users do not know what kind of bargain they are sleep walking most of the time,. Not to mention all the half-truth and untruth being being used to mislead.As the riggol test equipment, morally you are more right than wrong, but this is EE forum, and people who hack it do not really benefited financially apart from the fun of doing so. Even if they are charged in court, the judge shall see how much the hacker has gained, and how much Riggol has lost. The hacking game is just pure fun, and not for the added bandwidth, and Fun is not what Rigol is selling. And due to the added fun, this has actually benefited Rigol is selling more scope.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:30:02 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 04:25:54 amIf somebody only has one good idea rattling around in their head, why does the world owe it to them that they can be the only person to ever use that idea? That's like saying if someone can only push a broom once, they should be paid for that work for the rest of their life...If someone cleans out my lab, I will have to work myassoff to buy new stuff. It's quite expensive. I'm sure I can shit out an idea or three in as much time...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:34:10 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 04:10:10 amClassic straw man bait'n'switch. I'm not buying into.QuoteIpaid forandownmy Rigol. I stole nothing, I copied nothing. I broke no copyright laws. Comparing that to someone who copies my copyrighted videos is just crazy.I bring it up at this time in this thread because I think you can better appreciate the issue after being stung by it personally.Thanks, but my stuff has been copied as way back as the 1980's, nothing "new" about being "stung by it personally"Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 03:05:45 amAnd I explained why I don't delete them, and I think I have a very good case for doing so that includes the desire to stop it from happening further by exposure of the issue, education, and community discussion. Your argument is simply "I don't like it, it should be deleted".Do not throw in the straw man of deleting other obscene/unwanted posts, they are not the same thing.Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 03:05:45 amThere are 500+ posts on this forum a day. Expecting me to read and give a personal response on every issue is not practical.QuoteWhy, so I attend toyourpersonal pet hate at your every whim?No thanks.If I did that for your and your pet topic I'd have to do it for everyone and their pet topic.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:40:04 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on August 23, 2013, 04:30:02 amSo you don't believe in patents, copyrights or any other form of IP protection. Noted. I created an extreme example to make the point. Doesn't matter whether he had one idea in his life, or was a reglar genius like you. The principle is the same. In my life, my ideas have turned out to be far more valuable than the stuff in my lab. If your lab is so precious, get insurance.Quote from: c4757p on August 23, 2013, 04:30:02 amIf you can shit out lucrative ideas so easily, then it should be nothing to make enough money from them to rebuild your lab.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:43:59 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 04:34:10 amNo. I think you should do it because you say you care. But the very fact that you would make this comment tells me you really don't. So I refer you to my original comments.

author: bbarbour
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:52:26 am
content: You can't fix stupid (or trolls).I think it's flattering that someone would copy you. Must be doing something right!

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 04:59:28 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 04:40:04 amPatents? Nope. Just because I found a way to make the laws of physics conspire to do something cool doesn't mean I should be able to stop you from doing that too. Copyright? Yes. I can't deny you a use of the laws of physics (ethically), but no, you should not be able to just copy and paste my work. You want to do the same thing? Great. Do it yourself.As for the clones... I don't think it's theft. I don't think it should be illegal. The parts on the Saleae board are already available from retailers. But if you make a clone of it, trying to profit off their development work, then you are a dickhead for whom I have no respect. Laws shouldn't make it illegal to be a dickhead, and there are ways to be a dickhead that are not theft.I could agree that making a clone andlabeling it "Saleae"is theft - I saw this posted in a thread a few days ago. In that case, yes, you are trying to steal customers by lying and saying you are Saleae. (Now, the thing looked like one of my dog's turds, so whether they would succeed at that is another story....)Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 04:40:04 amThe fact that you point out that which of these two things is worse depends on somebody's personal experience just proves that they are completely disparate, incomparable things...

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:01:18 am
content: Quote from: bbarbour on August 23, 2013, 04:52:26 amIt's good you warned us about your next comment before you made it.Quote from: bbarbour on August 23, 2013, 04:52:26 am(Wow)

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:02:40 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on August 23, 2013, 04:59:28 amAgreed. But it doesn't mean either is without value.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:04:16 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 04:43:59 amOh FFS. If I see such a thread then I may very well feel compelled to comment on it. Actually, I think I recall doing so on one occasion on the clone device, but I could be mistaken (live show maybe?). In either case, I'm saying so NOW ok?Or will you not be happy until I go and vigorously defend every instance of this that ever happened or will happen?I care about a LOT of stuff, but like I said I can't possibly go and defend every one of them in every instance, in every thread to satisfy everyone's whim.You are being complete idiotic.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:05:46 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 04:25:54 amYou don't have to agree, it's established and codified in law that tangible theft is more serious than IP theft. Many IP owners have a naive idea that it's copycats that are keeping them from making it rich, but that is pretty much never the case. Many IP owners think that if someone has their IP without payment, that took $$ from their pocket. In many (most) cases, it didn't. I would say the vast majority of those who would copy something are not people who would otherwise pay for it. It's just a crutch IP owners use.But even if you don't agree, you are an extra step removed from that situation, because Dave isn't stealing anything. You are criticizing him for not being more outspoken about it. I think your criticism of Dave on this is sorely misplaced.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:07:18 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 05:02:40 amYou said they were both theft!....screw it, I'm done.

author: sorin
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:08:05 am
content: Why discuss bullshit "Saleae clone" (the hardware) don't violate any law.Please don't bla bla bla .....

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:08:40 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on August 23, 2013, 05:05:46 amAnytime anyone criticises someone for something theydidn'tsay, instantly loses, and has egg on their face.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:09:17 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 04:40:04 amA minor point, but ideas aren't worth much at all, if anything. Execution is everything. That is, in large part, why the "theft" some feign outrage over doesn't really ever put anyone out of business due to the "theft".

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:15:02 am
content: I think their was a Saleae clone a while back which was a direct firmware copy and sold with the official Saleae software on the CD?I reckon most people would find that wrong and wouldn't knowingly buy a product like that

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:15:57 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on August 23, 2013, 05:07:18 amMaybe I misunderstood you. But what I meant was, both tangible property and intellectual property have value and both can be and are stolen. In the case of the Saleae clone, people seem to conveniently point to how simiple the hardware is (and I agree, it ain't much). But that simple hardware only performs the functions you seek *if* it is used with the software from Saleae - and that's were you are benefiting from Saleae's efforts without paying for them.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:23:18 am
content: Quote from: Psi on August 23, 2013, 05:15:02 amSo it's OK to use clone hardware with the Saleae software if you download it directly from Saleae's website, but not OK if it is distributed by the clone supplier? Either way Saleae didn't get compensated for their efforts - but you benefited from them, and the clone vendor was rewarded for producing clones.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:27:10 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 05:15:57 amI never said you're* not benefiting from their efforts without paying. Nobody would say that, that's just retarded. But so is your assertion that you should never benefit from something without paying!Neighbor fixes up their house. Property value in the area goes up. Should I pay them for that?Took a book out from the library. Should the publisher get a check in the mail with my name on it?Turned on the radio. Should the record label get a check in the mail with my name on it?All of these things are paid for by someone else and my enjoyment of them is a side effect.Now, that doesn't mean it's perfectly kosher for me to go selling Saleae ripoffs either, but itdoesmean your argument is smelly bullshit that doesn't work when applied to other cases...Now I'm going away for real, I'm going to bed...*Apologies for the bloody slaughter of the word "you" in these sentences, the grammar Nazi in me wants to go commit suicide now...

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:30:19 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on August 23, 2013, 04:15:29 amQuote from: Corporate666 on August 23, 2013, 04:15:29 amAnything seem in-congruent about these two statements?

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:31:29 am
content: Yes, a mildly careless use of words that does nothing to undermine the argument. Next!

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:37:18 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on August 23, 2013, 05:27:10 amThat's NOT my assertion. I said you shouldn't benefit from anyone's efforts *against their will* (and specifically in the context of IP in this discussion). Saleae's intent is to *sell* their product and benefit from the fruits of their labor. Using their software with a clone denies them that benefit against their will.There are many many times it it is perfectly normal and reasonable to benefit from the efforts of another without paying. For example, when someone puts something (e.g. software) in the public domain, or makes a charitable contribution.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:47:24 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 05:30:19 amNot at all.You first equivocated IP theft with tangible property theft. I disagreed, and you said that, actually, IP theft was worse. I simply pointed out that the law does not agree with you - either that IP theft is worse, or that property theft is the same as IP theft. It's not really a matter of opinion, it's written into law. It was you who rolled everything into one blanket charge of "theft".

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:49:54 am
content: You know what? We've gotten so far off of why everyone was jumping on you in the first place, which is that you hijacked a thread where Dave complained about theft to accuse him of supporting it.Nobody here disagrees with you that selling Saleae clones is wrong, though we might think calling it 'theft' is idiotic.I could not care less about whether you think it's right or wrong to profit off people against their will. Either continue to put forward your accusation against Dave (which is complete bullshit by the way), retract it and apologize like a big boy, or go climb back in your argumentative hole (and I will climb into mine).I've contributed to way too many thread derailings. You made this aboutsupport of IP violation, notdefinition of IP violation. Continue the discussion or end it.

author: kizzap
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:52:23 am
content: I think another main issue that no-one has commented on, is that the person is not just copying the videos, but using his likeness, if someone asks a question on those videos, and the re-uploader responds, it could be assumed by the person who asked the question that the uploaderisthe guy in the video.As to discussion as to copying hardware/software, I agree with whatever side thinks that it iswrongto blatantly copy an existing design. Tangible theft is the exact same as IP theft, however IP theft is a lot harder to prove.On the "hacking" side, I am more lenient. I say go nuts if you are writing code, or changing the function of a circuit to improve it (or modify to your needs). With the code hacking (as what happened with the Rigol scopes) to improve something that is decidedly hardware locked by the manufacture, I'm a little more cautious. In the end I think it is "okay" as we don't know if the scopes were 'binned' so we don't know if the lower bandwidth models are that way due to some underlying faults (but lets face it, I doubt there is). We the users have the risk if we hack them as to the results that we will get from the device, and the fact that hacking them as we are will completely void the manufacturer warranty, so it is the end users problem for any faults and damages.-kizzap

author: StubbornGreek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:53:54 am
content: Wow, I can't believe where this thread has wondered off to... Bottom line here is that someone is trying to rebroadcast material that isn't theirs. Not only is this wrong but its being perpetrated against someone who has worked very hard (albeit for some degree of personal gain - no one gives all their time for nothing) to educate us and provide a forum for us to further our knowledge, help each other, etc.This is bullshit and I hope the situation is rectified promptly.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 05:55:40 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on August 23, 2013, 05:47:24 amHow did I "equivocate" them? Never did I say they were equal in magnitude. If anything, IP theft is worse. When was the last time anyone was awarded a $147,000,000 settlement from a thief who robbed their house (or a lab)? When was the last time a company got slapped with such a settlement for IP theft?Hint (though this may not be the latest):http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business/120714/blackberry-maker-rim-order-pay-147-million-patent-lawsuit

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:12:47 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 05:55:40 amYou used the words theft and stealing in one of your earlier posts. I took that to mean you were equivocating IP and tangible property theft, figuring you would correct me if I assumed wrong. It was actually the opposite, you think IP theft is worse than tangible property theft.The law does not agree.We both know your RIM example holds no water, you're comparing a huge company's IP infringement with a local break in? How many people are in jail for IP theft, compared to the number in jail for robbing houses/businesses? And if we want to use ridiculous examples, Bernie Madoff stole billions and will be in jail until he dies. How many people sharing movies on BitTorrent will spend their lives in jail and have to pay billions?We're never going to agree, but as I said, the law isn't a matter of opinion and the relative weight given by law to IP theft vs tangible property theft illustrate my point.Back to the subject at hand, even if you refuse to accept that tangible property theft is more damaging to the victim, the fact of the matter is that Dave isn't engaging in IP theft, so it still doesn't apply.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:16:09 am
content: The problem with IP 'theft' is that it's imaginary. The 'owner' doesn't lose anything tangible, nor did they have anything tangible to begin with. There's very rarely any identifiable 'loss' to be recovered, nor any irrevocable damage to punish. I can agree that creative works, like Dave's videos, deserve protection against misappropriation and use for profit against the creator's will. However, I can absolutely, unequivocally not agree with the notion ofideasbeing protected. That is just patently absurd (pun not intended). Furthermore, that is explicitly not what patent is designed to do. Why should I get any special protection because I was the first person on Earth to think of an idea? There are 7billionof us. If Newton and Liebniz could independently discover the calculus, there is plenty of room for independent discovery and implementation of other good ideas, and this should be encouraged not undermined by an absolutely out of hand patent system.These are complicated issues, and you don't seem to understand them very well, or are intentionally going all over the map to elicit a response, constantly conflating and confusing the concepts involved in 'intellectual property.' This evidenced by your very first post equating the copyright infringement at issue here with reverse engineering and cloning - which isn't even illegal, though you may take moral issue with it. I don't even know what the topic is anymore, it keeps moving. Are we still talking about Salae? Have we ever been talking about this YouTube infringement? What on Earth is this discussion even about?It's ridiculous we're having this discussion. The YouTube user in question will likely shortly be banned, they will not get many views and so little ad revenue as to not matter. It's hardly worth mentioning.Edit: clarity

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:38:33 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on August 23, 2013, 06:12:47 amFor the record just because you state something is "codified in law" doesn't make it fact. You offered no references or examples of that. But even if it is so, whether the law considers one or the other to be worse doesn't really matter in the context of this discussion of whether it's OK to sell/use clones. It is theft - which may be greater or lesser than theft of tangible property, depending upon your point of view. I'll bet Saleae doesn't give a rat's ass about which the law considers worxe. Give them the option of having their lab cleaned out, or having their product cloned. Which do *you* think they'd choose?Quote from: Corporate666 on August 23, 2013, 06:12:47 amYes, back to the subject at hand. Quoting from my original post, this much was directed at Dave, but made no accusations toward him:Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 02:39:57 amThis part was directed at *anyone* reading the thread, who might consider promoting/justifying a clone in the future (not at Dave personally, but I should have somehow delineated that intent):Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 02:39:57 amYes, promotion of clones definitely occurs in this forum, and with rare exceptions seems to be well received. People in this very thread have justified it.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:42:36 am
content: See, this is why people are annoyed at your comments. You keep making assumptions and when something can be interpreted multiple ways you choose the way you find the most offensive and reply to it.Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 05:23:18 amI never said that, i just stated the fact that they shipped it on their CD.You made the assumption that, because i'm against them distributing the software on CD I must be ok with people downloading it instead, which i'm not. They're both equally as bad.Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 05:23:18 amAgain, you assume i have bought a cloned Saleae. I have not.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:44:03 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 06:38:33 amHUH?What you said was mostly certainly directed at me, you said it yourself when I asked you directly:Quote

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:45:07 am
content: Quote from: Psi on August 23, 2013, 06:42:36 amSorry, guess I did misunderstand you. Since you pointed out the behavior of distributing it on CD, I thought you were trying to make a point about that. If I understand correctly now, you were simply making the point that it's wrong in all cases.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:46:21 am
content: So Dave, has anyone ever tried a stunt like this before? Will this add another item to your morning routine, brush teeth, put coffee on, remove drool from Sagans pillow, check to see if my livelihood is being hijacked?Man you have had a bad week.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:49:57 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 06:44:03 amYes, the first part definitely was. I thought the mention of the vitriol it would draw (which I expected from others, not from you), would delineate the last part as being general and not personal. I wasn't clear, and sorry if that part came across as directed at you personally.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:53:44 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on August 23, 2013, 06:46:21 amYeah, it happens about once a month, I have to report a copied video.Never on this scale of hundreds before though.It's likely just a bot that does the channel creation and copying and uploading, getting a few bucks before they are shut down to start again.Do it enough times and I guess someone's making a living from it?Although I'm unsure how their Adsense account wouldn't go down with it?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:55:28 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on August 23, 2013, 06:49:57 amWhen you start getting all silly and accusing me of this and that. I'll call you out every time.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:58:29 am
content: It probably is related to making money.But it could also be someone who uploads any videos which they like to their own account.(i'm not condoning it)But we've all seen good videos disappear when the person removes them.That one where the RED epic camera is destroyed by a concert laser comes to mind.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 06:59:16 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 06:55:28 amI'm perfectly OK with that, and would expect nothing less.You'll all be pleased to hear that it's way past my bedtime, so calling it a night. Let the feeding frenzy begin

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 07:05:52 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 06:53:44 amTotal Crap, I guess like everything money related. You only need a few guys out there looking to get a few free bucks to cause major grief. It's difficult to protect a thing when it's basically out there, regardless of what it is.

author: JuKu
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 07:48:16 am
content: Quote from: ve7xen on August 23, 2013, 06:16:09 amI'm sorry, but you have NO understanding how making money with IP works. None, whatsoever. Otherwise you would not written that.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 08:20:32 am
content: Quote from: JuKu on August 23, 2013, 07:48:16 amIt is simple fact, 'intellectual property' is not tangible by definition. Nothing is lost in any IP infringement, because only various forms of copying and appropriation are covered, none of which involve any destruction or removal of the original creator's own property, intellectual or otherwise. Which is why it's 'rights infringement' and not 'theft', and why quantifying the unquantifiable 'losses' results in awards for the same sort of infringement of anything from lawyer's fees to $100millions.I don't really care how making money with IP works, it's not really relevant to what is morally or lawfully right, nor what is best for society as a whole. However, I do understand how the current law works (mostly from a US perspective), and most of the issues involved quite well. In my opinion the system is incredibly broken, money is made by the wrong people and sapped out of systems that could otherwise be much more productive. Those who complain most loudly about copyright and other rights infringements are also often the most blatantly hypocritical offenders. Am I the only one who gets annoyed when a (copyrighted!) funny YouTube video is aired on FOX to millions of viewers only to be followed by a story about how we must crack down on college students watching movies alone in their dorms while they eat their daily ramen ration?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 08:41:08 am
content: Well, Youtube didn't do anything when I reported the channel for "impersonation" (the only option without individually flagging 226 videos one-by-one.Quote

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 09:16:24 am
content: If they get to 3 strikes i think they're account gets locked/removedSo just submit reports on like 10 videos and that should hopefully take care of him.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 09:50:12 am
content: Now up to 292 of my videos!

author: Tooms
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 10:00:57 am
content: It seems that all the videos are the short ones, as none of them are over 15-20min.Guess that is because it is some automaticly process and it will take the short videos to do it faster and more videos.So Dave keeps the videos at 1+ hour in length to protect them

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 10:01:38 am
content: I sent a message to the guy i know at google but he's not involved with youtube.Apparently the youtube group can be a bunch of ass#@!$ sometimesYou could always make a rant video about it. There's probably google people who watch your videos and will "take care" of it with extreme prejudiceThere isn't any valid option under reporting for us viewers to flag the videos with but if enough of us do it i'm sure someone will take notice.

author: Phroon
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 10:27:15 am
content: Looks like the right way would be for Dave to do a copyright claim against them.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 10:40:57 am
content: Quote from: Psi on August 23, 2013, 10:01:38 amHave to be careful not to piss off the above mentioned 'bunch of ass#@!$' or they might do more than block the one channel...I presume Dave is happy enough with the fellow in France selling knock off "Micro-Currents" on eBay. He even has the same anti static blue mat!eBay auction: #181183666029

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 10:45:52 am
content: bunch of ass#@!$ was probably not the best way to word it.It's more that they do they own thing and ignore what the rest of google wants.

author: tealsuki
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 11:50:50 am
content: I got a headache reading this thread.Sorry to hear about your troubles, Dave! Hope the powers-that-be clear this up soon, and that nobody shits in your cornflakes again for a while.

author: kizzap
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 12:09:11 pm
content: Quote from: Towger on August 23, 2013, 10:40:57 amSurely there would be enough evidence in this thread alone to prove that Dave has personally taken steps to have the content removed, yet Youtube failed to do so, so he would have fair recourse to take said action? Surely also being a "Youtube Partner" would have its benefits in this matter.The problem with the guy selling copies in France is that Dave has no action he can take against him. OSHW (which the uCurrent is covered by) technically allows people to do simply this (albeit the OSHW community frowns extremely heavily against it). All they have to do to follow OSHW guidelines is to ensure that the creator is credited for the project, which he is.-kizzap

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 12:23:51 pm
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on August 23, 2013, 06:46:21 am+1, and get a really quality rest and the most important part get well soon Dave.IMHO, just forget about the EEVBlog videos/tweet/facebook/forum etc for temporary.Regarding troll, just letthe mobustake care of it.

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 01:05:27 pm
content: Seems the EEVBlog copies are removed. The channel is not shut down though.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 01:38:05 pm
content: Quote from: jancumps on August 23, 2013, 01:05:27 pmReally? I get 318 hits clicking the link on the first page.(https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Minna+Clakley+eevblog)

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 01:41:03 pm
content: You are right. Strange, because the are gone when I click on the video tab of that channel .Let's carefully not click on any of them.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2013, 01:42:30 pm
content: Quote from: kizzap on August 23, 2013, 12:09:11 pmAccording to his eBay history nobody buys it, and that's no wonder, because you can buy the original from Adafruit for $10 less. But I didn't know it is OSHW. That's nice, if someone wants to build a power supply and integrate some good current measurement.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 01:35:09 am
content: There are now 388 videos of mine on there.Youtube removed 3 of them that I complained about. I was hoping that would be enough (+maybe other complaints) to trigger the whole channel removed.If a human at Youtube bothered to look at this channel it is blindingly obvious every one of the videos is a copy.I can't possibly go fill in that complaint form 388 times...

author: Mr Smiley
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 01:43:09 am
content: What if 388 of us did it for youAlso, JoeyP, well you all fell for it hook line and sinker, every argument was given a response, and that fed his sad lonely life.All you had to do was completely ignore him from the very start, that would have pissed him off more than he pissed off all of you put together. It was all done for attention.If you come across a nob, ignore him and he'll shrivel up and go away

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 01:48:10 am
content: That's what i was saying before. Any youtube user (us) can report a video with 4 simple clicks.But there isn't a valid option to report a duplicate video from another user.The only options that are close are "Infringes my rights" then.. "Infringes my copyright" or "other legal claim" but they only apply to dave and not us.Going through 300 vids and clicking 4 times doesn't sound to hard.I'm sure there are people on here that would do it for dave but he'd need to trust them with his account access for a short time.You could probably streamline it by opening 100 tabs at a time, one per video, then keeping the mouse in the same location over the report button and use keyboard shortcuts to change tabs, click, change tab, click etc..Then start from tab1 again with the mouse of the next thing to click.Probably only take 30min or so.Note:i've not actually reported anything so i don't know if it asks any more questions once you select the reason and hit "Submit".

author: PuterGeek
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 01:57:22 am
content: And all ways to complain about the user assume only Dave would complain about the coped videos.Not sure there is a constructive way for the EEVblog community to respond in this case.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 01:59:03 am
content: There is an API for Youtube. Get the list of videos for a channel:https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol_video_feeds?hl=de&csw=1#User_Uploaded_VideosComplains:https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol_complaintsAnd the Python library looks really easy to use:https://developers.google.com/gdata/articles/python_client_libMaybe would be a 10 line Python script which files a complain for any video of a user, if he/she has only copies of your videos, and 11 lines if you have to filter the title for a substringDave, I could try it, if you like.

author: bbarbour
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:00:29 am
content: I'm not sure if you tried this already, but have you reported the user for Impersonation? Since the videos include those of Sagan, you might have a strong claim (beyond that which a monkey could verify, even though they haven't already).Project Sagan, by Minna Clakley --

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:01:48 am
content: Quote from: Psi on August 24, 2013, 01:48:10 amIt's not that easy, there is a form where you have to fill in your name, address, phone number, URL's etc.https://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:03:01 am
content: Quote from: bbarbour on August 24, 2013, 02:00:29 amYes, they turned down my complaint.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:06:26 am
content: Reporting 3 videos should have triggered the account lock.Maybe 3 reports close together only count as one infringement?Quote

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:10:48 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 24, 2013, 02:01:48 amMaybe try doing it from the video itself instead of going through the complaint system?Or, I just noticed that there's a link to report an entire channel instead of a video. So that may work too.

author: kizzap
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:22:12 am
content: Dave, I'd suggest maybe using twitter? having a public question (and blatant copying issue) ignored by the official twitter accounts would be a negative point for them, as it would show the world what their response is publically, and every other video uploader would then be reconsidering uploading content if they are getting no protection from being copied...-kizzap

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:33:04 am
content: Dave I did find this it has an actual e-mail address on it may be worth a try. It's a copyright contact section.https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-contact-info.html

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:36:52 am
content: The channel itself has a comments section that's got a few posts from people complaining it is full of stolen content.Might be worth all of us airing our grievances there.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC1Jo9UvXfS1CmrfbBX759g/discussion

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:39:41 am
content: Quote from: Psi on August 24, 2013, 02:10:48 amNo, that just takes you to the individual video complain form.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:42:06 am
content: Quote from: kizzap on August 24, 2013, 02:22:12 amYoutube never interact on their twitter account, it's push only.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 02:47:38 am
content: A complaint has been sent the Australian Partner support address, lets see if they do anything.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 03:04:14 am
content: Since I had a youtube video pulled once because a muffled song being played in a public place was detected by youtube, you'd think they would have some method of locating duplicate content on their site.... Or some kind of invisible watermarking technology.... You'd think...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 03:07:04 am
content: Quote from: Stonent on August 24, 2013, 03:04:14 amThey do.I can't re-upload the same video with a different filename and title etc, once done processing it tells me that it has detected it's a duplicate video.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 04:26:47 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 24, 2013, 03:07:04 amI wonder how they get around it then? I know some people mirror image videos to get past filters but they don't appear to have done that. Probably something sneaky like cropping 1 or 2 % off.

author: PedroDaGr8
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 04:47:07 am
content: @Dave - This completely sucks man. There are a few ways around it.First, you can submit via email a free-form DMCA takedown notice which simply lists all of the URLs as offending. A simple script should easily extract all of the URLs for you. This should result in ALL of them being taken down.What must be included in the takedown noticeandwhere to submit itSecondly, you tried joiningYouTubes ContentIDprogram? It would allow you a degree of protection (you can block, monetize or track copies of your videos) and would make managing your copyrights easier. You could allow people to make copys of your video for "safe keeping" while you still earn the money for the views.OK as to the posts about Intellectual Property. Forgive me if this is long winded and a bit convoluted. I write like I speak, which is not always a good thing. I have tried to edit this to make sense.You chose a bad example with the Salae. Reverse Engineering of a circuit has long been protected. Now I'm not the most devout legal scholar but from what I remember legally a schematic is simply how a bunch of parts are hooked up. You can protect it with patents, if it performs a novel function or does it in a novel way, but you don't get to protect it as a design. The board layout on the other hand is a DESIGN generated from your schematic. From what I remember, it typically can be protected under copyright and some other laws (there are some restriction based on obviousness, simplicity, necessity, etc.). This means that legally they can't copy the board layout but they can certainly copy the schematic and modify as desired and/or generate their own "schematically identical" but physically different board. Sorry that is a really badly worded sentence but I hope the point comes across. Note, there are a variety of reasons that reverse engineering has been protected (including encouraging interoperabilty, allowing people to improve on designs, etc.). All of these are valid reasons to reverse engineer.Additionally, they made one ENORMOUSLY stupid blunder. They didn't even store the firmware on the board. Just some unencrypted product and manufacturer IDs. Copyright is legally a very great way to protect your designs. If they had stored the firmware on the board, you could reverse engineer the board all you want but it won't matter. You can't legally copy that firmware too. That firmware is protected under copyright. If they didn't store the firmware on board what did they do instead? They have the software send the firmware to the board over USB. So the software looks for any connected device matching its required hardware and requests the EEPROM values. These values are not copy-protected in any way and by themselves are not copyrightable. So anyone can program them into a matching EEPROM on "schematically identical" hardware. The software then sends the firmware to the device. In a nutshell, Saleae's software infringes their own copyright. Obviously, this is a logically incongruous statement. As a result, its not an infringement at all, it's just bad design. Basically, you like it or you don't like it, they screwed themselves and as such they are paying for it unfortunately.As is often the case, ethically, its a much grayer area. They invested a lot of time and energy into this project. Investing time, energy and money don't mean you deserve a reward though. A lot of time, energy and money go into the scientific research of natural phenomena. These don't deserve patent or any other IP protection.Lastly, to address your comment. IP infringement is NOT stealing, it is not theft, legally it is infringement and only that. When I make a copy of a song the person I copied the song from has not lost their song. In order for something to be theft or stealing, you have to deprive someone of the use or possession of said item. Now this doesn't mean IP infringement isn't bad, it is. It just is NOT theft and it is COMPLETELY wrong to try to equate the two. They are NOT the same thing EVER. Just because someone is deprived of the POTENTIAL to earn money does not mean you stole money from them in the legal sense. They had not earned(possessed) that money yet and as such any money mentioned is figurative and/or speculative. This does not mean that they were not harmed, their intellectual property rights were infringed. As such they WERE harmed, just they were not STOLEN from. You may want to try to use theft to emphasize your point but doing so is wrong. Just as there is a difference between justifiable homicide, manslaughter and murder. In all cases someone is dead but in all three there are details which make all the difference in the world.

author: PedroDaGr8
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 04:48:47 am
content: Quote from: Stonent on August 24, 2013, 04:26:47 amSometimes (but not always) reencoding can be enough to confuse the filters. Let alone, reencoding at a fractionally different speed or slightly different resolution (say 1pixel in each direction).

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 04:56:45 am
content: Ok, just for fun I created a script, which files a complaint to any video of this user, which starts with "EEVblog " in the title:http://pastebin.com/7bZZumXzMore than 10 lines, but not much. You have to install Python first, then the client library, as described here:https://developers.google.com/gdata/articles/python_client_libThen register the client_id and get a Google developer key, as described in the script and run it.I've already tried it, but unfortunately after the 3rd complaint, I get the error "too_many_recent_calls". Maybe increase the sleep-time in the printEntryDetailsAndComplain function, and adjust eevblog_start_index for subsequent runs of the script.The Python API is nice and can be used for other things as well, e.g. automatically create a webpage with links to all your videos. I don't get the "too many recent calls" failure when I just query all videos (commenting the AddComplaint and sleep function call). Looks like the quota is related to specific function calls.

author: PedroDaGr8
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 05:10:22 am
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 24, 2013, 04:56:45 amJust generating a list of URLs would be useful as you can email Youtube a Takedown notice with a list of URLs in it. I think THIS would be the fastest method. Much faster than their forms.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 05:24:18 am
content: Quote from: PedroDaGr8 on August 24, 2013, 05:10:22 amYou are right. Below is the output of my script without calling the complaint function and without the index. There are 196 videos. The Youtube search function says 390, because of different titles, e.g. the Youtube search finds "Fluke CNX Contest Announcement", too. But I guess this would be a good start to take down the whole channel.Code:id: E2MLpteADgg, title: EEVblog #273 Power Factor Correction with the MC34262id: Jdpy707iGGc, title: EEVblog #258 PSU Housing Design Part 11id: XOzdth94nmw, title: EEVblog #252 Multimeter Ohms Overloadid: _L0Gg5SnVxQ, title: EEVblog #251 Mailbagid: 7bMcMti-FUY, title: EEVblog #250 Anti Static Mat Mythid: dx3uZqw7z30, title: EEVblog #246 Makerbot Thing O Matic Time Lapse Buildid: O5-Wzr0t1PI, title: EEVblog #241 Circuit Labs PCBs from New Zealandid: W_IDXCRtFp8, title: EEVblog #236 FE 5680A Rubidium Standard Teardownid: jfYnRBuD_P0, title: EEVblog #234 Agilent U1733C LCR Meter Teardownid: T5FRyTr1iV8, title: EEVblog #231 2011id: QYLzEY-eDCw, title: EEVblog #223 Agilent Oscilloscope High Res Modeid: Z1LdYeGYFlE, title: EEVblog #214 Commander Phone System Teardownid: xVBSV-hhZL0, title: EEVblog #213 New EEVblog Lab Tourid: V9BBf7D1U3U, title: EEVblog #192 Agilent Oscilloscope LOST Easter Eggid: q1QeC8B3dhI, title: EEVblog #191 Mouse Trap Triggeringid: NnMubHLjZ78, title: EEVblog #185 Fluke 87V Multimeter GSM Fix!id: 1gcJt8OKwqQ, title: EEVblog Announcement T Shirtsid: Ef8ewYwfINM, title: EEVblog T Shirtsid: hlA_QkijH8w, title: EEVblog US Election 2012id: kKII-VBL86A, title: EEVblog µRuler Crowd Fundingid: Kxc9tamEToU, title: EEVblog #508 Can You Test Battery Charge By Dropping Itid: VeM1MhARqfo, title: EEVblog #182 Rode Videomic Shotgun Microphone Hackid: RUSzK4Gwc_g, title: EEVblog #493 DIY Video Camera Dolly For Workbenchesid: l3RRIUxSGns, title: EEVblog #486 Does Current Flow Through A Capacitorid: ju0CCLmrLuY, title: EEVblog #181 Dead Bug Prototype Solderingid: I1YXiI0iTlw, title: EEVblog #467 Walktime Rant Crowd Funding Projectsid: du7WFFga0Ag, title: EEVblog #173 Gossen Metrahit Energy Multimeter Teardownid: e_IVH7DS8bc, title: EEVblog #178 Agilent's U1272A Responseid: wR4sbKwDyr4, title: EEVblog #177 Baby Scale Calibrationid: vfCzVtD6KHU, title: EEVblog #175 Project Saganid: Cg5ZoPERvOw, title: EEVblog #466 Dumpster Dive Night Raidid: yOPxP08JteY, title: EEVblog #463 More Dumpster Divingid: mAkEF0b7CCo, title: EEVblog #172 DIY Acoustic Sound Panelsid: r7cmN1-v8f4, title: EEVblog #457 Oscillator Calibration Followupid: 16-iMbp3Rog, title: EEVblog #459 Counter Shenanigansid: uKk3JmVc7I4, title: EEVblog #169 Samson StudioDock 4i USB Monitor Speaker Reviewid: WR_tOkETaiY, title: EEVblog #447 Samsung Plasma Followupid: 7z0mUNpgT9s, title: EEVblog #448 New PICkit 4 & AVR Dragonid: hFSlV703lKQ, title: EEVblog #170 Agilent U1272A Multimeter FAILid: iJU-ZXKHE9E, title: EEVblog #450 Ebay Unboxingid: YDD2zQevxI4, title: EEVblog #445 Fluke Contest Drawid: 52q64wPIUgM, title: EEVblog #166 HP Agilent E3610A Lab Power Supplyid: YZaMXbxI6Bk, title: EEVblog #163 Solder Paste Pornid: XnLF679W7lU, title: EEVblog #442 Analog Vs Digital Oscilloscope Noiseid: M_I2_vOHZQg, title: EEVblog #162 Oscilloscope Probe Shockid: dKBZgCCSB0Y, title: EEVblog #161 555 April Fools Revealedid: Vf6bJda6awU, title: EEVblog #433 Mailbagid: VwvRgXT9EH8, title: EEVblog #156 HTC Desire Mobile Phone FAILid: DYTqRIsU1M4, title: EEVblog #152 Jurassic Spiderid: W-Pv3gcl6gw, title: EEVblog #153 YouScope Demo on a Digital Scopeid: t-aq50nfxZs, title: EEVblog #429 TurtleBot & CineMocoid: DJhKqoHfeeY, title: EEVblog #147 Agilent 3000 $12000 Smokeid: X4YP_-GJ4zs, title: EEVblog #146 Digikey Postage FAILid: IaHQeqxULVo, title: EEVblog #427 HP 3478A Multimeter Teardownid: kTCDyvyU86g, title: EEVblog #145 Agilent LAN VGA Module Teardownid: eLjYh5ugUQc, title: EEVblog #423 HP5061A Atomic Clock Cesium Beam Frequency Standardid: L55agqrqbDQ, title: EEVblog #138 Top 5 Tips for Graduate Engineersid: g1OYsII_dvQ, title: EEVblog #136 Building an Electronics Storage Cupboardid: MeNi1jmUJFk, title: EEVblog #135 Kindle Case Mythbustingid: aaHvEvruD1c, title: EEVblog #422 How To Calibrate A Calibratorid: nLgaDjl_tk8, title: EEVblog #420 What Is Calibrationid: iHL1RsFs8x0, title: EEVblog #405 Lecroy 9384C Oscilloscope Repair Part 3id: fAxWjRIEXNw, title: EEVblog #134 The Maxim Manipulationid: Jgt-yjDHz9c, title: EEVblog #403 IR Thermometer Calibration Testingid: bC08887dq4o, title: EEVblog #404 Korad PSU Followupid: E2lYx0RKsQs, title: EEVblog #132 Delusional Dyson Marketingid: iuj6wkn3Q1g, title: EEVblog #129 US Airline TSA Security & Australia Post $9 feeid: SQcpxs-E7nQ, title: EEVblog #389 Casio Calculator Investigationid: CQbbGuC1TIE, title: EEVblog #128 UEI Multimeter Contest Drawid: FnokRTAVCMw, title: EEVblog #388 Fake Apple USB Charger Teardownid: Z6ICAvx-01c, title: EEVblog #126 The Free Sample Fallacyid: Z0IP8P-YiNc, title: EEVblog #124 A Tour of Apex Electronicsid: e_GrJmocfMw, title: EEVblog #123 Top 5 Tips for Semiconductor Manufacturersid: AIIfRF9OmUU, title: EEVblog #387 Oscilloscope Trigger Jitterid: v2aKf4x_qQA, title: EEVblog #374 DIY Multimeter Calibrationid: jq5kRco5WAs, title: EEVblog #122 Renesas RX Design Contest Announcementid: w2dZW7f2qHw, title: EEVblog #121 gEDA Interview with DJ Delorieid: jkUMT6qlJnI, title: EEVblog #366 USB PSU Troubleshootingid: TnCsujkww4w, title: EEVblog #120 Renesas Devcon Day 4id: jnKg15OPlYM, title: EEVblog #365 ESR Meter Bad Cap Monitor Repairid: Kdw9roMbZBs, title: EEVblog #117 Renesas Devcon 2010 Day 1id: yKFtGm1mLac, title: EEVblog #357 USB Supply Power up Testingid: SnmpnF67-Q0, title: EEVblog #351 Silicon Chip Magazine Electronex 2012id: 8llneXv3C-Q, title: EEVblog #112 GSM vs The Fluke 87V Multimeterid: w4U2d-4jQF4, title: EEVblog #350 Sagan Tours Electronex 2012id: DtcONmGpgVc, title: EEVblog #106 Top 5 Tips To Bring Your Product to Market and why Patents are a BAD idea)id: LmUoD7V8vLU, title: EEVblog #348 Electronex 2012 Behind the Scenesid: L5ZLeNW4LqU, title: EEVblog #103 World's Largest Laser Hologram with Dr Philid: yBPkiLS_i8k, title: EEVblog #28 Product design drives me NUTS!id: oOJBokpOknE, title: EEVblog #27 More Engineering Job Interview Tips!id: TNxCC0vN9D8, title: EEVblog #346 MLF QFN SMD Reflow Solderingid: Mj6CUtMapnc, title: EEVblog #26 Multimeter Tutorial Counts, Accuracy, Resolution & Calibrationid: OrWpfztSXzw, title: EEVblog #345 Electronics Dumpster Divingid: wahDJVYAML4, title: EEVblog #25 The Infinite Resistor Puzzleid: S9fkh5IWiLg, title: EEVblog #24 The secret world of Chopper Amplifiersid: qyeG3r4_5yw, title: EEVblog #338 DIY Electric Bikeid: y7EihcYDXFA, title: EEVblog #23 GSM mobile phone audio designid: xbggbokPZs4, title: EEVblog #22 On Blogs and Video Bloggingid: V_iTU56SRDg, title: EEVblog #335 Carbon Printed Resistorsid: yWx4uRZqrA4, title: EEVblog #21 The Unusual Oscilloscope Phenomenon Part 3id: ofMGXlt0TKg, title: EEVblog #333 Unwritten Rules of OSHWid: ZBpAu2hn2fo, title: EEVblog #20 The Unusual Oscilloscope Phenomenon Part 2id: 5eoqvEc1E2s, title: EEVblog #332 Mantis Elite Microscope Scratch'n'Sniffid: hgCaCiaIFx0, title: EEVblog #19 Rigol caught with their pants down!id: zm_qHEProLM, title: EEVblog #18 The Garmin Yellow Etrex GPSid: wsLFv4Gh8yA, title: EEVblog #329 Tracking Pre Regulator LTspice Simulation Part 2id: gjmMljwBpWQ, title: EEVblog #328 Curiosity Mars Rover Landingid: 9LoaSy7lQMs, title: EEVblog #17 I hope your next project DOESN'T work!id: oUu-EaDIrDo, title: EEVblog #325 Rigol DG4162 Voiceid: 2Hb6x5NyYu4, title: EEVblog #16 CMOS SCR Latchup Tutorialid: nHXguV2H1Zc, title: EEVblog #319 Lead Free PCB Tinningid: kT86QEpZkHc, title: EEVblog #15 Part 2 of 2 Fluke 189 289 multimeter reviewid: 5c8athwh0YM, title: EEVblog #317 PCB Tinning Myth Bustingid: RBD1H3fJEgs, title: EEVblog #15 Part 1 of 2 Fluke 189 289 multimeter reviewid: E8aQtVJYr0I, title: EEVblog #312 Photocopier Teardown Follow upid: EPcRMoGyyRc, title: EEVblog #14 An unusual oscilloscope phenomenon!id: a1OLgemiLKk, title: EEVblog #310 Cheap Siglent and Agilent scopesid: y3pU3mQgj7M, title: EEVblog #13 Part 2 of 2 Comparison of PC Based Oscilloscopesid: NCCnM7gA6uU, title: EEVblog #13 Part 1 of 2 Digital storage Oscilloscope Tutorialid: 0IIWE_FpTHs, title: EEVblog #308 Agilent 81160A Function Generator Teardownid: 64ilE7krwbU, title: EEVblog #12 Part 2 of 2 Shanghai Special Dodgy USB Hubsid: AzZr05k66Dg, title: EEVblog #12 Part 1 of 2 Shanghai Special PCB Assembly Factory Tourid: mXew70x5k5k, title: EEVblog #306 Jim Williams Pulse Generatorid: jsNu5DTvEFs, title: EEVblog #11 Part 2 of 2 More on DIY product designid: EMCFNzz8dEQ, title: EEVblog #11 Part 1 of 2 Talk about DIY product designid: iCUQeTzbVGc, title: EEVblog #302 Electronics Beginner Adviceid: Oze1XtZgLZU, title: EEVblog #10 Part 2 of 2 Fluke 87 V Multimeter Reviewid: wIduga_k6n8, title: EEVblog #299 Retro Phone Camera Teardownid: Tt96YQK8sjg, title: EEVblog #10 Part 1 of 2 How a rubber band cost millions of dollarsid: o44bhGN1A-c, title: EEVblog #293 Fluke Multimeter Birthday Cakeid: f4A89_gcqzE, title: EEVblog #2 Burden Voltage, HP Multimeter reviewid: _DXpb_iqg2w, title: EEVblog #292 Johnny B Goodeid: B-mhoM3kIwU, title: EEVblog #1 Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope Reviewid: KNXN7ILWpeM, title: EEVblog #289 1 VCR Teardown & Handifax Followupid: QmNP3MhVhKo, title: EEVblog #288 Transit Of Venus 2012id: Ce623rvSzPI, title: EEVblog #286 Orders Of Magnitudeid: KhGp8fZM42M, title: EEVblog #285 USB Lab Supply Part 1id: I6zIs3i7Bxc, title: EEVblog #98 Microsoft InstaLoad Battery Technology Patent Busting Timeid: QmiaYWH_va4, title: EEVblog #96 The TI LaunchPad MSP430 Development Boardid: 0pr0OivxQ-s, title: EEVblog #95 Linear Regulators, Closed Loops, Simulations, & Brand Shenanigansid: aiZONDctbyg, title: EEVblog #94 Near Death Multimeter Experienceid: geiKDto7BDU, title: EEVblog #93 PCB Autorouters Suckid: -ZLmFcDSZRc, title: EEVblog #92 Get your MIT Engineering Degree for FREEid: fLg2ZuyliBU, title: EEVblog #90 Linear and LDO regulators and Switch Mode Power Supply Tutorialid: -fyekNpW80A, title: EEVblog #88 There's More To Electronics Than Just Circuit Designid: YtXAUSJ4lJc, title: EEVblog #86 Buy a real Analog Oscilloscope PLEASE!id: sO1OZcVwZdw, title: EEVblog #85 High Voltage Oscilloscope Probe Designid: iptG5mNkBwc, title: EEVblog #84 High Energy Multimeter Destructionid: O4DC-54LZ7U, title: EEVblog #83 Do You Suck At Hardware Or Softwareid: aLpZTCFlpn0, title: EEVblog #80 Nokia E71 + Garmin Mobile XT = Embedded Hellid: 6k8Pa3peQX4, title: EEVblog #79 Peak Oil Crisis & Career Optionsid: 0HdbUCumGtk, title: EEVblog #77 Rigol DS1052E DS1102E Oscilloscope Hack Updateid: p_3jEtCZlE4, title: EEVblog #76 Publish And Be Damned!id: x0ke9ACwtKs, title: EEVblog #73 How to screw up your winning productid: qMIeic6xG4I, title: EEVblog #71 Happy Birthday to Us!id: E-Oy2jO0c7U, title: EEVblog #70 Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E Hack)id: 3GhcqQdFLHw, title: EEVblog #69 Sex Toys, Telescopes, Cable TV, UHF Modulation, Renewable Energy, & Silly Shower Tapsid: dn6T2SRwlyI, title: EEVblog #68 I should be Selling Oscilloscopesid: sFZOjSOpudk, title: EEVblog #66 Death & Destruction of a Fluke Multimeterid: lW6Dl-uqva8, title: EEVblog #65 Umm, I Design Computersid: e1jZkaPKItQ, title: EEVblog #59 Back to the Future Flux Capacitor T Shirt Tantyid: PPHIeBzBEKA, title: EEVblog #58 Warm and Fuzzy FPGA Troubleshootingid: WbEQWOSwfFA, title: EEVblog #57 Agilent Thumbs Up Furoreid: 8dn6q1tTzX0, title: EEVblog #55 RCA Airnergy WiFi Hotspot Free Energy Harvesting Marketing BSid: gv3zgGd14LA, title: EEVblog #53 Mr Murphy and Microchip PIC Silicon Bugsid: UmJIZuPMYv4, title: EEVblog #52 Panasonic Plasma TV's Suck and a Teardown)id: n7HXpEmuhbU, title: EEVblog #51 A tour of the EEVblog Electronics Labid: dnjrnwto-u8, title: EEVblog #48 Solar Power Hopeid: 0MQ0xvWGdv4, title: EEVblog #47 Recruitment Consultants Suck, and Engineering Evilid: cMSzaU3ZHRc, title: EEVblog #44 Part 1 Logic Analyzer Tutorialid: A23lmRsgT14, title: EEVblog #44 Part 2 Logic Analyzer Tutorialid: 0HXaaoIVbFY, title: EEVblog #43 Fluke 233 Multimeter Reviewid: UiBnctwfIMk, title: EEVblog #42 Exploding Capacitors in High Speedid: 8VADP2ZR4p4, title: EEVblog #41 Pigs fly at Microchip in HDid: gwaPW5OarXs, title: EEVblog #40 Dilbert and the world of micro managed Engineeringid: 2myl8eT1OG0, title: EEVblog #39 Microchip PICkit 3 Programmer Debugger Reviewid: EKXoGOTecq4, title: EEVblog #38 2of2 Seismic Survey Boats & Relay Matrix Insulation Resistance Measurementid: s-PCXBLHs78, title: EEVblog #38 LCR Meters, Transmission Lines, and Moving goal postsid: ENswVO43ZPU, title: EEVblog #36 It's Hardware Puzzle Time!id: EvbF_eaenZs, title: EEVblog #35 2of2 NiMH and NiCd Battery Charging Tutorialid: ghlKtqLWWcI, title: EEVblog #35 Inside the Varta 15 minute NiMH Battery Chargerid: BUzPqQzTLMc, title: EEVblog #34 Girls, Brad Pitt, and Sweden vs the United Kingdomid: qkauWlea7Fg, title: EEVblog #33 2of2 Capacitor Tutorial Ceramics and impedance)id: uYCNN1KsA5s, title: EEVblog #33 1of2 Capacitor Tutorial Electrolytic, Tantalum, & Plastic Film)id: mcSsD97hqew, title: EEVblog #32 Tandy 1000 Retro Computer time!id: hcVeP3Dp_qs, title: EEVblog #31 Microcontroller Datasheet Utopiaid: up4wrx9nxN0, title: EEVblog #30 Jaycar Bench Lab Power Supply Reviewid: TixDAot_VK8, title: EEVblog #9 Maxim Dallas ThermoChron iButtonid: 93-IQgm3mrY, title: EEVblog #8 Part 2 of 2 Review of the BK Precision 1697 Programmable Lab Power Supplyid: vXld18GPN8w, title: EEVblog #8 Part 1 of 2 Graphical LCD Displays & PIC Micro Demo Boardsid: Bf1JlnWcvwo, title: EEVblog #7 Electronics Engineering Job Interview tips galoreid: gZDdyf6Z9rU, title: EEVblog #6 Part 2 of 2 Why cheap multimeters suckid: aLf-hSEn6RM, title: EEVblog #6 Part 1 of 2 Meterman 37XR Multimeter reviewid: QLqKLMXW6II, title: EEVblog #5 Maxim product marketing, Function Generator Reviewid: wImXvUebwaY, title: EEVblog #4 Calculator Design, Mr Bean, & FPGA'sid: lh0uL40Pjao, title: EEVblog #3 Static Myths, PIC Micro, Pocket Multimeter

author: PedroDaGr8
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 05:30:36 am
content: Well done frank. Hopefully, Dave see's this. It would be childs play to take that data, covert the ID's intoCode:www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxxxxxxxxxxurl's, where the x's are the ID, (youtube requires the links in this format) and send the email. Much easier than those damn forms. Thank's for your work.LOL: had to put that url in code blocks because otherwise the forum thinks I'm trying to link to an actual video.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 06:35:07 am
content: Wow - some of you guys can argue about anything.It's totally legit to buy a saleae clone. It's stealing to use the saleae software with it. It's right in the end-user agreement.QuoteBut comparing that to people stealing Dave's videos is crazy.BTW Dave, I'd look into getting your videos into the copyright infringement ID program on youtube - just like the TV/Movie/record labels do. No clue how to do that - or even if they do that for a small guy like yourself.Looks like if you start on this page, there is a link to sign up:https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/content-verification-program.htmlHope that helps.gg

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 07:00:18 am
content: Quote from: george graves on August 24, 2013, 06:35:07 amSo few people rip off my videos, I'd actually feel a bit bad clogging up the content ID verification system with every one my new videos.

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 07:01:53 am
content: Feeling bad after the ignorant canned reply of Google on your reports?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 07:14:27 am
content: Quote from: jancumps on August 24, 2013, 07:01:53 amNo, why?That's how they work, everything is automated.They are taking down videos via the copyright complaint form just fine.

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 07:18:22 am
content: What I was trying to comment on is that you feel bad about clogging their verification system. If I'd get a reply from them that they don't see any problems with the bogus channel, I would not be that worried about clogging their verification system.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 07:22:27 am
content: Quote from: jancumps on August 24, 2013, 07:18:22 amWell, you see, I'm a content producer. That means every time I upload a video it has to get checked against all these other videos in the ID content system. That takes time, and will only get longer and longer the more people add content to that system.Imagine ifeveryyoutuber put their tinpot cat video on the content ID system...

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 07:28:49 am
content: Hehe, I just did that this morning. As a result of this thread, and the advise that was given here, I wanted to see how that ID system works. So I checked that box. The only thing that happened was that Google wanted to check my account with my mobile phone number - and that the content verification id on my channel is now green.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 07:35:59 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 24, 2013, 07:22:27 amI think it's only for content producers/partners. Youtube has some crazy algorithm to do it. No cats involved.What would really suck is if he turned on content protection for his channel, and that in turn deleted all your videos. That's what would suck.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 08:16:02 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 24, 2013, 07:22:27 amI guess they do some clever fingerprinting on it before searching. The duplicate function you found might even work already for all of their videos. And they don't need much time to scan all 50e9 webpages when I search something at google.com

author: kizzap
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 10:05:56 am
content: strange question, but what happens if this other person tries to (and gets) content protection on the content that they upload?I foresee nightmares ahead...-kizzap

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 10:10:28 am
content: I would expect youtube to honour the person who first uploaded the video.It would only get tricky if someone got hold of your content before you uploaded it yourself.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 12:13:07 pm
content: Quote from: kizzap on August 24, 2013, 10:05:56 amRead above.Quote from: Psi on August 24, 2013, 10:10:28 amI would hope so too. But youtube doesn't care about Dave. He's a fraction of a dot of their revenue stream.

author: PuterGeek
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 12:43:01 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 24, 2013, 07:22:27 amGiven Google is involved and their expertise with 'big data' I doubt there is much slow down.My guess is they generate some type of 'fingerprint' when a video is uploaded with enough information to allow grading similarities. The fingerprint can be generated on the fly as the file is received with very little overhead. Then a query of the fingerprint database kicks out any 'duplicates'.Even with billions of videos the match time is trivial. As an example, Googling 'EEVblog' produces 735,000 results in 0.29 seconds. Searching for those 7 bytes against all the data Google crawls thru (Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook alone store at least 1,200 petabytes) makes such a fingerprint search insignificant.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 01:01:58 pm
content: Just spotted 3 of my vids re-uploaded - the copyright form has an "add another video" box to report multiple vids on one form

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 01:07:20 pm
content: Seems he is going at it in alphabetical order.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 01:34:49 pm
content: What if someone would make a little script that finds the video posted from that clackley dude and posts a comment. 'This video is a ripoff ! The real video is here :<real url>'If every eevblogger runs that script then all these videos will have thousands of comments stating they are a ripoff ....That would blast clakley to shreds very quickly, no ?And what that sallae had to do in this thread i have no clue. I've seen many topics about sally clones and most of them contain at least one post that says : get the real one. The clones are inferior and it ain't nice toward the salae developers biling them out of their reward for their development.As for the legality of all that stuff, that's a different can of worms. Copying video or music or software is copyright infringement. Copying hardware... Well .. Schematics are not protected. Pcb and ic layouts ARE protected ! A technique can be protected by patent.You can perfectly clone the sally hardware .. Just can't use it with their software.... The software has an eula that explicitly states that. End of story. It is up to every individual to decide if he will abide by the eula or not. Hardware can be ripped apart and discussed. Perfectly legal.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 03:40:31 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on August 24, 2013, 01:34:49 pmThe few I checked had the comments turned off.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 04:11:47 pm
content: The channel that had copies of 3 of my vids (amongst what I assume were copies of others)has now been terminated

author: JuKu
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 07:56:48 pm
content: Quote from: ve7xen on August 23, 2013, 08:20:32 amWebster:...2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>3: capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>IP is by definition very tangible. It is also very stealable and the losses sometimes identifiable to a cent.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 08:06:47 pm
content: It is the "intellectual" part of IP that is the issue.To be considered property in a normal, rational sense, there should be some work product involved; an expenditure of time, labor and effort to produce something substantive.It is not acceptable to most that a mere idea, a mere product of ones mind, can be property or have value. This is where patents are frequently objectionable. In many cases, an invention is merely a routine application of the known laws of physics to a particular purpose. Any one of hundreds or thousands of people could successfully apply the same laws of physics to the same ends. Why should the first person to file a claim with the government be granted a legal monopoly over that application? In most areas of commerce monopolies are objectionable. Why not with patents? Learning and education is in the public domain and should remain so.

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 08:47:09 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on August 24, 2013, 01:34:49 pm(Emphasis added.)Metallization masks for ICs *are* protected IP, there is a separate clause for them in copyright law (at least there are in some countries, not sure if it is global).PCB designs are *not* protected, as there frequently are just one way of making an 'optimal' design for a given function (RF in particular). So if copyright applied to PCB layouts, you could design, say, a push-pull RF power amplifier, for which there exist just about a single, standard layout. Suddenly you'd have a monopoly on making P-P power RF amplifiers. Monopolies on technical configurations are covered by patents, not copyright, and are much stricter when it comes to the duration of the protection provided.Technically a PCB count as a component, or a 'technical configuration', which is physically frequently the case. Curiously, any text on a given layout *is* protected, just to make the confusion complete.But the actual pattern for the copper traces and the various layers are not copyrightable. Any special, clever hacks needs to be patented if you want IP protection of them.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 11:00:30 pm
content: Regarding the original Youtube issue - I think where someone is ripping off vids from multiple sources, the trick would be to send messages to the owners of the other vids to make them aware, so YT receive infringement complaints from multiple sources.if you look at the message on the channel mine were on :Quote

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 11:12:40 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on August 24, 2013, 01:34:49 pmI think this would backfire. You'd hugely increase the popularity score of these videos and they'd be much more likely to bubble up in search results, making these jerks more profitable. The best course just seems to be complain to Google.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2013, 03:24:59 pm
content: QuoteNow they know who you are, Dave. RUN!

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2013, 04:14:54 pm
content: Quote from: ElectroIrradiator on August 24, 2013, 08:47:09 pmIn the UK, PCB layouts are copyright.I'm sure I could come up with dozens of RF amplifier layouts that gave the same performance.

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2013, 09:58:03 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on August 28, 2013, 04:14:54 pmNot unless this changed quite recently, like since I last talked to my brother-in-law. I used to work for one of the very -exceptionally- large third party manufacturers of pattern parts for cars and trucks. The company still exist, now under Very Big German owners which you've heard of. They make mostly electromechanical replacement parts and assemblies for, well, every car and truck brand I can think of. To make stuff fit in car engines and other tight spaces, you mostly need the parts to fit an exact spot, and have a very particular functionality. This means as near as possible to making a component level clone/copy, complete with the exact shape and circuit layout of the PCBs, connectors located in exactly the same spot as the originals etc.GM, Ford, Mercedes, BMW and all the rest couldn't stop us, which is the reason why the large manufacturers are so keen on shoehorning MCUs with complex firmware onto every major assembly in a car, and not just the engine. This makes it much harder to clone the part (including PCBs), giving the OEMs a virtual monopoly on spare parts (which are now ridiculously expensive). Any Audi owners with bad gearboxes here, by any chance?My brother-in-law still works there, so I have a suspicion I would have heard about it, if things have changed.Quote from: KJDS on August 28, 2013, 04:14:54 pmI challenge you to do so, and will check back with you to hear about your progress on this project.My reference was for the symmetric PCB layout for SW amplifiers (3-30 MHz), popularized in the seventies by Helge Granberg of Motorola Semiconductors fame. This is the design with a physical layout consisting of a 'split' pair of PCBs ,with the active RF devices frequently located in a groove in the middle between the PCBs. Different sized broadband ferrite transformers located at each end, balanced DC choke in between the collectors.I'm not sure if Mr. Granberg invented this layout, or if he just popularized it through his work at Motorola. However, I am looking forward to hearing about your alternative design suggestion, as I haven't seen anybody else come up with a better, or even remotely as effective, layout as this one since then. Absolutely everybody builds their balanced, broadband RF amp modules like this.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 29, 2013, 12:45:17 am
content: Quote from: Stonent on August 28, 2013, 03:24:59 pmSo it seems the only way to shut down a channel is to get multiple complainants.Youtube partner Australia gave me a canned reply saying I had to individually lodge complaints for each video, even though I went to lengths to explain to them that wasn't practical.So much for giving a toss about their Partners.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 29, 2013, 12:52:21 am
content: Lesson for future infringers: create a new account for every user you copy videos from. That way you can't get legitimate complaints from multiple users.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 30, 2013, 06:14:10 am
content: Looks like another one:https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Eun+Hurston+eevblog&oq=Eun+Hurston+eevblog10 videos so far

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 30, 2013, 06:33:46 am
content: *snort*

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 30, 2013, 06:59:36 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 30, 2013, 06:14:10 amHow do you find them? When I search for "eevblog", I can't filter fir videos which are not from your channel. But a script can dohttp://pastebin.com/Q4Wm9B0tInteresting result, not that much:Code:id: 3YUvlrVlNao, author: MicrochipTechnology, title: Microchip Response to PICkit 3 Review from EEVblog #39id: 9zp7Atx6zz8, author: Trio Tech, title: EEVblog #318 Makerbot Replicator 3D Printer Unboxing & Reviewid: wePQltAe3_4, author: tektronix, title: Tektronix Oscilloscope Probe Shock - by EEVblogid: nUTfSZ-sV9M, author: Thijs Sillen, title: EEVblog dummy load 90W 30V 3A - update 1id: bHIU05ETIYM, author: Thijs Sillen, title: EEVblog dummy load 90W 30V 3A - update 2id: yP-34hXSH6M, author: Eun Hurston, title: Open Source Hardware Explained EEVblog #195id: qJwHVXU5KR8, author: Eun Hurston, title: CleverScope USB Oscilloscope EEVblog #207 2 of 3)Looks all good, except "Eun Hurston" and maybe another one without your permission, "Trio Tech".

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 30, 2013, 07:07:03 am
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 30, 2013, 06:59:36 amViewers email me.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2013, 12:52:44 pm
content: That user got suspended pretty quick

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2013, 02:47:59 pm
content: Quote from: ElectroIrradiator on August 28, 2013, 09:58:03 pmIt's the specifics, not the generalities that are the subject to copyright. An exact copy is illegal. Enforcing it is a non-trivial task that many companies don't bother with.As for RF amps, you pay me my usual charge rate and I'll design a dozen that will work. Sure, the topology may be similar for a few, but the layouts would be different. The key on the P-P amp you refer to is not the layout but the baluns.

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2013, 06:20:50 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on August 30, 2013, 02:47:59 pmExcellent, I love specifics.What are the exact technical details behind IP protection of PCB layouts in the UK then? For instance is the footprint for a single SO-8 protected?I have been through this debate many times before. It seems very hard to imagine any copyright boundaries for PCB layouts, where you don't end up in either a ridiculous situation (someone having a global copyright on using SO-8 packages on PCBs within the UK), or the IP protection is trivial to circumvent, making any protection completely pointless to start with. "Add two isolated copper patches in an empty corner to nullify copyright".Make no mistake about my motivations here. There are many situations, where I personally feel it isn't the morally 'done' thing to copy either a schematic or a PCB layout for profit. Many products from small companies comes to mind here. Yet I have also experienced the opposite side of the coin, where a community manages to convince itself that schematics and/or PCB layouts are covered by personal or corporate copyrights.In the latter case the result is invariably, that vocal yet perhaps inexperienced members of the community claims copyright on trivial contraptions, which have been well known in the industry for decades. As a result the community suffers through entrenchment, stagnation and a lack of innovation. It is no longer possible to extend or even work on decades old designs, unless you wish to incur the wrath of the community. At the very least you end up in situations, where you have to ask the local deities for permission to wire up a pair of 4000 series CMOS ICs and similar hilarities.For this reason I strongly believe in stomping hard on the myths surrounding copyright on schematics and PCB layouts, where-ever I meet them.Quote from: KJDS on August 30, 2013, 02:47:59 pmStop beating about the bush. I'm not asking for a complete or even workable design, just a quick sketch showing the basic principles of operation.Can you or can you not show us a quickly jotted down hand drawing of a crude PCB layout for a balanced, wideband 3-30MHz RF amplifier with a 'new' PCB layout?The schematic and PCB layout must be markedly different from Motorola's original PCB design mentioned previously, the rules for discerning between designs will be the ones I asked you about earlier in this post.

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2013, 06:28:22 pm
content: Quote from: ElectroIrradiator on August 30, 2013, 06:20:50 pmSo long as they are different enough to appear not copied then it's not covered under copyright. So a small change to the balun size and track spacing means it's a new design and not covered under copyright.An SO8 padstack, or similar, is no more copyrightable than the word "word." Put together a few paragraphs of words and you can't copy them.There's some reading here which covers the law on the matter.http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-artisticworks.htm

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2013, 07:22:48 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on August 30, 2013, 06:28:22 pmWhat you are linking, is the UK's version of the ratification of the 1886 Berne Convention on the protection of artwork. Which means you didn't read what I wrote earlier in the thread.*) Despite what many hobbyists would dearly like to believe, then PCB layouts are not considered protected artwork by the courts,anywhere.*) PCB layouts are considered parts ofmachinery, no different from a complex gearbox.*) If you want IP protection of a gearbox/PCB layout, then you need to obtain a time limited patent. Copyright does not apply, no matter how complex the design.*) If you couldn't copy or clone PCBs, then servicing out-of-service yet expensive machinery you own would be impossible in many cases, like fabricating a new RF amp PCB for a TV transmitter. That is the reason why PCBs are legally considered machinery, and not art.*) Many people attempt to squeeze circuit diagrams in under the protection of the Berne Convention, and at initial blush you do have some protection. However this protection is of the actual image or binary file you created yourself, not of what the image/diagram shows: The actual connections and component values for a particular circuit. If you want protection of the latter, then you will again need to apply for a patent.Please stop perpetuating these urban legends, or at the very least arm yourself with some better arguments than links to the Berne Convention.I also take it you were bluffing regarding alternatives to the classic, balanced RF amp PCB layout.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2013, 07:58:25 pm
content: In the UK you do have automatic rights to a design but if you want further protection you need to register your design, this is not a patent and so is cheaper to do so, but it does stop people copying your work without making any changes to it.http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-about/d-designright.htmhttp://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-other/d-usebuy.htmLike a patent it is only as good as your bank balance.

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2013, 05:06:07 pm
content: No, you don't, when it comes to PCB layouts. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.A PCB layout.Is.Not.Considered.Artistic.Design.Anywhere.Most sane countries have very similar provisions for the protection of art and artistic design. Those laws and regulations does not apply to PCB artwork,because if they did, in many cases they would amount to automatic patents.To put this differently: Assume for a second a PCB layout is considered a protected design. Now one day Ajax Semiconductor Corp Inc. puts a new RF chip to market, with spectacular new functionality. Joe Nobody in his basement quickly comes up with and published a tiny core PCB involving the new IC, complete with proper supply bypassing, controlled impedance lines and whatnot, suddenly enabling macroscopic teleportation. Presto, Joe Nobody now has a UK patent on implementing teleportation using the new chip, preventing the customers of Ajax Corp from actually using the chip without paying royalties to him. In fact Ajax Corp themselves have to pay royalties to Mr. Nobody.That simply cannot be the case, not even in the UK. So it follows that PCB layouts are not protected designs even in the UK.The UK is not special here, sorry.

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2013, 06:21:22 pm
content: Quote from: ElectroIrradiator on October 07, 2013, 05:06:07 pmYou seem to have no idea of the difference between patent, design right and copyright.

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2013, 06:48:36 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on October 07, 2013, 06:21:22 pmYou seem not to have read the whole thread.Insisting on design rights for a PCB layout would be tantamount to asking the world to accept a de facto, instant patent (of sorts) on a technical configuration, as there frequently exist unique, optimal design solutions for a given problem. Example provided earlier in the thread.Same thing when insisting on copyright as applied to PCB layouts. If they applied, you would de facto have a monopoly on making many technical configurations, this without having to go through the expense and paperwork of applying for and have granted a proper patent.The only way of getting a government sanctioned monopoly on a technical configuration, is through the well established patent system.The laws and legal precedents on these subjects have not changed for quite a while, nor do they differ noticeably between countries. PCB layouts are technical configurations. Not art. Not design. Not authored texts. Nor photographs or drawings.They aremachinery, legally speaking. If you want monopoly on making a particular gear, then apply for a patent.

author: walshms
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2013, 07:04:49 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 23, 2013, 05:04:16 amNot worth it, Dave, but I think you know that. Just let it die. It will.