@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 notice and
where to submit itSecondly, you tried joining
YouTubes ContentID program? 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.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
