226 of my videos copied

[EEVblog]

by this bastard:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Minna+Clakley+eevblog

[Jay_Diddy_B]

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

[EEVblog]

Why would he do that?  Do you get advertising dollars from the You tube videos?

Not from his uploads, no, he does.

[PeterG]

Seems this clown has uploaded all the videos in the last 24 hours.
Cant see any original content at all.

[Psi]

I know someone who works at Google if needed, but it should be pretty simple to get them removed through normal channels.

[JoeyP]

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.

[c4757p]

Speaking of non-sequiturs, purple!!!

[Psi]

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.

[JoeyP]

First rationalization:

The issue is more complex than that.

Sometimes the official product is $1k and the clone is $50.
A hobbiest often can't afford $1k so the sale of a clone doesn't take money from the official company.

The 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.

[Psi]

The Saleae product is $149. Anyone who genuinely needs it can certainly afford that price.

Yes, i wasn't thinking of the Saleae.  It's price is reasonable.

[EEVblog]

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.

Given the thread this in is. I can only assuming you are talking directly to me here?

[c4757p]

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.

[JoeyP]

Given the thread this in is. I can only assuming you are talking directly to me here?

Yes, and mean no disrespect, but you are in prime condition to appreciate the issue at this moment.

[JoeyP]

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.

I 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.

[c4757p]

I 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.

If Dave starts removing things he does not agree with I will leave, and I suspect a lot of other people will as well.

[ve7xen]

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?

Nobody is distributing their protected work by cloning the hardware. Reverse engineering is explicitly protected. 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.

[EEVblog]

Yes, and mean no disrespect, but you are in prime condition to appreciate the issue at this moment.

When 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 a better result than the moderators deleting every mention of these clones. Why? Because then it highlights the issue, promotes discussion, and people then might just understand and learn why it's wrong. If you attempt to just hide the issue, none of that happens.

[Corporate666]

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.

I 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.

Are 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.

[c4757p]

By the way, Joey, I agree with you and 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....

[EEVblog]

I've also seen comments from him which to me, appear to defend them.

List 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.

I suspect one is being constructed at this very moment.

My how foolish you look now. 

[JoeyP]

When have I never appreciated this issue?

I'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.

When have I ever promoted this clone?
Do you think it's wrong that I allow the clones to be discussed on this forum?

I 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.

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 a better result than the moderators deleting every mention of these clones. Why? Because then it highlights the issue, promotes discussion, and people then might just understand and learn why it's wrong. If you attempt to just hide the issue, none of that happens.

That'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.

[JoeyP]

By the way, Joey, I agree with you and 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....

By the way c4757p, I don't care.

[c4757p]

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.

Surely 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.

[Corporate666]

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.

Whenever 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 

[JoeyP]

Whenever 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 

I 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.

[all_repair]

@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.

[c4757p]

I 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

If 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 my ass off to buy new stuff. It's quite expensive. I'm sure I can shit out an idea or three in as much time...

[EEVblog]

I'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

Classic straw man bait'n'switch. I'm not buying into.

Just like the person who copied your videos is stealing by benefiting from your efforts against your will.

I paid for and own my Rigol. I stole nothing, I copied nothing. I broke no copyright laws. Comparing that to someone who copies my copyrighted videos is just crazy.

[/quote]
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]

Thanks, but my stuff has been copied as way back as the 1980's, nothing "new" about being "stung by it personally"

I 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.

And 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.

You personally could change that - if in no other way than to promote the idea that it's actually wrong.

There are 500+ posts on this forum a day. Expecting me to read and give a personal response on every issue is not practical.

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.

Why, so I attend to your personal 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.

[JoeyP]

If 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...

So 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.

If someone cleans out my lab, I will have to work my ass off to buy new stuff. It's quite expensive. I'm sure I can shit out an idea or three in as much time...

If you can shit out lucrative ideas so easily, then it should be nothing to make enough money from them to rebuild your lab.

[JoeyP]

Why, so I attend to your personal 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.

No. 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.

[bbarbour]

You can't fix stupid (or trolls).   

I think it's flattering that someone would copy you.  Must be doing something right!

[c4757p]

If 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...

So 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.

Patents? 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 and labeling 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....)

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.

The 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...

[JoeyP]

You can't fix stupid (or trolls).   

It's good you warned us about your next comment before you made it.

I think it's flattering that someone would copy you.  Must be doing something right!

(Wow)

[JoeyP]

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.

The 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...

Agreed. But it doesn't mean either is without value.

[EEVblog]

No. 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.

Oh 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.

[Corporate666]

Whenever 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 

I 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.

You 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.

[c4757p]

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.

The 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...

Agreed. But it doesn't mean either is without value.

You said they were both theft!

....screw it, I'm done.

[sorin]

Why discuss bullshit "Saleae clone" (the hardware) don't violate any law.
Please don't bla bla bla .....

[EEVblog]

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.

Anytime anyone criticises someone for something they didn't say, instantly loses, and has egg on their face.

[Corporate666]

If you can shit out lucrative ideas so easily, then it should be nothing to make enough money from them to rebuild your lab.

A 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".

[Psi]

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

[JoeyP]

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.

The 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...

Agreed. But it doesn't mean either is without value.

You said they were both theft!

....screw it, I'm done.

Maybe 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.

[JoeyP]

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

So 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.

[c4757p]

and that's were you are benefiting from Saleae's efforts without paying for them.

I 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 it does mean 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...

[JoeyP]

Whenever people go for the "it's stealing" argument, they automatically lose the debate.

You don't have to agree, it's established and codified in law that tangible theft is more serious than IP theft. 

Anything seem in-congruent about these two statements?

[c4757p]

Yes, a mildly careless use of words that does nothing to undermine the argument. Next!

[JoeyP]

I 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!

That'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.

[Corporate666]

Whenever people go for the "it's stealing" argument, they automatically lose the debate.

You don't have to agree, it's established and codified in law that tangible theft is more serious than IP theft. 

Anything seem in-congruent about these two statements?

Not 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".

[c4757p]

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 about support of IP violation, not definition of IP violation. Continue the discussion or end it.

[kizzap]

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 uploader is the guy in the video.

As to discussion as to copying hardware/software, I agree with whatever side thinks that it is wrong to 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

[StubbornGreek]

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.

[JoeyP]

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".

How 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

[Corporate666]

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".

How 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

You 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.

[ve7xen]

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 of ideas being 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 7 billion of 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

[JoeyP]

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.

For 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?

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.

Yes, back to the subject at hand. Quoting from my original post, this much was directed at Dave, but made no accusations toward him:

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?

This 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):

I'm sure this post will draw vitriol, and all kinds of rationalizations, but think about it next time you promote/justify a clone.

Yes, 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.

[Psi]

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.

So 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?

I 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.

Either way Saleae didn't get compensated for their efforts - but you benefited from them, and the clone vendor was rewarded for producing clones.

Again, you assume i have bought a cloned Saleae. I have not.

[EEVblog]

Yes, back to the subject at hand. Quoting from my original post, this much was directed at Dave, but made no accusations toward him:

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?

This 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):

HUH?
What you said was mostly certainly directed at me, you said it yourself when I asked you directly:

Given the thread this in is. I can only assuming you are talking directly to me here?

Yes, and mean no disrespect, but you are in prime condition to appreciate the issue at this moment.

[JoeyP]

See, this is why people are annoyed at your comments.  You keep making huge assumptions about what people mean.

So 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?

I 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.

Either way Saleae didn't get compensated for their efforts - but you benefited from them, and the clone vendor was rewarded for producing clones.

Again, you assume i have bought a cloned Saleae. I have not.

Sorry, 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.

[pickle9000]

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.

[JoeyP]

Yes, back to the subject at hand. Quoting from my original post, this much was directed at Dave, but made no accusations toward him:

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?

This 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):

HUH?
What you said was mostly certainly directed at me, you said it yourself when I asked you directly:

Given the thread this in is. I can only assuming you are talking directly to me here?

Yes, and mean no disrespect, but you are in prime condition to appreciate the issue at this moment.

Yes, 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.

[EEVblog]

So Dave, has anyone ever tried a stunt like this before?

Yeah, 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?

[EEVblog]

Yes, the first part definitely was. I thought the mention of the vitriol it would draw (which I expected from others, not from you)

When you start getting all silly and accusing me of this and that. I'll call you out every time.

[Psi]

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.

[JoeyP]

Yes, the first part definitely was. I thought the mention of the vitriol it would draw (which I expected from others, not from you)

When you start getting all silly and accusing me of this and that. I'll call you out every time.

I'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

[pickle9000]

So Dave, has anyone ever tried a stunt like this before?

Yeah, it happens about once a month, I have to report a copied video.
Never on this scale of hundreds before though.

Total 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.

[JuKu]

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'm sorry, but you have NO understanding how making money with IP works. None, whatsoever. Otherwise you would not written that.

[ve7xen]

I'm sorry, but you have NO understanding how making money with IP works. None, whatsoever. Otherwise you would not written that.

It 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?

[EEVblog]

Well, Youtube didn't do anything when I reported the channel for "impersonation" (the only option without individually flagging 226 videos one-by-one.

Action Taken
We’re unable to identify a violation of our Community Guidelines within your recent report to our Safety and Abuse Tool.

[Psi]

If they get to 3 strikes i think they're account gets locked/removed

So just submit reports on like 10 videos and that should hopefully take care of him.

[EEVblog]

Now up to 292 of my videos!

[Tooms]

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 

[Psi]

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#@!$ sometimes

You 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 prejudice 

There 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.

[Phroon]

Looks like the right way would be for Dave to do a copyright claim against them.

[Towger]

You 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 prejudice 

Have 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

[Psi]

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.

[tealsuki]

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.

[kizzap]

Have 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

Surely 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

[BravoV]

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.

+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 let the mob us  take care of it.

[jancumps]

Seems the EEVBlog copies are removed. The channel is not shut down though.

[PA0PBZ]

Seems the EEVBlog copies are removed. The channel is not shut down though.

Really? I get 318 hits clicking the link on the first page.

( https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Minna+Clakley+eevblog )

[jancumps]

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.

[FrankBuss]

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.

According 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.

[EEVblog]

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...

[Mr Smiley]

What if 388 of us did it for you 

Also, 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 

 

[Psi]

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".

[PuterGeek]

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.

[FrankBuss]

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_Videos

Complains:

https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol_complaints

And the Python library looks really easy to use:

https://developers.google.com/gdata/articles/python_client_lib

Maybe 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 substring Dave, I could try it, if you like.

[bbarbour]

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 --

[EEVblog]

Going through 300 vids and clicking 4 times doesn't sound to hard.

It'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

[EEVblog]

I'm not sure if you tried this already, but have you reported the user for Impersonation?

Yes, they turned down my complaint.

[Psi]

Reporting 3 videos should have triggered the account lock.

Maybe 3 reports close together only count as one infringement?

YouTube removes content when we receive complete and valid removal requests. When content is removed, a strike is applied to the uploader's account.

If you receive three copyright strikes, your account will be suspended and all the videos uploaded to your account will be removed. Users with suspended accounts are prohibited from creating new accounts.

[Psi]

Going through 300 vids and clicking 4 times doesn't sound to hard.

It'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

Maybe 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.

[kizzap]

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

[pickle9000]

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

[Stonent]

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

[EEVblog]

Maybe 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.

No, that just takes you to the individual video complain form.

[EEVblog]

Dave, I'd suggest maybe using twitter?

Youtube never interact on their twitter account, it's push only.

[EEVblog]

A complaint has been sent the Australian Partner support address, lets see if they do anything.

[Stonent]

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...

[EEVblog]

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...

They 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.

[Stonent]

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...

They 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.

I 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.

[PedroDaGr8]

@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 it

Secondly, 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.

[PedroDaGr8]

I 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.

Sometimes (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).

[FrankBuss]

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/7bZZumXz

More 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_lib

Then 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.

[PedroDaGr8]

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/7bZZumXz

More 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_lib

Then 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.

Just 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.

[FrankBuss]

Just 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.

You 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: [Select]

id: E2MLpteADgg, title: EEVblog #273   Power Factor Correction with the MC34262
id: Jdpy707iGGc, title: EEVblog #258   PSU Housing Design   Part 11
id: XOzdth94nmw, title: EEVblog #252   Multimeter Ohms Overload
id: _L0Gg5SnVxQ, title: EEVblog #251   Mailbag
id: 7bMcMti-FUY, title: EEVblog #250   Anti Static Mat Myth
id: dx3uZqw7z30, title: EEVblog #246   Makerbot Thing O Matic Time Lapse Build
id: O5-Wzr0t1PI, title: EEVblog #241   Circuit Labs PCBs from New Zealand
id: W_IDXCRtFp8, title: EEVblog #236   FE 5680A Rubidium Standard Teardown
id: jfYnRBuD_P0, title: EEVblog #234   Agilent U1733C LCR Meter Teardown
id: T5FRyTr1iV8, title: EEVblog #231   2011
id: QYLzEY-eDCw, title: EEVblog #223   Agilent Oscilloscope High Res Mode
id: Z1LdYeGYFlE, title: EEVblog #214   Commander Phone System Teardown
id: xVBSV-hhZL0, title: EEVblog #213   New EEVblog Lab Tour
id: V9BBf7D1U3U, title: EEVblog #192   Agilent Oscilloscope LOST Easter Egg
id: q1QeC8B3dhI, title: EEVblog #191   Mouse Trap Triggering
id: NnMubHLjZ78, title: EEVblog #185   Fluke 87V Multimeter GSM Fix!
id: 1gcJt8OKwqQ, title: EEVblog Announcement   T Shirts
id: Ef8ewYwfINM, title: EEVblog T Shirts
id: hlA_QkijH8w, title: EEVblog US Election 2012
id: kKII-VBL86A, title: EEVblog µRuler Crowd Funding
id: Kxc9tamEToU, title: EEVblog #508   Can You Test Battery Charge By Dropping It
id: VeM1MhARqfo, title: EEVblog #182   Rode Videomic Shotgun Microphone Hack
id: RUSzK4Gwc_g, title: EEVblog #493   DIY Video Camera Dolly For Workbenches
id: l3RRIUxSGns, title: EEVblog #486   Does Current Flow Through A Capacitor
id: ju0CCLmrLuY, title: EEVblog #181   Dead Bug Prototype Soldering
id: I1YXiI0iTlw, title: EEVblog #467   Walktime Rant   Crowd Funding Projects
id: du7WFFga0Ag, title: EEVblog #173   Gossen Metrahit Energy Multimeter Teardown
id: e_IVH7DS8bc, title: EEVblog #178   Agilent's U1272A Response
id: wR4sbKwDyr4, title: EEVblog #177   Baby Scale Calibration
id: vfCzVtD6KHU, title: EEVblog #175   Project Sagan
id: Cg5ZoPERvOw, title: EEVblog #466   Dumpster Dive Night Raid
id: yOPxP08JteY, title: EEVblog #463   More Dumpster Diving
id: mAkEF0b7CCo, title: EEVblog #172   DIY Acoustic Sound Panels
id: r7cmN1-v8f4, title: EEVblog #457   Oscillator Calibration Followup
id: 16-iMbp3Rog, title: EEVblog #459   Counter Shenanigans
id: uKk3JmVc7I4, title: EEVblog #169   Samson StudioDock 4i USB Monitor Speaker Review
id: WR_tOkETaiY, title: EEVblog #447   Samsung Plasma Followup
id: 7z0mUNpgT9s, title: EEVblog #448   New PICkit 4 & AVR Dragon
id: hFSlV703lKQ, title: EEVblog #170   Agilent U1272A Multimeter FAIL
id: iJU-ZXKHE9E, title: EEVblog #450   Ebay Unboxing
id: YDD2zQevxI4, title: EEVblog #445   Fluke Contest Draw
id: 52q64wPIUgM, title: EEVblog #166   HP Agilent E3610A Lab Power Supply
id: YZaMXbxI6Bk, title: EEVblog #163   Solder Paste Porn
id: XnLF679W7lU, title: EEVblog #442   Analog Vs Digital Oscilloscope Noise
id: M_I2_vOHZQg, title: EEVblog #162   Oscilloscope Probe Shock
id: dKBZgCCSB0Y, title: EEVblog #161   555 April Fools Revealed
id: Vf6bJda6awU, title: EEVblog #433   Mailbag
id: VwvRgXT9EH8, title: EEVblog #156   HTC Desire Mobile Phone FAIL
id: DYTqRIsU1M4, title: EEVblog #152   Jurassic Spider
id: W-Pv3gcl6gw, title: EEVblog #153   YouScope Demo on a Digital Scope
id: t-aq50nfxZs, title: EEVblog #429   TurtleBot & CineMoco
id: DJhKqoHfeeY, title: EEVblog #147   Agilent 3000 $12000 Smoke
id: X4YP_-GJ4zs, title: EEVblog #146   Digikey Postage FAIL
id: IaHQeqxULVo, title: EEVblog #427   HP 3478A Multimeter Teardown
id: kTCDyvyU86g, title: EEVblog #145   Agilent LAN VGA Module Teardown
id: eLjYh5ugUQc, title: EEVblog #423   HP5061A Atomic Clock Cesium Beam Frequency Standard
id: L55agqrqbDQ, title: EEVblog #138   Top 5 Tips for Graduate Engineers
id: g1OYsII_dvQ, title: EEVblog #136   Building an Electronics Storage Cupboard
id: MeNi1jmUJFk, title: EEVblog #135   Kindle Case Mythbusting
id: aaHvEvruD1c, title: EEVblog #422   How To Calibrate A Calibrator
id: nLgaDjl_tk8, title: EEVblog #420   What Is Calibration
id: iHL1RsFs8x0, title: EEVblog #405   Lecroy 9384C Oscilloscope Repair   Part 3
id: fAxWjRIEXNw, title: EEVblog #134   The Maxim Manipulation
id: Jgt-yjDHz9c, title: EEVblog #403   IR Thermometer Calibration Testing
id: bC08887dq4o, title: EEVblog #404   Korad PSU Followup
id: E2lYx0RKsQs, title: EEVblog #132   Delusional Dyson Marketing
id: iuj6wkn3Q1g, title: EEVblog #129   US Airline TSA Security & Australia Post $9 fee
id: SQcpxs-E7nQ, title: EEVblog #389   Casio Calculator Investigation
id: CQbbGuC1TIE, title: EEVblog #128   UEI Multimeter Contest Draw
id: FnokRTAVCMw, title: EEVblog #388   Fake Apple USB Charger Teardown
id: Z6ICAvx-01c, title: EEVblog #126   The Free Sample Fallacy
id: Z0IP8P-YiNc, title: EEVblog #124   A Tour of Apex Electronics
id: e_GrJmocfMw, title: EEVblog #123   Top 5 Tips for Semiconductor Manufacturers
id: AIIfRF9OmUU, title: EEVblog #387   Oscilloscope Trigger Jitter
id: v2aKf4x_qQA, title: EEVblog #374   DIY Multimeter Calibration
id: jq5kRco5WAs, title: EEVblog #122   Renesas RX Design Contest Announcement
id: w2dZW7f2qHw, title: EEVblog #121   gEDA Interview with DJ Delorie
id: jkUMT6qlJnI, title: EEVblog #366   USB PSU Troubleshooting
id: TnCsujkww4w, title: EEVblog #120   Renesas Devcon Day 4
id: jnKg15OPlYM, title: EEVblog #365   ESR Meter Bad Cap Monitor Repair
id: Kdw9roMbZBs, title: EEVblog #117   Renesas Devcon 2010 Day 1
id: yKFtGm1mLac, title: EEVblog #357   USB Supply Power up Testing
id: SnmpnF67-Q0, title: EEVblog #351   Silicon Chip Magazine   Electronex 2012
id: 8llneXv3C-Q, title: EEVblog #112   GSM vs The Fluke 87V Multimeter
id: w4U2d-4jQF4, title: EEVblog #350   Sagan Tours Electronex 2012
id: 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 Scenes
id: L5ZLeNW4LqU, title: EEVblog #103   World's Largest Laser Hologram with Dr Phil
id: 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 Soldering
id: Mj6CUtMapnc, title: EEVblog #26   Multimeter Tutorial   Counts, Accuracy, Resolution & Calibration
id: OrWpfztSXzw, title: EEVblog #345   Electronics Dumpster Diving
id: wahDJVYAML4, title: EEVblog #25   The Infinite Resistor Puzzle
id: S9fkh5IWiLg, title: EEVblog #24   The secret world of Chopper Amplifiers
id: qyeG3r4_5yw, title: EEVblog #338   DIY Electric Bike
id: y7EihcYDXFA, title: EEVblog #23   GSM mobile phone audio design
id: xbggbokPZs4, title: EEVblog #22   On Blogs and Video Blogging
id: V_iTU56SRDg, title: EEVblog #335   Carbon Printed Resistors
id: yWx4uRZqrA4, title: EEVblog #21   The Unusual Oscilloscope Phenomenon   Part 3
id: ofMGXlt0TKg, title: EEVblog #333   Unwritten Rules of OSHW
id: ZBpAu2hn2fo, title: EEVblog #20   The Unusual Oscilloscope Phenomenon Part 2
id: 5eoqvEc1E2s, title: EEVblog #332   Mantis Elite Microscope Scratch'n'Sniff
id: hgCaCiaIFx0, title: EEVblog #19   Rigol caught with their pants down!
id: zm_qHEProLM, title: EEVblog #18   The Garmin Yellow Etrex GPS
id: wsLFv4Gh8yA, title: EEVblog #329   Tracking Pre Regulator LTspice Simulation Part 2
id: gjmMljwBpWQ, title: EEVblog #328   Curiosity Mars Rover Landing
id: 9LoaSy7lQMs, title: EEVblog #17   I hope your next project DOESN'T work!
id: oUu-EaDIrDo, title: EEVblog #325   Rigol DG4162 Voice
id: 2Hb6x5NyYu4, title: EEVblog #16   CMOS SCR Latchup Tutorial
id: nHXguV2H1Zc, title: EEVblog #319   Lead Free PCB Tinning
id: kT86QEpZkHc, title: EEVblog #15 Part 2 of 2   Fluke 189 289 multimeter review
id: 5c8athwh0YM, title: EEVblog #317   PCB Tinning Myth Busting
id: RBD1H3fJEgs, title: EEVblog #15 Part 1 of 2   Fluke 189 289 multimeter review
id: E8aQtVJYr0I, title: EEVblog #312   Photocopier Teardown Follow up
id: EPcRMoGyyRc, title: EEVblog #14   An unusual oscilloscope phenomenon!
id: a1OLgemiLKk, title: EEVblog #310   Cheap Siglent and Agilent scopes
id: y3pU3mQgj7M, title: EEVblog #13 Part 2 of 2   Comparison of PC Based Oscilloscopes
id: NCCnM7gA6uU, title: EEVblog #13 Part 1 of 2   Digital storage Oscilloscope Tutorial
id: 0IIWE_FpTHs, title: EEVblog #308   Agilent 81160A Function Generator Teardown
id: 64ilE7krwbU, title: EEVblog #12 Part 2 of 2   Shanghai Special   Dodgy USB Hubs
id: AzZr05k66Dg, title: EEVblog #12 Part 1 of 2   Shanghai Special   PCB Assembly Factory Tour
id: mXew70x5k5k, title: EEVblog #306   Jim Williams Pulse Generator
id: jsNu5DTvEFs, title: EEVblog #11 Part 2 of 2   More on DIY product design
id: EMCFNzz8dEQ, title: EEVblog #11 Part 1 of 2   Talk about DIY product design
id: iCUQeTzbVGc, title: EEVblog #302   Electronics Beginner Advice
id: Oze1XtZgLZU, title: EEVblog #10 Part 2 of 2   Fluke 87 V Multimeter Review
id: wIduga_k6n8, title: EEVblog #299   Retro Phone Camera Teardown
id: Tt96YQK8sjg, title: EEVblog #10 Part 1 of 2   How a rubber band cost millions of dollars
id: o44bhGN1A-c, title: EEVblog #293   Fluke Multimeter Birthday Cake
id: f4A89_gcqzE, title: EEVblog #2   Burden Voltage, HP Multimeter review
id: _DXpb_iqg2w, title: EEVblog #292   Johnny B  Goode
id: B-mhoM3kIwU, title: EEVblog #1   Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope Review
id: KNXN7ILWpeM, title: EEVblog #289 1   VCR Teardown & Handifax Followup
id: QmNP3MhVhKo, title: EEVblog #288   Transit Of Venus 2012
id: Ce623rvSzPI, title: EEVblog #286   Orders Of Magnitude
id: KhGp8fZM42M, title: EEVblog #285   USB Lab Supply   Part 1
id: I6zIs3i7Bxc, title: EEVblog #98   Microsoft InstaLoad Battery Technology   Patent Busting Time
id: QmiaYWH_va4, title: EEVblog #96   The TI LaunchPad MSP430 Development Board
id: 0pr0OivxQ-s, title: EEVblog #95   Linear Regulators, Closed Loops, Simulations, & Brand Shenanigans
id: aiZONDctbyg, title: EEVblog #94   Near Death Multimeter Experience
id: geiKDto7BDU, title: EEVblog #93   PCB Autorouters Suck
id: -ZLmFcDSZRc, title: EEVblog #92   Get your MIT Engineering Degree for FREE
id: fLg2ZuyliBU, title: EEVblog #90   Linear and LDO regulators and Switch Mode Power Supply Tutorial
id: -fyekNpW80A, title: EEVblog #88   There's More To Electronics Than Just Circuit Design
id: YtXAUSJ4lJc, title: EEVblog #86   Buy a real Analog Oscilloscope PLEASE!
id: sO1OZcVwZdw, title: EEVblog #85   High Voltage Oscilloscope Probe Design
id: iptG5mNkBwc, title: EEVblog #84   High Energy Multimeter Destruction
id: O4DC-54LZ7U, title: EEVblog #83   Do You Suck At Hardware Or Software
id: aLpZTCFlpn0, title: EEVblog #80   Nokia E71 + Garmin Mobile XT = Embedded Hell
id: 6k8Pa3peQX4, title: EEVblog #79   Peak Oil Crisis & Career Options
id: 0HdbUCumGtk, title: EEVblog #77   Rigol DS1052E DS1102E Oscilloscope Hack Update
id: p_3jEtCZlE4, title: EEVblog #76   Publish And Be Damned!
id: x0ke9ACwtKs, title: EEVblog #73   How to screw up your winning product
id: 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 Taps
id: dn6T2SRwlyI, title: EEVblog #68   I should be Selling Oscilloscopes
id: sFZOjSOpudk, title: EEVblog #66   Death & Destruction of a Fluke Multimeter
id: lW6Dl-uqva8, title: EEVblog #65   Umm, I Design Computers
id: e1jZkaPKItQ, title: EEVblog #59   Back to the Future Flux Capacitor T Shirt Tanty
id: PPHIeBzBEKA, title: EEVblog #58   Warm and Fuzzy FPGA Troubleshooting
id: WbEQWOSwfFA, title: EEVblog #57   Agilent Thumbs Up Furore
id: 8dn6q1tTzX0, title: EEVblog #55   RCA Airnergy WiFi Hotspot Free Energy Harvesting Marketing BS
id: gv3zgGd14LA, title: EEVblog #53   Mr Murphy and Microchip PIC Silicon Bugs
id: UmJIZuPMYv4, title: EEVblog #52   Panasonic Plasma TV's Suck and a Teardown)
id: n7HXpEmuhbU, title: EEVblog #51   A tour of the EEVblog Electronics Lab
id: dnjrnwto-u8, title: EEVblog #48   Solar Power Hope
id: 0MQ0xvWGdv4, title: EEVblog #47   Recruitment Consultants Suck, and Engineering Evil
id: cMSzaU3ZHRc, title: EEVblog #44 Part 1   Logic Analyzer Tutorial
id: A23lmRsgT14, title: EEVblog #44   Part 2   Logic Analyzer Tutorial
id: 0HXaaoIVbFY, title: EEVblog #43   Fluke 233 Multimeter Review
id: UiBnctwfIMk, title: EEVblog #42   Exploding Capacitors in High Speed
id: 8VADP2ZR4p4, title: EEVblog #41   Pigs fly at Microchip in HD
id: gwaPW5OarXs, title: EEVblog #40   Dilbert and the world of micro managed Engineering
id: 2myl8eT1OG0, title: EEVblog #39   Microchip PICkit 3 Programmer Debugger Review
id: EKXoGOTecq4, title: EEVblog #38 2of2   Seismic Survey Boats & Relay Matrix Insulation Resistance Measurement
id: s-PCXBLHs78, title: EEVblog #38   LCR Meters, Transmission Lines, and Moving goal posts
id: ENswVO43ZPU, title: EEVblog #36   It's Hardware Puzzle Time!
id: EvbF_eaenZs, title: EEVblog #35 2of2   NiMH and NiCd Battery Charging Tutorial
id: ghlKtqLWWcI, title: EEVblog #35   Inside the Varta 15 minute NiMH Battery Charger
id: BUzPqQzTLMc, title: EEVblog #34   Girls, Brad Pitt, and Sweden vs the United Kingdom
id: 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 Utopia
id: up4wrx9nxN0, title: EEVblog #30   Jaycar Bench Lab Power Supply Review
id: TixDAot_VK8, title: EEVblog #9   Maxim Dallas ThermoChron iButton
id: 93-IQgm3mrY, title: EEVblog #8 Part 2 of 2   Review of the BK Precision 1697 Programmable Lab Power Supply
id: vXld18GPN8w, title: EEVblog #8 Part 1 of 2   Graphical LCD Displays & PIC Micro Demo Boards
id: Bf1JlnWcvwo, title: EEVblog #7   Electronics Engineering Job Interview tips galore
id: gZDdyf6Z9rU, title: EEVblog #6   Part 2 of 2   Why cheap multimeters suck
id: aLf-hSEn6RM, title: EEVblog #6   Part 1 of 2   Meterman 37XR Multimeter review
id: QLqKLMXW6II, title: EEVblog #5   Maxim product marketing, Function Generator Review
id: wImXvUebwaY, title: EEVblog #4   Calculator Design, Mr Bean, & FPGA's
id: lh0uL40Pjao, title: EEVblog #3   Static Myths, PIC Micro, Pocket Multimeter


[PedroDaGr8]

Well done frank. Hopefully, Dave see's this. It would be childs play to take that data, covert the ID's into

Code: [Select]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxxxxxxxxxx url'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.

[george graves]

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.

The Saleae Software may not be operated in conjunction with logic analyzer devices which are not manufactured by Saleae LLC.

But 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.html

Hope that helps.

gg

[EEVblog]

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.

So 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.

[jancumps]

Feeling bad after the ignorant canned reply of Google on your reports?

[EEVblog]

Feeling bad after the ignorant canned reply of Google on your reports?

No, why?
That's how they work, everything is automated.
They are taking down videos via the copyright complaint form just fine.

[jancumps]

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.

[EEVblog]

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.

Well, 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 if every youtuber put their tinpot cat video on the content ID system...

[jancumps]

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.

[george graves]

Well, 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 if every youtuber put their tinpot cat video on the content ID system...

I 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.

[FrankBuss]

Well, 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 if every youtuber put their tinpot cat video on the content ID system...

I 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

[kizzap]

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

[Psi]

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.

[george graves]

, but what happens if this other person tries to

Read above.

I would expect youtube to honour the person who first uploaded the video.

I would hope so too.  But youtube doesn't care about Dave.  He's a fraction of a dot of their revenue stream.

[PuterGeek]

Imagine if every youtuber put their tinpot cat video on the content ID system...

Given 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.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Just spotted 3 of my vids re-uploaded - the copyright form has an "add another video" box to report multiple vids on one form

[SeanB]

Seems he is going at it in alphabetical order.

[free_electron]

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.

[PA0PBZ]

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>'

The few I checked had the comments turned off.

[mikeselectricstuff]

The channel that had copies of 3 of my vids (amongst what I assume were copies of others) has now been terminated

[JuKu]

It is simple fact, 'intellectual property' is not tangible by definition.

Webster:
...
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.

[IanB]

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.

[ElectroIrradiator]

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.

(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.

[mikeselectricstuff]

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 :

YouTube account ScienceAndLovers has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants

[ve7xen]

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>'

I 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.

[Stonent]

YouTube account Minna Clakley has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:
imcrazymonkeystudios
David L. Jones

Now they know who you are, Dave. RUN! 

[KJDS]

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.

(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.

In the UK, PCB layouts are copyright.

I'm sure I could come up with dozens of RF amplifier layouts that gave the same performance.

[ElectroIrradiator]

In the UK, PCB layouts are copyright.

Not 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.

I'm sure I could come up with dozens of RF amplifier layouts that gave the same performance.

I 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.

[EEVblog]

YouTube account Minna Clakley has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:
imcrazymonkeystudios
David L. Jones

So 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.

[alm]

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.

[EEVblog]

Looks like another one:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Eun+Hurston+eevblog&oq=Eun+Hurston+eevblog
10 videos so far

[george graves]

[EEVblog]

*snort*

[FrankBuss]

Looks like another one:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Eun+Hurston+eevblog&oq=Eun+Hurston+eevblog
10 videos so far

How 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 do 

http://pastebin.com/Q4Wm9B0t

Interesting result, not that much:

Code: [Select]

id: 3YUvlrVlNao, author: MicrochipTechnology, title: Microchip Response to PICkit 3 Review from EEVblog #39
id: 9zp7Atx6zz8, author: Trio Tech, title: EEVblog #318   Makerbot Replicator 3D Printer Unboxing & Review
id: wePQltAe3_4, author: tektronix, title: Tektronix Oscilloscope Probe Shock - by EEVblog
id: nUTfSZ-sV9M, author: Thijs Sillen, title: EEVblog dummy load 90W 30V 3A - update 1
id: bHIU05ETIYM, author: Thijs Sillen, title: EEVblog dummy load 90W 30V 3A - update 2
id: yP-34hXSH6M, author: Eun Hurston, title: Open Source Hardware Explained   EEVblog #195
id: 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".

[EEVblog]

How 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 do 

Viewers email me.

[Psi]

That user got suspended pretty quick

[KJDS]

In the UK, PCB layouts are copyright.

Not 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.

I'm sure I could come up with dozens of RF amplifier layouts that gave the same performance.

I 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.

It'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.

[ElectroIrradiator]

It'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.

Excellent, 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.

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.

Stop 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.

[KJDS]

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.

So 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

[ElectroIrradiator]

[There's some reading here which covers the law on the matter.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-artisticworks.htm

What 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 of machinery, 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.

[G7PSK]

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.htm

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-other/d-usebuy.htm

 Like a patent it is only as good as your bank balance.

[ElectroIrradiator]

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.

[KJDS]

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.

You seem to have no idea of the difference between patent, design right and copyright.

[ElectroIrradiator]

You seem to have no idea of the difference between patent, design right and copyright.

You 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 are machinery, legally speaking. If you want monopoly on making a particular gear, then apply for a patent.

[walshms]

No. 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.

Oh 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.

Not worth it, Dave, but I think you know that.  Just let it die.  It will.