[SOLVED] Ericsson slammed me with a Copyright Strike on a Teardown video, help!?

[SerieZ]

If you don't want to be subject to the arbitrary moderation rules and weird laws in foreign countries, host the content yourself. People cry wolf about censorship but the fact is that these platforms are not a charity, they are doing this for profit, first and foremost. And if there is going to be the slightest trouble, there are very very few channels YT would hesitate to throw under the bus and risk their existence/profit over it. People live in a delusion that having a million of subscribers means they are somehow important.

Considering how Youtube currently enjoys a quasi Monopoly on the "Viewers Market", (Alternatives such as Vimeo or Bitchute do not even get close to the views and outreach of Youtube)... IMHO a Company like Youtube (Google) cannot and should not benefit both from acting like a Public Forum - meaning no liability for what an Individuals uploads/expresses on their Platform AND a Private Publisher which can choose who it gives a platform/what to publish.
As far as I am aware US courts granted them both Powers due to the Nature of Internet, however in hindsight it may have been a bad Idea.

The cries of Censorship, how you call it, IMHO, are completely warranted considering the lack of other Platforms with even a closely similar outreach and I really do not believe a single Company (or other entity such as the State) should have that much Power over Public discourse. Especially as it holds that power not only in the US, but world wide.

To me, the response: "Publish yourself!" is just a lazy excuse and non-solution to this very real Problem of the monopoly on public discourse/outreach that youtube definetly has.

[Marco]

The big boys could always screw you by a simple injunction, and youtube was always going to fold while it was working its way through the court. Law is weighted against the little people and it's somewhere between impossibly hard and plain impossible to fix.

If I was in this kind of situation and I was feeling ornery I'd much more readily challenge this than an injunction. The DMCA process is a whole lot clearer.

[EEVblog]

Every forum should have in its Ts & Cs that the author grants the forum host to display the posts in perpetuity. After all, they were originally posted to become public.

+1 

This forum does.
For practical reason users are allowed to delete or edit their own posts though.

[vwestlife]

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

[bingo600]

Where did the OP (Mads) go ??
Did E get to him 

/Bingo

[TheDane]

Perhaps busy creating a 2'nd channel to avoid stuff like this in the future - this is popular amongst some YouTubers to have as a backup plan   

Ytringsfrihed gælder også teknisk indsigt

[madsbarnkob]

I wish there was more to tell of this story, than there currently is.

1) No reply from Ericsson lawyer, I am not sure if the person is on Winter vacation, as we do have that in Denmark in week 7 and its somewhere between week 7-10 in Sweden. I doubt that is the case though, there was time before week 7 to answer this, but who knows could be 1000+ unanswered emails in the inbox.

2) Contacting Youtube support about the issue of claimant not living up to the copyright claim minimum requirements in part 2A: "Detailed and specific description of infringement"

Resulted in 3 copy/paste replies from different support workers before the 3rd told me to contact copyright@youtube.com, still awaiting their reply and usually there has been 2 days between replies on the first emails.

I will keep you posted

[madsbarnkob]

The pen is mightier than the sword and I am happy that I went here for advise and slept a few times before just firing the email button, disputing and setting all kinds of things in movement.

The email sent to Ericsson's lawyer was the following:

Hello *****

I have received a blocked video notification, that has you as the claimant. Video: Ericsson RBS3202 1800MHz Radio Base Station teardown. I can not link you to it, as it is unavailable due to your takedown.
I am rather surprised by this claim and the reason for asking YouTube to remove my video. Your reason given: "This videoclip include detailed information of the product - Ericsson RBS3202 - which belong to an area where our company holds many IPR rights" is very vague and I am left with no idea of what IPR I should have violated?
I can only assume that this is all a mistake. That you as a *job title* with IPR experience, from previous work as well as, at Ericsson would not send out such a notice. Maybe you hired a "social media cleanup company"?
I am an electronics amateur and enthusiast. Just like your CEO, "engineer at heart", we are just some people that like to look at electronics.
I am looking forward to your reply and that we can get this misunderstanding sorted out and each continue to our own

--
Kind regards
Mads Barnkob

Today, 7 days later I saw on socialblade that my views had gone up by a few thousand, checked my email and sure enough, the copyright claim has been withdrawn.

Here is, in my own words, a resume of the email I received. Only a resume to not publish a private email.

Dear Mads,

Thank you for contacting Ericsson. The situation has been discussed internally and we have withdrawn the YouTube Take Down request. Apologies for the inconvenience this has caused you.

Kind regards,
********* **********

So all-in-all it was a hastened mistake by Ericsson and they realized this after a single email about the matter.

As Dave also mentioned in one of his posts or videos, that he oringally did not want to publish the videos about the copyright claims that was later on withdrawn, but what do you guys say? Should I make a video about the claim, lack of help from YouTube, IANAL advise from here and the happy ending?

It is hard to tell from the almost single line answer from Ericsson what they were trying to do in the first place. Was it just headless actions, trial and error on what can be done or malicious act to quench everything they do not control? 

All 5 videos are now public again, only 1 was taken down, I quickly set the remaining 4 to private to avoid 3 strikes in a row.

[Mr. Scram]

The right to be forgotten is widely misunderstood.

A lot of people think it gives them the right to demand deletion of all their forum posts. Like the right for a book author to demand that every library carrying his books burns them In the UK this was tested and AFAIK the current case law is that only false information about somebody can be demanded to be deleted. Google had to remove search results of a court case which was incorrectly reported and denigrated the defendant (as most are ).

Every forum should have in its Ts & Cs that the author grants the forum host to display the posts in perpetuity. After all, they were originally posted to become public.

Disagreed. You change, your opinions change and the world changes. Your posts remain the same. It's unreasonable to expect people to express themselves in ways that are still relevant and applicable 30 years from now. We've seen people crucified for things they said years ago in a rather different context. Before your statements tended to be very temporary bar a few exceptions and the internet has changed that into near permanence. Luckily the right to be forgotten is a bit broader than you suggest although to actually be forgotten is still neigh on impossible.

[peter-h]

Excellent news on the Ericsson saga.

They need to be careful re bad publicity in the current Huawei v. Ericsson v. Nokia decision climate

We will have to agree to disagree Mr Scram If you visit a forum (which, remember, is a site run by somebody else for "your" free enjoyment, and as I well know this is often not a pleasant job due to the activities of a small % of people) and you place something on there, you are publishing it, and you are publishing it for the whole world to see, for eternity. If you don't want to stand behind it, fair enough, but it is not the web server owner's problem to deal with. "You" could post it on your own website where you have total control...

Practically speaking this is why nobody should post anywhere on the internet under their full name. And avoid posting details of where you live, etc. If you have a sensitive job then be extra careful; there are evil and vindictive people out there. Posting under a good alias allows you to walk away from a piece of your life, without destroying a resource you once helped to create.

There are valid exceptions to the above. For example if you write something which later is embarrassing, or which is illegal. In these cases the admins should allow deletion (I always would on the site I run). One funny example was a guy wrote about some trip he did on which he met a girl and "had a good time". Then a month later he contacts me in a panic, saying his wife might see it. I just laughed and removed the offending passage. Other times, stuff has to be removed because some company threatens to sue. So one has to be somewhat careful what one writes if there is p1ssing off potential in it...

A total right to have one's postings deleted would destroy brilliant informative forums like eevblog.

[Mr. Scram]

Excellent news on the Ericsson saga.

They need to be careful re bad publicity in the current Huawei v. Ericsson v. Nokia decision climate

We will have to agree to disagree Mr Scram If you visit a forum (which, remember, is a site run by somebody else for "your" free enjoyment, and as I well know this is often not a pleasant job due to the activities of a small % of people) and you place something on there, you are publishing it, and you are publishing it for the whole world to see, for eternity. If you don't want to stand behind it, fair enough, but it is not the web server owner's problem to deal with. "You" could post it on your own website where you have total control...

Practically speaking this is why nobody should post anywhere on the internet under their full name. And avoid posting details of where you live, etc. If you have a sensitive job then be extra careful; there are evil and vindictive people out there. Posting under a good alias allows you to walk away from a piece of your life, without destroying a resource you once helped to create.

There are valid exceptions to the above. For example if you write something which later is embarrassing, or which is illegal. In these cases the admins should allow deletion (I always would on the site I run). One funny example was a guy wrote about some trip he did on which he met a girl and "had a good time". Then a month later he contacts me in a panic, saying his wife might see it. I just laughed and removed the offending passage. Other times, stuff has to be removed because some company threatens to sue. So one has to be somewhat careful what one writes if there is p1ssing off potential in it...

A total right to have one's postings deleted would destroy brilliant informative forums like eevblog.

The law in at least some places luckily seems to disagree at least partially. When you offer a platform for others you have certain responsibilities so it becomes the web server owner's problem to a certain extent. That's not unreasonable either as the website owner is the only person in a position to do anything about it. Aliases are a start but it would definitely be naive to overestimate the little protection those offer. Your behaviour isn't as well hidden as you think even if you take a fair few precautions. Most people don't have a clue to what extent your behaviour is mapped including the website owners mentioned.

[peter-h]

You have proved my point to some extent, by quoting my entire post, so if I wanted to edit/delete it, I can't

This demonstrates that a right to go back and change stuff is worthless if your post, or parts of it, have been quoted by others. And the admin can't be expected to clean up long threads according to one poster's whim.

[Mr. Scram]

You have proved my point to some extent, by quoting my entire post, so if I wanted to edit/delete it, I can't

This demonstrates that a right to go back and change stuff is worthless if your post, or parts of it, have been quoted by others. And the admin can't be expected to clean up long threads according to one poster's whim.

They actually legally can, at least wherever the GPDR is applicable. Technical hurdles aren't an excuse, although they do contribute to what's still considered reasonable. Though forum software generally doesn't do this currently it could and may very well retain info about what message was quoted. It's likely a lot of software will need to employ similar mechanisms to remain compliant in the future. We'll likely see something similar for backups so data can be destroyed more selectively and effectively. Right now the status quo still offers some protection but new software will have to be developed with these requirements in mind. If you don't the resulting workload is ultimately on you.

[Red Squirrel]

Great you came out ahead!  Sadly shows how broken the process is though, that it's basically guilty until proven innocent.

[EEVblog]

 

As expected, a bunch of dumb arse legal morons who caved in when they realised what they were asking for was not only wrong, but they had probably breached the law in filing the request.

[EEVblog]

As Dave also mentioned in one of his posts or videos, that he oringally did not want to publish the videos about the copyright claims that was later on withdrawn, but what do you guys say? Should I make a video about the claim, lack of help from YouTube, IANAL advise from here and the happy ending?

Drama gets clicks, but given that it's all settled, I probably wouldn't bother.

It is hard to tell from the almost single line answer from Ericsson what they were trying to do in the first place. Was it just headless actions, trial and error on what can be done or malicious act to quench everything they do not control? 

Usually it's just an eager in-house legal people who wants to show off they are actually doing something useful. When you point out to them they are wrong, they always back down. They probably got the finger wagged at them from someone higher up.

[Brumby]

Usually it's just an eager in-house legal people who wants to show off they are actually doing something useful. When you point out to them they are wrong, they always back down. They probably got the finger wagged at them from someone higher up.

I was thinking along the same lines.

This is the sort of thing I have seen before in other areas, especially if there's a new kid on the block.

[EEVblog]

Usually it's just an eager in-house legal people who wants to show off they are actually doing something useful. When you point out to them they are wrong, they always back down. They probably got the finger wagged at them from someone higher up.

I was thinking along the same lines.
This is the sort of thing I have seen before in other areas, especially if there's a new kid on the block.

I've had half a dozen such incidents, maybe more over the years, both for videos I have done, and for content on this forum.
They always back down when told their request has no legal merit, and if they pursue it, the public exposure consequences will be unpleasant for them to say the least.

[madsbarnkob]

Usually it's just an eager in-house legal people who wants to show off they are actually doing something useful. When you point out to them they are wrong, they always back down. They probably got the finger wagged at them from someone higher up.

I was thinking along the same lines.
This is the sort of thing I have seen before in other areas, especially if there's a new kid on the block.

I've had half a dozen such incidents, maybe more over the years, both for videos I have done, and for content on this forum.
They always back down when told their request has no legal merit, and if they pursue it, the public exposure consequences will be unpleasant for them to say the least.

It wasn't just some new lawyer with a fresh idea. 8 years in Ericsson (7 as senior legal) and describes one self by "Specialties: Intellectual Property Law, Swedish Authorized IP Attorney, European Trademark & Design Attorney, Domain Name Management, Copyright and Design Protection".

But I kept as much documentation of the events as possible. Always good for future use should it come in handy

In the days before they replied, I also had some new ideas for a video series of my capacitor bank vs. Ericsson products 

Once again, thank you all for the support and help sorting out where I stood on IPR/Copyright etc.

[Brumby]

It wasn't just some new lawyer with a fresh idea. 8 years in Ericsson (7 as senior legal) and describes one self by "Specialties: Intellectual Property Law, Swedish Authorized IP Attorney, European Trademark & Design Attorney, Domain Name Management, Copyright and Design Protection".

Oh, dear.

[EEVblog]

It wasn't just some new lawyer with a fresh idea. 8 years in Ericsson (7 as senior legal) and describes one self by "Specialties: Intellectual Property Law, Swedish Authorized IP Attorney, European Trademark & Design Attorney, Domain Name Management, Copyright and Design Protection".

Oh, dear.

The mind boggles.

[daqq]

It wasn't just some new lawyer with a fresh idea. 8 years in Ericsson (7 as senior legal) and describes one self by "Specialties: Intellectual Property Law, Swedish Authorized IP Attorney, European Trademark & Design Attorney, Domain Name Management, Copyright and Design Protection".

Probably no one wants to copy Ericsson designs, so they had nothing to do, which always looks bad on a quarterly review. So, they tried to get the video taken down in order to get a powerpoint presentation slide titled "How the brave and wise Legal Dept on IP protection destroyed a fiendish attempt at copying Ericsson products by diabolical Internet Hackers!1!!", thereby justifying their existence for another year to the upper management.

[Brumby]

...... they had nothing to do, which always looks bad on a quarterly review. So, they tried to get the video taken down in order to get a powerpoint presentation slide titled "How the brave and wise Legal Dept on IP protection destroyed a fiendish attempt at copying Ericsson products by diabolical Internet Hackers!1!!", thereby justifying their existence for another year to the upper management.

Now that doesn't seem impossible.

It sounds like the same response to budget spending in larger organisations: If a department didn't spend all its budget and the company ran OK, then obviously that department can run on a smaller budget.

We all know what happens there....

[magic]

The mind boggles.

Don't attribute to incompetence what can equally well be explained by malice

[peter-h]

"I've had half a dozen such incidents, maybe more over the years, both for videos I have done, and for content on this forum.
They always back down when told their request has no legal merit, and if they pursue it, the public exposure consequences will be unpleasant for them to say the least."

That's an interesting approach. I must remember that (seriously)

Lots of people threaten legal action, as a bully tactic. But they would not want to have their threat publicly aired.

BTW regarding the earlier (OT) discussion about forcing a forum admin to delete past posts, this covers the European situation
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/32361/does-a-user-have-the-right-to-request-their-forum-posts-deleted
IOW, a poster does NOT have the right to have his posts deleted. He has the right to have his forum profile deleted (nickname replaced with "deleted user" etc).
A very sensible approach. Removing past posts would destroy any online community which seeks to create an information resource - EEVBLOG is a great example.