General > General Technical Chat
[SOLVED] Ericsson slammed me with a Copyright Strike on a Teardown video, help!?
magic:
--- Quote from: nigelwright7557 on February 05, 2020, 10:49:19 pm ---I am surprised at youtube and the copyright stance as there is loads of copyrighted stuff on youtube.
--- End quote ---
Nothing surprising. The DMCA is rigged against the uploader. I suspect that YT would be legally required to take the complaint in good faith even if Ericsson claimed that they own copyright of Mickey Mouse and that the video infringes on that. What YT generally doesn't care that much is content which hasn't been DMCA'd yet.
--- Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 05, 2020, 11:10:42 pm ---This was a manual takedown, not a AI/bot discovery, so Ericssons legal department is trawling the web for manuals, videos and everything else about their system and try to force it away. This has been seen many times before if anyone knows the website "franks hospital service" that had manuals for many different medical instruments and machines.
--- End quote ---
I believe that copying manuals is technically a copyright infringement, unlike this which sounds like total BS. IANAL.
m98:
--- Quote from: nigelwright7557 on February 05, 2020, 10:49:19 pm ---2/ As a software/hardware designer myself I wouldnt want my software/hardware explained to anyone else so they could copy it.
--- End quote ---
Why? If your design can be copied by looking at it in a video, there are already only two options. Either it is trivial but copying would have little monetary value for a plethora of reasons, or it is nontrivial and you have a patent on it.
Whether anyone can find a teardown on Youtube is totally irrelevant. If there is money to be made by it, your potential competitors are going to be among your first customers, and they'll be meticulously picking apart your product until they know it better than you do.
SilverSolder:
This is really a problem of a few semi-monopolistic companies (Youtube, eBay, Amazon and the like) sitting on so much of communications and actual trade/distribution... that they have ended up with disproportionate power to ban legitimate activity for arbitrary/abusive reasons, and there doesn't seem to be any reasonable recourse for ordinary citizens / small business people.
langwadt:
--- Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 05, 2020, 11:10:42 pm ---
--- Quote from: Bud on February 05, 2020, 10:37:32 pm ---Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.
--- End quote ---
It is removed, as well as other Ericsson videos. I did not want to risk channel closure just for that, there is nothing special about those videos. It is their wild, vague and broad claim that made me ask.
--- Quote from: magic on February 05, 2020, 10:45:08 pm ---I suppose you could also ask YouTube to consider if this notice is even formally valid without any kind of specific claim of what's wrong with your video, though I'm not sure if DMCA cares about such things.
--- End quote ---
There is no way to contact youtube, other than filing counter claim, which opens the whole legal, court, lawyers and fee package that they threaten with.
--- End quote ---
isn't it a simple as telling Youtube you don't believe it is violating copyright and why, e.g. fair use and the the claimant has a short period to convince Youtube they are actually serious about it?
tooki:
--- Quote from: nigelwright7557 on February 05, 2020, 10:49:19 pm ---They must have shares in a screw company !
I am surprised at youtube and the copyright stance as there is loads of copyrighted stuff on youtube.
I can see both sides.
1/ Want to breakdown a system to see how it works.
2/ As a software/hardware designer myself I wouldnt want my software/hardware explained to anyone else so they could copy it.
--- End quote ---
Just to be clear, there is no copyright infringement here anyway. Copyright, trademarks, and patents are different things, and the only one they are even actually sorta claiming ("detailed product information") would fall under patent protection. But a patent does not create confidentiality (on the contrary, it requires publishing those details, as langwadt said). Copyright, on the other hand, involves producing copies of a published work. There is no published work here to begin with, and even if there were, describing it does not constitute a violation.
IANAL, but: As for your concern about your designs being copied: you have two (and only two!) ways to go about preventing this. One is obfuscation/confidentiality: trying to keep your design secret. This means limiting who can gain access to the information. With some things (like firmware) there are ways to make it hard or essentially impossible to derive the information, even with access to the product. Or potting the electronics in hard compound, or welding a device shut such that opening it is impractical. And you can require customers to sign confidentiality agreements, combined with not selling the product to them, but instead offering only rental, such that you always retain ownership of the product. (Otherwise, the first sale doctrine comes into play, which kills off your rights to a product you sold. For example, you cannot prohibit a customer from opening, reselling, or describing a device you sell them, whereas you can make that a condition under a rental.) But in most situations, it's impossible to actually get your product out there without exposing its innards to the world. And this is why the second way is prevalent: patents. These grant you exclusivity to your design, regardless of who knows its details.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version