General > General Technical Chat

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

<< < (9/35) > >>

tooki:

--- Quote from: imo on February 06, 2020, 11:18:09 am ---
--- Quote from: madsbarnkob on February 05, 2020, 10:27:13 pm ---..Just like the rights-to-repair movement, I fail to see the ask-for-permissions, to do with my own property as I see fit..

--- End quote ---
FYI - from legal point of view it does not matter whether the product in your video has been taken off a dirty scrapyard for free, or you bought it off ebay for $10, or purchased directly from the manufacturer for $130k with 5years warranty. The IPRs do not get transferred to you, you do not own them. The IPRs are still with the owner, and are usually formulated in a form allowing lawyers to claim anything.
And mind the lawyers do like to claim the same way as we do like to watch the teardown videos :)

--- End quote ---
You don't get it. You seem to think an IP owner has unrestricted rights over all use of anything they claim to be IP.

I already explained in my reply above why NO IP right applies here, and so have others. But since you're not getting it, let's try again:

1. It's not copyright violation, because he's not copying a copyrighted creative work (like a text, photograph, or video) – he is describing an object in his possession. As long as he is using his own words in creating this description, it's not a copyright violation.*

2. It's not patent violation because he isn't manufacturing devices using the patented designs. (Sharing a patented design is NOT a violation, only MAKING THINGS with the patented design is!)

3. It's not trademark violation because he's at no point representing himself as being the manufacturer.

4. And it's not a violation of trade secrets, because he's not party to any kind of contract that would create such confidentiality. Confidentiality does not extend to a buyer of an object!!!



*For example, you cannot copyright a recipe in the abstract. The particular wording in a given cookbook is copyrighted and cannot be copied verbatim, but the information about the ingredients used and how to use them is not protected. So I could write my own cookbook where I describe the exact same dish, using the exact same ingredients, amounts, and procedure, and as long as I use my own words to explain it, there is no copyright violation. (This is why restaurants and food manufacturers go to insane lengths to keep their recipes/formulas secret.) In other knowledge domains, we decided that being able to protect the idea itself, and not the specific wording, is important, and that's what a patent is. That's why a pharmaceutical company can patent a drug, so nobody else can sell it, even if they know how to make it. But not everything is patentable, and even if it is patentable, it doesn't mean I can't describe it. I could write a book with instructions on how to make every patented drug on the market, and as long as I used my own words, that would not violate copyright. And the patents wouldn't be violated unless I attempted to make and sell one of those drugs.

iMo:

--- Quote from: wraper on February 06, 2020, 11:22:32 am ---Could you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?

--- End quote ---
You will certainly get the answers when you start the Case with the IPR owner.

tooki:

--- Quote from: magic on February 06, 2020, 11:23:25 am ---
--- Quote from: tooki on February 06, 2020, 11:02:19 am ---The issue, as I see it, is that there is per se no copyright violation, since copyright is about the right to make copies of a copyrighted work. Creating your own documentation about an object does not violate copyright, since you're not copying a copyrighted work, but creating a new one.

--- End quote ---
It's arguable what constitutes a copy. For certain media, like painting or music performance, your own audiovisual "documentation" of the work would likely be considered a derived work and require authorization.

--- End quote ---
Yes, that's true, though I consider that to be a flaw in copyright law, insofar as the laws lean excessively toward the copyright holder. (For example, I don't think photos of sculptures should constitute copyright violations, since photos, no matter how detailed, cannot replace experiencing the physical sculpture.)

But this cell tower amplifier is not a "creative work", it's a product, so copyright isn't the issue. Nor is it a patent violation, since the OP produced documentation, not an amplifier itself.


--- Quote from: magic on February 06, 2020, 11:23:25 am ---I really don't think this should apply to teardown / reverse engineering videos, because in this case the video is not even close in function and utility to the real thing, but they are free to argue any position they want. If there are no clear legislative guidelines (probably) and no similar suit happened yet (maybe), they are also free to become the fist to try and find out. They may even try it despite knowing they will lose, if they think you won't sue for damages if they lose but OTOH have some "metrics" to meet in reducing the spread of their "proprietary knowledge" online, which seems to be their actual motivation.

--- End quote ---
While IANAL, I'm pretty sure that this is an area where IP law is generally very well established, with ample case law by precedent. The news industry could not exist if even just reporting about others' intellectual property were illegal. (And you know that companies tried HARD to stop things from being published, and lost.) There have also been recent court cases about whether software APIs can be copyrighted or not. So far, the law has treated APIs as non-copyrightable and non-patentable, such that anyone can write software to work with an API, regardless of permission, and that one can write documentation about the API as well (hence all the unauthorized books on how to program this-or-that language or API). But there has been no definitive (Supreme Court level) case law on APIs, whereas with physical objects, that kind of case law was established long ago, which is why anyone can write a book on how to use or fix something, or make items that interact with a physical object, as long as they don't violate patents. (For example, established case law is why I could make and sell aftermarket auto parts.)

wraper:

--- Quote from: imo on February 06, 2020, 11:40:38 am ---
--- Quote from: wraper on February 06, 2020, 11:22:32 am ---Could you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?

--- End quote ---
You will certainly get the answers when you start the Case with the IPR owner.

--- End quote ---
They cannot possibly win in court. The only way they can screw you is that you won't be able to financially afford legal process.

tooki:

--- Quote from: imo on February 06, 2020, 11:40:38 am ---
--- Quote from: wraper on February 06, 2020, 11:22:32 am ---Could you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?

--- End quote ---
You will certainly get the answers when you start the Case with the IPR owner.

--- End quote ---
Well, you get the IP owner's claims (i.e. wishful thinking) as to what violations are occurring, but that in no way guarantees that any violations have actually occurred.

The fact is, and this is well established case law, that once you sell a product, you cannot stop people from describing it, even in levels of detail you'd like to keep secret, because that's not an intellectual property right you ever had to begin with!

Big companies simply rely on the fact that they can afford legal battles that individuals and small companies cannot.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod