General > General Technical Chat
[SOLVED] Ericsson slammed me with a Copyright Strike on a Teardown video, help!?
<< < (14/35) > >>
mikeselectricstuff:
From the terms for someone filing a copyright complaint :

--- Quote ---2. A description of your work that you believe has been infringed

In your complaint, make sure that you clearly and completely describe the copyrighted content that you're seeking to protect. If multiple copyrighted works are covered in your complaint, the law allows a representative list of such works.

--- End quote ---

Has this information been forwarded ?


--- Quote ---4. You must agree to and include the following statement:

'I believe in good faith that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorised by the copyright owner, its agent or the law'.

--- End quote ---

"Not authorised" - but that could cover anything - the issue here is whether any authorisation is required
brainstorm:

--- Quote ---I never revealed any software but only what you can see on the hardware. Simple reverse engineering.
--- End quote ---

Why would "revealing software" be **that** fundamentally different from the hardware-only teardowns you are doing? I have an Anritsu spectrum analyzer that I would like to repair, hardware is fine but software is not working:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/anritsu-ms2721b-internal-cf-card-missing/msg2638362/#msg2638362
https://blogs.nopcode.org/brainstorm/anritsu-ms2721b-spectrum-analyzer/

Shall I expect more copyright claims coming my way because I'm trying to fix the **software** instead of the **hardware**? I'm not trying to diminish the whole point of your thread, I think it really sucks you got that copyright claim from Ericsson.

This is a honest, curious question on where that "software vs hardware" different treatment in terms of reverse engineering and its perception might come from? :-S
madsbarnkob:

--- Quote from: wraper on February 06, 2020, 09:51:21 pm ---
--- Quote from: barycentric on February 06, 2020, 09:48:01 pm ---All of OP's videos are like the one removed. If he gives in on one, they'll try to take down his whole channel (and any/all of the income he gets from it). Hence the $20.

--- End quote ---
There are no other Ericsson videos.

--- End quote ---

Not anymore.


--- Quote from: brainstorm on February 06, 2020, 09:59:26 pm ---
--- Quote ---I never revealed any software but only what you can see on the hardware. Simple reverse engineering.
--- End quote ---

Why would "revealing software" be **that** fundamentally different from the hardware-only teardowns you are doing? I have an Anritsu spectrum analyzer that I would like to repair, hardware is fine but software is not working:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/anritsu-ms2721b-internal-cf-card-missing/msg2638362/#msg2638362
https://blogs.nopcode.org/brainstorm/anritsu-ms2721b-spectrum-analyzer/

Shall I expect more copyright claims coming my way because I'm trying to fix the **software** instead of the **hardware**? I'm not trying to diminish the whole point of your thread, I think it really sucks you got that copyright claim from Ericsson.

This is a honest, curious question on where that "software vs hardware" perception might come from? :-S

--- End quote ---

I got no idea aka IANAL (I learned that from this thread)

But reproducing the code would be reproducing their copyrighted material. Showing hardware with patents on it is not reproducing a product.

Remember those cases some years back about car companies having copyright over the software in cars to by far extend of the law you never owned your own car.
brainstorm:

--- Quote ---I got no idea aka IANAL (I learned that from this thread)

But reproducing the code would be reproducing their copyrighted material. Showing hardware with patents on it is not reproducing a product.

Remember those cases some years back about car companies having copyright over the software in cars to by far extend of the law you never owned your own car.

--- End quote ---

IANAL either, but if I write a blog post or a video of me fiddling with radare2, GHidra, Binary Ninja changing assembly opcodes, does that really constitute "reproducing the code"? My insight from a friend who works on infosec was that the legal offense is in **redistributing** their **modified** binaries without permission.

This is also why this Ericsson claim does not hold since you are really not redistributing/reselling anything. You are "just" showing facts laid on top of a multilayer copper board as entertainment, nothing else... to my untrained, non-lawyer eyes, that is.

Anyway, I guess that a youtube video of a hex editor flipping bits constitutes a channel for (modified) firmware redistribution nowadays :-?
ve7xen:
Modified or unmodified, redistributing binaries would be in violation. The 'problem' is that derivative works are also protected, and you could (not successfully, I would hope) argue that since the video contains 'significant portions' of the copyright work, that it is a derivative, and thus subject to the same copyright protection. I don't think this would fly thanks to fair use, but you could at least make the attempt.

The difference with physical objects, unlike software, is that they are not protected by copyright at all. There's no protected work to argue has been distributed.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod