General > General Technical Chat

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

<< < (17/35) > >>

madsbarnkob:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on February 07, 2020, 03:00:25 am ---Seriously, this video needs to be re-uploaded to another site so that everyone can see and understand the context, and perhaps other Youtubers can make videos from it. If the OP can't do that then the fight has already been lost.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: EEVblog on February 07, 2020, 09:37:48 am ---
--- Quote from: magic on February 07, 2020, 09:05:02 am ---Good case for downloading anything you want to last instead of trusting hosting companies to keep it available to you indefinitely ;)
--- End quote ---

I have every single master copy of my videos since #1, and even the original raw files.
When you download from Youtube it's not the same quality you uploaded it in.

--- End quote ---

I got all my original files as well, material to 200 videos is a lot of work to just throw out if Youtube threw me out :)

I will upload a copy of video in question with private access via link and post here

max_torque:
The stupidest thing about this claim is that it is totally irrelevant to Ericson, because all their competitors will have already bought/sourced and competely reverse engineed their commercial products anyway!

I work in the car industry, all the manufacturers buy each others models and tear them down and reverse engineer them as soon as that product is released onto the public market.  For example, Ford release the latest Focus, and VW simply walk into a Ford dealer, and buy one, take it away, and carry out a complete "competitor bench" marking exercise on it.  The cost of the car(s) is irrelevant, compared to the cost of the teardown study anmd reporting.  I've even seen some of the big OEs buy competitor cars from dealers, and crash them to learn how they perform for example.

So the fact that someone on youtube has shown some (minor) details, which frankly wouldn't enable anyone to actually engineer anything, is totally irrelevant. Once the product is in the public domain, then unless it's "Uniqueness" is covered by patents, preventing someone else profiting from those details, it's fair game......  (and as mentioned those patents don't prevent the investigation, discussion or education of those details)

LaF0rge:
Hi @madsbarnkob,

I've been doing quite a bit of work in the past in the area of open source, copyright, IT security and reverse engineering (see gpl-violations.org).  While I'm not a lawayer, I do know quite a number of lawyers who are considered experts in the field of all areas of IT law.

I just pointed out this case to them, asking for input.  The initial response so far is - as expected - very clear:


--- Quote ---I think any "IPR" they might have on the teardown matter are more than overcome by fair use
considerations. Trademarks, copyright, schematics. Patents of course don't even come to relevance here.

He should definitely submit counter notification, IMHO. The claim is vague, unsubstantiated, frivolous. In
a notice Ericsson must say which IPR (trademark?) is infringed and how. IPR is a non-word. This looks like
a case of "SLAPP" in a different venue.

--- End quote ---

Please feel free to reach out to me by private mail in case you have questions or would like to get in touch.

btw: In our work of more than a a decade at osmocom.org, we have been doing  plenty of investigation of Ericsson [and other] cellular base stations, too - much beyond just looking at circuit boards and we never have been approached by Ericsson.  See https://osmocom.org/projects/ericsson-rbs-6xxx/wiki, or the support for Siemens, Nokia and Ericsson Abis in osmo-bsc, ...

I'm also behind a number of reverse-engineered wireshark dissectors for Ericsson proprietary protocools, see https://github.com/wireshark/wireshark/blob/master/epan/dissectors/packet-gsm_abis_om2000.c and the like.  Once again, I've never heard of any Ericsson claims being made.

edy:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on February 07, 2020, 09:37:48 am ---
--- Quote from: magic on February 07, 2020, 09:05:02 am ---Good case for downloading anything you want to last instead of trusting hosting companies to keep it available to you indefinitely ;)
--- End quote ---

I have every single master copy of my videos since #1, and even the original raw files.
When you download from Youtube it's not the same quality you uploaded it in.

--- End quote ---

Too late for me... I ran out of space a while ago and only have part of my channel's original files. I will have to rely on YouTube copies to download for backups. I'm not that particular about it as my videos are not Oscar-worthy material and I make practically no income from it (just beer and coffee money). Nevertheless I should try to keep originals if I am going forward. I'll have to compare a YouTube download with my original upload source and see if I can perceive quality difference and if worth the file size difference. Not sure if anyone has done that already and can report on the findings.

madsbarnkob:

--- Quote from: LaF0rge on February 07, 2020, 02:27:23 pm ---Hi @madsbarnkob,

I've been doing quite a bit of work in the past in the area of open source, copyright, IT security and reverse engineering (see gpl-violations.org).  While I'm not a lawayer, I do know quite a number of lawyers who are considered experts in the field of all areas of IT law.

I just pointed out this case to them, asking for input.  The initial response so far is - as expected - very clear:


--- Quote ---I think any "IPR" they might have on the teardown matter are more than overcome by fair use
considerations. Trademarks, copyright, schematics. Patents of course don't even come to relevance here.

He should definitely submit counter notification, IMHO. The claim is vague, unsubstantiated, frivolous. In
a notice Ericsson must say which IPR (trademark?) is infringed and how. IPR is a non-word. This looks like
a case of "SLAPP" in a different venue.

--- End quote ---

Please feel free to reach out to me by private mail in case you have questions or would like to get in touch.

btw: In our work of more than a a decade at osmocom.org, we have been doing  plenty of investigation of Ericsson [and other] cellular base stations, too - much beyond just looking at circuit boards and we never have been approached by Ericsson.  See https://osmocom.org/projects/ericsson-rbs-6xxx/wiki, or the support for Siemens, Nokia and Ericsson Abis in osmo-bsc, ...

I'm also behind a number of reverse-engineered wireshark dissectors for Ericsson proprietary protocools, see https://github.com/wireshark/wireshark/blob/master/epan/dissectors/packet-gsm_abis_om2000.c and the like.  Once again, I've never heard of any Ericsson claims being made.

--- End quote ---

I can see you signed up just to help me, that is highly appreciated, thank you for the advice and offer to help further.

I am awaiting reply from Ericsson lawyer and youtube support, so for now its mostly waiting. But I must admit that so far into the thread I am no longer that scared from filing a counter claim.

I uploaded the video in reduced resolution, due to basic vimeo account limitations. It is almost 3 years old by now and I learned a lot more about RF since then, so take what I say with a grain of salt, maybe its better to stay off the internet, was it not for the principal in not being strong armed :)

  (password: eevblog)

edit: I can see I also got better at growing a mustache.

edit edit: I succeeded with uploading the 3206 video instead of the 3202, but there is no difference in what is shown or how, and now i used my bandwidth on vimeo for the week.

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