No doubt Ericsson may claim IPR (a general term for the assignment of property rights through patents, copyrights and trademarks) in relation to their product.
I would kindly ask Ericsson to grant me a permission to show that stuff in my video. It has no sense to piss against wind.
The fact the other Vendors do not claim their IPRs when you do a teardown of their products "without permission" may not necessarily mean they cannot..
Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.
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.
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.
Holding patents in a certain area doesn't mean suppressing any information or discussion about it.
I am surprised at youtube and the copyright stance as there is loads of copyrighted stuff on youtube.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.
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.I believe that copying manuals is technically a copyright infringement, unlike this which sounds like total BS. IANAL.
2/ As a software/hardware designer myself I wouldnt want my software/hardware explained to anyone else so they could copy it.
Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.
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.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.
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.
They must have shares in a screw company !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.
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.
What You can doI wonder if completing Copyright School will endow you with the knowledge to be able to definitively call this out as BS
- Do Nothing. Strikes expire after 90 days, as long as you complete Copyright School
...
There is only three things I can do:
1) Accept the strike and remove all Ericsson content in fear of getting youtube channel closed forever.
2) Contact Ericsson directly, I got a contact email with the strike, but what should I write them? (Clearly they just wanted the video gone)
3) Counter-file the strike and that can possible lead to a court case, legal action etc. Which is such a serious step that there basically is no choice for a small youtube channel to go against a international company.
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.
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.
This is correct, and the Erricson lawyers will know this.
You are being strong armed by a bunch of bullies acting illegally, tell them to F off.
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.
This is correct, and the Erricson lawyers will know this.
You are being strong armed by a bunch of bullies acting illegally, tell them to F off.
How do you tell them to F off, though. The whole system is stacked against you.
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.DMCA is not a whim of YouTube. Every website operating in the US would take it down.
Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.
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.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.
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.
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?
There is only three things I can do:
1) Accept the strike and remove all Ericsson content in fear of getting youtube channel closed forever.
Your channel cannot be shut down for Copyright claims.
There is no mechanism in Youtube to do that, Copyright claims are not community guidelines strikes against your channel.
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.DMCA is not a whim of YouTube. Every website operating in the US would take it down.
There we go, this is the garbage you are dealing with:
https://www.dmca.com/faq/What-is-a-DMCA-Counter-Notice (https://www.dmca.com/faq/What-is-a-DMCA-Counter-Notice)
I'm under impression that the video will stay down even if you submit a "counter notice" and then Ericsson demonstrates within 10 days that they are suing you to take it down, regardless of whether the lawsuit has any merit or ever comes to any conclusion. Welcome to America, I guess ::)
- Contact the senior legal group counselor directly, but I guess there is no leverage to gain there.
I got the contact information on a senior group legal counselor at Ericsson, I will contact that person and talk in details about "Patents, Copyrights/Trademarks or Trade Secrets" that they base this on. From a viewpoint that there must be a mistake. I am not going offensive at first, that leads nowhere.
...
They slammed a copyright strike on a teardown video of a RBS3202 Base station for cell towers, with a extremely vague reason: "This videoclip include detailed information of the product - Ericsson RBS3202 - which belong to an area where our company holds many IPR rights"
I am in doubt would hold up in court, but I got little to no knowledge about that subject and I got no time or money to spend on a possible lawsuit. :-//
There is only three things I can do:
1) Accept the strike and remove all Ericsson content in fear of getting youtube channel closed forever.
2) Contact Ericsson directly, I got a contact email with the strike, but what should I write them? (Clearly they just wanted the video gone)
3) Counter-file the strike and that can possible lead to a court case, legal action etc. Which is such a serious step that there basically is no choice for a small youtube channel to go against a international company.
...
- Contact the senior legal group counselor directly, but I guess there is no leverage to gain there.
Wrong. I have threatened the legal council of a company (Lily Drones) before about a false Trademark claim citing all the legal references and case law to back it up. They backed down knowing full well they put in an illegal claim.
And IIRC if you counternotice and they don't respond, you automatically win.That's my impression too, but you don't know how crazy/dumb/stubborn their lawyers are. Filing a counter notice right away is the "war" option which has a potential to drag on for years, so IMO better have the pitchforks and lawyers prepared if you want to go there.
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. It's not a patent infringement, since you're not making an unauthorized copy of the object itself. And it's not a trademark violation, nor is it a trade secret violation, since you're not party to a confidentiality agreement (or other applicable contract, like an employment contract).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.DMCA is not a whim of YouTube. Every website operating in the US would take it down.
There we go, this is the garbage you are dealing with:
https://www.dmca.com/faq/What-is-a-DMCA-Counter-Notice (https://www.dmca.com/faq/What-is-a-DMCA-Counter-Notice)
I'm under impression that the video will stay down even if you submit a "counter notice" and then Ericsson demonstrates within 10 days that they are suing you to take it down, regardless of whether the lawsuit has any merit or ever comes to any conclusion. Welcome to America, I guess ::)
About your only chance of winning this is to gather a mob with torches and pitchforks and some lawyers before filing the counter notice or "kindly" asking Ericsson to reconsider their claim. Or be ready to threaten them with your own suit for abuse. Maybe EFF would care?
..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..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.
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.Could you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?
And mind the lawyers do like to claim the same way as we do like to watch the teardown videos :)
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.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.
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...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..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 :)
Could you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?You will certainly get the answers when you start the Case with the IPR owner.
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.)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.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.
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.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.)
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.Could you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?You will certainly get the answers when you start the Case with the IPR owner.
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.Could you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?You will certainly get the answers when you start the Case with the IPR owner.
Could you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?
Could you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?
Agree, I can't see how patent rights would cover that at all. One can infringe the patent by making or selling the patented technology, or using it commercially (without having obtained use rights, e.g. by buying a unit from the patent holder).
And even if it was covered under Trademark protection, that means nothing, as they have still knowingly filed a fraudulent Copyright claim, and that's actually a crime.Could you explain how showing the product violates any intellectual property rights?Agree, I can't see how patent rights would cover that at all. One can infringe the patent by making or selling the patented technology, or using it commercially (without having obtained use rights, e.g. by buying a unit from the patent holder).
I would point this out to them.
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.A number of surprising things have been made to be "creative works", like software itself (even if not software APIs) and AFAIK circuit board designs too. Post a high-res pic of a PCB and technically it's a copy of a protected work in a different medium. Now, the copy has little practical use and is in no way a substitute or competitor to the real thing, and fair use provisions apply for the purpose of review and critique, but that's for the courts to decide :)
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.DMCA is not a whim of YouTube. Every website operating in the US would take it down.
There we go, this is the garbage you are dealing with:
https://www.dmca.com/faq/What-is-a-DMCA-Counter-Notice (https://www.dmca.com/faq/What-is-a-DMCA-Counter-Notice)
I'm under impression that the video will stay down even if you submit a "counter notice" and then Ericsson demonstrates within 10 days that they are suing you to take it down, regardless of whether the lawsuit has any merit or ever comes to any conclusion. Welcome to America, I guess ::)
About your only chance of winning this is to gather a mob with torches and pitchforks and some lawyers before filing the counter notice or "kindly" asking Ericsson to reconsider their claim. Or be ready to threaten them with your own suit for abuse. Maybe EFF would care?
https://www.youtube.com/user/ljfrench009 (https://www.youtube.com/user/ljfrench009)
A number of surprising things have been made to be "creative works", like software itself (even if not software APIs) and AFAIK circuit board designs too. Post a high-res pic of a PCB and technically it's a copy of a protected work in a different medium.
Hardware items classed as "useful articles" in general are not covered by copyright, except for some specific exceptions such as the design of yachts, the mask layers of an IC, but PCBs are not protected works under Copyright. They may be covered by a patent, if they embody a patented circuit.Okay, if that's true than my whole argument flies out the window.
Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.Give me $20 or I'll punch you. It's not worth the fight, just pay.
Hardware items classed as "useful articles" in general are not covered by copyright, except for some specific exceptions such as the design of yachts, the mask layers of an IC, but PCBs are not protected works under Copyright. They may be covered by a patent, if they embody a patented circuit.Okay, if that's true than my whole argument flies out the window.
Am I reading it right that I can sell exact 1:1 clones of any commercial PCB as long as there are no patents and trademarks involved?
That is a strawman. Look it up in you favourite dictionary if you do not know what strawman argument is.Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.Give me $20 or I'll punch you. It's not worth the fight, just pay.
That is a strawman. Look it up in you favourite dictionary if you do not know what strawman argument is.Calling strawman to avoid having to actually refute anything seems to be quite popular nowadays. The comparison is relevant. Someone threatens you unreasonably with undue force and your advice is to back down because it's the easy way way out. It's only $20 and you won't miss it. But it's wrong and does represent a loss, just like removing a teardown does. It also means the bully can come back for more whenever he wants. There's a good chance these lawyers represent more similar companies.
I got the contact information on a senior group legal counselor at Ericsson, I will contact that person and talk in details about "Patents, Copyrights/Trademarks or Trade Secrets" that they base this on. From a viewpoint that there must be a mistake. I am not going offensive at first, that leads nowhere.
Please let us know how it goes. If you get no reply I'll do a video calling them out on it.
Also, contact several of the Youtube lawyers, they do videos about this stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzGiDDKdphJ0GFvEd82WfYQ (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzGiDDKdphJ0GFvEd82WfYQ)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpa-Zb0ZcQjTCPP1Dx_1M8Q (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpa-Zb0ZcQjTCPP1Dx_1M8Q)
https://www.youtube.com/user/IanCorzine (https://www.youtube.com/user/IanCorzine)
https://www.youtube.com/user/ljfrench009 (https://www.youtube.com/user/ljfrench009)
And make sure you have a backup video uploaded somewhere else it can't be touched, like LBRY, so that people can watch it for reference.
Every Youtuber should be auto backing up videos on LBRY and Bitchute at a minimum.
Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.
Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.
It‘s not so much about losing the video, but about the „copyright strike“ now on file with YouTube, I would assume. You do understand their “3 strikes, you are out“ policy?
So if you put up a video showing Ericsson threatening your video, can they then claim "defamation"Only if you say something that is not true. Saying they are threatening when all they have done is a bogus copyright claim could be construed that way, so just stick to the facts.
2) Contact Ericsson directly, I got a contact email with the strike, but what should I write them? (Clearly they just wanted the video gone)Ask them to state exactly what they are claiming, and tell them that you will not remove content until they have shown there is an infringement, and that failure to reply will constitute acceptance that they have no case
I would kindly ask Ericsson to grant me a permission to show that stuff in my video.Don't do this. You do not need permission. An explicit refusal may put you at some sort of disadvantage, though I doubt it.
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.There are no other Ericsson videos.
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.
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'.
I never revealed any software but only what you can see on the hardware. Simple reverse engineering.
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.There are no other Ericsson videos.
QuoteI never revealed any software but only what you can see on the hardware. Simple reverse engineering.
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://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/anritsu-ms2721b-internal-cf-card-missing/msg2638362/#msg2638362)
https://blogs.nopcode.org/brainstorm/anritsu-ms2721b-spectrum-analyzer/ (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
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.
Not really, it's a pretty accurate assessment. Every time someone just rolls over and takes it, companies are encouraged to continue this sort of bullying.
So if you put up a video showing Ericsson threatening your video, can they then claim "defamation".
IANAL but AIUI there is nothing to lose by telling them that you'll only remove it if they can explain exactly why they think they have a valid reason.
I don't believe there is any chance they could persue this legally as they would be bound to fail - it's just idle threats.
I'd be inclined to re-upload with an opening statement about their bogus claim
Wow that blows but I'm sadly not surprised. IP law sucks and only caters to the rich. As stupid as it is, it probably is infringement as lot of that tech is probably considered "secret". It kind of goes with the right to repair stuff. In some cases it's illegal for you to open or modify a product. Ex: John Deere stuff. So this probably falls under that. When you own this equipment you're just buying a license to use it, you don't actually own the product. I absolutely hate this crap myself and don't agree with it.
Could maybe win if you fought it and had enough money to throw at a lawyer, but not sure if it's worth it. That's the big issue with IP law, it only really caters to the rich. Even if they are legally in the wrong it costs the defendant too much money to win.
Seriously, this video needs to be re-uploaded to another site
Not exactly the same thing, but Louis Rossman is dealing with this B.S. all the time. It's a miracle his channel continues to exist given the number of corporations (and now lobbyists) he ticks off.
Good case for downloading anything you want to last instead of trusting hosting companies to keep it available to you indefinitely ;)
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.
Good case for downloading anything you want to last instead of trusting hosting companies to keep it available to you indefinitely ;)
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.
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.
Good case for downloading anything you want to last instead of trusting hosting companies to keep it available to you indefinitely ;)
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.
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 (http://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:QuoteI 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.
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 (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 (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.
Wow that blows but I'm sadly not surprised. IP law sucks and only caters to the rich. As stupid as it is, it probably is infringement as lot of that tech is probably considered "secret". It kind of goes with the right to repair stuff. In some cases it's illegal for you to open or modify a product. Ex: John Deere stuff. So this probably falls under that. When you own this equipment you're just buying a license to use it, you don't actually own the product. I absolutely hate this crap myself and don't agree with it.
Could maybe win if you fought it and had enough money to throw at a lawyer, but not sure if it's worth it. That's the big issue with IP law, it only really caters to the rich. Even if they are legally in the wrong it costs the defendant too much money to win.
There is a lot of misunderstanding in this post. There are two ways to protect 'trade knowledge'. One of them is patent - your idea is legally protected from others using it for profit but you must release full details which are filed at the patent office for anyone interested to read. The other is trade secret, which is protected only by civil agreements (ie. both parties agree to not tell anyone about the thing); it doesn't protect against reverse engineering or other parties that have not agreed to the secrecy sharing information on it that they obtain by legal means (such as tearing down a legally purchased item).
Right to repair is about legislation stopping companies from creating technical (cryptographic locks) or policy (refusing to sell replacement parts, especially when cryptographic locks exist) roadblocks, it's not about making things legal that previously weren't. It is never 'illegal' to open a product you own or modify it, but it may be made difficult with strong encryption, etc. - this is no different than using security screws as far as legality is concerned - it doesn't change what it is legal for you to do, it just makes it more challenging. The one caveat here is the DMCA in the US may apply to some cryptographic protections if they can successfully argue that it is a 'copy protection mechanism', which is a huge stretch for a tractor DRMing parts. Lexmark lost a case they brought on similar grounds. But in general, if you own a thing legally, you can do whatever you want with it other than copy and distribute it (if it is a work protected by copyright).
https://vimeo.com/user108394013/review/390045237/362f3275df (password: eevblog)
https://vimeo.com/390045237Good case for downloading anything you want to last instead of trusting hosting companies to keep it available to you indefinitely ;)
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.
"This video is private"
"This video is private"You didn't get a password entry box with "Submit" button?
Can I ask a silly question? Why wouldn't you? Who spends hours on crafting a 30min video and then dumps the originals after uploading it?Good case for downloading anything you want to last instead of trusting hosting companies to keep it available to you indefinitely ;)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.
Right, I used to go up to Dearborn, MI for an annual meeting. That's Ford's corporate home town. You'd be driving down the street past one of their buildings, and there'd be the totally stripped chassis of some other maker's car sitting on blocks out in the parking lot. It would change every week or two.
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.
That is a strawman. Look it up in you favourite dictionary if you do not know what strawman argument is.Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.Give me $20 or I'll punch you. It's not worth the fight, just pay.
That is a strawman. Look it up in you favourite dictionary if you do not know what strawman argument is.Big deal ! Just remove the video and go on with your life. What is so special in it that may worth a fight.Give me $20 or I'll punch you. It's not worth the fight, just pay.
No, it's definitely not a strawman, it's a 1:1 direct same thing - illegal threat, asking someone to give up their legal rights to do normal everyday things (like film videos on Youtube, or walk on the street without getting punched). Quite literally the only difference (in addition to legal punch vs. physical punch) is, in this example, you are now the one being affected, hence your attitude totally changes, showing that you are just being selfish, and ignoring basic human rights when it's not about you, but changing your mind as soon as it's about you.
Still, you are likely right in a practical sense. If a large corporation abuses me, I likely give up my rights to be safe just in case, exactly like if a bodybuilder on the street demands $20 or threats punching me, I'll give up as well. But once in a safe place, I may report it; to police, or, for example, by getting publicity. Victim blaming, OTOH, really sucks hard, stop doing it.
Not exactly the same thing, but Louis Rossman is dealing with this B.S. all the time. It's a miracle his channel continues to exist given the number of corporations (and now lobbyists) he ticks off. One thing Louis does is he doesn't shut up and hide in the corner about it, but gets even more vocal and produces several more videos about it. I think people realise that if they are going to mess with Louis, he will just keep making more and more video rants about it. :-DD Perhaps this can be a lesson to those which have to deal with this kind of abuse of the YouTube system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GCsXL_prYw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GCsXL_prYw)
I did a tear down of a sony dvd recorder have not gotten a strike from sonyDuh. Sony actually makes drives. Sony makes laser pickups (I assume that’s what you mean by “laser dongle”) that OTHER companies buy and put in their own players. Sony most certainly isn’t going to be buying laser pickups from others! That’d be like BMW buying engines from Ford...
this recorder had pretty sloppy support from SONY but I figured out how to "fix" them and made bank on it ;D
well tell i could no longer get replacement parts(i replaced the laser dongle ) I made bulk purchase of 40 units lasers (some were dead but was able to salvage a bunch of the lasers) :D i did atempt to use other DVD rw lasers but sony had some custom rolled stuff :-//
that was the last year sony rolled it's own for dvd recorders these lasers would self detecute if you put the wrong disc (i.e 8 or 16x disc would brick it you had to use x2 or x4 speed discs)even some Hollywood discs would damage the laserLite-On or Optiarc? Originally, Sony spun off its optical drive unit into a merger with NEC and called it Optiarc, but then bought the rest of it. Apparently (and this was news to me when I read it just now!) So y shut down Optiarc in 2017, but it was quickly bought up by an American company and resurrected.
even the two LARGE circuit boards,PSU were rolled by sony.. the only thing that was not made by sony was the HDD unit it was OEM maxtor drives
the next sony DVD recorders had Lite-on drives. :-DD
Right, I used to go up to Dearborn, MI for an annual meeting. That's Ford's corporate home town. You'd be driving down the street past one of their buildings, and there'd be the totally stripped chassis of some other maker's car sitting on blocks out in the parking lot. It would change every week or two.
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.
Jon
Right, I used to go up to Dearborn, MI for an annual meeting. That's Ford's corporate home town. You'd be driving down the street past one of their buildings, and there'd be the totally stripped chassis of some other maker's car sitting on blocks out in the parking lot. It would change every week or two.
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.
Jon
I would imagine one reason for doing that is to avoid patent lawsuits as well. Need to make sure that your design is not too close to their design. Always hated the IP system for that. When you have multiple people doing the same sort of thing, some ideas are bound to cross paths. Why not just allow them all to work instead of having to walk on egg shells all the time and try to avoid lawsuits. Same with music, if a certain genre is popular it happens where one artist makes a song that sounds similar to another, then they get sued.
Yeah you can sometimes win this stuff, but it costs millions and millions of dollars, so the system only really works for the rich.
IANAL but AIUI there is nothing to lose by telling them that you'll only remove it if they can explain exactly why they think they have a valid reason.
I don't believe there is any chance they could persue this legally as they would be bound to fail - it's just idle threats.
Youtube will always cave in. They don't want any hassle.
Youtube will always cave in. They don't want any hassle.
They have to. It is the law in the US (and now also in Europe). If they don't take it down when notified, they would become liable for any copyright violation the uploader may have committed. And given the possible penalties, pretty much nobody is going to do that.
The law is stacked heavily in favor of the copyright owners (there is no need for the notifying party to provide any evidence to get content taken down, only state the claim and declare that they are allowed to act on behalf of the rights owner) but that's not really Google's/Youtube's fault in this case.
Youtube will always cave in. They don't want any hassle.
Yeah this is definitely part of the problem and that really needs to change. The host should not be held liable at very least. But also the law needs to change so that frivolous claims actually hold a risk. IMO the way it should work is if you sue for X amount, but you lose the case, you need to give that amount two fold to the defendant + some kind of fixed administrative fee + the defendant's lost money from having to be at court, ex: salary, travel expenses etc. There needs to be a risk involved. Of course if it's a cut and dry case then there is less risk, but it would help prevent all the more ridiculous or questionable cases.It's not unreasonable to hold the host accountable when it doesn't act upon information but the problem lies in not requiring any evidence for a claim and being able to submit endless false claims. Just like the receiving end has limited leeway and will be banned for too many infractions, the party making the claim should be penalised for unjust and frivolous claims. If you're obviously abusing the system you should be ousted from it. Unfortunately the system is skewed by intensive lobbying and heavily favouring slap happy content owners.
Otherwise just self host it. Set up a server; you can get 100GB+ for $10/month.Or host it on P2P for free.
I wonder if hosters outside of the UN/NATO countries would be safe. Would be a case for building a Youtube competitor in one of those places just to stay away from their insane laws. Still enforce clear copyright violation like people trying to host movies, but just don't cater to the ridiculous DMCA stuff.
problem lies in not requiring any evidence for a claim and being able to submit endless false claims
problem lies in not requiring any evidence for a claim and being able to submit endless false claims
That's why it's an actual crime to do so (and quite serious, actually).
Different thing is, companies tend to get away with such crimes.
But it's definitely a crime on paper.
It is a crime (perjury). However, it is almost never prosecuted (do you want to try to sue someone like Disney?)
It is a crime (perjury). However, it is almost never prosecuted (do you want to try to sue someone like Disney?)
The problem is in the process of an individual needing to sue someone - another individual or a company - for committing a crime - it shouldn't be that way, as it's not about a legal dispute regarding contracts or like.
The police and the public prosecutors exist for this purpose. Or should. In a theoretical state of justice.
In Canada, the DMCA equivalent is notice-and-notice, rather than notice-and-takedown. All the hosting company is required by law to do is to pass the copyright violation notice on to the subscriber and maintain subscriber records for some period of time after receiving the notice in case they decide to pursue an actual legal challenge. The US setup is not the only way, nor the only way in active use.
My view is that in most cases the liability - or lack of it - is blindingly obvious. But YT etc can't be bothered. They have enough trouble stopping people posting p0rn and such :)
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.
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.
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 :-+
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
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,
********* **********
The right to be forgotten is widely misunderstood.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.
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.
Excellent news on the Ericsson saga.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.
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.
You have proved my point to some extent, by quoting my entire post, so if I wanted to edit/delete it, I can't :)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.
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.
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? :-//
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
...... 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.
The mind boggles.Don't attribute to incompetence what can equally well be explained by malice :D
Lots of people threaten legal action, as a bully tactic. But they would not want to have their threat publicly aired.
Is it legal to publish details to the public of an ongoing legal dispute though? I always thought that was illegal. Often you hear of people in such situation but they need to be very vague as they can't say any details. If you actually can publish it, including emails, then yeah that could serve as a good tactic. I just didn't think that was legal. Of course you also need to know the law yourself if you're going to do this or you're just digging yourself a grave. The law can be complicated, if you think you know it there's always "ifs and buts" and "gotchas" that can bite you in the ass.
I think the key point is that Ericsson has not actually alleged any definite infringement of any copyright!(IANAL) It's not illegal, just ill advised because it could potentially affect the outcome of your case in a negative way. Sort of how in the criminal justice system "anything you say can be used against you," so it goes in civil court. So it's common practice that discussing an ongoing case publicly is generally avoided, although occasionally you'll find people doing it. Now sometimes a judge will impose a gag order, or a settlement will require a NDA be signed else the settlement is voided. But those are specific orders in a specific case, and not a general rule of law.
It's not enough for them to say something vague about "intellectual property rights." In fact, that is the kind of talk that comes from a low-level employee not trained in the law.
If it had been me I would contact Ericsson and say I am willing to take down the video if you can point out exactly what, in the video, violates a copyright, bearing in mind that publicizing technical details does not violate a patent (in fact patents are intended to be made public) nor does it reveal a trade secret (because they have never given you any trade secrets -- you don't work for them).
I think the key point is that Ericsson has not actually alleged any definite infringement of any copyright!
Is it legal to publish details to the public of an ongoing legal dispute though?
I always thought that was illegal.
It's jurisdiction dependant and mostly doesn't need a court order to be sub judice.Is it legal to publish details to the public of an ongoing legal dispute though?
It's not a formal legal dispute until it goes the courts, it's a threat of a legal dispute.QuoteI always thought that was illegal.
Nope, in either case unless there is a legal gag order from a judge.
Is it legal to publish details to the public of an ongoing legal dispute though?
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).
Is it legal to publish details to the public of an ongoing legal dispute though?The problem with speaking publicly out of court is you run the risk of tainting the jury, which is very illegal. It is why people on the news leaving court don't say anything, just look straight ahead and keep walking.
You retain the copyright in all your forum posts, but that doesn't mean you can demand their deletion.
You retain the copyright in all your forum posts, but that doesn't mean you can demand their deletion. The two are quite separate.You seem to have a very forum owner centric view of the world. A copyright holder can very definitely demand content he owns to be taken down. If the contents of a book is posted the copyright owner can have it taken done on the grounds of owning the copyright. The same applies to movies and other media. Thinking you can just host whatever is owned by others is obviously unrealistic.
Take the example of an author whose book is in 100 libraries. He is ashamed of something in there and orders them all to be destroyed. That's just silly.
And forum posts are no different. The writer retains copyright (unless assigned, which would be extremely unusual for freely contributed work) but that's the extent of it.
Exceptions are where the post identifies the writer, etc.
There is a huge amount of stuff all over the www about this, with forum owners running scared that their members have the right to basically trash the forum, by sending a single email demanding post deletion. Most also don't have a feature in the software for deleting all posts by a particular person. Fortunately this is incorrect. They merely need to wipe out his profile, and perhaps replace his nickname with [deleted user] or some such.
This is now getting way off topic but this has big implications for forum moderation. It basically means that if you have a troublemaker you need to get rid of him ASAP - before he produces thousands of posts. The typical profile I have seen (as a forum admin) is an egotistical person who has a constant love-hate relationship with the forum.
Instead of arguing what can or can't be taken down, can someone enlighten please how it ended for the OP vs. Ericsson? I am becoming quite lost in this thread.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ericsson-slammed-me-with-a-copyright-strike-on-a-teardown-video-help!/msg2917040/#msg2917040 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ericsson-slammed-me-with-a-copyright-strike-on-a-teardown-video-help!/msg2917040/#msg2917040)
Instead of arguing what can or can't be taken down, can someone enlighten please how it ended for the OP vs. Ericsson? I am becoming quite lost in this thread.It's 7 pages with what you look for on page 6. How lost can you get?
You seem to have a very forum owner centric view of the world. A copyright holder can very definitely demand content he owns to be taken down. If the contents of a book is posted the copyright owner can have it taken done on the grounds of owning the copyright.
Not if the terms of the forum/website stipulated that they are granted a non-exclusive perpetual license etc. You can't just post something under those conditions and then demand they take it down under copyright law.Exactly, that's why must websites will include a clause of similar nature. It's not a given though. It should also be noted that a lot of these clauses have never been tested in court so not everything may hold, although I don't think that hosting messages will be in question under such a clause.
Posting content to Youtube for example:
(https://i.imgur.com/4Buyzdp.png)
Every forum run by a competent admin will say the above in their Ts & Cs, in the GDPR age.You need to check your assumptions as they're incorrect. Views that serve your own interests won't serve you in matters of law no matter how convenient they are. The book example is irrelevant not only because forum posts as copyrighted as books are as was established before, but also because books and a forum are different in the sense that the latter is actively serving up and distributing the information. It's explicitly called copyright and not ownershipright. The ownership of a physical book and the copyright of the text therein are two very different matters. A forum owner can protect himself from copyright claims by obtaining the rights to the material. This is something the forum owner explicitly and actively has to do. Excluding GPDR claims doesn't appear possible but their extent is more limited.
If somebody is not happy about this, they must not participate in such a forum, because they are basically reserving their right to destroy the contributed content (and, by trashing the threads, damaging content contributed by others) at any time of their choosing. The one I run tells people directly to not participate if they don't accept this.
I am also not aware of case law, but legal advice to forum admins is uniformly aligned on this, so it's not surprising nobody has had a go at it.
As I said, if it was not thus, you would have the "book in 100 libraries" scenario where the libraries are forced to destroy their copy of the book, which is self evidently ridiculous.
It would lead to the destruction of all online communities which carry user contributed content. I am well aware there are individuals out there who would enjoy that scenario (typically, ones who were banned for posting offensive stuff) but they must not be allowed to damage a community which the other ~99% enjoy and support. A large % of a mod/admin job is dealing with that 1%.
Instead of arguing what can or can't be taken down, can someone enlighten please how it ended for the OP vs. Ericsson? I am becoming quite lost in this thread.