226 of my videos copied

[StubbornGreek]

Wow, I can't believe where this thread has wondered off to... Bottom line here is that someone is trying to rebroadcast material that isn't theirs. Not only is this wrong but its being perpetrated against someone who has worked very hard (albeit for some degree of personal gain - no one gives all their time for nothing) to educate us and provide a forum for us to further our knowledge, help each other, etc.

This is bullshit and I hope the situation is rectified promptly.

[JoeyP]

You first equivocated IP theft with tangible property theft.  I disagreed, and you said that, actually, IP theft was worse.  I simply pointed out that the law does not agree with you - either that IP theft is worse, or that property theft is the same as IP theft.  It's not really a matter of opinion, it's written into law.  It was you who rolled everything into one blanket charge of "theft".

How did I "equivocate" them? Never did I say they were equal in magnitude. If anything, IP theft is worse. When was the last time anyone was awarded a $147,000,000 settlement from a thief who robbed their house (or a lab)? When was the last time a company got slapped with such a settlement for IP theft?

Hint (though this may not be the latest):

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business/120714/blackberry-maker-rim-order-pay-147-million-patent-lawsuit

[Corporate666]

You first equivocated IP theft with tangible property theft.  I disagreed, and you said that, actually, IP theft was worse.  I simply pointed out that the law does not agree with you - either that IP theft is worse, or that property theft is the same as IP theft.  It's not really a matter of opinion, it's written into law.  It was you who rolled everything into one blanket charge of "theft".

How did I "equivocate" them? Never did I say they were equal in magnitude. If anything, IP theft is worse. When was the last time anyone was awarded a $147,000,000 settlement from a thief who robbed their house (or a lab)? When was the last time a company got slapped with such a settlement for IP theft?

Hint (though this may not be the latest):

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business/120714/blackberry-maker-rim-order-pay-147-million-patent-lawsuit

You used the words theft and stealing in one of your earlier posts.  I took that to mean you were equivocating IP and tangible property theft, figuring you would correct me if I assumed wrong.  It was actually the opposite, you think IP theft is worse than tangible property theft. 

The law does not agree. 

We both know your RIM example holds no water, you're comparing a huge company's IP infringement with a local break in?  How many people are in jail for IP theft, compared to the number in jail for robbing houses/businesses?  And if we want to use ridiculous examples, Bernie Madoff stole billions and will be in jail until he dies.  How many people sharing movies on BitTorrent will spend their lives in jail and have to pay billions?


We're never going to agree, but as I said, the law isn't a matter of opinion and the relative weight given by law to IP theft vs tangible property theft illustrate my point.

Back to the subject at hand, even if you refuse to accept that tangible property theft is more damaging to the victim, the fact of the matter is that Dave isn't engaging in IP theft, so it still doesn't apply.

[ve7xen]

The problem with IP 'theft' is that it's imaginary. The 'owner' doesn't lose anything tangible, nor did they have anything tangible to begin with. There's very rarely any identifiable 'loss' to be recovered, nor any irrevocable damage to punish. I can agree that creative works, like Dave's videos, deserve protection against misappropriation and use for profit against the creator's will. However, I can absolutely, unequivocally not agree with the notion of ideas being protected. That is just patently absurd (pun not intended). Furthermore, that is explicitly not what patent is designed to do. Why should I get any special protection because I was the first person on Earth to think of an idea? There are 7 billion of us. If Newton and Liebniz could independently discover the calculus, there is plenty of room for independent discovery and implementation of other good ideas, and this should be encouraged not undermined by an absolutely out of hand patent system.

These are complicated issues, and you don't seem to understand them very well, or are intentionally going all over the map to elicit a response, constantly conflating and confusing the concepts involved in 'intellectual property.' This evidenced by your very first post equating the copyright infringement at issue here with reverse engineering and cloning - which isn't even illegal, though you may take moral issue with it. I don't even know what the topic is anymore, it keeps moving. Are we still talking about Salae? Have we ever been talking about this YouTube infringement? What on Earth is this discussion even about?

It's ridiculous we're having this discussion. The YouTube user in question will likely shortly be banned, they will not get many views and so little ad revenue as to not matter. It's hardly worth mentioning.

Edit: clarity

[JoeyP]

We're never going to agree, but as I said, the law isn't a matter of opinion and the relative weight given by law to IP theft vs tangible property theft illustrate my point.

For the record just because you state something is "codified in law" doesn't make it fact. You offered no references or examples of that. But even if it is so, whether the law considers one or the other to be worse doesn't really matter in the context of this discussion of whether it's OK to sell/use clones. It is theft - which may be greater or lesser than theft of tangible property, depending upon your point of view. I'll bet Saleae doesn't give a rat's ass about which the law considers worxe. Give them the option of having their lab cleaned out, or having their product cloned. Which do *you* think they'd choose?

Back to the subject at hand, even if you refuse to accept that tangible property theft is more damaging to the victim, the fact of the matter is that Dave isn't engaging in IP theft, so it still doesn't apply.

Yes, back to the subject at hand. Quoting from my original post, this much was directed at Dave, but made no accusations toward him:

Now you have a small taste of how Saleae and others feel when companies in china make clones of their hardware which take advantage of their hard-earned, copyrighted software and other technology. You know - the clones that people often discuss/promote in this very forum. Feels great don't it?

The usual rationalization I've heard for the clones is "They should have had more security to prevent it. If they allow me to steal the fruits of their efforts, then I'm entitled to do so". Does that all still make sense to you now?

This part was directed at *anyone* reading the thread, who might consider promoting/justifying a clone in the future (not at Dave personally, but I should have somehow delineated that intent):

I'm sure this post will draw vitriol, and all kinds of rationalizations, but think about it next time you promote/justify a clone.

Yes, promotion of clones definitely occurs in this forum, and with rare exceptions seems to be well received. People in this very thread have justified it.

[Psi]

See, this is why people are annoyed at your comments.  You keep making assumptions and when something can be interpreted multiple ways you choose the way you find the most offensive and reply to it.

So it's OK to use clone hardware with the Saleae software if you download it directly from Saleae's website, but not OK if it is distributed by the clone supplier?

I never said that, i just stated the fact that they shipped it on their CD.
You made the assumption that, because i'm against them distributing the software on CD I must be ok with people downloading it instead, which i'm not. They're both equally as bad.

Either way Saleae didn't get compensated for their efforts - but you benefited from them, and the clone vendor was rewarded for producing clones.

Again, you assume i have bought a cloned Saleae. I have not.

[EEVblog]

Yes, back to the subject at hand. Quoting from my original post, this much was directed at Dave, but made no accusations toward him:

Now you have a small taste of how Saleae and others feel when companies in china make clones of their hardware which take advantage of their hard-earned, copyrighted software and other technology. You know - the clones that people often discuss/promote in this very forum. Feels great don't it?

The usual rationalization I've heard for the clones is "They should have had more security to prevent it. If they allow me to steal the fruits of their efforts, then I'm entitled to do so". Does that all still make sense to you now?

This part was directed at *anyone* reading the thread, who might consider promoting/justifying a clone in the future (not at Dave personally, but I should have somehow delineated that intent):

HUH?
What you said was mostly certainly directed at me, you said it yourself when I asked you directly:

Given the thread this in is. I can only assuming you are talking directly to me here?

Yes, and mean no disrespect, but you are in prime condition to appreciate the issue at this moment.

[JoeyP]

See, this is why people are annoyed at your comments.  You keep making huge assumptions about what people mean.

So it's OK to use clone hardware with the Saleae software if you download it directly from Saleae's website, but not OK if it is distributed by the clone supplier?

I never said that, i just stated the fact that they shipped it on their CD.
You made the assumption that, because i'm against them distributing the software on CD I must be ok with people downloading it instead, which i'm not. They're both equally as bad.

Either way Saleae didn't get compensated for their efforts - but you benefited from them, and the clone vendor was rewarded for producing clones.

Again, you assume i have bought a cloned Saleae. I have not.

Sorry, guess I did misunderstand you. Since you pointed out the behavior of distributing it on CD, I thought you were trying to make a point about that. If I understand correctly now, you were simply making the point that it's wrong in all cases.

[pickle9000]

So Dave, has anyone ever tried a stunt like this before? Will this add another item to your morning routine, brush teeth, put coffee on, remove drool from Sagans pillow, check to see if my livelihood is being hijacked?

Man you have had a bad week.

[JoeyP]

Yes, back to the subject at hand. Quoting from my original post, this much was directed at Dave, but made no accusations toward him:

Now you have a small taste of how Saleae and others feel when companies in china make clones of their hardware which take advantage of their hard-earned, copyrighted software and other technology. You know - the clones that people often discuss/promote in this very forum. Feels great don't it?

The usual rationalization I've heard for the clones is "They should have had more security to prevent it. If they allow me to steal the fruits of their efforts, then I'm entitled to do so". Does that all still make sense to you now?

This part was directed at *anyone* reading the thread, who might consider promoting/justifying a clone in the future (not at Dave personally, but I should have somehow delineated that intent):

HUH?
What you said was mostly certainly directed at me, you said it yourself when I asked you directly:

Given the thread this in is. I can only assuming you are talking directly to me here?

Yes, and mean no disrespect, but you are in prime condition to appreciate the issue at this moment.

Yes, the first part definitely was. I thought the mention of the vitriol it would draw (which I expected from others, not from you), would delineate the last part as being general and not personal. I wasn't clear, and sorry if that part came across as directed at you personally.

[EEVblog]

So Dave, has anyone ever tried a stunt like this before?

Yeah, it happens about once a month, I have to report a copied video.
Never on this scale of hundreds before though.
It's likely just a bot that does the channel creation and copying and uploading, getting a few bucks before they are shut down to start again.
Do it enough times and I guess someone's making a living from it?
Although I'm unsure how their Adsense account wouldn't go down with it?

[EEVblog]

Yes, the first part definitely was. I thought the mention of the vitriol it would draw (which I expected from others, not from you)

When you start getting all silly and accusing me of this and that. I'll call you out every time.

[Psi]

It probably is related to making money.

But it could also be someone who uploads any videos which they like to their own account.
(i'm not condoning it)
But we've all seen good videos disappear when the person removes them.
That one where the RED epic camera is destroyed by a concert laser comes to mind.

[JoeyP]

Yes, the first part definitely was. I thought the mention of the vitriol it would draw (which I expected from others, not from you)

When you start getting all silly and accusing me of this and that. I'll call you out every time.

I'm perfectly OK with that, and would expect nothing less.

You'll all be pleased to hear that it's way past my bedtime, so calling it a night. Let the feeding frenzy begin

[pickle9000]

So Dave, has anyone ever tried a stunt like this before?

Yeah, it happens about once a month, I have to report a copied video.
Never on this scale of hundreds before though.

Total Crap, I guess like everything money related. You only need a few guys out there looking to get a few free bucks to cause major grief. It's difficult to protect a thing when it's basically out there, regardless of what it is.

[JuKu]

The problem with IP 'theft' is that it's imaginary. The 'owner' doesn't lose anything tangible, nor did they have anything tangible to begin with. There's very rarely any identifiable 'loss' to be recovered, nor any irrevocable damage to punish.

I'm sorry, but you have NO understanding how making money with IP works. None, whatsoever. Otherwise you would not written that.

[ve7xen]

I'm sorry, but you have NO understanding how making money with IP works. None, whatsoever. Otherwise you would not written that.

It is simple fact, 'intellectual property' is not tangible by definition. Nothing is lost in any IP infringement, because only various forms of copying and appropriation are covered, none of which involve any destruction or removal of the original creator's own property, intellectual or otherwise. Which is why it's 'rights infringement' and not 'theft', and why quantifying the unquantifiable 'losses' results in awards for the same sort of infringement of anything from lawyer's fees to $100millions.

I don't really care how making money with IP works, it's not really relevant to what is morally or lawfully right, nor what is best for society as a whole. However, I do understand how the current law works (mostly from a US perspective), and most of the issues involved quite well. In my opinion the system is incredibly broken, money is made by the wrong people and sapped out of systems that could otherwise be much more productive. Those who complain most loudly about copyright and other rights infringements are also often the most blatantly hypocritical offenders. Am I the only one who gets annoyed when a (copyrighted!) funny YouTube video is aired on FOX to millions of viewers only to be followed by a story about how we must crack down on college students watching movies alone in their dorms while they eat their daily ramen ration?

[EEVblog]

Well, Youtube didn't do anything when I reported the channel for "impersonation" (the only option without individually flagging 226 videos one-by-one.

Action Taken
We’re unable to identify a violation of our Community Guidelines within your recent report to our Safety and Abuse Tool.

[Psi]

If they get to 3 strikes i think they're account gets locked/removed

So just submit reports on like 10 videos and that should hopefully take care of him.

[EEVblog]

Now up to 292 of my videos!

[Tooms]

It seems that all the videos are the short ones, as none of them are over 15-20min.

Guess that is because it is some automaticly process and it will take the short videos to do it faster and more videos.


So Dave keeps the videos at 1+ hour in length to protect them 

[Psi]

I sent a message to the guy i know at google but he's not involved with youtube.
Apparently the youtube group can be a bunch of ass#@!$ sometimes

You could always make a rant video about it. There's probably google people who watch your videos and will "take care" of it with extreme prejudice 

There isn't any valid option under reporting for us viewers to flag the videos with but if enough of us do it i'm sure someone will take notice.

[Phroon]

Looks like the right way would be for Dave to do a copyright claim against them.

[Towger]

You could always make a rant video about it. There's probably google people who watch your videos and will "take care" of it with extreme prejudice 

Have to be careful not to piss off the above mentioned 'bunch of ass#@!$' or they might do more than block the one channel...

I presume Dave is happy enough with the fellow in France selling knock off "Micro-Currents" on eBay. He even has the same anti static blue mat!
eBay auction: #181183666029

[Psi]

bunch of ass#@!$ was probably not the best way to word it.

It's more that they do they own thing and ignore what the rest of google wants.