Photonicinduction is MIA

[aokman]

thanks for that, im surprised to see that response but its understandable. I really think he could have atleast left his goodbye video up.

[slateraptor]

The hacker in me says copyright...what's that?

But there's another side pf me that says respect the request of a fellow engineer.

Meh.

[AntiProtonBoy]

He's back again.  Complaining about people copying and re-uploading his old videos.

https://www.youtube.com/user/PhotonicinductionArc

He cited OHS concerns about his work, which kinda reaffirms my speculation that his decision is also related to his career. If you are a subcontractor, or represent some other company, then your line of work can be affected by what clients see on youtube.

[Ajahn Lambda]

WOO HOO!!!!!        


SO glad to see him on again!  Never been happier to be wrong!

[EEVblog]

He's back again.  Complaining about people copying and re-uploading his old videos.

And rightly so.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

He cited OHS concerns about his work, which kinda reaffirms my speculation that his decision is also related to his career. If you are a subcontractor, or represent some other company, then your line of work can be affected by what clients see on youtube.

He said on his new channel:
"Will try and get you guys an update this week, few meetings to go, and I should be able to shed some light
all the best? to ya ?"

May indicate that there is something in the works in terms of his videos and another party?

Dave.

[alm]

He's back again.  Complaining about people copying and re-uploading his old videos.

And rightly so.

While he has a valid copyright claim and will probably get Youtube to take them down, I think it's dumb to expect to be able to take something offline once you've published it, especially if it's popular. If you publish something, expect it to be out there forever, unless nobody cares.

[AntiProtonBoy]

Yeah fighting the internet is futile. It's like battling piracy - yet another pointless exercise. When you publish stuff online, you just have to factor in that someone will eventually rip you off in one form or another. Of course, that does not mean you should give up completely in protecting your work. There are some cases where chasing people up for violations is worthwhile. But in some cases, the situation can be also a grey area, especially when fans are involved. For example, in the case of Photonic, most of the re-uploads were done by his fans, because they were saddened by him leaving.

[firewalker]

Ignore them.

As far the insulting comment. Isn't there any "content filtering" available from Google?

Dave, did the circumstances (full time blogger, no other job) helped you in any way with little Sagan? I mean, the liberty to spend more with him etc.

Alexander.

And I now get complaints that I'm not uploading enough material now that I'm "full time" at it, and so therefore have oodles of free time to produce endless content...
*sigh*

Dave.

[sonicj]

I would buy the DVD Box Set...

[EEVblog]

Dave, did the circumstances (full time blogger, no other job) helped you in any way with little Sagan? I mean, the liberty to spend more with him etc.

Yes, of course. I now get to spend more time with my family, and that was a major reason for doing it.
If I had to work a full time job to pay the bills, keep up the blog, as well as help Sagan grow up, not to mention having a life in general, the blog would be the thing that loses out.

Dave.

[RCMR]

While he has a valid copyright claim and will probably get Youtube to take them down, I think it's dumb to expect to be able to take something offline once you've published it, especially if it's popular. If you publish something, expect it to be out there forever, unless nobody cares.

I somewhat agree.

Although I make my living by way of the intellectual property I create (video and prose) I believe that if someone makes the decision to leverage that material for profit they relinquish a fair degree of control over where and when that material can be used.

Does that sound backwards to you -- allow me to continue...

I don't believe that this allows anyone to copy that material and use it for their own profit but I do think that the decision to monetize IP ought to be a global one.

Take for example this whole idiocy over publishing rights for TV and books...

If an individual or company decides to sell a book/video then they ought to be required to sell it globally -- not artificially chop up the globe into chunks that are free to set their own prices and availability.

Dave's review of the Kindle Fire was a perfect example of this stupidity -- most of the "free" content and services that were offered with the device could not be delivered because they are "not available in your country" -- due to licensing restrictions.

If a copyrighted work is available for sale *anywhere* then it ought to be available for sale *everywhere* and the creator can't bitch and moan if people pirate that work simply because they choose not to sell it in a particular region.

In short -- you can't be depriving someone of revenues by using their IP if they're not actually selling that IP anyway -- can you?

Of course this doesn't have much to do with Photonicinduction's situation but is something that needed stating.

[Sionyn]

as iv told countless clients regarding information security

once its out its out the bag

rsa guys call it 'information wants to be free'

[HLA-27b]

I somewhat agree.

Although I make my living by way of the intellectual property I create (video and prose) I believe that if someone makes the decision to leverage that material for profit they relinquish a fair degree of control over where and when that material can be used.

Does that sound backwards to you -- allow me to continue...

I don't believe that this allows anyone to copy that material and use it for their own profit but I do think that the decision to monetize IP ought to be a global one.

Take for example this whole idiocy over publishing rights for TV and books...

If an individual or company decides to sell a book/video then they ought to be required to sell it globally -- not artificially chop up the globe into chunks that are free to set their own prices and availability.

Dave's review of the Kindle Fire was a perfect example of this stupidity -- most of the "free" content and services that were offered with the device could not be delivered because they are "not available in your country" -- due to licensing restrictions.

If a copyrighted work is available for sale *anywhere* then it ought to be available for sale *everywhere* and the creator can't bitch and moan if people pirate that work simply because they choose not to sell it in a particular region.

In short -- you can't be depriving someone of revenues by using their IP if they're not actually selling that IP anyway -- can you?

Of course this doesn't have much to do with Photonicinduction's situation but is something that needed stating.

Fair point,
but by stating this, you imply that IP is a commodity i.e. a common good which has the same or near the same value regardless of who produced it or where it was sold.  Which is true of course for all YouTube videos and what you say applies.

On the other hand I have a bone to pick with the term "intellectual property" itself.
First of all most of the stuff out there is not really intellectual. A footage of a cat jumping inside a box is property but it's hardly intellectual. Yes it has entertainment value and there is a certain amount of work  going into creating it but that's all. This is a commodity an as long as we have cats and cameras we will have abundant supply of it.

Secondly the notion that the intellect of an author, his wit and creativity can ever be reduced to property and made subject of commerce is insulting. What is intellectual in IP should be forever part of it's author above and beyond the vagaries of trade just like human rights are, indelible and nontransferable.

All of this is off topic of course.

[slateraptor]

The hacker class may be flattered by the attention lavished upon it by capitalists compared to pastoralists, and vectoralists compared to capitalists. Hackers tend to ally at each turn with the more abstract form of property and commodity relation. But hackers soon feel the restrictive grip of each ruling class, as it secures its dominance over its predecessor and rival, and can renege on the dispensations it extends to hackers as a class. The vectoralist class, in particular, will go out of its way to court and coopt the productivity of hackers, but only because of its attenuated dependence on new abstraction as the engine of competition among vectoral interests. When the vectoralists act in concert as a class it is to subject hacking to the prerogatives of its class power.

Proposition 037 of Prof. Wark's A Hacker Manifesto (not to be confused with Mentor's Conscience of a Hacker aka The Hacker Manifesto). The italicized line leads into discussion of the vectoralist intellectual property abstraction. Very relevant literature on the subject for anyone who cares.

[Ajahn Lambda]

I would buy the DVD Box Set...

+1, especially knowing he's really trying to move forward responsibly, and start a life of his own.  I was disappointed I wasn't able to get one of his branded T-shirts or butane lighters.


Heh, can you imagine, if shit hit the fan for him, and he put that stack of DVDs of the original material up on eBay?  We could argue how much he'd actually get for them, virtually irrelevant in my eyes, but you can be sure they'd garner a LOT of interest!

[HLA-27b]

The hacker class may be flattered by the attention lavished upon it by capitalists compared to pastoralists, and vectoralists compared to capitalists. Hackers tend to ally at each turn with the more abstract form of property and commodity relation. But hackers soon feel the restrictive grip of each ruling class, as it secures its dominance over its predecessor and rival, and can renege on the dispensations it extends to hackers as a class. The vectoralist class, in particular, will go out of its way to court and coopt the productivity of hackers, but only because of its attenuated dependence on new abstraction as the engine of competition among vectoral interests. When the vectoralists act in concert as a class it is to subject hacking to the prerogatives of its class power.

Proposition 037 of Prof. Wark's A Hacker Manifesto (not to be confused with Mentor's Conscience of a Hacker aka The Hacker Manifesto). The italicized line leads into discussion of the vectoralist intellectual property abstraction. Very relevant literature on the subject for anyone who cares.

The paragraph above sounds quite muddy and "wordy" to me but this one from Wikipedia clears up the things:

In 2004 Wark published his best known work, A Hacker Manifesto. Here Wark argues that the rise of intellectual property creates a new class division, between those who produce it, who he calls the hacker class, and those who come to own it, the vectoralist class. Wark argues that these vectoralists have imposed the concept of property on all physical fields (thus having scarcity), but now the new vectoralists lay claim to intellectual property, a field that is not bound by scarcity.[1] By the concept of intellectual property these vectoralists attempt to institute an imposed scarcity in an immaterial field. Wark argues that the vectoral class cannot control the intellectual (property) world but only it in its commodified form, they only control the information in the objectified form but not its overall application or use.[2]

Ward seems to agree with me except his zeitgeist is six years ahead of mine

[Zero999]

He's back again.  Complaining about people copying and re-uploading his old videos.

And rightly so.

While he has a valid copyright claim and will probably get Youtube to take them down, I think it's dumb to expect to be able to take something offline once you've published it, especially if it's popular. If you publish something, expect it to be out there forever, unless nobody cares.

I have no sympathy for him.  He decided to upload the videos and allow people to watch them for free in the first place.

He shouldn't whine when people repost his videos nor be bitter when people copy his lame ideas and make money from them. He's just annoyed at himself for being too stupid to figure out a way to make money from his videos in the first place.

[EEVblog]

I have no sympathy for him.  He decided to upload the videos and allow people to watch them for free in the first place.

He shouldn't whine when people repost his videos

Rubbish. He has every right to expect that his copyright content he went to a LOT of trouble to produce is not re-uploaded and/or used in ways he does not approve of.

You understand this a lot better when you are a content producer.

nor be bitter when people copy his lame ideas and make money from them.

It's no-one's place to say what he should and shouldn't be bitter about.
A lot of emotion goes into producing content like this.

Dave.

[Psi]

I guess it depends which side of the fence you sit on.

In the world today of anti-copyright, some people believe that, something should become public if it has been available to the public previously.
I'm not saying i completely agree with it, just that its definitely a common viewpoint and there is some wisdom to it.


If technology existed that allowed you to replay your memories of watching something previously the mpaa would probably try and stop you on grounds of copyright.
Hehe... then you'd have movie cinemas erasing your memory of the movie afterwards. All you get to keep is the memory of if you enjoyed it or not.

[slateraptor]

In the world today of anti-copyright, some people believe that, something should become public if it has been available to the public previously.
I'm not saying i completely agree with it, just that its definitely a common viewpoint and there is some wisdom to it.

If it were some large corporation attempting to maximize its profits by swindling customers, I'd agree. But we're talking about a single creative mind without the backing of hot-shot lawyers and a multi-billion dollar industry. Who knows...it might just have to do with threats of reprisal from his employer. I feel like choice of action really comes down to whether you respect the guy or not; from a professional aspect, I find it difficult not to, especially consider that he has provided free entertainment to the world at the cost of his own free time.

[EEVblog]

If it were some large corporation attempting to maximize its profits by swindling customers, I'd agree. But we're talking about a single creative mind without the backing of hot-shot lawyers and a multi-billion dollar industry. Who knows...it might just have to do with threats of reprisal from his employer. I feel like choice of action really comes down to whether you respect the guy or not; from a professional aspect, I find it difficult not to, especially consider that he has provided free entertainment to the world at the cost of his own free time.

Yes, and that's what many people who don't produce content often find hard to understand.
Once you become a content producer your perspective tends to change a bit, and you really begin to respect people who produce content.
Like many online content producers PhotonicInduction is being quite generous. He doesn't care if you download his stuff and keep it for personal use and archiving, nor does he care if you use parts of his video for compilations or critique etc (with suitable attribution). But he does care when someone re-uploads his entire video or content. That is not respecting the authors work, or adding to the value of the work and the community, it's just ripping off your work and distributing it in a way that the content owner has no control over. And that is all he is asking, that no one does that.

I've recently had several people rip off my videos and re-upload to youtube, hoping to get hits and monetise it etc. That is not on, and their channels will get shut down for it.
And like PhotonicInduction, I have no problem with people ripping my youtube videos and keeping for personal use and archiving etc. But if you make that content available to the public, or re-upload it etc then that's when we have a problem. And almost every content producer I know feels the same way.

Dave.

[Zero999]

I have no sympathy for him.  He decided to upload the videos and allow people to watch them for free in the first place.

He shouldn't whine when people repost his videos

Rubbish. He has every right to expect that his copyright content he went to a LOT of trouble to produce is not re-uploaded and/or used in ways he does not approve of.

You understand this a lot better when you are a content producer.

You're right from a legal perspective but from a moral one I disagree.

And by the way, I don't care if anyone copies anything I've posted on the Internet, sells it, gets rich from it or re-uploads it, if it disappears.

Face it, if you upload it and allow the whole world to access it for free it's really no longer yours, whatever the copyright laws say, there's fuck all you can do about it.

I'm not anti-copyright, I don't have anything against buying books, software, etc. but I just think copyright law is being horribly abused.

[PetrosA]

You're right from a legal perspective but from a moral one I disagree.

And by the way, I don't care if anyone copies anything I've posted on the Internet, sells it, gets rich from it or re-uploads it, if it disappears.

Face it, if you upload it and allow the whole world to access it for free it's really no longer yours, whatever the copyright laws say, there's fuck all you can do about it.

I'm not anti-copyright, I don't have anything against buying books, software, etc. but I just think copyright law is being horribly abused.

I agree with you that copyright law is being abused by some, but that doesn't mean the intent to protect creators is invalid. The fact that it's easy to steal and difficult to protect your intellectual property doesn't mean that it's OK for it to become de facto public domain. The only thing that has changed over the last few decades in the format of intellectual property is that it has become digital. No one used to buy a bestseller book and reprint it for sale - it just didn't happen because the amount of work needed for a very small amount of profit wasn't worth the risk. Pirated music only happened in foreign markets where it was easy to get away with. What has changed is that a whole multi-generational culture has developed that believes it's acceptable to share materials that they didn't create with unlimited numbers of people.

I firmly believe that the people who think it's OK to spread other people's IP are those who have never created any of their own. I lost a business because an employee sold all my recipes to a competitor who was then able to attract my entire customer base away. That business and my unique recipes took me 10 years to develop but it took less than 3 months to lose it all, with a large amount of debt to boot. You could make the argument that my recipes were made public since I prepared everything in view of my customers, but that doesn't mean they were public domain, and my life was changed forever by that loss.

[PStevenson]

slightly off topic from PhotonicInduction but not the reposting content thing.

I would love to know what Dave thinks about this particularly, as some people know I do music as I'm sure loads of you do
but often I like to put an audio excerpt of something I find funny or relevant to the lyrical content of the song at the beginning. would you be okay for people to use some of your content in this manner

by the way, my phone has a cut from your audiophoolery video on it - so now when I get a text alert it says "you've got to be shitting me" which usually suits what the text message says and makes people laugh