226 of my videos copied

[JuKu]

It is simple fact, 'intellectual property' is not tangible by definition.

Webster:
...
2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>
3: capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>

IP is by definition very tangible. It is also very stealable and the losses sometimes identifiable to a cent.

[IanB]

It is the "intellectual" part of IP that is the issue.

To be considered property in a normal, rational sense, there should be some work product involved; an expenditure of time, labor and effort to produce something substantive.

It is not acceptable to most that a mere idea, a mere product of ones mind, can be property or have value. This is where patents are frequently objectionable. In many cases, an invention is merely a routine application of the known laws of physics to a particular purpose. Any one of hundreds or thousands of people could successfully apply the same laws of physics to the same ends. Why should the first person to file a claim with the government be granted a legal monopoly over that application? In most areas of commerce monopolies are objectionable. Why not with patents? Learning and education is in the public domain and should remain so.

[ElectroIrradiator]

As for the legality of all that stuff, that's a different can of worms. Copying video or music or software is copyright infringement. Copying hardware... Well .. Schematics are not protected. Pcb and ic layouts ARE protected ! A technique can be protected by patent.
You can perfectly clone the sally hardware .. Just can't use it with their software.... The software has an eula that explicitly states that. End of story. It is up to every individual to decide if he will abide by the eula or not. Hardware can be ripped apart and discussed. Perfectly legal.

(Emphasis added.)

Metallization masks for ICs *are* protected IP, there is a separate clause for them in copyright law (at least there are in some countries, not sure if it is global).
PCB designs are *not* protected, as there frequently are just one way of making an 'optimal' design for a given function (RF in particular). So if copyright applied to PCB layouts, you could design, say, a push-pull RF power amplifier, for which there exist just about a single, standard layout. Suddenly you'd have a monopoly on making P-P power RF amplifiers. Monopolies on technical configurations are covered by patents, not copyright, and are much stricter when it comes to the duration of the protection provided.

Technically a PCB count as a component, or a 'technical configuration', which is physically frequently the case. Curiously, any text on a given layout *is* protected, just to make the confusion complete.

But the actual pattern for the copper traces and the various layers are not copyrightable. Any special, clever hacks needs to be patented if you want IP protection of them.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Regarding the original Youtube issue - I think where someone is ripping off vids from multiple sources, the trick would be to send messages to the owners of the other vids to make them aware, so YT receive infringement complaints from multiple sources. 
if you look at the message on the channel mine were on :

YouTube account ScienceAndLovers has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants

[ve7xen]

What if someone would make a little script that finds the video posted from that clackley dude and posts a comment. 'This video is a ripoff ! The real video is here :<real url>'

I think this would backfire. You'd hugely increase the popularity score of these videos and they'd be much more likely to bubble up in search results, making these jerks more profitable. The best course just seems to be complain to Google.

[Stonent]

YouTube account Minna Clakley has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:
imcrazymonkeystudios
David L. Jones

Now they know who you are, Dave. RUN! 

[KJDS]

As for the legality of all that stuff, that's a different can of worms. Copying video or music or software is copyright infringement. Copying hardware... Well .. Schematics are not protected. Pcb and ic layouts ARE protected ! A technique can be protected by patent.
You can perfectly clone the sally hardware .. Just can't use it with their software.... The software has an eula that explicitly states that. End of story. It is up to every individual to decide if he will abide by the eula or not. Hardware can be ripped apart and discussed. Perfectly legal.

(Emphasis added.)

Metallization masks for ICs *are* protected IP, there is a separate clause for them in copyright law (at least there are in some countries, not sure if it is global).
PCB designs are *not* protected, as there frequently are just one way of making an 'optimal' design for a given function (RF in particular). So if copyright applied to PCB layouts, you could design, say, a push-pull RF power amplifier, for which there exist just about a single, standard layout. Suddenly you'd have a monopoly on making P-P power RF amplifiers. Monopolies on technical configurations are covered by patents, not copyright, and are much stricter when it comes to the duration of the protection provided.

Technically a PCB count as a component, or a 'technical configuration', which is physically frequently the case. Curiously, any text on a given layout *is* protected, just to make the confusion complete.

But the actual pattern for the copper traces and the various layers are not copyrightable. Any special, clever hacks needs to be patented if you want IP protection of them.

In the UK, PCB layouts are copyright.

I'm sure I could come up with dozens of RF amplifier layouts that gave the same performance.

[ElectroIrradiator]

In the UK, PCB layouts are copyright.

Not unless this changed quite recently, like since I last talked to my brother-in-law. I used to work for one of the very - exceptionally - large third party manufacturers of pattern parts for cars and trucks. The company still exist, now under Very Big German owners which you've heard of. They make mostly electromechanical replacement parts and assemblies for, well, every car and truck brand I can think of. To make stuff fit in car engines and other tight spaces, you mostly need the parts to fit an exact spot, and have a very particular functionality. This means as near as possible to making a component level clone/copy, complete with the exact shape and circuit layout of the PCBs, connectors located in exactly the same spot as the originals etc.

GM, Ford, Mercedes, BMW and all the rest couldn't stop us, which is the reason why the large manufacturers are so keen on shoehorning MCUs with complex firmware onto every major assembly in a car, and not just the engine. This makes it much harder to clone the part (including PCBs), giving the OEMs a virtual monopoly on spare parts (which are now ridiculously expensive). Any Audi owners with bad gearboxes here, by any chance?

My brother-in-law still works there, so I have a suspicion I would have heard about it, if things have changed.

I'm sure I could come up with dozens of RF amplifier layouts that gave the same performance.

I challenge you to do so, and will check back with you to hear about your progress on this project.

My reference was for the symmetric PCB layout for SW amplifiers (3-30 MHz), popularized in the seventies by Helge Granberg of Motorola Semiconductors fame. This is the design with a physical layout consisting of a 'split' pair of PCBs ,with the active RF devices frequently located in a groove in the middle between the PCBs. Different sized broadband ferrite transformers located at each end, balanced DC choke in between the collectors.

I'm not sure if Mr. Granberg invented this layout, or if he just popularized it through his work at Motorola. However, I am looking forward to hearing about your alternative design suggestion, as I haven't seen anybody else come up with a better, or even remotely as effective, layout as this one since then. Absolutely everybody builds their balanced, broadband RF amp modules like this.

[EEVblog]

YouTube account Minna Clakley has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:
imcrazymonkeystudios
David L. Jones

So it seems the only way to shut down a channel is to get multiple complainants.
Youtube partner Australia gave me a canned reply saying I had to individually lodge complaints for each video, even though I went to lengths to explain to them that wasn't practical.
So much for giving a toss about their Partners.

[alm]

Lesson for future infringers: create a new account for every user you copy videos from. That way you can't get legitimate complaints from multiple users.

[EEVblog]

Looks like another one:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Eun+Hurston+eevblog&oq=Eun+Hurston+eevblog
10 videos so far

[george graves]

[EEVblog]

*snort*

[FrankBuss]

Looks like another one:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Eun+Hurston+eevblog&oq=Eun+Hurston+eevblog
10 videos so far

How do you find them? When I search for "eevblog", I can't filter fir videos which are not from your channel. But a script can do 

http://pastebin.com/Q4Wm9B0t

Interesting result, not that much:

Code: [Select]

id: 3YUvlrVlNao, author: MicrochipTechnology, title: Microchip Response to PICkit 3 Review from EEVblog #39
id: 9zp7Atx6zz8, author: Trio Tech, title: EEVblog #318   Makerbot Replicator 3D Printer Unboxing & Review
id: wePQltAe3_4, author: tektronix, title: Tektronix Oscilloscope Probe Shock - by EEVblog
id: nUTfSZ-sV9M, author: Thijs Sillen, title: EEVblog dummy load 90W 30V 3A - update 1
id: bHIU05ETIYM, author: Thijs Sillen, title: EEVblog dummy load 90W 30V 3A - update 2
id: yP-34hXSH6M, author: Eun Hurston, title: Open Source Hardware Explained   EEVblog #195
id: qJwHVXU5KR8, author: Eun Hurston, title: CleverScope USB Oscilloscope   EEVblog #207 2 of 3)

Looks all good, except "Eun Hurston" and maybe another one without your permission, "Trio Tech".

[EEVblog]

How do you find them? When I search for "eevblog", I can't filter fir videos which are not from your channel. But a script can do 

Viewers email me.

[Psi]

That user got suspended pretty quick

[KJDS]

In the UK, PCB layouts are copyright.

Not unless this changed quite recently, like since I last talked to my brother-in-law. I used to work for one of the very - exceptionally - large third party manufacturers of pattern parts for cars and trucks. The company still exist, now under Very Big German owners which you've heard of. They make mostly electromechanical replacement parts and assemblies for, well, every car and truck brand I can think of. To make stuff fit in car engines and other tight spaces, you mostly need the parts to fit an exact spot, and have a very particular functionality. This means as near as possible to making a component level clone/copy, complete with the exact shape and circuit layout of the PCBs, connectors located in exactly the same spot as the originals etc.

GM, Ford, Mercedes, BMW and all the rest couldn't stop us, which is the reason why the large manufacturers are so keen on shoehorning MCUs with complex firmware onto every major assembly in a car, and not just the engine. This makes it much harder to clone the part (including PCBs), giving the OEMs a virtual monopoly on spare parts (which are now ridiculously expensive). Any Audi owners with bad gearboxes here, by any chance?

My brother-in-law still works there, so I have a suspicion I would have heard about it, if things have changed.

I'm sure I could come up with dozens of RF amplifier layouts that gave the same performance.

I challenge you to do so, and will check back with you to hear about your progress on this project.

My reference was for the symmetric PCB layout for SW amplifiers (3-30 MHz), popularized in the seventies by Helge Granberg of Motorola Semiconductors fame. This is the design with a physical layout consisting of a 'split' pair of PCBs ,with the active RF devices frequently located in a groove in the middle between the PCBs. Different sized broadband ferrite transformers located at each end, balanced DC choke in between the collectors.

I'm not sure if Mr. Granberg invented this layout, or if he just popularized it through his work at Motorola. However, I am looking forward to hearing about your alternative design suggestion, as I haven't seen anybody else come up with a better, or even remotely as effective, layout as this one since then. Absolutely everybody builds their balanced, broadband RF amp modules like this.

It's the specifics, not the generalities that are the subject to copyright. An exact copy is illegal. Enforcing it is a non-trivial task that many companies don't bother with.

As for RF amps, you pay me my usual charge rate and I'll design a dozen that will work. Sure, the topology may be similar for a few, but the layouts would be different. The key on the P-P amp you refer to is not the layout but the baluns.

[ElectroIrradiator]

It's the specifics, not the generalities that are the subject to copyright. An exact copy is illegal. Enforcing it is a non-trivial task that many companies don't bother with.

Excellent, I love specifics.

What are the exact technical details behind IP protection of PCB layouts in the UK then? For instance is the footprint for a single SO-8 protected?

I have been through this debate many times before. It seems very hard to imagine any copyright boundaries for PCB layouts, where you don't end up in either a ridiculous situation (someone having a global copyright on using SO-8 packages on PCBs within the UK), or the IP protection is trivial to circumvent, making any protection completely pointless to start with. "Add two isolated copper patches in an empty corner to nullify copyright".

Make no mistake about my motivations here. There are many situations, where I personally feel it isn't the morally 'done' thing to copy either a schematic or a PCB layout for profit. Many products from small companies comes to mind here. Yet I have also experienced the opposite side of the coin, where a community manages to convince itself that schematics and/or PCB layouts are covered by personal or corporate copyrights.

In the latter case the result is invariably, that vocal yet perhaps inexperienced members of the community claims copyright on trivial contraptions, which have been well known in the industry for decades. As a result the community suffers through entrenchment, stagnation and a lack of innovation. It is no longer possible to extend or even work on decades old designs, unless you wish to incur the wrath of the community. At the very least you end up in situations, where you have to ask the local deities for permission to wire up a pair of 4000 series CMOS ICs and similar hilarities.

For this reason I strongly believe in stomping hard on the myths surrounding copyright on schematics and PCB layouts, where-ever I meet them.

As for RF amps, you pay me my usual charge rate and I'll design a dozen that will work. Sure, the topology may be similar for a few, but the layouts would be different. The key on the P-P amp you refer to is not the layout but the baluns.

Stop beating about the bush. I'm not asking for a complete or even workable design, just a quick sketch showing the basic principles of operation.

Can you or can you not show us a quickly jotted down hand drawing of a crude PCB layout for a balanced, wideband 3-30MHz RF amplifier with a 'new' PCB layout?

The schematic and PCB layout must be markedly different from Motorola's original PCB design mentioned previously, the rules for discerning between designs will be the ones I asked you about earlier in this post.

[KJDS]

The schematic and PCB layout must be markedly different from Motorola's original PCB design mentioned previously, the rules for discerning between designs will be the ones I asked you about earlier in this post.

So long as they are different enough to appear not copied then it's not covered under copyright. So a small change to the balun size and track spacing means it's a new design and not covered under copyright.

An SO8 padstack, or similar, is no more copyrightable than the word "word." Put together a few paragraphs of words and you can't copy them.

There's some reading here which covers the law on the matter.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-artisticworks.htm

[ElectroIrradiator]

[There's some reading here which covers the law on the matter.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-artisticworks.htm

What you are linking, is the UK's version of the ratification of the 1886 Berne Convention on the protection of artwork. Which means you didn't read what I wrote earlier in the thread.

*) Despite what many hobbyists would dearly like to believe, then PCB layouts are not considered protected artwork by the courts, anywhere.
*) PCB layouts are considered parts of machinery, no different from a complex gearbox.
*) If you want IP protection of a gearbox/PCB layout, then you need to obtain a time limited patent. Copyright does not apply, no matter how complex the design.
*) If you couldn't copy or clone PCBs, then servicing out-of-service yet expensive machinery you own would be impossible in many cases, like fabricating a new RF amp PCB for a TV transmitter. That is the reason why PCBs are legally considered machinery, and not art.
*) Many people attempt to squeeze circuit diagrams in under the protection of the Berne Convention, and at initial blush you do have some protection. However this protection is of the actual image or binary file you created yourself, not of what the image/diagram shows: The actual connections and component values for a particular circuit. If you want protection of the latter, then you will again need to apply for a patent.

Please stop perpetuating these urban legends, or at the very least arm yourself with some better arguments than links to the Berne Convention.

I also take it you were bluffing regarding alternatives to the classic, balanced RF amp PCB layout.

[G7PSK]

In the UK you do have automatic rights to a design but if you want further protection you need to register your design, this is not a patent and so is cheaper to do so, but it does stop people copying your work without making any changes to it.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-about/d-designright.htm

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-other/d-usebuy.htm

 Like a patent it is only as good as your bank balance.

[ElectroIrradiator]

No, you don't, when it comes to PCB layouts. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.

A PCB layout.

Is.

Not.

Considered.

Artistic.

Design.

Anywhere.

Most sane countries have very similar provisions for the protection of art and artistic design. Those laws and regulations does not apply to PCB artwork, because if they did, in many cases they would amount to automatic patents.

To put this differently: Assume for a second a PCB layout is considered a protected design. Now one day Ajax Semiconductor Corp Inc. puts a new RF chip to market, with spectacular new functionality. Joe Nobody in his basement quickly comes up with and published a tiny core PCB involving the new IC, complete with proper supply bypassing, controlled impedance lines and whatnot, suddenly enabling macroscopic teleportation. Presto, Joe Nobody now has a UK patent on implementing teleportation using the new chip, preventing the customers of Ajax Corp from actually using the chip without paying royalties to him. In fact Ajax Corp themselves have to pay royalties to Mr. Nobody.

That simply cannot be the case, not even in the UK. So it follows that PCB layouts are not protected designs even in the UK.

The UK is not special here, sorry.

[KJDS]

No, you don't, when it comes to PCB layouts. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.

A PCB layout.

Is.

Not.

Considered.

Artistic.

Design.

Anywhere.

Most sane countries have very similar provisions for the protection of art and artistic design. Those laws and regulations does not apply to PCB artwork, because if they did, in many cases they would amount to automatic patents.

To put this differently: Assume for a second a PCB layout is considered a protected design. Now one day Ajax Semiconductor Corp Inc. puts a new RF chip to market, with spectacular new functionality. Joe Nobody in his basement quickly comes up with and published a tiny core PCB involving the new IC, complete with proper supply bypassing, controlled impedance lines and whatnot, suddenly enabling macroscopic teleportation. Presto, Joe Nobody now has a UK patent on implementing teleportation using the new chip, preventing the customers of Ajax Corp from actually using the chip without paying royalties to him. In fact Ajax Corp themselves have to pay royalties to Mr. Nobody.

That simply cannot be the case, not even in the UK. So it follows that PCB layouts are not protected designs even in the UK.

The UK is not special here, sorry.

You seem to have no idea of the difference between patent, design right and copyright.

[ElectroIrradiator]

You seem to have no idea of the difference between patent, design right and copyright.

You seem not to have read the whole thread.

Insisting on design rights for a PCB layout would be tantamount to asking the world to accept a de facto, instant patent (of sorts) on a technical configuration, as there frequently exist unique, optimal design solutions for a given problem. Example provided earlier in the thread.

Same thing when insisting on copyright as applied to PCB layouts. If they applied, you would de facto have a monopoly on making many technical configurations, this without having to go through the expense and paperwork of applying for and have granted a proper patent.

The only way of getting a government sanctioned monopoly on a technical configuration, is through the well established patent system.

The laws and legal precedents on these subjects have not changed for quite a while, nor do they differ noticeably between countries. PCB layouts are technical configurations. Not art. Not design. Not authored texts. Nor photographs or drawings.

They are machinery, legally speaking. If you want monopoly on making a particular gear, then apply for a patent.

[walshms]

No. I think you should do it because you say you care. But the very fact that you would make this comment tells me you really don't. So I refer you to my original comments.

Oh FFS. If I see such a thread then I may very well feel compelled to comment on it. Actually, I think I recall doing so on one occasion on the clone device, but I could be mistaken (live show maybe?). In either case, I'm saying so NOW ok?
Or will you not be happy until I go and vigorously defend every instance of this that ever happened or will happen?

I care about a LOT of stuff, but like I said I can't possibly go and defend every one of them in every instance, in every thread to satisfy everyone's whim.
You are being complete idiotic.

Not worth it, Dave, but I think you know that.  Just let it die.  It will.