[HN Gopher] Mend it Mark gets suspect copyright strike for PS25k...
___________________________________________________________________
Mend it Mark gets suspect copyright strike for PS25k audio amp
repair
Author : Workaccount2
Score : 212 points
Date : 2024-12-08 13:47 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hackaday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hackaday.com)
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The video in question can still be viewed on the Internet archive
|
| https://archive.org/details/the-gbp-25-000-pre-amp-that-went...
| neilv wrote:
| This video is great. One of the better uses of the Internet.
|
| Google/YouTube/Alphabet should be doing everything they can to
| encourage high-quality educational content like this, rather
| than being party to suppressing it.
| sneak wrote:
| Anyone with a return address and big cash flows is ultimately
| a slave to the civil court system, with all of its inherent
| flaws (such as claims without merit being able to cost you
| thousands of dollars that you cannot recoup).
|
| It is in the best interest of large hosting companies,
| datacenters, and UGC sites to shy away from anything that
| remotely smells of liability because the costs can instantly
| far exceed the revenues from small customers due to the flaws
| of the US legal system.
|
| Many other civil systems use a "loser pays" model for funding
| lawyers, but if you get sued in the US and win, you still
| have to pay for your own lawyers unless you countersue (and
| your opponent is collectible). This opens up a very obvious
| denial of service attack.
| neilv wrote:
| In this case, doesn't the injustice work for Alphabet (not
| that that's just)?
|
| Can't they just establish a "we will not negotiate with
| terrorists" kind of reputation, and when they see abusive
| misuse of DMCA, then the abuser is facing very deep pockets
| of Alphabet, who is motivated to make a lesson of them?
| slavik81 wrote:
| Google's current approach to copyright on YouTube was
| adopted following their settlement agreement with Viacom
| [1]. While the terms were never disclosed, that
| settlement probably constrains how Google can handle
| copyright policing on YouTube.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_I
| nc._v._Y....
| colonelpopcorn wrote:
| I agree, but the incentives for Alphabet to encourage content
| like this isn't there. The content that is encouraged is that
| which keeps eyeballs glued to YouTube.
| Symbiote wrote:
| It is streaming very slowly for me, but thanks to the person in
| Germany seeding the torrent :-)
|
| https://archive.org/download/the-gbp-25-000-pre-amp-that-wen...
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Just jumped into the middle of the video somewhere and, wow,
| that's very much a prototype-looking amp inside.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| Any chance it's the music he plays on his turntable, during the
| last 1 minute of the video?
|
| Shazam says it's _Khruangbin - People Everywhere (Still Alive)_
| internet101010 wrote:
| I watched the entire thing and the only item that seems even
| remotely like infringement is the service manual containing the
| Tom Evans name that Mark made himself.
| pessimizer wrote:
| And that would be a trademark.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| You need to read the "earlier coverage" link for this to make
| sense. For starters, "Tom Evans" is the manufacturing company,
| not necessarily just a random dude. But I guess Mend it Mark
| embarrassed the hell out of this company, so they're lashing out
| in the finest corporate-approved tradition for YouTube.
| tylerflick wrote:
| Apparently Tom Evans is a dude at the company though. Their
| website looks as well put together as the amp in the video:
| http://www.audiodesign.co.uk/index.html
| justmarc wrote:
| Exactly right, and more. Oh goodness.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I figured that was possible, hence "not necessarily", but he
| seems to be acting in the role of company here. At least for
| me, having a name that sounds like "just a guy", rather than
| a more conventional manufacturing company name, threw me way
| off for a little bit. :D
| scns wrote:
| > The new MasterGroove SR Mk3 is a quite literally beyond
| reality!
|
| Oookay. But ironically fitting somehow.
| asddubs wrote:
| so it doesn't exist?
| rwmj wrote:
| I watched the original video (big fan of Mark), and it was a
| perfectly ordinary repair video, albeit for a ridiculously
| overpriced piece of audiophile equipment. There was absolutely
| nothing in there I remember that could infringe copyright,
| unless simply opening up and taking a video of the inside of a
| piece of equipment can now infringe. He didn't even disparage
| the preamp. Unlike much audiophile nonsense, he noted it was
| genuinely properly designed electronics (albeit very very
| expensive).
|
| Edit: I'm now seeding https://archive.org/details/the-
| gbp-25-000-pre-amp-that-went... Enjoy your Streisand Effect.
| unsnap_biceps wrote:
| I'm getting "The item is not available due to issues with the
| item's content." on the archive.org link
| rwmj wrote:
| Works for me, did you try the torrent?
| unsnap_biceps wrote:
| It works now, guess as the other poster said, it was a
| transient archive.org issue.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Archive.org has been weirdly broken for weeks. That error
| can pop up on almost everything when you try to get things
| one way, but if you try to get the same file another way,
| it downloads happily. I'm worried.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I'm guessing part of the embarrassment is from this part:
|
| > which the manufacturer claimed 'could not be fixed'
|
| which Mark definitively proved wrong. But also, he doesn't
| have to explicitly disparage the equipment if people can just
| look at it and make their own conclusions. Even if the actual
| design is sound (I'm not remotely qualified to judge), you
| have to admit it looks a bit janky.
|
| As for valid copyright claims, you're probably looking for
| reason where none exists.
| ta988 wrote:
| Looks like some company was really embarrassed someone would show
| that they added too many zeros to their product price...
| grues-dinner wrote:
| Apparently they sent the device in themselves. I suppose they
| were expecting "cup the balls" sponsored content treatment
| rather than an unbiased video.
| umvi wrote:
| Clough42 gets free 3D printers from manufacturers sometimes
| to review, and every once in a while he tears the product a
| new one. And every once in a while the company actually uses
| said negative feedback to improve the product
| radicalbyte wrote:
| The 3D printer market isn't based on selling $20 cables for
| $3k based on some bullshit pseudo-science marketing.
| sbarre wrote:
| I remember the first time I saw audiophile cables that
| had an "electron flow direction" marked on them and I
| kinda knew right then what this was all about.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| Even leads for monitoring brain activity don't do that
| stuff. And they are monitoring literally mV. Leads and
| contact patches are often made of silver to capture that
| stuff too, and they have actual reasons to use silver.
| NegativeK wrote:
| For medical devices, they're profitable by being based on
| reality instead of just bullshit.
| tommiegannert wrote:
| In this case, Mark tried to give them the benefit of the
| doubt, explaining that even if the circuit is a reference
| design, spending time to match components might make it
| better than it would be otherwise. It wasn't a bashing,
| but seemed like a repair video in good faith.
| tibbon wrote:
| I took a few music-centered copyright classes in college and
| thought I had a decent understanding of copyright. How in the
| world does this qualify for copyright claim? Is it that taking a
| photo/video of the physical device is making a derivative work?
| That too doesn't seem to make sense.
|
| Or is this just another bogus claim, like the one UMG made
| against the Esoterica channel recently against their own
| recording and arrangement of a Debussy piece that's 150 years
| old?
|
| It seems to me that there needs to be some sort of escrow that
| large copyright claimants need to put into when making these
| claims. If they make bogus claims, that should go to the person
| they accused incorrectly of a copyright violation. This would
| balance things out a bit, as currently last companies can just go
| claim anything they like, bully others, and have nothing behind
| it.
| onli wrote:
| I think it doesn't. But YouTubes copyright system is not a
| translation of how copyright actual works. Usually, these
| attacks are on YouTube and YouTube alone, as their system
| enables this.
| teddyh wrote:
| This has barely anything to do with the legal concept you
| studied. A "copyright strike" is not a legal concept; it is a
| YouTube-specific term, used in the opaque bureaucracy that is
| YouTube/Google ToS violations, rules adherence, and ad revenue
| eligibility.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Could this qualify as tortuous interference with a business
| relationship, and/or slander of title?
|
| Or does the DMCA preempt such things?
| 15155 wrote:
| If Mend It Mark actually earns revenue from his videos (the
| more, the better), he can sue under standard tort law, no
| contract involved, for the losses.
| db48x wrote:
| It's just yet another bogus claim.
| xbar wrote:
| I am inclined to find a Streisand album to play on a "Tom Evans"
| amp.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Ha ha. Oh, I think I hear it already.
| ryandrake wrote:
| The word "copyright" is slowly transforming into a more generic
| meaning where a big company silences a little company/individual
| that it doesn't like. This case doesn't seem to have anything to
| do with actual copyright. Did the company specify exactly what
| content they believed was copied?
|
| If you have a kid under 20, ask them what "copyright" means.
| They'll probably describe it to you in terms of corporate
| bullying rather than anything that has to do with intellectual
| property or copying.
| pinkmuffinere wrote:
| I disagree with you argument -- _we_ don't know what the
| copyrighted portion was, but that doesn't mean no such portion
| exists. Likewise, asking-kids-under-20 is not a method I'd
| generally endorse for legal issues.
|
| Per the article, it is unclear what was copyrighted. It's
| possible that YouTube knows but is not making it public, or
| maybe even YouTube doesn't know. I definitely feel that
| YouTube's handling of copyright issues is annoying, I feel like
| the creator should be told what YouTube knows. But that's not
| an issue with copyright itself.
| nadermx wrote:
| Yes, but copyright has fair use exception. And in theory when
| you send a DMCA, you are suppose to consider fair use[0], so
| this seems more like abuse.
|
| [0] https://www.arl.org/blog/9th-circuit-holds-fair-use-must-
| be-...
| mig39 wrote:
| This is the UK? DMCA doesn't apply there?
| nadermx wrote:
| Pretty sure when you submit a DMCA you submit to US
| jurisdiction, and since YouTube's copyright strike are
| their version of "DMCA", and they are a US company, I'd
| venture to say it's probably still US law they are under
| for this as they even site fair use[0]
|
| [0] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13823830
| db48x wrote:
| Youtube doesn't know, because the DMCA doesn't require the
| complainant to be very specific. The right course of action
| is to deny the complaint and make a counter complaint to
| youtube. This forces Youtube to reinstate the video, and
| forces the original complainant to take their complaint to an
| actual court. A copyright bully will simply never do that.
| They're relying on people to give up at the first step,
| without making a counter complaint.
| Animats wrote:
| Does YouTube do put-back if you file a counter-complaint?
| YouTube says they do.[1]
|
| [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en
| xenadu02 wrote:
| This is more of a YouTube thing. They are very trigger-happy on
| copyright and implement a "strike" system that will quickly get
| you demonetized. It's fairly easy to file a strike against
| anyone and the target has little recourse other than taking
| down the video even if it has nothing to do with copyright.
|
| It's not DMCA so you don't even have the right to counter-file.
| And of course since it's Google there's no one you can call or
| email to get real help unless you're a super popular channel
| with an assigned rep.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Youtube needs a better mechanism for punishing false claims.
| chgs wrote:
| Why?
| Retric wrote:
| For the overall good of society, and quite possibly to
| avoid lawsuits.
| Karellen wrote:
| > _When you look at how "IP" is used by firms, a very precise -
| albeit colloquial - meaning emerges:_
|
| > _"IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control
| the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers."_
|
| > _That is, in a world of uncertainty, where other people's
| unpredictability can erode your profits, mire you in scandal,
| or even tank your business, "IP" is a means of forcing other
| people to arrange their affairs to suit your needs, even if
| that undermines their own needs._
|
| -- Cory Doctorow, _IP_ (Locus, Sep 2020),
| https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/
| ronsor wrote:
| Doctorow also referred to DMCA section 1201 violations (the
| infamous "anti-circumvention" law) as "felony contempt of
| business model"
| freejazz wrote:
| It has nothing to do with copyright law. It's not an act of
| law, it's an act of YouTube.
| whycome wrote:
| I've seen videos where the wording says "no copyright intended"
| -- it's a peek at how they understand the concept.
| crmd wrote:
| Huge fan of Mark here. His YouTube and Patreon are a wealth of
| knowledge for repairing electronics. He's an expert in everything
| from electronics to machining and plastics fabrication. And his
| demeanor and presentation style is just lovely. I hope this
| nonsense increases his visibility and he gains some fans.
|
| https://youtube.com/@menditmark
| https://www.patreon.com/MendItMark
|
| I watched the Tom Evans video when it came out, and my guess is
| that their sham "copyright" claim comes from showing their logo
| or some written words on one of their PCBs.
| rwmj wrote:
| I remember a video he made repairing a very ordinary, mid 90s,
| cost-reduced Sony Walkman, where he very carefully spent hours
| reproducing a tiny bit of metal that had worn out in the
| internal mechanism. Rescuing something that (even when bought)
| was mostly e-waste.
|
| Edit: This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxkuOzvHToc
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Looks like he made his own service manual for this piece of
| gear and it has the manufacturer's logo on it without their
| consent.
|
| Which he prepared for the client in decent presentation
| quality.
|
| One of the most admirable things to do, above and beyond most
| repair professionals, looks like Mark really is a cut above and
| it shows.
|
| The top instrument companies have always recognized the
| advantage of partnering with the rare individual who can
| service their complex and unique products, and have been the
| most willing to provide schematics and discounted parts in
| order to make as many into authorized service centers as
| possible. To enable field calibration and service, or bench
| work without having to send their own people or ship the unit
| back to the main repair depot.
|
| The lesser outfits, not so much.
|
| If you've got money-making instruments to sell, you really
| don't want to work against someone who has the talent to fix
| defects without even having any factory documentation. That's
| hard to come by, they could be your best ally. Imagine what
| could happen with full factory support.
|
| And Mark prepared his own documentation! How much more
| respectable can you get?
|
| Posting it on Youtube is the only real mistake, unfortunate but
| true.
|
| Obviously, Youtube is not a respectable enough place, oh well,
| who knew?
|
| From the commentary it does look like the circuits are not more
| innovative than the "generic" guidelines published by the
| component manufacturers to encourage engineers to adopt their
| semiconductors for various intended purposes.
|
| When these analog devices were first emerging, some of these
| data sheets were widely published back when some of the example
| circuits were still under patent. There was every expectation
| that if you copied one of them, you would have to license it
| before you could legitimately include it with your own product.
| For these preamp components, patents have all expired now so
| that's not a consideration any more. However it's possible that
| somebody 30 or 40 years ago might have drawn up a PCB of a
| completely generic circuit that exactly conforms to an example
| public-domain schematic, no longer under patent by decades, but
| that pattern on the PCB could easily still be under copyright
| for decades to come.
|
| You create your own original artwork, you own it, even if the
| circuit is exactly the same.
|
| Thus I would say the patterns on the PCBs are only legitimate
| to reproduce in much less than their entirety, like passages
| from a book. That could be a pitfall, but I don't think more
| than a few relevant excerpts were casually shown in the video.
| OMGWTF wrote:
| follow up video:
|
| The PS25,000 Pre-Amp Repair and the Copyright Strike
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIrCaeVtvI
| lsllc wrote:
| I love the "fairly good representation" of what had happened to
| the amp's internals (using Jenga blocks and random parts).
| squarefoot wrote:
| Time to let the Streisand Effect do its fine job on that company.
| SXX wrote:
| It's not like people who buy those $30,000+ audiophile devices
| care about any facts.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Tekton had a similar war in the past and it greatly damaged
| their reputation in audiophile circles.
|
| https://www.audioresurgence.com/2024/04/asrs-contentious-
| cla...
|
| Streisand Effect was strong on this one.
| ethernot wrote:
| They buy it because they want to tell people it cost $25k.
|
| If it's a fucking turd, which it is, does not form part of
| the equation.
| whstl wrote:
| You're getting downvoted, but this is exactly the reason
| people buy it. There is even an economic term for this
| phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
| parpfish wrote:
| I've wondered whether the main customers for this type of
| equipment are audiophiles that use motivated reasoning and
| placebo effects to justify their purchase OR if this is being
| purchased by "installers" that build systems for the ultra
| wealthy who don't know any better
| Eisenstein wrote:
| The people who buy truly believe that it is what it says it
| is. The mind is a powerful thing, and it is often (mostly)
| bought by older men who do as a point of pride. It does
| absolutely no good to try to explain to them why it can't
| do what it says it does, they have so many escape hatches
| that they can jump out of any one of them. It doesn't
| really matter though -- no matter how much the people
| selling the overpriced crap might be scumbags, the people
| buying it wouldn't be donating the money to a hospital or
| something otherwise. These aren't gambling addicts who are
| spending the money they need to pay the mortgage, these are
| rich old men with more money than sense.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| "Audiophile" equipment has always seemed like the perfect
| breeding ground for snakeoil salesmen, with classic examples like
| the Shakti stone: https://www.shakti-
| innovations.com/product/shakti-stone/
| BoingBoomTschak wrote:
| "Seemed"? It has been for a long time, audio enthusiasts that
| aren't suckers just keep on buying from Genelec/Neumann and
| other proven manufacturers publishing relevant measurement
| data.
| consp wrote:
| > Placement on automotive CPUs has measurably increased engine
| horsepower.
|
| How is this even legal? It's not like the metal box doesn't do
| anything at all.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Holy shit
|
| The SHAKTI Electromagnetic Stabilizer (aka "the Stone") has
| three internal trap circuits (Microwave, RF and Electric Field)
| to absorb the broadest spectrum of EMI. Placement on automotive
| CPUs has measurably increased engine horsepower.
|
| It also improves resolution for virtually all-major components
| in high definition audio/video systems. Music reproduction is
| clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus. The improved
| inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient cue
| information essential for accurate perception of stage depth,
| width and unwavering imaging. High quality video systems will
| benefit from SHAKTI devices near power supplies, projection
| guns and laser disc/DVD players. Reduced color noise and
| improved convergence alignment are some of the improvements
| that can occur. In automotive applications, where space allows,
| the unit should be securely taped and/or cable tied to the top
| of the CPU.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| For those wanting a glimpse inside this monstrosity.
|
| https://hackaday.com/2024/11/14/repairing-the-questionable-2...
| HelloUsername wrote:
| It's mentioned in the article, "our earlier coverage"
| jddj wrote:
| I get that the most likely is that Tom Evans didn't like it, but
| could the copyright claim not be for the khruangbin^ track that
| he plays at the end to test the repaired channel?
|
| I remember when I had a few friends who were making/mixing music
| they had to be very careful when uploading to YouTube due to
| automatic shazam style fingerprinting
|
| ^ I think. Didn't get to read the label
|
| Edit: mentioned by someone upthread too
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42358894
| Vecr wrote:
| It's not, when you try to go to the video it says "Tom Evans"
| on the error message.
| jddj wrote:
| Ah right, makes sense
| StayTrue wrote:
| Long time fan I watched this video before it was struck and there
| was no infringement in the video unless opening a device and
| showing the inside constitutes infringement. Bad job YouTube.
| bfrog wrote:
| I watched this episode, hilariously terrible construction of what
| I'm sure was a thoughtfully designed amp.
|
| The thing had pcbs stacked using plastic m2.5-like standoffs that
| had snapped. Apparently the product designer claimed Mark
| couldn't fix it. Mend it Mark can fix anything that is fixable,
| truly a master repairman.
| dramm wrote:
| Oh God more Audiophile snake oil idiots. I feel sorry for Mend it
| Mark putting up with YouTube's copyright stupidity triggered by
| these idiots. I thought his well natured response video was a lot
| of fun. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIrCaeVtvI)
|
| I hope Mend it Mark can continue to work to be less dependent on
| YouTube/Google, his training courses are hosted on Wistia for
| example.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-08 23:00 UTC)