PDA

View Full Version : Ebayer selling copied youtube lessons, caution it could be yours next



MiaRosie
03-15-2010, 02:53 PM
Whilst working my way through ukulele listings on ebay I came across an auction for a pc cd *beginners guitar lessons - ukulele special* - so I looked at it.

It stated that the seller had redistribution rights and was able to sell this item. So I bid, and won, and paid and had it sent to me from Poland.

It arrived quickly, I popped it my computer and :confused: :confused: :confused: the 24 lessons were all copies of Mike Lynch lessons from youtube.

I immediately got in touch with the seller who replied stating that he COULD sell it ( I wonder if he feels that because they were published in an open 'forum' it gave him the right ? ), but that if I wanted a refund to return the cd to him.

I then got in touch with Mike Lynch who confirmed that he had not given anyone permission to duplicate or sell his work. Following that I spoke on the phone with ebay who are taking action.

So, two things, be aware that there are still people out there that will go to any length to make some money, regardless of whose toes they stand on - - and be aware that despite what people write in their ebay listings you can't always believe that they DO have the redistribution rights.

Who knows who they will target next time ?

black nalu
03-15-2010, 03:22 PM
Thank you for your posting and follow through--it is appreciated mi compadre. We need more people of principle to take action.

phanzo
03-15-2010, 03:38 PM
Thanks for the heads up!!!

Ronnie Aloha
03-15-2010, 03:50 PM
Wow, thanks for the heads up. I hate seeing things like this happen since Mike worked so hard in creating the lessons and giving them out for free.

pithaya9
03-15-2010, 05:03 PM
Nice catch Rosie!

Ahnko Honu
03-15-2010, 09:52 PM
Is Paypal going to refund you the money from his account? They should since he fraudulently used Paypal to rip you off.

clayton56
03-15-2010, 10:34 PM
So how do you guys feel about copyright violations now?

micromue
03-15-2010, 10:41 PM
So how do you guys feel about copyright violations now?

This was my thought in the very second you posted this.

buddhuu
03-15-2010, 11:37 PM
So how do you guys feel about copyright violations now?

A fair point.

On the other hand, objecting to someone doing the parasite with material that Mike generously shares for free is, IMHO, rather different from getting p*ssed about corporate killjoys enforcing copyright for the sake of it when material is covered for fun and tribute with no intention to deprive the copyright owner or make money.

As I say, a very fair point but personally I still feel the same as I did before.

SuperSecretBETA
03-16-2010, 12:01 AM
So how do you guys feel about copyright violations now?

I'm not sure this is protected under Fair Use (despite it's vagueness).

side note soap box: IMO, our current copyright laws are unconstitutional, and completely out of line with what the Framers had in mind. Thanks a lot, Disney.

casarole45
03-16-2010, 12:12 AM
hmm the website seems to be gone, I can no longer do unmentionables to it =D

MiaRosie
03-16-2010, 03:11 AM
the ukulele cd is not listed on it - worth keeping an eye for it though, to see if it pops up again at any time.

Interestingly the contact address shows a place in Catford London, whereas the cd was shipped from and expected to be returned to, Poland ( i was sent the address and it was also on the packaging )

Regarding a refund, ebay have advised me that I need to wait the ten days which is standard practice to give the guy the time to refund fully. He is currently refusing to do so until I return the cd to him. I am refusing to return the cd, although I have told ebay that I am more than happy to send it to them for destruction. They in turn have told me I do not need to send it anywhere, just destroy it myself.

To be honest we are talking a really really small amount of money here, approximately 4 including shipping, and I am not that concerned about the refund. I was more bothered that Mike Lynch, having spent so long creating these videos to help novice players totally free of charge, was having his generosity abused in this way.

I have never been more impressed with ebay than I am about how they have dealt with this. I spoke with them three times on the phone, they took me through a process so that everything was fully recorded for legal purposes, including repeating the item number and other details slowly and clearly so that an audio recording had all of the details necessary. They also informed me of their next steps.

I hope this doesn't put Mike off doing future video lessons, they are so useful.

cjensen91910
03-16-2010, 05:22 AM
Copyright control is like trying to herd jello. Since the internet is very hard to control at all, if even possible. As a buyer, all that can be done is as you have done. Some small pressure is applied but, on the whole of it, it's a lost game.

Bargain2010
03-16-2010, 10:25 AM
You bought the CD 0.45 pence. Supprisingly you didn't mention here that it was ststed in that listing that everything contained on the advertised CD is distributed freely globally, that you are only paying for the time to find and test the program, plus the cost of the CD and associated listing cost. It was also stated that there are no license fees charged. What's your problem?

UkuleleJarr
03-16-2010, 10:28 AM
has anyone alerted mike?

i know he is working on a learning DVD but this sounds just a little suspicious to me

MiaRosie
03-16-2010, 10:37 AM
It seems that the seller of the cd has joined the forum. Bargain2010 - no one else here would know the cost of the cd, nor what is contained in the product description. I obviously still have the listing and am happy to review it and show post it.

My problem is that someone, ie Mike Lynch has spent hours putting together lessons to give freely to ukulele players and someone, bjsoftwares, has chosen to take Mikes work and sell it for profit. That is my problem.

MiaRosie
03-16-2010, 10:42 AM
LICENSE

This item is not a copy, it’s our product and may be installed on as many computers as you wish. However, you are only paying for our time to find, test, approve, compile, design and produce this package bundle. The software content in this advertised package is released under GNU/ GPL License, there are no license fees charged.

Note to eBay: This item does not infringe any trademark, copyright, or other rights nor does it infringe eBay's listing or spam policies.
Everything contained on the advertised CD is distributed freely and globally under the terms of the GNU Public License or the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)

We have full and legal right to re-distribute this product.


May I ask who gave you the right to re-distribute this product ? Mike Lynch certainly didn't.


**** I have been reading up on these and it appears that they are both used for SOFTWARE and the program must contain the source code. I have now looked up GNU Public and GNULGPL as well as the Open Source Initiative - each of them state the same. Their use is for SOFTWARE redistribution on the basis that this also gives a licence to redistribute, the source code and other information as laid down by them. I don't understand all this - but I know a man that can. If you google any of those terms you will come across a site or sites which go into them fully. Looking at it, it seems that the other products offered may possibly fall into this category - however I can't see how youtube ukulele lessons can be categorised as software.

GrumpyCoyote
03-16-2010, 10:44 AM
Mike has some method of recourse here. E-bay is very good about pulling down pirated material if the copyright owner complains . They have an extensive system in place. Unfortunatley it's a biit of a paperwork hassle, but once it's all filed e-bay uses the ban hammer.

It's been many years since I did it, but there were pirated versions of some of my (former) companies models on e-bay - I filed a ton of paperwork, e-bay went after them, pulled the listings and banned the users.

I would suggest to anyone who makes these that they embed titles DURING the content (that could not be removed or edited easily) directing people to your own website. That way, even if pirates sell it, you get the foot traffic.

Skrik
03-16-2010, 11:33 AM
Already, this seller has fallen foul of EBay and PayPal. I wonder what YouTube thinks of people redistributing content posted on their site for payment. The hot water may quickly deepen.

I have no sympathy -- I will point and laugh as he (why is it always a he?) boils like a lobster.

Guting
03-16-2010, 05:01 PM
sad da dope

Ahnko Honu
03-16-2010, 06:02 PM
You bought the CD 0.45 pence. Supprisingly you didn't mention here that it was ststed in that listing that everything contained on the advertised CD is distributed freely globally, that you are only paying for the time to find and test the program, plus the cost of the CD and associated listing cost. It was also stated that there are no license fees charged. What's your problem?

You're making profit off of somebody else's hard work without his pemission, and he receives none of the profits. That is stealing. That's the problem. It's not the money it's the priciple.

seeso
03-16-2010, 06:07 PM
Wow, that is really messed up.

tad
03-16-2010, 06:30 PM
Well, not to be the dissenting voice, here, but if the CD was sold at-cost as claimed (and 45 pence sounds a little high but not ridiculous) and if the person who created the material *did* distribute it under certain forms of creative commons copyright or GPL, etc., there might actually be no wrongdoing here at all.

Just saying. There's a couple ifs in there. I don't have the time or the inclination to investigate all the allegations and claims. But not everyone screaming about copyright and the original copyright holder being wronged on this post seems to have done so, either.

MiaRosie
03-17-2010, 01:27 AM
The cd was on auction, it could have been sold at any price, not at 45p. The amount it was sold at is totally irrelevent. It looks as though GPL covers 'software' not content taken from another source such as youtube.

What you are suggesting is that anything posted on youtube 'could' be taken without your knowledge and / or permission, put onto a cd and sold for profit ? I can't imagine Aldrine wanting to hear this, of Jake, or Dominator. I can foresee problems with youtube in the future if there is a loophole here - but no doubt they will at some point get involved with this case to get to the bottom of it.

I am fortunate to have a large group of very good friends who are Hells Angels - one of them who is a lawyer specialises in copyright law and deals with it on a daily basis with people who attempt to use the HA logo for personal gain ( or even to put onto apparal to wear themselves ) - I will get in touch with him and ask for his thoughts on this.

If it turns out that this guy has found a loophole and has chosen to use it, then it speaks volumes of lack of ethics and morals.

IF it turns out that this guy has found a loophole and has chosen to use it then as the heading of this thread says, be aware, it could be your lessons or music next. Regardless whether or not it is original work.

micromue
03-17-2010, 05:20 AM
The seller is probably referring to Youtubes Terms of use which state under 10. Rights you licence

10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube, you grant:

- to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;

- to each user of the Website, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, licence to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.

Worth a thought.

tad
03-17-2010, 06:29 AM
The cd was on auction, it could have been sold at any price, not at 45p. The amount it was sold at is totally irrelevent. It looks as though GPL covers 'software' not content taken from another source such as youtube.


Okay, yes. They should have sold it as "buy it now." Otherwise, it's sketch. But your point about intelectual property is not as sound as you feel it is, no matter how loudly you make it.

GPL can actually be applied to any sort of intelectual property that can be copyrighted.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html

Moreover, are you familiar with Creative Commons? If I'm not mistaken, this sort of action would be allowable under certain types of CC Licenses and not others.
http://creativecommons.org/

All I'm saying is that the legalities are more vague than you're making them out to be, and that it's possible that-- with the exception of listing it at auction and not a flat rate-- that what the person is doing is okay in terms of IP. *Possible.* Not certain. Not even "highly likely." But possible. And knowing for certain would only be possible after talking to the copyright holder.

michio
03-17-2010, 09:30 AM
wtf!! that is not cool at all.. mmmmmmmmmmmmm some people need a good A$$ whoopin.. ha

casarole45
03-17-2010, 09:59 AM
Well, not to be the dissenting voice, here, but if the CD was sold at-cost as claimed (and 45 pence sounds a little high but not ridiculous) and if the person who created the material *did* distribute it under certain forms of creative commons copyright or GPL, etc., there might actually be no wrongdoing here at all.

Just saying. There's a couple ifs in there. I don't have the time or the inclination to investigate all the allegations and claims. But not everyone screaming about copyright and the original copyright holder being wronged on this post seems to have done so, either.

You seem to be getting very caught up in the legal implications and not the moral. I see what your saying but I would be pretty unhappy if I was giving out free lessons on youtube (which are undownloadable under normal circumstances and would have to be ripped off the page... I don't know if these were) to find someone else was making a profit out of it. Which is obviously the reason they were being sold.

There are some genuine people out there who want to help people out with nothing in return, be it money or otherwise, to then find someone else taking advantage of this is just not right.

But cheers for the legal point of view, its good to be knowledgeable on how to protect yourself.

Edit: don't want to make out like I'm having a go at your post as its really good to hear someone talk about the actual legal implications and so forth rather than the mob rule, but there is more to life than the law its not always going to help those who need it.

casarole45
03-17-2010, 10:04 AM
So how do you guys feel about copyright violations now?

not convinced this is the same in even the slightest. People posting their attempts at playing a popular tune, not for monetary or any other purpose than to say hey look at the song I've been working out as you would do with friends, no money or anything but spirit involved. Compared to someone trying to make profit out of someone elses work... how is this remotely similar??

tad
03-17-2010, 10:31 AM
You seem to be getting very caught up in the legal implications and not the moral. I see what your saying but I would be pretty unhappy if I was giving out free lessons on youtube (which are undownloadable under normal circumstances and would have to be ripped off the page... I don't know if these were) to find someone else was making a profit out of it. Which is obviously the reason they were being sold.

There are some genuine people out there who want to help people out with nothing in return, be it money or otherwise, to then find someone else taking advantage of this is just not right.


No, I'm not.

MORALLY, I do believe in releasing as much of my work as I can under Creative Commons License.
And MORALLY, I have no problem if someone else were to sell my work, not at a profit, to someone else.

Honestly, I think you and others might be getting too wrapped up in the money, and not thinking about what's actually, you know, morally right.

But then again, I'm a PhD student. I'm working on a dissertation, and hoping to be an academic. Academia works differently. We're not making money off our books anyway, so a lot of academic authors would LIKE to see their work distributed in as many ways as possible, becsause it's about dissemination of knowledge, not about money.

That's why people release things under GPL and CCL-- because they care about helping people and putting their stuff out there. If you do that, you're saying that if someone else wants to distribute your work, AT COST, it's no skin off your nose, 'cause it's just putting your work out there for more people to see. And yeah, MORALLY, I would see no problem with someone else doing just that with something I released under such a license, because they'd be HELPING ME AND HELPING OTHERS.

casarole45
03-17-2010, 10:42 AM
No, I'm not.

MORALLY, I do believe in releasing as much of my work as I can under Creative Commons License.
And MORALLY, I have no problem if someone else were to sell my work, not at a profit, to someone else.

Honestly, I think you and others might be getting too wrapped up in the money, and not thinking about what's actually, you know, morally right.

But then again, I'm a PhD student. I'm working on a dissertation, and hoping to be an academic. Academia works differently. We're not making money off our books anyway, so a lot of academic authors would LIKE to see their work distributed in as many ways as possible, becsause it's about dissemination of knowledge, not about money.

That's why people release things under GPL and CCL-- because they care about helping people and putting their stuff out there. If you do that, you're saying that if someone else wants to distribute your work, AT COST, it's no skin off your nose, 'cause it's just putting your work out there for more people to see. And yeah, MORALLY, I would see no problem with someone else doing just that with something I released under such a license, because they'd be HELPING ME AND HELPING OTHERS.

yeah thats an interesting point, definately food for thought.

MiaRosie
03-17-2010, 11:45 AM
** Honestly, I think you and others might be getting too wrapped up in the money, and not thinking about what's actually, you know, morally right.**

As said in an earlier post, this isn't about money. Nor is it about putting something out with the intention of helping others. It is about taking something posted on youtube to help others and selling it for gain, regardless of amount, without consent or recognition. Please don't bring this down to a level of being about money.

Perhaps Mike would have been flattered and agreed to this had someone had the courtesy to contact him about using his work before putting it for sale on ebay.

I do understand where you are coming from Tad, but surely even an academic would like to have some recognition for his work ? Had Mike Lynch not introduced himself on each of the lessons there would have been no knowing who he was, unless he was recognised.

** That's why people release things under GPL and CCL-- because they care about helping people and putting their stuff out there. If you do that, you're saying that if someone else wants to distribute your work, AT COST, it's no skin off your nose, 'cause it's just putting your work out there for more people to see. And yeah, MORALLY, I would see no problem with someone else doing just that with something I released under such a license, because they'd be HELPING ME AND HELPING OTHERS.**

Another vaild point, if you have made that decision to release your work for this purpose. For those that haven't yet made that decision or chose not to release their work in this manner, does it still apply ?

My last thought on this is how many of us seriously believe that this cd of Mikes lessons were being sold for the altruistic reason of putting his work out there for others to see ? I am sure that had that genuinely been the case his name would have been plastered all over the listing and on the cd - or at least mentioned 'somewhere'.

tad
03-17-2010, 05:13 PM
As said in an earlier post, this isn't about money. Nor is it about putting something out with the intention of helping others. It is about taking something posted on youtube to help others and selling it for gain, regardless of amount, without consent or recognition. Please don't bring this down to a level of being about money.

Do you really not see the contradiction here? What you're saying is that it's about SELLING IT, which is about MONEY.


Perhaps Mike would have been flattered and agreed to this had someone had the courtesy to contact him about using his work before putting it for sale on ebay.

This is not about flattery. All I'm saying is that if he has released the materials under CCL or GPL, he is saying that it's okay, before hand, and that there is no need to then ask him. That's what the license does. It answers that question.


I do understand where you are coming from Tad, but surely even an academic would like to have some recognition for his work ? Had Mike Lynch not introduced himself on each of the lessons there would have been no knowing who he was, unless he was recognised.

IF he has released the work under GPL or CCL, honestly, I think that NOT altering it is the best option. In other words-- in the process of noncommercially distributing another person's material that they have released under a license that allows for noncommercial distribution, I think it's more respectful to not add things to it. Adding titles, or what have you, would be altering the work. IF he had not identified himself, then he would have not been identified, but he DID, so that seems to be rather moot to me. If he had, the distributer might have felt more compelled to make it clear in other ways. This is all speculation.


Another vaild point, if you have made that decision to release your work for this purpose. For those that haven't yet made that decision or chose not to release their work in this manner, does it still apply ?

No. That's where copyright comes in. All I'm talking about is that, if the assertion that the seller has made here, that the creator released the materials under GPL, if that is true, you're getting upset about something that the content producer has explicitly okayed. I'm just saying.


My last thought on this is how many of us seriously believe that this cd of Mikes lessons were being sold for the altruistic reason of putting his work out there for others to see ? I am sure that had that genuinely been the case his name would have been plastered all over the listing and on the cd - or at least mentioned 'somewhere'.

Not necessarily. Bootleg DVDs from Chinatown often do look like that. Legitimate, legal DVDs of Linux distros often do not. The thing about taking the commercial incentive away is that a lot of times-- not always, but often-- people get lazy. In general, when something is not being made for profit, it is less well packaged than something with a 3000% markup from the cost of manufacture.

---------------------------------

All I'm saying is that there's a lot of assumptions being made here. And that assumptions can be dangerous. Do your due diligence, and put your rightous anger on hold until you have. Anger's not good for you. Contact Mike, see how he's licensed his work. You might be raising your blood pressure over nothing.

Or it might be as bad as you're assuming. All I'm saying is that until you get the word from the person who produced the work in the first place, there's no point being so full of indignation, etc. There are possible explanations where, and again, except for the part that it was auctioned and not sold as "buy it now," although personally I think that *could* have been a legitimate mistake or misunderstanding-- but yeah, there are possible explanations where there's no need for you to get angry on behalf of other people's Intelectual Property Rights.

MiaRosie
03-17-2010, 06:04 PM
**All I'm saying is that there's a lot of assumptions being made here. And that assumptions can be dangerous. Do your due diligence, and put your rightous anger on hold until you have. Anger's not good for you. Contact Mike, see how he's licensed his work. You might be raising your blood pressure over nothing.**


Tad,

Of course Mike has been contacted, I did so immediately after seeing the cd and contacting the seller.

Mike has informed me that he has not released his work under gpl ccl or any other licence and has never given anyone permission to copy, redistribute or sell his work. He is completely aware of the situation and is involved with ebay, sending them the information that they requested.

Righteous anger ? :rolleyes:

clayton56
03-17-2010, 10:21 PM
not convinced this is the same in even the slightest. People posting their attempts at playing a popular tune, not for monetary or any other purpose than to say hey look at the song I've been working out as you would do with friends, no money or anything but spirit involved. Compared to someone trying to make profit out of someone elses work... how is this remotely similar??

I didn't say it was the same thing, I said, "So, how do you feel about copyright violations now?"

You guys are screaming like stuck babies when somebody absconds with your work, yet you don't mind absconding with somebody else's. In fact, you're getting pretty militant about your self-proclaimed right to do so. One difference, the source material was already given away free, so I think he would have less to be upset about than the holder of a copyrighted song. If somebody presents a "Best of the Web Collection", why would those chosen mind? I think this is hilarious...

buddhuu
03-17-2010, 11:31 PM
You may think it is hilarious, but you might want to watch the tone you use when addressing your fellow members.

All are entitled to their opinions. Courtesy in expressing them is appreciated.

Thanks.

buddhuu
03-17-2010, 11:37 PM
The seller is probably referring to Youtubes Terms of use which state under 10. Rights you licence

10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube, you grant:

- to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;

- to each user of the Website, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, licence to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.

Worth a thought.

That is very interesting. I was certainly not familiar with that text. I wonder how many of us have really read the Ts & Cs...

casarole45
03-18-2010, 05:44 AM
I didn't say it was the same thing, I said, "So, how do you feel about copyright violations now?"

You guys are screaming like stuck babies when somebody absconds with your work, yet you don't mind absconding with somebody else's. In fact, you're getting pretty militant about your self-proclaimed right to do so. One difference, the source material was already given away free, so I think he would have less to be upset about than the holder of a copyrighted song. If somebody presents a "Best of the Web Collection", why would those chosen mind? I think this is hilarious...

dunno, I think people were upset on the other thread because all they are doing is playing the music without any negative affect to the company, its non-profit, you can actually buy tab books to learn these songs, it promotes the actual music. I think some people are upset on this because at the end of the day, somebody wanted to give a free resource for help. A business who is of course in it for profit (thats what businesses do) takes the work to sell without the publishers permission when the creator wanted to give people help for free (or at least thats how I understand it from the thread creator). Thats why I would say its a big differences. I've always helped people out for free in things that are not my actual proffesion, I enjoy it (and everyone owes you a favour =D), I'd be pretty upset if someone took my free help resources to turn it into a money spinner, when the original intention was to give people a free resource.