Pirated content

[testa]

I have found at the sites http://circuit-zone.com and http://electronics-diy.com, which are both related, content lifted from my personal site and when I looked closer I saw most if not all of the circuits published on those sites are copied from other sites, including this one.

For example look at
 http://electronics-diy.com/electronic_schematic.php?id=981 and the 10A 1-30V Variable Power Supply with LM317 Posted by admin on February 10th, 2011 at http://www.electronics-lab.com/blog/?tag=tip41c

I have sent them an email demanding they take down my stuff. You might want to go over and have a look and see if there is anything you want taken down. They give no credit, rather they take credit for the circuits.

[audioguru]

Lots of sites copy circuits from other sites.
But it doesn't matter because most of the circuits do not work.

[Hero999]

If you look at the circuit you linked to on this site's blog, you'll find it's the other way round here: we copied them, rather than the other way round.

Are you charging for people to visit your site?

Do you have lots of advertising? And if so do you really think you'll loose that much revenue from people looking at your circuit posted on another site, rather than yours?

What if someone in China started manufacturing one of your circuits and selling it? You'd never know?

Why do you really care?

I'm happy for people to copy any of the circuits I post on my site. It would be nice to get credit but I couldn't care less if I don't.

[testa]

Well, I was just letting you know in case you cared.

In my case I care because I despise thieves who steal and take credit for other people's work and make money out of it. 

And they have the impudence of claiming copyright on the content they stole.

I might just start watermaking my images to make them less attractive to thieves.

[Hero999]

I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

No one is actually stealing from you. If someone steals your car you can no longer use it. If another person copies stuff from your website you still have it, you've not physically lost anything. Someone else maybe making money from your work but it's highly questionable whether you're actually loosing any revenue. If you were charging a fee to access your site, you could perhaps say that, otherwise it's doubtful, even if you do advertise.

As far as copyright is concerned, you're probably right but I doubt it's worth perusing legal action as I doubt you'll get anything but I advise you be to seek help from a professional, if you're that bothered.

I doubt watermarking would do much to deter people as it's easy to remove in image editing software. I've done it myself, but help someone with a circuit by annotating and improving it, rather than using it on my site.

Lots of sites copy circuits from other sites.
But it doesn't matter because most of the circuits do not work.

Yes, some of the circuits are of questionable quality. For example the 10A 1-30V Variable Power Supply with LM317 PSU is just an LM317 circuit copied straight from the datasheet but with an emitter follower stage on the output. The regulation will be horrible as V_BE of the TIP41C can vary from 500mV to 2V over the temperature range and at different collector currents.

http://www.utc-ic.com/spec/TIP41C.pdf

[Thomas W]

... I have sent them an email demanding they take down my stuff. ...

Where can I find your stuff?

[mixos]

Hello "testa"

We often feature interesting projects found online on our blog. We always add a link to the source page and the page via which we found the project. In some cases the source website is proven not to be the original source of the project, but that isn't in our control.

You should notify the page which has copied the project and didn't provided credits.

What we can do on this case? I can add the original source page on the blog post. Just drop me a line.

If you think i can do something more about this, just inform me.

Mike

[testa]

I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

No one is actually stealing from you.

Yeah, I've heard that argument many times but the laws of the USA and of the whole civilized world say otherwise and reputable sites like wikipedia respect those laws and do not allow posting of content withjout the authorization of the copyright owner.

The fact that it's not worth pursuing the guy who stole or swindled $5 does not make it right, it only makes it... not worth pursuing.

A decent guy does not steal you money and if he takes it by mistake he returns it when you ask.  A scoundrel finds reasons why he is entitled to keep your money. 

The law and the morality of taking other people's content is well settled among people who have respect for morals and for lawsand I see no point discussing it here. If you disagree with the present state of things you can write your congressman and ask that the laws be changed.

I was just asking that we all respect the laws and the morals of our times but I guess that is too much to ask of some people.

[Hero999]

Yeah, I've heard that argument many times but the laws of the USA and of the whole civilized world say otherwise and reputable sites like wikipedia respect those laws and do not allow posting of content withjout the authorization of the copyright owner.

The fact that it's not worth pursuing the guy who stole or swindled $5 does not make it right, it only makes it... not worth pursuing.

A decent guy does not steal you money and if he takes it by mistake he returns it when you ask.  A scoundrel finds reasons why he is entitled to keep your money. 

And how much money do you think you've really lost? 1$, 5$? The only way to tell is look at your advertising revenue, which may have even gone up.

The law and the morality of taking other people's content is well settled among people who have respect for morals and for lawsand I see no point discussing it here. If you disagree with the present state of things you can write your congressman and ask that the laws be changed.

I was just asking that we all respect the laws and the morals of our times but I guess that is too much to ask of some people.

Well, part of that statement doesn't apply to me as I don't live in the US.

Whilst I agree with copyright to some degree, I think things have got out of hand. This isn't why copyright law was initially created. It's original purpose was to enable authors to gain revenue from their books being reproduced and has since been extended to include everything from music to computer software and rightly so. I don't have a problem with copyright but per-say but the way it's implemented these days is infringing on our freedoms e.g. you may be violating copyright law simply by playing a CD too loud in your car if you don't pay any royalties to the record company  as its classed as a public performance. I've probably flouted the law hundreds of times by posting modified schematics in order to help people. So if that makes me a bad person, so be it.

I suppose all I'm saying is relax, if you've got nothing better to worry about than people copying (not stealing) what you've decided to make public in the first place then I envy you.

Besides, how are you going to prove you're the original creator? What's to stop them from claiming you copied them?

If you don't want others copying your designs then maybe you shouldn't put them on the Internet in the first place?

You haven't even posted a link to your website.

[testa]

Hello "testa"

We often feature interesting projects found online on our blog. We always add a link to the source page and the page via which we found the project. In some cases the source website is proven not to be the original source of the project, but that isn't in our control.

You should notify the page which has copied the project and didn't provided credits.

What we can do on this case? I can add the original source page on the blog post. Just drop me a line.

If you think i can do something more about this, just inform me.

Mike

As anyone who visits your site can see you do not provide a link to the source page at all and you are not authorized to copy the pages even if you did. I have emailed the email addresses listed on your site and have received no response. I know of at least one other website owner who has emailed you asking that his stuff be removed and he has received no response either.

Your business and your servers are located in the USA and you know full well you are breaking the law by copying unauthorized content. (It would be just as illegal in any other country unless you were in Somalia or some other shit hole.)

If you had any decency you would just take it down.

[mixos]

testa

I am here to help clarify this issue. Please tell me which project do you think is copied without permission. Who is the other person that emailed me asking to remove stuff and i didn't reply to him... (you can send it to pm if you like)

I would be happy to check these projects.

Yours
Mike

[testa]

The addresses I found listed are info@electronics-diy.com , sales@electronics-diy.com and that is where I have emailed but have received no reply. If I should use another address please give me an address in that domain.

[Hero999]

Eventually, he makes it clear that his site is electronics-diy.com. Before that post we didn't even know which site is supposed to be the original.

testa

I am here to help clarify this issue. Please tell me which project do you think is copied without permission. Who is the other person that emailed me asking to remove stuff and i didn't reply to him... (you can send it to pm if you like)

I would be happy to check these projects.

Yours
Mike

Don't worry, ignore him until he he can prove he's the original creator, otherwise he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Either way, I think the content should be removed, not because of copyright violation but because it's a very poor technical solution to boosting the current capacity of an LM317 regulator. A far superior method can be found on the on the top of page 17 of the LM317 datasheet. This can be improved further to boost the current more and include current limiting.

People like this annoy me. If it were a computer program he'd written or a article containing original and informative content then I've be 100% behind him but it isn't. It's an LM317 regulator with an emitter follower connected to it; something which anyone with a basic level of electronic knowledge could've thought of.

[testa]

Hero999, you might want to re-read the thread because I believe you are somewhat konfuciused.  Or you might want to stay out of it.  We already know you have no respect for the rights or property of others. No need to belabor the point. I am just hoping others are not like you and have a bit more decency.