Unauthorized selling of instructions for MOCs

[curiosus]

2 minutes ago, JEB314 (James) said:

From what I know, it was in the balance as to whether his channel was going to survive the strikes for copyright infringement, etc...

Considering no copyright was actually involved, taking content down via DMCA strikes is the wrong way to approach this. Not that anyone ever gets punished for that given companies are sending thousands of false claims each day.

Highlighting that the original designers make these designs available for free is the right way to combat this, and approaching people and pointing out how rude it is.

You can produce your own instructions and these along with any LDD files you produce will be subject to copyright but there is 0 protection for model designs themselves.

[Carefree_Dude]

How do you produce instructions from LDD files anyways? Is there a program that will do it, or do you have to cut up the MOC in layers, and do it that way? 

[JEB314 (James)]

4 minutes ago, curiosus said:

Not that anyone ever gets punished for that given companies are sending thousands of false claims each day.

Example:

This guy was stealing and posting people's technic designs...

[curiosus]

15 minutes ago, JEB314 (James) said:

Example:

This guy was stealing and posting people's technic designs...

No, noone gets punished for making false DMCA claims, plenty get punished as a result of those claims.

The only way you could actually claim a copyright violation is if you provide LDD files and specifically license them for non-commercial use (which some members seem to have done so some copyright may actually be involved, sorry hadn't got through the entire thread), but even then the model is not protected, someone else could post a picture of a model and anyone is then free to recreate it (and sell it).

This is why LEGO has such problems going after Lepin, the law offers little protection.

Selling other peoples LDD files is definitely a copyright violation, I'm still not sure if the videos actually would be, I suspect its one for the lawyers which means an uncertain and costly time in court.

Edited May 24, 2018 by curiosus

[Daedalus304]

12 minutes ago, Goldenmasamune said:

How do you produce instructions from LDD files anyways? Is there a program that will do it, or do you have to cut up the MOC in layers, and do it that way? 

There are a couple ways. Taking screenshots manually every few parts additions, there is a program called Blueprint that you can find in the LDD Forum, or you can just generate LDD's "Instructions" and sell off that garbled mess. Almost always, these poachers just sell you the LDD file and call that "Instructions". From the one video I've seen from this particular offender, I'm strongly inclined to believe it's either the LDD Generated instructions or just a raw LXF file that he was selling.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Daedalus304
Found the name of the software

[MAB]

3 hours ago, JEB314 (James) said:

Update, so as to keep people in the loop: 

@Brother From Another Brick is going to do an interview on his Youtube channel with @Jimbricked. 

Is this still going ahead ...?

[JEB314 (James)]

Just now, MAB said:

Is this still going ahead ...?

I really don't know at this point, it all seems to be up in the air...

I'll try to find out.

[Paperinik77pk]

Hi @Tenderlok - I'm afraid of this bad situation. I know, someone can tell "well, it's only Lego" but it is more then that.

It could be wood, metal, plastiline, every material we can think about...but a creation is a creation and must be respected. There's always a spark of genius in everything we all do. Small or great, it is there.

It is nice to get inspiration, to build, to study and understand - even to modify another one's MOC.

But selling it and even show it on youtube...well it seems not smart at all to me -  and shows:

• A bad behaviour in general towards you, his "customers" and the whole community
• A bad attitude towards this kind of hobby (is this person a real AFOL? At this point - no)
• Very, very, very poor idea of business - I mean - how many instructions did this man sell??? Surely he's not much rich than before.

It is a bad thing and I'm sorry this happened to you. I always think there's a limit to all. Promptly someone demonstrates me I'm wrong

 

 

 

 

 

[Toastie]

12 minutes ago, curiosus said:

This is why LEGO has such problems going after Lepin, the law offers little protection.

But we should maybe keep in mind that TLG is a multi-billion company (making a >awful< lot of money and >not< always in a forthcoming way - I always like to point to their < 50 cent worth Made in China wall wart power supply they sell off for 25(+) $/€, because it says "10V", which is totally unimportant for all LEGO devices, but we simply don't know about it) and we should ask ourselves what this guy represents. He had to free-up time from school to run his site (as he wrote here on EB), so I guess, we are not talking about a trans-continental Apple sized enterprise. Nor about problems with tax deductions because this guy shakes the stock exchanges around the globe.

I believe we talking a lot about moral, don't we?

BTW I do not indorse at all, in contrast, what he did. But I fear this here is simply going ballistic and looses ground potential EB usually provides.

All the best
Thorsten

    

[MAB]

1 minute ago, Toastie said:

But we should maybe keep in mind that TLG is a multi-billion company (making a >awful< lot of money and >not< always in a forthcoming way - I always like to point to their < 50 cent worth Made in China wall wart power supply they sell off for 25(+) $/€, because it says "10V", which is totally unimportant for all LEGO devices, but we simply don't know about it) and we should ask ourselves what this guy represents. He had to free-up time from school to run his site (as he wrote here on EB), so I guess, we are not talking about a trans-continental Apple sized enterprise. Nor about problems with tax deductions because this guy shakes the stock exchanges around the globe.

I believe we talking a lot about moral, don't we?

BTW I do not indorse at all, in contrast, what he did. But I fear this here is simply going ballistic and looses ground potential EB usually provides.

   

2

I don't think it is so much the money he makes, but the effect it has on the community that is the bigger issue.

 

 

[JEB314 (James)]

1 minute ago, MAB said:

I don't think it is so much the money he makes, but the effect it has on the community that is the bigger issue.

Couldn't agree more, I think this sums it up perfectly.

[Phoxtane]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

I imagine he wouldn't have much left to show and the result would have been very similar. It looks like he is playing the victim to his fans.

The sad thing is, nothing will change. Even if everyone here signs up to a code of conduct, others can still steal their work and ignore the code. His channel shows people don't really care where it comes from. That is the real problem, and he was just feeding them. He might disappear but someone else will take his place. I made the conscious decision when I joined not to post my work here (I do publish on flickr under another name) and never to share LDD files, simply because something similar happened to me in the past, where someone took my files and sold them on ebay as their own work. (And what hurt even more was that he was selling them for just £1.99. Was that all I was worth! :-) )

 

This right here is an example of how this affects the community: MAB doesn't share his stuff on Eurobricks because of events such as these.

This affects me as well; even though I post relatively infrequently, I'm considering whether or not to even bother mentioning any LXF work I've done for myself, and whether or not I should begin watermarking my images as well.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Phoxtane

[JEB314 (James)]

6 minutes ago, Phoxtane said:

This right here is an example of how this affects the community: MAB doesn't share his stuff on Eurobricks because of events such as these.

This affects me as well; even though I post relatively infrequently, I'm considering whether or not to even bother mentioning any LXF work I've done for myself, and whether or not I should begin watermarking my images as well.

I'm yet to post any of my creations, partially down to this kind of thing, but also because I wish to do it properly, with detail, insight and to the best of my ability. 

As for watermarking your images, I'm seriously considering doing so, its sad really that it even needs to be thought about...

This whole experience hasn't been at all good for the community...

(And as people have mentioned, when do you see a HOT! topic in train tech?! ?)

[Toastie]

28 minutes ago, MAB said:

I don't think it is so much the money he makes, but the effect it has on the community that is the bigger issue.

That is my point: >We< are the community. The community has ample of opportunities to react. The community is creative, active. 

I will ask it out loud again: What exactly happens to me/us, when I/we share an instruction, LXF, MPD or whatever file >openly< for all the members, lurkers, and remotely interested, just for the sake of it and somebody else picks it up, makes it look good, and asks for money? What happens? What do you guys feel then? 

I personally have no problems >at all< with this, because I know that I had put my stuff >on show case<. And again: To share ideas. To learn myself from responses.

To be honest: There is this Google machine. It takes about a couple of minutes to figure out that the content posted somewhere for money is freely available somewhere else. Even when not using BitTorrents or .hu or .ru sites. Officially free. As on EB and elsewhere. Why don't people try that first? Why would they pay for it??? Because it is all in one place, nicely set-up, made easy, and all what I wanted? Do you guys do Starbucks? Although you can get most of the stuff for almost free at home? Don't tell me it is so much better, poured into a paper thing with a plastic lid on top. And then we pay what? $4 depending on where that joint is located? Because we can afford it?  

Here is another example: When you want to visit the US from a foreign country you have to do the ESTA thing. Hey, why not, I am fine with that. Type in "ESTA" into Google. Chances are, you will >not< directly land on the official Stars and Stripes website, but on a neatly set-up site that makes it much easier (and looks much better) for you to type in your data in your own language. On the bottom it says "On the next page your charges ($80) will be processed". Did it yesterday. I am traveling quite a bit to the US and I know the charge was $14 on the official site two years ago - and it still is. Now: Is it >me< or >them<? I was close to mail them "F**k you" and then realized that they said they will charge me that amount. So take the 3rd entry from Google's list an there you are, in the hands of Uncle Sam charging you only $14.

First think, then click. Or buy. Or not.

We >are< the Community and we should act as such. Smart. With a wider angle as just: "If someone makes money using my ideas I posted on the web, I am not going to share my ideas anymore". That is not what this "Community" should be about. Because we are hurting ourselves - and hopefully not because of personal feelings not belonging here.

When you want to make money, set-up your own business.

When you want to share ideas freely, do so.

As a community, we should not lay the cards in a way that the others always win. That is stupid. I will never take down anything form this forum/my university cloud server/brickshelf because somebody figured out a way to make profit from that (which will probably never happen). Why not? To be honest: I would be a bit exited, once I'd figure that out. And give them a note: "Hey you suckers, that was my idea. Have fun wit it! And good luck."  

All the best,
Thorsten         

[Hod Carrier]

@Toastie This is the beauty of IP and copyright laws. The owner of the IP can choose whether or not to assert their rights. The difference is the ethos of the community to which we all belong. The desire of it’s members to share openly and freely for the benefit of the community as a whole is one of it’s defining characteristics and it’s greatest strength.

The problem is when someone abuses that for personal gain. It doesn’t devalue the ethos, but it clearly makes people nervous and reluctant to share their ideas and creations. Should we stop being a community because of the selfish actions of an individual or individuals? I would hope not. You may not care about what happens to your creations, but others do. If we lost the ethos of the community because of this the community as a whole would be poorer as a result. 

[Brother From Another Brick]

 

The audio quality in the interview is quite bad, but hopefully it clears up some stuff.

[MAB]

11 hours ago, Toastie said:

I personally have no problems >at all< with this, because I know that I had put my stuff >on show case<. And again: To share ideas. To learn myself from responses.

 

1

That is fine, if you don't mind people taking what you have worked on and given away for free, just for them to turn it into profit for themselves promoting it as their work. But not all people want that.

At one stage I was even told that as I wasn't making money from what I (once) shared, it was OK since I lost nothing. Of course, I lost nothing financially since I was willing to share my creations but I did lose out. Other people were thinking that the person selling them were his ideas, not mine.  I was losing out as people didn't know the work was mine.

I still share images, but not LDD files. If someone wants to rework something based on a few images, that is fine. They will need to put a lot of work in and there will always be parts they cannot see. Even on flickr, you get comments or messages like "LDD?" and that is it. No comments at all, just a request for the file. Those people get no reply.

 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Brother From Another Brick said:

The audio quality in the interview is quite bad, but hopefully it clears up some stuff.

1

Pretty much as I thought it would be - playing the victim over stealing people's ideas and selling them.

"Hateful people, a guy who wants to see me go down, over a toy fascination, so hostile, ..."

 

 

The second half is all about money and not giving out prizes. That doesn't really interest me as I'd never enter under his terms. But CMbricks is totally right to call him out if he runs competitions and doesn't give out prizes. He is abusing people's trust to get them to design items, if this is a way to get their LDDs and then not give out the prizes. Whether the winner cares or not, if they are fake competitions where prizes are not given, people should know this. And he should stop doing competitions if he cannot afford to give out the prizes.

 

 

Last minute - he is coming back with his own content.

[Hod Carrier]

2 hours ago, Brother From Another Brick said:

The audio quality in the interview is quite bad, but hopefully it clears up some stuff.

Thanks for doing that, but I think you might have let him off the hook slightly.

I understand entirely the point you were trying to drill down into with regard to featuring other people's creations, but that wasn't really the point. I don't imagine anyone would object to a third party picking up their work and featuring it. Photo hosting sites like Flickr allow users to "favourite" content and have it appear on their own sites enabling it to reach a wider audience. And that's the sort of thing that everyone who uses sites like that or feature their creations here on Eurobricks accept and are clearly happy about.

The issue here was that Jim featured work that wasn't his and then harvested the instructions to sell for his own personal gain. If he'd featured the content, credited the creator and then linked to the creator's own page where the instructions could be downloaded under the creator's own terms, I'm sure that would have been fine and drawn no objections at all.

Clearly Jim is a young man and innocent in the way that the world works, but youth and inexperience are not excuses. If you step into the adult world of commerce then the law does not differentiate based on age. You clearly called him out and gave him a hard time over his giveaways, but you didn't do the same over his money-making scheme. I was left with the distinct impression that you sympathised with him and that you failed to communicate the serious nature of his predicament. I understand that he has removed all his content now and that deals with the issue by one means, but I don't feel that Jim's has fully grasped the severity of the situation.

All that said, I do hope that he learns from this experience and comes back wiser and more circumspect. Rather than asking friends and family for advice he should check for himself what is and is not OK. I expect that it will take some time for him to rehabilitate his reputation, but I hope he bounces back. I speak for myself when I say that the situation here is not personal but rather is based on his actions and that this is not a hate campaign or a witch hunt. I would like to think that the rest of the community agrees with my sentiment also.

[Sven J]

Thanks @Hod Carrier for putting my thoughts into words!

Not being a native speaker of the English language, I couldn't follow all of the audio due to the high speaking rate. But from what I understood, I fully agree with your statement above, yet couldn't have expressed it nearly as well as you did.

[MAB]

48 minutes ago, Hod Carrier said:

Thanks for doing that, but I think you might have let him off the hook slightly.

 

05:35 Statement from Brother from Another Brick: "If they don't want it used, they shouldn't put it in the gallery."

 

When the interviewer cannot tell right from wrong either, it was never going to be very demanding.

 

[Trekkie99]

56 minutes ago, Hod Carrier said:

Thanks for doing that, but I think you might have let him off the hook slightly.

I understand entirely the point you were trying to drill down into with regard to featuring other people's creations, but that wasn't really the point. I don't imagine anyone would object to a third party picking up their work and featuring it. Photo hosting sites like Flickr allow users to "favourite" content and have it appear on their own sites enabling it to reach a wider audience. And that's the sort of thing that everyone who uses sites like that or feature their creations here on Eurobricks accept and are clearly happy about.

The issue here was that Jim featured work that wasn't his and then harvested the instructions to sell for his own personal gain. If he'd featured the content, credited the creator and then linked to the creator's own page where the instructions could be downloaded under the creator's own terms, I'm sure that would have been fine and drawn no objections at all.

Clearly Jim is a young man and innocent in the way that the world works, but youth and inexperience are not excuses. If you step into the adult world of commerce then the law does not differentiate based on age. You clearly called him out and gave him a hard time over his giveaways, but you didn't do the same over his money-making scheme. I was left with the distinct impression that you sympathised with him and that you failed to communicate the serious nature of his predicament. I understand that he has removed all his content now and that deals with the issue by one means, but I don't feel that Jim's has fully grasped the severity of the situation.

All that said, I do hope that he learns from this experience and comes back wiser and more circumspect. Rather than asking friends and family for advice he should check for himself what is and is not OK. I expect that it will take some time for him to rehabilitate his reputation, but I hope he bounces back. I speak for myself when I say that the situation here is not personal but rather is based on his actions and that this is not a hate campaign or a witch hunt. I would like to think that the rest of the community agrees with my sentiment also.

Agreed, 100%.

@Jimbricked, there is no "hate". Calling someone out for selling something that isn't your work and was intended to be free to the community is not "hate". It's righteous indignation towards your actions and potentially your behavior depending on how you handle the situation. 

 

 

[Hod Carrier]

@Tenderlok Most welcome.

@MAB I'm not sure that the interviewer was unaware of the differences between right and wrong, but more that he didn't understand what the fuss is all about. He seemed to have been under the impression that it was about MOCs being featured on Jim's YouTube channel and failed to grasp that what we are objecting to is the unauthorised sale of work not originating with him. I would have hoped that if he had understood that, Jim might have been called out more effectively than he actually was.

[Brother From Another Brick]

@MAB I was a little light on Jimbricked,but in past we have already had this conversation with him and he already was aware of how I felt, regarding the situation.  To be honest, i'm a little bias, since Jimbricked is a friend, but I tried not to be. I believe that people mess up and deserve a chance to fix their mistakes, most people I know wouldnt even have admitted to doing anything wrong. In my opinion, if you dont want people to use your creations probably dont put them on the LDD Gallery, but I do understand why your upset. Personally, I would have reached out to him for some money and asked for a 50/50 split, so you still get some recognition. Hopefully, I didnt offend anyone, because im trying to be neutral in this situation.

[JEB314 (James)]

Well, I haven't yet commented on the interview subject, and don't know if there is much else to add...

But, I'll give my thoughts anyway, as I've been so heavily involved in trying to fix this.

In my opinion, not enough time was given to the Eurobricks matter and not enough research was done by BFAB into the situation before the interview, when I was told he would. 

The line of inquiry didn't get to the central issue that has frustrated so many people I have spoken with.

I would say overall that @Hod Carrier sums it up well when he says, (especially the bits in bold):

1 minute ago, Hod Carrier said:

I'm not sure that the interviewer was unaware of the differences between right and wrong, but more that he didn't understand what the fuss is all about. He seemed to have been under the impression that it was about MOCs being featured on Jim's YouTube channel and failed to grasp that what we are objecting to is the unauthorised sale of work not originating with him. I would have hoped that if he had understood that, Jim might have been called out more effectively than he actually was.

 

A lot of time was given to the giveaway topic and in my opinion just turned into a boarderline rant. Nick will get his money eventually, I know that, and CMBricks is entirely within his rights to speak, if slightly misinformed, but that is more down to Jimbricked not clearly explaining the situation, in my opinion (until this interview in that respect).

 

To sum up:

- Jimbricked as a Youtube Channel should return with his own original content.

- The descriptions should be individually edited and explain the instructions position/policy.

- Ideally a proper video setting out the direction of the channel from now on should be made, and I am willing to help with that policy if he wants.

- He should get a couple of Youtube moderators on board to help with the comments section that could get rather spicy upon his return.

 

Now, @Jimbricked, I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours, and believe you have learnt a significant amount in these past few days, that should help you check the position on things for years to come.

 

If you, Jim, or anyone else need any help on this, or any other matter relating to the internet and Lego, please don't hesitate to ask me. I intend to be more active on Eurobricks, and even though I'm no Eurobricks Moderator, especially helping people and giving time to issues that may crop up, when others are less willing to.

 

As always,

James