Should knowledge from here be freely used for profit?

[deVries]

I don't see anything saying ES has any copyrights here - seems they want the opposite, to provide a forum but not have any responsibility (hence no ownership) for anything posted. So the individual posters are publishing and have copy rights. If someone posts a CAD, circuit design, picture or such you would need their permission before using it commercially.

Regarding copyright law in the USA I think one has to officially claim copyright of a published item. If you have something of value that you want to protect online, then you had better claim copyright for it if you uniquely are offering something that can be copyrighted, i.e. pictures, designs, etc.

True invention with the added expense of patents should be totally respected, imho. Where does money come from? Follow the money...

Inventors, not bankers, not corporations, not universities, should be 'that person' that created the idea & proved its invention by patent ...should be the one to derive the main financial benefit for a period of time. Then, society, the banks, the corporations, the universities, can also benefit of its free license & use without royalties to the inventor.

Well, otherwise, please explain a better way that can & will work... besides making inventors slaves to bankers, governments, military, corporations, etc............ I'd rather protect the gifted & unique individuals that advance mankind for the better...

Bankers, governments, military, corporations, all have their own agendas that are more suspect in my mind vs a great inventor & his inventions...

 

[Jeremy Harris]

I think we should try and avoid making this thread a re-run of the locked train wreck thread. The general consensus so far seems to be that ES members who choose to run an honest business using knowledge gained from this forum are welcome to do so, as long as they acknowledge the source and don't make wild claims about their products.

Selling specialised kits into the high-power ebike market is always going to be tough, because the potential customers are likely to be more technically savvy than your average ebike purchaser, plus they are almost certainly going to be more demanding in terms of the performance and reliability they expect. Anyone riding a multi-kW ebike is running something that's on the edge of what we can reliably achieve at the moment, so there will be technical problems with batteries, controllers and motors that any vendor will need to be able to resolve quickly and competently.

The technology isn't that difficult, but does have some hidden traps for the unwary, as many on here have found out. Making a rock solid reliable ebike that runs on 48V at 30A maximum is easy, making one that holds together on 100V at 100A is a whole different ball game. The other aspect for vendors has to be legal liability, especially here in Europe where "hold harmless" agreements between vendor and purchaser are unlawful. For example, any vendor selling electronic parts designed to work at voltages over 50V AC or 75V DC must ensure that those parts are compliant with the Low Voltage Directive. The penalties for not doing so are severe. In practice this restricts the sale of powerful ebike kits to those with a battery voltage below 75V, unless some over-enthusiastic Trading Standards person decides to look at the voltages on motor phase wires.

Openly advertising an ebike kit that will out-perform a high power motorcycle, for example, is very likely to be used to bring a civil claim against the supplier in the event of a serious accident. Public liability insurance is very unlikely to cover selling goods that are non-compliant with legislation for use on roads, leaving the vendor with a potentially large personal liability. We've already seen on here that people can have nasty accidents on high power ebikes, it only takes someone to be persuaded by an ambulance chasing lawyer that they should sue the vendor to bring down a whole pile of grief. This happened to a friend of mine who used to sell aircraft plans - a idiot customer built one of his aircraft, had no pilot training, took off, crashed and was seriously injured. The law suit he brought against the plans seller made the seller bankrupt from defence legal costs, even though the claimant lost his case and got no damages.

The good news is that there are almost certainly ways to get around at least some of these potential problems, as long as you know of them in advance and are savvy enough to work out how to still sell stuff safely. A major point has to be to ensure that descriptions are accurate and not likely to expose the vendor to a likely claim at some point. Advertising a kit as being for off-road use only, with a maximum allowable supply voltage of 75V would seems sensible, even if the vendor knows full well that the purchaser is going to run it at 100V on the highway. The key thing is to make sure, as a vendor, that your back is covered when it comes to what's in writing.

I don't know what the law is in other countries, other than having been asked to sign "hold harmless" agreements when buying aircraft components from vendors in the US, which is presumably a legal way for a vendor to absolve themselves of responsibility for whatever a purchaser is going to do with the stuff they've sold them. Any vendor should be aware of the potential for a sale to turn their life upside down though, even if it is a remote possibility.

Jeremy

 

[liveforphysics]

Just the whole high power from a front hub concept is automatically a dangerous life safety hazard in the first place.

 

[deVries]

FWIW, it makes me regret helping people when stuff like this recent misuse happens. Makes me a lot less likely to help the next person with their pet project.

Nahhh, not you amberwolf.

Seriously, thanks for sharing your ideas with me by PM, when I asked about some (non-commercial) idea I don't know how to implement myself...

Anyway, the answer to this is easy... just ask the person your helping upfront what the deal is. I hope & do think you will normally get an honest reason for their asking you for your ideas & advice. You can ignore the rest, ehhh? :wink:

Anyway, I thank you very much for the time & advice you gave me by PM... 8)

 

[oldpiper]

I don't see anything saying ES has any copyrights here - seems they want the opposite, to provide a forum but not have any responsibility (hence no ownership) for anything posted. So the individual posters are publishing and have copy rights. If someone posts a CAD, circuit design, picture or such you would need their permission before using it commercially.

Regarding copyright law in the USA I think one has to officially claim copyright of a published item. If you have something of value that you want to protect online, then you had better claim copyright for it if you uniquely are offering something that can be copyrighted, i.e. pictures, designs, etc.

Nope, according to the ultimate reference, Wikipedia:

"In all countries that are members of the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. "

Of course, this doesn't mean that a copyright notice on your work isn't a good idea, at least to remind the honest but forgetful that it is protected.

Cameron

 

[John in CR]

True invention with the added expense of patents should be totally respected, imho. Where does money come from? Follow the money...

Inventors, not bankers, not corporations, not universities, should be 'that person' that created the idea & proved its invention by patent ...should be the one to derive the main financial benefit for a period of time. Then, society, the banks, the corporations, the universities, can also benefit of its free license & use without royalties to the inventor.

The patent system does not serve the purpose for which it was intended. It has become a means of control by those with money with a net result that it prevents or slows the use of ideas for the greater good, and it discourages individuals from sharing their ideas. There has to be a better way to register the ideas of the individual that guarantees that they share in the financial reward reaped by their ideas. This system should be free or nearly free including the means of defining and enforcing the fair sharing of financial rewards.

At one end of the spectrum you have what Chevron-Texaco&whoever else that squashed the use of large format NiMH battery packs. At the other end are the many idea generating individuals who work alone in secrecy whose good ideas never see the light of day.

John

Sorry, edit for NiMH batts squashed by those shits.

 

[TylerDurden]

The patent system does not serve the purpose for which it was intended. It has become a means of control by those with money with a net result that it prevents or slows the use of ideas for the greater good, and it discourages individuals from sharing their ideas. ... At the other end are the many idea generating individuals who work alone in secrecy whose good ideas never see the light of day.

You have indicated that it does both: stimulates advancement and restricts it in other ways.

The ECD-Chevron example is a glaring example of patent-hostage; but as a result, innovation in lithium technology has let the genie out of the bottle.

 

[deVries]

I don't see anything saying ES has any copyrights here - seems they want the opposite, to provide a forum but not have any responsibility (hence no ownership) for anything posted. So the individual posters are publishing and have copy rights. If someone posts a CAD, circuit design, picture or such you would need their permission before using it commercially.

Regarding copyright law in the USA I think one has to officially claim copyright of a published item. If you have something of value that you want to protect online, then you had better claim copyright for it if you uniquely are offering something that can be copyrighted, i.e. pictures, designs, etc.

Nope, according to the ultimate reference, Wikipedia:

"In all countries that are members of the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. "

Of course, this doesn't mean that a copyright notice on your work isn't a good idea, at least to remind the honest but forgetful that it is protected.

Cameron

Thanks for clarifying. I had understood that one did not have to actually register the material, but that one should make claim with the copyright & date shown with the material. Considering what can happen online everyday with lifting an item (automatically copyrighted) without permission, it would be a good idea to post your material as copyrighted (if you wish to protect it). From that same link you gave: "Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, while registration isn't needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright."

I think a good idea would be to put your email address or website or contact info or copyright notice into the diagram/photo, etc. "to claim" the copyright online, and, actually, not have to register it with the copyright office in the government. At least that will prevent or slow down any lifting of your idea for simple innocent "other use" or borrowing "it". Of course, photoshop thieves will take it another step and erase the obvious, but then you're dealing with someone who will do what they want to do anyway, regardless of any law protecting you.

 

[johnrobholmes]

If a watermark or other details are removed from the pic, it clearly becomes theft of materials.

 

[x88x]

Regarding the OP, I'm with the majority so far. Knowledge should be used freely but any 'media' (pictures, videos, plans, etc) should only be used with permission. Also, credit should be given everywhere applicable. Or, in simpler words..my sig. I'm a firm believer in the open-source movement, not just with software, but with hardware and everything else too. The way I see it is, if you design a good product, manufacture it well, and provide good customer service, you won't have any problem keeping business even if other people do copy your design. A prime example of this in recent times is the Arduino. It was created with a GPL license, so the plans are freely available and anyone who wants to can make and sell a copy. Yet the creator's company still sells (relatively) huge amounts of the originals. Plus, because the plans were freely available and so many copies were made, it has become almost a defacto standard within a large portion of the hacker/maker community.

 

[John in CR]

The ECD-Chevron example is a glaring example of patent-hostage; but as a result, innovation in lithium technology has let the genie out of the bottle.

I can't let them off the hook so easily. I consider lithium advancements coming at its own pace regardless. Even if it helped the genie to pop the cork, the rest of EV advancements was slowed.

 

[Harold in CR]

Don't forget, Panasonic was sued and lost, with all their money and attorneys, for "using" the Lithium idea without BUYING permission.

If your pockets are deep enough, you can "borrow" new Technology, and then sue anyone that tries to imitate what you did. If nothing else, it creates tax breaks for the Company doing the suing, and, delays development of the technology, possibly for years.

Wasn't Lithium Technology created in a Texas University ??

It's all part of the game to keep the slaves under control.

 

[jag]

Methods is just upset that the part of the video where the front wheel of his bike snaps off and he has to drag it back towards his house in pieces was edited out.

FWIW technically tampering with methods work/video to remove the "conclusion" might be a violation of moral rights.

Neither Methods or myself believe in the concept of intellectual property rights, but I do believe that fair and accurate descriptions to selling a product are critical to enabling online commerce. I also think it's responsible and respectable to always at least cite the location or creator of IP when you choose to use it.

I agree that IP laws and enforcement doesn't work well. Normal people who create IP are more likely to get bruised than helped by IP laws and their implementation. At the university, the upper admin have hired people who try to make us sign IP agreements handing over the IP to the university instead of sharing open source. This is despite that most of us are not paid anywhere near market salaries. Even students with no salary can be forced to sign to get access to research projects they work on for their MSc or Phd. Other students earn a pittance from teaching assistantships and other small jobs to barely survive, yet when graduating some have to buy back the rights to the IP they developed in their own thesis in order to continue their work. Higher up the chain postdocs and faculty earn a livable salary, but on not par with what they would get for similar work elsewhere.

One friend of mine spent years designing and implementing an open source software while he was a student. Several other research institutes and companies offered to pay us to continue this project open source, but the university admin nixed that. My friend moved on to another university, where the university legal officers took as much of the software as they could claim, sold it to a company. The company received plenty of Canadian government funding as well to develop the ideas. A third friend of mine ended up working for the company. It was very top heavy (ie lots of upper management types with high salaries; comparably few engineers actually doing work). The company folded, then some investor bought the "remains", (ie the IP) and took it out of the country. Some people thinks the whole scenario was scripted to happen this way early on.

What is remarkable of ES and many other enthusiast communities I'm in is that "self regulation" in the forum works better than legal protection. The law isn't particularly quick at helping those outright scammed for batteries, but the forum can now quickly point out murky sellers, to prevent further profiting.

Likewise, we know who to attribute an idea and a design to when it is posted here, and if somebody else is trying to profit from it in an un-moral way ES members are quick with corrective action.

 

[liveforphysics]

I agree 100% with all that Jag, and ive seen the same things.

Dont worry though, the lawyer based IP concept is dead the moment enforcement (courts) have better things to focus resources towards.

The moment a government gets squeezed a bit, money gets spent other places (like protecting/fleeing government officials), and the phony concepts like IP vaporize, along with other things based on illusion rather than substance.

 

[Spacey]

along with other things based on illusion rather than substance.

You mean like money as in actual money rather than the invented stuff with which interest is charged on top lol.