Mend it Mark gets suspect copyright strike for £25k audio amp repair

Ugh.

I have a 25 year-old preamp that I made from what were at the time premium quality Burr-Brown opamps and it's better made than this thing appears to be. And as of yesterday, it still sounds awesome. OK, the input pots are getting a bit "crackly" but that's an easy fix.

No idea what the sound quality on this unit is like, but for $25k I'd expect far better build quality!

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.

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.

The video in question can still be viewed on the Internet archive

https://archive.org/details/the-gbp-25-000-pre-amp-that-went...

"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/

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.

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.

And Streisand effect is in... effect. Next this Tom Evans get rossmanned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJYIhLQJtTs

Looks like some company was really embarrassed someone would show that they added too many zeros to their product price...

Assuming this copyright strike has a legal leg to stand on, could it simply be that he goes through the manufacturer's web site blurb word by word, making fun of it? This could be construed as profiting from unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted content, could it not?

I am inclined to find a Streisand album to play on a "Tom Evans" amp.

follow up video:

The £25,000 Pre-Amp Repair and the Copyright Strike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIrCaeVtvI

On tip on Audio gear:

Ignore all the fluffy words just look at the specs. I use an affordable TPA32xx Class D module with a good meanwell power supply and I (professional audio engineer) can't hear any difference to e.g. the stuff Neumann put into my active KH120 monitors.

I don't think some random hifi shop is going to outspec the best class D module Texas Instruments or Analog Devices can come up with. But sure, if fooling yourself with Hifi is your hobby, proceed.

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.

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

Audiofoolery snake oil sellers are the worst

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.

Time to let the Streisand Effect do its fine job on that company.

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.

For those wanting a glimpse inside this monstrosity.

https://hackaday.com/2024/11/14/repairing-the-questionable-2...