It appears likely that no one’s copyright was violated. YouTube, as is typical for them, simply blocked Mark’s video on the unproven assertion by the Tom evans co. that it contained their copyrighted material. Rather than attempt to sort out any of that, they block the accused video. In the U.S., there is the concept of ‘vicarious liability’. Which is where an innocent party (YouTube), could be held liable for the independent actions of some associated party (its content providers).
I strongly doubt this particular plastic box is a good long term investment anymore…
My read of the situation is that it is in Evans' best interests to close the matter as quickly as possible. Unless he wants publicity -- whether it is good or bad. This was what MoFi pursued in the 2022 disaster -- publicity even if it was negative -- and it cost them $25 million.
So if he wants the matter over, it would be best to make a handshake deal with Mark, tell him he likes his work, get Mark to agree not to disseminate any copyrighted circuits or materials, and go on. A successful corporate mind would offer Mark joint activities (say repair work) that would benefit both parties.
If, instead, the copyright issue is pursued and legal action started, then the suspicion arises that publicity is the goal. Don't know the UK copyright laws but in the USA the major consideration is whether the party was using the infringement for economic gain. Doesn't seem to be the case here.
So if he wants the matter over, it would be best to make a handshake deal with Mark, tell him he likes his work, get Mark to agree not to disseminate any copyrighted circuits or materials, and go on. A successful corporate mind would offer Mark joint activities (say repair work) that would benefit both parties.
If, instead, the copyright issue is pursued and legal action started, then the suspicion arises that publicity is the goal. Don't know the UK copyright laws but in the USA the major consideration is whether the party was using the infringement for economic gain. Doesn't seem to be the case here.
@njswede: I look at the schematic for the Mastergroove, and I suspect much the same. However, I’ve learned long ago, that in audio systems, what one imagines they will experience (for the better or worse) is often significantly different from what one actually experiences upon listening.
Last edited:
Who said what, to whom and when matters. Words matter.
Mark said in his video, "I've been told I won't be able to fix it." He didn't say who told him. He also said that "the postman smashed it up" and showed the note taped to the unit,
"Richard Brown
Master Groove
trashed in transit to us
left channel buzzing"
That's all. It could be interpreted in a number of ways -- including the one (possibly) implied by Mark and latched on to by his audience and the diyaudio readers -- but this actually requires additional info and clarification.
For instance the provenance of the note taped to top is important. If this was written by someone in Mark's shop, that supports a story that Louis promulgated... that TEAD received a fairly pristine unit with a buzzing channel and wanted an exorbitant amount of money simply to repair a burnt out cap. If the note was written by Tom Evans' studio it's a completely different matter.
Louis in his second video provides some necessary information.
- the customer sent the faulty unit to TEAD for repair
- on the way it was dropped and suffered significant damage (this strongly suggests it was not shipped in its factory packaging)
- TEAD quoted what was probably an amount to bring it back to an "as new" condition (Louis reported that Mark thought the amount was several thousand pounds... a possibly wide range from 2k to 6k) It might have included upgrades. TEAD does a fair trade in these.
- the customer balked and indicated that he wanted the unit sent to another repair shop
- TEAD told the customer that the other shop wouldn't be able to fix it... certainly they wouldn't have the bespoke enclosure parts
- the customer directed TEAD to ship the unit to Mark which they did, with the note attached.
Louis also notes that Mark returned the unit to a "happy" customer.
Of course this last is hearsay. We don't know if the returned phono stage was working correctly or to spec. Nor do we know if the owner would have been happy if the case had been mended with duct tape. Tom Evans... probably not. What TEAD might see as an acceptable repair doesn't necessarily align with what Mark or Louis deem acceptable. Apples and humpback whales.
And we don't have faithful records of most of exactly what was said between Mr. Brown and Tom Evans.
Assumptions and wild personal accusations against those involved, as if they were criminals, are misplaced.
Thread cleaned.
Breaking news.another u tube update on the t 25000 pound phono stage. Its tittled reaction to mend it mark. Check it out before mr evans getts sneaky and getts it removed.
That row of six IC chips doesn't have a heatsink attached to them as per the screenshot of the TE MG unit!......I wonder why??....Also whats the point of having the sheet of copper clad board under the PCB?....Can't be for shielding....also note the metal stand-offs for the main PCB board!....
To be honest if the above is only £1,200 its far better value for money & has a build quality I would expect for that price point.
The bigger "Mastergroove" unit has what appears to be 4x of those smaller green board, plus about 6x of the bigger blue/green boards.....but yet its circa 20 times more expensive??.....
I think TE got his pricing wrong on, the MG unit should be nearer the £12k to £15k price point....
Funny, I’ve heard quite a few high end speakers including the Blades and I would not characterise them like this.
The most disappointing speakers I ever heard were £35 000 Magicos. Go figure.
I must say, that video is a model of methodical and step-by-step fault finding. Chapeau!
That would for me be the biggest take-home from this whole episode.
Jan
That would for me be the biggest take-home from this whole episode.
Jan
Last edited:
As the video has been reposted on Youtube by somebody else, I'll reiterate my previous concerns regarding copyright law in the UK.
As far as I can see the ONLY legal case regarding copyright (commercial confidentiality, intellectual property) is from the time stamp 10:25 ish to 11:50ish...
In this section Mark shows a nice printed "service manual" that he has created from reverse engineering the unit. In this section he shows the detailed circuit diagrams, with layouts & component values. The whole book is very "pro" looking & could be mistaken as OEM, apart from the fact each page he shows has his (Mark's) own logo on it. (screenshot below).
Now in Mark's defence:-
Although Mark drew up & created that manual & therefore the document is his copyright (like a photographer taking a photo). Those circuits in that particular order can be construed as commercial confidentiality, intellectual property of Tom Evans. Therefore Mark would have to argue that those circuits are standard designs which are already out on the web & free for the public to see/use. He would then have to argue that the arrangement of those circuits in that order is nothing special.....i.e. there is no "Secret Sauce"...
Basically as I said before, legally there is the question of..."the secret sauce is that there is NO secret sauce"....
Then you have the whole separate legal action of "defamation" this concerning who said what, who had the item first, who damaged it, who said it was unrepairable to whom etc...
However, defamation in UK law concerns 3 main points:-
As Mend it Mark makes videos of repairing electronic items & this is all contained in a video on him trying to fix the item that was sent to him, that he placed on his Youtube channel, there is no case for "defamation". The only remote case is his audience is large & he has a duty to not totally "trash" another business's reputation. Having watched the whole video I think he does a good job of not "trashing" TE, compared to what could be said!
As far as I can see the ONLY legal case regarding copyright (commercial confidentiality, intellectual property) is from the time stamp 10:25 ish to 11:50ish...
In this section Mark shows a nice printed "service manual" that he has created from reverse engineering the unit. In this section he shows the detailed circuit diagrams, with layouts & component values. The whole book is very "pro" looking & could be mistaken as OEM, apart from the fact each page he shows has his (Mark's) own logo on it. (screenshot below).
Now in Mark's defence:-
Although Mark drew up & created that manual & therefore the document is his copyright (like a photographer taking a photo). Those circuits in that particular order can be construed as commercial confidentiality, intellectual property of Tom Evans. Therefore Mark would have to argue that those circuits are standard designs which are already out on the web & free for the public to see/use. He would then have to argue that the arrangement of those circuits in that order is nothing special.....i.e. there is no "Secret Sauce"...
Basically as I said before, legally there is the question of..."the secret sauce is that there is NO secret sauce"....
Then you have the whole separate legal action of "defamation" this concerning who said what, who had the item first, who damaged it, who said it was unrepairable to whom etc...
However, defamation in UK law concerns 3 main points:-
- Where did the defamation occur?
- The audience, is it relevant to them?
- Can you prove what you state?
As Mend it Mark makes videos of repairing electronic items & this is all contained in a video on him trying to fix the item that was sent to him, that he placed on his Youtube channel, there is no case for "defamation". The only remote case is his audience is large & he has a duty to not totally "trash" another business's reputation. Having watched the whole video I think he does a good job of not "trashing" TE, compared to what could be said!
Is there a patent for that?
If no... keep your "recipe" very well and that's it. Coca Cola is not patented and that's their weapon to keep as unique in the market, simply because nobody can reproduce the exact formula of Coca Cola. That's why there are grinded transistors on the pre amp, trying to keep the "secret formula" as Coca Cola.
Now, if the secret formula is not that complex that can be reversed engineered, maybe the formula is not that secret and he should make a patent of it, taking advantaged of the period to make as much $$$ as he can.
I don't see any commercial confidentiality been broken by someone who was not part of the company and had no access to privileged information from inside.
@doug01n .....doesn't have to have a patent...
In UK Law anything that you make is your intellectual property.
In the UK, patents take around 5yrs to get & can cost ££..plus if somebody in China copy's your stuff & starts flogging it on Ali-baba or eBay for a fraction of the price, good luck in stopping them! Even if you have a patent...just look at big companies like Lego etc, who have problems stopping all of the knock-offs...a small company has virtually no recourse!
Maybe thats what Tom Evans is scared of, somebody reverse engineering it & selling for a fraction of the price, which explains why he sanded off the ID marks on numerous components, to protect his intellectual property.
Then Mark reverse engineered....However, his mistake was to show (to the world) the detailed computer drawings he did in reverse engineering it, thus revelling the intellectual property of Tom Evans which TE had tried to protect by sanding off ID marks on components.
All I'm saying is that by placing out on the web (in his video) detail circuit drawings with the component values etc., it could be construed as revelling the intellectual property of Tom Evans.
Its a case any decent Solicitor/Barrister would make, if working for TE. How tentative/valid it is would be up to the Judge.
In UK Law anything that you make is your intellectual property.
In the UK, patents take around 5yrs to get & can cost ££..plus if somebody in China copy's your stuff & starts flogging it on Ali-baba or eBay for a fraction of the price, good luck in stopping them! Even if you have a patent...just look at big companies like Lego etc, who have problems stopping all of the knock-offs...a small company has virtually no recourse!
Maybe thats what Tom Evans is scared of, somebody reverse engineering it & selling for a fraction of the price, which explains why he sanded off the ID marks on numerous components, to protect his intellectual property.
Then Mark reverse engineered....However, his mistake was to show (to the world) the detailed computer drawings he did in reverse engineering it, thus revelling the intellectual property of Tom Evans which TE had tried to protect by sanding off ID marks on components.
All I'm saying is that by placing out on the web (in his video) detail circuit drawings with the component values etc., it could be construed as revelling the intellectual property of Tom Evans.
Its a case any decent Solicitor/Barrister would make, if working for TE. How tentative/valid it is would be up to the Judge.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.