Unbox Therapy accused of copying PITAKA phone case, copyright abuse & fake giveaways

[imreloadin]

Am I the only one who thought Lew just always felt like a bit of an arrogant prick?

[TheNamelessOne]

Just now, imreloadin said:

Am I the only one who thought Lew just always felt like a bit of an arrogant prick?

No, that's the conclusion I came to after a while.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, TheNamelessOne said:

I used to follow him, he was entertaining and funny at times, not informative, but funny, but over time I started to dislike him. He was just doing the same video over and over and that got boring fast. Plus his fake iPhones giveaway really made me dislike him.

yep i like his videos of stuff and tech that you dont normally see

[Bombastinator]

13 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

yep i like his videos of stuff and tech that you dont normally see

He very occasionally did produce things other people didn’t simply because they weren’t interested, and sometime it was neat.  He did one on a ridiculously priced phone that came in a lockable handmade painted box, for example.  The phone was totally forgettable.  The packaging wasn’t. It was a totally different concept of premium than the American one.  I found it fascinating.

[Flying Sausages]

On 12/7/2019 at 9:18 PM, mr moose said:

I thought the copyright claim was just to prevent pitaka from showing the unboxed video of the pitaka review, not there own comparison video. I don't think we know if it was DMCA or just a youtube CR claim, They are different.

 

In which case it is not abuse of the system but legitimate use to prevent others from profiting from your content (timelines are important here, they would have been able to show it earlier but not after making allegations that defame UT, that changes everything).

 

 

 

To the thread in general,  it seems most of you have missed one really important detail,  whetehr the accusations are true or not, Pitaka have clearly succeeded in convincing many of you that UT stole something unfairly and is evil.  Fake give away's, claims of CR abuse and the whole kit and kaboodle.   regardless whether it stands up in a court or not, they have already won.  They know that the internet will keep bringing this up every time there is anything from UT moving forward.   In the days of the internet everything sticks except the truth. 

 

 

 

 

It is abusing because he wants to shut down Pitaka business and censor the truth. There are no penalties for abusing dmca system right now, and this explain why a lot of big Youtubers get away from doing this. He delete a lot of user comments on his channel and twitter for calling him out. He makes a 27 minutes explain his defend position but he no explain why he is doing this and copy 1:1 pitaka design. Pitaka makes a blog explain this situation, and they want Unboxed Therapy apology in which Pitaka ain't going to get no apology from Unboxed Therapy. He knows he done f up when his subs and audiences are on Pitaka side.

 

Wealth and status corrupted one mind.

[mr moose]

30 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

It is abusing because he wants to shut down Pitaka business and censor the truth.

The truth is yet to be established. 

Quote

There are no penalties for abusing dmca system right now, and this explain why a lot of big Youtubers get away from doing this.

Again was this a DMCA or a youtube CC claim?  they are different.

Quote

He delete a lot of user comments on his channel and twitter for calling him out. He makes a 27 minutes explain his defend position but he no explain why he is doing this and copy 1:1 pitaka design. Pitaka makes a blog explain this situation, and they want Unboxed Therapy apology in which Pitaka ain't going to get no apology from Unboxed Therapy. He knows he done f up when his subs and audiences are on Pitaka side.

I would do the same if I had to protect my business from bad PR due to claims made by another business.  Again, thjere is no evidence of anything yet, just claims from Pitaka who seems to have already convinced everyone that UT is in the wrong.    This is not abuse of a system, this is just defending oneself from something we don't  even know is legitimate.

Quote

Wealth and status corrupted one mind.

You are basing all this of the assumption that everything pitaka says is true and UT are guilty of everything.    There is a reas0on libel and defamation cases take a long time to go through the courts, It's not just a case of who feels the most hard done by, you need actual evidence that UT intentionally copied anything.  Buying a cheap case from a generic Chinese manufacturer (which there is just as much evidence for) does not amount to copying.  

 

EDIT: also deciding who gets to upload your content is not abuse of any process,  It is the intrinsic right of the CR owner.  Pitaka is more than welcome to make a video about it, they can even use snipets from UT video if it is an unbiased review of the his video, however they are not allowed to use his (or anyone's) content for the purpose of defamation of that person, it misses all the criteria for fair use and it is illegal.  Therefore it is not abuse of the system.

[Flying Sausages]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The truth is yet to be established.

The truth always going to censor and hidden. You have to dig it out.

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again was this a DMCA or a youtube CC claim? 

Don't know but from what I see is Pitaka channel got a copyright strike from Unboxed Therapy in which a lot of big Youtubers are doing it and get away with no penalty.

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I would do the same if I had to protect my business from bad PR due to claims made by another business.  Again, thjere is no evidence of anything yet, just claims from Pitaka who seems to have already convinced everyone that UT is in the wrong.    This is not abuse of a system, this is just defending oneself from something we don't  even know is legitimate.

>A company send you this new product for a review

 

>You claim you make this product from the ground up

 

>Your product and this company product look exactly the same. 1:1

 

>You then copyright strike the company youtube channel and want to put it out of business

 

>You then deleting user comments that call you out for the truth. You then delete the video that you did a showcase of your new product. You claim the company is using your video for ads without your permission.

 

>You then make a bs 27 mins video explain your defend position but you fail to explain why you copy the company product 1:1

 

>You then claim you try to contact the company privately to talk about this but you did not

 

>You then ask the company to have a partnership with you because you know you done f up when your audiences are on the company side

 

You know. Unboxed Therapy knows he done f up thats why he asked Pitaka for a "partnership". Pitaka refused this "partnership" from Unboxed Therapy because it is unacceptable. How can you call this a friendship if you hit someone in the face twice?

 

If there is no penalty for false copyright or dmca claim then everyone is going to abuse it like a lot of big Youtubers are doing it right now and get away from it BECAUSE THERE IS NO PENALTY and NO ONE IS SCARE.

 

 

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

The truth always going to censor and hidden. You have to dig it out.

So until you do dig it out,  stop assuming guilt. 

Quote

Don't know but from what I see is Pitaka channel got a copyright strike from Unboxed Therapy in which a lot of big Youtubers are doing it and get away with no penalty.

I'm not too sure what other youtuber's have to do with this, but making a copyright claim for content you own is not a problem unless some sort of contract or agreement was signed stating pitaka could use the content indefinitely.

 

Quote

>A company send you this new product for a review

 

>You claim you make this product from the ground up

 

>Your product and this company product look exactly the same. 1:1

 

>You then copyright strike the company youtube channel and want to put it out of business

 

>You then deleting user comments that call you out for the truth. You then delete the video that you did a showcase of your new product. You claim the company is using your video for ads without your permission.

 

>You then make a bs 27 mins video explain your defend position but you fail to explain why you copy the company product 1:1

 

>You then claim you try to contact the company privately to talk about this but you did not

 

>You then ask the company to have a partnership with you because you know you done f up when your audiences are on the company side

 

You know. Unboxed Therapy knows he done f up thats why he asked Pitaka for a "partnership". Pitaka refused this "partnership" from Unboxed Therapy because it is unacceptable. How can you call this a friendship if you hit someone in the face twice?

 

If there is no penalty for false copyright or dmca claim then everyone is going to abuse it like a lot of big Youtubers are doing it right now and get away from it BECAUSE THERE IS NO PENALTY and NO ONE IS SCARE.

 

 

Again, you are assuming guilt without having any evidence.  Apart from the fact your timeline here is missing critical events, like UT didn't just copyright claim Pitakas content, he did that after they accused him of copying (something for which we have no evidence) and after they tried to use his content against him.   This is not abuse of any system. 

 

It seems the concept of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply anymore.

[amdorintel]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It seems the concept of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply anymore.

its never applied, even in the court of law, especially dui/dwi.

 

its just human nature thats all it is.

[Flying Sausages]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So until you do dig it out,  stop assuming guilt.

The truth is already dig out that Unboxed Therapy did not make this new design from the ground up. He lies to audience not once but twice.

 

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm not too sure what other youtuber's have to do with this, but making a copyright claim for content you own that is not a problem unless some sort of contract or agreement was signed stating pitaka could use the content indefinitely.

Unboxed Therapy accused Pitaka using part of his video as a ads which is false accusation for copyright strike. He literary said this on his twitter.

 

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 he did that after they accused him of copying (something for which we have no evidence) and after they tried to use his content against him.   This is not abuse of any system.

He did that after Pitaka caught him copying their design otherwise he wouldn't delete his showcase video and his subs comments calling him out then copyright strike Pitaka video and want to take down the whole business. There is a different between showing parts of the original review and ads.

[AlexOak]

 

[amdorintel]

8 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

He lies to audience not once but twice.

actually way more then that, he is a liar and liars will lie and keep lying no matter what. they tell more lies to cover the original lie.

 

do you think this is the demise of u.t.?

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

The truth is already dig out that Unboxed Therapy did not make this new design from the ground up. He lies to audience not once but twice.

 

You do realize that UT buying a generic case from china and claiming he designed it himself is not the same as Pitaka designing the thing and him copying pitakas design.  In fact the evidence we have suggest that Pitaka didn't even design it themselves, which suggest that Pitaka are just trying to stop UT from doing what they did.

 

If UT stole IP from Pitaka then Pitaka needs to take it to court, Not publicly defame someone to the point everyone just believes it.  

 

7 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

Unboxed Therapy accused Pitaka using part of his video as a ads which is false accusation for copyright strike. He literary said this on his twitter.

 

He did that after Pitaka caught him copying their design otherwise he wouldn't delete his showcase video and his subs comments calling him out then copyright strike Pitaka video and want to take down the whole business. There is a different between showing parts of the original review and ads.

 

If he doesn't give Pitaka license to use his content then that is not a false claim for copyright strike,  he is well within all legal rights to disallow someone from using his content for their advertising.  Especially when said person is defaming him.  Advertising does not even come under fair use policy, there is just no argument to made here.

 

It's clear that after those allegations were made he didn't want to associate with them any more,  that does not indicate guilt, it is a natural and acceptable reaction and business decision.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[amdorintel]

the court of linus tech tips is in session

guard - please rise up and stand because court is now in session

judge walks in and sits down

judge - have you reached a verdict linus people

jury - yes we have judge

judge - what is your judgement

jury - we know fuck all, have no evidence, and find the defendant guilty as charged

judge - what is your punishment

jury - the punishment is having to eat atleast one big mac

guard - court is now adjourned

 

now lets assume for a minute that .......... muwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's clear that after those allegations were made he didn't want to associate with them any more,  that does not indicate guilt, it is a natural and acceptable reaction and business decision.  

true, not wanting to discuss, and/or leaving is not a sign of guilt. its a sign of frustration. business is not personal

 

 

Quote

He did that after Pitaka caught him copying their design otherwise he wouldn't delete his showcase video and his subs comments calling him out then copyright strike Pitaka video and want to take down the whole business. There is a different between showing parts of the original review and ads.

seems a tad suspicous

 

 

 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

 

true, not wanting to discuss, and/or leaving is not a sign of guilt. its a sign of frustration. business is not personal

 

 

The last thing most people want to do is maintain a business relationship with someone who is trying to ruin their business.

 

Remember when caselabs did this to thermaltake.  The resemblance of those cases was pretty good, however caselabs retracted and apologized to thermal take for the accusations because they realized they wouldn't win the case and they were open to defamation after that.  Same thing in this situation, If pitaka push this (especially in a court) they have to prove they designed the case (which they didn't, not enough to win a court case), which leaves them open to defamation.  I deeply suspect there is a reason pitaka didn't go through the legal system and instead used social media as a weapon.  In all of this,  a legal case would have done nothing more than highlight the fact UT bought a case from a generic manufacturer and made some unethical claims about it's origin and construction.  

[Flying Sausages]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You do realize that UT buying a generic case from china and claiming he designed it himself is not the same as Pitaka designing the thing and him copying pitakas design.  In fact the evidence we have suggest that Pitaka didn't even design it themselves, which suggest that Pitaka are just trying to stop UT from doing what they did.

 

If UT stole IP from Pitaka then Pitaka needs to take it to court, Not publicly defame someone to the point everyone just believes it.  

 

 

If he doesn't give Pitaka license to use his content then that is not a false claim for copyright strike,  he is well within all legal rights to disallow someone from using his content for their advertising.  Especially when said person is defaming him.  Advertising does not even come under fair use policy, there is just no argument to made here.

 

It's clear that after those allegations were made he didn't want to associate with them any more,  that does not indicate guilt, it is a natural and acceptable reaction and business decision.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pitaka did design the case themselves even Pitaka CEO admitted. He showcase his case after review Pitaka case. COINCIDENCE? I think not. He also failed to copy two main parts of Pitaka case. 

 

He also claimed his case made with authentic kevlar fiber. Kevlar fiber is not a material. Kevlar fiber is a brand. Another false advertising. 

 

Pitaka is using part of his video for comparison and criticize and spread the truth. Pitaka did not use his video for ads for company $$$ marketing. They are using it to spread the truth amd UT wants to silence the truth. This man already lies twice therefore I cannot trust nothing from him and he is guilty thats why he turn back to Pitaka for "collaboration". 

 

 

[amdorintel]

makes me wonder how much unbox therapy is worth, because its gotta be a corporation/inc/ltd company, so personal assets cant be touched.

[mr moose]

Just now, OlympicAssEater said:

Pitaka did design the case themselves even Pitaka CEO admitted. He showcase his case after review Pitaka case. COINCIDENCE? I think not. He also failed to copy two main parts of Pitaka case. 

They made it, I know they did because they said so.  That's not how evidence works.   Even in this thread people have posted pictures of that case from other manufacturers from years earlier?   It really isn't enough to stand up in court, let alone in this thread. 

Just now, OlympicAssEater said:

He also claimed his case is authentic kevlar fiber. Kevlar fiber is not a material. Kevlar fiber is a brand. Another false advertising. 

That's right, he did claim that.  That's false advertising, not IP infringement.   There is a very large difference between the two.

Just now, OlympicAssEater said:

Pitaka is using part of his video for comparison and criticize and spread the truth.

That's not allowed.  Not under fair use and not under copyright law.

 

Just now, OlympicAssEater said:

Pitaka did not use his video for ads for company $$$ marketing. They are using it to spread the truth amd UT wants to silence the truth. This man already lies twice therefore I cannot trust nothing from him and he is guilty thats why he turn back to Pitaka for "collaboration". 

 

 

This truth you think exists is an assumption in your head.   Just because you think it's true doesn't make it true.  There is sufficient evidence to suggest neither of them designed the case, therefore neither of them have copied anyone.  Again no Legal action and no evidence of stolen IP. 

[amdorintel]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

true doesn't make it true

still though, pit can sue ut even if pit did not make the cell phone case.

thats the beauty of the american system, litigation for anything and everything no matter how trivial and nonsensical it is. damn nonsensical is really a word lol

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

still though, pit can sue ut even if pit did not make the cell phone case.

thats the beauty of the american system, litigation for anything and everything no matter how trivial and nonsensical it is. damn nonsensical is really a word lol

 

True, they can litigate, but so far with all we know they'll very likely lose opening themselves up for defamation with very little hope of winning. 

[Flying Sausages]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

They made it, I know they did because they said so.  That's not how evidence works.   Even in this thread people have posted pictures of that case from other manufacturers from years earlier?   It really isn't enough to stand up in court, let alone in this thread. 

That's right, he did claim that.  That's false advertising, not IP infringement.   There is a very large difference between the two.

That's not allowed.  Not under fair use and not under copyright law.

 

This truth you think exists is an assumption in your head.   Just because you think it's true doesn't make it true.  There is sufficient evidence to suggest neither of them designed the case, therefore neither of them have copied anyone.  Again no Legal action and no evidence of stolen IP. 

I still wouldn't trust UT. I prefer Linus clickbait videos than UT clickbait videos. 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

I still wouldn't trust UT. I prefer Linus clickbait videos than UT clickbait videos. 

I couldn't agree more on this one.   I hate UT, I refuse to watch him because I find him arrogant.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

If he doesn't give Pitaka license to use his content then that is not a false claim for copyright strike,  he is well within all legal rights to disallow someone from using his content for their advertising.  Especially when said person is defaming him.  Advertising does not even come under fair use policy, there is just no argument to made here.

ok, can we agree that UT has tweeted so many times about Oneplus or Xioami using his video for their ad on youtube and has talked about and sometimes his own video was being used as a ad placement, sometimes snippets of his video uploaded by the companies etc,  i can't look the tweets up or the video where he has discussed this up because this was around 1/2 years ago, and even MKBHD has addressed this that his reviews are being used as ads. but eh catch is he's never done anything about it until now, that too only on pitaka's video not OP7's video or his Xiomi vids.  

so knowing fully well this is a thing and he knows it, what are the chances YT claimed Pitaka's video a day before the launch of his case video knowing he himself has removed his videos from the platform when nothing has been done all these days?. that has to be a manual claim, you can put two and two together.

now knowing this, apart from whether he copied the design or not, you can't say he didn't know that he copied pikata's case when he removed her review he's done a day before. ofcourse he knows people are gonna draw conclusions to his own video.

so fine, pikata doesn't have a case against him nor can't prove he copied them in court, but think of the optics here, the questions is not whether he was in the right according to law he made a case similar but not carbon copy so fine with the law, the question is how unethical or dishonest was he trying to swipe everything he's done leading upto the release of his case video. 

am i saying he shouldn't have bought case from aliexpress and sold them for higher margin? no, everyone's doing it, nothing wrong about people supporting YT'ers merch, but what i'm saying is;Right move, wrong execution, horrible optics. 
 

[amdorintel]

36 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

I still wouldn't trust UT. I prefer Linus clickbait videos than UT clickbait videos. 

just dont watch any of linus videos and you will be far better off!

who cares about unbox therapy, a bunch of liars and thieves over there, and the arrogance and whomever else I can copy thats said/typed anything bad about unboxed.

 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

ok, can we agree that UT has tweeted so many times about Oneplus or Xioami using his video for their ad on youtube and has talked about and sometimes his own video was being used as a ad placement, sometimes snippets of his video uploaded by the companies etc,  i can't look the tweets up or the video where he has discussed this up because this was around 1/2 years ago, and even MKBHD has addressed this that his reviews are being used as ads. but eh catch is he's never done anything about it until now, that too only on pitaka's video not OP7's video or his Xiomi vids.  

 

He still has the right to decide who can use his videos for ads and who can't.    The fact he refuses to let pitaka use his video doesn't actually mean anything.  I certainly don't think that rejection is unfair given pitakas public accusations.

 

6 minutes ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

so knowing fully well this is a thing and he knows it, what are the chances YT claimed Pitaka's video a day before the launch of his case video knowing he himself has removed his videos from the platform when nothing has been done all these days?. that has to be a manual claim, you can put two and two together.

 

now knowing this, apart from whether he copied the design or not, you can't say he didn't know that he copied pikata's case when he removed her review he's done a day before. ofcourse he knows people are gonna draw conclusions to his own video.

so fine, pikata doesn't have a case against him nor can't prove he copied them in court, but think of the optics here, the questions is not whether he was in the right according to law he made a case similar but not carbon copy so fine with the law, the question is how unethical or dishonest was he trying to swipe everything he's done leading upto the release of his case video. 

am i saying he shouldn't have bought case from aliexpress and sold them for higher margin? no, everyone's doing it, nothing wrong about people supporting YT'ers merch, but what i'm saying is;Right move, wrong execution, horrible optics. 
 

 

The problem here is people are trying to claim guilt where there isn't anything to suggest guilt.  He took a case from aliexpress and put his name on. the worst thing he did was lie about the material and manufacture process (I'm pretty confident it's not handmade), which has nothing to do with pitaka beyond the fact they likely also got their case from aliexpress.     I know I can get generators from china that are made for Honda but have them rebranded with MR Moose on the side and sell them as unique products, this is not ripping of honda because they didn't design it, the company that designed it is selling to me legitimately.   If Pitaka, honda or any company want exclusive rights to sell a design then they need to design it themselves, otherwise it's not their IP.   And accusing others of stealing IP that was manufactured legitimately form the actual owner (if they even care) is unethical.  So where do we stop?    Without any other evidence all we have is one company being unethical and defaming another person because they decided to sell the same shit that they reviewed a while back.   If this is all there is to it then the only thing that will stop it is if they introduce a law that says you aren't allowed to sell products you reviewed before.  I can see lots of problems with that, a few solutions to unethical advertising I'll grant, but problems none the less.