Your chronology is wrong though, along with your cause and effect. He was only mildly skeptical and his career was trashed.
He was not sceptical in many of his original statements. He was quite emphatic that HIV did not cause aids and there were many other causes. He argued well enough to cause South Africa to follow his ideas.
We were told we would have a cure and/or a vaccine.
You keep saying that yet I see no evidence of anyone actually uttering or writing those words. There were references to it eventually being cured but 20 years research into a retrovirus is still a pretty short time.
treating them like scientists who are supposed to remain skeptical, rather than priests who are supposed to remain orthodox, would not have hurt and might well have helped.
Tell that to the 330,000 South Africans who died because the Government took the advice of a few scientists over the advice of thousands of others. Duesberg was not harmless. A scientist remains skeptical until proven otherwise. The deniers remain obstinate in the face of overwhelming evidence. The largest piece of evidence being that anti-retrovirus treatments that attack the HIV retrovirus have prolonged the lived of AIDS patients. If there is no HIV/AIDS link the treatment would not work.
It looks like you are right though you do need to make the following statement;
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
You do not understand the process at all. Here are the steps. 1. DMCA take down notice. Content comes down. 2. DMCA counter Notice. Content goes up in 10-14 days unless step 3 is done. 3. Original complainant file suit in court and notifies content provider with case number.
Complaint maker is in fact the person evaluating the counter claim
False. The courts evaluate the claim after step 3. The content provider can to put the content back up based on the existence of a counter claim and be free of liability.
There is no recourse other than to sue after that, and even that would not be a guarantee of getting your video back on youtube
You don't have to sue to get your content up. They have to sue to keep your content down.
When nintendo filed a wholesale bunch of claims on bigger "let's play" channels a few months ago.
You should really look into your example before posting it. The Nintendo/"lets Play" issue has nothing at all to do with DMCA. Nintendo did not file take down notices but filed claims against advertisement revenue. The videos were not taken down. The revenue just didn't go to the video producer.
Perhaps you should read things that take Duesberg head on. You will find that people have looked into his theories and found them wanting.
His hypothesis may well be wrong, but simply being wrong would not justify the negative reaction he has received.
That his hypothesis is wrong is not the issue. The fact that he still hold those hypotheses long after that have been scientifically prove wrong is the issue. It is quite possible that he does not want to admit he was wrong because that would mean he was instrumental in the deaths of 330,000 South Africans who died due to the government taking his advice.
A lot of prestige and not just individuals but big institutions, government, media, research funding institutes, had just announced that HIV=AIDS and now that we knew what was causing it the cure was assured.
I doubt anyone said a "cure was assured". That may have said it was a first step to a cure.
Oh, btw, where is that cure?
There are many diseases where the cause is well known and is still incurable. Viruses are are some of the most difficult. Remember, the common cold is yet to be cured.
Sure there are people who have other hypotheses but they have been refuted by research. Duesberg claims have been refuted.. Rasnick's never actually researched AIDS and has made false claims of University affiliation. Farmer wrote a book to refute the claim that AIDS came from Haiti. Mullis has also done no actual research into HIV/AIDS. He is also a molecular biologist and infectious diseases is outside his area of expertise.
Without any opinion at all on which side is right about the disease,
The declaration has been signed by over 5,000 people, including Nobel prizewinners, directors of leading research institutions, scientific academies and medical societies, notably the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Institute of Medicine, Max Planck institutes, the European Molecular Biology Organization, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, the Royal Society of London, the AIDS Society of India and the National Institute of Virology in South Africa. In addition, thousands of individual scientists and doctors have signed, including many from the countries bearing the greatest burden of the epidemic. Signatories are of MD, PhD level or equivalent, although scientists working for commercial companies were asked not to sign
That seems to be a fairly strong and widespread opinion.
That is a problem only if it actually gets to court. Filing a counter-claim costs nothing and the copyright holder may not file as it is obvious there is no infringement. Many copyright holders will file the first step of the process but never file with a court. The know that can scare some people into submission. Just follow the process, stand up to the bullies and they slink away. Even if it goes to court there are many organisation such as the EFF which will fund this kind of defense. I bet many AIDS groups would fund defense of those videos. There is also a good chance that a motion for summary judgement citing Folsom V. Marsh will make a very short case.
I file a DMCA takedown on something of yours. You file the appropriate counter-claim to have it put back up. I sue you into oblivion because my bank account is larger than yours.
I get friends from the EFF and other anti-censorship groups to fund trial. We submit a simple motion for summary judgement based on fair use as commentary citing Folsom v. Marsh. The almost continual voice over makes it obvious commentary. You lose trial and I am awarded costs. Your bank account is much smaller.
The fact that there was commentary over almost all of the video makes it fair use. There is a very old case that makes this clear. Folsom v. Marsh
no one can doubt that a reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.
It is clear that the vidios are criticism and do not supersede the original work.
Wrong. The courts decides which claim is valid. The third step, after claim and counter-claim, is filing a lawsuit. If that suit is not filed the file goes back up.
A counter-claim only provides grounds of it is false or inaccurate.
Starting with a personal attack does not help your case.
that process takes weeks if they find the DMCA claim to be fake.
This shows how little you know about the DMCA process. The provider does not make any determination. All they do is put the material back up unless the original claimant files suit and notifies the service provider. It is up to the courts to determine infringement not the service provider. By not filing a counter-notice the poster is not following the procedure.
As for subsequent claims that can be ignored as duplicates.
YouTube said that Power's account, which has more than 20,000 subscribers, will be removed on 18 February unless they receive a counter-notification disputing these claims against him by that date.
All they have to do is follow the law, file a counter-notification and this all goes away. The summary makes it look like YouTube is the bad guy when all they are doing is following the law and acting on the DMCA claims. It is up to the alleged infringer to counter-claim not the service provider.
He says his movies do not breach copyright laws because his films are educational and therefore fair use.
So two doctors did a report in 2006 which found five out of the thousands of chemicals that exist in the world can cause brain issues in children. Five is a pretty low number. There are probably more. Take a look at their "new" list.
Manganese is a known toxin with exposure limits. Floride a known toxin. I would like to see the report they are citing. Maybe at high levels beyound what is allowed in most places there is an issue. Floride has been a target of many scare studies. Tetrachloroethylene not a nice chemical to begin with. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers have been studied for years and some types banned before 2006. chlorpyrifos should have been included in the 2006 study. DDT , a chemical with more problems than infant development. So even the chemicals they found to have issues has many more issues before 2006.
This study uses one of the most obvious tactic to sensationalize their report; percentage growth in small numbers. They could have said "the number of chemicals increased by 5" nut that would be seen by most people as insignificant considering the number of chemicals in the world. The word "doubling" has much more impact. They hope people won't see that even doubled, the number is insif=gnificant.
We know there are many more chemicals in the world that cause brain development issues that are not on that list. An obvious example is alcohol which causes Fetal alcohol syndrome. How many did they miss? How many more years can they get funding to find issues that have already been found?
Those numbers can be a bit deceiving. For example The Soviet union win 1204 winter Olympic medals. It looks like the would be second to the Us's 2653 but wait a minute. The Soviet Union only participated in 18 games while the US participated in 47 games. On a per games basis the US won 56.4 per games while the Soviet Union won 66.9 per games. It looks to me that the Soviet Union won 19% more medals per game than the US
If you look at just golds it comes out to 22.6/games for the US and 26.3/per games for the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union winning 10% more golds per games than the US
Grand totals are misleading when countries participated a different number of times.
If the EU granted asylum where would Snowden live? The EU has no land; It's constituent sovereign nations have the land. For Snowden to live somewhere the country would need to accept him which makes the acceptance by EU a moot point. What if the EU gave him asylum but some of the constituent countries disagreed? Could the EU override the decisions of a sovereign country on a political issue?
Some people have an issue with the EU acting too much like an overriding country. If the EU gave asylum it would be acting like such a country.
This could be an example of correlation not being causation. Since it appears that you prefer to have your phone in airplane mode when sleeping there must be a reason that you occasionally do not. Maybe the reason you are keeping the phone on is the same reason you feel less well in the morning. Perhaps the reason for keeping it on is that you are might get an important call that night and the stress is causing you not to sleep well.
Cancer.gov as in U.S. government as in the most trusted source in studies.
Your best shot is a general disbelief of anything coming from a government agency? Get real. Look at any epidemiology report from anywhere on earth and you will fine no increase in brain cancers. If you don't believe that one then try this one as it is non-governmental.
If dog poo is present and no one got sick then dog poo is safe. If you do the same test on millions of people in ever increasing numbers over 15 years and there is no upward trend in illness then dog poo is safe. If dog poo was unsafe there should be at least a few people who got sick. There are two parts to a study; correlation and causation. Correlation asks the question is there a similar trend in two factors. For example, the increased presence of dog poo and the increased incidence of illness. The second step is to prove if that correlation might be caused by a third factor. Possibly the presence of dog urine also increases with the presence of dog poo and it is the urine that is causing the issue and not the poo. If the correlation step fails there is no possible causation. There had been a dramatic increase in the number of cell phones used yet no increase in the rate of brain cancers. There is no correlation therefore no possible causation.
There is a simple long term study that proves that cell phones do not appreciably increase brain cancer risks. It is the basic cancer statistics. That graph covers the years 1992 to 2010. Over that period of time cancer rated have been pretty steady. Considering the explosion in subscriber after 1998 there should be an explosion in brain cancers. There is not. No correlation therefore no causation.
The issue is that while he was inside the first time he copied a lot of data and when he realized he was not supposed to be there he didn't destroy those copies but made even more copies and gave them away.
There are flashlights with a single emitter that can cast a beam over 900 meters.
But can it throw the beam over the same area as the headlight? The more focused the bean the longer the throw the less area covered. It may only light up a few square ft. Is that useful as a headlight?
Laser pointers are quite different than laser headlights.The key is divergence. A laser pointer is tuned to spread out as little as possible with distance and can therefore be quite powerful at long distances. A headlight, through the use of dispersing phosphors and or lenses is designed to spread out and cover much more area. Illuminating a 1/2 inch circle 600 yards down the road is not much use.The key is that laser light is more controllable. Perhaps directing more light lower down along the road. Laser headlight will use a laser initiator but when the beam comes out of the headlight it will be far from cohesive.
There are manyreports of pilots being hit in the eyes by lasers. Pilots can see the ground from the cockpit which mean that a laser from the ground can reach the pilot's eyes. That is called reciprocity. It is during landing that pilots are most vulnerable and have the smallest margin for error.
Slashdot Mirror
Your chronology is wrong though, along with your cause and effect. He was only mildly skeptical and his career was trashed.
He was not sceptical in many of his original statements. He was quite emphatic that HIV did not cause aids and there were many other causes. He argued well enough to cause South Africa to follow his ideas.
We were told we would have a cure and/or a vaccine.
You keep saying that yet I see no evidence of anyone actually uttering or writing those words. There were references to it eventually being cured but 20 years research into a retrovirus is still a pretty short time.
treating them like scientists who are supposed to remain skeptical, rather than priests who are supposed to remain orthodox, would not have hurt and might well have helped.
Tell that to the 330,000 South Africans who died because the Government took the advice of a few scientists over the advice of thousands of others. Duesberg was not harmless. A scientist remains skeptical until proven otherwise. The deniers remain obstinate in the face of overwhelming evidence. The largest piece of evidence being that anti-retrovirus treatments that attack the HIV retrovirus have prolonged the lived of AIDS patients. If there is no HIV/AIDS link the treatment would not work.
It looks like you are right though you do need to make the following statement;
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
I guess specifics are not necessary.
You do not understand the process at all. Here are the steps.
1. DMCA take down notice. Content comes down.
2. DMCA counter Notice. Content goes up in 10-14 days unless step 3 is done.
3. Original complainant file suit in court and notifies content provider with case number.
Complaint maker is in fact the person evaluating the counter claim
False. The courts evaluate the claim after step 3. The content provider can to put the content back up based on the existence of a counter claim and be free of liability.
There is no recourse other than to sue after that, and even that would not be a guarantee of getting your video back on youtube
You don't have to sue to get your content up. They have to sue to keep your content down.
When nintendo filed a wholesale bunch of claims on bigger "let's play" channels a few months ago.
You should really look into your example before posting it. The Nintendo/"lets Play" issue has nothing at all to do with DMCA. Nintendo did not file take down notices but filed claims against advertisement revenue. The videos were not taken down. The revenue just didn't go to the video producer.
Perhaps you should read things that take Duesberg head on. You will find that people have looked into his theories and found them wanting.
His hypothesis may well be wrong, but simply being wrong would not justify the negative reaction he has received.
That his hypothesis is wrong is not the issue. The fact that he still hold those hypotheses long after that have been scientifically prove wrong is the issue. It is quite possible that he does not want to admit he was wrong because that would mean he was instrumental in the deaths of 330,000 South Africans who died due to the government taking his advice.
A lot of prestige and not just individuals but big institutions, government, media, research funding institutes, had just announced that HIV=AIDS and now that we knew what was causing it the cure was assured.
I doubt anyone said a "cure was assured". That may have said it was a first step to a cure.
Oh, btw, where is that cure?
There are many diseases where the cause is well known and is still incurable. Viruses are are some of the most difficult. Remember, the common cold is yet to be cured.
Sure there are people who have other hypotheses but they have been refuted by research.
Duesberg claims have been refuted..
Rasnick's never actually researched AIDS and has made false claims of University affiliation.
Farmer wrote a book to refute the claim that AIDS came from Haiti.
Mullis has also done no actual research into HIV/AIDS. He is also a molecular biologist and infectious diseases is outside his area of expertise.
Without any opinion at all on which side is right about the disease,
Have you looked at the Durban Declaration?
The declaration has been signed by over 5,000 people, including Nobel prizewinners, directors of leading research institutions, scientific academies and medical societies, notably the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Institute of Medicine, Max Planck institutes, the European Molecular Biology Organization, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, the Royal Society of London, the AIDS Society of India and the National Institute of Virology in South Africa. In addition, thousands of individual scientists and doctors have signed, including many from the countries bearing the greatest burden of the epidemic. Signatories are of MD, PhD level or equivalent, although scientists working for commercial companies were asked not to sign
That seems to be a fairly strong and widespread opinion.
That is a problem only if it actually gets to court. Filing a counter-claim costs nothing and the copyright holder may not file as it is obvious there is no infringement. Many copyright holders will file the first step of the process but never file with a court. The know that can scare some people into submission. Just follow the process, stand up to the bullies and they slink away.
Even if it goes to court there are many organisation such as the EFF which will fund this kind of defense. I bet many AIDS groups would fund defense of those videos. There is also a good chance that a motion for summary judgement citing Folsom V. Marsh will make a very short case.
I file a DMCA takedown on something of yours.
You file the appropriate counter-claim to have it put back up.
I sue you into oblivion because my bank account is larger than yours.
I get friends from the EFF and other anti-censorship groups to fund trial.
We submit a simple motion for summary judgement based on fair use as commentary citing Folsom v. Marsh. The almost continual voice over makes it obvious commentary.
You lose trial and I am awarded costs.
Your bank account is much smaller.
The fact that there was commentary over almost all of the video makes it fair use. There is a very old case that makes this clear.
Folsom v. Marsh
no one can doubt that a reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.
It is clear that the vidios are criticism and do not supersede the original work.
Wrong. The courts decides which claim is valid. The third step, after claim and counter-claim, is filing a lawsuit. If that suit is not filed the file goes back up.
A counter-claim only provides grounds of it is false or inaccurate.
Starting with a personal attack does not help your case.
that process takes weeks if they find the DMCA claim to be fake.
This shows how little you know about the DMCA process. The provider does not make any determination. All they do is put the material back up unless the original claimant files suit and notifies the service provider. It is up to the courts to determine infringement not the service provider. By not filing a counter-notice the poster is not following the procedure.
As for subsequent claims that can be ignored as duplicates.
He shouldn't tell them anything, he should send in the proper counter-notice
The reason why the films do not infringe is part of a proper counter-notice.
From the article;
YouTube said that Power's account, which has more than 20,000 subscribers, will be removed on 18 February unless they receive a counter-notification disputing these claims against him by that date.
All they have to do is follow the law, file a counter-notification and this all goes away. The summary makes it look like YouTube is the bad guy when all they are doing is following the law and acting on the DMCA claims. It is up to the alleged infringer to counter-claim not the service provider.
He says his movies do not breach copyright laws because his films are educational and therefore fair use.
Tell that to YouTube and the story is over.
So two doctors did a report in 2006 which found five out of the thousands of chemicals that exist in the world can cause brain issues in children. Five is a pretty low number. There are probably more.
Take a look at their "new" list.
Manganese is a known toxin with exposure limits.
Floride a known toxin. I would like to see the report they are citing. Maybe at high levels beyound what is allowed in most places there is an issue. Floride has been a target of many scare studies.
Tetrachloroethylene not a nice chemical to begin with.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers have been studied for years and some types banned before 2006.
chlorpyrifos should have been included in the 2006 study.
DDT , a chemical with more problems than infant development.
So even the chemicals they found to have issues has many more issues before 2006.
This study uses one of the most obvious tactic to sensationalize their report; percentage growth in small numbers. They could have said "the number of chemicals increased by 5" nut that would be seen by most people as insignificant considering the number of chemicals in the world. The word "doubling" has much more impact. They hope people won't see that even doubled, the number is insif=gnificant.
We know there are many more chemicals in the world that cause brain development issues that are not on that list. An obvious example is alcohol which causes Fetal alcohol syndrome. How many did they miss? How many more years can they get funding to find issues that have already been found?
Those numbers can be a bit deceiving. For example The Soviet union win 1204 winter Olympic medals. It looks like the would be second to the Us's 2653 but wait a minute. The Soviet Union only participated in 18 games while the US participated in 47 games. On a per games basis the US won 56.4 per games while the Soviet Union won 66.9 per games. It looks to me that the Soviet Union won 19% more medals per game than the US
If you look at just golds it comes out to 22.6/games for the US and 26.3/per games for the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union winning 10% more golds per games than the US
Grand totals are misleading when countries participated a different number of times.
If the EU granted asylum where would Snowden live? The EU has no land; It's constituent sovereign nations have the land. For Snowden to live somewhere the country would need to accept him which makes the acceptance by EU a moot point. What if the EU gave him asylum but some of the constituent countries disagreed? Could the EU override the decisions of a sovereign country on a political issue?
Some people have an issue with the EU acting too much like an overriding country. If the EU gave asylum it would be acting like such a country.
This could be an example of correlation not being causation. Since it appears that you prefer to have your phone in airplane mode when sleeping there must be a reason that you occasionally do not. Maybe the reason you are keeping the phone on is the same reason you feel less well in the morning. Perhaps the reason for keeping it on is that you are might get an important call that night and the stress is causing you not to sleep well.
It would be nice to read the report but it is paywalled. It seems that a similar study done in the UK had different findings.
Cancer.gov as in U.S. government as in the most trusted source in studies.
Your best shot is a general disbelief of anything coming from a government agency? Get real. Look at any epidemiology report from anywhere on earth and you will fine no increase in brain cancers. If you don't believe that one then try this one as it is non-governmental.
If dog poo is present and no one got sick then dog poo is safe. If you do the same test on millions of people in ever increasing numbers over 15 years and there is no upward trend in illness then dog poo is safe. If dog poo was unsafe there should be at least a few people who got sick. There are two parts to a study; correlation and causation. Correlation asks the question is there a similar trend in two factors. For example, the increased presence of dog poo and the increased incidence of illness. The second step is to prove if that correlation might be caused by a third factor. Possibly the presence of dog urine also increases with the presence of dog poo and it is the urine that is causing the issue and not the poo. If the correlation step fails there is no possible causation. There had been a dramatic increase in the number of cell phones used yet no increase in the rate of brain cancers. There is no correlation therefore no possible causation.
IIRC power can be varied between 1 milliwatt and 8 watt,
You may be recalling incorrectly. The car phones from the 80's maxed out at 3W. According to this
The transmission power in the handset is limited to a maximum of 2 watts in GSM 850/900 and 1 watt in GSM 1800/1900
The 8Watts seems a bit high. Most handsets max out at about .3 Watts to conserve battery power.
There is a simple long term study that proves that cell phones do not appreciably increase brain cancer risks. It is the basic cancer statistics. That graph covers the years 1992 to 2010. Over that period of time cancer rated have been pretty steady. Considering the explosion in subscriber after 1998 there should be an explosion in brain cancers. There is not. No correlation therefore no causation.
The issue is that while he was inside the first time he copied a lot of data and when he realized he was not supposed to be there he didn't destroy those copies but made even more copies and gave them away.
Probably none but that is not what we are talking about. The issue is lasers aimed into cockpits.
There are flashlights with a single emitter that can cast a beam over 900 meters.
But can it throw the beam over the same area as the headlight? The more focused the bean the longer the throw the less area covered. It may only light up a few square ft. Is that useful as a headlight?
Laser pointers are quite different than laser headlights.The key is divergence. A laser pointer is tuned to spread out as little as possible with distance and can therefore be quite powerful at long distances. A headlight, through the use of dispersing phosphors and or lenses is designed to spread out and cover much more area. Illuminating a 1/2 inch circle 600 yards down the road is not much use.The key is that laser light is more controllable. Perhaps directing more light lower down along the road. Laser headlight will use a laser initiator but when the beam comes out of the headlight it will be far from cohesive.
There are many reports of pilots being hit in the eyes by lasers.
Pilots can see the ground from the cockpit which mean that a laser from the ground can reach the pilot's eyes. That is called reciprocity. It is during landing that pilots are most vulnerable and have the smallest margin for error.