You're assuming that every takedown is, in fact, valid
No, I am assuming that at least some of them are valid and taking a couple of weeks to sort things out is not an undue burden on the person posting the item. Yes DMCA has been misused and the process needs to be fixed not thrown away.
Frankly, when we're talking about fundamental human rights vs. the hypothetical value of some record labels latest 4-minutes of autotune,
I never knew that copying other people's work was a fundamental right. What about the album put out by the band the poured all their money into making it just to get no return and go bankrupt. What about the movie that cost millions to film? Don't the people who invested deserve to be compensated?
People come before quarterly profits
There are people that created those items and own the rights to them. What about them?
It not so much you are against DMCA but copyright in general.
There's no proof and no due process at this point.
I agree that there is no due process but laws must balance opposing interests. It would be great if a court would hear a copyright infringement case immediately but that will never happen. If an item is not taken out in a timely manner the value of that item can be so diluted by copying that it is worthless by the time it gets to court. You might think that the copyright holder could sue the poster but how much money do you think could be gained by suing some college student who has no money and posted the item for free.
A proper take down is a short term automatic order that is in place until a court can rule on the case. At that time, if the poster is found to not have infringed, they can counter sue for damages. What is your solution that would protect the value of the posted item until the matter can get to court? As far as I can tell this is the best one.
As for the rest of your post, I agree completely. There really needs to be a re-vamp if how take downs are submitted and the way fraudulent ones are dealt with.
You really need to understand the DCA. IT has the following steps. 1. A rights holder submits a DMCA takedown notice to an ISP. 2. The ISP takes takes the material down and informs the poster. 3. The poster has two options. They can do nothing and the link stays down. Or they can file counter claim with the ISP. 4. The ISP forwards that counter clam to the right holder and stars a clock. 5. If within a certain period of time the rights holder has not filed a lawsuit against the poster the material goes back up. The whole reason for DMCA takedown, and I think it is a good one, is to be able to stop infringement while waiting trial. If this did not happen the IP may not have any worth left by the time courts deal with it.
I agree that there are way too many notices and more should be done about false one but lets no throw the baby out with the bath water.
Even $1.5M is unreasonable as the damage was actually minimal. To me it is worth $2K max. You also need to be careful who you grab in the net. To me the only one who should be fired is the Principal as he is the main one responsible because the principal was the one to get the police involved. Why not the teacher? Sure it was an over reaction but being sent to the principal's office is not a big deal. Why not the arresting officer? If he did not comply with the principal's demands and if he was wrong he could lose his job. The arresting officer was in a "damned if you do damned if you don't" scenario. Same goes for the booking officer. Maybe suspensions for the teacher and arresting officer but not termination.
Basically this could all have been stopped if the principal had done his job and overruled the teacher. Punitive damages against a public institute only harms the people servers by that institute.
Then sue for a reasonable amount and negotiate a settlement. Any school board who refused a settlement would have a hard time being elected next time. All suing for an unreasonable amount does is lose support fro the plaintiff.
Perhaps sue for a reasonable amount? Maybe a few thousand plus court costs? Perhaps requiring the school officials found culpable be fired? Suing for $15M is just pure greed as all it does is take money away from students.
You're not allowed to sue a school to force it to re-train or replace a bad teacher or administrator.
As far as I know a lawsuit settlement can be just about anything. Do you have references showing that requiring teacher/administrators to be fired is not allowed?
I don't think it matters if the whole thing was orchestrated to show the school district was discriminatory. It appears that they are, and they should have to pay the price of that.
The problem is that it is not the school district that will pay for it but it is the students that will pay through fewer programs and lower funding levels. This suit in effect penalizes student for the actions of staff.
First, they were never even "supposedly" sterile so saying even that is false. Second, you need to know a little more about intellectual property law before you decide what is abuse. Every time patented seeds are sold the buyer is given a license to produce one crop from the seeds. Much like any licensee is allowed to produce a licensed product for a limited time. Any subsequent plantings produces unlicensed copies of the product and therefore are against the patent.
If any GMO seed producer allowed farmers to save seeds and plant them next year they would never recoup the millions of dollars that went in to creating the seeds in the first place. They would only be able to sell their seeds for one season and then copies would be sold by seed savers for lower costs.
From the point of view of consuming the fish, which is what the FDA is interested in, there is no substantive difference. The fact that there is slight DNA difference does not make the fish dangerous to eat. The patentable difference is in the biology used to get to the end result. Sy foe example there was a chemical process that could make pure sodium chloride. The process could be patentable. Would that sodium chloride, which is exactly the same as the sodium chloride mined from the ground, need to be labelled?
That is the crux of the issue. To many people a label is a warning. If you want to be completely transparent all food should be labelled "may contain mercury" as there is mercury everywhere but in such minute quantities that it does not matter. It's not a warning it is just a label.
And these fish aren't isolated to these fish-farms, some will get out and breed with other fish.
The salmon approved by the FDA can only be produced where there is no way for them to get out and breed with wild fish.
Under the approval, AquAdvantage Salmon are subject to stringent conditions to prevent the possibility of escape into the wild. The salmon cannot be raised in ocean net pens: instead, the approval allows for them to be grown only at two specific land-based facilities: one in Canada, where the breeding stock are kept, and Panama, where the fish for market will be grown out using eggs from the Canada facility.
Organic started being labelled because companies performing genetic modification failed to label
Considering that organic food labeling started in 1973 and the first GMO crop was approved in 1994 you statement is false. Organic was originally concerned with pesticides and not GMO.
Of course you establish an additional red herring by claiming a label that was never mentioned, never discussed, and has no relation to genetic modification.
You brought up the organic label not me. Voluntarily labelling something "organic" is very different than requiring something to be labelled "contains GMO". I am stating the latter is closer to requiring all non-organics to be labelled "produces with pesticides".
If they're honest and tell the general public what their genetic meddling does, then people will be TURNED OFF.
Their "genetic meddling" makes the crop resistant to a specific pesticide. If you have any information on it doing anything else then post it. Otherwise you are just spreading FUD.
The big money is not in improving nutrition or even taste but making staples cheaper for snack companies.
It also makes anything made with corn or soybeans cheaper. For example, US beef is finished with corn.
My primary statement was regarding how much money these companies spend to hide
I saw your primary argument that they were hiding something relevant which is what I was disagreeing with.
When we look at a label like "Organic" the "average" person takes it very well and pays more for those products.
I would be against a labelling of "Chemical pesticides used in production" which is what actually means when the "organic" label is not present. "Organic" is a feature. Why are non-organic products not labelled that way?
I guess that's OK though because you're soooo much smarter than them.
It is not that I am so much smarter but that the scientists that researched the subject for decades are so much more knowledgeable that the average shopper.
Or so your mom says when she brings your pizza down.
So you admit you don't have a leg to stand on. (That's what happens when you attack the person rather than the argument)
Do you have any credible references to Monsanto doing this research? I say credible because too many onti-Monsanto sites just spout lies. The only reference I can find is to USDA research.
Sorry but I disagree. The only fact GMO producers are hiding is that GMO is in most foods. It is an irrelevant fact as GMOs have not been shown to cause harm and have higher yields which increase supply. The anti-GMO are trumpeting "fear the unknown" There is GMO in that food. They can't prove it is harmless. Don't eat it. "The GMO producers are saying don't fear the unknown. As far as science can tell, and many studies have been done, GMOs are not harmful so labeling them is not required. The positions are polar opposites.
Lets look at how an average person might look at a GMO label. What's this new label? Contains GMO food. I have heard there is a lot of controversy about this but I don't really have time to do the research. Maybe I'll just be on the safe side and skip it.
Because labeling like this drives up the cost of food for everyone and not just the people who are paranoid. Many people will not buy food with too many labels on them so the less expensive GMO foods will go away.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming that every takedown is, in fact, valid
No, I am assuming that at least some of them are valid and taking a couple of weeks to sort things out is not an undue burden on the person posting the item. Yes DMCA has been misused and the process needs to be fixed not thrown away.
Frankly, when we're talking about fundamental human rights vs. the hypothetical value of some record labels latest 4-minutes of autotune,
I never knew that copying other people's work was a fundamental right. What about the album put out by the band the poured all their money into making it just to get no return and go bankrupt. What about the movie that cost millions to film? Don't the people who invested deserve to be compensated?
People come before quarterly profits
There are people that created those items and own the rights to them. What about them?
It not so much you are against DMCA but copyright in general.
There's no proof and no due process at this point.
I agree that there is no due process but laws must balance opposing interests. It would be great if a court would hear a copyright infringement case immediately but that will never happen. If an item is not taken out in a timely manner the value of that item can be so diluted by copying that it is worthless by the time it gets to court. You might think that the copyright holder could sue the poster but how much money do you think could be gained by suing some college student who has no money and posted the item for free.
A proper take down is a short term automatic order that is in place until a court can rule on the case. At that time, if the poster is found to not have infringed, they can counter sue for damages. What is your solution that would protect the value of the posted item until the matter can get to court? As far as I can tell this is the best one.
As for the rest of your post, I agree completely. There really needs to be a re-vamp if how take downs are submitted and the way fraudulent ones are dealt with.
You really need to understand the DCA. IT has the following steps.
1. A rights holder submits a DMCA takedown notice to an ISP.
2. The ISP takes takes the material down and informs the poster.
3. The poster has two options. They can do nothing and the link stays down. Or they can file counter claim with the ISP.
4. The ISP forwards that counter clam to the right holder and stars a clock.
5. If within a certain period of time the rights holder has not filed a lawsuit against the poster the material goes back up.
The whole reason for DMCA takedown, and I think it is a good one, is to be able to stop infringement while waiting trial. If this did not happen the IP may not have any worth left by the time courts deal with it.
I agree that there are way too many notices and more should be done about false one but lets no throw the baby out with the bath water.
Even $1.5M is unreasonable as the damage was actually minimal. To me it is worth $2K max. You also need to be careful who you grab in the net. To me the only one who should be fired is the Principal as he is the main one responsible because the principal was the one to get the police involved. Why not the teacher? Sure it was an over reaction but being sent to the principal's office is not a big deal. Why not the arresting officer? If he did not comply with the principal's demands and if he was wrong he could lose his job. The arresting officer was in a "damned if you do damned if you don't" scenario. Same goes for the booking officer. Maybe suspensions for the teacher and arresting officer but not termination.
Basically this could all have been stopped if the principal had done his job and overruled the teacher. Punitive damages against a public institute only harms the people servers by that institute.
Then sue for a reasonable amount and negotiate a settlement. Any school board who refused a settlement would have a hard time being elected next time. All suing for an unreasonable amount does is lose support fro the plaintiff.
Perhaps sue for a reasonable amount? Maybe a few thousand plus court costs? Perhaps requiring the school officials found culpable be fired? Suing for $15M is just pure greed as all it does is take money away from students.
You're not allowed to sue a school to force it to re-train or replace a bad teacher or administrator.
As far as I know a lawsuit settlement can be just about anything. Do you have references showing that requiring teacher/administrators to be fired is not allowed?
I don't think it matters if the whole thing was orchestrated to show the school district was discriminatory. It appears that they are, and they should have to pay the price of that.
The problem is that it is not the school district that will pay for it but it is the students that will pay through fewer programs and lower funding levels. This suit in effect penalizes student for the actions of staff.
First, they were never even "supposedly" sterile so saying even that is false.
Second, you need to know a little more about intellectual property law before you decide what is abuse. Every time patented seeds are sold the buyer is given a license to produce one crop from the seeds. Much like any licensee is allowed to produce a licensed product for a limited time. Any subsequent plantings produces unlicensed copies of the product and therefore are against the patent.
If any GMO seed producer allowed farmers to save seeds and plant them next year they would never recoup the millions of dollars that went in to creating the seeds in the first place. They would only be able to sell their seeds for one season and then copies would be sold by seed savers for lower costs.
How can a company sue a farmer who plants a seed from a supposedly sterile plant
You have fallen for the . No GMO plant produces sterile seeds. Under the license that every farmer who buys Monsanto GMO seeds signs they are not allowed to plant the next crop by saving the seeds.
More than the USA is protectionist.
They do have a choice. Buy unlabeled food or food labelled as "GMO free".
I guess you have never heard of Golden Rice.
From the point of view of consuming the fish, which is what the FDA is interested in, there is no substantive difference. The fact that there is slight DNA difference does not make the fish dangerous to eat. The patentable difference is in the biology used to get to the end result. Sy foe example there was a chemical process that could make pure sodium chloride. The process could be patentable. Would that sodium chloride, which is exactly the same as the sodium chloride mined from the ground, need to be labelled?
Cigarettes still have never been proven to cause harm.
Sorry but theCDC disagrees.
not even with a warning. Just labeled.
That is the crux of the issue. To many people a label is a warning. If you want to be completely transparent all food should be labelled "may contain mercury" as there is mercury everywhere but in such minute quantities that it does not matter. It's not a warning it is just a label.
They have a different objective. COOL has a protectionist objective (but USA).
And these fish aren't isolated to these fish-farms, some will get out and breed with other fish.
The salmon approved by the FDA can only be produced where there is no way for them to get out and breed with wild fish.
Under the approval, AquAdvantage Salmon are subject to stringent conditions to prevent the possibility of escape into the wild. The salmon cannot be raised in ocean net pens: instead, the approval allows for them to be grown only at two specific land-based facilities: one in Canada, where the breeding stock are kept, and Panama, where the fish for market will be grown out using eggs from the Canada facility.
Organic started being labelled because companies performing genetic modification failed to label
Considering that organic food labeling started in 1973 and the first GMO crop was approved in 1994 you statement is false. Organic was originally concerned with pesticides and not GMO.
Of course you establish an additional red herring by claiming a label that was never mentioned, never discussed, and has no relation to genetic modification.
You brought up the organic label not me. Voluntarily labelling something "organic" is very different than requiring something to be labelled "contains GMO". I am stating the latter is closer to requiring all non-organics to be labelled "produces with pesticides".
If they're honest and tell the general public what their genetic meddling does, then people will be TURNED OFF.
Their "genetic meddling" makes the crop resistant to a specific pesticide. If you have any information on it doing anything else then post it. Otherwise you are just spreading FUD.
The big money is not in improving nutrition or even taste but making staples cheaper for snack companies.
It also makes anything made with corn or soybeans cheaper. For example, US beef is finished with corn.
My primary statement was regarding how much money these companies spend to hide
I saw your primary argument that they were hiding something relevant which is what I was disagreeing with.
When we look at a label like "Organic" the "average" person takes it very well and pays more for those products.
I would be against a labelling of "Chemical pesticides used in production" which is what actually means when the "organic" label is not present. "Organic" is a feature. Why are non-organic products not labelled that way?
It is not about retooling labels. It is about making lower cost foods no longer profitable and leaving only higher cost foods available.
And with what do they increase the supply?
Instead of growing weeds we can not eat we grow food we can.
I have to pay a little extra for that, I'm willing to choose that.
It is nice that you have the extra money to do that. Many don't. You can still do that now by buying food labeled "GMO free".
I guess that's OK though because you're soooo much smarter than them.
It is not that I am so much smarter but that the scientists that researched the subject for decades are so much more knowledgeable that the average shopper.
Or so your mom says when she brings your pizza down.
So you admit you don't have a leg to stand on. (That's what happens when you attack the person rather than the argument)
Do you have any credible references to Monsanto doing this research? I say credible because too many onti-Monsanto sites just spout lies. The only reference I can find is to USDA research.
Sorry but I disagree. The only fact GMO producers are hiding is that GMO is in most foods. It is an irrelevant fact as GMOs have not been shown to cause harm and have higher yields which increase supply. The anti-GMO are trumpeting "fear the unknown" There is GMO in that food. They can't prove it is harmless. Don't eat it. "The GMO producers are saying don't fear the unknown. As far as science can tell, and many studies have been done, GMOs are not harmful so labeling them is not required. The positions are polar opposites.
Lets look at how an average person might look at a GMO label.
What's this new label? Contains GMO food. I have heard there is a lot of controversy about this but I don't really have time to do the research. Maybe I'll just be on the safe side and skip it.
Because labeling like this drives up the cost of food for everyone and not just the people who are paranoid. Many people will not buy food with too many labels on them so the less expensive GMO foods will go away.