I can see it now, actual pirates stealing full boatloads of servers.
Alternately:
SysAdmin: The data centre is down.
Manager: It crashed?
SysAdmin: Yup.
Manager: How long till it's back up?
SysAdmin: Not sure, a few months maybe.
Manager: A FEW MONTHS?!?! What the hell happened?? Can't you just reboot things?!?
SysAdmin: Not really, a yacht crashed into it and it's sitting at the bottom of the harbour, it's going to take a few months to patch the hole and raise it back up to the surface.
The cost of you (a) sending a bitcoin is borne by: (b) miner, (c) users running nodes - who have to store and verify your transaction for all eternity.
The miner and sender arrive at a fair price in this free market. Neat, right?
But, you do see that that conclusion rests on (c) being negligible, right? And, that's where the block size debate comes in.
Already, people's hard drives (and backups) are filling up because Joe sent Jack some 0.0000001 bitcoin somewhere. Imagine your hard drive, and everyone's hard drive filling up every time one of the billion users sends another of the billion users one cent for a negligible cost (because cost above 0 is free extra money to the miner.)
If blocksizes are not limited, (a) and (b) together maximize their profit by externalizing their costs to (c) where the cost gets amplified manifold.
So I'm not sure I understand the issue.
The 1MB block, what does it store exactly? What happens when it fills up under the current implementation? Is Joe unable to send Jack the 0.0000001 bitcoin? Is it really laggy? Do the records of some old transactions get discarded?
However, many of the tactics used to "deescalate" situations or reduce the amount of force police use also put police officers at higher risk for harm. (e.g., pausing to wait for the suspect to do something may allow them to draw or use a weapon, wrestling with a suspect instead of using a taser gives the suspect a chance to bite, stab, punch at close contact, etc.) These measures aren't popular with unions concerned first and foremost with their members' health and well-being.
Some techniques for sure but I'm not sure that's generally true. A proper de-escalation technique is going to reduce the risk of a suspect turning hostile and thus protect the officer. Rather I think it's just a mixture of organizational inertia and pride, they don't want to change because that's how things have always been done, and even if they would change they won't do it on the advice of a University researcher who's never done a patrol.
I think the best defence of the practice I saw is that because the rich donors take the postings to nice countries the troublesome countries are the ones who actually get talented diplomats as ambassadors.
I agree it's mostly a prestige position but it is one where you're still summoned to meet heads of state and/or senior officials, the important stuff is handled higher up but I think it's still a concern because they will be doing something for which they're not the best person for the job. It's also essentially a form of corruption, paying off your friends with government resources.
Employees work in a very competitive market, if you want the job you need to offer either a slightly better worker or a slightly cheaper salary, you don't get any of the surplus profit in the system because you someone else will be willing to do the same job without it.
But companies, particularly the big tech ones, are in a very winner-take-all marketplace. If you're the second best programmer at a company you'll make a little bit less than the best programmer since you can deliver almost the same product. But if you're the second best Amazon or Google you're only making a fraction of the winner because you can't deliver anything like what they can.
This means worker salaries are basically set by the industry as a whole while successful companies and their owners have almost unlimited capital.
A book written in only a thousand words, I thought, would be cool for people learning English. But it's not. The whole thing is shot through with Millennial cultural references, so much as to make it incomprehensible. Hell, I can barely understand parts of the sample page. People who had different life experiences from the author as well as non-native English speakers will be totally lost. Sad, I had such high hopes.
From reading the comic that inspired it I think there's two legitimate values to the book:
1) I'm not sure there's a lot in the way of "a brief overview how all this common stuff works" books targeted at geeks, at least none that are marketed in a way they'd be cool for an adult geek to own. If I bought one I'd probably buy it because I wouldn't mind getting a very brief high level overview of helicopters, microwaves, bridges, etc but don't want to buy a kids book to do so.
2) The incomprehensibility isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's essentially a puzzle book where the puzzle is figuring out what he's talking about, except the twist is he's not actually trying to make it confusing, he's just dealing with a bizarre constraint on how he can communicate.
That being said I agree it would be useless for non-English speakers.
The trouble with trying to keep money out of politics is that money is very powerful so has a strong motivation to find its way around whatever obstructions you put up. So the fix isn't to put up stronger gates, it's to reduce the incentive by making that money less powerful.
Donors dominate because individual legislators have a lot of autonomy and are easy to push around. But if you take away the legislator's autonomy by strictly enforcing party discipline then they're a much less tempting target and they have less liability for "you voted for X" style ads.
Make it into a Parliamentary systems where the house leaders aren't just wrangling cats, they're actually telling their members how to vote on important issues. Sure it sounds authoritarian but it's a lot more accountable because when a bill passes (or doesn't) everybody knows who to hold accountable.
You don't even need to change the constitution, it's just a change in the legislative traditions.
... "crowd funding" in politics is ancient. And I'd point out that most crowdfunding systems have no problem with rich donors. Go to kickstarter... scroll down... they've got prizes for people that give 10k. Generally involves people going to some stupid party with the developer or them inserting you into their work or something.
No, it is a pretty accurate summary of what is happening. You focus post-hoc on where you got a good result. Say for example you want to test a new anti-diabetes drug. Does the drug work in the general population? Well, data doesn't support that. So then you look at subgroups. Does your data show success in say just men or just women? What about black men? Black women? White women? Etc. This isn't the only serious problem, sometimes one can choose which statistical tests to do or how to compensate for complicating factors. If you have enough choices you can make anything looks successful.
Now here's an interesting though experiment. Assume the researchers were doing a perfectly good job of analyzing results but were just terrible at predicting what that result would be. For instance, drug X doesn't work for the general population but it does actually work for black men, or this drug failed at treating angina, but it's great for erectile dysfunction.
Now this is a testable hypothesis because a second trial could confirm the surprise result from the first trial, ie Trial A: Test for angina but found ED instead, failure. Trial B: Test for ED and find it, success.
So for the 49% that now fail when they're not allowed to move the goalposts does anyone know if they're redoing those trials with the new goalposts?
>> chief task was to reverse-engineer competitors' virus detection software to figure out how to fool them into flagging good files as malicious
Why is this a bad thing? This is pretty much what a large chunk of the "grey hatter" world does on a regular basis (figure out how to trick AV). Shouldn't we be cheering on a little AV-on-AV competition instead of letting them all group-think themselves into a pool of mediocre results?
(This is also why running different AV engines in your network has generally been a good defense-in-depth measure in the past...I don't WANT them all to agree.)
Because those files belonged to end users, Kaspersky was using their competitors' software as malware.
If a burglar steals something and then sells it to you, that doesn't give you legal right of ownership.
Likewise, CNN may have offered CBC a license, but since CNN had no legal right to do so, CBC in effect received nothing legal from CNN and so CBC can be sued for use of the video without a license.
I should have been more explicit.
CBC doesn't actually have permission to show the video, but they also aren't guilty either.
To use the same theft analogy possession of stolen goods is only a crime if you knew the goods were stolen, when CNN sold CBC the license CBC had no reason to suspect that license wasn't legit.
If the CIO, a rather high ranking C-Suite officer, is afraid to open a mail from his CEO talking about resignation, something is amiss. If a C-Level pretty much expects to be laid off by email instead of a more personal way of communication something is VERY, VERY wrong in a company.
I don't think it's evidence of that. The subject line was "Will You Resign?", I think anyone would be freaked out if they saw that email from their immediate superior, especially if they were in a position where resignations are the typical form of firing, all it really says is Zuckerberg is either oblivious or a bit of an asshole.
Don't get me wrong, being laid off by email is common for lower ranks in huge, "faceless" corporations.
Is it? That sounds pretty screwed up, everyone should have a manager whom they deal with personally, they should be able to convey the news in person (or phone call for a remote worker) regardless of rank.
Does anyone actually care about this guy's legal troubles?
I've never understood why people simply assume there can't possibly be any basis in this story, just because he gave us Wikileaks. It reminds me of how some people refused to believe Hans Reiser might've indeed been guilty of killing his wife, apparently just because he gave us ReiserFS.
I think there were four important things to know:
1) There were real women who made real complaints, though they weren't particularly heinous and they dropped them fairly quickly.
2) The prosecutor decided to go ahead anyway, which is unusual, though potentially justifiable if the women dropped the complaints because they felt threatened or intimidated by Assange's reputation (ie, they didn't want to be the people who put an international hero behind bars).
3) The US really wanted Assange, it's quite plausible they Swedish authorities simply wanted to get Assange into the country to extradite him to the US.
4) Sweden went to very usual lengths to get Assange for a case of this stature, which might be evidence of an ulterior motive, or a proper reaction by the Swedish authorities to someone who was publicly flouting their legal system in a very public manner.
Personally I don't think the basic facts are in huge debate and I suspect Assange deserves some real (though mild) punishment, however I don't know if that's what he'll get in Sweden or if he'd eventually end up in a US prison cell.
It seems that the story about two attack jets shadowing the airliner may be red herrings.
As was overwhelmingly obvious at the time.
So, at this point in time, the most important question is, "Which Buc missiles, precisely, were used to down the aircraft?"
If it was a model from the '70's or '80's then we blame Porkochenko and Ukraine.
If it is a modern, up-to-date model, the Putin bites the big green weenie. They haven't sold any new model missiles to Ukraine, or any of the other former client nations.
Even if it were old Buks Putin's still the main suspect. The idea Putin loaded up the rebels with old Soviet equipment that looks like stuff taken from Ukrainian bases is hardly implausible, I think the rebels were even claiming to have taken their Buks from Ukrainian bases!
I want to run to build a mandate for the fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs.
so you want to propose a mission statement? because as it stands 100 senators and 435 house representatives are and have been for more than 2 generations the "hack" used by oligarchs and plutocrats to ensure you dont get to just randomly pull the rug out from under them. They control the media, they control the message, and they ultimately decide what policies and procedures are adopted and enforced.
presidents dont make laws or set meaningful policy. they kiss babies, tour disaster areas, deliver platitudes, and offer a meaningful physical representation of a broad set of policies economic, social, and international that campaign donors can patronize and the average voter can gloss over until they have to juggle 2 jobs and a trip to the library to cast their vote for party A or party B before they pick up the kids and pay rent.
I doubt he actually expects to win. At best he might have a short blip as the main anti-Hillary but even that's a long shot.
The most likely his winning scenario is he makes a bit of noise and another candidate see the policies could give them a better shot at beating Hillary. At that point the idea is in the political arena with a champion, maybe that person wins or maybe Hillary takes up portions to undercut that person's campaign.
It's still a long shot but it's not completely hopeless and another candidate passing those policies would be just as good a victory by his objectives.
in case you missed the last twenty years, they're specifically talking about the Monsanto crops which are a: terminal (they do not produce viable seed), b: specifically resistant to insect and disease strains that have already adapted to the resistant strain crops such as triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye), and most importantly c: as synthetic strains, are patented, hence with marker genes can be traced into the wild and used to shut down farmers who refuse to buy Monsanto strains by litigating them to death when those marked strains are found sprouting in their hedgerows.
Wait.
How can they be talking about crops that are both a) sterile and c) spreading into the fields of non-Monsanto farmers?
Btw, I'm pretty certain the sterile seeds were never used in production.
should be illegal. OR they should remove the protection from countersuit in the event of an improper takedown for automated systems. "The exemption applies to human error. If you remove the human from the process, the safehaven no longer may be applied."
Proposed fix. For every takedown you post you also post a $1000 bond, if someone challenges it they post $10 back (since you're probably dealing with giant corp vs little guy). Whomever backs out of the dispute first loses their bond.
Now I can see three main complications 1) A big studio is far more capable of handling a lawsuit, so even if a very clear case they could try to bully independents so they don't pay out (but I doubt they'll care about the $1000). 2) Studios still win fair use cases since they have so much court power. 3) It means DMCA notices are only a tool for the big boys since they're the only ones with the capital to burn.
Still it should wipe out the automated DMCA bots making flat out ridiculous takedowns.
Liable to whom? It's their own material they're taking down,
No, their own material is among the material they're taking down.
You're a level too high in the abstraction:)
The AC didn't seem to be referencing the takedown requests as a whole, they seemed to be referencing the request for the 2010 Pixel short specifically, which the studio owns.
I referenced the takedown of the 2006 independent film, also among the whole pile of takedowns in this batch, but a specific notice that is obviously wrong.
did he sell them the rights, or are you saying that by making a rip off they acquired the rights?
I'm saying they own the rights as in they bought them from the guy who made the film. I'm not sure how much of a corporate hack you'd have to be to think the studio acquired the legal rights to an independent film by ripping it off without consent of the creator.
A textbook case as to why anyone that issues a DMCA take down should be held liable. Probably a good case for regulation of DMCA and paying a fee to issue a DMCA take down.
Liable to whom? It's their own material they're taking down, the only wronged party I can think of is Google who had to go through the pain of a pointless DMCA request.
The situation seems ripe for him to file a DMCA notice against all of Columbia's official film sites and materials. He can prove his film existed before Columbia's was even started, and he has Columbia's admission (in their DMCA notice against his work) that their work is similar enough to his for infringement to occur.
Except he doesn't own the copyright to the short anymore, Sandler's production company who made the 2015 Pixels film does.
Now they made a really crappy movie based on the original short, but they had the legal right to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see it now, actual pirates stealing full boatloads of servers.
Alternately:
SysAdmin: The data centre is down.
Manager: It crashed?
SysAdmin: Yup.
Manager: How long till it's back up?
SysAdmin: Not sure, a few months maybe.
Manager: A FEW MONTHS?!?! What the hell happened?? Can't you just reboot things?!?
SysAdmin: Not really, a yacht crashed into it and it's sitting at the bottom of the harbour, it's going to take a few months to patch the hole and raise it back up to the surface.
How does Dogecoin address the same problem?
The cost of you (a) sending a bitcoin is borne by: (b) miner, (c) users running nodes - who have to store and verify your transaction for all eternity.
The miner and sender arrive at a fair price in this free market. Neat, right?
But, you do see that that conclusion rests on (c) being negligible, right? And, that's where the block size debate comes in.
Already, people's hard drives (and backups) are filling up because Joe sent Jack some 0.0000001 bitcoin somewhere. Imagine your hard drive, and everyone's hard drive filling up every time one of the billion users sends another of the billion users one cent for a negligible cost (because cost above 0 is free extra money to the miner.)
If blocksizes are not limited, (a) and (b) together maximize their profit by externalizing their costs to (c) where the cost gets amplified manifold.
So I'm not sure I understand the issue.
The 1MB block, what does it store exactly? What happens when it fills up under the current implementation? Is Joe unable to send Jack the 0.0000001 bitcoin? Is it really laggy? Do the records of some old transactions get discarded?
However, many of the tactics used to "deescalate" situations or reduce the amount of force police use also put police officers at higher risk for harm. (e.g., pausing to wait for the suspect to do something may allow them to draw or use a weapon, wrestling with a suspect instead of using a taser gives the suspect a chance to bite, stab, punch at close contact, etc.) These measures aren't popular with unions concerned first and foremost with their members' health and well-being.
e.g., http://www.policeforum.org/ass...
Some techniques for sure but I'm not sure that's generally true. A proper de-escalation technique is going to reduce the risk of a suspect turning hostile and thus protect the officer. Rather I think it's just a mixture of organizational inertia and pride, they don't want to change because that's how things have always been done, and even if they would change they won't do it on the advice of a University researcher who's never done a patrol.
I think the best defence of the practice I saw is that because the rich donors take the postings to nice countries the troublesome countries are the ones who actually get talented diplomats as ambassadors.
I agree it's mostly a prestige position but it is one where you're still summoned to meet heads of state and/or senior officials, the important stuff is handled higher up but I think it's still a concern because they will be doing something for which they're not the best person for the job. It's also essentially a form of corruption, paying off your friends with government resources.
I think it's more a consequence of economics.
Employees work in a very competitive market, if you want the job you need to offer either a slightly better worker or a slightly cheaper salary, you don't get any of the surplus profit in the system because you someone else will be willing to do the same job without it.
But companies, particularly the big tech ones, are in a very winner-take-all marketplace. If you're the second best programmer at a company you'll make a little bit less than the best programmer since you can deliver almost the same product. But if you're the second best Amazon or Google you're only making a fraction of the winner because you can't deliver anything like what they can.
This means worker salaries are basically set by the industry as a whole while successful companies and their owners have almost unlimited capital.
A book written in only a thousand words, I thought, would be cool for people learning English. But it's not. The whole thing is shot through with Millennial cultural references, so much as to make it incomprehensible. Hell, I can barely understand parts of the sample page. People who had different life experiences from the author as well as non-native English speakers will be totally lost. Sad, I had such high hopes.
From reading the comic that inspired it I think there's two legitimate values to the book:
1) I'm not sure there's a lot in the way of "a brief overview how all this common stuff works" books targeted at geeks, at least none that are marketed in a way they'd be cool for an adult geek to own. If I bought one I'd probably buy it because I wouldn't mind getting a very brief high level overview of helicopters, microwaves, bridges, etc but don't want to buy a kids book to do so.
2) The incomprehensibility isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's essentially a puzzle book where the puzzle is figuring out what he's talking about, except the twist is he's not actually trying to make it confusing, he's just dealing with a bizarre constraint on how he can communicate.
That being said I agree it would be useless for non-English speakers.
The trouble with trying to keep money out of politics is that money is very powerful so has a strong motivation to find its way around whatever obstructions you put up. So the fix isn't to put up stronger gates, it's to reduce the incentive by making that money less powerful.
Donors dominate because individual legislators have a lot of autonomy and are easy to push around. But if you take away the legislator's autonomy by strictly enforcing party discipline then they're a much less tempting target and they have less liability for "you voted for X" style ads.
Make it into a Parliamentary systems where the house leaders aren't just wrangling cats, they're actually telling their members how to vote on important issues. Sure it sounds authoritarian but it's a lot more accountable because when a bill passes (or doesn't) everybody knows who to hold accountable.
You don't even need to change the constitution, it's just a change in the legislative traditions.
... "crowd funding" in politics is ancient. And I'd point out that most crowdfunding systems have no problem with rich donors. Go to kickstarter... scroll down... they've got prizes for people that give 10k. Generally involves people going to some stupid party with the developer or them inserting you into their work or something.
Give 500K and get an ambassadorship?
No, it is a pretty accurate summary of what is happening. You focus post-hoc on where you got a good result. Say for example you want to test a new anti-diabetes drug. Does the drug work in the general population? Well, data doesn't support that. So then you look at subgroups. Does your data show success in say just men or just women? What about black men? Black women? White women? Etc. This isn't the only serious problem, sometimes one can choose which statistical tests to do or how to compensate for complicating factors. If you have enough choices you can make anything looks successful.
Now here's an interesting though experiment. Assume the researchers were doing a perfectly good job of analyzing results but were just terrible at predicting what that result would be. For instance, drug X doesn't work for the general population but it does actually work for black men, or this drug failed at treating angina, but it's great for erectile dysfunction.
Now this is a testable hypothesis because a second trial could confirm the surprise result from the first trial, ie Trial A: Test for angina but found ED instead, failure. Trial B: Test for ED and find it, success.
So for the 49% that now fail when they're not allowed to move the goalposts does anyone know if they're redoing those trials with the new goalposts?
>> chief task was to reverse-engineer competitors' virus detection software to figure out how to fool them into flagging good files as malicious
Why is this a bad thing? This is pretty much what a large chunk of the "grey hatter" world does on a regular basis (figure out how to trick AV). Shouldn't we be cheering on a little AV-on-AV competition instead of letting them all group-think themselves into a pool of mediocre results?
(This is also why running different AV engines in your network has generally been a good defense-in-depth measure in the past...I don't WANT them all to agree.)
Because those files belonged to end users, Kaspersky was using their competitors' software as malware.
If a burglar steals something and then sells it to you, that doesn't give you legal right of ownership.
Likewise, CNN may have offered CBC a license, but since CNN had no legal right to do so, CBC in effect received nothing legal from CNN and so CBC can be sued for use of the video without a license.
I should have been more explicit.
CBC doesn't actually have permission to show the video, but they also aren't guilty either.
To use the same theft analogy possession of stolen goods is only a crime if you knew the goods were stolen, when CNN sold CBC the license CBC had no reason to suspect that license wasn't legit.
It means that Youtube doesn't have to pay him royalties and can share it with daughter/sister companies, eg. Google+.
It does not mean that CBC can sweep in, drop their logo on the video and call it theirs.
They can if they had properly licensed the video from CNN, from what I can tell the issue is that CNN had no right to license the video to CBC.
If the CIO, a rather high ranking C-Suite officer, is afraid to open a mail from his CEO talking about resignation, something is amiss. If a C-Level pretty much expects to be laid off by email instead of a more personal way of communication something is VERY, VERY wrong in a company.
I don't think it's evidence of that. The subject line was "Will You Resign?", I think anyone would be freaked out if they saw that email from their immediate superior, especially if they were in a position where resignations are the typical form of firing, all it really says is Zuckerberg is either oblivious or a bit of an asshole.
Don't get me wrong, being laid off by email is common for lower ranks in huge, "faceless" corporations.
Is it? That sounds pretty screwed up, everyone should have a manager whom they deal with personally, they should be able to convey the news in person (or phone call for a remote worker) regardless of rank.
Does anyone actually care about this guy's legal troubles?
I've never understood why people simply assume there can't possibly be any basis in this story, just because he gave us Wikileaks. It reminds me of how some people refused to believe Hans Reiser might've indeed been guilty of killing his wife, apparently just because he gave us ReiserFS.
I think there were four important things to know:
1) There were real women who made real complaints, though they weren't particularly heinous and they dropped them fairly quickly.
2) The prosecutor decided to go ahead anyway, which is unusual, though potentially justifiable if the women dropped the complaints because they felt threatened or intimidated by Assange's reputation (ie, they didn't want to be the people who put an international hero behind bars).
3) The US really wanted Assange, it's quite plausible they Swedish authorities simply wanted to get Assange into the country to extradite him to the US.
4) Sweden went to very usual lengths to get Assange for a case of this stature, which might be evidence of an ulterior motive, or a proper reaction by the Swedish authorities to someone who was publicly flouting their legal system in a very public manner.
Personally I don't think the basic facts are in huge debate and I suspect Assange deserves some real (though mild) punishment, however I don't know if that's what he'll get in Sweden or if he'd eventually end up in a US prison cell.
It seems that the story about two attack jets shadowing the airliner may be red herrings.
As was overwhelmingly obvious at the time.
So, at this point in time, the most important question is, "Which Buc missiles, precisely, were used to down the aircraft?"
If it was a model from the '70's or '80's then we blame Porkochenko and Ukraine.
If it is a modern, up-to-date model, the Putin bites the big green weenie. They haven't sold any new model missiles to Ukraine, or any of the other former client nations.
Even if it were old Buks Putin's still the main suspect. The idea Putin loaded up the rebels with old Soviet equipment that looks like stuff taken from Ukrainian bases is hardly implausible, I think the rebels were even claiming to have taken their Buks from Ukrainian bases!
I want to run to build a mandate for the fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs.
so you want to propose a mission statement? because as it stands 100 senators and 435 house representatives are and have been for more than 2 generations the "hack" used by oligarchs and plutocrats to ensure you dont get to just randomly pull the rug out from under them. They control the media, they control the message, and they ultimately decide what policies and procedures are adopted and enforced.
presidents dont make laws or set meaningful policy. they kiss babies, tour disaster areas, deliver platitudes, and offer a meaningful physical representation of a broad set of policies economic, social, and international that campaign donors can patronize and the average voter can gloss over until they have to juggle 2 jobs and a trip to the library to cast their vote for party A or party B before they pick up the kids and pay rent.
I doubt he actually expects to win. At best he might have a short blip as the main anti-Hillary but even that's a long shot.
The most likely his winning scenario is he makes a bit of noise and another candidate see the policies could give them a better shot at beating Hillary. At that point the idea is in the political arena with a champion, maybe that person wins or maybe Hillary takes up portions to undercut that person's campaign.
It's still a long shot but it's not completely hopeless and another candidate passing those policies would be just as good a victory by his objectives.
So, he's announcing a priori that he'll be a lame duck. Chances of Congress cooperating with him: 0.01%
Really?
Imagine if Obama announced he'd resign if congress passed bill X. You'd have public healthcare with fully funded abortions!
in case you missed the last twenty years, they're specifically talking about the Monsanto crops which are a: terminal (they do not produce viable seed), b: specifically resistant to insect and disease strains that have already adapted to the resistant strain crops such as triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye), and most importantly c: as synthetic strains, are patented, hence with marker genes can be traced into the wild and used to shut down farmers who refuse to buy Monsanto strains by litigating them to death when those marked strains are found sprouting in their hedgerows.
Wait.
How can they be talking about crops that are both a) sterile and c) spreading into the fields of non-Monsanto farmers?
Btw, I'm pretty certain the sterile seeds were never used in production.
should be illegal. OR they should remove the protection from countersuit in the event of an improper takedown for automated systems. "The exemption applies to human error. If you remove the human from the process, the safehaven no longer may be applied."
Proposed fix. For every takedown you post you also post a $1000 bond, if someone challenges it they post $10 back (since you're probably dealing with giant corp vs little guy). Whomever backs out of the dispute first loses their bond.
Now I can see three main complications
1) A big studio is far more capable of handling a lawsuit, so even if a very clear case they could try to bully independents so they don't pay out (but I doubt they'll care about the $1000).
2) Studios still win fair use cases since they have so much court power.
3) It means DMCA notices are only a tool for the big boys since they're the only ones with the capital to burn.
Still it should wipe out the automated DMCA bots making flat out ridiculous takedowns.
I think you're confusing Vimeo and YouTube.
No confusion, I was just too lazy to parse the full summary :)
Liable to whom? It's their own material they're taking down,
No, their own material is among the material they're taking down.
You're a level too high in the abstraction :)
The AC didn't seem to be referencing the takedown requests as a whole, they seemed to be referencing the request for the 2010 Pixel short specifically, which the studio owns.
I referenced the takedown of the 2006 independent film, also among the whole pile of takedowns in this batch, but a specific notice that is obviously wrong.
did he sell them the rights, or are you saying that by making a rip off they acquired the rights?
I'm saying they own the rights as in they bought them from the guy who made the film. I'm not sure how much of a corporate hack you'd have to be to think the studio acquired the legal rights to an independent film by ripping it off without consent of the creator.
A textbook case as to why anyone that issues a DMCA take down should be held liable. Probably a good case for regulation of DMCA and paying a fee to issue a DMCA take down.
Liable to whom? It's their own material they're taking down, the only wronged party I can think of is Google who had to go through the pain of a pointless DMCA request.
This is one of the more comical cases that demonstrates how random DMCA takedowns are, but if you want a textbook case use the takedown of an independent film from 2006.
The situation seems ripe for him to file a DMCA notice against all of Columbia's official film sites and materials. He can prove his film existed before Columbia's was even started, and he has Columbia's admission (in their DMCA notice against his work) that their work is similar enough to his for infringement to occur.
Except he doesn't own the copyright to the short anymore, Sandler's production company who made the 2015 Pixels film does.
Now they made a really crappy movie based on the original short, but they had the legal right to do so.