And your mod wile maybe correct, wouldn't be for the reasons you stated.
Take James Hansen from NASA for instance, he gets paid for his work concerning Global warming. He's gotten huge monetary awards specifically for his alarming statements that was completely hidden from the public until someone went through his ethics statements and complained that a couple of things were missing. He amended them and poof, it was obvious.. Does that mean he is a shill for it. No, it doesn't. In fact, he is a political zealot who deeply believes in what he states beyond a point that seems rational to some.
Here is what you are missing, all opinions are biased. You simply cannot get around it. Some people are biased to Apple computers because it's what they are comfortable with. To them they are better then windows computers because they don't suffer whatever it is that they like about Apple systems. Some people are the exact opposite and are biased towards windows operating systems for sometimes the same reasons or entirely different ones. Some of these people will even work at the companies they endorse.
You simply cannot connect a strait line from payment or funding to misrepresenting something or not holding the opinions yourself based on it. You might be able to draw a line if the claims turned out to be false or made specific statements that cannot be verified. But like the association of Hansen getting paid for shouting fire- global warming is burning the building down, it's clear that payment has done nothing to influence his statements other then maybe caused them to be made more often even though they are the other party's opinions too.
It could be fraud but I do not think it would always be fraud. If someone actually believed in what they were saying and someone paid them to continue to say it, it would be an honest endorsement of whatever it was they were saying. Similarly, as I said, my endorsement for something that an employer found advantage in would essentially be me getting paid for it. But it wouldn't have been fraud to say what I was saying.
If you were half as smart as me, you would have realize how silly your comment is considering the post I replied to. Perhaps you should think a bit before posting.
sigh.. both the accuser who issues the DMCA take down and and the accused infringer who files a counter claim to the take down notice. It goes both ways.
I understand what perjury is, what i didn't understand was how to make my comment clear enough for everyone to understand. The GP described the process for filing a counter claim stating the requirement to sign the counter claim. He then claimed there was no such clause for someone to allege infringement. There is exactly that to be in accordance with the DMCA..
Well, I for one want to know why alien abductions always seem to happen to the dumbest people on the planet and how that makes us appear to the aliens.
I don't want a Marvin the Martian type thinking we aren't worthy or something and trying to blow the planet up causing intelligent people to go all bugs bunny on them. We have politicians and nukes for that.
I'm not going to claim this is a scientific fact or anything of the sorts. I'm not even going to claim a cause and effect. I'm even going to run away from your Co2 comment.
However, in my area, I did notice then when the news was reporting solar flares earlier this year (I think they were small but pointed at earth which gave communications systems and power transmissions a scare), I noticed that about 4 days later, we got abnormally high temperatures. Like 90+ in June when it would normally be 70-80 something. There was two that I distinctly remember being in the news, and there was two abnormally high periods of time following them shortly after. This could be a coincidence, but I remember watching something similar during the how months 2 years ago too.
Personally, I both trust my fellow scientific majority when they conclude there's a problem. And based on watching particulate airborne pollution in the 60's to present, I completely accept that we're able to influence climate. Last, it doesn't matter how much of the change is specifically our fault: climate-change problems are our problem............
QED: we shouldn't sit idle, or 'keep studying without action'.
Well, it matters a lot if it our fault or not. The solutions to the problem can have no impact if it isn't and we attempt to fix it as if it is. It also matters if the cause is accurate or not. You see, if particulate matter has effected a deviation in temperatures, then solely addressing anthropogenic carbons might not be enough. If for instance we assume global warming is as it is claims and don't take that into account carbon release from the oceans when addressing the problems, we could have too strong of an impact and screw things up too.
Right now, the fix seems to be "drive the cost of everything up with carbon taxes" in the more developed nations, even while in a depression or world recession. Europe's attempt at fixing it basically helped build China and India and a few South American countries into massive polluters too. The recession has done more to curb carbon emissions then any of the fixes European countries put in place.
So the solutions to the problems we will still be faced with will require an honest reality check and look into what it is exactly that is trying to be fixed, whether it will realistically have the right impacts or not, and whether or not it harms populations in the process. We need to understand what we are going after else you might as well just pray that everything will ok alright. It could have the same effects.
Personally, I think if anyone is serious about Global warming we should be doing anything other then selling carbon offsets and buying ocean front property that will be underwater should our fears come true. We should not be taxing or capping everything to lower people's standard of living like the recession has done.
Why wouldn't it be the same? Anonymous sources use the news media all the time to get a message out anonymously. It's really no different other then a dislike for one more then another.
I'm more concerned with assuming that someone receiving money in some way is automatically considered a shill. I have personally posted things to blogs anonymously in the past favoring employers I had not because they paid me to post, but because I supported what I wrote. I was paid for doing other things not associated with any postings.
I have also anonymously posted stuff that would pretty much make me unhirable from a competitor (my then current employer too) should I ever wanted to change jobs and remain in the same field. I ended up going to work for an advocacy group that mirrored my opinions of the matters. That did not make me a shill, it made me someone who stood up for what they believed in.
While I have been paid while working for people who benefited from my anonymous opinions, I have never received a dime to have them or make them known. I have about 6 online identities I can't use any more that if I did it right, no one can piece them together as the same person. I have many more waiting to be used too.
Well, yes, youtube can be held liable for damages caused by the removal of the content. You are correct in that they are not obligated to host the videos but when they do host it, they have to have a valid reason to single just you out for refusal after doing it.
And I believe YouTube only loses DMCA 'protection' if they don't follow the rules listed for it, which they do.
They lose it when they do not follow the dmca which seems to be what they are doing. It appears they are determining ownership and rights for content through their own automated system. This is outside the DMCA if the copyright holder doesn't direct them to act. This could be something obvious like a complete or partial movie or it could be a take down notice.
But in addition to that, they also give various large corporations pretty much unfettered permission to remove and/or claim as their own any video uploaded to YouTube. So I'm sure in court, YouTube would just punt and say 'this other MegaCorp said they own this video, and we aren't empowered to decide who owns what. This in-duh-vidual needs to sue MegaCorp if he wants his video back.' Win, lather, rinse, repeat.
They can't really do that. if mega corp filed a dmca take down notice, they have to notify the alleged infringer, who can file a counter claim, youtube would have to wait ten days from he counter claim while they notify mega corp and see if mega corp declares they are filing a court action. If mega corp doesn't give notice, they have to restore the content with 4 days or they loose all protections from liability for removing it.
Well, that's exactly how they do these things in government, you don't have to purchase insurance, but you will be penalized if you don't. And yes, in the real world, i8t means that people will do whatever is requested in order to avoid the liability.
But there is another out too. Like the service provider knowing the claimed infringement is not infringement at all thereby not having the threat of liability. Something that should have happened with this NASA video in the first place.
I'm not sure how much more expensive the climate controlled trucks are. I think it is probably trivial.
I used to run a refer unit (yes, refrigeration units in trucks will heat too) and we were always picking up coiled steel and transporting it on the refer unit to control the climate until it reaches it's destination. The difference between out runs and flat beds making the same runs was less then 5 cents per mile to cover the diesel to run the refer units..
I was thinking about this too. The law sort of implies that it is an advantage to go about it recklessly instead of knowingly in order to avoid that issue. When a company can essentially say- opps my bad, we made a mistake after a challenge has been issues, I'm thinking they aren't supervising the process well enough and it might be time for a negligence claim against them. An action like that would be outside the DMCA as it pertains to their supervision and hiring people qualified to enforce their DMCA policies not the DMCA itself.
Any lawyers out there want to look into this or comment further? I saw a construction company lose a significant lawsuit because they allowed someone not certified to operate a backhoe rip a waterline up and the site supervisor didn't know who to contact making the problem worse then it could have been. The gushing water eroded an embankment causing it to slide into a ravine and damaging the foundation of a couple buildings in the process.
HE said he was going to stop it, he said he was going to block a permit needed. Manino already has pullled crap like this in the past when he blocked a chain drug store from opening a few blocks from one of this friends pharmacy.
Don't sit there and pretend something wasn't said when it was.
You do understand there is a complete different between banning all fast food restaurants and only banning McDonalds restaurant because it supports liberal causes right?
One of the most glaring differences is a political entity coming right out and saying we are banning X. It just shows how comfortable they are in doing this crap behind the scenes.
Because some idiots will try to classify everyone in a group as the same lowest common denominator in order to effect their agenda which is usually to remove guns from the law abiding citizens.
Is it only comments when a police officer says he will plant evidence on someone to charge them with a crime if they ever come in their jurisdiction but it never happens because the object never goes to his jurisdiction because of that?
Just saying you are going to use the power of government illegally because someone does something constitutionally protected iis enough to punish someone for it. What if some mayors came out and said anyone who openly supports gay rights will be arrested and the police might mistake their cell phones for guns?
"Only comments" like these is exactly why an app saying what political party you support should be feared. Are the just commenting people going to start checking the app before considering your cause now? Need a building permit- not so fast, you donated to the other party. Want a zoning exclusion, Sure thing, you gave lots of money to my buddy's campaign. Lets redraw the sewer right of way through the front yards of these houses, they all donated to Obama.
Anyone in government making these comments should be removed to as far away from government as possible.
I think he is talking about reality on how it works, not what the law says.
I had something similar to this happen with Verizon as my ISP. I came home one day to find my internet down. After calling the support, it turned out because I was reported fo violating someone's copyright for downloading copyrighted materials 3 times. Well, it wasn't me who did it and after demanding more information and the verizon tech telling me it was emailed and me explaining that doesn't mean shit when I can't connect to check the email, it was disclosed that all 3 complaints was registered to Verizon within 2 seconds of each other for downloading star trek. Something I didn't do and have no idea how I got accused of it outside of bringing a client computer home the night before and removing the virus and malware contained on it.
I'm betting what he is saying is that the same incorrect claim can be made any number of times incorrectly resulting in account suspension via Google's policy.
They don't have to take it down right now. That's only the provision that absolves the provider from liability for it being on their network or for taking it down. The provider has the ability to keep it up until the courts say take it down.
the penalty of perjury is for both sides of the claim- you can recover cost and damages in some situations. The rest of that is within the law as intended excep that the ISP has 14 days to get the content back online, the ten days is the cut off on when they need to start restoring it. That is unless the person claiming infringement declares they are seeking a court action o restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service providerâ(TM)s system or network in which case it remains offline.
The statutory recovery of damages and costs requires someone to knowingly make a false or misrepresenting claim. This sort of encourages the automated systems where they can claim ignorance and make it near impossible to show knowingly intent. However, I'm not sure that a common law action for negligence couldn't force them to take a more active role in issuing these notices with a knowing person making them. Certainly a company can be held liable for damages if they fail to properly supervise employees and they harm someone in any way. An automated program or an employee using an automated program should not be an exception to this.
You think that democrats are the only ones who behave like this? Republicans aren't susceptible to this type of abuse of power?
What makes you think that? Obviously, if this app shows the democrats I'm concerned with republicans or any political affiliations retaliating on them. The app essentially pinpoints people's political leanings without the need of a paper trail to find the information that would make it apparent if a political entity was abusing the power of government.
Do you really think that this is a "blueness" trait and not just a bunch of politicians spouting to get in the news? There are plenty of incidents where politicians of all colors who abuse their governmental powers against people who don't think like them. I don't think either party can claim with a straight face that they are better at supporting the constitution.
Name some of those instances. Name some instances where anyone claimed they would be using the government powers in order to stop the freedoms of someone in retaliation based on their specific constitutional rights.
I am tired of people using recent incidents as "proof" of their point...there are lots of data points in historical record, and I while I haven't done the statistical analysis I would guess that there is a nice even distribution in the "abuse of power" category.
I guess you should take a nap then. The reason recent incidents are used to prove points is because it's a sign of systemic behavior currently in practice. It would be completely meaningless to bring up selma alabama where a democrat mayor release police dogs on a group of constitutionally protected black protestors marching for civil rights that the constitution also protects. It would be meaningless to point to Arkansas where another democrat decided to use the police to stop the legitimate right of black students to attend a white school that was a constitutionally protected right.
Were those or historical situations right? No. Have they been rectified? Yes, although only to some degree depending on which militant idiot you speak to.
People use recent events to show current and pertinent activity. If that bores you or makes you sleepy, then you should just take a nap.
is your google finger broke or something? the mayor of boston said he was going to stop a fast food chain from expanding in boston, the mayor of Chicago said the same chain didn't fit in have the same values as Chicago while one if his alderman lackies said he was intentionally blocking the opening of a new restaurant in his district. The mayor of san fransycso made comment implying he was going to pull the same crap.
If you don't know what is happening, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting?
Slashdot Mirror
And your mod wile maybe correct, wouldn't be for the reasons you stated.
Take James Hansen from NASA for instance, he gets paid for his work concerning Global warming. He's gotten huge monetary awards specifically for his alarming statements that was completely hidden from the public until someone went through his ethics statements and complained that a couple of things were missing. He amended them and poof, it was obvious.. Does that mean he is a shill for it. No, it doesn't. In fact, he is a political zealot who deeply believes in what he states beyond a point that seems rational to some.
Here is what you are missing, all opinions are biased. You simply cannot get around it. Some people are biased to Apple computers because it's what they are comfortable with. To them they are better then windows computers because they don't suffer whatever it is that they like about Apple systems. Some people are the exact opposite and are biased towards windows operating systems for sometimes the same reasons or entirely different ones. Some of these people will even work at the companies they endorse.
You simply cannot connect a strait line from payment or funding to misrepresenting something or not holding the opinions yourself based on it. You might be able to draw a line if the claims turned out to be false or made specific statements that cannot be verified. But like the association of Hansen getting paid for shouting fire- global warming is burning the building down, it's clear that payment has done nothing to influence his statements other then maybe caused them to be made more often even though they are the other party's opinions too.
It could be fraud but I do not think it would always be fraud. If someone actually believed in what they were saying and someone paid them to continue to say it, it would be an honest endorsement of whatever it was they were saying. Similarly, as I said, my endorsement for something that an employer found advantage in would essentially be me getting paid for it. But it wouldn't have been fraud to say what I was saying.
If you were half as smart as me, you would have realize how silly your comment is considering the post I replied to. Perhaps you should think a bit before posting.
sigh.. both the accuser who issues the DMCA take down and and the accused infringer who files a counter claim to the take down notice. It goes both ways.
I understand what perjury is, what
i didn't understand was how to make my comment clear enough for everyone to understand. The GP described the process for filing a counter claim stating the requirement to sign the counter claim. He then claimed there was no such clause for someone to allege infringement. There is exactly that to be in accordance with the DMCA..
Well, I for one want to know why alien abductions always seem to happen to the dumbest people on the planet and how that makes us appear to the aliens.
I don't want a Marvin the Martian type thinking we aren't worthy or something and trying to blow the planet up causing intelligent people to go all bugs bunny on them. We have politicians and nukes for that.
I'm not going to claim this is a scientific fact or anything of the sorts. I'm not even going to claim a cause and effect. I'm even going to run away from your Co2 comment.
However, in my area, I did notice then when the news was reporting solar flares earlier this year (I think they were small but pointed at earth which gave communications systems and power transmissions a scare), I noticed that about 4 days later, we got abnormally high temperatures. Like 90+ in June when it would normally be 70-80 something. There was two that I distinctly remember being in the news, and there was two abnormally high periods of time following them shortly after. This could be a coincidence, but I remember watching something similar during the how months 2 years ago too.
Well, it matters a lot if it our fault or not. The solutions to the problem can have no impact if it isn't and we attempt to fix it as if it is. It also matters if the cause is accurate or not. You see, if particulate matter has effected a deviation in temperatures, then solely addressing anthropogenic carbons might not be enough. If for instance we assume global warming is as it is claims and don't take that into account carbon release from the oceans when addressing the problems, we could have too strong of an impact and screw things up too.
Right now, the fix seems to be "drive the cost of everything up with carbon taxes" in the more developed nations, even while in a depression or world recession. Europe's attempt at fixing it basically helped build China and India and a few South American countries into massive polluters too. The recession has done more to curb carbon emissions then any of the fixes European countries put in place.
So the solutions to the problems we will still be faced with will require an honest reality check and look into what it is exactly that is trying to be fixed, whether it will realistically have the right impacts or not, and whether or not it harms populations in the process. We need to understand what we are going after else you might as well just pray that everything will ok alright. It could have the same effects.
Personally, I think if anyone is serious about Global warming we should be doing anything other then selling carbon offsets and buying ocean front property that will be underwater should our fears come true. We should not be taxing or capping everything to lower people's standard of living like the recession has done.
Isn't that usually called a PR firm though?
Why wouldn't it be the same? Anonymous sources use the news media all the time to get a message out anonymously. It's really no different other then a dislike for one more then another.
I'm more concerned with assuming that someone receiving money in some way is automatically considered a shill. I have personally posted things to blogs anonymously in the past favoring employers I had not because they paid me to post, but because I supported what I wrote. I was paid for doing other things not associated with any postings.
I have also anonymously posted stuff that would pretty much make me unhirable from a competitor (my then current employer too) should I ever wanted to change jobs and remain in the same field. I ended up going to work for an advocacy group that mirrored my opinions of the matters. That did not make me a shill, it made me someone who stood up for what they believed in.
While I have been paid while working for people who benefited from my anonymous opinions, I have never received a dime to have them or make them known. I have about 6 online identities I can't use any more that if I did it right, no one can piece them together as the same person. I have many more waiting to be used too.
Well, yes, youtube can be held liable for damages caused by the removal of the content. You are correct in that they are not obligated to host the videos but when they do host it, they have to have a valid reason to single just you out for refusal after doing it.
They lose it when they do not follow the dmca which seems to be what they are doing. It appears they are determining ownership and rights for content through their own automated system. This is outside the DMCA if the copyright holder doesn't direct them to act. This could be something obvious like a complete or partial movie or it could be a take down notice.
They can't really do that. if mega corp filed a dmca take down notice, they have to notify the alleged infringer, who can file a counter claim, youtube would have to wait ten days from he counter claim while they notify mega corp and see if mega corp declares they are filing a court action. If mega corp doesn't give notice, they have to restore the content with 4 days or they loose all protections from liability for removing it.
Well, that's exactly how they do these things in government, you don't have to purchase insurance, but you will be penalized if you don't. And yes, in the real world, i8t means that people will do whatever is requested in order to avoid the liability.
But there is another out too. Like the service provider knowing the claimed infringement is not infringement at all thereby not having the threat of liability. Something that should have happened with this NASA video in the first place.
I'm not sure how much more expensive the climate controlled trucks are. I think it is probably trivial.
I used to run a refer unit (yes, refrigeration units in trucks will heat too) and we were always picking up coiled steel and transporting it on the refer unit to control the climate until it reaches it's destination. The difference between out runs and flat beds making the same runs was less then 5 cents per mile to cover the diesel to run the refer units..
I was thinking about this too. The law sort of implies that it is an advantage to go about it recklessly instead of knowingly in order to avoid that issue. When a company can essentially say- opps my bad, we made a mistake after a challenge has been issues, I'm thinking they aren't supervising the process well enough and it might be time for a negligence claim against them. An action like that would be outside the DMCA as it pertains to their supervision and hiring people qualified to enforce their DMCA policies not the DMCA itself.
Any lawyers out there want to look into this or comment further? I saw a construction company lose a significant lawsuit because they allowed someone not certified to operate a backhoe rip a waterline up and the site supervisor didn't know who to contact making the problem worse then it could have been. The gushing water eroded an embankment causing it to slide into a ravine and damaging the foundation of a couple buildings in the process.
Not exactly.
If youtube is not following the DMCA then they are not protected from liability or damages in the DMCA.
The problem is you have to file suit to take care of it. You can get your expenses back, but you (or someone) will still need to front it.
HE said he was going to stop it, he said he was going to block a permit needed. Manino already has pullled crap like this in the past when he blocked a chain drug store from opening a few blocks from one of this friends pharmacy.
Don't sit there and pretend something wasn't said when it was.
You do understand there is a complete different between banning all fast food restaurants and only banning McDonalds restaurant because it supports liberal causes right?
One of the most glaring differences is a political entity coming right out and saying we are banning X. It just shows how comfortable they are in doing this crap behind the scenes.
Because some idiots will try to classify everyone in a group as the same lowest common denominator in order to effect their agenda which is usually to remove guns from the law abiding citizens.
That's what I said.
There is more to it then that one section too.
Is it only comments when a police officer says he will plant evidence on someone to charge them with a crime if they ever come in their jurisdiction but it never happens because the object never goes to his jurisdiction because of that?
Just saying you are going to use the power of government illegally because someone does something constitutionally protected iis enough to punish someone for it. What if some mayors came out and said anyone who openly supports gay rights will be arrested and the police might mistake their cell phones for guns?
"Only comments" like these is exactly why an app saying what political party you support should be feared. Are the just commenting people going to start checking the app before considering your cause now? Need a building permit- not so fast, you donated to the other party. Want a zoning exclusion, Sure thing, you gave lots of money to my buddy's campaign. Lets redraw the sewer right of way through the front yards of these houses, they all donated to Obama.
Anyone in government making these comments should be removed to as far away from government as possible.
I think he is talking about reality on how it works, not what the law says.
I had something similar to this happen with Verizon as my ISP. I came home one day to find my internet down. After calling the support, it turned out because I was reported fo violating someone's copyright for downloading copyrighted materials 3 times. Well, it wasn't me who did it and after demanding more information and the verizon tech telling me it was emailed and me explaining that doesn't mean shit when I can't connect to check the email, it was disclosed that all 3 complaints was registered to Verizon within 2 seconds of each other for downloading star trek. Something I didn't do and have no idea how I got accused of it outside of bringing a client computer home the night before and removing the virus and malware contained on it.
I'm betting what he is saying is that the same incorrect claim can be made any number of times incorrectly resulting in account suspension via Google's policy.
They don't have to take it down right now. That's only the provision that absolves the provider from liability for it being on their network or for taking it down. The provider has the ability to keep it up until the courts say take it down.
the penalty of perjury is for both sides of the claim- you can recover cost and damages in some situations. The rest of that is within the law as intended excep that the ISP has 14 days to get the content back online, the ten days is the cut off on when they need to start restoring it. That is unless the person claiming infringement declares they are seeking a court action o restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service providerâ(TM)s system or network in which case it remains offline.
The statutory recovery of damages and costs requires someone to knowingly make a false or misrepresenting claim. This sort of encourages the automated systems where they can claim ignorance and make it near impossible to show knowingly intent. However, I'm not sure that a common law action for negligence couldn't force them to take a more active role in issuing these notices with a knowing person making them. Certainly a company can be held liable for damages if they fail to properly supervise employees and they harm someone in any way. An automated program or an employee using an automated program should not be an exception to this.
What makes you think that? Obviously, if this app shows the democrats I'm concerned with republicans or any political affiliations retaliating on them. The app essentially pinpoints people's political leanings without the need of a paper trail to find the information that would make it apparent if a political entity was abusing the power of government.
Name some of those instances. Name some instances where anyone claimed they would be using the government powers in order to stop the freedoms of someone in retaliation based on their specific constitutional rights.
I guess you should take a nap then. The reason recent incidents are used to prove points is because it's a sign of systemic behavior currently in practice. It would be completely meaningless to bring up selma alabama where a democrat mayor release police dogs on a group of constitutionally protected black protestors marching for civil rights that the constitution also protects. It would be meaningless to point to Arkansas where another democrat decided to use the police to stop the legitimate right of black students to attend a white school that was a constitutionally protected right.
Were those or historical situations right? No. Have they been rectified? Yes, although only to some degree depending on which militant idiot you speak to.
People use recent events to show current and pertinent activity. If that bores you or makes you sleepy, then you should just take a nap.
It sounds a lot like you are justifying the right wing comment by saying "in my mind, no matter how incorrect it is, it makes sense".
It must be a good day for the criminally stupid.
is your google finger broke or something? the mayor of boston said he was going to stop a fast food chain from expanding in boston, the mayor of Chicago said the same chain didn't fit in have the same values as Chicago while one if his alderman lackies said he was intentionally blocking the opening of a new restaurant in his district. The mayor of san fransycso made comment implying he was going to pull the same crap.
If you don't know what is happening, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting?