ikeboy

56 ms·

571.
by ikeboy 7y ago
> They insisted I never talk to any LEO Nothing wrong with this ... >PTR records, Enabling Spam Doesn't say why that's illegal. At best it says they had customers that broke the law. >Often both the CEO and Vice President
572.
Amazon’s Judging of IP Claims Questioned in Seller Lawsuits(news.bloomberglaw.com)
1 points by ikeboy 7y ago|0 comments
573.
United States vs. Diploma, Princeton U, PhD, Issued to Alanum Mathison Turing(courtlistener.com)
1 points by ikeboy 7y ago|0 comments
574.
Amazon’s Judging of IP Claims Questioned in Seller Lawsuits(news.bloomberglaw.com)
2 points by ikeboy 7y ago|0 comments
575.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Someone born today could co-author a paper with anyone who co-authored a paper with Erdos, and also appear in a film with Kevin Bacon, giving them a EB number of 3.
576.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Not if the server is paid for anonymously and you only connect to it over tor. That connection isn't through a hidden service and so isn't vulnerable to this attack.
577.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Agreed. Can stick with stocks and REITs to avoid that.
578.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I've been in touch with lots of business owners who have been involved in litigation, and I'm currently in one myself.
579.
by ikeboy 7y ago
If they completely retire and just live off interest, sure. If they invest in real estate, other businesses, etc? They're going to be involved. I'm sure there's some exceptions.
580.
by ikeboy 7y ago
This sounds overkill, but mandatory arbitration clauses in business agreements is a good idea. In particular with partners, you don't want to have a nasty public fight over your company. Can also include winner gets fees clause to disc
581.
by ikeboy 7y ago
My understanding is even without fame, if you get anywhere interesting in the business world you'll need to get comfortable with litigation. Every wealthy person is entangled in it, even people you've never heard of that "onl
582.
Cool It, Krugman(theatlantic.com)
2 points by ikeboy 7y ago|3 comments
583.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Google is independent from the two parties in any dispute. I don't really care about your pedantry about terminology. We're not in court.
584.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Google holds it in escrow and doesn't give it to either side until resolved. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en
585.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Yes. If they choose to take revenue, then that revenue is held in escrow. If they choose to take the video down or demonetize it, then it appears that the video goes back up but is unmonetized during the dispute process. "If the policy
586.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Note that this is dead wrong. Content ID claims can be disputed, and if the rights owner doesn't convert it to a DMCA claim then the content goes back up.
587.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Which they presumably did - uploaded Dark Horse to the content ID system.
588.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The reference is what Warner would have to upload to YouTube to show the original content being infringed.
589.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Most of the issues I've seen with big companies are through automated content ID. The relevant comparison is how many valid manual claims someone makes vs invalid. If there's millions of valid claims and, say, hundreds of invali
590.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2605065 Here's guidelines for content ID. And they update policy often - here's a major update from last year: https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com
591.
by ikeboy 7y ago
There's only two kinds of claims, content ID (both automatic and manual) and DMCA.
592.
by ikeboy 7y ago
This isn't under the DMCA but still interesting: https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions... Tl;dr Amazon seller filed a false counterfeiting allegation against another seller. A jury
593.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>YouTube only grants Content ID to copyright owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, they must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community. >YouT
594.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You have recourse - dispute the content ID claim and either they must abandon the claim or convert it to DMCA, which then gives you all the rights you have under DMCA.
595.
by ikeboy 7y ago
That's a valid point. I looked into that and it appears the policy says they'll put the video back up during the dispute but won't monetize it: "If the policy is set to block (don't allow users to view the video on
596.
by ikeboy 7y ago
> Having the video taken down and reinstated does not reinstate the lost revenue. If disputed within 5 days, the money is held in escrow and disbursed upon reinstatement. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer
597.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I've read through that EFF page and also written my own guide to the process (at https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/h... ) I'm fairly confident in what I've said (th
598.
by ikeboy 7y ago
A copyright claim not made through the DMCA does not lead to a strike, full stop. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en , which differentiates between takedowns through a formal notice (i.e. D
599.
by ikeboy 7y ago
1. It's illegal, and YouTube has sued at least one person who's done this (YouTube vs Brady) 2. It's easy to counterclaim, which removes the strike completely after 14 days.
600.
by ikeboy 7y ago
That's correct, but those manual claims, as well as automatic content ID claims are not strikes and have no negative effect on the channel.

More ›