ikeboy

57 ms·

601.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. Sure ... These "strikes" are DMCA claims. "If they had to file real DMCA claims, th
602.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>And your content is taken down for 14 days with no reasonable recourse for you. This is a very small harm comparatively, in my view an acceptable loss in order to establish the overall framework. The alternative is not having any way to
603.
by ikeboy 7y ago
There's been plenty of lawsuits citing this provision. Just search courtlistener for 512(f). https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22512(f)%22+dmca&type=r&or...
604.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Got a citation on that? Counternotices being ignored are rare from what I've heard.
605.
by ikeboy 7y ago
That's separate. It's called content ID. But the case I mentioned above was by someone who did not have access to content ID and was just submitting fraudulent DMCA notices. See also https://www.eff.org/deeplinks&#
606.
by ikeboy 7y ago
It was DMCA notices, yes. DMCA doesn't require them to take it down. It just removes their safe harbor from liability if they don't. If YouTube is confident that a notice is BS, they can just ignore it.
607.
by ikeboy 7y ago
a) USC 512(f) makes it illegal to misrepresent that something is infringing. Not considering fair use is included, per Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. c) To do that, you'd need to make suing easier. I don't see how your proposal doe
608.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Different courts have ruled differently on that issue. Note that it's mainly applicable to foreign defendants, and you'd have to show that you can't serve them through other channels. See https://blog.ericgoldman.o
609.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>If it's word against word, then yes both sides' word should have equal weight and consequence. Currently, that is not the case. I'm not sure what you mean here. In that scenario, a DMCA notice was sent and a counternotice
610.
by ikeboy 7y ago
> If those companies had to fear someone challenging these (in this example an easy win) and making them lose their ability to send them out at all, that would change a lot. Why hasn't torrentfreak sued? Presumably because it's
611.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The reason why a counternotice allows it to be put back up is because filing one requires you to swear to noninfringement and accept jurisdiction. If you're not willing to do that, and the claimant is willing to swear to infringement,
612.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>That is toothless in preventing corps (with money) from abusing individuals (who don't have the money to start litigation). This is a problem with unequal access to the legal system, not with the law. >Also, from what I hear, ma
613.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>Take down 3 obviously (probably decided by a judge) non-infringing things and you lose the ability to send takedowns. Once it reaches this point, the service provider would likely stop accepting the notices anyway. See e.g. the recent l
614.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>(f)Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1)that material or activity is infringing, or (2)that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be l
615.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>Among many things I hate about the DMCA, it's that hosts have basically no option other than to respond to takedown requests by actually taking down the content in question, for fear of litigation. That's the entire point. A D
616.
by ikeboy 7y ago
That page says it's about drugs withdrawn for safety concerns. That's different from the typical complaint, which is efficacy trials that are overly expensive.
617.
by ikeboy 7y ago
" If only there was some way this sort of trial and error could be performed before a drug was widely available, in a controlled environment..." This is exactly how doctors determine what works, with or without the government. See
618.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Should a doctor be making that decision, or should the government? Or should the government make that decision for on-label uses and doctors make that decision for off-label uses? That's the status quo. Whatever argument you have for o
619.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Good for them. Maybe if we fixed the patent system (government enforced monopoly) we'd be in a similar position.
620.
by ikeboy 7y ago
No.
621.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://www.fdareview.org/issues/theory-evidence-and-example... Specific suggestion: get rid of efficacy requirement, keep safety requirement. Let doctors decide what works, as they currently do for off-label uses just
622.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://www.fdareview.org/issues/theory-evidence-and-example... This provides what to me is compelling evidence that the efficacy requirement by the FDA is wasteful.
623.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/insulin-walmart-vial/
624.
by ikeboy 7y ago
He has sources for the data. You can look those up.
625.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You can buy the formulation that was invented in 1923 for cheap. It's newer formulations that are expensive, and those are still protected by patents.
626.
by ikeboy 7y ago
If you believe the market is choosing to waste money on ineffective marketing, sure. Do you have any particular reason to think that? Why would you expect return on capital to go up without marketing?
627.
by ikeboy 7y ago
When it costs billions to develop a new drug due to onerous testing regulations, that's what happens. Ultimately returns in every industry tend towards zero. If we made it cheaper to develop new drugs it would extend the lifespan of th
628.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You're looking at the wrong data. You need to look at return on capital. Right now the return on capital in pharma is below the cost of capital and it's trending towards zero. The inevitable result is significantly lower funding f
629.
Have a Search Warrant for Data? Google Wants You to Pay(nytimes.com)
2 points by ikeboy 7y ago|0 comments
630.
by ikeboy 7y ago
There's some huge datasets of Amazon reviews available. Stanford has a big scrape out there, plus there's one from Amazon themselves in the AWS datasets.

More ›