I might have taken that path, except the video only has 42 views, so it probably didn't make them any money at all, and even if it did, at 3x it would still be a trivial amount, I'm sure.
I would guess they purchased the rights to a library of old silent-movie music, then submitted it in bulk without bothering to actually check the validity of the copyright
This is a HUGE part of the problem, and there should be a serious penalty for making spurious, un-validated claims like this or it will never stop.
It sounds like your other video qualified as fair use, which doesn't seem to be respected any more either, and that is also problematic, as fair use for the purpose of criticism, commentary and parody is a pretty important method of exercising free speech.
About 10 months ago, I found my high school graduation video cassette from 1987, so I picked up a used VCR and ripped it and put it up on youtube for family to view. Last month, I uploading another video and noticed that a DMCA claim had been placed on my graduation video, but the "copyright holder" would allow the video to remain, they were just going to monetize it. My graduation video was shot by my brother and had our high school band playing Pomp and Circumstance, which is in the public domain. There is no way this is under copyright, so I looked them up and the "song" that I was allegedly violating the copyright of. It turns out that the "copyright holder" was a crappy English DJ duo who had appropriated Pomp and Circumstance in one of their soccer fight songs. The funny part is that my video is 28 years old, their song is about a year old.
I countered their claim with all the info above and the claim was removed.
I realize this was probably a simple signature match, but it only goes to show how broken this system is. I didn't actually received an email about the DMCA claim. There are only 2 emails in my inbox containing the video title, one was when I published it and the other was when the copyright claim was removed, so they don't appear to even be notifying people when a claim is made, at least in the case where the "copyright holder" decides to monetize rather than take the video down, and that is even more nefarious in my opinion. I wasn't monetizing my video, and it has less than 50 views, but if I had been monetizing it and had a larger audience, they would have been stealing from me without my even knowing it. I only noticed the original claim when I uploaded another video to youtube.
For firefighters, a high pressure water blast should do the trick. EMT's might have to fashion some sort of rudimentary surgical-tubing slingshot, though.
I thought it was the humans who polluted the skies in an ill-fated attempt to cause solar-powered machines to fail.
You're thinking of The Matrix.
The FDA "document" you linked is an FDA docket SUBMITTAL by known conspiracy nut Mark Gold. If you go here: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/DOCKE... and read the findings from the relevant bodies, you will see that most (if not all) of them dismiss his (And Betty Martini's) claims out of hand.
He also has NO medical background and professes to be an expert in holistic healing. http://americanloons.blogspot....
If you want to take nutritional advice from people with no medical background, be my guest.
And seriously, Monsanto suppressed reports that aspartame is bad? Monsanto is in the business of GMO produce, like corn for high fructose corn syrup. I seriously doubt they would want to suppress a report that shows their competitor's product is bad for you. Do you even read what you write?
Wow, are you being sarcastic? I took you seriously right up until you mentioned aspartame. I challenge you to find ANY scientific study that shows aspartame is harmful in any way.
The FDA called aspartame "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved". More than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population. Source: http://web.archive.org/web/200...
That was 16 YEARS ago. This horse has been dead a LONG time. Why are you still beating it?
When people sign up for things using one of my email addresses, I simply recover the password through email, then login, cancel the account, change the password and move on.
There is a jackass in NYC who shares my name, and has signed up for things like Spotify and Netflix using a variation of my gmail address (minus the periods, which do not matter to gmail). I cancel everythng he orders using my email address.
and since you did not end you comment is some form of you have outed yourself
The story changes if he emailed them and offered them his domain name at a high price, for one example.
Why does that change things? It's HIS domain name which he has had for 15 years, LONG before they registered their trademark. Why shouldn't he be allowed to make whatever he can from it? Office Space's saying he renewed it in bad faith doesn't make it true. Even if he renewed it after he knew about their trademark, that doesn't make it bad faith. Just because you have a trademark for something doesn't mean you automatically get the domain for it, and it sounds like that's what Office Space wants to believe.
I "believe" Google should pay me for beta-testing their various products that almost never leave beta. When can I expect the courts to make them send me a check?
When you can point to a law that says it's illegal for them to not pay you.
The difference between you and the owner is that he has legal recourse since libel is illegal. You on the other hand have no legal recourse. What could possibly make you think these two things are even remotely comparable?
my C64 is for rocking the video games man!
Time for some Commando!
So, they can't test my blood to see if I carry vCJD and then clear me to donate if it I don't carry it? I can't imagine that the cost of a test would outweigh potential lives saved.
Also, if vCJD is such a concern, then why do they bar you from donating if you were there for 5 or more years, but if you were only there for 4 years, you're good to go?
Not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand the logic here