You should find it scary. The odds of a false positive are probably much higher.

The DNA database in the US has found matches between a black man and a white man if you point it at itself. They only look at about 12 spots and sometimes use just 9 to identify someone.

"903 pairs of profiles matching at nine or more loci in a database of about 220,000. ...State officials obtained a court order to prevent distribution of the results."

http://news.lawreader.com/2008/07/22/dna-match-between-two-men-raises-question-about-validity-of-dna-tests%E2%80%A6fbi-seeks-to-block-inquiry/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/accuracy-dna-matches-definitively-identify-suspects-questioned

It will be easier to prove that someone knew they were violating copyright if they removed the copyright logo, however, this video is covered by fair use, therefore, it doesn't matter. Well, with the slight exception that if the allegations are right, this video may have caused the copyright holders video to be wrongly flagged by the content aware system, but I think that has more to do with youtube and wasn't the intention of the fair user, but still, it could be viewed as an infringement just based on the pennies that the author did not receive as a result.

I watched the video and I did not leave with the impression that your research supports their message. They just credited you with the video. I think you're grasping at straws here. Other than the video possibly blocking the small amount of money you make on youtube, the video is fair use.

Contrary to what others have said, Defamation requires that you have financial injury that resulted from them making false statements about you, as a non-celebrity. I did not see false statements about you and even if they did, you'd have to prove they injured you financially, such as losing your job or something like that.

If you're not lying about that, then that is wrong. You never said that. That content aware system is wrong and they're doing that to my videos too, but it's usually about sounds or music in the video.

If what you say is true, that could constitute a violation, because even though the work is fair use in all the other respects, the work is replacing your original work in the marketplace.

That seems like the only argument you have.

This content aware system needs to be stopped.

I'm a little skeptical of you however. I think you've exaggerated the infringement claim and now you're speculating that your other videos were flagged because of that. How do we know it wasn't music or something else.

I repeat: The work has been altered. It's not substantial. It has been reduced in size, speed up, interrupted, commented on, put side by side, etc. The video in and of itself would be pretty boring to watch straight through. He modified it for commentary.

He is trying to educate and warn the public. He is making a commentary. He is not seeking commercial gain or to supersede the marketplace with his work, he even gave credit to the author. He did not say the author of the video supports his interpretation, but that's another issue.

This is fair use. You're trying to spin your interpretation as it being substantial but we're talking about a video, not a book. It's not substantial to speed up and modify and cut into thumbnails for comparison and commentary.

You're exaggerating and essentially lying.

Nonsense, the video is speed up and cut into pieces with overlays and changed from the original work. Why would you want restrictions on this kind of alteration of a work? Do you realize how destructive that would be to everyone? This is fair-use, plain and simple. When you know that fact, the above question to Slashdot falls to pieces, and it's actually the original author that seeks to violate the rights of others, albeit, crazy others.

I think you have 3 months after publication to register but it costs more and you might have to send 2 copies.

Who cares if he perjured himself. I'm not a fan of religion either, but this is fair use and free speech, so I say get over it. You guys are always whining about the DMCA, and you should, but don't turn around and be a hypocrite about it after the fact by manipulating the law to take down video you don't agree with. Stick to your principles.

That guy may be grossly misinterpreting your data, but it almost seems like a fair use of the video, as absurd as the usage and interpretation is. Would you want to be limited as to usage of video clips in this way? And what would this say for free speech, which is supposed to protect this sort of speech, even though we find it ridiculous.

Slashdot had an article years ago about how people match within the DNA data base when you point it at itself for matches. Most notably was a black man and a white man that match. Someone pull that article up.

http://www.blackherbals.com/crime_labs_finding_questionable_DNA_matches.htm

I heard a story about how a store called to reveal how some girl was pregnant just from her shopping patterns. They figured this out by data mining, and her father was pissed. These companies say they can figure out stuff like this. That means they can figure out that you have AIDS and you're gay, or that you have cancer or herpes or whatever. That information is sold around and then insurance companies and drug companies can exclude you from clinical trials that would save your life because they think you'll mess up their numbers or cost them too much. Or how about voting? That's kind of tracking for profit is unethical.

Maybe that's what the song Cornflake Girl is about, by Tori Amos.

Last year they spent ten-million dollars on divining rods and they never used them. OMG! But they did make a lot of money at tazering the innocent and molesting people into missing their flights.

This is what I think:

The reason people are fat is because the Stop Eating signal takes time to release and people are still able to eat even after they've had enough, and even still after receiving the Stop Eating signal, and even when they aren't hungry. You can see this after a certin age. Kids will stop eating when they're full but adults will eat however large a portion is served to them.

And then the food we're eating is contributing because it's dense in calories without much fiber or substance and promotes obesity.

Then the obesity itself may mute insulin and hormone responses, making people eat more.

I don't think it's caused by starvation. A lot of people indicate a sort of point where they stop being hungry after starving and then maybe even a euphoria. There might be an addictive quality to starving for some people who are susceptible to anorexia. I'm not sure, but your theory is wrong in my opinion.

This article simply states that chemicals in the body seem to cause you to be hungry and sated via a feedback mechanism which is supposed to regulate itself.

It does not say that starving yourself causes the feedback mechanism to fail and instead make you unstoppably hungry. What should happen is starving yourself increases the Eat signal, and then feeding yourself triggers the Stop Eating signal. And that is what happens. Just like all the other endocrine feedback mechanisms. You produce one hormone, and then another hormone tells you it's time to stop via that hormones release.

Some people, such as with Prader-Willi syndrome, are always hungry and you usually have to lock your food up, but that's a rare disease.

The article is mainly pointing out how dysfunction and or feedback of the signaling in the body suggest what the chemical signals are doing and that they may be involved in regulating feeding and energy stores, and when the signaling is dysfunctional it in theory could cause obesity, and maybe even anorexia.

You're going to have to do a lot more to prove a causal link to fashion advertising causing obesity.