That is downright murderous, what the AIDS deniers are doing.
Why do they do this? Is it a special form of trolling? Are they selling an alternative?
This is more reason to repeal the DMCA. Shit like this gives people too much power to quash criticism and not expect to pay for perjury.
Hatetrolling. With a just companyâs policies, the denialists would lose all associated Google accounts for violating TOS. Some are âsellingâ fixes, I imagine. Movies, books, shitty blogs, but most like the antivax assholes are just ideologically driven/narcissistic. They feel like their counteropinion, no matter how asinine or horrible makes them smart. Theyâre obviously not.
Probably at least a few doing it because they want people with AIDS to die. In some quarters it is still seen as Godâs punishment to gays.
This isnât the first time the DMCA has been abused.
Gordon Klingenschmitt, the former US Navy chaplain who was court-martialed and drummed out of the Navy, has been doing a radio and TV show, in which he regularly spews bigoted, homophobic vitriol.
Naturally, this attracted the attention of Right Wing Watch, which has been regularly putting up clips of him at his nuttiest.
For a time, Klingenschmitt had Right Wing Watchâs Youtube account suspended, by making bogus DMCA claims, but RWW had enough money and supporters to get some lawyers to file counterclaims and get reinstated.
More on the story is here.
AIDS deniers⌠these cats donât know shit about self-delusion. Iâm launching my documentary which proves beyond a doubt that there is no Sol. The science behind it is rock-solid baby, so solid I donât even need to know you donât understand it to know I do & canât explain it to you because you wouldnât believe it anyway, hater sun-apologists.
Itâs a real head-scratcher, isnât it? What could they have to gain?
I think it is borderline sincere, because itâs at the edge of madness. Itâs a compulsion these people have, they need so badly to feel publicly validated as more right than everyone else. They just happened to pick âAIDS is a lie but we know the truth!â as a way to feel validated + victimized + heroic maverick truthseekers going against the grainâŚthey could have picked â9/11 was drone robots!â or âThe Earth is really flat!â, but came up with this instead.
Similar to the âJenny McCarthy Knows The Truth About Vaccinaziâsâ syndrome. Also with real and deadly potential repercussions.
To highlight the problems with the DMCA, turn it around and organize a worldwide day of protest, submitting DMCA takedown notices to content put up by DMCA-backers and other censorship trolls. If there really arenât any consequences for abuse, this might be an excellent form of civil disobedience. If itâs effective, consequences for abuse will appear in response, giving an avenue for responding against the trolls and companies that use bots to abuse the system.
Simply repealing the DMCA is not the solution: without the DCMA safe harbors (which are only available if you follow the take-down process), web sites may be directly responsible for copyright infringement of contributors. So instead of Viacom posting a take-down to YouTube, they could directly sue YouTube for statutory damages.
It would be better to have some good case law on perjury in takedown notices, though even this caselaw it will still be expensive to enforce the perjury provisions.
Itâs as if thereâs a movement who wants people to die of AIDS. Iâve heard people comment on how the worldâs population is too large and how ânature should take care of thatâ and more of that eugenic drivel. There might as well be people behind this, similar to those who spend hundreds of millions on âdebunking the climate mythâ.
In many cases, yes.
Hereâs a story of one such snake-oil salesman, who promoted ignorance in order to sell vitamin supplements.
This (pdf) is the full chapter, laying out exactly how he operated.
I have to wonder if this doesnât make Google complicit in murder.
edit: urg, Banal misrepresentation, read the edit if you must.
The sad thing is that a cursory glance at the histories of AIDS and of antiviral medications renders their bizarre conspiracy theory absurd.
In 1981, AIDS was officially recognized by the CDC and a few years later the connection to HIV was inarguably established in 1984, which created lasting international concern.
The first US approved antiviral effective against HIV was Zidovudine (also known as azidothymidine, AZT for short, and marketed as Retrovir), approved by the FDA in 1987. Now, one interesting fact is that AZT is notable for its amazingly rapid development and adoption, only taking just over two years to go from first demonstration of effectiveness to approved usage.
Modern antivirals are designed specifically to inhibit the chemical processes that allow for a virusâ reproduction. However, AZT was developed before genetic sequencing was possible on an efficient scale (the first fully automated DNA sequencing machine, the ABI 370, wasnât available until 1987), and therefor before virus reproduction and the chemical processes involved were fully understood.
Consequently, AZT was developed using the old fashioned methodology of trial and error using various substances to see if they worked. This empirical methodology is no different than that used in the discovery of any other kind of traditional medication - we learned that aspirin helps against headaches and that penicillin kills off bacteria by trial and error, and the same applies to AZT.
But what about that super rapid approval of AZT? Surely thatâs suspicious? Well, it would be if AIDS wasnât one of the biggest international controversies of the 1980s, and if there wasnât a mad dash to try to find treatments for the HIV that had just been inarguably proven to be the cause of the illness. And when AZT proved to work incredibly well without major side effects, it got fast tracked to market to help what was, at the time, quite literally a pandemic.
History, facts, pff.
If you really must engage in a discussion about whether or not HIV causes AIDS: the HIV/AIDS causality is established by meeting all Kochâs postulates: 1. Isolate and culture a pathogen from the patient. 2. Reintroduce the pathogen into another person. 3. Observe similar symptoms in that other person. 4. Isolate and culture a similar pathogen from this person.
This may seem not to be very ethical to do in humans, but it has happened. There have been several well-described cases of lab workers who have accidentally infected themselves with HIV and suffered the consequences. There are also models with simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) and monkeys and the feline variant (FIV), all demonstrating the same causality, and all showing that the antiviral agents in question are highly effective.
To criticize the methods used in HIV research, is to criticize the scientific method in general. You must either be very ignorant, paid by some astroturfing organization, or an outright genius to have the confidence to do that.
Read more about Kochâs postulates here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochâs_postulates
A DMCA 512 takedown notice requires the noticer to aver âunder penalty of perjuryâ that she has a âgood faith beliefâ that the material in question infringes a copyright. 17 USC §§ 512(c)(3)(A)(v) and (vi). In Lenz v. Universal Music, the district court found that in order to have a 512(c) good faith belief of infringement, the noticer must take into account whether the material is a fair use.
[I]n order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with âa good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,â the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright." Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 - Dist. Court, ND California 2008 at 1155-56.)
Furthermore, ignoring or misrepresenting a fair use analysis is sufficient to state a claim under the misrepresentation clause, 512(f). Id. at 1156; see also 17 USC § 512(f).
I think whatâs missing (or at least, I cannot find it) is a good case where a noticer was sued under 512(f) for misrepresenting a copyright claim (particularly because the use was a fair use because it was criticism or parody), see 17 USC § 107.
At what point does the frivolous (and dishonest and illegal) filing of DMCA takedowns cross the line into defamation itself? I think it would be libel rather than slander, but IANAL.
As far as perjury is concerned, is it even possible to institute a civil suit or force a criminal suit for it, or is that purely a matter of prosecutorial discretion?
I mirrored all the videos on Myles channel and then re-cut tehm so that they could be downloaded via keepvids.com reposted and Streisanded through Youtube with unverfied accounts.
