How does this person have standing to claim copyright? Did he make the recordings? Just because you're the person in the video does not make you the copyright holder.
derbOac · 2h ago
My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope.
Basically even if the FCC official made the recordings, I think at some point copyright on certain materials should become moot because fair use becomes dramatically greater in scope. I know not everyone would agree with that but it's what I feel should be the case.
bsimpson · 1h ago
For those who don't know the specifics of intellectual property law:
Copyright is unwavering. The law says that the author/owner gets exclusive use of that content for a really fucking long time (something like life + a century, thank you Disney lobbyists). Full stop.
The courts recognize that that lack of nuance is unreasonable. Therefore, they have ruled that copyright law doesn't apply if the use is "fair," hence the phrase "fair use." There's no hard-and-fast way to know if something is fair use. You're basically betting that if you ever get sued, the court will be on your side. There are axioms that the court has given (for instance, if you are making money from your use, it's less likely to be fair) that help you guess if the ruling leans in your favor.
The reason for these exemptions is that it's in the public's interest for certain kinds of expression to transcend copyright, such as news and satire. (This is also where the folks belief that you can't get in trouble if it's a parody come from.)
"Clearance and Copyright," and "Free Culture" are both great books to learn more about this. The author of the latter, Larry Lessig, is the guy who fought Disney's copyright lobby in court. His experience inspired that book, and also inspired him to found the Creative Commons.
All of that is to say that there are carve outs to copyright where the public interest overrides the private content monopoly, and a public official speaking in an unflattering way certainly qualifies.
[update] apparently those axioms were actually codified into law in 1976, but they are still merely defensive - nudges for how the court might rule, not protections in their own right.
Animats · 6m ago
A work performed by a Government employee in connection with their job is not copyrightable in the US. (The UK has "Crown copyright", but the US has nothing similar.) Most of these people were Government employees speaking on Government business.
Where does YouTube get off taking them down? That's way out of line for Google.
Meanwhile, move them over to PeerTube or something.
gruez · 2h ago
>My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope.
That's theoretically what "fair use" is supposed to cover.
NewJazz · 2h ago
There's definitely a better fair use case than "archiving" and monetizing Kendrick's latest album. Courts would be more cautious denying fair use when policy is involved.
nobodyandproud · 1h ago
So Google is as much at fault here as Prasad.
timr · 3h ago
Plenary Session was his podcast. He made the recordings. In fact, 99% of the content was him, alone, talking to the camera.
NewJazz · 2h ago
Yes he owns the copyright. But there may be a valid fair use claim.
Some past judicial criteria:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
If the speech is original enough to be copyrighted, the speaker owns the rights to the content itself. The recording is a separate copyright, but you can't just distribute it without the author's permission for the same reason you can't record a movie in a theater and distribute it (aside from "fair use" exceptions).
ceejayoz · 2h ago
Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively.
timr · 2h ago
> Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively.
That's why it would be good to have some specifics, as opposed to...the parade of generalities and thinly veiled character attacks in this article.
Yes, you're allowed, with specific rules, to make samples for criticism, parody, etc. You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving". So it really matters a lot what was actually done here, and that is what we don't know.
jrflowers · 1h ago
>You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving"
Seems like you are though. What is the legal limit for a video that’s critical of a public figure based on that person’s statements about the thing that they are in charge of? If they talk real slow or use run-on sentences am I legally obligated to make sound bites to approximate my interpretation of their opinion? Like if a public figure says something but takes a while to say it, I’m not allowed to criticize it in full because it is long?
timr · 53m ago
Google "fair use rule". It's not a simple answer, but no, you're not just allowed to cut together clips of someone else's work.
Regardless, what YouTube chooses to enforce and what is legally "fair use" are two different things.
jrflowers · 4s ago
Fair use depends on context and purpose, though.
>“It’s really important to remember [Prasad’s] past words in order to gauge his current and future credibility, and that was the mission of my YouTube channel, to record what these doctors [Prasad and others] said,”
The condition to believe that the owner of the YouTube channel was in violation of fair use would be to believe that he was lying with the above statement, which there doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe
olalonde · 2h ago
Indeed, fair use might apply, but it doesn't change who owns the copyright. And in practice, YouTube rarely cares about fair use as it's simpler and safer for them to ignore it.
NewJazz · 4h ago
They wanted to archive something on YouTube and got hit with an infringement claim. Oldest trick in the book.
timr · 2h ago
> They wanted to archive something on YouTube and got hit with an infringement claim. Oldest trick in the book.
Without specific knowledge of whatever was removed, this is unfair speculation. As far as I know, Prasad's podcasts, videos, Twitter account, etc. are all still public.
This article isn't specific about anything -- it doesn't even say the kind of requests that was made, let alone the particular content.
NewJazz · 2h ago
The information is available for now....
I never said the copyright claim is invalid. A court would need to decide on matters of fair use.
The article specifically said this regarding the content:
Creating the channel, Howard told Guardian in an interview, had been an attempt to “preserve” what these individuals had said during the early years of the pandemic, including comments that Howard said exaggerated the dangers of the Covid vaccine to children and – in some cases – minimized the risk of Covid infection, among other issues.
“These videos were nothing more than collections of what other doctors said during the pandemic, including doctors who are extremely influential and who are now the medical establishment,” he said.
timr · 2h ago
> The information is available for now....
OK, so you're speculating.
And quoting Howard (the guy violating the copyright) is irrelevant. It's not a trick to defend your copyright. If he set up a channel of nothing but old Simpsons clips to "preserve" them, YouTube would take those down, too.
NewJazz · 2h ago
Yes, all archivers speculate that the original source of information will at some point become unavailable. On a long time horizon, they have often been correct.
timr · 2h ago
OK, so you're speculating.
ceejayoz · 2h ago
Sure, in the same sense you're speculating that they don't have a time machine to prove their point.
Not all speculation is of equal value.
timr · 2h ago
> Sure, in the same sense you're speculating that they don't have a time machine to prove their point.
That's called: I'm stating a current fact, and you're imagining a future that doesn't exist.
ceejayoz · 2h ago
No, you're speculating that the parent poster can't prove it with their time machine.
That is a reasonable form of speculation. As was the parent poster's speculation.
gtirloni · 46m ago
The non-MAGA people that voted for this, why did you?
deepfriedchokes · 35m ago
I did not, but I think a lot of people are so desperate for change that any change at some point is better than the status quo. The DNC undermining Sanders in 2016 was a big mistake.
dfxm12 · 3h ago
He noted that snippets of Prasad’s comments still appeared on anti-vaccine social media accounts, suggesting Prasad was directing his removal demand only at a critic and not anti-vaccine influencers. In the past, Prasad has complained about censorship by social media companies.
This neatly sums up a lot of aspects of conservative politics. Every statement is a grift and every accusation is an admission.
WillPostForFood · 2h ago
Prasad is not in any way a conservative, he is a bay area liberal.
rcpt · 1h ago
+ He's still talking about masking in 2025.
+ He wrote articles comparing the US COVID response 1940s Germany.
+ He wants to defund mRNA research.
I don't know man. Given that he's a doctor and all his publicly stated views lie right in the middle of maga it's hard to call him a liberal. Is there something about taxes or something that leads you to believe he's actually a Democrat?
timr · 1h ago
"If he doesn't believe exactly what I believe then he's not a True Scotsman."
I'm not going to scan every word the man has ever said or written to defend against the assertions you're just throwing out there without proof, but "talking about masking" is not a thought crime, and talking critically about our reaction to Covid is something that should be within the scope of reasonable conversation on the left.
Also, no, he doesn't want to defund mRNA research. You're talking about Kennedy.
rcpt · 1h ago
Alright you don't have to "scan every word" but at least read a little bit about the guy
Did you read it? It doesn't say what you think it says.
To wit: he says that the mRNA cancer vaccines are a scientific dead end, that the existing mRNA vaccines' research can be funded by industry, there are good alternatives, and that the technology has been tainted in the public mind. Therefore he supports de-prioritizing the public research.
None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research". As someone who largely agrees with all of those points, if you came to me tomorrow and said "here's a promising new application for mRNA technology that industry won't support", then I'd consider funding it.
I'm so sick of people treating nuanced arguments like bingo cards.
ceejayoz · 1h ago
> To wit: he says that the mRNA cancer vaccines are a scientific dead end, that the existing mRNA vaccines' research can be funded by industry, there are good alternatives, and that the technology has been tainted in the public mind. Therefore he supports de-prioritizing the research.
> None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research".
If I said "paying our mortgage is a dead-end, someone else can fund it, there are good alternatives to paying it, and therefore I'm de-prioritizing paying it"…
Would "I'm defunding our mortgage" be a substantially accurate summary of my position? (Yes.)
timr · 1h ago
Defunding == "taking all the money away".
Deprioritizing == "giving priority to something else".
It isn't hard to be nuanced. Particularly in this case, when you realize that the manufacturers of the mRNA Covid vaccines have made literally billions of dollars with which to do research.
ceejayoz · 1h ago
> It isn't hard to be nuanced.
It takes a lot of effort to find that much nuance.
The nuanced description for your position is "a pretty huge stretch".
And right there, you acknowledge the difference. Have a nice day.
ceejayoz · 55m ago
> And right there, you acknowledge the difference.
"I'm not murdering you, I'm just doing a very, very large blood draw!"
Do you find people fall for this often?
No comments yet
notahacker · 55m ago
Also, regardless of whether his other arguments are neutral and technical in between swipes at Biden policy, I don't think a "Bay Area liberal" opens his argument with the suggestion that NIH funding policies should be heavily influenced by the possibility certain classes of treatment might be refused by conservatives sufficiently susceptible to conspiratorial arguments against them...
const_cast · 1h ago
Oh, here's comes the "repeating what Republicans say right back to their face is literally 1984!!1!" people...
hackingonempty · 38m ago
+ He's still talking about masking in 2025.
He is saying that's because another pandemic is coming and there still isn't good evidence that masking reduces the spread of respiratory virus. There are a number of observational studies that show an effect which disappears when you consider only high quality RCTs.[0] Maybe now that Prasad has influence the USA will conduct some good research on the topic and we can get a definitive answer, which will be very useful when the next pandemic lands.
Despite that, it is a shame that Prasad has in other respects gone off the deep end as partially described in TFA.
In fact, it's why he was (temporarily) booted from the FDA -- the article didn't deign to mention the reason, though it definitely mentioned the outcome.
Prasad was specifically attacked by Laura Loomer for being a "leftist", and resigned rather than cause trouble. Deeply ironic that the Guardian is now trying to attack from the left.
nobodyandproud · 1h ago
Why is it deeply ironic? Prasad is being called out for holding highly unscientific views that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
This similar to what Fauci and others were blamed for in early days of COVID: The confusing and dishonest message about masking.
Why should Prasad be held to a different standard?
At least with Fauci and his people, the intent was quite good.
timr · 47m ago
> Prasad is being called out for holding highly unscientific views that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Which views were those, exactly? Remember, Loomer was attacking him for not approving an ineffective drug.
You're quoting this like it's some kind of indictment, but...it isn't controversial. There's nothing there that's surprising, and it's why he was hired into the role. Nobody is trying to memory-hole this.
Prasad is not "anti-vaccine". He's been explicit that he thinks the Covid vaccine was approved for children without sufficient evidence [1]; he thinks that healthy children don't need it, that there's a documented side-effect that may abrogate any positive effect from vaccination [2]; that some of the vaccines on the childhood schedule are excessive [3]; and that ACIP has historically done a very poor job of reviewing vaccines.
You can have legitimate debates over any of these points, but they're not wacko "anti-science" conspiracy theories that remove a person from polite society.
[1] Because it was. It was a joke of an approval, based on extremely weak surrogate endpoints (i.e. antibody titre)
[2] Myocarditis, particularly in boys. This is just a fact.
[3] I actually don't know which ones he thinks are excessive, but you'll note that he says children should get the MMR vaccine.
gdulli · 2h ago
It's not ideal that "conservative" has come to mean "believes in stupid contrarian science views," but here we are. While he may have other liberal views, it's understandable why someone would think there actually is "any way" he could be seen as a conservative.
panny · 2h ago
It's also not ideal that "stupid contrarian science views" means wanting adequate testing of new gene therapy products.
const_cast · 59m ago
Except zero Republicans want that.
You're doing that classic thing where you're taking republican views, which are legitimately insane, and trying to rationalize them and make them sound better.
Its okay, the Republicans are actually insane and stupid. Were allowed to call them insane and stupid when they do insane and stupid things. We're allowed to repeat the things they say back.
We don't have to euphamize everything.
gdulli · 2h ago
It would be easier to believe conservative arguments for "extra testing" were in good faith if another cornerstone of their philosophy wasn't cutting regulation and red tape.
We cut through red tape when we needed to.
jmye · 1h ago
As if you have the faintest clue how much testing was done, or have the capacity to understand that testing in the first place. These complaints are hollow, transparent bullshit, and they’re always pushed by people who will contort themselves into pretzels to not accept any evidence provided that doesn’t confirm their priors.
majormajor · 2h ago
Citation needed on your definition of adequate testing, gene therapy products, etc.
The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats. Like, we have receipts on who's looking out for things getting approved despite bad test results. And it's not the people currently claiming they are.
timr · 2h ago
Funny that you mentioned Aduhelm, because Prasad has many, many videos blasting the FDA for approving that mess.
> The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats.
This is just revisionist history. Aduhelm was rubber-stamped by Peter Marks' CBER, under Biden:
At what point in the article is the man's party affiliation discussed?
WillPostForFood · 1h ago
At one point in the comments did I mention party affiliation?
majormajor · 2h ago
The lines in certain areas have obviously broken down where the far-right has seized and expanded what used to be a loony-lefty-hippie distrust of vaccines. He's being used by conservatives and appears to be following their playbook.
DrillShopper · 2h ago
My brother in Christ, he's bottoming for Trump. He's no longer a liberal.
theoreticalmal · 2h ago
> My brother in Christ, he's bottoming for Trump.
These two clauses cannot possibly both be sincerely held.
majormajor · 2h ago
Are you suggesting you think Christians couldn't oppose Trump? It's hard for me to see how anyone who's read the words of Jesus (not the words of Paul, or Moses, but of Jesus Christ) could sincerely support Trump.
pstuart · 1h ago
I have a friend who is a devout evangelical (son of a preacher) and seems to be a follower of Christ -- who has voted for Trump every time.
I'm trying to find consensus with him and so far he's revealed that he holds no love for Trump (not even giving the line about him being a flawed vessel but still a gift from God).
He states he votes based on policy (which is an admirable thing in voting) and that he's a single-issue voter (not so admirable). The policy? Immigration. He believes that the Dems intentionally open the flood gates to migrants in order to create more Dem voters.
He cites how Dems have advocated for letting non-citizens vote as proof. And it's true, Dems have advocated for area residents to vote in some local elections in CA and NY.
When I pointed out the nature of those elections, and that Dems are always trying to increase voting participation across the board), as well as the fact that a majority of these new arrivals are effectively religious and conservative, he switches the conversation.
He's for single-payer health care and likely is for other "liberal" ideas, so I continue to try and engage with him on this in a gentle manner. I know that telling somebody to change their beliefs is a fool's errand, but seeds of doubt and providing new information might possibly let him arrive at a new conclusion on his own terms.
mjamesaustin · 56m ago
If your friend is a devout evangelical, maybe he'll reconsider his opinion about immigration if you direct him towards what the Bible says about immigrants and foreigners.
Every time a person says they voted to oppose their least favorite party, we should all remember that first-past-the-post voting is the main reason we have a hyper-polarized two party system.
Your friend might have found another party than the Trump party to support tighter immigration and better healthcare policy. Instead, we have millions of people who will vote to destroy democracy rather than vote for someone who supports abortion or permitting trans people to exist.
pstuart · 1h ago
I absolutely agree that the current system is bad (and we were warned by George Washington himself).
Rank based voting is touted as being a better approach but there's some reasonable criticism of it (too lazy to find and share a link).
Add to the list of things that need to change is campaign financing -- it's literally legalized bribery.
All of this change is possible, the problem is that those in power will do everything in their power to preserve their control.
mrkeen · 57m ago
I grew up with a ranked voting system. It has effectively been a two party system regardless. I don't think people know how it works and just treat it like first past the post.
Proportionate representation seems like it's probably better. I think everyone should skip the intermediate steps and jump straight to approval voting.
unethical_ban · 4m ago
If I really geek out on voting systems, the one I prefer the most is the River method, which is a ranked ballot but fixes some of the issues of Instant Runoff and allows equal ranking of multiple candidates.
Any ranked system has some issues yes. I forget which criteria it fails but they are all better than FPTP.
My issue with unranked approval voting is that IMO very few people have equal preference of lots of candidates. I think that it forces people to express themselves in a way that doesn't reflect their true preference, and that's a bad thing.
Yes, I think multimember districts with proportional representation makes the most sense.
This keeps falling on deaf or ignorant ears, but it’s a huge mistake to view Trump from a regular Conservative vs Liberal lens.
He’s breaking the system, and I believe many of the WSJ crowd—they were just as caught-off guards asb the liberal circles—will be in for an ugly surprise when it finally sinks it what’s happening.
All circuits are currently busy, please try again later
ranger_danger · 2h ago
Anyone have a working link to the video? The one linked in the article has been taken down.
bigbadfeline · 2h ago
Just yesterday, someone requested a recording of some billionaire's words as a proof that said billionaire held certain opinions. I replied that recordings are tricky, need permissions, etc but my comment was downvoted by someone without a clue. [1]
Anyway, seems there is a downvoting brigade on NH that use the voting system to suppress certain opinions and elevate others in a systematic way, think agendas for suppression and promotion.
That's just how large communities operate, especially in heated environments. It's always been this way. That said your example really fails to demonstrate effective community interaction. The argument apparently had value to readers who naturally wanted to verify the claims. You're essentially expecting people on the verge of changing their views to simply take the word of someone challenging those views with a "trust me bro" approach. Rather than engaging meaningfully, you attempt to invalidate their perfectly reasonable request for sources in your response. After reading the linked thread I would also disengage and keep a red flag for your username in my mind.
jMyles · 3h ago
I'm a little confused about exactly what is being claimed here - how do we know that Vinay is the one who made this "demand"? All the article says about this is:
> When YouTube notified Howard of the demand request, it included an email address for Prasad, which is identical to the email address that is linked to Prasad’s now inactive podcast, called Plenary Session.
What does "included an email address" mean exactly?
The reason I ask is that, if he did actually issue such a demand, this strikes me as wildly out of character for him. I don't know Vinay super duper well, but I've been on several multi-hour calls with him, and I have always found him to be a very thoughtful and high-integrity scientist.
It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative, and certainly not a right-wing one. And he had thoughts about the nature of knowledge and the future of the internet that are consistent with what most of us here on HN observe.
Moreover, the content that was removed in this case was not anything that he'd be ashamed of; it was all fairly reasonable observations, mostly about the collateral effects of lockdown policies and the lack of a scientific framework for measuring their impact.
All of his more 'firebrand' content - especially his (IMO, warranted) criticism of Scott Gottleib and the underhanded influence of Pfizer at FDA, remain on the internet (much on his channels where, presumably if he was bothered by it, he'd remove himself).
I'd really like to know for sure that he himself issued this demand. That will be a really disappointing thing to learn.
Obviously whether it was him or just someone who put his email address on a takedown form, it's wrong for YouTube to capitulate to such a ridiculous demand.
ceejayoz · 2h ago
> What does "included an email address" mean exactly?
They tell you how to contact the reporter when you get a copyright strike. They encourage you to do it via a logged-in YouTube account; if you don't, there's a confirm your email step.
> It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative…
It's a political appointment.
timr · 2h ago
> It's a political appointment.
Could you try to be like, even 10% less knee-jerk partisan?
It's an appointment in the FDA (which requires actual technical knowledge) and Prasad is a well-documented member of the political left, to the point where he was recently chased out of the FDA for being on the left.
OK, so which one is this position? Do you actually know?
(Google tells me that the position of CBER director is officially non-political, though since Peter Marks was forced to resign, it's now "more political than before".)
> lmao
Yeah, you're not being partisan at all. I tell you that Prasad is a liberal (an extremely well-documented fact), and your response is..."lmao".
ceejayoz · 2h ago
> OK, so which one is this position? Do you actually know?
Yes, we do. His role is not a civil service one.
> I tell you that Prasad is a liberal (an extremely well-documented fact), and your response is..."lmao".
Go on, document it.
timr · 2h ago
> Yes, we do. His role is not a civil service one.
Incorrect. I just looked it up. It's a civil service appointment.
> Go on, document it.
He's said many, many times on his podcast(s), twitter and elsewhere that he's on the left, and that he voted for Sanders. So sure, I could dig each one of those up for you, or you could actually believe it when people on the right attack him for being a "lefist". Like this, for example:
"Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag"
"According to the United States Office of Government Ethics, a political appointee is 'any employee who is appointed by the President, the Vice President, or agency head'."
(That'll be Makary.)
> "Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag"
I'm not going to dig through every hour of his podcast to find all the times that he said himself that he is on the left and voted for Sanders. If you're that motivated, you can easily go listen to him, and then you might actually know something.
> I think you're mixing up "requires Senate confirmation" and the much broader "political appointee", but I'd welcome the cite.
I'm not mixing it up. It's a civil role.
Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER since circa 2012. He was a civil servant. Nothing about the position has changed since he left. He resigned, and Makary recruited Prasad.
By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss.
ceejayoz · 1h ago
> I'm not mixing it up. It's a civil role.
You said you looked it up. Should be an easy cite.
> Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER. He was a civil servant.
Those aren't mutually exclusive statuses. Some State Department ambassadors are long-term civil servants; others are political appointees.
"Prasad's new role has traditionally been held by an FDA career scientist"
> By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss.
If you were appointed by Federal agency heads, sure. They're the encyclopedia's standards, not mine.
mrkeen · 38m ago
> Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER since circa 2012.
Peter Marks was dismissed by RFK over vaccines.
> Nothing about the position has changed since he left.
I can't dispute this, so what conclusion is left other than Prasad will keep his job to the extent that he agrees with RFK on vaccines.
timr · 9m ago
I actually agree with you (I mean, you're just stating facts). But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss". Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment, where nobody can fire you, lest it become "political". So you pile up corrupt morons like Peter Marks and Ashish Jha...
Anyway, it seems to me that the subtext here is that nobody can serve in this administration or they get attacked for being on the wrong side by partisan hacks. I'm actually happy that someone as competent as Prasad made it to a position of power -- it's one of the few bright spots in government right now. He's someone who has made a lot of enemies by standing up to pharma corruption, and I don't know if any other administration would ever have given him the kind of authority needed to clean house.
ceejayoz · 5s ago
> But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss".
Simple fact: That's false.
Unionized employees. Montana's "Wrongful Discharge in Employment Act". Bosses whose "pleasure" includes firing the newly pregnant employee for that reason. Etc.
> Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment
Similarly incorrect. Tenure's a thing, even at private universities. For fairly similar reasons, even.
Basically even if the FCC official made the recordings, I think at some point copyright on certain materials should become moot because fair use becomes dramatically greater in scope. I know not everyone would agree with that but it's what I feel should be the case.
Copyright is unwavering. The law says that the author/owner gets exclusive use of that content for a really fucking long time (something like life + a century, thank you Disney lobbyists). Full stop.
The courts recognize that that lack of nuance is unreasonable. Therefore, they have ruled that copyright law doesn't apply if the use is "fair," hence the phrase "fair use." There's no hard-and-fast way to know if something is fair use. You're basically betting that if you ever get sued, the court will be on your side. There are axioms that the court has given (for instance, if you are making money from your use, it's less likely to be fair) that help you guess if the ruling leans in your favor.
The reason for these exemptions is that it's in the public's interest for certain kinds of expression to transcend copyright, such as news and satire. (This is also where the folks belief that you can't get in trouble if it's a parody come from.)
"Clearance and Copyright," and "Free Culture" are both great books to learn more about this. The author of the latter, Larry Lessig, is the guy who fought Disney's copyright lobby in court. His experience inspired that book, and also inspired him to found the Creative Commons.
All of that is to say that there are carve outs to copyright where the public interest overrides the private content monopoly, and a public official speaking in an unflattering way certainly qualifies.
[update] apparently those axioms were actually codified into law in 1976, but they are still merely defensive - nudges for how the court might rule, not protections in their own right.
Where does YouTube get off taking them down? That's way out of line for Google.
Meanwhile, move them over to PeerTube or something.
That's theoretically what "fair use" is supposed to cover.
Some past judicial criteria:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
That's why it would be good to have some specifics, as opposed to...the parade of generalities and thinly veiled character attacks in this article.
Yes, you're allowed, with specific rules, to make samples for criticism, parody, etc. You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving". So it really matters a lot what was actually done here, and that is what we don't know.
Seems like you are though. What is the legal limit for a video that’s critical of a public figure based on that person’s statements about the thing that they are in charge of? If they talk real slow or use run-on sentences am I legally obligated to make sound bites to approximate my interpretation of their opinion? Like if a public figure says something but takes a while to say it, I’m not allowed to criticize it in full because it is long?
Regardless, what YouTube chooses to enforce and what is legally "fair use" are two different things.
>“It’s really important to remember [Prasad’s] past words in order to gauge his current and future credibility, and that was the mission of my YouTube channel, to record what these doctors [Prasad and others] said,”
The condition to believe that the owner of the YouTube channel was in violation of fair use would be to believe that he was lying with the above statement, which there doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe
Without specific knowledge of whatever was removed, this is unfair speculation. As far as I know, Prasad's podcasts, videos, Twitter account, etc. are all still public.
This article isn't specific about anything -- it doesn't even say the kind of requests that was made, let alone the particular content.
I never said the copyright claim is invalid. A court would need to decide on matters of fair use.
The article specifically said this regarding the content:
Creating the channel, Howard told Guardian in an interview, had been an attempt to “preserve” what these individuals had said during the early years of the pandemic, including comments that Howard said exaggerated the dangers of the Covid vaccine to children and – in some cases – minimized the risk of Covid infection, among other issues.
“These videos were nothing more than collections of what other doctors said during the pandemic, including doctors who are extremely influential and who are now the medical establishment,” he said.
OK, so you're speculating.
And quoting Howard (the guy violating the copyright) is irrelevant. It's not a trick to defend your copyright. If he set up a channel of nothing but old Simpsons clips to "preserve" them, YouTube would take those down, too.
Not all speculation is of equal value.
That's called: I'm stating a current fact, and you're imagining a future that doesn't exist.
That is a reasonable form of speculation. As was the parent poster's speculation.
This neatly sums up a lot of aspects of conservative politics. Every statement is a grift and every accusation is an admission.
+ He wrote articles comparing the US COVID response 1940s Germany.
+ He wants to defund mRNA research.
I don't know man. Given that he's a doctor and all his publicly stated views lie right in the middle of maga it's hard to call him a liberal. Is there something about taxes or something that leads you to believe he's actually a Democrat?
I'm not going to scan every word the man has ever said or written to defend against the assertions you're just throwing out there without proof, but "talking about masking" is not a thought crime, and talking critically about our reaction to Covid is something that should be within the scope of reasonable conversation on the left.
Also, no, he doesn't want to defund mRNA research. You're talking about Kennedy.
https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/yes-mrna-vaccine-science-sho...
To wit: he says that the mRNA cancer vaccines are a scientific dead end, that the existing mRNA vaccines' research can be funded by industry, there are good alternatives, and that the technology has been tainted in the public mind. Therefore he supports de-prioritizing the public research.
None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research". As someone who largely agrees with all of those points, if you came to me tomorrow and said "here's a promising new application for mRNA technology that industry won't support", then I'd consider funding it.
I'm so sick of people treating nuanced arguments like bingo cards.
> None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research".
If I said "paying our mortgage is a dead-end, someone else can fund it, there are good alternatives to paying it, and therefore I'm de-prioritizing paying it"…
Would "I'm defunding our mortgage" be a substantially accurate summary of my position? (Yes.)
Deprioritizing == "giving priority to something else".
It isn't hard to be nuanced. Particularly in this case, when you realize that the manufacturers of the mRNA Covid vaccines have made literally billions of dollars with which to do research.
It takes a lot of effort to find that much nuance.
The nuanced description for your position is "a pretty huge stretch".
Deprioritizing something enough becomes defunding pretty fast.
Like that five year old JIRA ticket that no one bothers with.
And right there, you acknowledge the difference. Have a nice day.
"I'm not murdering you, I'm just doing a very, very large blood draw!"
Do you find people fall for this often?
No comments yet
He is saying that's because another pandemic is coming and there still isn't good evidence that masking reduces the spread of respiratory virus. There are a number of observational studies that show an effect which disappears when you consider only high quality RCTs.[0] Maybe now that Prasad has influence the USA will conduct some good research on the topic and we can get a definitive answer, which will be very useful when the next pandemic lands.
Despite that, it is a shame that Prasad has in other respects gone off the deep end as partially described in TFA.
[0] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
Prasad was specifically attacked by Laura Loomer for being a "leftist", and resigned rather than cause trouble. Deeply ironic that the Guardian is now trying to attack from the left.
This similar to what Fauci and others were blamed for in early days of COVID: The confusing and dishonest message about masking.
Why should Prasad be held to a different standard?
At least with Fauci and his people, the intent was quite good.
Which views were those, exactly? Remember, Loomer was attacking him for not approving an ineffective drug.
Edit: For now.
Prasad is not "anti-vaccine". He's been explicit that he thinks the Covid vaccine was approved for children without sufficient evidence [1]; he thinks that healthy children don't need it, that there's a documented side-effect that may abrogate any positive effect from vaccination [2]; that some of the vaccines on the childhood schedule are excessive [3]; and that ACIP has historically done a very poor job of reviewing vaccines.
You can have legitimate debates over any of these points, but they're not wacko "anti-science" conspiracy theories that remove a person from polite society.
[1] Because it was. It was a joke of an approval, based on extremely weak surrogate endpoints (i.e. antibody titre)
[2] Myocarditis, particularly in boys. This is just a fact.
[3] I actually don't know which ones he thinks are excessive, but you'll note that he says children should get the MMR vaccine.
You're doing that classic thing where you're taking republican views, which are legitimately insane, and trying to rationalize them and make them sound better.
Its okay, the Republicans are actually insane and stupid. Were allowed to call them insane and stupid when they do insane and stupid things. We're allowed to repeat the things they say back.
We don't have to euphamize everything.
We cut through red tape when we needed to.
The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats. Like, we have receipts on who's looking out for things getting approved despite bad test results. And it's not the people currently claiming they are.
> The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats.
This is just revisionist history. Aduhelm was rubber-stamped by Peter Marks' CBER, under Biden:
https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/22/documents-reveal-fda-unp...
(Marks started at the FDA under Obama, BTW.)
Outside reviewers had recommended rejecting the drug as early as November 2020. The FDA's own statisticians agreed.
These two clauses cannot possibly both be sincerely held.
I'm trying to find consensus with him and so far he's revealed that he holds no love for Trump (not even giving the line about him being a flawed vessel but still a gift from God).
He states he votes based on policy (which is an admirable thing in voting) and that he's a single-issue voter (not so admirable). The policy? Immigration. He believes that the Dems intentionally open the flood gates to migrants in order to create more Dem voters.
He cites how Dems have advocated for letting non-citizens vote as proof. And it's true, Dems have advocated for area residents to vote in some local elections in CA and NY.
When I pointed out the nature of those elections, and that Dems are always trying to increase voting participation across the board), as well as the fact that a majority of these new arrivals are effectively religious and conservative, he switches the conversation.
He's for single-payer health care and likely is for other "liberal" ideas, so I continue to try and engage with him on this in a gentle manner. I know that telling somebody to change their beliefs is a fool's errand, but seeds of doubt and providing new information might possibly let him arrive at a new conclusion on his own terms.
https://saintmarks.org/justice/renewing-our-covenant/what-do...
Your friend might have found another party than the Trump party to support tighter immigration and better healthcare policy. Instead, we have millions of people who will vote to destroy democracy rather than vote for someone who supports abortion or permitting trans people to exist.
Rank based voting is touted as being a better approach but there's some reasonable criticism of it (too lazy to find and share a link).
Add to the list of things that need to change is campaign financing -- it's literally legalized bribery.
All of this change is possible, the problem is that those in power will do everything in their power to preserve their control.
Proportionate representation seems like it's probably better. I think everyone should skip the intermediate steps and jump straight to approval voting.
Any ranked system has some issues yes. I forget which criteria it fails but they are all better than FPTP.
My issue with unranked approval voting is that IMO very few people have equal preference of lots of candidates. I think that it forces people to express themselves in a way that doesn't reflect their true preference, and that's a bad thing.
Yes, I think multimember districts with proportional representation makes the most sense.
For anyone interested, here is a site to visualize the River (and other) methods. https://votingmethods.net/cond/
He’s breaking the system, and I believe many of the WSJ crowd—they were just as caught-off guards asb the liberal circles—will be in for an ugly surprise when it finally sinks it what’s happening.
Barbra Streisand, on the white courtesy phone!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6VZKYkoBLdPxtu7DHkCf...
Anyway, seems there is a downvoting brigade on NH that use the voting system to suppress certain opinions and elevate others in a systematic way, think agendas for suppression and promotion.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45076511
> When YouTube notified Howard of the demand request, it included an email address for Prasad, which is identical to the email address that is linked to Prasad’s now inactive podcast, called Plenary Session.
What does "included an email address" mean exactly?
The reason I ask is that, if he did actually issue such a demand, this strikes me as wildly out of character for him. I don't know Vinay super duper well, but I've been on several multi-hour calls with him, and I have always found him to be a very thoughtful and high-integrity scientist.
It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative, and certainly not a right-wing one. And he had thoughts about the nature of knowledge and the future of the internet that are consistent with what most of us here on HN observe.
Moreover, the content that was removed in this case was not anything that he'd be ashamed of; it was all fairly reasonable observations, mostly about the collateral effects of lockdown policies and the lack of a scientific framework for measuring their impact.
All of his more 'firebrand' content - especially his (IMO, warranted) criticism of Scott Gottleib and the underhanded influence of Pfizer at FDA, remain on the internet (much on his channels where, presumably if he was bothered by it, he'd remove himself).
I'd really like to know for sure that he himself issued this demand. That will be a really disappointing thing to learn.
Obviously whether it was him or just someone who put his email address on a takedown form, it's wrong for YouTube to capitulate to such a ridiculous demand.
They tell you how to contact the reporter when you get a copyright strike. They encourage you to do it via a logged-in YouTube account; if you don't, there's a confirm your email step.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622
> It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative…
It's a political appointment.
Could you try to be like, even 10% less knee-jerk partisan?
It's an appointment in the FDA (which requires actual technical knowledge) and Prasad is a well-documented member of the political left, to the point where he was recently chased out of the FDA for being on the left.
That does not make it non-political. The FDA has both political appointees and civil service roles, just like other government agencies. https://www.opm.gov/frequently-asked-questions/political-app...
> Prasad is a well-documented member of the political left
lmao
Being on Loomer's shitlist is not "documentation".
OK, so which one is this position? Do you actually know?
(Google tells me that the position of CBER director is officially non-political, though since Peter Marks was forced to resign, it's now "more political than before".)
> lmao
Yeah, you're not being partisan at all. I tell you that Prasad is a liberal (an extremely well-documented fact), and your response is..."lmao".
Yes, we do. His role is not a civil service one.
> I tell you that Prasad is a liberal (an extremely well-documented fact), and your response is..."lmao".
Go on, document it.
Incorrect. I just looked it up. It's a civil service appointment.
> Go on, document it.
He's said many, many times on his podcast(s), twitter and elsewhere that he's on the left, and that he voted for Sanders. So sure, I could dig each one of those up for you, or you could actually believe it when people on the right attack him for being a "lefist". Like this, for example:
"Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag"
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/vinay-prasad-is-a-bernie-sanders...
I think you're mixing up "requires Senate confirmation" and the much broader "political appointee", but I'd welcome the cite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_...
"According to the United States Office of Government Ethics, a political appointee is 'any employee who is appointed by the President, the Vice President, or agency head'."
(That'll be Makary.)
> "Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag"
A WSJ oped is not documentation.
> that he voted for Sanders
Yeah, that's not proof either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanders%E2%80%93Trump_voters
> I think you're mixing up "requires Senate confirmation" and the much broader "political appointee", but I'd welcome the cite.
I'm not mixing it up. It's a civil role.
Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER since circa 2012. He was a civil servant. Nothing about the position has changed since he left. He resigned, and Makary recruited Prasad.
By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss.
You said you looked it up. Should be an easy cite.
> Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER. He was a civil servant.
Those aren't mutually exclusive statuses. Some State Department ambassadors are long-term civil servants; others are political appointees.
https://www.newsweek.com/who-vinay-prasad-rfk-jr-taps-pharma...
"Prasad's new role has traditionally been held by an FDA career scientist"
> By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss.
If you were appointed by Federal agency heads, sure. They're the encyclopedia's standards, not mine.
Peter Marks was dismissed by RFK over vaccines.
> Nothing about the position has changed since he left.
I can't dispute this, so what conclusion is left other than Prasad will keep his job to the extent that he agrees with RFK on vaccines.
Anyway, it seems to me that the subtext here is that nobody can serve in this administration or they get attacked for being on the wrong side by partisan hacks. I'm actually happy that someone as competent as Prasad made it to a position of power -- it's one of the few bright spots in government right now. He's someone who has made a lot of enemies by standing up to pharma corruption, and I don't know if any other administration would ever have given him the kind of authority needed to clean house.
Simple fact: That's false.
Unionized employees. Montana's "Wrongful Discharge in Employment Act". Bosses whose "pleasure" includes firing the newly pregnant employee for that reason. Etc.
> Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment
Similarly incorrect. Tenure's a thing, even at private universities. For fairly similar reasons, even.