×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

658 comments

Legal consequence? (5, Insightful)

gmack (197796) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917855)

Aren't DMCA notice senders supposed to be legally responsible for the accuracy of the notice? Where is the consequences for blatant abuse?

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Informative)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917859)

this could be highly amusing... just think of all those perjury charges...

Re:Legal consequence? (4, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918015)

All's fair game in cults and interwebs.

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918117)

Wonder how the Cult of Scientology would respond to someone spamming Scientology members w/ emails containing the text of the OT3 and having a return address of:

LRon@hell.gov

You know, kinda like spoiling the ending of a bad movie for someone who hasn't finished watching it yet?

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Interesting)

ArtemaOne (1300025) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918151)

I did notice the giant shield that Scientologists are using. Did you notice the LLC tag?

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918175)

The perjury issue with the DMCA is something that confuses a lot of people, obviously including yourself. There are two cases where perjury is cited in the DMCA. First, a person must be authorized to work on behalf of the owner of the infringed property:

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following: .... (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Note here that they sign that the information is accurate, but not under penalty of perjury. The perjury statement follows the 'and' and only refers to authorized representation.

On the other hand, if you claim that the material was uninfringing, you have to sign under penalty of perjury that your information is accurate:

(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

This double standard isn't by accident. The record and movie companies knew what they were doing when they were writing this act up for Congress.

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Interesting)

Entrope (68843) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918269)

The perjury statement for the take-down notice requires a statement "that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed". As I read it, that requires that the notice contain some other allegation that an exclusive right is infringed, and that the work and the exclusive right be identified accurately. If the notice does not accurately identify a work (and right) that the complainer is authorized to act on, the complainer might have answer for perjury.

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Informative)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917871)

I don't know the content of these videos, but yeah.. a DMCA notice is a sworn statement. If the information is false then potentially it could be regarded as perjury.

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Insightful)

TheJasper (1031512) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917953)

The problem with that is how often are people/organistations charged with perjury? I suspect not much if at all.

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918033)

Well, someone has to issue the DMCA notice - somebody is in charge somewhere. I know it may not seem like it some time, but someone will become accountable if you prod hard enough.

In fact, if they are careful, all those users who had their material taken down could cause so much trouble for Scientology they may never send another DMCA again. I mean, these video posters are dedicated enough to submit anti-Scientology videos, I'm sure if they have enough time and energy for this sort of thing they'll have enough time and energy to fight back!

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Interesting)

aunticrist (952359) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918349)

You've not seen what the Church of $cientology can do in a court room lately, have you? They have so many judges in their pockets that they are able to do crap like this and never see the inside of a court room.

Re:Legal consequence? (4, Interesting)

dattaway (3088) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918049)

Money is required to fight injustice. Most people aren't willing to retain a lawyer over something that isn't feeding their families.

Re:Legal consequence? (4, Interesting)

ari_j (90255) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918189)

"Principle" and "sorry" are the two most expensive words in the law. Arguably, in that order. That said, 4,000 videos may mean enough plaintiffs for a class action, which could have some hope of compensating a lawyer for fighting this on principle whereas the 4,000 individuals couldn't afford it on an individual basis. The EFF has also filed lawsuits over DMCA abuses in the past, so at least be sure that someone over there has a way to get in touch with the people adversely affected by this one.

Re:Legal consequence? (2, Insightful)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918213)

So start an organization that will fight on behalf of a group of people, funded by contributions from those people. The financial burden is too much for one person, so split it among thousands of people.

I'm still surprised this isn't happening more often. The internet is the perfect tool to organize something like this, spread the word and secure donations. So short of a few big organizations like the ACLU, why isn't it happening?

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918309)

So start an organization that will fight on behalf of a group of people, funded by contributions from those people. The financial burden is too much for one person, so split it among thousands of people.

I'm still surprised this isn't happening more often. The internet is the perfect tool to organize something like this, spread the word and secure donations. So short of a few big organizations like the ACLU, why isn't it happening?


Yeah, there should be an organization, a foundation if you will, that will help us with the battles on this new electronic frontier.

Re:Legal consequence? (1)

tambo (310170) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918325)

Money is required to fight injustice.

Well, money isn't much of a factor in a perjury case - it's a criminal matter. The limiting factor is whether the justice department of any municipality wants to go after them... presumably the city will have the money to fund prosecution if the interest is there.

Of course, an effective countermeasure would be a statutorily defined civil penalty for DMCA abuse. Sadly, the DMCA has nothing of the sort - the situation simply isn't addressed... probably because the legislators gave no thought to the "accused infringer" side of the coin when enacting it. Yet another reason why the DMCA is a lousy law.

Theoretically, the scope of $cientology's abuse of the DMCA might be a sufficiently public debacle that forces Congress to rewrite it. But what are the odds of that occurring in an election year? If nothing else, this gambit is well-timed...

- David Stein

Re:Legal consequence? (4, Informative)

fudgefactor7 (581449) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918339)

Everyone who had a video taken down because of this needs to form a class-action suit and counter immediately. You can't have a video taken down in this manner without it (a) violating many nation's free-speech laws; and (b) violating perjury laws. Hit 'em where it hurts.

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Insightful)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917967)

If the information is false then potentially it could be regarded as perjury.

Not with the amount of money they have. . .

Re:Legal consequence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918147)

If the information is false then potentially it could be regarded as perjury.

Not with the amount of money they have. . .

Correct. It's only perjury if you're poor.

Re:Legal consequence? (4, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918041)

a DMCA notice is a sworn statement. If the information is false then potentially it could be regarded as perjury.

I'm curious. Has this ever actually happened with a single one of the vast number of DMCA notices ever issued?

Re:Legal consequence? (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917915)

One would think YouTube would know by now. They do have to walk a fine line, since they need to keep the content owners happy in order to continue operating, but since when is a religion protected content? I'd love to see someone file a countersuit.

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917975)

YouTube most likely knows, yes.

However, YouTube is required by law to heed these takedown notices, no matter whether they're justified or not; it's up to the videos' submitters now to file counternotices (at which point YouTube will be required by law to heed these counternotices and reinstate those videos, no matter whether they're justified or not). At that point, it becomes a matter for the courts.

The whole point of this part of the DMCA is to allow places like YouTube to stay out of judging content altogether and simply have a simple algorithm to follow mechanically that will shield them from legal responsibility. Whether the mechanism is really good or whether it's flawed is another question; but for a site like YouTube that mostly cares about not getting involved in proxy fights over copyright, it's a blessing.

So it's not really a fine line for YouTube to walk. They just do what they are legally required to, and anyone who doesn't like that and complains about YouTube is barking up the wrong tree - they should work to get the law changed instead.

Re:Legal consequence? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918273)

videos' submitters now to file counternotices

Do the lawyers from the CoS get the info from those counter-notices, and do said notices contain personal info on the YouTube users?

If so, this may be an elaborate ruse to get 4,000 names of the "enemies" of the so called church....

*Edit* OMG, the captcha is "Canonic"...wtf?!

Re:Legal consequence? (4, Insightful)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917981)

One would think YouTube would know by now. They do have to walk a fine line, since they need to keep the content owners happy in order to continue operating, but since when is a religion protected content? I'd love to see someone file a countersuit.

I'm not sure of the details, but the church of scientology holds copyrights and trademarks on all its "works." It does this to prevent unauthorized usage of them. Its content is no more or less protected than that of an individual or corporation.

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Informative)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918123)

Scientology might own the copyright to their works, but the Dutch [spaink.net] supreme court ruled [blogspot.com] that copyright infringement can be acceptable if it is of interest of the general public. Of course, they have no jurisdiction in the US, but if the copyrighted material can be hosted in the Netherlands, it can be made accesible to anyone.

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918247)

Scientology might own the copyright to their works, but the Dutch supreme court ruled that copyright infringement can be acceptable if it is of interest of the general public. Of course, they have no jurisdiction in the US, but if the copyrighted material can be hosted in the Netherlands, it can be made accesible to anyone.

I don't know a thing about Dutch law, but in US law the first of 4 possible factors which determine if fair use applies is:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Which would seem to cover the situation you mentioned.

You mean like CP? (-1, Flamebait)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918287)

Scientology might own the copyright to their works, but the Dutch supreme court ruled that copyright infringement can be acceptable if it is of interest of the general public.

I'd guess this is the Dutch equivalent of the "fair use of a copyrighted work" sense, given the references to "article 10 ECHR (freedom of speech)" and "informative, non-commercial character" in the page linked from "ruled".

if the copyrighted material can be hosted in the Netherlands, it can be made accesible to anyone.

Likewise:

if the pornographic pictures of 13-year-old girls can be hosted in $(COUNTRY), it can be made accesible to anyone.

If this comes to pass, it's all a matter of where the priorities of the Congress lie.

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Insightful)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917921)

What would the process be for having them prosecuted for perjury?

I assume you would have to file charges at a police station in their local area. Then, you'd probably have to get the DA there to actually press the case. Finally, you'd have to have a judge willing to apply pretty harsh sentencing.

It might actually be fun to have 400+ people roll up in Podunk Police Station and all file criminal reports against these people.

It would also probably be a good idea to send a letter to their local BAR association and advise then that their people are perjuring themselves while slandering innocent people.

Re:Legal consequence? (3, Interesting)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918063)

I assume you would have to file charges at a police station in their local area. Then, you'd probably have to get the DA there to actually press the case. Finally, you'd have to have a judge willing to apply pretty harsh sentencing.

They won't do anything when someone steals your identity, breaks into your car, and, well, any other non-violent crime. What makes you guys think that the cops will go after these guys who haven't really done anything?

Re:Legal consequence? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918141)

I would wager that Scientology sees this as a win-win situation. Either the videos come down without reprisals, or the video creators have to file charges/suits using their real names, opening them up to being 'fair gamed'. What I wouldn't give to see them caught downloading Schindler's List or something - they and the MPAA deserve each other.

We can only hope they use Thunderdome rules. Two men enter, one man leaves!

Re:Legal consequence? (4, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917943)

That is a damned good question. A quick search on Google will show that we've been here before. www.xenu.net Had no end of trouble with this. I think that if they attempt to link all anonymous videos as being from one source it will be MORE than interesting.

FTFA:

YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices. At this time, many of the suspended channels have been reinstated and many of the videos are back up. Whether or not American Rights Counsel, LLC represents the notoriously litigious Church of Scientology is unclear, but this would not be the first time that the Church of Scientology has used the DMCA to silence Scientology critics. The Church of Scientology DMCA complaints shut down the YouTube channel of critic Mark Bunker in June, 2008. Bunkerâ(TM)s account, XenuTV, was also among the channels shut down in this latest flurry of takedown notices.

It sounds like Google did what is required of them by law, becoming just the bullets used by both sides to fire at each other in a war that I hope ends up in court. Flagrant misuse of DMCA takedown notices should be punished. CoS is proving once again just exactly why it is they deserve legal status as a church. You know, one of those organizations of compassion and love. hmmmm, then again Tammy Fae Baker wasn't too happy with some of the public comments about her either.

It's kind of a shame there is no particular way to make CoS leaders 'fair game' though I'd like to see someone find a way in court to fair game them there.

Re:Legal consequence? (0, Troll)

Curtman (556920) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917979)

legal status as a church. You know, one of those organizations of compassion and love.

They claim they don't rape the alterboys anymore.

Re:Legal consequence? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918205)

When the pope starts getting friendly with the alter boys you might have a point.

Re:Legal consequence? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918115)

CoS is proving once again just exactly why it is they deserve legal status as a church. You know, one of those organizations of compassion and love. hmmmm,

Germany has the answer. Under German law, CoS is not a church. Legally, CoS is just a corporation over there.

Hey. any chance CoS really means Crock-o-Shit?

Re:Legal consequence? (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918191)

It's well-known that the "Church of Scientology" believes themselves to be above the law.

-uso.

It's Simple (4, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917857)

It's really simple - critique =/= infringement.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's a big no-no to use the DMCA knowingly falsely, right? Not that I think anything will come of it...

Re:It's Simple (5, Funny)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917869)

For reasons I do not understand, Xenu and clan seem immune to reaping the consequences of their actions.

Scientology: The Teflon Religion

Re:It's Simple (1)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917987)

For reasons I do not understand, Xenu and clan seem immune to reaping the consequences of their actions.

Scientology: The Teflon Religion

They just have lots of lawyers and money.

Re:It's Simple (5, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917877)

Yes, DMCA takedown notices are supposedly sworn, under penalty of perjury, to be from a person/organisation with a good claim to owning the copyright.

Where this gets tricky is proving they were used to quash criticism and not in good faith. IE if they say "we thought we owned it and had a good claim", that may be enough to get them out of it. Depending on how blatant they were, of course.

Re:It's Simple (2, Interesting)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918237)

ha why would they make video's that rip on their own religion? kinda like a devout Catholic saying they don't believe in jesus.

First non-anti-scientology post (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917861)

Hubbard-approved

First comment explaining what is happening. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918107)

For those who don't know about Scientology, this AFP news article summarizes the typical non-Scientologist's view of Scientology activities: The controversial Church of Scientology will be tried in a French court for "organised fraud" [google.com].

This WikiNews report explains more about the current story: the alleged "rights group" does not exist as a physical entity [blogspot.com].

Quick action (1)

NoisySplatter (847631) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917865)

Other than a strange misuse of the DMCA I mostly feel sorry for whoever had to go through and delete all those videos that quickly. They must have a hell of a dedicated workforce in that department.

Re:Quick action (3, Funny)

sqldr (838964) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917889)

They got thetans to do it, using their special powers.

Re:Quick action (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918043)

We should handle this like the Romans did. Let the Scientologists plead their case for their "religion" in a Colosseum in front of a jury of their peers*.

*Slight change in programming, "a jury of your peers" will now be played by lions. Enjoy the show!

Actually... not a bad thing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917867)

By abusing the DMCA they can get slapped pretty heavy. Especially in light of the latest ruling that copyright owners must explicitly consider whether a suspected violation is fair use. Certainly if any of the folks that got harassed decide to litigate back they may well have a decent case.

Re:Actually... not a bad thing (3, Insightful)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918007)

Yeah, but who is going to do the slapping? There won't be proper plaintiffs ready to do battle over youtube videos, unless someone somehow gets them together to form a class-action lawsuit. Unlikely.

It's also somewhat interesting that the youtube venue provides no opportunity for the exercise of DMCA counter-notices, which are an important part of the law. Perhaps it's time to move controversial videos to a site that will have a bit more of a backbone and not allow the powerful to walk all over those who don't even get the rights they're entitled to by law. (I wonder if youtube has any criteria at all for evaluating the validity of these notices before it complies.)

On the other hand, unscrupulous web hosts (such as NetSol, for one) have and will continue to ignore their legal obligation to maintain service after proper counter-notice is given - despite the fact that the law is very clear that doing so can open up statutory liability on their part. When a company perceives a power-imbalance they're likely to side with the one they perceive to be more powerful, regardless of what the law says or the truth of the claims involved.

I suppose the Internet needs a video site like Wikileaks serious about free speech enough not to cave into threats. Otherwise, not only are opposing voices stifled, but powerful interests like Scientology may be emboldened to go after and seek the removal of criticism in other forms of online media across the Internet.

Re:Actually... not a bad thing (3, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918217)

Youtube is a commercial company operating in what is becoming a more and more competitive environment, there are a huge number of video hosting sites, a lot of them operating outside of the US. In this case should youtube prove that it actually really does endeavour to adhere to the law by pursuing CoS for vindictively targeting them, when similar DMCA notices were not handed out to every other video hosting sites containing the same videos.

This unfairly targets youtube and damages their business as well as causing them significant cost in evaluating each of the DMCA notices, notifying users of the claimed infringement, altering the content of the hosting services, evaluating the counter notices and then having to reinstate the content, whilst the competitors suffered no comparable harm. The Corporation of Scientology seems to love picking on youtube and this peculiar focus is really starting to make it appear like the are some anti free speech, privacy invasive, scientologists insurgents skulking amongst the googlites, the cult of google might unfortunately be less of a joke than it should be.

Personally I prefer http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/scientology [dailymotion.com], now where exactly is that hosted again, something tells the DMCA takedown notices coming out of the US are going to have no affect with that host.

Re:Actually... not a bad thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918315)

This unfairly targets youtube and damages their business as well as causing them significant cost in evaluating each of the DMCA notices, notifying users of the claimed infringement, altering the content of the hosting services, evaluating the counter notices and then having to reinstate the content, whilst the competitors suffered no comparable harm.

If youtube hasn't yet reduced the entire process of takedown, notification to claimant and fuckee and possible reinstatement down to a short perl script, then they deserve to go out of business.

For Christ's sake, the takedown notice has to have the id of the video in it -- the same one that appears in your request to view the video. All they should have to do is feed the id to the script and it's all done in a few seconds.

Same for reinstatement. They obviously have to archive the video to replace it in case of a challenge to the takedown.

Some videos back up (5, Informative)

fprintf (82740) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917875)

From the article: "YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices. At this time, many of the suspended channels have been reinstated and many of the videos are back up."

Good for those YouTube users for responding with the counter notices.

Re:Some videos back up (3, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917901)

But why should they have to?

Youtube ought to have at least taken a look at the claims before just shutting everything down, surely?

Especially when the claims were coming in in such huge volumes. I don't like this, no organisation should just be able to get stuff it doesn't like removed from public fora by just claiming stuff and having a player as big as youtube just roll over and take it.

Re:Some videos back up (5, Informative)

forand (530402) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917961)

IANAL but. Legally they did the right thing. They have to take it down if someone makes a copyright claim. However, if there is a counter claim then they can reinstate it since it has then become a problem for the courts.

Re:Some videos back up (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917999)

Youtube ought to have at least taken a look at the claims before just shutting everything down, surely?

Nope. Safe Harbor provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Title_II:_Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

Long story short: they're liable for the actions of their users unless they immediately take down content based on a DMCA notice.

Re:Some videos back up (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918017)

Yet another reason that the DMCA is a terrible set of laws and should be stricken from the books then.

Re:Some videos back up (3, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918181)

They also have to put the content back as soon as the uploader files a counter-claim.

Which makes it a far better law than not having it, in which case Youtube would have to take it down out of fear of being sued themselves, and wouldn't put it back up because they would be exposing themselves.

Re:Some videos back up (1)

penguinbrat (711309) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918027)

IANAL by any means, although with todays world of so much civil action going around and being 'guilty' before proven 'innocent', the DMCA is probably meant for immediate action and *only then* would an investigation take place to see if it is/was legit or not... Besides, if you think about it, if it *is* legit - an investigation could be drug out for ever, while the offending material would still be offending...

Re:Some videos back up (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918075)

Yes, Google should employ thousands of people to sit around doing nothing until a high number of complaints arrive, at which point they should start throwing a lot of money at the problem of sorting out who owns what intellectual property, with a 100% success rate to avoid being sued by either side should they get it wrong, becase this is obviously a core part of Google's business, and they'll lose billions if you can't locate an anti-Scientology video.

Re:Some videos back up (3, Insightful)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918089)

If they did not take it down because they did not believe the content infringing then they are immediately claiming/agreeing to vet the content of posts to their site. I think they may also want to claim a bit of ignorance of the content on their site,

Re:Some videos back up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918113)

As pointed out in this -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=956449&no_d2=1&cid=24917975 [slashdot.org]
comment the point of the DMCA for sites like Youtube is to -not- have to judge the content. They follow a simple procedure of taking down stuff, then if countered re-instating it again. The "right or wrong" issue is something for the courts to decide and thus Youtube avoids liability in the whole mess that is sure to ensue.

In some ways it is an ok system (though as discussed quite a lot, full of flaws)

Re:Some videos back up (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918295)

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=59826

Read the procedure for filing a counter-notice. You have to include your personal information, which YouTube then forwards to original claimant. The CoS has just compiled a list of 4,000 names and addresses of people who are critical of it.

All your video are belong to us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917885)

All your video are belong to us

Bringing down Scientology by (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917887)

bankrupting them through legal expenses? Time to mirror the content folks.

Re:Bringing down Scientology by (4, Funny)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918077)

Are scientologists required by their beliefs to silence all criticism no matter what the cost is? My respect for Hubbard will increase a lot if they are... adding a self destruct commandment to his cult in case it ever got out of control.

Re:Bringing down Scientology by (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918351)

Yes.

Then again, who cares about the Scientologists? No one except rejected 4chan newfags.

Re:Bringing down Scientology by (3, Informative)

NoisySplatter (847631) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918083)

Legal expenses? Their lawyers are probably scientologists and doing their work for free in exchange for moving up the ranks.

Re:Bringing down Scientology by (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918225)

Do you know who all are members of the CoS? Lack of money isn't something that they are going to be too worried about.

Re:Bringing down Scientology by (3, Informative)

ilovesymbian (1341639) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918245)

With members like Tom Cruise and half of Hollywood's stars, I doubt they'll run out of money to defend themselves and counter-sue our middle-class asses.

I wonder... (3, Insightful)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917893)

Will we see DMCA Takedown notices claiming news stories like these infringe on the property of the lawyers who issued the original DMCA Takedowns? :P

Actually... I really shouldn't joke about that. It may just happen...

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918223)

Will we see DMCA Takedown notices claiming news stories like these infringe on the property of the lawyers who issued the original DMCA Takedowns? :P

Not unlikely, now that states have started claiming copyright on the text of their laws.

Pretty stupid, actually. If you pass a law in your state, wouldn't you like to have another state lift the text (especially if your law has gotten past court challenges)? I think any state would be happy to have their idea of what's legal or illegal widely adopted.

How better to prevent people from simply crossing a state line, like to buy beer where it's still legal, thereby encouraging smuggling and other shit that pisses ooff the bluenoses.

Déjà vu (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917903)

You can't win, Hubbard. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Re:Déjà vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917969)

It's almost as if they want to promote a reaction from the intarnets. Because this is exactly the sort of behaviour that got people pissed off at them in the first place.

Still, you can't expect people who think we evolved from clams to understand the way squirrels and other suppressives think.

Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917907)

Expect us

ooooooh that explains it (0, Troll)

Phybertekie (975815) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917911)

I was wondering why the only videos I saw on YouTube were the dramatic prairie dog ones.

Yes but gnorb? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917933)

edjpo j jrpewqJOPIJPP oo99jijij

Re:Yes but gnorb? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917949)

Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Great example to take to congress (3, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917959)

Of the clear abuse the law has provided.

More examples like this and the DMCA may get repealed, castrated, or at least altered to require judge approval of each takedown notice....

Why? (0, Flamebait)

jeebusroxors (812064) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918023)

Out of curiosity, why is it that people get bent out of shape about this 'religion'?

I got to witness an anonymous rally in San Diego about a year or so ago and it was just silly. Yes, you and I may know the whole thing is a crock, but isn't there supposed to be freedom of religion?

Not looking to start a pissing contest, I'm just wondering where people get their priorities.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Butterspoon (892614) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918097)

Out of curiosity, why is it that people get bent out of shape about this 'religion'?

I got to witness an anonymous rally in San Diego about a year or so ago and it was just silly. Yes, you and I may know the whole thing is a crock, but isn't there supposed to be freedom of religion?

Not looking to start a pissing contest, I'm just wondering where people get their priorities.

Just go to http://www.xenu.net/ [xenu.net] and all will become clear.

Not "religion", really a scam... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918159)

and anyone who tries to expose the scam gets declared "fair game", although they don't use that precise term anymore...

Why? Exactly. (0, Troll)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918171)

Agreed. I haven't seen anything where this religion or cult or whatever you want to call it has done anything to hurt anyone. Yeah, there are a couple of folks who've accused the church of some things, but it was maybe one or two people of questionable credibility. There's more against the Mormoms (Church of Latter Day Saints), and recently against the Catholics in the US - which has been dealt with in the legal system, the church has been making changes and the Pope apologized.

And regards to those protesters, I just want to ask what has the Scientologists done to you - personally?

I have never heard anything where the Scientoloists have a policy of hurting people. Sure, they may use some heavy handed legal techniques, but it's within the legal system and apparently those judges involved thought they had grounds. And as far as charging folks hundred of thousands of dollars to get to a level - so what? It's their money. It doesn't harm anyone. There are folks who voluntarily give that much and more to their church, temple, etc...

The Church of Scientology isn't even on my list a problem organization. Some people need to get a grip and need to learn how evaluate things better.

Re:Why? Exactly. (5, Interesting)

dosius (230542) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918253)

They have an explicit doctrine of destroying critics through the legal system. They also believe that if a person is deemed "Suppressive" to the cause of Scientology, they have the right to lie, deceive, or even kill the person with impunity.

-uso.

Re:Why? Exactly. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918267)

Hey /. developers!

I'm still waiting for that -1 Astroturf mod!

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918231)

Here's a short breakdown.

If you go to a group of Christians, and ask questions about their beliefs, they may engage you in a debate on Christian theology, they may give you a Bible to read, and so forth, but you can generally access these materials for free. If you go a group of Muslims and do the same thing, you will likely get the same results. Same goes for the Jewish religion, or Mormonism, or Hinduism.

If you go to a Scientology center and ask questions about their beliefs, what it will come down to is "Here are some classes you can take, they cost many thousands of dollars". Scientology is not willing to give away their beliefs just as every other major religion is willing to do so. Scientology is not willing to discuss their beliefs in an open and free environment, as the other major religions are willing to do. And Scientology hides many tenets of their beliefs behind copyright and trade secret laws.

That last one is the big one. You don't officially learn about their secret beliefs until you have paid many thousands of dollars and been sufficiently indoctrinated into the Church of Scientology.

Compare that to the other religions. To the best of my knowledge, there is no super-secret ultra-eyes-only version of the Bible that only the elite Christians get to read. There is no "not for the viewing of non-believers" version of the Qu'ran that only the most devout Muslims get to read. But there are secret Scientology documents which explain core beliefs of Scientology that the general rank and file of the CoS do not have access to.

And then, when people try to promulgate that information, it irks the CoS leadership. Because, for some reason, they don't want it spread that they believe that a galactic overlord named Xenu did all the wacky poor-scripted science-fictiony things he did many millions of years ago, here on Earth. (Excuse me, it was called Teegeeack then, according to these docs.) Because then people would go, "Wow, this reads like it was written by a hack science fiction author." (Which, you know, is what the guy who founded Scientology was.)

Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918057)

This is probably in response to anonymous's 08-08-08 campaign

Dodged a big one but trouble ahead? (3, Interesting)

smchris (464899) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918167)

We think Disney is bad? Imagine if the bible were copyrighted. It'd run the eternal life of the author plus 75 years. But with a religion so blatantly a business like scientology, what will copyright be like _next_ century?

RTFA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918209)

It states that the vids went down and the users counter-claimed and got the vids back up again.

"YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices. At this time, many of the suspended channels have been reinstated and many of the videos are back up."

who really 'owns' anything/everything? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918261)

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Drop in the bucket (4, Funny)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918263)

...American Rights Counsel LLC sent out over 4000 DMCA takedown notices to YouTube...

... leaving them with 250,000 more to send.

I say go to it. The only way these jokers can know which videos to hit with a DMCA is to watch them. Maybe if they're exposed to anti-CoS messages enough, it'll start to crack through the brainwashing, and they'll free themselves.

So keep posting those videos, folks! It's good karma.

Anonymous vs Scientology (4, Interesting)

Twyst3d (1359973) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918313)

Yay! I was wondering when Scientology was going to wield a big wad of cash to make this go away. Good for them, they are only proving the videos have information they do not want seen. I just hope the Anonymous movement against the church of Scientology can use this to pick up some momentum.

Violation on the peoples (2, Interesting)

Vertana (1094987) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918329)

How is this not a blatant abuse of the system in order to silence free speech? By this logic, it is perfectly within the legal rights of Google to shut down websites which oppose their ideals and corporation. Nice try Scientology... but ultimately an epic fail. Good job jacking up the PR (again).

Scheme to personally identify critics? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24918357)

Part of the process of filing a counter-DMCA claim involves revealing your personal information to the party who initiated the DMCA complaint [http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hlrm=en&answer=59826]. Given the Co$'s history of harassment, perhaps this is just a way of gathering information for retribution?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...