Beta
×

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!

YouTube Reposts Anti-Scientology Videos

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the fun-and-easy-to-destroy-stuff dept.

Censorship 435

Ian Lamont writes "YouTube has reposted anti-Scientology videos and reinstated suspended YouTube accounts after receiving thousands of apparently bogus DCMA take-down notices. Four thousand notices were sent to YouTube last Thursday and Friday by American Rights Counsel, LLC. After YouTube users responded with counter-notices, many of the videos were reposted. It turns out that the American Rights Counsel had no copyright claim on the videos, and the group may not even exist, although the text of the DCMA notices have been linked to a Wikipedia editor. While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Should be worth pressing charges. (5, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933541)

This isn't one count, it's about four thousand counts of fraud. I'm sure that complying with the takedown notices cost Google a non-trivial amount of money, too.

-jcr

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (5, Interesting)

IP_Troll (1097511) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933701)

I believe the most fitting punishment would be to revoke all Scientology related copyrights.

This is an arguable criminal case and a criminal prosecution would be a waste of time. It is going to be near impossible to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is, however, a clear abuse of rights granted by the copyright law. The fitting punishment is revocation of those rights.


Please save the nitpicking arguments about if there is such thing as copyright "rights", that is beside the point. If a child can't be trusted with privileges, you take those privileges away.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (5, Interesting)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933793)

revoking the copyrights would be moronic.

if that's all it took, then people would start posting fake notices (ie committing fraud) for the groups they OPPOSE, thus preventing the legitimate copyright holder from keeping their copyright.

punish the criminal.
in this case that is whoever sent the notices.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (4, Insightful)

JustKidding (591117) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934265)

If they can establish that it actually was someone from the scientology church with authorization to send these notes, Google could refuse to take down any more videos without investigating the claims first. Their takedown notices, if they have merit, would still be honored, but the takedown would be delayed until they get a chance to look into the issue.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933855)

Since there was never any hope of these takedowns succeeding for more than a day or two, isn't it likely that the DMCA notices were issued by an anti-scientology protestor to make scientology look even worse than it does already?

Much as I dislike scientology, it would be unjust to punish them for this without any evidence.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (1)

IP_Troll (1097511) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934029)

Reply to myself - revoke the copyright after a inquiry into who actually sent out the notices.

Because the copyright matter would be civil rather than criminal the standard would be much easier to meet than a criminal charge such as fraud.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934175)

After reading your "post to yourself" there is still a danger of punishing the person who sued originally.

For example, Say I sued the government for something I didn't feel was just, or legal. Say I thought by placing the "No Turn on Right" signs parallel to the stopping line, (making it near impossible for the driver to see, when stopped first at the light, but easy to see for a police car behind you to read, and the police just needs to accidentally honk his horn for you to break the law, or just not see the sign and cross when it was safe). So I get pulled over and have to pay a fine. Then I challenge it and loose then besides my original fine I need to pay an other one for challenging the system.

Yes there is abuse of the legal system, But making people more afaid of it is not the right answer.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (1)

Meehow (1360037) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933705)

They are honestly going to let Scientology get away with this bollocks? Wow. That sucks. It'd be funny to finally see themselves sucker punch their own faces by trying.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (4, Interesting)

LithiumX (717017) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934027)

They are honestly going to let Scientology get away with this bollocks? Wow. That sucks. It'd be funny to finally see themselves sucker punch their own faces by trying.

Now I'm left wondering if it was even them that sent them out in the first place.

Does anyone know anything about the "group" that sent them, and is there anything that actually ties it to them?

For all the reasons they'd have to do it, there's also a lot of people who'd like to embarrass that group by acting in their name.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (2, Insightful)

winphreak (915766) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934273)

For all the reasons they'd have to do it, there's also a lot of people who'd like to embarrass that group by acting in their name.

No joke. Seems like no matter who did it, it makes Scientology look bad.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933863)

Exactly. It might be economically worth their time for Google to set the precedent that bogus DMCA notices en masse will lead to a lawsuit, so that they can limit the number of staff they'll have to hire to handle requests.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (2, Interesting)

Monkeyman334 (205694) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933997)

It's not a matter of how bad the violation of law is. It has to matter to the prosecutor and also to a potential jury (called "jury interest"). Nobody will prosecute the case if the only impact was $20,000 of Google's money spent on handling the notices.

My suggestion would be to temporarially take down the requestor's videos if they submit a false takedown request. It wouldn't cover small businesses, but it would cover the Viacoms and the CoS.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934163)

Nobody will prosecute the case if the only impact was $20,000 of Google's money spent on handling the notices.

The prosecutor gets to bring an open-and-shut felony fraud case. Looks good on his record when he runs for office.

-jcr

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (3, Interesting)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934189)

4000 counts of perjury times 5 years max - that's an impressive potential sentence.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934097)

Perjury actually, not fraud.

Racial Bigotry (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933547)

Great - another 600 bigoted posts about Scientology.

Scientology is a great, true faith. But you guys don't know anything about faith, do you.

Re:Racial Bigotry (4, Interesting)

Abreu (173023) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933591)

I knew they claimed to be a religion, but I wasn't aware that Scientologists now claimed to be a "race"...
Was this done to claim additional protections?

Re:Racial Bigotry (4, Funny)

SpiderClan (1195655) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933669)

Do races get protections? Unless they claim some first people's type of race (i.e. the Thetos or whatever they're called were here before us all), I imagine they wouldn't.

Otherwise, I will be claiming protections as well. I am a member of the human race, the Canadian race and I was shortlisted to be on the Amazing Race.

Re:Racial Bigotry (4, Insightful)

Abreu (173023) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933715)

I meant that they probably want to portray themselves as a "oppressed minority" or something like that...
Although I seriously doubt the ACLU would fall for it

Re:Racial Bigotry (3, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934091)

I meant that they probably want to portray themselves as a "oppressed minority" or something like that...

Ironic, since isn't it their intention to genocide the Thetans or something bizarre like that?

If someone were to prosecute them for persecuting Thetans, what would their defense be?

Re:Racial Bigotry (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933681)

Scientology is a race, alright. A Master Race.

Re:Racial Bigotry (1)

camg188 (932324) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933841)

Did I miss something? I don't see the word "race" in the original post.

Re:Racial Bigotry (1)

camg188 (932324) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933865)

ooops... I see now. Abreu is right.

Re:Racial Bigotry (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933603)

Faith = money, right? At least, that's what the Scientologist leaders tell us. Can't have true faith if you don't give them lots of money.

Re:Racial Bigotry (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933891)

Worked for the Catholics.

Re:Racial Bigotry (2, Insightful)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934081)

heh. Except you don't actually have to give the Catholic church ANYTHING, and you can still belong. Insightful? I think not.

Re:Racial Bigotry (4, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933641)

Great - another 600 bigoted posts about Scientology.

Scientology is a great, true faith. But you guys don't know anything about faith, do you.

I'm an atheist, and while I think the middle eastern religions are pretty horrid, Scientology is pure insanity. Xenu? DC10s? Thetans?

LOL, psyco.

Re:Racial Bigotry (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933673)

Xenu? DC10s? Thetans?

Wait, you mean the crap they showed on South Park was really was these people believe?!

Re:Racial Bigotry (5, Informative)

ThatGuyJon (1299463) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933799)

Yes. Did you miss the big scrolling letters running across the screen?
The odd thing about Scientology is although that is what they believe, Scientologists are only told it after they have spent an awful lot of time and money on Scientology.

Re:Racial Bigotry (3, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934131)

Sadly, I had spoken with my wife in passing about Scientology a few times and she zoned out whenever I got into the whole Xenu/Thetan thing. I guess she thought it was some bad sci-fi story I had read. Then I showed her the South Park episode and told her that (animation aside) what was presented during that segment is actually what Scientologists believe. Now she's right along with me in ridiculing the "religion." It is really telling when South Park doesn't need to alter anything at all to make fun of a religion's story.

Re:Racial Bigotry (5, Funny)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933711)

To be completely fair, they were DC-8s.

Re:Racial Bigotry (5, Funny)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933785)

Yea, DC-10s just makes no sense at all!

Re:Racial Bigotry (1)

KezMaefele (527550) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933945)

You my friend don't have a clue what you are talking about. I hate it when peeps get on a message board and put down other viewpoints without all the facts! It was a spaceship that looked like a "DC-8" that brought the Thetans to earth to be annihilated by volcanoes packed full of nuclear bombs!

Re:Racial Bigotry (2, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934221)

while I think the middle eastern religions are pretty horrid, Scientology is pure insanity. Xenu? DC10s? Thetans?

Why are those things any more insane than...

* talking to angels (Mohammed was crazy)
* taking a lil' cruise to heaven and hell (yea, Mohammed was mucho loco)
* parthenogenesis by a human ("virgin" Mary, my ass)
* voices from a burning bush (Moses was another nutjob)
* genital mutilation (Moses was also one sick fuck)

It's hard to rank the degree of their insanity, but perhaps you could say Scientologist theology is sillier. Although maybe that's just because it is newer. Give them time.

Re:Racial Bigotry (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933657)

Successful troll is successful.

Re:Racial Bigotry (0, Offtopic)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933907)

Mod parent Insightful.

Idiot mods (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24934193)

It's not like the mods can do a god damned thing right, unless of course it's adding a +1 Funny to the latest (re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re)iteration of a Slashdot meme.

Re:Racial Bigotry (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933713)

I'd be happy to tell you about why the religion of Bob(Because writing about scientology will get me sued) is a load of shit, but I'll need a cheque for $360,000 first. If you can't afford that, I'll happily help you out, by letting you work for me. Then the bill will come to only $52,000.

Oh, but don't try to leave while I'm indoct-- I mean educating you, because I'll kill your family. Hope you don't mind.

Re:Racial Bigotry (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934057)

Great - another 600 bigoted posts about Scientology. Scientology is a great, true faith. But you guys don't know anything about faith, do you.

Great. So tell me about what it is that you have faith in or do you require a "donation" before you "reveal" the secrets?

Of course. (0, Troll)

dintech (998802) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933555)

About time too. They should never have been taken down in the first place. Do no evil!

Re:Of course. (4, Insightful)

g0dsp33d (849253) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933727)

I wouldn't call it evil. If they get a notice they have to presume its real, they don't have time to research 4,000 claims. Faking take down notices is fraud or criminal (not sure as IANAL). Since they have to assume they're legit they're doing the right thing by taking them down. Re-instating them is done when a counter-claim is received. They're just obeying the law, albeit a fairly poorly written one.

Re:Of course. (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933867)

They're just obeying the law, albeit a fairly poorly written one.

As opposed to concise well written laws.

Do those exist?

Re:Of course. (0, Offtopic)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933923)

Sure. There are some clear and concise laws that everybody understands.

Like the 2nd amendment.

Re:Of course. (1, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934255)

Then there are some clear and concise laws that no one seems to understand. Like the 4th Amendment. "Well they wrote about papers and effects, surely they don't mean that the government shouldn't tap everyone's phones and net connections or backdoor everyone's computers and encryption. Don't they know we've got a war on terror to fight (even though even a poor study of history will show that your own government is far, far more dangerous than any terrorist)? Why if they didn't want the government doing that, they'd have specifically said so, even though those things weren't invented back then! Yes, let's ignore the principle of what was stated by getting caught up in details. More government police power, please!" Mod me off-topic now, I don't care.

Re:Of course. (3, Interesting)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933921)

What is evil here is the law. Imagine an anonymous poster, somewhere on the front lines of a war, exposing some monumental lie or an atrocity by filming it and posting on YouTube. The government or any other entity who wishes for the public to remain ignorant simply issues a DMCA take-down notice. YouTube complies instantly and uncritically. The anonymous whistle-blower will not reveal himself to issue a "counter-notice" because doing so exposes him/her to being "taken down" himself, via a bullet to the head "friendly fire" incident or being found out an "enemy combatant" and disappeared for life into torture in some dark and secret dungeon.

That is why, as I keep pointing out, the so-called "intellectual property" has the ultimate effect of creating a totalitarian society. It happens via a deadly mix of the fundamental scientific illogic of the concept of "intellectual property" being exposed by progress of technology and the resulting ever more draconian attempts to reverse the effects of such progress by those whose profits depend on keeping the populace on a chain. That impacts the society so because totalitarian control of information (as is the only logical outcome of "intellectual property") must also lead to a totalitarian society as a whole.

Re:Of course. (1, Troll)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933955)

No time to investigate 4000 take down notices from one organization?

No time to "not be evil".

They didn't just take videos down, they suspended accounts based on complaints from a fictitious organization.

They've allegedly got many geniuses working for them.

Go figure.

Re:Of course. (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934013)

thing is it's fairly common for takedown notices to be sent by people who don't own the rights. It's basicly the quickest way to get something critical of you taken down (for a time at least) since you can send it in the name of "The imaginary society of america".

If I owned a company or ran an organisation and wanted to get something I didn't like pulled it'd be the first thing I'd do, send takedown notices anonymously.

Re:Of course. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933791)

Legally they have to. Do no research.

Take that Xenu! (4, Interesting)

Abreu (173023) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933557)

I'm glad that the YouTube users fought back.
We really need to make people aware of the criminal actions of this cult.

Re:Take that Xenu! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933839)

"Nietzsche is dead" - God, 1900

What about this cult?

First? (4, Insightful)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933561)

Is there some kind of rule that if it's in a hyperlink, it's spelled 'DCMA', but if it's plain text, it's 'DMCA'? And good on YouTube for reposting the content.

Re:First? (4, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933599)

Is there some kind of rule that if it's in a hyperlink, it's spelled 'DCMA', but if it's plain text, it's 'DMCA'?

Get with the program. Today is Transposed Tuesday.

Re:First? (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933797)

Wow! I am behind on my Ubuntu distro then. I am still on the J's.

Teach them a lesson (4, Informative)

gooman (709147) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933587)

While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about.

Sounds like this would be a good time to start.
I can't think of a nicer group of people to sue.

Re:Teach them a lesson (4, Interesting)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933745)

I can't think of a nicer group of people to sue.

Actually, it would be "prosecute", not sue, as this is a criminal offense, and requires a criminal prosecution.

All nitpicking aside though, I agree. It sounds like the crazy Scientologists are at it again, and SOMEONE needs to take those crazies down a few notches.

Re:Teach them a lesson (2, Insightful)

NtroP (649992) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933813)

While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about.

Sounds like this would be a good time to start. I can't think of a nicer group of people to sue.

You *know* that if one of us violated the DMCA we'd be jumped on in a heartbeat. The DMCA is a farce to begin with, but when they only enforce the provisions one-sidedly they are really exposing it for piece of crap, purchased fraud that it is.

You'll never get me copper.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933589)

Anyone who replies to this will get a takedown notice! This post is protected by the DMCA.

first post... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933601)

anonymously of course...don't want some wackos on my trail...

A criminal offense ? (1)

Spc01 (1188301) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933625)

"While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about." I would like to see someone get busted for filing an false DMCA notice lol. I Think this is like a joke.

Re:A criminal offense ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933737)

Sounds like you're the guilty wiki editor to me!

E-meter videos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933663)

Does anyone know if any of them are E-meter instructional videos? I got one off an auction that I thought was really cool 'cause I saw it on the South Park Scientology episode (Is there only one?). This is the only item I have ever gotten off an [attention grammar Nazis: notice I didn't say "off of"] online auction where I got an offer before I had even paid for it! I don't know how to use it, though...

Re:E-meter videos? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933755)

Apply one probe to either side of a component. Meter will read proportionately to voltage across the component.

Re:E-meter videos? (5, Informative)

smolloy (1250188) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934157)

An e-meter isn't a voltmeter, it's a potentiometer (it measures resistance not voltage). It's based on a Wheatstone bridge design, and is a very sensitive way to measure the resistance between the probes. Since hydration levels, stress, sweat, etc., can all change the resistivity of human skin, an e-meter will measure these changes, which can then be (fraudulently) be interpreted as being of religious significance.

It's nothing more than a half-assed lie-detector.

Re:E-meter videos? (4, Funny)

michrech (468134) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934117)

This probe goes in your mouth.. This one goes in your ear. This one goes in your butt..."

It should be a civil matter, too (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933719)

"While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about."

Perhaps it ought to carry stiff civil penalties as well? At least then it's not the prosecution's option to pursue the case, but the injured party's. Two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars maximum per bogus takedown notice might do the trick.

Re:It should be a civil matter, too (2, Insightful)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934035)

I think it needs to be more than $250K.

Take the maximum fine for willful copyright infringement. Triple it (ala RICO). That should be the fine, per notice.

How about a false DCMA suit now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933723)

With 4,000 videos being removed in a single pass by this entity, isn't it about time to use this as an example in a false DCMA takedown lawsuit? Who is responsible to persue this?

Isn't it also illegal (5, Insightful)

S7urm (126547) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933725)

Not just to file fraudulant DMCA notices, but also to do so in the name of a Business that doesn't exist? I'd think someone, somewhere would want to take this opportunity to finally push back and sue for false allegations filed by a fradulant company in the name of an entity that was not part of the original notice. Might make a statement, (especially from YouTube) that we won't simply allow people to negligently file take down notices on material they don't even own the copyright to.

Re:Isn't it also illegal (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934137)

Not just to file fraudulant DMCA notices, but also to do so in the name of a Business that doesn't exist?

I think, technically, he could argue that the business is a sole proprietorship named "American Rights Council LLC". Even though the LLC usually implies that the business is a Limited Liability Company, I don't think there's any law that says it couldn't stand for Loquacious Loser Company. You don't need to register a sole proprietorship with anybody, and if it hasn't ever earned any income, I don't think it's even necessary to file a Schedule C on your tax return.

Re:Isn't it also illegal (1)

S7urm (126547) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934211)

even as a sole prop. In order to be considered a "business entity" you have to file with someone. Any entity that "pays" any employee needs to at least have a Federal ID (EIN#) issued to them.

It be like if I claimed "S7urm LLC." and tried to write off the time I spend on here as a "business expense"...probably wouldn't work since my "company" doesn't make "profit" from "this enterprise" :)

What's with the scientology hatred? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933731)

As geeks, shouldn't we be more annoyed at the obviously non-scientific "big three" religions? Whatever iluminati/freemason paranoia or real conspiracy exists with scientology, that pales to the anti-gay and other affronts that Christianity brings. Where more than half are Christians, at least it's...different.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred? (4, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934023)

As geeks, shouldn't we be more annoyed at the obviously non-scientific "big three" religions?

  • Despite the name, "Scientology" is no more scientific than Christianity. It is more sci-fi, but that's not the same thing.
  • At the moment, mainstream Christianity isn't trying to suppress non-Christian free speech ("ID" dumbasses notwithstanding).
  • At the moment, Christianity isn't run for profit (Roman Catholic church notwithstanding).

Re:What's with the scientology hatred? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24934079)

Whatever iluminati/freemason paranoia or real conspiracy exists with scientology, that pales to the anti-gay and other affronts that Christianity brings. Where more than half are Christians, at least it's...different.

Big difference. Lunacy and insanity were penned into the very core of Scientology, along with the authorization to decimate your "enemies", be they real or perceived. The other preaches love and for your fellow man, despite the behaviors of a very vocal minority.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24934115)

If you're an old usenet geek, you have plenty of reason to hate them. If you're an old slashdot geek, you also have plenty of reason to hate them. If you're a YouTube user, you also have plenty of reason to hate them. I'd wager that large parts of /. fall into all three categories.

There's been no large, concentrated legal attack on internet freedom from the other religions, to my knowledge, so I feel Scientology is rightfully getting attacked. If you also take the threats of violence, the stalking by PIs, the systematic exploitation of their own members and everything else into account, then it's an even easier choice.

Also of note is that Scientology is just as hateful towards gays as the Big Three religions, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

Interesting case of censorship (5, Interesting)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933735)

Earlier this year radio talk show host Michael Reagan called for the murder of Mark Dice [youtube.com] live on air. Mark Dice uploaded a 3 minute clip of the death threat to youtube. Reagan's lawyers filed a DMCA claim on the clip [jonesreport.com] , youtube took down Mark Dice's entire channel which had a lot of original content and over a million views. Dice tried to counter claim but youtube did NOT reinstate his channel. Dice had to make a new channel and upload his content back.

The FBI or police would not charge Reagan for his death threats and Reagan is still on the air.

Re:Interesting case of censorship (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934151)

Generalized threats are not a crime. Unless he can show that it was fair use, Dice did infringe Reagan's copyright. Youtube pulling the entire channel is an issue with youtube, not Reagan.

Re:Interesting case of censorship (5, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934237)

While calling for this guys death is over the top and uncalled for, Mark Dice is a to be kind not the nicest of people.
And I am a go to church every Sunday kind of guy. He is way far to the right by my standards.

  "Dice founded an organization,[1] variously called The Resistance,[2] The Christian Resistance or The Resistance for Christ, which espouses fundamentalist Christianity and professes conspiratorial beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church,[3] the Illuminati, freemasons, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, the 9/11 attacks and Satanism, and which has been reported to "flood the airwaves of call-in radio and television shows"[4] to promote them. His 450 page book, The Resistance Manifesto details these beliefs.

Dice's activities have been covered by national media outlets. His focus is primarily on political activism, culture jamming, boycotts, and pop culture criticism.

He has called for the Georgia Guidestones to be removed from public property,[4][5] protested a Jessica Simpson music video,[1] called for a boycott of the VeriChip,[1][6] called for Duke University to change the name of its sports team (the Blue Devils),[7] called for rapper 50 Cent to stop wearing a cross,[8] and claimed that Scientology is a satanic cult.[9]

He recently launched a boycott against Starbucks, calling the company "Slutbucks", after featuring a logo of a topless mermaid-type figure.[10][11] He also endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy for president in 2008.

Dice is featured in Alex Jones' film The 9/11 Chronicles, which documents the activities of the 9/11 truth movement."

Great, another cult that brainwashes everyone (1)

Easy EPMD (1360771) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933767)

Scientolocraopy can kiss my ass. Seriously WTF guys, have nothing better to do than start a de-facto cult? go outside, hang with yr friends, get some exercise....

Re:Great, another cult that brainwashes everyone (4, Informative)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934041)

No ... it's more like, they can't think of a better, more LUCRATIVE scam than the one they've cooked up!

How many nation-wide con-artist operations do you see out there that are protected by federal legislation (organized religion status)?

Just 2 days ago, I received some propaganda piece in the mail from their "church". It was trying to recruit new members with false "scientific findings" they published. (Basically, the premise was that all the chemicals we encounter in our daily lives are permanently lodging themselves in our bodies and poisoning us. By signing up with their group, they could put you through a "cleansing" process to restore your body's "natural state". They actually claimed that it was a *scientific finding* that common anesthesia drugs were discovered permanently stored in people's fat tissue, among other things. Citation was conveniently left out on that, though.)

Southpark's Scientology Video (0)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933773)

Re:Southpark's Scientology Video (5, Informative)

schlick (73861) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934019)

Here is their own link

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103804/ [southparkstudios.com]

Re:Southpark's Scientology Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24934069)

Mod this one up and the GP down. As a non-cable subscribing, non-antenna owning TV owner, I am all for free, legal, non-youtube, non-porn on the Internet.

Re:Southpark's Scientology Video (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24934217)

Mod this up and GP down. I agree with my brother AC; Comedy Central should be encouraged to put their episodes online, rather than encouraged to sue college students.

Google Should Sue (4, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933789)

Given the amount of resources (time) that Google's lost in dealing with these (4000!) bogus DMCA notices, I think Google should file a lawsuit against the offending party. Obviously, I'd love to see the people who posted the videos start a class-action suit as well, but I think Google having to deal with the paperwork, remove the videos, deal with the counter-claim paperwork, and repost the videos represents a significant loss of time and thus money, all because someone is abusing the DMCA. Were I Google's lawyers, I'd use this situation as a perfect chance to deliver a message to all copyright holders - get it right or deal with OUR lawsuit.

Re:Google Should Sue (0, Redundant)

S7urm (126547) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933809)

Google Owns YouTube?

Re:Google Should Sue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933919)

Yes. [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Google Should Sue (1, Informative)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933977)

Google Owns YouTube?

Yes, they do.

Re:Google Should Sue (1)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933983)

Yep, they have since 2006.

Google To Acquire YouTube for $1.65 Billion in Stock [google.com]

It has to do with branding - the only mention of Google you'll see on the Youtube main page is the "Add to iGoogle" link on the bottom, which doesn't really say much about ownership. It's not until you go to the "Company History" page where they'll mention Google buying them out.

At least that's why I think it's so easy to forget who owns who.

This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad (5, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933833)

While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about."

Anyone should be able to bring evidence to a judge, and bring charges against someone in a felony or serious misdemeanor case. If someone shuts down your YouTube account via false DMCA notices, and a US Attorney won't take it, you should be able to hire your own prosecutor to press charges against the individual.

You know one major reason why this would be hard as hell to get passed? Because if it were passed it would not only pressure legislatures to write better, more consistent legal codes, but it would allow for pesky things like drug cops in cases like Kathryn Johnston's shooting death to be tried for manslaughter, perjury in securing the warrant and criminal negligence leading to injury or death.

Re:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad (1)

S7urm (126547) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933995)

Why should people be able to bring CRIMINAL action against a person/entity, when the people (DA, U.S DAs et al) who are responsible and have the legally granted right to bring such actions won't handle the case. You're talking about creating a prosecution from a standing of un-enforcerability. A municipality/city/state/country/tribe has the "power" to create, alter, negotiate, and finalize sentencing aggrements, plea bargains, settlements, etc. whereas a "civilian" prosecutor in a criminal case cannot and SHOULD not be able to make those decisions because they aren't accountable to the constituency of that (state,city,country etc.)

Thus we only allow prosecution to be carried out by empowered individuals in a civic capacity in a criminal court. We delegate non-criminal cases to the Civil courts, because monetary/property gain is the only outcome, as it should be. I'd rather not have some crazy prosecutor, held unaccountable, trying me in a court where I could be put to death.

Re:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24934071)

While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about."

Anyone should be able to bring evidence to a judge, and bring charges against someone in a felony or serious misdemeanor case. If someone shuts down your YouTube account via false DMCA notices, and a US Attorney won't take it, you should be able to hire your own prosecutor to press charges against the individual.

Do you really want big corporations to be able to initiate criminal prosecutions against individuals? As far I'm concerned they've got plenty of power at the moment. For example, do you want the RIAA and MPAA being able to initiate a criminal prosecution against alledged file sharers, security researches that expose how to circumvent DRM, etc?

Re:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934147)

You know one major reason why this would be hard as hell to get passed?

One reason why it would be hard to get passed is that it is contrary to the entire theory and purpose of a criminal justice system, to wit, to provide for dealing with offenses that need to be addressed because they threaten the public, not merely the particular victims, and whose prosecution is, therefore, reserved to those who are elected to serve the public interest.

Further, because of protections against double jeopardy, it would allow real criminals to get off by being prosecuted incompetently by independents that were either hyperzealous amateurs or secret coconspirators.

For things where you are harmed and want to sue, we have the civil justice system, and most criminal acts which cause harm to individuals can also be pursued as civil matters.

Mission Accomplished (5, Insightful)

rekoil (168689) | more than 6 years ago | (#24933895)

They now have the names and addresses of the posters who responsed with DMCA counter-notices, and those individuals are now free to be "fair-gamed".

Re:Mission Accomplished (1)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934129)

Well if the claims were false. Hopefully the counter-claims aren't even posted? Anyone know?

DING DING DING DING!!!!! (2, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934135)

We have a winner. This is most likely the real reason for the mass takedown.

Mod parent up.

DCMA = crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24933927)

i'm SOOOO sick of corporate bulldogs thinking they can control the internet. Give up already, nothing good comes from meddling.

Re:DCMA = crap (1)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934285)

wtf? this is a bunch of lunatics sending out false DMCA notices. it doesn't mean the DMCA is bad, in fact it just highlights the GOOD things about the DMCA, the fact that there are prescribed penalties for filing false reports, which is exactly as it should be.

From the mouth of the horse itself... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24934051)

From http://forums.enturbulation.org/186-youtube-situation-room-september-edition/more-youtube-fraud-cult-scientology-28179/3/#post553045

"Anon was caught a little off guard this time. Next time, we'll react so fast that their pointy little heads will spin. JewTube is our playground, and we're not going to let them piss in the sandbox again."

Top Scientologists (and "Church") face fraud trial (3, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934075)

You did know that "Top Scientologists" and the church are facing fraud charges?

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/09/france.scientology.trial.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

Unfortunately they are being charged in France, I don't know if they are in the country or if they will have to be extradited. If so, I don't know if the U.S. will agree. After all, they could claim "religious" persecution.

Typical behaviour of the Scientology sect (4, Informative)

golodh (893453) | more than 6 years ago | (#24934077)

This sort of unethical behaviour is well-documented as absolutely typical for the Scientology sect I'm afraid. The term the sect uses to indicate its position vis-a-vis critics or opponents is to call them "fair game". Meaning that they condone, encourage, or initiate thoroughly unethical conduct against them (ranging from slander and defamation, intimidation through harassment in the widest sense of the word to costly nuisance lawsuits).

See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) [wikipedia.org] , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)#Court_cases_involving_.22Fair_Game.22 [wikipedia.org] , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karin_Spaink [wikipedia.org] , http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/ [xs4all.nl] , http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/idx_coskit.html [xs4all.nl] , http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/general.html [snafu.de]

See also this quote from Wikipedia:

In 1994, Vicky Aznaran, who had been the Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center (the Church's central management body), claimed in an affidavit that Because of my position and the reports which regularly crossed my desk, I know that during my entire presidency of RTC "fair game" actions against enemies were daily routine. Apart from the legal tactics described below, the "fair game" activities included break-ins, libel, upsetting the companies of the enemy, espionage, harassment, misuse of confidential communications in the folders of community members and so forth.

This is one of the good reasons why the sect tends to be viewed with suspicion in Western Europe (the sect is currently defending itself in France against a charge of fraud (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7604311.stm) [bbc.co.uk] ). I'm still unclear as to exactly how sect has been able to secure the tax-exempt status of "church" with the US authorities. I have read that it was by successfully harassing the relevant officials, but that's quite hard to prove of course.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?