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!

Ask Slashdot: How To Fight Copyright Violations With DMCA?

timothy posted about a year ago | from the which-narrative-do-you-prefer? dept.

Space 455

szyzyg writes "I've created some popular science videos showing how asteroid discoveries have happened over the last few decades. However I've run into a problem with a religious organization which borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message. Ultimately I filed a DMCA takedown request via YouTube's site, it's as easy as filling in a form and the video was removed. But this organization has since submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do in fact have the rights to this work, and YouTube has reinstated the video. It looks like the only way I can pursue this further is to spend the money to take the organization to court and get an injunction, but even if I did so I'd have to pay court costs up front and since they're based in another country I'd have a difficult time actually collecting any money from the other party. It feels like this other group is simply gambling that I won't spend the time and resources to take further legal action, the DMCA is supposed to provide equal protection but the more lawyer you have the more 'equal' you are. So does anyone have any suggestions for how I should proceed here?"

cancel ×

455 comments

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

The DMCA (5, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | about a year ago | (#41429927)

Doesn't mean shit outside the USA. Thank God.

Re:The DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430019)

Doesn't mean shit outside the USA. Thank God.

Uh, then from a "WWW" standpoint, let me be the first to re-iterate...what the fuck is the point then.

Re:The DMCA (2)

blind biker (1066130) | about a year ago | (#41430087)

The DMCA Doesn't mean shit outside the USA.

Fuck yeah! [youtube.com]

Re:The DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430363)

Ooo me too. Am I doing it right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2ySHSTEzjQ [youtube.com]

Seriously though, you wanna stop a war? Get the ones on the right [myopera.com] to do a youtube spoof on Call Me Maybe. That shit would spread like wildfire. Public support for a war would evaporate.

Re:The DMCA (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#41430091)

Doesn't mean shit outside the USA. Thank God.

Unfortunately, the USA doesn't care about inconveniences like sovereignty of a foreign nation. And you better not complain, or we'll bring Democracy to your country too. We've been very busy creating new treaties to expand DMCA-like law to other countries, building up extradition, and creating extrajudicial process to punish people who commit acts considered criminal in our country but not theirs. At the same time, we've been withdrawing from treaties that restrict the diplomatic rights and sovereignties of others, for the benefit of our military-industrialist complex. Ask Julian Assange how that works sometime... that is, if you can get him out of his new permanent jail in the Ecudorian apartme--er, embassy.

Re:The DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430197)

Erm.... I believe that the United States now holds the copyright on all endorsements from God. I've filled the appropriate paperwork with slashdot. Should we be forced to escalate, I can only pray that Jesus has mercy on your allied to the US soul.

Re:The DMCA (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#41430271)

Doesn't mean shit outside the USA.

. . . except in New Zealand. Ask Kim Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel-slash-dot-com.

Re:The DMCA (5, Funny)

readandburn (825014) | about a year ago | (#41430339)

Should that be:
D oesn't
M ean
C rap
A nyway
outside of the USA?

Re:The DMCA (4, Informative)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year ago | (#41430341)

Seeing as YouTube is a US site, I'm thinking it still "means shit" in this guy's case.

Re:The DMCA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430373)

Am i the only one who thinks this rewards just like a class forum troll on the WoW forums???

That's the way the cookie crumbles (1)

stinerman (812158) | about a year ago | (#41429939)

If they're in another country, it's hard to get them to pay anything in a civil case, DMCA or otherwise. I don't know what to tell you other than "talk to a lawyer".

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (1)

stevelinton (4044) | about a year ago | (#41429965)

You tube however is in your country. Can you get seek an injunction on them to takedown the video based on the fact you can prove the other side is perjuring itself.

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (3, Insightful)

szyzyg (7313) | about a year ago | (#41430003)

Yes, but that would cost money, and while I could probably get damages It would be practically impossible to collect on them.

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (1)

morcego (260031) | about a year ago | (#41430057)

This seems like an open and shut case to me. Can't you get a public defendant (or prosecutor, in this case) to do this ? I really don't think you need a private lawyer. (Not really sure what public defendant/prosecutors can and can't do in the US).

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430119)

What szyzyg needs to do is to make a blasphemous video denigrating the "prophet" Muhammad -- featuring the baconating of and urinating and defecating on the Quran, with Arabic subtitles explaining every step -- then release the movie anonymously under the name of the religious organization who poached his video. Then, sit back with a glass of Champagne and watch the sparks fly.

p.s. see you all at the UCSD party, I can smell my free T-shirt from here.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (3, Insightful)

devleopard (317515) | about a year ago | (#41430187)

Public defenders are for those accused of criminal acts. This is a civil case. So no, the OP can't spend tax payer dollars to enforce their copyright.

However, you might be thinking of finding a copyright friendly attorney to do it pro bono, it which case there's no limitations.

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (1)

morcego (260031) | about a year ago | (#41430285)

But doesn't the "perjury" part make it criminal ?

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (4, Insightful)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about a year ago | (#41430393)

Yes, but you would have to get a prosecutor to take the case. Unlikely they will prosecute a religious organization for perjury when they are in a different country.

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (1)

stevedog (1867864) | about a year ago | (#41430151)

I don't know if they can issue injunctions, but often people will represent themselves in small claims court. Especially since the opposing party would almost certainly not show up, you would have an essentially guaranteed successful case without even having to hardly argue your case. Perhaps this could get you legal action while minimizing the cost?

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (1)

aitikin (909209) | about a year ago | (#41430207)

I don't believe small claims courts have the authority to make injunctions, but IANAL. That being said, talk to a lawyer friend or a paralegal or someone like that, and check. If you can get an injunction based off of small claims, than certainly go that route.

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (4, Informative)

RDW (41497) | about a year ago | (#41430397)

Yes, but that would cost money, and while I could probably get damages It would be practically impossible to collect on them.

And possibly easier said than done, given this guy's previous form:

"When Dawkins publicly lampooned the research in the Atlas of Creation (he pointed out that one of the photos of a Caddis Fly was in fact a fishing fly, complete with metal hook, stolen from the internet, pictured), and labelled Yahya a charlatan on his website, Yahya used his considerable influence and battalion of lawyers to sue for libel and have Dawkins's website banned in Turkey. This is just one of thousands of cases he has brought before the Turkish courts."

Lots more here, including lurid claims about blackmail and sex parties:

http://newhumanist.org.uk/2131 [newhumanist.org.uk]

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (1)

0dugo0 (735093) | about a year ago | (#41429971)

Depends a lot on what that other country is. Signatory to Hague convention or not etc.. It might even be cheaper and simpler than getting your money in the US.

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (4, Interesting)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a year ago | (#41430001)

If everybody reading this goes in and makes a dislike of that video and others of that so called religion then at least we made a statement.

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | about a year ago | (#41430335)

If everybody reading this goes in and makes a dislike of that video and others of that so called religion then at least we made a statement.

A statement too easily reversed if the uploader just decides to disable comments and voting.

Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (1)

nekad (1901086) | about a year ago | (#41430383)

I agree. This is the proper way to make a statement, although it is also one of the few instances where I think using the DMCA is justified. Had this organization simply reposted the original video, I would say leave it alone. By dubbing it, they crossed the line.

Play God (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41429955)

Release another video that shows asteroids smashing into the cultist's church and an undead dinosaur army emerging from the crater to devour their children.

Re:Play God (4, Insightful)

Qwertie (797303) | about a year ago | (#41430409)

Or, you could just not worry about this weird video because it had well under 10,000 views before it appeared on Slashdot and currently has only 22 likes. And half of those likes may come from people that enjoy watching crazy nutters. The only harm comes from people believing the video, and the Slashdot crowd won't.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41429959)

US laws don't apply oversea. Live with it.

Re:In other news... (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#41430137)

drone on

Ask Slashdot: How To Fight Copyright Violations (4, Insightful)

deblau (68023) | about a year ago | (#41429961)

1. Read and understand the law before you try to apply it.
2. Decide if you really want to pull the trigger.
3. Hire a lawyer.

Doing one's homework for the initial consultation (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#41430183)

You nailed it. Legal questions in Ask Slashdot are requests for the community's help in performing steps 1 (understand the basics of the law) and 2 (understand the costs and benefits of suing) in order to become better prepared for step 3 (initial consultation with lawyer).

Re:Doing one's homework for the initial consultati (0, Offtopic)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#41430359)

So you're saying I shouldn't submit my question about what to do now that I've killed my landlady, ate her kidneys, posed as her daughter and emptied her bank account, and now need a solution to the smell emanating from the floorboards where I buried her dismembered remains?

Phew, glad you told me. I'll phone a lawyer and a fumigator instead.

A burning bush talked! (5, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#41429963)

> borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message.
> ...
> submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do
> in fact have the rights to this work

A religious organization lie? You're kidding me!

Re:A burning bush talked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430135)

Everything is justified when it comes to creating imaginary parents to tell you what is right and wrong, love you unconditionally, and stick up for you when you act badly.

Re:A burning bush talked! (0)

Bryansix (761547) | about a year ago | (#41430345)

Well at the risk of burning my remaining Karma, I ask you to look at WHICH religion this video is pushing.

Defective by Design (0)

Faisal Rehman (2424374) | about a year ago | (#41429967)

DMCA is Defective by Design. join http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ [defectivebydesign.org]

Re:Defective by Design (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#41429987)

so is defectivebydesign, all they seem to do is beg me for money and clicks

Re:Defective by Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430045)

DMCA is Defective by Design. join http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ [defectivebydesign.org]

Ha, bullshit! I don't even have to click on your link to prove it either.

Ask any lawyer. I promise you they see absolutely nothing wrong here with perpetuating their existence (and more importantly, their revenue streams)

file vs youtube (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#41429969)

You could get an injunction against google ordering them to take down the video. Talk to a lawyer to see what kind of fees you would be looking at.

Re:file vs youtube (1)

szyzyg (7313) | about a year ago | (#41430029)

Nah google is cool with this, if I take the other group to court then they'll remove the video. No point in suing google.

One thing you can do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41429981)

One thing you can do is contact whatever organization they're promoting, and tell them that this yahoo's infringement will have consequences for the organization's reputation.

If that fails to get movement, then contact your friends to send email, snail-mail, make comments on their blog, organize an online petition, and try to build some public pressure. If you can get some buzz going, contact news media in his home country.

Re:One thing you can do... (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about a year ago | (#41430243)

It's not yahoo it's google.

Re:One thing you can do... (1)

fiziko (97143) | about a year ago | (#41430361)

I read the OP as using "yahoo" to indicate the copyright violator, not the company.

Why else should Youtube take the video down again? (3, Insightful)

truedfx (802492) | about a year ago | (#41429999)

Either you're telling the truth, or they're telling the truth. I don't want to judge that, Youtube doesn't want to judge that, a judge should be the judge of that. And until a judge has looked at it, what reason is there to take down the video again?

Re:Why else should Youtube take the video down aga (2)

szyzyg (7313) | about a year ago | (#41430099)

Right youtube are happy to take the video down again if I spend money filing a court case against the infringing party. Which is what would happen if a single person submitted a counter claim against a major corporation's takedown.

Re:Why else should Youtube take the video down aga (2)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year ago | (#41430215)

Filing only costs $350, and you can save yourself some money and file it per se. They're not very likely to bother you after that.

Re:Why else should Youtube take the video down aga (1)

Rossman (593924) | about a year ago | (#41430351)

Oh man, only $350? I'd pay that filing fee!

Re:Why else should Youtube take the video down aga (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430375)

That's why the DMCA is bullshit. It encourages a 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality and forces the website to remove the content. You should have to see a judge to have it removed (at the very least) in the first place.

Re:Why else should Youtube take the video down aga (2)

Bryansix (761547) | about a year ago | (#41430333)

Are you being purposefully ignorant considering that IN the video the guy admits that Scott created the video?

financial impact (3, Insightful)

InPursuitOfTruth (2676955) | about a year ago | (#41430031)

I missed the financial impact in your post. Are you just offended they re-used your works, or is it impacting your sales?

Re:financial impact (5, Interesting)

szyzyg (7313) | about a year ago | (#41430073)

I originally found out about this other video after Youtube's content identification system identified *my* video as infringing on *their* video and disabled revenue sharing, that took a month to sort out during which I was unable to monetize my work. (also, I suspect that this possible infringing status flagged my account and resulted in several of my other videos submitted during that period being denied monetization).

Anyway, yes, offended and it cost me a bit of revenue

Re:financial impact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430291)

You mean the mighty youtube can't even figure out who uploaded the video first?

Copyright infringement doesn't work that way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430101)

Mind you, if he'd been important enough, he would be given a government mandate to insist on a conviction at government expense.

However, all is not lost.

The RIAA and their affiliates around the world have been hard at work making copyright a criminal infringement.

Use their work.

Claim criminal infringement in their host country. Once agreed, the prosecution is paid for by the state.

Good Job, Scott Manley (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430075)

You are now permanently associated with a kook's work and will go down in history as someone dumb enough to use the DMCA to advertise himself on slashdot.

Seriously, the correct way to deal with this is look carefully to see if your name appears on the video. It does not? And none of it could be traced to you unless you pointed it out (or someone else watched both)? Your voice isn't in it?

Then it's easy. Edit your video's notes to say "This video took portions of my footage without permission and I wish to ensure you know that I have nothing to do with it, nor do I agree with anything presented." There, problem solved if someone gets curious and no Streisand effect.

If you didn't mention it, that crazy video wouldn't have the number of hits it does now.

Also, next time you use the law against someone, have a better idea about how to follow through with it. You don't just send someone papers saying you'll sue them in court and then, when they decide not to pay up and instead go to court ask "Huh... What do I do now?"

You show up in court and argue your case. Duh.

Re:Good Job, Scott Manley (4, Informative)

szyzyg (7313) | about a year ago | (#41430083)

The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.

Re:Good Job, Scott Manley (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#41430161)

The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.

Then you likely have a defamation or publicity claim to add to your copyright infringement claim. Make sure to bring these up at the initial consultation with your lawyer.

Re:Good Job, Scott Manley (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#41430195)

The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.

And on one image they even left in "© Scott Manley" visible.

Sue Them All! (2)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#41430077)

I am legally obligated to inform you that I am not a lawyer!

Now that we have THAT out of the way, you could probably sue them both! Name Youtube and the church in your lawsuit, go for an injunction against Youtube and ask for ONE BILLION DOLLARS worth of damages from the church! It works for the music industry! The church probably won't even show up to defend itself, so take a default judgement against them and when they don't pay, use it to get warrants for the arrest of their leadership (for contempt of court or whatever) if they ever come to the USA! Just about everyone who's anyone has to come here eventually!

It'll probably cost you several large briefcases full of cash in lawyers fees which you will probably never recoup, but if you want to make your new hobby making those guys' lives miserable, that's the way to go!

Re:Sue Them All! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430307)

You bear your name well. I want your mask, btw.

Let other religious groups do it for you (5, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#41430085)

a problem with a religious organization which borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message

Re-redub their version to make the group's religious message blasphemous to Islamists.

That should eventually take care of your problem, but there may be a wee bit of collateral damage to the rest of the world along the way, like World War III.

Re:Let other religious groups do it for you (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about a year ago | (#41430357)

Oh man. The current administration of the USA would be in a tizzy. I like it.

Re:Let other religious groups do it for you (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#41430367)

Ha, World War III? If there is a WWIII over the middle east, it will be every other country in the world coming together, destroying the region, then negotiating how to split the remaining oil. None of the major powers care enough about the people in the Middle East to actually fight each other.

Re:Let other religious groups do it for you (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about a year ago | (#41430417)

Re-redub their version to make the group's religious message blasphemous to Islamists.

Two issues with this: I actually watched the three videos linked in TFS, and saw that the religious group/association did more than just re-dub one of the videos. It's a derivative work, sure, but they didn't use the video as-is.

The other problem is a bit more practical: if the OP were to do what you suggest, eventually it would be found out that it's actually him who did the blasphemous dub, and that would put his life at risk.

How to fight it... Don't (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430093)

Does it really matter that much to you, are you losing out in any way by more people seeing your work, even if it's been co-opted by a 3rd party?

Just stick a watermark of your face in every frame of any future videos if your losing sleep over people not attributing your work.

This post copyright AC, 2012
DO NOT STEAL

Re:How to fight it... Don't (4, Informative)

szyzyg (7313) | about a year ago | (#41430115)

That's part of the problem sir, they've put my picture on their video and are implying that I'm endorsing their message.

Re:How to fight it... Don't (1)

devleopard (317515) | about a year ago | (#41430317)

As I pointed out in my other post, using some of your video around scientific facts could be construed as satire. However, using your image and name isn't cool, if they haven't identified it as satire. Even if they did, I think this isn't a copyright issue, but a libel issue. The video isn't the issue, but your personal character and reputation. Moreover, I believe libel claims have less gray area than copyright, and even if the video isn't a for profit venture, you can get money out of a libel claim.

Re:How to fight it... Don't (3, Informative)

TechnoGrl (322690) | about a year ago | (#41430343)

Before you do anything at all consider this web page:
http://mukto-mona.net/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm

which states that Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) and his followers have a history of using both extortion and violence against anyone who interferes in their criminal enterprises. With that said perhaps your best bet would be to pursue another DCMA process with YouTube along with proof that you own the media as another commenter suggested.

Information wants to be free (0, Troll)

Kohath (38547) | about a year ago | (#41430097)

This is Slashdot. You created and released the video. The Slashdot crowd decrees that you have no rights to it. And everyone else has an absolute rights to do whatever they want with it.

Too bad. Next time, don't make the mistake of creating a video.

Re:Information wants to be free (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#41430331)

If only you had had a similar fear of posting and having your posts unlawfully copied this would be a better world.

file copyright with US Copyright Office (5, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year ago | (#41430123)

Apparently the religious group is outside the US, which adds another level of difficulty.

But anyway, in general, if you live in the US, and protecting your copyright is really important to you, you should file copyright forms with the US Copyright Office. Although current law says that you enjoy copyright protection regardless of whether you file, it doesn't give you *equal* protection if you don't file. If you file, you can sue for both actual damages and statutory damages. If you didn't file, then you can only sue for actual damages, which are presumably zero in your case. When statutory damages are in play, a lawyer will often be willing to take such a case on a contingent fee basis.

The DMCA sucks, but it doesn't follow that enforcing copyright automatically sucks, or even that enforcing it using the DMCA automatically sucks. Laws are like beer and shotguns; they can be used for both good and bad purposes. I'm willing to contemplate living in a society without copyright, but in such a society the GPL and BSD software licenses, for example, would be unenforceable. Likewise, I'm willing to contemplate living in a society without private property -- but if I tried to implement such a society unilaterally, I'd run into all kinds of problems.

Not timely (1)

bugnuts (94678) | about a year ago | (#41430263)

It would still have to be before it was published.

While performances and demos are not considered publishing unless you're offering to sell (or something like that... might be in the FAQ or circular 40a), it's arguable that posting on YouTube is an act of publishing.

But because you didn't register it, you probably can't get punitive damages.

Re:Not timely (2)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year ago | (#41430313)

You must register with the copyright office before infringement or within 3 months of publication. It seems like this video was uploaded Sep. 6, so the author still has plenty of time to register.

you probably can't get punitive damages.

I believe you mean statutory damages. The copyright act does not provide for punitive damages, and therefore registration would not be a prerequisite for trying for them.

Re:Not timely (1)

vertigovegan (2635771) | about a year ago | (#41430321)

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

How about trying the cops? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#41430131)

But this organization has since submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do in fact have the rights to this work, and YouTube has reinstated the video. It looks like the only way I can pursue this further is to spend the money to take the organization to court and get an injunction

Perjury is a federal offense and by doing it under the DMCA they're violating US law.

Whoever (...) (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

Perhaps filing a police complaint or giving the FBI a call would help? Unlike lawyers they're free, so it wouldn't cost you any more than your time.

Re:How about trying the cops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430237)

This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

So says US law, but if they're not under the jurisdiction of US law then that means approximately nothing (legally at least - if the terro^WUS government decides to send its goons in anyway, that's a different matter).

Re:How about trying the cops? (1)

vertigovegan (2635771) | about a year ago | (#41430257)

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

He Has a US Address AND a US Registered Website (2)

TechnoGrl (322690) | about a year ago | (#41430141)

His PUBLICLY AVAILABLE registration information for his website, http://harunyahya.com, is as follows:

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Publication, Global ms7uh6j58c5@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Global Publication
ATTN HARUNYAHYA.COM
care of Network Solutions
PO Box 459
Drums, PA 18222
US
570-708-8780

Record expires on 23-Jan-2022.
Record created on 23-Jan-2000.
Bulk whois optout: N
Database last updated on 23-Sep-2012 14:42:05 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS2.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS3.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS4.P03.DYNECT.NET

Both the address and phone number are fake (they apparently are the address and phone of Network Solutions itself. However you CAN sue Network soultions in small claims since they are now attached to his company. Sue them in small claims for damages and ask alternatively that they hand over all the information that they have on the person. Attempt to take over his website via court order in small claims (it's an asset).

There is also a Wikipedia page about the guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar

Also: Some states allow injunctive relief (court order for youtube to take down the site) in small claims court and some do not. If your state does then file and ask that the site be taken down in addition to other damages.

Re:He Has a US Address AND a US Registered Website (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430185)

Additionally we should signal the video as scam to youtube.

Re:He Has a US Address AND a US Registered Website (3, Interesting)

TechnoGrl (322690) | about a year ago | (#41430201)

Some follow up:
This man is a both a criminal (drugs and racketeering) and apparently very much a nutcase who lives in Turkey - a self described Muslim creationist extremist. Even if you get the youtube things taken down and his .COM websit shut down he will simply put up more websites .

Consider carefully the consequences of getting involved with a criminal and nutcase living in a Muslim country who likely has followers in America as well.
Your best bet may be to simply edit the Wikipedia page regarding your legal issues with him.

Re:He Has a US Address AND a US Registered Website (3, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#41430411)

Consider carefully the consequences of getting involved with a criminal and nutcase living in a Muslim country who likely has followers in America as well.

In America when someone has a grievance with another party, rich folks sue them or poor folks shoot them. In Muslim countries the preferred method is to accuse the other party of blasphemy, which usually ends up with not so nice consequences for the accused party. The Economist had an interesting article on this: http://www.economist.com/node/21562262 [economist.com]

We hear about the Muslim on Non-Muslim blasphemy cases, but there seem to be plenty of Muslim on Muslim cases, as well.

Be happy you CAN sue them... (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#41430143)

You're complaining that you'll have to file a lawsuit to defend your copyright. Boo hoo.

You should be HAPPY that you have the ability to simply file a lawsuit. If they hosted their video on their own servers, in another country (rather than YouTube), you'd have no practical recourse.

In this case, you file a case in a court that's close to home, the accused doesn't show-up at all, you win by default, and YouTube does what you want. And if by chance they DO show-up, then you've got more of a fight on your hands, but you'll be able to get legal fees and impose fines on the individuals located in the US.

Not sure why slashdot is being asked here... (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | about a year ago | (#41430147)

My suggestion would be getting in touch with the EFF...

Messing with them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430153)

Hi Scott,
You want this video down and you have made one take-down request. Ok, send another, as is your right in the DMCA. Also state you are the copyright owner of the images contained and include proof. Google should then take down the video again and ask the other party to make legal representation to you.

Also if you really want to mess with them and have some tie to waste can use Shazam or similar you can source where they get their music from and inform the music's copyright holder. Then go through all the videos posted by this user and do the same. By then Google will be getting multiple DMCA requests from multiple parties for a single user, this will result in them suspending all this users videos and their account.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430157)

have you tried contacting them and asking why they feel they own the rights?

Re:lol (1)

szyzyg (7313) | about a year ago | (#41430217)

They have not responded to may e-mails, I have had contact with one person, but he was not directly resonsible for the content.

The DMCA (2)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#41430163)

The DMCA is designed to force content distributors like YouTube to take action to get on the record statements. They did that. At this point they now have your statement made under "good faith clause" and the church's statement made under penalty of perjury.

Assuming your version of events is correct you have a situation where the religious organization is engaging in perjury. The problem is civil perjury is rarely prosecuted. Generally the system responds to perjury via. large awards. So in your case if you sued you would be likely to get a large reward that you wouldn't be able to collect on.

However, YouTube is potentially involved in contributory infringement if you notify them. Provide them a complete set of documentation proving your claims and then they are on the hook. What happens from there is up to them. Suing YouTube is not going to be cheap but then again they are unlikely to care enough for you to have to fight them.

Re:The DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430299)

Yup. If it was me and I cared. Really, you need to learn to not care about this stuff. It's bad for you. If I did care, I'd sue in small claims court and win by default. Then I'd take that judgment to YouTube and tell them DMCA safe harbor is no longer safe. That's the cheapest route and you could do it without a lawyer. You'll never collect anything.

too bad you're not a corporation (1)

dryo (989455) | about a year ago | (#41430175)

Of course, if you were a corporation such as a distributor, music label or movie studio, you could instantly delete the offending content, no questions asked. Seriously, I'm not kidding. In the land of YouTube, alleged copyright holders such as performing rights organizations can take other people's content down with no proof of ownership. If the claimant is a powerful corporation, they can do whatever they want. The person against whom the claim was made can dispute the claim, but the corporation can immediately dismiss the claim. That's right. YouTube does not arbitrate. It's assumed that the corporations always hold the moral high ground, and individuals are nothing but scumbag pirates out to destroy the economy.

You're screwed. (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#41430181)

It's always been this way. Law is expensive. Lawyer costs, court costs, transport, time off work. Even when the case is open-and-shut, it'll cost a small fortune to fight. This isn't new: It goes back as far as law does. Call it the cynic's golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

You came here hoping someone would offer you the legal magic bullet - some way that lets you bypass all the expensive bits in between where you are now and where you legally should be. But there isn't one. This isn't even a politically important case, so you can't expect any activist group to come to your aid with money and experts. Basically, you're screwed. You really only have two options:

1. Accept it. Let them have your video.
2. Get MAD. Spend your savings and go through some legal hell. You'll win, easily, but all you will win is petty revenge. The victory will hurt more than just giving up. With a bit of luck you might be able to get them to cover some of the legal costs, but don't count on that even covering all the expenses.

Fair use and Free Speech (3, Interesting)

vertigovegan (2635771) | about a year ago | (#41430189)

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

Re:Fair use and Free Speech (1)

preaction (1526109) | about a year ago | (#41430275)

It is absolutely okay for the person to say whatever they want. It is not okay to steal the greater portion of someone else's work to say it. If it were a small picture, or representative clip, sure, but it's a large portion of the original video, in between two other videos. One could make the argument that they are using the work to comment on the work, but they are not commenting on the work itself, they are commenting on the facts the work expresses.

Fair use is vague, of course, but this derivative work would have a very hard time winning a suit with that argument.

I am not a lawyer. This was not legal advice.

This is one of those things SOPA would've helped (0)

bugnuts (94678) | about a year ago | (#41430199)

Too bad it was such a horrible piece of legislation.

Pro DMCA, Pro Copyright post on Slashdot? (0)

devleopard (317515) | about a year ago | (#41430211)

Wait, it's a "religious organization", in which case all values fly out the window. If this was an atheist organization pilfering a church's video and redubbing, it'd be "fair use", no?

Fair use? (1)

devleopard (317515) | about a year ago | (#41430277)

Not sure why the religious org would lie and claim ownership. After all, I think fair use applies (whether or not you agree with the use):

1) Satire.
2) Did you create the video (looks to be an animated rendering), or is it mashed up? If it's your original content, then there's some protection there, but you can't copyright facts. The same organization could take the source data, and assuming they used the same software you used, would the end product be materially different?

That said, IANAL, but I do believe there are limits on how much of the original content one uses. I can create a satirical derivative of your work all day long, but I don't think I can use the entire thing, only a portion.

Forget Slashdot advice (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about a year ago | (#41430281)

Talk to a lawyer. It may cost a bit of money to do this, unless you can find a lawyer that will do it pro-bono; but you need to know what your options are and what you are getting into. A simple lawyer's letter to YouTube may be enough, or you may need to go to court to enforce your rights. At least get competent advice; not the random collections of /. drivel and musings.

If you have a problem... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430355)

If no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.

DCMA is not for you (0)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#41430387)

That is a typical example that shows that DCMA is only useful for big corporations. If you had dared to use a few chords of a copyrighted song and RIAA decided to remove your videos it would be done very quickly, rest assured.

you haven't suffered harm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41430389)

You still have your original video, yes?

Copying isn't like stealling a car. If you copy a video, the original video still exists. Nothing has been lost, only duplicated. It's like someone making a perfect copy of your car, but you still have the one you had, so you have not been harmed.

Best solution is to realise that on the internet, any data you post in a public place can be copied by anyone at any time for any reason. Information wants to be free. There's no such thing as imaginary property. If you want to keep your data private, put it behind a password protected page.

Are you sure you won't be in danger? (1)

UBfusion (1303959) | about a year ago | (#41430413)

If I were you, I'd do a LOT of research before even thinking about suing a religious organization. Especially if I had a family, wife and kids.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>