Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Creationists Silence Critics with DMCA

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the they-need-dirty-tricks dept.

The Internet 585

Gothmog of A writes "As Richard Dawkins' offcial site reports, an organization called Creation Science Evangelism Ministries has been submitting DMCA copyright requests to YouTube. This has resulted in the Rational Response Squad (RRS) being banned after they protested against videos being taken down and accounts being closed. The RRS videoes attack creationism (AKA intelligent design) and promote the atheist viewpoint. According to the RRS, the copyright requests are without merit since the material in question is covered by fair use or has been declared to be in the public domain. Behind Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is the infamous Kent Hovind (AKA Dr. Dino) who is currently serving jail time for tax evasion."

cancel ×

585 comments

Oh Shit (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618037)

Don't bother entering this topic unless you have asbestos briefs on.

Re:Oh Shit (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618057)

Liar liar, pants on fire! You don't have asbestos briefs!

Having said that... Isn't there a law against submitting DMCA notices illegally? Isn't there a counter-DMCA notice that can be sent?

So... Until something has actually happened in retaliation... This isn't really much of a story.

Re:Oh Shit (3, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618097)

So... Until something has actually happened in retaliation... This isn't really much of a story.
Yes it is. It is the abuse of the law by a group that does not substantiate their claims by science and literally uses the law as a tool to censor points of view that they do not like.

If anything, I do not see why this isn't more of a news.

Re:Oh Shit (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618243)

It's odd that they are even smart enough to do something so nasty when they are so stupid (or brainwashed as children and never learn critical thinking as happens to most poor "religious" folks) as to believe in this creationist crapola. However, given that they actually do supposedly believe this stuff, they aren't supposed to do evil and wrong things like lie and cheat or they will go to the hell that they imagine exists. Flame on I guess?

Re:Oh Shit (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618541)

It's odd that they are even smart enough to do something so nasty when they are so stupid (or brainwashed as children and never learn critical thinking as happens to most poor "religious" folks) as to believe in this creationist crapola.

It isn't as simple as all that. There are plenty of very intelligent religionists. You can find solid evidence of this if you do a little directed reading of some of the deeper works on religion; textual criticism is one area I've found to be well populated with intelligent and insightful people, for instance.

Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has more to do with gullibility than it does intelligence, and unfortunately, the two aren't strongly related.

One example I like to cite is a PhD in psychology who fell for one of the Nigerian "prince" scam letters; managed to get himself published in the newspapers, because he lost six figures to the scam and he was smart enough to collect a PhD. Not stupid; but quite gullible.

Just as artistic or musical abilities are not tied to intelligence (see Ted Neugent and/or Ozzy Osbourne for prime examples of strong musical talents without significant indicators of intelligence), there's no indication that the other major religious susceptibility factors — fear of the unknown, gullibility, deep need for a father-figure post-puberty — are tied to intelligence (one way or the other) either. This is bolstered by adherents to religion falling all over the intelligence curve.

Personally, I like to think of the mind as having a 3d version of a set of pie slices. Slices overlap a bit, but generally exist as discrete elements which may reinforce one another, or not. Athleticism, intelligence, artistic vision, spatial adeptness, empathy, intuition, leadership, various types of fear, various types of stubbornness, the ability to make sideways connections (look for people who pun a lot, and well), the affinity for mathematics, the affinity for geometrics, fairness, honor, the ability to hold a "big picture" (certain classes of gamers, chess players, jet pilots, Hawking, Einstein) and so on. As a personal model of mine, it does a better job of accounting for the myriad types of people I've encountered in the last fifty years than a more basic "that person must be stupid" approach.

Re:Oh Shit (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618119)

Having said that... Isn't there a law against submitting DMCA notices illegally? Isn't there a counter-DMCA notice that can be sent?



#1 Yes, the creationists committed perjury according to the law by claiming they had the copyright. #2 Yes.

Re:Oh Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618503)

They're doing this so when they're brought up on perjury charges they can say, HEY LOOK EVERYBODY, THE GOVERNMENT OPPRESSES CHRISTIANS. Either way, these assfucks win.

Re:Oh Shit (4, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618131)

Having said that... Isn't there a law against submitting DMCA notices illegally? Isn't there a counter-DMCA notice that can be sent?

Most people don't know about the counter-DMCA notices.

I'd bet that if you made a realistic looking letter from a made-up law company it would be very hard to trace and YouTube would still remove the video. Once a DMCA notice has been received, Youtube would be also liable for copyright infringement so they'd have to remove it just in case.

Re:Oh Shit (4, Informative)

budgenator (254554) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618451)

Basicaly you file a DMCA Counter-claim which states that under penalty of pergy you believe the material was identified as infringing by "mistake" and you identify yourself completely enough so that the original complaintant can sue you if it wasn't a mistake. How to Report Counter-Claim of Infringement [ucmo.edu] goes into more detail, you might want to talk to a lawyer first too.

Censorship continues: (2, Interesting)

philpalm (952191) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618123)

I believe the religious guys also tried to stop the Grand Canyon stores from selling books on similar topics. They must figure if they can shield people from scientific speculation promoting evolution their case for creation gets a "fairer" chance.

looks like I will have to get my abestos suit...

FIST SPORT (1, Funny)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618051)

Once again, Athiests prove that they are no more than petulant children, whining against established facts like the existence of Intelligent Design.

Evolution is just a THEORY, and a shabby one at that. It goes against base thermodynamic principles, but we don't hear the Darwinites (Surely they deserve a Darwin award themselves!) whining about that.

Re:FIST SPORT (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618245)

Except evolution has nothing to do with thermodynamics. If you took your head out of your ass long enough to read books, you would see that evolution doesn't have a single thing to do with thermodynamics.

Re:FIST SPORT (5, Funny)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618543)

> It goes against base thermodynamic principles, but we don't hear the Darwinites ... whining about that.

"Creationists always try to use the second law
  to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
  The second law is quite precise about where it applies.
  Only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
  The Earth is not a closed system, it's powered by the Sun
  so fuck the damn creationists! Doomsday, get my gun!"

-- MC Stephen Hawking

Re:FIST SPORT (4, Informative)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618611)

Evolution is just a THEORY, and a shabby one at that. It goes against base thermodynamic principles

The basis for this endlessly-parroted complaint is that evolution makes "simpler forms turn into more complex forms" while the Second Law predicts that in a closed system the entropy and disorder only increases and obviously we can't have that if trilobites are turning into people, right?

But the Earth is not a closed system. It receives high energy, low entropy photons from the sun at 6000K and reradiates low energy, high entropy photons into space at 300K. Any "closed system" that includes evolutionary processes would necessarily have to include the sun as well. Even if local entropy on Earth decreases in certain parts of the biosphere, it's only possible because the entropy at the center of the sun has been increasing the whole time as hydrogen turns into helium. Just imagine what will happen to the Lord's creation once that process comes to an end!

The sun is a cruel trickster- it makes a handy scapegoat in global warming arguments, but with the other hand it undermines this illiterate hocus pocus about the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbidding evolution.

Incredibly relevant (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618059)

"Behind Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is the infamous Kent Hovind (AKA Dr. Dino) who is currently serving jail time for tax evasion."

Boy, sure glad we got that out of the way.

Re:Incredibly relevant (0)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618135)

Why the hell was the parent modded down? The article stating that he is in jail for tax evasion is a blatant red herring. It has no bearing on the group's DMCA claims whatsoever.

Re:Incredibly relevant (1)

PixelScuba (686633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618187)

Correct, but I'll allow it because it paints the defendant as a cheat and a liar.

Re:Incredibly relevant (1)

Holi (250190) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618221)

Irrelevant though it may be, it always amazes me that people put their trust in someone who is obviously immoral. Remember "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Re:Incredibly relevant (1)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618303)

The article stating that he is in jail for tax evasion is a blatant red herring. It has no bearing on the group's DMCA claims whatsoever.

When arguing with (or for the sake of) a group for whom "rational argument" and "scientific method" have no meaning, you may as well make full shameless use of the techniques so carefully documented by Aristotle. No sense in wasting all his hard work.

Or better, if you can't find a way to use their ignorance to extract money from them, just leave such fools alone. You'll come away from the experience with far more sanity remaining (and lower blood-pressure to boot).



That said, when posting something on Slashdot - Probably best to presume that someone will call you on a logical fallacy, even though in this case, the overwhelming majority will side with the FP.

Re:Incredibly relevant (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618507)

The implication is that our government that goes to such lengths as to allow the Church of Scientology to exist as a tax exempt religious organisation, throw this guy in prison. I realise its an ad hominum attack, but its also like being kicked out of the KKK for being a bigot.

lucky it's only christians (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618067)

if these fuckers were those muslim faggots they'd be cutting of heads and blowing up children instead. you'd have to fear for your life if you even just seen the film. muslims are fucking up the human race and need to be dealt with like a fucking disease. the jews and hindus and christians can wait, they're relatively harmless in comparison.

religion (5, Insightful)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618087)

I have no beef with any major religion, but when large groups of people continue to insist that something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution does not exist, they lose an awful lot of credibility.

If your entire system of beliefs relies on blindly sticking to what a book of scripture says, you have serious issues. It is not hard to fathom that there was human error somewhere in that book, be it in the writing, the translation (or the translation's translation), or your own interpretation. It should not be so hard to admit that you could be wrong, without your life falling apart.

The issue in TFA is really either all about Ego or Money. I tend to think it's a little of both.

Re:religion (4, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618195)

...something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution...
Unfortunately what is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone. Evolution just goes against many if not most people's intuition. While I might think the whole idea of a sky-god watching over our every move and listening to our telepathic messages is absurd to the extreme, other people think that the idea of things as complex as you and I arising from nothing but random events to be equally absurd. (true, natural selection is not random, but the actual changes themselves were indeed random)

Re:religion (5, Insightful)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618601)

GP: ...something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution...

you: Unfortunately what is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone.


Interesting that you decide to pick on the phrase "obvious" and not "proven".

Further, there's a reason why he wrote relatively obvious. And yes, evolution is relatively obvious compared with the common alternatives including creationism. If you spend the time to look around nature, you can see the mechanics involved with evolution. That is certainly not true with creationism. The mechanics of evolution have been deduced by thousands of scientific studies and experiments from nature by scientists of many different fields, without looking up in some dubious guidebook labeled "The Scripture". You could look at a group of animals all day and not come to the conclusion that a single God, as described in the Bible, who himself had no creator, made all these creatures in a single day some 6000 years ago. That religious conclusion would not happen unless someone told you about it first.

So yes, evolution is relatively obvious.

Re:religion (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618225)

It should not be so hard to admit that you could be wrong, without your life falling apart.

Unfortunately, that's just not true for most people in the US today. After years and years of media and academic conditioning, it's very difficult for many to admit that they might be wrong. That's not just when it comes to religion, but also when it comes to politics, sporting matches, and even celebrities!

In American schools today, and for the past decade or so, children are rarely told that their answers are wrong, even in courses like mathematics. Their answers are merely "not as correct" as they could be. So when a child writes on a math test that 2 + 3 = 4, they still get "part marks". Of course, what they should get on that question is zero, if not an outright loss of marks. Thus kids never learn that it's possible to be wrong. This is even the case in some American universities!

Of course, when it comes to religion it's even worse. At least with math there is some well-defined correct answer. But that just isn't the case when it comes to deities and gods and the afterlife. So when you have people who are used to never being "wrong" (even if they're completely incorrect) having to face questions without answers, it's beyond their comprehension. And so we see the rise of fundamentalism, with these religiously-confused individuals going so far as to try to censor others with differing, let alone contradictory, beliefs.

Re:religion (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618391)

WIsh I knew what schools you're talking about, probably would have helped my calculus grade.

The closest I've ever seen is students getting partial credit for some of their work, as in, if a problem requires multiple steps and formulas and you screw it up half way through and end up with a wrong answer you may still garner yourself half points or a third points.

That's not to say that there aren't all sorts of things similar, such as being forced to grade in purple rather than red becuase red makes children feel bad, but I've never seen that kind of "correctness relativism" in math.

Re:religion (-1)

LnxRocks (759556) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618229)

Interesting evolution is definitely proven? I know I will be modded down endlessly for brining this up, but...
1) I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation).
2) To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established. That is, where one species can be definitively proven to have descended from another.

My facts may not be up to date (and yes I am a creationist), however just as I take the Bible on faith (as Hebrews 11:3 states); It would seem that an evolutionist must rely on faith that there is a mechanism (mutation or otherwise) capable of differentiating species. It would also seem a step of faith that the missing transitional forms also exists.

Also please do not the the wrong actions (tax evasion) effect your judgment. The Bible clearly teaches that men are flawed beings. If Dr. Hovind has engaged in tax evasion (I do not know all the facts here), he has violated both Scripture and the laws of the country. Please do not let this color your opinion of the evidence for the creationist position.

Well, that's easily remedied (5, Informative)

Tau Neutrino (76206) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618279)

I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation).
Just read these examples of observed speciation [talkorigins.org] . See? Now you are aware!

It has been explained before. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618339)

1) I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation).

A. There is no "macroevolution".

B. New species are easy to show. Take a colony of animals, split it into two sub-groups and breed only within those sub-groups until the sub-groups cannot breed with each other.

What you refuse to accept is that a dog will NEVER conceive a cat because that would disprove evolution.

2) To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established. That is, where one species can be definitively proven to have descended from another.

There is no "proof" except in Math. Everything else depends upon evidence. And there is plenty of evidence showing evolution.

My facts may not be up to date (and yes I am a creationist), however just as I take the Bible on faith (as Hebrews 11:3 states); It would seem that an evolutionist must rely on faith that there is a mechanism (mutation or otherwise) capable of differentiating species.

No. Because you refuse to accept the repeatable experiments showing exactly that does NOT mean that those experiments do not exist.

It would also seem a step of faith that the missing transitional forms also exists.

Which "transitional forms" are those? All you're doing is repeating crap you've heard.

Also please do not the the wrong actions (tax evasion) effect your judgment. The Bible clearly teaches that men are flawed beings. If Dr. Hovind has engaged in tax evasion (I do not know all the facts here), he has violated both Scripture and the laws of the country. Please do not let this color your opinion of the evidence for the creationist position.

Someone who will violate the laws of his country and scripture is still to be respected because he wouldn't make false statements on other subjects?

Re:It has been explained before. (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618673)

Someone who will violate the laws of his country and scripture is still to be respected because he wouldn't make false statements on other subjects?

Generally speaking, I have a little trouble with the general concept that paying taxes is a moral act, particularly when the taxes go for trillions of dollars in war-making activities that only a small fraction of the population agree with, not to mention funding attacks against one's self. More specifically, from St. Thomas Aquinas, one can learn a good bit about how Christianity views the laws of man:

...in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.

Re:religion (5, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618421)

1) I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation).
Well true, but then again, no one has ever proven that fingernails can grow significant amounts either. I mean, we can look at them under a microscope and see tiny amount of growth happening while we watch. But that is just micro-growth. Macro-growth -- as in growing an actual amount that requires them being clipped -- has never been observed. No one has actually observed a fingernail changing from not needing to be clipped, to needing to be clipped.

Re:religion (2, Funny)

edittard (805475) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618461)

No one has actually observed a fingernail changing from not needing to be clipped, to needing to be clipped.
Not so sure that's true - I can get pretty bored sometimes.

Re:religion (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618497)

For one, evolution is a fact.

Let me repeat that... Evolution is a fact. Simply enough, what is the definition of evolution? According to Webster [webster.com] , it is the process of changing in a certain direction. We care not what direction.

For example, if you would have sexual relations with someone else (opposite gender reqd.) and created a child, they would have evolved from both of you. Simply, they have changed unique to either of you. This is a known fact.

Natural selection is the theory to describe why and how evolution pushes towards certain outcomes. Why are native Africans black? Why do Asians have different eyelids? Why are some people susceptible to certain diseases while others are not? Natural selection argues that there are forces within nature that shift certain traits to certain ways. This is the theory in which to attack.

Re:religion (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618587)

What kind of retarded mod modded this insightful?

No really. The dumbfuck doesn't beleive in evolution because he "can't see it". Or he is "not aware of it".

Fucking worthless moderators on crack. But fear not, it's "insightful".

Re:religion (4, Interesting)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618623)

1) I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation).

Well then you might learn something today. The mice of Madeira:
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml [genomenewsnetwork.org]
And this is 7 years old now, so it does seem your facts may not be up to date.

2) To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established. That is, where one species can be definitively proven to have descended from another.

You mean like Hyracotherium, which evolved into modern horses and all the documented transitory species in between them?
If you need living examples and a DNA chain to follow, the mice above work as an example here as well.

Please do not let this color your opinion of the evidence for the creationist position.
What evidence would this be? I have never seen any. Only religious rhetoric. Surely you're not talking about scripture?

Re:religion (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618665)

To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established. That is, where one species can be definitively proven to have descended from another.

Well, actually, as has been pointed out, we have actually seen new species arise. But there's another remarkable fact - the hierarchical arrangement of living things - Animals, Chordates, Vertebrates, Mammals, each containing traits diagnostic of their type. But why? Why no lizards with nipples? Why no insects with fur, or feathers? Why does it form a tree, rather than a bush, or a bunch of straight lines, or a random order?

And then, a century after that remarkable fact had been noticed, there was another tree - one formed from examining DNA. And it is, with almost no surprises, the same tree as found by morphology. It didn't have to be - mouse Cytochrome C and wheat Cytochrome C are slightly different, but genetically-engineered wheat with the mouse version of Cytochrome C grows and lives just fine. So why does the DNA tree look just like the hierarchical pattern of inheritance we'd constructed from morphology?

There are a lot of other things that point to common descent, too [talkorigins.org] .

Re:religion (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618233)

It should not be so hard to admit that you could be wrong, without your life falling apart.
--
But then they would have to admit that when they die, they are dead forever.

Re:religion (2, Interesting)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618293)

I largely agree with you but have one point to raise (for which no doubt I'll be modded to minus-infinity).

I agree Darwinian evolution (which is what I assume you mean by "evolution") is a pretty neat idea, it seems to fit with a lot of the evidence we have about how the creatures on this planet came to exist. It isn't the only idea which would fit with the "facts" (I'll leave post-modern type discussions about the existence of objective reality though) of our world however. I do not currently have a theory which does fit all the facts as well as Darwinian evolution (or at least not one which doesn't involve a giant monkey and Kentucky Fried Chicken...). However given that there could be competing claims which could appear to have equal levels of validity (taking into account the fact that all we have is imperfect evidence) it seems a little forward to refer to evolution as;

"definatively proven (and relatively obvious)"

I began by suggesting that you meant Darwinian evolution, if that is the case then your "definitively proven" fact could easily be wrong for there is endless potential for finding examples of evolutions which goes against the Darwinian formula. Taking evolution in its most broad context though we still have room for doubt (and not just academic or Cartesian radical sceptical doubts... although I must admit my competing impressions of waking and sleeping evolution don't match...(/joke)). There is still endless "wiggle room" and maybe one day we will find fossil rabbits unusually deep (a reference to Dawkin's God Delusion), or maybe we already have but replied "my, they are older than we thought!"

My point isn't really to attack evolution, nor even Darwinian evolution, my point is just to raise some skepticism at something which we can't "clearly and distinctly perceive" (in Cartesian terms), or if you prefer, we ought not to make any claim that something is "definitively proven" because a theory is only good so long as the evidence is (following Popper) - and none of us know the future.

Re:religion (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618459)

if that is the case then your "definitively proven" fact could easily be wrong for there is endless potential for finding examples of evolutions which goes against the Darwinian formula.

True - But in the complete lack of such evidence, despite people on both sides of the issue doing their damnedest to find any, only a fool would doggedly insist on the counterfactual stance. Evolution may well have a few holes that we find someday; perhaps even a complete parallel mechanism of speciation has played out over the eons of Earth's history (or even off-planet, "in a galaxy far, far away"). But the core mechanisms of evolution do not count as mere conjecture, or even mere theory.

We have absolute proof-of-concept of every aspect of evolution, from creation of increasingly complex organic molecules on a young Earth, to tidal and glacial generation of lipid membranes, to endosymbiosis as a means of producing progressively more complex cells, to progressively more cohesive "colonies" of multicellular life such as bacterial plaques to sponges to jellyfish, all the way through to producing divergent species via artifical separation of populations.

The "missing links" so proudly flaunted by creationists amount to nothing more than pages lost from the family album in a fire. Just because you don't have photographic proof that your grandfather existed, you don't presume that Prometheus scooped up some dust and breathed life into it to bridge the gap between the pictures of your great grandfather and your father.



a theory is only good so long as the evidence is (following Popper) - and none of us know the future.

In the strictest sense, you have it absolutely correct - Thus we still call evolution a "theory".

In practice, as humans, we can only reserve judgement on the validity of a theory against so much evidence before we informally accept it. Not knowing the future, we could also hold out judgement that the Earth will continue to have gravity tomorrow. But we don't.

Re:religion (3, Funny)

Mipoti Gusundar (1028156) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618427)

I have no beef with any major religion
Sahib, I am a Hindu. We are also haveing no beef!

Re:religion (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618437)

i have a beef with those muslim faggots because they blow people up for using their freedom to choose. they want it their way or it's off to the grave with you. we need to stop this threat in it's tracks!
 
FUCK ALLAH! FUCK MOHAMMAD! FUCK ISLAM!!
 
boycott muslim owned businesses. let those fuckers starve on the streets and let their liars religion die with them.

Interesting position for U-Tube & Google to be (3, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618091)

Do they want to appeal to the religio-creationist market or to the more technical athiest, sceptic, agnostic market.

The way they handled this (with banning the rational guys) is going to mean they can't have both.

I think they would have been better served to take the videos down, and then after processing that they were fair use, put them back up. That would have not pissed off either market particularly.

Re:Interesting position for U-Tube & Google to (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618239)

Do they want to appeal to the religio-creationist market or to the more technical athiest, sceptic, agnostic market.

They aren't appealing to any group other than those that are willing to file a DMCA takedown request. The group, while also complaining in the way they are, should also file a counter-claim (as has been mentioned in this thread and others earlier in the week) and wait for it to be reinstated if GooTube decides it's appropriate.

Re:Interesting position for U-Tube & Google to (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618619)

It doesn't matter if the ISP thinks it's appropriate, when they get the take-down notice their hands are tied and it has to come down, when they get the counter-claim again their hands are tied and it goes back up and the matter becomes between the two complainants. At this point the two complaintants can either beat their chests and make a lot of ineffective noise, or they can go to court and either put up or shut up.

Re:Interesting position for U-Tube & Google to (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618467)

The way they handled this (with banning the rational guys) is going to mean they can't have both.

Hey, just a second. Without seeing the videos, it's kind of hard to say which were the rational actors here. Imagine the scenario where the ID folks were saying "here's what we believe, and this is the logical basis behind it" while the evolution proponents were screaming "OMGWTFBBQ11!11! th3z3 guys r t3h suck". That's not likely, true, but I haven't seen the actual footage and likely neither have you.

Remember, the fact that someone shares your beliefs doesn't mean that they're also civil, reasonable, and calm. Maybe the RRS crew were the mouth-foamers this time around and banned for perfectly acceptable reasons. Again, unlikely, but we'll probably never know the whole story.

Response to DMCA take down (5, Insightful)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618095)

Isn't the correct response to a false DMCA take-down notice to file a DMCA counterclaim? Was that done in this case?

Re:Response to DMCA take down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618255)

My thought exactly. We learned that just the other day with the viacom thing.

Bitching and ranting will get you nowhere because youtube must cover their ass. Send them a DMCA counter notice and they'll be in the clear, and probably put the videos back up.

Re:Response to DMCA take down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618309)

That's the correct legal response, but due to the extremely poor (and perhaps intentionally poor) design of the DMCA, a counter-claim is not nearly as powerful as it should be.

In fact, there are a full 14 days between when you send the counter-notice and when the material is to be restored. (This 14 days is to give the complainer a chance to file a lawsuit, but your material remains censored for the entire period regardless of whether the complaint has any merit.)

The only effective way to counter false DMCA takedowns is to sue the claimant. Unfortunately, this is a significant financial undertaking -- so, effectively, the DMCA provides anyone the ability to censor whomever he likes, for 14 days, with the full force of the law helping him, as long as he chooses a target who's unlikely to spend the time and money to sue for the false claim.

This shouldn't be surprising. The DMCA was legislation bought by large corporations to help themselves. They will always have the money to counter DMCA abuse when it hurts them, but the same cannot be said of the average person who is just discussing something online.

Re:Response to DMCA take down (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618521)

Maybe we should be playing the same game: What's good for the goose, and all.

Re:Response to DMCA take down (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618653)

It doesn't look like it. In fact, as far as I can tell, these guys responded to the DMCA notice by posting a video of one of them calling a prosecuting attorney and making accusations of criminal actions on behalf of an individual, clearly with no evidence beyond supposition to back up the information they were giving.

YouTube responded correctly to this: posting a libellous video without evidence to back it up *should* be a banning offence.

Counterclaim!!!! (2, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618105)

Since the videos are public domain, we can follow the recent tactics of the Jedi teacher vs. Viacom. [slashdot.org]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is my copilot (3, Funny)

GoatRavisher (779902) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618107)

There is no god but the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Re:The Flying Spaghetti Monster is my copilot (1, Funny)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618151)

Ramen, brother... ramen.

Isn't nice to know... (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618113)

THE DMCA... greedy idiot designed, criminal tested!!!

Re:Isn't nice to know... (1)

the Plums in us (1040258) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618417)

We need a good term for when someone makes a ridiculous DMCA claim like this. It's like Godwining a thread, except usually more effective.

Science evangelism? (2, Insightful)

tulmad (25666) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618121)

If you need an evangelist ministry to get people to believe your claims, it's not really science.

Re:Science evangelism? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618269)

Alternatively, see my sig as well.

Re:Science evangelism? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618381)

You mean...like compulsory-attendance public schools with biology classes? Been there, done that, and it was fairly evangelistic. The instructor had no idea of the technicalities or evidences for evolution. She merely told us that, to pass, we had to believe and regurgitate what was in the textbook, which neither she, nor the textbook, could explain. Not saying that there aren't good evidences and explanations for evolution...but I know that my official "instruction" in it offered just about as much proof as a church on a Sunday morning.

Re:Science evangelism? (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618473)

Just as much proof, eh? Please outline for us how one would design a test to falsify the existence of your imaginary friend sky-beard? Just because you failed to understand the material, and it is very likely that the teacher was poorly trained and did not help, does not make it any less valid and most certainly does not make it on par with the nonsense of religion.

Linux evangelism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618455)

if you need an evangelist mass of unwashed nerds to get people to use your operating system (and still fail), it's not really superior.

Re:Linux evangelism (0, Troll)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618499)

I use Linux because I think it's nice. If you don't agree you can fuck off.

Re:Linux evangelism (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618517)

Is that the same reason you keep on sucking them dicks?

... serving jail time for tax evasion ... (1)

Toon Moene (883988) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618129)

Hey, that sounds like good old Al Capone !

6000 years (1)

wwmedia (950346) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618139)

their lawyers had 6000 years to sharpen their teeth...

Ugh...why? (3, Interesting)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618147)

As a Creationist I'm stunned that they would do something this dumb. Honestly, I have no problem with people arguing about religion and trying to prove it wrong, that's to be expected and trying to silence it is akin to saying that your argument is weaker than your opponent's. This is really quite a dumb thing for them to do, I hope some kind of counter-claim is filed and the videos are put back up. There are some extreme Creationists out there who don't want to debate the topic and just want to shut up anyone who doesn't believe, I would hate for those people to become the stereotypical Creationist when they're really the minority (though having been on /. a which that stereotype is already in effect to an extent...ugh).

Not cool guys. Don't go making the rest of us look bad just because you can't take some criticism/arguing. And really don't make the rest of us look back by using a sore subject (DMCA) improperly and illegally to try and silence the criticism.

Re:Ugh...why? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618179)

As a Creationist I'm stunned that they would do something this dumb.
Not believing in Evolution makes you smart right?

Re:Ugh...why? (2, Insightful)

wasabii (693236) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618285)

What do you mean, have an argument? You can't have an argument without facts and evidence to compare.

Last I checked you had none of either. Heresay does not count.

Re:Ugh...why? (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618401)

You misspelt "'Heresy'" (Note the double quotes).

Re:Ugh...why? (3, Interesting)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618545)

Actually, the link between 'heresy' and 'hearsay' is interesting to speculate on...

Re:Ugh...why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618291)

As a Creationist I'm stunned that they would do something this dumb.

Creationists are inherently dumb being that they believe the word of what amounts to little more than a 2500 year old fairy tale rather than educated science. Only a Creationist wouldn't have the Intelligent Design necessary to process this properly.

Re:Ugh...why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618311)

Die. That's all the tolerance we have left for you. Die. That's all that is left for you.

Re:Ugh...why? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618327)

Honestly, I have no problem with people arguing about religion and trying to prove it wrong, that's to be expected and trying to silence it is akin to saying that your argument is weaker than your opponent's.

Unfortunately debates involving religion seem to inspire fanatics. Assassinations of doctors who perform abortions. The murder of Hypatia. Burning of Protestants during the Counter-Reformation.

The list is long.

I expect this is going to end up in a legal mess.

Re:Ugh...why? (4, Insightful)

kentrel (526003) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618363)

Debate the topic? Do you realize Evolution vs Creationism is undebatable, since Creationists have no evidence?? It's a Fact vs Belief debate, where the people on the Belief side won't accept fact.


Its as pointless as a Round Earth vs Flat Earth argument. In fact, people shouldn't even be debating these Creationist scumbags, since it just gives the false impression that their opinion carries any relevance to the origin of Life.
Also, As a Creationist, are you really in a position to determine what is or is not "dumb"? Come on man, you realize you're on a science and technology forum. You sure you're not just trolling?

Re:Ugh...why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618589)

I honestly think that it's Rational Response who are the scumbags, for letting the DMCA takedown stand.

Since they aren't bothering to fight it, I guess the Creationists were right in asking for it to be removed.

Re:Ugh...why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618483)

I think what people need to remember is that the DMCA is an equal opportunity offender. There have been numerous groups use it as a censoring tool. People at large do not understand copyright, let alone the DMCA. And if youtube took these videos down and there was no justification for doing so, Rational response needs to grow some balls and file the reply letter with youtube to get there account reinstated.

Otherwise, they must have been breaking copyright in the eyes of the law.

Re:Ugh...why? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618559)

Not cool guys. Don't go making the rest of us look bad just because you can't take some criticism/arguing. And really don't make the rest of us look back by using a sore subject (DMCA) improperly and illegally to try and silence the criticism.
The people doing the DMCA takedown notices seem to be little concerned about following Christianity than they are about making money. Hovind for example, is in prison due to tax evasion because of the money he made from publishing and selling his pro-creationism books. What I wonder however, is why the rest of Christianity that do not go along with Hovind et. al are not being nearly as vocal about it.

Re:Ugh...why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618667)

As a Creationist I'm stunned that they would do something this dumb.
I'm a Creationist just like you. So I'm getting a kick out of these replies, just like you.

As a Creationist, we try to teach people that every point of view is equally valid, and all deserve equal consideration. Evolutionists have lots of facts and evidence to back up their view. Creationists have beliefs. Our beliefs are every bit as strong as facts and evidence used by Evolutionists, and should be treated with exactly the same respect. Some people may have a different opinion, but that's just an opinion. You're entitled to your opinions, and we're entitled to ours.

The next thing people will claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618159)

is that the Quran was not actually written by a deity, but rather by a person.

Or maybe they won't.

+57 Flamebait

Isn't this what a counter-claim notice is for? (1, Redundant)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618163)

The website that receives a DMCA claim has no idea as to the verity of the claim or not. It is not up to them to decide what is infringement or not, only to follow the rule of law. The DMCA has a provision for the person or entity that it is being used against to submit a counter-claim to the website to give them notice that if the person making the claim wants to continue to contest the item, that they can take you to court, but that you have given notice to the website objecting to the take-down and the website does not need to comply with the initial take-down notice.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID132

Dear Zonk (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618189)

Hey guess what? The rest of us lost out gay childhood handles when we grew the fuck up.

Love, the entire west coast.

P.S. Nice fucking pocket protector dipshit.

Panda's Thumb (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618203)

The Panda's Thumb also has a story [pandasthumb.org] about this, along with a video of "Dr." Hovind. Up until a few days ago CSE's website had this disclaimer: "None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely.", now that disclaimer is gone. Is Hovind trying to retroactively copyright stuff that has been in the public domain for years?

Hovind is currently serving 10 years in prison for tax evasion. One would think that his time would be better spent raising money to appeal his conviction, or getting his sentence reduced; rather than filing fraudulent DMCA takedown notices. Unless Hovind's son is running the ministry now while mum and dad sit in the pen. If that's the case then Hovind's son doesn't appear to be anymore aware of the law than his father was.

A letter from the management (3, Funny)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618215)

Dear Whiners,

We here at YouTube are all about free speech. We like it so much we are an outlet for free speech.

Starting immediately, we have implemented a policy so that things are kept fair and balanced around here for the First Amendment. Every time you request a certain video/user removed just because you don't like what they have to say, not only will their account/video be deleted, but an account/video that advocates your point of view will also deleted.

There will be some dissent over this policy in the short term. However, in the long term it will serve to stop filling our email boxes full of whining complaints and petty bullshit.

For those wanting to play the DMCA card where it doesn't belong, we have also instituted a policy of banning your IP so that we don't have to listen to your illiterate ass.

Play nice in the sandbox and make YouTube a thing that all can enjoy!

Sincerely,
The YouTube Management

Re:A letter from the management (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20618615)

Yeah, free speech is amazing isn't it, faggot?
Means you can download all that child porn.

Fuck you, you baby-raping piece of shit.

Legality? (1)

styryx (952942) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618271)

Doing some reading around /tfa and allegedly the creationist website is retroactively claiming copyright over videos they released as public domain (apparently stating public release in their videos). I am currently unable to watch vids on youtube (or anywhere) and my sound card isn't supported anyway.*

Does anyone know or is anyone able to verify that: a) the videos were released under public domain and b) if so, would the claiming copyright over public domain material be a legal matter?

I have heard it is Youtube (owned by Google) policy to remove videos with a takedown notice, so they would have been removed anyway, valid DMCA or not.


* (waiting for a usb soundcard for my laptop)

Dawkin's Site? (1)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618275)

In other news, Foxnews.com says Bush is good, and Democrats are bad. Jeez, can we get a report from a source that isn't pushing an obvious agenda here? If this is really happening as the this site says it is, then someone else must have a report on it, and hopefully, its longer than the three sentences Dawkin's page has.

OFF TOPIC (0, Troll)

JustinKSU (517405) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618331)

Behind Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is the infamous Kent Hovind (AKA Dr. Dino) who is currently serving jail time for tax evasion."
Off topic biased comment. What's tax evasion have to do with copyright infringement?

Re:OFF TOPIC (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618399)

Perhaps it is indicative of a less-than-stellar moral stance on law?

Aikon-

I am a Christian... (1)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618397)

...and I don't believe a lot of stuff that mainstream science says about how we got here, so you can probably call me a fundamentalist. Heck, the very idea that someone just called the universe into existence is pretty unscientific in itself.

But remember, just because some are extremists doesn't mean we all are. Same goes for Muslims and pretty much every other religious group out there. It goes for non-religious groups, too.

Voltaire didn't say it, but it's frequently attributed to him: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Fighting dirty is a bad idea - it does nothing but give your side a bad name.

Im sure voltaire or whomever said it didnt intend (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618429)

it to mean that ideas, philosophies or thoughts that seek the abolishment of reason, freedom, democracy should be covered by it.

"creationism" seeks to set up a delusion that world have come to existence with some supernatural power's calling, and even 6000 years ago too. To the contrary of hard, solid evidence against.

Allowing that would in future would mean that same people will start to call for abolishment of certain sciences and procedures, because they would be continually providing evidence challenging the 6000 year old lie.

Re:Im sure voltaire or whomever said it didnt inte (1)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618501)

But remember, just because some are extremists doesn't mean we all are.

Re:Im sure voltaire or whomever said it didnt inte (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618561)

this is not about extremism. and it doesnt effect anything whether there are good people within the extremist/religious crowd or not.

even if there are many good people amongst them, the radicals will just keep doing stuff like this, and eventually at some point will be requesting that science should be 'revised' because it contradicts 'the divine truth'.

the fact is, once you start to let ideas that are against reason and freedom, they keep asking for more. if you keep on caving in, you get to a point that the freedom of speech/thought concept starts to contradict itself.

And so it goes. (1)

Caspian (99221) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618407)

Has anyone ever noticed that the justice system in America seems to be tilted towards 'the bad guys' lately?

SCO sues over Intelligent Design (1)

justsomecomputerguy (545196) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618409)

Claim that they *know* that *somewhere* in CREATION(ism) there are portions of code that *they* own. Somewhere.

Creationism equals intelligent design? (2, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618443)

The RRS videoes attack creationism (AKA intelligent design)
I always thought creationism and intelligent design were two different beliefs, where creationism is you believe exactly what the Bible says in Genesis and intelligent design is the Christian's answer to evolution? Sort of a mix between creationism and evolution? I may be wrong but I don't think it's as simple as saying "aka" to infer some sort of equality.

Re:Creationism equals intelligent design? (1, Insightful)

grimJester (890090) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618487)

Intelligent design is an attempt to pass creationism off as science. It's not a separate belief.

Re:Creationism equals intelligent design? (1)

darthsheep (543444) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618515)

More like Intelligent design=creationism plus evolution thrown into the mix, but not vice versa. Many Creationists do not believe in evolution, but more of them do than not. Creationism just being the idea that our universe was created by a higher power (flying spaghetti monster). I'm not so sure if the fundamentalists who refuse to accept the fact that Genesis was almost entirely ripped off from Babylonian myth and instead take it for 100% fact have a name or not. But hey, I won't throw my own viewpoints into this.

Re:Creationism equals intelligent design? (1)

aedan (196243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618553)

Intelligent Design advocates will not specify who did the design which is how they tried to get round US laws on keeping religion out of schools. If they do not claim it is was a god then it is not a religion.

It is all guff of course.

Religion! (4, Insightful)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618477)

A challenge:

Show me a miracle! Not just a long shot chance, but an honest to god miracle (this means not someone who was resuscitated 5 minutes after death, or 1 hour after being frozen underwater. I'm talking about ashes->living. I'm talking about buried->talking)

I want evidence, or better yet, a "proof". A proof of miracles, or God, would be fine.

Barring proof, highly suggestive evidence, something that can be tested via the scientific method, would be good too.

You see, I can conduct all kinds of experiments that point at evolution, and I can dig up core samples with fossils that suggest it as well. I can do DNA analysis that point to it as well, and given enough time, I can develop an observational methadology to prove evolution going forward.

Do that for me with God. Or Miracles.

That's the difference between faith and science. Faith relies upon, "well, you can't prove it isn't true." Science relies upon, "All the evidence points in that direction, so lets test it."

It's stupid to base an argument on the impossibility of proving a negative result; yet thats what most creationists do. In this sense, as Richard Dawkins would say, religion is nothing more than a mental virus. A piece of intellectual stupidity that seems to resonate with people as an intellectual comfort blanket, no different than the ostrich sticking his head in the sand (or up his rear).

That's not to say there isn't value to spirituality. But creationism, and fundamentalist beliefs in the "reality" of the bible? Hogwash.

Do no evil (1)

kie (30381) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618505)

What happened to the Google "do no evil" policy?

Or are they saying that there can only be evil if there is a god?
This is a pretty weak argument, which has been often clearly dispelled by the Rational Response Squad (RRS), which can be seen at... doh!

Seriously though, it would be nice to see common sense prevail a little more often.

This isn't a news worthy (2, Interesting)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 6 years ago | (#20618555)

The link is to blurb that explains nothing which links to another blurb that explains nothing. All this story accomplished was to start yet another creation/evolution war. Come on now, I know it's Saturday, but it can't be that slow of a news day. I did a quick google news search and the only link that came up for this story is the slashdot one. It's not even a story.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...