YouTube Reposts Anti-Scientology Videos 435
Ian Lamont writes "YouTube has reposted anti-Scientology videos and reinstated suspended YouTube accounts after receiving thousands of apparently bogus DCMA take-down notices. Four thousand notices were sent to YouTube last Thursday and Friday by American Rights Counsel, LLC. After YouTube users responded with counter-notices, many of the videos were reposted. It turns out that the American Rights Counsel had no copyright claim on the videos, and the group may not even exist, although the text of the DCMA notices have been linked to a Wikipedia editor. While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about."
Teach them a lesson (Score:5, Informative)
While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about.
Sounds like this would be a good time to start.
I can't think of a nicer group of people to sue.
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. Did you miss the big scrolling letters running across the screen?
The odd thing about Scientology is although that is what they believe, Scientologists are only told it after they have spent an awful lot of time and money on Scientology.
Re:Google Should Sue (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, they do.
Re:Southpark's Scientology Video (Score:5, Informative)
Here is their own link
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103804/ [southparkstudios.com]
Re:Great, another cult that brainwashes everyone (Score:5, Informative)
No ... it's more like, they can't think of a better, more LUCRATIVE scam than the one they've cooked up!
How many nation-wide con-artist operations do you see out there that are protected by federal legislation (organized religion status)?
Just 2 days ago, I received some propaganda piece in the mail from their "church". It was trying to recruit new members with false "scientific findings" they published. (Basically, the premise was that all the chemicals we encounter in our daily lives are permanently lodging themselves in our bodies and poisoning us. By signing up with their group, they could put you through a "cleansing" process to restore your body's "natural state". They actually claimed that it was a *scientific finding* that common anesthesia drugs were discovered permanently stored in people's fat tissue, among other things. Citation was conveniently left out on that, though.)
Typical behaviour of the Scientology sect (Score:5, Informative)
See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) [wikipedia.org], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)#Court_cases_involving_.22Fair_Game.22 [wikipedia.org], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karin_Spaink [wikipedia.org], http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/ [xs4all.nl], http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/idx_coskit.html [xs4all.nl], http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/general.html [snafu.de]
See also this quote from Wikipedia:
In 1994, Vicky Aznaran, who had been the Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center (the Church's central management body), claimed in an affidavit that Because of my position and the reports which regularly crossed my desk, I know that during my entire presidency of RTC "fair game" actions against enemies were daily routine. Apart from the legal tactics described below, the "fair game" activities included break-ins, libel, upsetting the companies of the enemy, espionage, harassment, misuse of confidential communications in the folders of community members and so forth.
This is one of the good reasons why the sect tends to be viewed with suspicion in Western Europe (the sect is currently defending itself in France against a charge of fraud (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7604311.stm) [bbc.co.uk]). I'm still unclear as to exactly how sect has been able to secure the tax-exempt status of "church" with the US authorities. I have read that it was by successfully harassing the relevant officials, but that's quite hard to prove of course.
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:4, Informative)
I meant that they probably want to portray themselves as a "oppressed minority" or something like that...
Ironic, since isn't it their intention to genocide the Thetans or something bizarre like that?
If someone were to prosecute them for persecuting Thetans, what would their defense be?
DING DING DING DING!!!!! (Score:3, Informative)
We have a winner. This is most likely the real reason for the mass takedown.
Mod parent up.
Re:E-meter videos? (Score:5, Informative)
An e-meter isn't a voltmeter, it's a potentiometer (it measures resistance not voltage). It's based on a Wheatstone bridge design, and is a very sensitive way to measure the resistance between the probes. Since hydration levels, stress, sweat, etc., can all change the resistivity of human skin, an e-meter will measure these changes, which can then be (fraudulently) be interpreted as being of religious significance.
It's nothing more than a half-assed lie-detector.
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Informative)
They are honestly going to let Scientology get away with this bollocks? Wow. That sucks. It'd be funny to finally see themselves sucker punch their own faces by trying.
Nobody knows if this was done by official Scientology, by some scientologist who got carried away, or by some prankster who thought it would be fun. No matter who it was, the DMCA act states very clearly that claiming that you are acting for the copyright holder when you are not is _perjury_. Which is quite a serious matter. Which needs to be multiplied by 4000. Which means whoever did this needs to be caught and thrown into jail to discourage any repeats of this.
Imagine he or she gets away with it, and next week 8000 videos about flower arranging get a DMCA takedown notice. Which would be even more disruptive, because people putting up those videos probably have less experience handling such a situation.
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Top Scientologists (and "Church") face fraud tr (Score:3, Informative)
In some ways it doesn't matter. If the case is put against the church and won then (as per previous rulings about them getting into trouble again) Scientology France could be dissolved.
Research into American Rights Counsel LLC (Score:2, Informative)
I'd therefore posit that this was either a non-Anonymous individual/group trying to draw negative attention towards the Church of Scientology, or an act carried out by a shell group controlled by the Office of Special Affairs (an actual group within the CoS).
Remember (Score:5, Informative)
there's no such thing as a "rogue $cientologist" - this guy was obviously pulling this stunt with the knowledge/approval of cult leadership and organization.
It was probably along the lines of something like this [torymagoo.org] - his "auditor" told him this was what he needed to do to "clear" something, so he did it.
Of course, Wikipedia's completely bombarded by pro-$cientology stooges [wikipedia.org] who try to whitewash whatever they can from articles on the cult. I'm not surprised one of their stooges popped up trying this on Youtube to remove videos by people who expose the cult for what it is.
Re:E-meter videos? (Score:2, Informative)
Ohm meter. Voltage == potential.
Followup (Score:5, Informative)
Remember L. Ron's first rule of dealing with the media - "Never Defend, Always Attack." [xenu.net]
And of course, any "Suppressive Person" is "Fair Game. [wikipedia.org]" (also here [xenu.net]). Note the following: "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
From the Wikinews article:
Certainly looks like typical lying/"fairgame" $cientology behavior in action, doesn't it? I doubt one thing Schaper said about himself is true - and certainly doubt the idea that the FBI would be "involved" in the lies of a $cientologist. But that never does stop the Cult of $cientology from going about its business.
Re:Remember (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, Wikipedia's completely bombarded by pro-$cientology stooges [wikipedia.org] who try to whitewash whatever they can from articles on the cult. I'm not surprised one of their stooges popped up trying this on Youtube to remove videos by people who expose the cult for what it is.
Although if you had read the RA (I know, I know) you would have found out that the wikipedia editor is Olaf Schaper and the scientology person is Oliver Schaper. Wikinews seems to find it suspicious that somebody called O. Schaper should be able to get the user name oschaper, and seems confused between wikipedia handles and email addresses (where I would agree that the chances of anybody getting an initial-surname address nowadays is slim unless they own the domain!)
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure that the Quakers [wikipedia.org] have a distinct lack of blood [wikipedia.org] in their history.
Notarized documents? (Score:5, Informative)
Now that it looks like this "American Rights Council" doesn't exist, I wonder if Google is going to start to require notarized DMCA take-down notices. Prior to this 4000-long list of notices, Google might not have had the evidence to show that DMCA notices were being abused, but this should provide ample evidence should Google ever get in legal trouble if they only accept notarized DMCA take down notices in the future.
The benefit for Google is obvious, as is the benefit for all of their users, etc. It's a big enough win to make me wonder if someone didn't just plan this as a way to weed out the chaff that is getting sent to YouTube legal; this event should hopefully send a warning to the RIAA and other groups that shoot from the hip with take-down notices: abuse of the DMCA's provisions will have negative ramifications.
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:3, Informative)
No. Valid means that it is a legally valid notice. If YouTube fails to comply with a notice, the noticee can sue them - a notice without any follow up is just a piece of paper. But if the noticee doesn't have the right to file the notice, or if the notice isn't valid, he's obviously not in any position to sue.
Companies like YouTube choose to comply with every DMCA notice they receive without checking because it's easier and safer for them.
Re:What's with the scientology hatred? (Score:3, Informative)
'At the moment, Christianity isn't run for profit (Roman Catholic church notwithstanding).'
When was the last time that you attended a members meeting for any curch? They always try to run at a profit, in North America anyway. I can vouch for this having been a 'Member in Good Standing' of the Protestant Church.
Re:Remember (Score:3, Informative)
Look at the Article-For-Deletion pages on the ones "Oschaper" created.
Wikipedia itself seems to pretty clearly be unconvinced that "Olaf Schaper" exists - the evidence is that Oliver Schaper used the "Olaf Schaper" lie as a dodge when he was called out for writing articles about his own little scientology-promoting "organizations."
I'd say that the chance that an "Olaf Schaper" would happen to create wikipedia articles on not one, but TWO pro-$cientology setups created by "Oliver Schaper", AND would have been involved in the Cult-organized mass of false DMCA notices, is pretty improbable (probably on the order of 2^279460347:1 against).
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:3, Informative)
It could be mostly automatic. The search would be simple:
http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos?vq=scientology&start-index=1&max-results=50 [youtube.com]
Just repeat for different start-index values and slightly different searches, and you can easily rack up a few thousand unique videos.
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:3, Informative)