Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Reposts Anti-Scientology Videos

Comments Filter:
  • First? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Odin_Tiger ( 585113 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @11:41AM (#24933561) Journal
    Is there some kind of rule that if it's in a hyperlink, it's spelled 'DCMA', but if it's plain text, it's 'DMCA'? And good on YouTube for reposting the content.
  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mlwmohawk ( 801821 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @11:47AM (#24933641)

    Great - another 600 bigoted posts about Scientology.

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

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

    LOL, psyco.

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @11:48AM (#24933657)

    Successful troll is successful.

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Abreu ( 173023 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @11:52AM (#24933715)

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

  • by S7urm ( 126547 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @11:52AM (#24933725)

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

  • Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by g0dsp33d ( 849253 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @11:53AM (#24933727)
    I wouldn't call it evil. If they get a notice they have to presume its real, they don't have time to research 4,000 claims. Faking take down notices is fraud or criminal (not sure as IANAL). Since they have to assume they're legit they're doing the right thing by taking them down. Re-instating them is done when a counter-claim is received. They're just obeying the law, albeit a fairly poorly written one.
  • Re:Of course. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @11:58AM (#24933791)
    Legally they have to. Do no research.
  • by NtroP ( 649992 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @11:59AM (#24933813)

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

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

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:04PM (#24933863)

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

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:2, Insightful)

    by L4t3r4lu5 ( 1216702 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:06PM (#24933891)
    Worked for the Catholics.
  • by rekoil ( 168689 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:06PM (#24933895)

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

  • by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:16PM (#24934035)

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

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:20PM (#24934071)

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

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

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

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OglinTatas ( 710589 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:21PM (#24934081)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:24PM (#24934115)

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

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

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

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:28PM (#24934163)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Stormwatch ( 703920 ) <rodrigogirao@POL ... om minus painter> on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:33PM (#24934221) Homepage

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

    Why are those things any more insane than...

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

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

  • Re:Of course. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:35PM (#24934255)
    Then there are some clear and concise laws that no one seems to understand. Like the 4th Amendment. "Well they wrote about papers and effects, surely they don't mean that the government shouldn't tap everyone's phones and net connections or backdoor everyone's computers and encryption. Don't they know we've got a war on terror to fight (even though even a poor study of history will show that your own government is far, far more dangerous than any terrorist)? Why if they didn't want the government doing that, they'd have specifically said so, even though those things weren't invented back then! Yes, let's ignore the principle of what was stated by getting caught up in details. More government police power, please!" Mod me off-topic now, I don't care.
  • by JustKidding ( 591117 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:35PM (#24934265)

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

  • by winphreak ( 915766 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:36PM (#24934273)

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

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

  • Outed? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:43PM (#24934363)
    I wonder if it has occurred to anyone else that this is actually an attempt by the Scientologists to get names and addresses of the people who uploaded the content? Scientology is well known to harass such people, who understandably tend to want to stay anonymous.

    But now, anyone who filed a counter-response to the Take Down is "outed" on documents that Scientology can subpoena.

  • Re:First? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:46PM (#24934399)

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

    It's the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, so I assume that anyone spelling the acronym as DCMA couldn't be bothered to do some basic proofreading. I mean, the nature of a thing doesn't change just because you place an A HREF tag around it ...

  • by King Gabey ( 593144 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:52PM (#24934481)
    Funny, I never would have viewed any of those anti-scientology clips if it weren't for these bogus take-down notices...
  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nursie ( 632944 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @12:58PM (#24934541)

    Lol, who gives a crap about the faith? They can believe what they want, it's the bullying, censorship and child maltreatment that gets me.

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rumagent ( 86695 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:03PM (#24934593)

    Yes, because a zombie born by a virgin and fathered by sky-guy is sane.

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:05PM (#24934607)
    Have you always worshipped murderers?
    Good heavens. If you're pointing at one case and declaring the organization to be murderers, I'm assuming you couldn't possibly be part of any church. Show me a church that has spilled no blood in its history, and I'll show you empty pews.
  • by SleepingWaterBear ( 1152169 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:10PM (#24934665)

    Actually, companies are only required to comply with valid DMCA notices, for fairly obvious reasons. A company has every right to verify that a notice is valid before taking action. YouTube would have been entirely in its legal rights to ignore the requests it got. It is unfortunate that large internet companies have no interest in defending their users' right to free speech.

  • Growing Immunity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:15PM (#24934717) Homepage Journal

    Google should be developing a resistance to invalid censorship attempts like these meritless DMCA takedown notices. It should be much harder to trick Google into even temporary suspension. Soon enough, Google should learn that the burden of proof is on the censor, and leave content untouched until the attempting censor proves their case on facts and logic, not screeches and innuendo.

    And Google's lesson should be the model for the rest who have to compete in the environment so influenced by Google in it.

    FWIW, the DMCA should be amended to require takedown notices to first notify the accused infringer, and include the counternotice procedure and framework, before even notifying a 3rd party like Google (or any other independent publisher of other people's content). That reform would go a long way to making the DMCA less a club with which to intimidate without merit, and closer to some kind of protection of "progress in science and the useful arts" that is any copyright action's only legitimate basis.

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:17PM (#24934733)

    Always gotta be the Catholic's fault, dammit if we aren't the punching bag whenever sciofags aren't, yet we give out cookies to protesters at our churches.

    Despite people within the church taking money, which undoubtably has been done in the past and will probably be done in the future, there have been many faithful catholics who have died for the sakes of the needy; and have even stopped wars through peaceful alternatives. Scientology bullbaits, we're supposed to take the beating and live with it.

    But Mr. Tool fan, before you bash us again, you should read about Lisa Mcphearson; all of their own followers that they have led to death, and or destitution; whereas the catholic church at least uses some of the money to house the homeless; the COS uses you to house "believers" in your house;.

  • by PeterBrett ( 780946 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:17PM (#24934739) Homepage

    At the moment, Christianity isn't run for profit (Roman Catholic church notwithstanding).

    Citation needed.

  • by operagost ( 62405 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:17PM (#24934741) Homepage Journal

    Xenu and alien souls... Joseph Smith and the disappearing gold tablets... the resurrection of Christ... they're all dodgy, silly stories.

    Then where's the body? We know Jesus was executed because we have other sources such as Tacitus and Josephus. If the religious or political authorities in Jerusalem took it, they could have easily produced it and ended the Christian "cult" right there. If the early believers had taken it, would they have been willing to die for what they knew was a lie?

    As for the golden tablets, only Joseph Smith claimed to have seen them. Only L. Ron Hubbard claimed to have knowledge of the events recorded in OT3. The Bible, which stands up textual criticism at least with its many corroborating MS, claims that hundreds saw Jesus alive after his execution and while no secular sources confirm this, at least none give evidence to deny it.

  • What's really sad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by z80kid ( 711852 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:24PM (#24934823)
    *Sigh*.

    What's really sad is that your wife's way of thinking is typical here in America.

    It's not real unless you saw it on TV.

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:2, Insightful)

    by n0vu5 ( 1168945 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:25PM (#24934851)
    This is the difference between a Cult, and a religion. A Cult tells you some of the information, promising the full scoop later on; doing a form of Bait and Switch. A Religion, tells you all that it believes up front, and if you don't like it, well thats the religion, I guess you don't like that religion. I would have much less of a problem with the Cult of Scientology if it did not do the bait and switch, and deceptive tactics.
  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HungSoLow ( 809760 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:26PM (#24934877)
    Don't forget:
    * Zombie Jesus (Resurrection)
    * Cannibalism (Transubstantiation)
    * Human / Deity Chimeras (Son of God)
  • Oh pulllllleeeze (Score:5, Insightful)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:35PM (#24934997) Journal

    Totalitarian control is the only outcome of IP? And this got modded up to 5?

    I've seen some pretty ridiculous shit from the anti-IP people; but that's one heck of a strawman you've got there. IP is a tool like any other. A totalitarian government will use it as a tool to enforce draconian discipline. A better government will use it to secure rights for creative people. Let's have some fun:

    IP is nowhere near as deadly as road construction. That is why, as I keep pointing out, the so called "transportation infrastructure" has the ulitmate effect of creating a totalitarian society. It happens via the deadly mix of technological progress creating increased mobility for both the populace and the military, and resulting in the ever more draconian incursion of armed troops into daily life. That impacts society so because the ability to move troops is the control of our everday lives (as is the only logical outcome of road construction) and must lead to a totalitarian society as a whole.

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:3, Insightful)

    by enderjsv ( 1128541 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:37PM (#24935039)

    Yes, stories about aliens flying planes across space to dump other aliens into our volcanoes... that's insane.

    A story about an ark carrying two of every animal in existence with enough food and supplies to last them forty days and forty nights... Well, guess that's pretty insane, too.

    Most religions have their crazy stories. I find it odd that, as an atheist, I'm less critical of scientologists' beliefs than people of other faiths that have crazy beliefs of their own.

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mark72005 ( 1233572 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:42PM (#24935097)
    You've got to basically give the organization tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, or work as their slave for little or no pay for years, before you get to that level.

    Unfortunately the human mind is easily manipulated and by then you'll have been so effectively brainwashed that you will be more than happy to believe it.
  • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:47PM (#24935143) Journal

    Replace 'scientologists' with 'corporate oligarchs' and you'd be right. Scientology is rich and powerful, but it's nothing compared to the automobile industry, or the recording industry, or pharmaceutical industry, etc.

  • Re:E-meter videos? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:50PM (#24935177)

    You'd think, then, that it'd be more effective in detecting the half-assed lies of the people promoting it...

    It all depends on interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church tried something similar by keeping their holy texts locked in a (mostly) dead language. The flaw to this was that is was possible to learn the language. Scientology has managed to remove the flaw by replacing the language with a black box.

  • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @01:50PM (#24935183) Journal

    How hard would it be to do what the Blues Brothers did, and supply a bogus address to the authorities? If you are swinging against CoS, you probably already know about the fair gaming thing, and may be using a front. It's funny that CoS used a front too. Then you've got two fronts going against eachother, and the authorities just toss the case into a cardboard box to be shredded at some date in the future. The only real victims would be the poor saps who criticise such an organization without realizing that they just tossed marinara on the don's nice white shirt.

  • Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @02:01PM (#24935305)

    As opposed to...
    This guy lives up in the sky and a long time ago he made all the people out of clay, cause he was lonely or something. He didn't like the people and killed them all by flooding the whole globe - all except for this one guy and his family who was supposed to save the animals by building a big boat. It gets worse.

    Or...

    This guy lives up in the sky and his son (who really isn't his son but really him but not really him) comes down to earth as the illegitimate son of an unmarried Jewish girl (who his real dad knocked up through an angel, so although he's a bastard its okay). So this kid grows up and saves the world by getting nailed to a cross (or a tree) but he didn't really die. Okay, he did die but he came back to life and then floated up into the sky to join his dad/self. And if you wish really hard someday you can go up there too, after you die.

    Or...

    [INSERT STUPID DEFINITION OF SOME OTHER RELIGION HERE]

    No religion passes the belief test. Get over it.

  • by ViennaSt ( 1138481 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @02:16PM (#24935467)

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

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

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

    Anonymous to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) [wikipedia.org]

  • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @02:20PM (#24935537) Homepage

    Yeah, because what the US needs is more power for people to hit each other over the head with lawsuits. It's one thing to be hit with fairly bullshit claims in civil court, in worst case you're out some cash. Now private prosecutors that can land your ass in jail with a criminal record? Even if the charges don't stick, unless they're so bogus you can countersue it's going to cost you a shitload of time and money to defend yourself. Besides prosecutors alone are fairly inept, the next step will of course be private cops since it's usually cases the police doesn't bother to investigate further and without evidence there's no case. Very soon you will have private "justice".

  • by GaratNW ( 978516 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @02:59PM (#24935971)

    While it is certainly possible that this is the case, I think this may be over complicating matters. I imagine YouTube gets a very large number of DMCA notices on any given day. If anyone works for Google/YouTube, maybe they can answer, but if it was my system, I'd have a automated process that would automatically flag any complaints and their related media and have it temporarily disable the content until a human could review the claim(s), and either pull it permanently or re-enable it.
     
    But that's just me. Maybe I'm giving companies more credit than they deserve. But that would protect them within the bounds of the law, and still make sure legal material was re-posted as soon as the complaint was invalidated.

  • by pablodiazgutierrez ( 756813 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @04:17PM (#24936997) Homepage
    No, what's *really* sad is that all religions make just as much sense when you think about it, and yet believers keep mocking each other's religion, but stick to their own.
  • by mewyn ( 663989 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @04:21PM (#24937043) Homepage
    <quote>As geeks, shouldn't we be more annoyed at the obviously non-scientific "big three" religions? Whatever iluminati/freemason paranoia or real conspiracy exists with scientology, that pales to the anti-gay and other affronts that Christianity brings. Where more than half are Christians, at least it's...different.</quote>

    Well, for one, Scientology has nothing to do with science. It's beliefs are straight out of L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction books. The beliefs of most established religions are much more plausible than Scientology, plus many of those established religions are able to adapt themselves to modern science. Believe it or not, most modern Christians (non-evangelicals) believe that the Big Bang happened and God caused it, and the 7 days thing is because God lives outside of our time. I, though, do not follow this belief, but it's a very valid one that is compatible with known science. Scientology doesn't do that. They deny science and lay out their own beliefs that supersede science, according to them.

    Two, they love oppressing all they can. The DMCA takedowns of opposition videos is just one thing. They love to threaten and harass opposition because that's all they can do to protect themselves.

    Third, it's a money-making cult. Scientologists brainwash people into believing their hogwash and then bleed them dry. I forget the actual figures but you're supposed to give a substantial amount of your income to the 'church', and this isn't like tithes to a Christian church that benefit the church as a whole and also the community around it. These just get sucked back into the pockets of the Scientology upper echelons. Also, in Scientology you're supposed to buy your way into enlightenment. The more money you give to them, the more access to the basis texts you have. And, as I said, they brainwash people into believing their hogwash. They take in those who are most impressionable and have low self-esteem who can easily be molded. It's sad, really, on how such an evil (I do think of Scientology as evil like any other cult, but not so much so with religions) organization will prey on people and take advantage of them.

    Also, flame me if you will for not hating on other religions, as is often the style here, but they aren't all that bad. Sure they've mostly all done some bad stuff in the past, but the also have all done some good stuff too. And at least with them you're free to leave and not totally brainwashed.
  • by atraintocry ( 1183485 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2008 @06:21PM (#24938675)
    They have to do what's in the DMCA, which means taking down everything that has a claim against it. The law itself was written to favor copyright holders and the prevention of potential infringement. I don't agree with it, but it's not up to Google. Heads should be rolling in Congress, but they're not...I think DMCA abuses just aren't something most Americans care about.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...