Slashdot Log In
4,000 Anti-Scientology Videos Yanked From YouTube
Posted by
timothy
on Monday September 08, @07:31AM
from the y'just-don't-get-it-do-ya? dept.
from the y'just-don't-get-it-do-ya? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "From the EFF webpage: 'Over a period of twelve hours, between this Thursday night and Friday morning, American Rights Counsel LLC sent out over 4000 DMCA takedown notices to YouTube, all making copyright infringement claims against videos with content critical of the Church of Scientology.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot 499 comments
Last Saturday a comment was posted here by an anonymous reader that contained
text that was copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. They have since
followed the DMCA and demanded that we remove the comment. While Slashdot is
an open forum and we encourage free discussion and sharing of ideas, our
lawyers have advised us that, considering all the details of this case, the
comment should come down. Read on to understand what this means.
Firehose:Removal of Anti-Scientology Videos on Youtube by Anonymous Coward
[+]
YouTube Reposts Anti-Scientology Videos 433 comments
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."
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Legal consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't DMCA notice senders supposed to be legally responsible for the accuracy of the notice? Where is the consequences for blatant abuse?
Reply to This
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Funny)
Wonder how the Cult of Scientology would respond to someone spamming Scientology members w/ emails containing the text of the OT3 and having a return address of:
LRon@hell.gov
You know, kinda like spoiling the ending of a bad movie for someone who hasn't finished watching it yet?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, someone has to issue the DMCA notice - somebody is in charge somewhere. I know it may not seem like it some time, but someone will become accountable if you prod hard enough.
In fact, if they are careful, all those users who had their material taken down could cause so much trouble for Scientology they may never send another DMCA again. I mean, these video posters are dedicated enough to submit anti-Scientology videos, I'm sure if they have enough time and energy for this sort of thing they'll have enough time and energy to fight back!
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Money is required to fight injustice. Most people aren't willing to retain a lawyer over something that isn't feeding their families.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not with the amount of money they have. . .
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm curious. Has this ever actually happened with a single one of the vast number of DMCA notices ever issued?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)
What would the process be for having them prosecuted for perjury?
I assume you would have to file charges at a police station in their local area. Then, you'd probably have to get the DA there to actually press the case. Finally, you'd have to have a judge willing to apply pretty harsh sentencing.
It might actually be fun to have 400+ people roll up in Podunk Police Station and all file criminal reports against these people.
It would also probably be a good idea to send a letter to their local BAR association and advise then that their people are perjuring themselves while slandering innocent people.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would wager that Scientology sees this as a win-win situation. Either the videos come down without reprisals, or the video creators have to file charges/suits using their real names, opening them up to being 'fair gamed'. What I wouldn't give to see them caught downloading Schindler's List or something - they and the MPAA deserve each other.
We can only hope they use Thunderdome rules. Two men enter, one man leaves!
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is a damned good question. A quick search on Google will show that we've been here before. www.xenu.net Had no end of trouble with this. I think that if they attempt to link all anonymous videos as being from one source it will be MORE than interesting.
FTFA:
YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices. At this time, many of the suspended channels have been reinstated and many of the videos are back up. Whether or not American Rights Counsel, LLC represents the notoriously litigious Church of Scientology is unclear, but this would not be the first time that the Church of Scientology has used the DMCA to silence Scientology critics. The Church of Scientology DMCA complaints shut down the YouTube channel of critic Mark Bunker in June, 2008. Bunkerâ(TM)s account, XenuTV, was also among the channels shut down in this latest flurry of takedown notices.
It sounds like Google did what is required of them by law, becoming just the bullets used by both sides to fire at each other in a war that I hope ends up in court. Flagrant misuse of DMCA takedown notices should be punished. CoS is proving once again just exactly why it is they deserve legal status as a church. You know, one of those organizations of compassion and love. hmmmm, then again Tammy Fae Baker wasn't too happy with some of the public comments about her either.
It's kind of a shame there is no particular way to make CoS leaders 'fair game' though I'd like to see someone find a way in court to fair game them there.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Informative)
YouTube most likely knows, yes.
However, YouTube is required by law to heed these takedown notices, no matter whether they're justified or not; it's up to the videos' submitters now to file counternotices (at which point YouTube will be required by law to heed these counternotices and reinstate those videos, no matter whether they're justified or not). At that point, it becomes a matter for the courts.
The whole point of this part of the DMCA is to allow places like YouTube to stay out of judging content altogether and simply have a simple algorithm to follow mechanically that will shield them from legal responsibility. Whether the mechanism is really good or whether it's flawed is another question; but for a site like YouTube that mostly cares about not getting involved in proxy fights over copyright, it's a blessing.
So it's not really a fine line for YouTube to walk. They just do what they are legally required to, and anyone who doesn't like that and complains about YouTube is barking up the wrong tree - they should work to get the law changed instead.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)
One would think YouTube would know by now. They do have to walk a fine line, since they need to keep the content owners happy in order to continue operating, but since when is a religion protected content? I'd love to see someone file a countersuit.
I'm not sure of the details, but the church of scientology holds copyrights and trademarks on all its "works." It does this to prevent unauthorized usage of them. Its content is no more or less protected than that of an individual or corporation.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Legal consequence? (Score:5, Informative)
Scientology might own the copyright to their works, but the Dutch [spaink.net] supreme court ruled [blogspot.com] that copyright infringement can be acceptable if it is of interest of the general public. Of course, they have no jurisdiction in the US, but if the copyrighted material can be hosted in the Netherlands, it can be made accesible to anyone.
Reply to This
Parent
It's Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's a big no-no to use the DMCA knowingly falsely, right? Not that I think anything will come of it...
Reply to This
Re:It's Simple (Score:5, Funny)
For reasons I do not understand, Xenu and clan seem immune to reaping the consequences of their actions.
Scientology: The Teflon Religion
Reply to This
Parent
Re:It's Simple (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, DMCA takedown notices are supposedly sworn, under penalty of perjury, to be from a person/organisation with a good claim to owning the copyright.
Where this gets tricky is proving they were used to quash criticism and not in good faith. IE if they say "we thought we owned it and had a good claim", that may be enough to get them out of it. Depending on how blatant they were, of course.
Reply to This
Parent
Actually... not a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
By abusing the DMCA they can get slapped pretty heavy. Especially in light of the latest ruling that copyright owners must explicitly consider whether a suspected violation is fair use. Certainly if any of the folks that got harassed decide to litigate back they may well have a decent case.
Reply to This
Some videos back up (Score:5, Informative)
From the article: "YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices. At this time, many of the suspended channels have been reinstated and many of the videos are back up."
Good for those YouTube users for responding with the counter notices.
Reply to This
Re:Some videos back up (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Some videos back up (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another reason that the DMCA is a terrible set of laws and should be stricken from the books then.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Quick action (Score:5, Funny)
We should handle this like the Romans did. Let the Scientologists plead their case for their "religion" in a Colosseum in front of a jury of their peers*.
*Slight change in programming, "a jury of your peers" will now be played by lions. Enjoy the show!
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, why is it that people get bent out of shape about this 'religion'?
I got to witness an anonymous rally in San Diego about a year or so ago and it was just silly. Yes, you and I may know the whole thing is a crock, but isn't there supposed to be freedom of religion?
Not looking to start a pissing contest, I'm just wondering where people get their priorities.
Just go to http://www.xenu.net/ [xenu.net] and all will become clear.
Reply to This
Parent