Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

4,000 Anti-Scientology Videos Yanked From YouTube

Posted by timothy on 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.'"

41 of 658 comments (clear)

  1. Legal consequence? by gmack · · 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?

    1. Re:Legal consequence? by Bios_Hakr · · 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.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    2. Re:Legal consequence? by TheJasper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with that is how often are people/organistations charged with perjury? I suspect not much if at all.

    3. Re:Legal consequence? by boarder8925 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the information is false then potentially it could be regarded as perjury.

      Not with the amount of money they have. . .

      --
      Keep your eyes to the sky.
    4. Re:Legal consequence? by j-pimp · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    5. Re:Legal consequence? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All's fair game in cults and interwebs.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Legal consequence? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · 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!

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    7. Re:Legal consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    8. Re:Legal consequence? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So start an organization that will fight on behalf of a group of people, funded by contributions from those people. The financial burden is too much for one person, so split it among thousands of people.

      I'm still surprised this isn't happening more often. The internet is the perfect tool to organize something like this, spread the word and secure donations. So short of a few big organizations like the ACLU, why isn't it happening?

      Yeah, there should be an organization, a foundation if you will, that will help us with the battles on this new electronic frontier.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    9. Re:Legal consequence? by Sj0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't want to get sued, so this post ISN'T about scientology.

      It's about a religion called "bob".

      I don't want to get sued, so this post DOESN'T talk about L. Ron Hubbard.

      It'll talk about Ronald L. Oldmother

      I don't want to get sued, so this post DOESN'T talk about thetans or Xenu.

      I'll be talking about tarpnars and Gornak, respectively.

      Now, bobians have a theological reason to believe they're above the law in a democratic republic. According to Ronald L. Oldmother's writings, both voters and elected officials would be filled with the souls of dead aliens murdered by Gornak.

      These "body tarpnars" cause irrationality because of the huge 3d movie theatre where I assume the tarpnars were forced to watch the Spice Girls movie for millions of years until they thought it was a good movie.

      This means that the Bobians don't need to follow the law, because they're the chosen, those who don't have "body tarpnars" affecting their judgement. Any lawmakers that get in the way are only doing so because of their "body tarpnars".

      I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader to wonder why they don't have to follow the law when they don't want to, but why they still use the law when it says things they like anyway.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    10. Re:Legal consequence? by aunticrist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In most other cases, something might happen. Unfortunately, the CoS is an insanely influential group that has gotten members into some of the deepest parts of out legal system and government. They have a tendency to work the system from within and they do it well. Its part of what makes them so scary. That and the amount of money that they have would tie things up in court for so long that the people bringing them their would go bankrupt before too long. They'll also be harassed at every corner of their life by the CoS too.

    11. Re:Legal consequence? by Trikenstein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a cult. It's a pyramid scheme masquerading as a cult, masquerading as a religion.

    12. Re:Legal consequence? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't mod that funny - I'd be worried about making it to my next birthday if I did that.

    13. Re:Legal consequence? by Edward+Kmett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure they are, but they can always claim they were operating in "good faith".

      However, the "consequences" are unfortunately quite obvious:

      By sending arguably baseless DMCA takedown notifications to thousands of Anti-Scientology videos on Youtube, they just have to wait for the DMCA counter- notices to be filed.

      The counter-notices contain personal information for all those otherwise pesky anonymous internet users and get forwarded to them for free. Thats a lot cheaper than trying to hire people to track down your enemies on the internet.

      And as an added bonus some fraction of the content - filed by folks whom are not aware of the counter-notice procedure, or whom are unwilling to divulge their personal information to the Church of Scientology - just goes away.

      Finally, the counter-notice is a testimony that they can try to get the person to perjure themselves on that the content doesn't belong to the Church of Scientology, which gives them even more ammunition, given that a fair chunk of the content out there really does consist of Scientology documents.

      It seems like a pretty effective end run around the system.

      --
      Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
    14. Re:Legal consequence? by bberens · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's funny because if you replace CoS with a popular American religion, your post still works.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    15. Re:Legal consequence? by CrashPoint · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it is a time for the U.S government to... ban the cult.

      No, it isn't, and it never will be. Arrest people for unlawful acts where the evidence merits it, sure, but you do not fuck with freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Not even for Scientologists. Congratulations, you just sunk to their level.

    16. Re:Legal consequence? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well then, I say they need to prove that Xenu authorizes them to act on his behalf.

      But isn't Xenu the devil-equivalent of Scientology ? As such, he'd work to keep those videos up and thus hinder the spread of scientology.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    17. Re:Legal consequence? by pxlmusic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i think they mean classifying it as a terrorist or hate group.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    18. Re:Legal consequence? by ericrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to Godwin the discussion, but this is exactly what is at issue when you deal with the Neo-Nazi movement in the US. The march they wanted to have in the town that is the highest per capita jewish population in the US. I would have liked to have seen that case reach the Supreme Court. The town refused to issue them a permit to march, which is unconstitutional, you can require registration, but they MUST issue on request.

      Unfortunately, Chicago convinced them that marching there was more of an impact.

      Anyhow, I definitely fall on the side of defending the right of people to say things that I wholeheartedly disagree with, since it means that the things that I say will never be the ones on the edge.

      --
      My Babylon
    19. Re:Legal consequence? by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the posts that I read that begin with "IANAL" should also end right after saying "IANAL" but that would make for a lot of short posts on /. I suppose.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:Legal consequence? by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen people complain here that their material was removed and act like they have no recourse. Not only do you have recourse, you don't even really need an attorney to protest a take-down notice.

      You don't need one, but in fact, you'd better have one. Sending a DMCA counter-notification is the equivalent of telling an Old West (movie version) gunfighter that you'll meet him on the main street at high noon. You have to swear under penalty of perjury (and this one counts, unlike the one in the takedown) that the material is non-infringing, and you have to specify a court which you agree to be sued in. Do you really want to say "go ahead, assholes, sue me" to a bunch of lawyers without a lawyer of your own?

    21. Re:Legal consequence? by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They also sometimes intervene on groups that they consider dangerous without proof of illegal activity, which I believe the Branch Davidians (Waco) fell into.

      You mean that horrible debacle where 76 lives were lost in house fire while the govenment officials who started it watched it burn? Great example.

      BTW- I know Koresh was a cultist and he had the typical cultist agenda: sex with anyone at anytime. I understand the stickiness of the issue of saving people from their own stupidity, but killing the abused to stop potential future danger is wrong, and will always be wrong.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    22. Re:Legal consequence? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...but you do not fuck with freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Not even for Scientologists.

      Or Muslims, BTW.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    23. Re:Legal consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This example clearly show that Youtube is completely unreliable as a medium for any kind of dissent or opinion. They clearly have no controls in place to check the validity of DMCA notices. If someone decided to copyright notices on every single video on Youtube, they would go out of business.

  2. It's Simple by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's really simple - critique =/= infringement.

    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...

    1. Re:It's Simple by The+Spie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The videos likely have references to copyrighted materials, perhaps even direct readings from them, in which case they own that material and as such have a valid claim of copyright to that particular material, not the whole video. However, the video would have to be pulled until that is determined or the offending part removed.

      Yes, except:

      1) The Church of Scientology, and more specifically their copyright holding company the Church of Spiritual Technology, was not the claimant(s).

      2) Some videos were specifically reworked by the creators to eliminate any and all possible claims of copyright, including getting rid of the music. Those videos were still taken down, some of them within ten minutes of being uploaded.

      This was an attempt at harassment, period.

      --
      If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
  3. Actually... not a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Actually... not a bad thing by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but who is going to do the slapping? There won't be proper plaintiffs ready to do battle over youtube videos, unless someone somehow gets them together to form a class-action lawsuit. Unlikely.

      It's also somewhat interesting that the youtube venue provides no opportunity for the exercise of DMCA counter-notices, which are an important part of the law. Perhaps it's time to move controversial videos to a site that will have a bit more of a backbone and not allow the powerful to walk all over those who don't even get the rights they're entitled to by law. (I wonder if youtube has any criteria at all for evaluating the validity of these notices before it complies.)

      On the other hand, unscrupulous web hosts (such as NetSol, for one) have and will continue to ignore their legal obligation to maintain service after proper counter-notice is given - despite the fact that the law is very clear that doing so can open up statutory liability on their part. When a company perceives a power-imbalance they're likely to side with the one they perceive to be more powerful, regardless of what the law says or the truth of the claims involved.

      I suppose the Internet needs a video site like Wikileaks serious about free speech enough not to cave into threats. Otherwise, not only are opposing voices stifled, but powerful interests like Scientology may be emboldened to go after and seek the removal of criticism in other forms of online media across the Internet.

      --
      Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
  4. I wonder... by NoobixCube · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Will we see DMCA Takedown notices claiming news stories like these infringe on the property of the lawyers who issued the original DMCA Takedowns? :P

    Actually... I really shouldn't joke about that. It may just happen...

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
  5. Re:Some videos back up by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But why should they have to?

    Youtube ought to have at least taken a look at the claims before just shutting everything down, surely?

    Especially when the claims were coming in in such huge volumes. I don't like this, no organisation should just be able to get stuff it doesn't like removed from public fora by just claiming stuff and having a player as big as youtube just roll over and take it.

  6. Re:Quick action by JustOK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    unless they already had someone on the inside...

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  7. Great example to take to congress by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of the clear abuse the law has provided.

    More examples like this and the DMCA may get repealed, castrated, or at least altered to require judge approval of each takedown notice....

  8. Re:Some videos back up by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet another reason that the DMCA is a terrible set of laws and should be stricken from the books then.

  9. Re:Some videos back up by dnoyeb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they did not take it down because they did not believe the content infringing then they are immediately claiming/agreeing to vet the content of posts to their site. I think they may also want to claim a bit of ignorance of the content on their site,

  10. Re:Why? by Butterspoon · · 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/ and all will become clear.

    --
    pi = 2*|arg(God)|
  11. Re:Some videos back up by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They also have to put the content back as soon as the uploader files a counter-claim.

    Which makes it a far better law than not having it, in which case Youtube would have to take it down out of fear of being sued themselves, and wouldn't put it back up because they would be exposing themselves.

  12. Re:Why? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a short breakdown.

    If you go to a group of Christians, and ask questions about their beliefs, they may engage you in a debate on Christian theology, they may give you a Bible to read, and so forth, but you can generally access these materials for free. If you go a group of Muslims and do the same thing, you will likely get the same results. Same goes for the Jewish religion, or Mormonism, or Hinduism.

    If you go to a Scientology center and ask questions about their beliefs, what it will come down to is "Here are some classes you can take, they cost many thousands of dollars". Scientology is not willing to give away their beliefs just as every other major religion is willing to do so. Scientology is not willing to discuss their beliefs in an open and free environment, as the other major religions are willing to do. And Scientology hides many tenets of their beliefs behind copyright and trade secret laws.

    That last one is the big one. You don't officially learn about their secret beliefs until you have paid many thousands of dollars and been sufficiently indoctrinated into the Church of Scientology.

    Compare that to the other religions. To the best of my knowledge, there is no super-secret ultra-eyes-only version of the Bible that only the elite Christians get to read. There is no "not for the viewing of non-believers" version of the Qu'ran that only the most devout Muslims get to read. But there are secret Scientology documents which explain core beliefs of Scientology that the general rank and file of the CoS do not have access to.

    And then, when people try to promulgate that information, it irks the CoS leadership. Because, for some reason, they don't want it spread that they believe that a galactic overlord named Xenu did all the wacky poor-scripted science-fictiony things he did many millions of years ago, here on Earth. (Excuse me, it was called Teegeeack then, according to these docs.) Because then people would go, "Wow, this reads like it was written by a hack science fiction author." (Which, you know, is what the guy who founded Scientology was.)

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  13. Is this a fishing expedition by Scientology? by Kenrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do the anti-Scientology posters to youtube have to reveal information about themselves to Scientology Inc. through their counter-notices? Isn't this just a way for Scientology to get the identities of the posters?

    --
    Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
  14. Re:Some videos back up by irlyh8d2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the Church of Scientology, the group that does the fair game thing. When Google passes the counter notifications to them, they're going to know the names and addresses of everyone behind the videos.

  15. Once there was a place called Camelot by MarkusQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd like to think the U.S. is a stronger democracy than that, but I dunno as I'm an Aussie.

    I'd like to think we were a stronger democracy than this too.

    But I gotta believe my eyes. We The People are allowed to play our little game of self rule so long as we don't get in the way of Big Oil, Big Pharma, the Telco Gang, and the *IAAs, and so on. Which leaves us precious little to play with.

    --MarkusQ

  16. UNBELIEVABLE! by spasmhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that it was necessary to display "This is what scientologists actually believe" on the screen while parodying the cult of scientology on Southpark speaks volumes. This is the show that puts a nuke up Hillary Clinton's snatch and a hamster up Mr Slaves ass in front of a class of school kids.