YouTube Reposts Anti-Scientology Videos

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."

Comments

Should be worth pressing charges.

[jcr]

This isn't one count, it's about four thousand counts of fraud. I'm sure that complying with the takedown notices cost Google a non-trivial amount of money, too.

-jcr

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[IP_Troll]

I believe the most fitting punishment would be to revoke all Scientology related copyrights.

This is an arguable criminal case and a criminal prosecution would be a waste of time. It is going to be near impossible to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is, however, a clear abuse of rights granted by the copyright law. The fitting punishment is revocation of those rights.


Please save the nitpicking arguments about if there is such thing as copyright "rights", that is beside the point. If a child can't be trusted with privileges, you take those privileges away.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Meehow]

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.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[initdeep]

revoking the copyrights would be moronic.

if that's all it took, then people would start posting fake notices (ie committing fraud) for the groups they OPPOSE, thus preventing the legitimate copyright holder from keeping their copyright.

punish the criminal.
in this case that is whoever sent the notices.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there was never any hope of these takedowns succeeding for more than a day or two, isn't it likely that the DMCA notices were issued by an anti-scientology protestor to make scientology look even worse than it does already?

Much as I dislike scientology, it would be unjust to punish them for this without any evidence.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Monkeyman334]

It's not a matter of how bad the violation of law is. It has to matter to the prosecutor and also to a potential jury (called "jury interest"). Nobody will prosecute the case if the only impact was $20,000 of Google's money spent on handling the notices.

My suggestion would be to temporarially take down the requestor's videos if they submit a false takedown request. It wouldn't cover small businesses, but it would cover the Viacoms and the CoS.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[LithiumX]

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.

Now I'm left wondering if it was even them that sent them out in the first place.

Does anyone know anything about the "group" that sent them, and is there anything that actually ties it to them?

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.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[IP_Troll]

Reply to myself - revoke the copyright after a inquiry into who actually sent out the notices.

Because the copyright matter would be civil rather than criminal the standard would be much easier to meet than a criminal charge such as fraud.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[KDR_11k]

Perjury actually, not fraud.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[jcr]

Nobody will prosecute the case if the only impact was $20,000 of Google's money spent on handling the notices.

The prosecutor gets to bring an open-and-shut felony fraud case. Looks good on his record when he runs for office.

-jcr

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[jellomizer]

After reading your "post to yourself" there is still a danger of punishing the person who sued originally.

For example, Say I sued the government for something I didn't feel was just, or legal. Say I thought by placing the "No Turn on Right" signs parallel to the stopping line, (making it near impossible for the driver to see, when stopped first at the light, but easy to see for a police car behind you to read, and the police just needs to accidentally honk his horn for you to break the law, or just not see the sign and cross when it was safe). So I get pulled over and have to pay a fine. Then I challenge it and loose then besides my original fine I need to pay an other one for challenging the system.

Yes there is abuse of the legal system, But making people more afaid of it is not the right answer.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[mapsjanhere]

4000 counts of perjury times 5 years max - that's an impressive potential sentence.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[JustKidding]

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.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[winphreak]

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.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be perjury, but it is ALSO fraud, both generally and in the legal sense.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[gnasher719]

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.

[TheRaven64]

A DMCA take-down notice contains a sword statement that you are acting on behalf of the copyright owner. This means that it would be perjury to file a fake take-down notice, and also means that there's a strict audit trail pointing back to whoever authorised the take-down.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[HadouKen24]

IANAL, but I would think that's not allowed under the DMCA. To retain "safe harbor" protection, they have to comply with all DMCA takedown notices. The onus is on the users whose material is taken down to submit counter-claims.

Unfortunately, those who submit counter-claims must do so under penalty of perjury. There is no perjury threat for submitting the original claim.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[TheRaven64]

A DMCA take-down notice includes a sworn statement indicating that you are acting on behalf of the copyright holder. If they were sent by someone else then this is a case of perjury, and since they were sent by a law firm there should be a simple trail to identify the responsible party. Unless they were sent by someone pretending to be a lawyer, in which case that's two illegal actions.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[JesseMcDonald]

If you know who sent the notices then you could trivially be certain to revoke only the copyrights of the individual or group that actually sent them. There'd be no need to worry about people posting fake notices for other groups.

It doesn't matter whether the punishment is a fine or copyright revocation; either way you need to know who you're actually dealing with.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[mcrbids]

Does anyone know anything about the "group" that sent them, and is there anything that actually ties it to them?

Notice the name: American Rights Counsel. Have you heard of Scientology's "ARC Triangle"? If not, Google it. I won't pretend that this is proof, but it sure is an interesting fluke event.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[compro01]

There is no perjury threat for submitting the original claim.

Yes, there is, though AFAIK, no one has ever been prosecuted for it.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[gcranston]

Can anyone say "class action"?

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[SleepingWaterBear]

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.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what Bollocks means, but every time i read and /or hear it it falls flat. Its just not a good word (swear or otherwise), in and of itself. It just lends itself to further the impression that Great Brittan is just strange. Plus "pants". Honestly "pants". You need to stick to the olde english style four letter words for effect. If you need to take an existing word and make it an expression of displeasure use a quick owrd with a biting sound like " cow, pig, hat,rat, tick"

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

But it looks bad on his rap sheet to the scientologists embedded in public sphere who are needed to help him get into that office.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[compro01]

1. Google couldn't file a suit as they aren't the copyright holder of the video.

2. The copyright holder couldn't file a suit either, as perjury is a criminal matter. For that, they'd need to get a prosecutor/DA to go after them.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Chris Mattern]

You can be subject to perjury charges if you submit a claim and you do not have authority to represent the party you name as claimant. You are *not* subject to perjury charges if you submit a claim and it turns out that the claimant does not have a valid copyright claim against the content. The law was very carefully worded that way.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Wizy]

So do all the websites that are up for the good side. Like http://www.whyweprotest.net/

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Hatta]

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:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Lonewolf666]

It seems that "single" counts of perjury are rarely prosecuted at all. But 4000 might actually get a total sentence that is more than a slap on the wrist ;-)

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[DustyShadow]

thus preventing the legitimate copyright holder from keeping their copyright.

punish the criminal. in this case that is whoever sent the notices.

This is slashdot. Don't you know that around here simply owning a copyright considered a criminal act and illegitimate.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[JakartaDean]

if that's all it took, then people would start posting fake notices (ie committing fraud) for the groups they OPPOSE, thus preventing the legitimate copyright holder from keeping their copyright.

Wow, I admire your ability to "think like the enemy." That hadn't even occurred to me. Scary thing is you might be right...

Memo to self: think more like a conspiracy

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[JakartaDean]

A DMCA take-down notice contains a sword statement that you are acting on behalf of the copyright owner. This means that it would be perjury to file a fake take-down notice, and also means that there's a strict audit trail pointing back to whoever authorised the take-down.

Thanks. That's what I'd hoped

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Aladrin]

A 'prankster' bothered to search out and send notices for 4000 videos? He'd have to be pretty dedicated to his prank.

No, I think it's much more likely that it was a scientologist that did it. Slightly less likely is that it's a scientology hater trying to make them look bad. (As if they can't handle that on their own.)

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Quantos]

It certainly does fall in the realm where they could sue, assuming they CAN identify whomever is resoponsible. It was after all their time and money that was spent initially taking down the material - as well as reposting it. That would show a siginificant loss for them. They would probably be unable to sue on points beyond that loss.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Atario]

Not to worry -- they'll just get 4000 thetans to serve the sentence.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[compro01]

AFAICT, "valid" in the sense specified by the law only means "take down notice is filed in the correct manner" not "noticee has the legal right to file this notice as the copyright holder".

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[SleepingWaterBear]

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:Should be worth pressing charges.

[swilver]

One wonders what Youtube would do when a non-American citizen sends out a few DMCA notices... this just seems way to easy.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[GaratNW]

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.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

...You reckon? Bollocks to that.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[lilo_booter]

I agree with you on 'pants', but 'bollocks' dates back a long way. It's a great word that covers a multitude of situations.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Warhawke]

4000 counts of perjury times 5 years max - that's an impressive potential sentence.

Though I'm against the action, I don't think it's necessarily right for one to consider each of the counts a separate offense. That's like saying the RIAA is right when they sue you for $2.5 million because you downloaded a 10-song album, each count being a $250,000 infringement.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Hausenwulf]

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.

Honestly, they do enough on their own. I can't really see anyone making stuff up when there's so much real stuff to use.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[mapsjanhere]

That's why you have so many plea bargains in the US system - if your choice is to plead guilty to one count of making a false statement or risk 4000 counts of perjury, which one do you take?
In addition, while the judges are usually limited in their sentencing by sentencing guidelines, it's their discretion if you serve three months concurrently for all counts, or 1 day consecutively. Which would really hurt for 4000 counts.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[commodoresloat]

A DMCA take-down notice contains a sword statement

En garde!

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Bastard of Subhumani]

My thoughts exactly. One might be considered a prank, and merit a slap on the wrist.

Thousands - in an apparently pre-planned and coordinated campaign - is abuse, nuisance and harrassment. Maybe barratry too. While we're at it, throw in conspiracy to commit all the above.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google couldn't file a suit as they aren't the copyright holder of the video.

Of course they could, fucktard. Not for copyright infringement, but for something else.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[GreyWolf3000]

I don't think you have to comply with an anonymous takedown notice.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[unfasten]

He didn't mean anonymous as in 'anonymous coward' but Anonymous as in the group of people on the internet that are trying to fight against scientology.

P.S. Anonymous quickly stops looking like a real word after typing it a few times.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[LrdDimwit]

This is the problem with laws. Every lawyer everywhere gets paid enormous amounts of money to drive trucks thru pigeonholes.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[GreyWolf3000]

Wow. Noted. Getting more sleep tonight...

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[mollymoo]

I would hope you'd need reasonable grounds for believing you held the copyright.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[erroneus]

This may be largely true, but at the VERY least, a DMCA take-down notice needs to be verified in terms of origin. Actual ownership of a copyright or representation of a copyright owner is another matter, but at the very least, allowing what amounts to an anonymous (that is to say unidentifiable) complaint to be accepted is simply inappropriate. All DMCA notices should at the very least be required to be notarized so that the person who issued the claim could be identified for future legal reference.

The clear and obvious problem with DMCA take-down notices is that using the tricks deployed in these cases, the notices are effectively anonymous. This simply cannot be allowed.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[mollymoo]

4000 is a lot for a scientologist, unless they automated the entire process.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[LunarCrisis]

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

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.

[atraintocry]

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.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Tracking Device]

The key to success with these cases is knowing who to blame.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[atraintocry]

You're right, but don't forget that the DMCA was written with that in mind. If they want safe harbor, they can't afford to screw up. They don't have the same worries on the side of removing legitimate material. If anything, it's better...they're still serving ads on those pages, just not content.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[Khyber]

Youtube complied with my DMCA notices because I proved I retain the rights within the first notice - the STANDARD procedure for media companies is to file a DMCA against ANYTHING even mentioning their works or their bought-out products.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[deniable]

It's been done already. When a law becomes a toy for fifteen year olds, we have a problem.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[elrous0]

That should have been required as part of the restitution for Operation Snow White, no doubt.

Re:Should be worth pressing charges.

[TheoMurpse]

No. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines state that crimes occurring out of the same transaction or occurrence or events are to have their sentences served concurrently.

I think these 4000 acts of perjury would likely count as one event. Especially because the letters were probably generated by a scripted mail merge and a webcrawler script tied together.

Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Great - another 600 bigoted posts about Scientology.

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

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Abreu]

I knew they claimed to be a religion, but I wasn't aware that Scientologists now claimed to be a "race"...
Was this done to claim additional protections?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Chris Mattern]

Faith = money, right? At least, that's what the Scientologist leaders tell us. Can't have true faith if you don't give them lots of money.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[mlwmohawk]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Successful troll is successful.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[SpiderClan]

Do races get protections? Unless they claim some first people's type of race (i.e. the Thetos or whatever they're called were here before us all), I imagine they wouldn't.

Otherwise, I will be claiming protections as well. I am a member of the human race, the Canadian race and I was shortlisted to be on the Amazing Race.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Xenu? DC10s? Thetans?

Wait, you mean the crap they showed on South Park was really was these people believe?!

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientology is a race, alright. A Master Race.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Da Fokka]

To be completely fair, they were DC-8s.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Sj0]

I'd be happy to tell you about why the religion of Bob(Because writing about scientology will get me sued) is a load of shit, but I'll need a cheque for $360,000 first. If you can't afford that, I'll happily help you out, by letting you work for me. Then the bill will come to only $52,000.

Oh, but don't try to leave while I'm indoct-- I mean educating you, because I'll kill your family. Hope you don't mind.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Abreu]

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

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Joe the Lesser]

Yea, DC-10s just makes no sense at all!

Re:Racial Bigotry

[ThatGuyJon]

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:Racial Bigotry

[camg188]

Did I miss something? I don't see the word "race" in the original post.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[camg188]

ooops... I see now. Abreu is right.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[L4t3r4lu5]

Worked for the Catholics.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[L4t3r4lu5]

Mod parent Insightful.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[KezMaefele]

You my friend don't have a clue what you are talking about. I hate it when peeps get on a message board and put down other viewpoints without all the facts! It was a spaceship that looked like a "DC-8" that brought the Thetans to earth to be annihilated by volcanoes packed full of nuclear bombs!

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Old97]

Great - another 600 bigoted posts about Scientology. Scientology is a great, true faith. But you guys don't know anything about faith, do you.

Great. So tell me about what it is that you have faith in or do you require a "donation" before you "reveal" the secrets?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[OglinTatas]

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

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Just Some Guy]

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?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Jason Levine]

Sadly, I had spoken with my wife in passing about Scientology a few times and she zoned out whenever I got into the whole Xenu/Thetan thing. I guess she thought it was some bad sci-fi story I had read. Then I showed her the South Park episode and told her that (animation aside) what was presented during that segment is actually what Scientologists believe. Now she's right along with me in ridiculing the "religion." It is really telling when South Park doesn't need to alter anything at all to make fun of a religion's story.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Stormwatch]

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:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no Catholic race.

Score 4:, Insightful ?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

How much faith did Lisa MacPherson have in Scientology when they murdered her?

Have you always worshipped murderers?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Nursie]

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

[Jeremy Erwin]

The United States doesn't have a blasphemy law. Looks like American Rights Council is trying to use copyright law instead,-- though I doubt they'll get any further than, say, Terry Gilliam, who similarly tried to introduce foreign legal concepts into US law.

Or perhaps it's just a hamfisted attempt to harvest the names and addresses of scientology critics.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Rumagent]

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

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Petersko]

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.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

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;.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Joe the Lesser]

The bible may be full of unlikely stuff that the supposed holy figures did, but it's not full of alien empires and trapping folk in volcanos.

I happily ridicule all religions, but there's a difference between a talking burning bush on a holy mountain and Xenu, and anyone who looks at it rationally should be able to see that.

See, most religions have a Creator that sometimes interferes with people in certain ways, giving powers to prophets and what not. God speaks to me I deliver his message yadda yadda yadda.

Hubbard has thrown this out completely and given them a badly written scifi drama. In terms of what humanity has come up with, it's some of the wackiest stuff.

I like to make this point because it's a fallacy to disregard all religions the same, when it's clear that they affect peoples thinking in different ways.

In the end though, it's not what they believe, but how they treat their followers that is the most damning thing about the Scientologists.

Yes, some Christian cults are as bad, but abuse is built into the religion of scientology, so everywhere it is found you see unhealthy and paranoid behavior.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[xstonedogx]

Let me fix that for you:

Except now that the Catholic Church is no longer the most powerful organization in the world, does not have a monopoly on Christianity, and still has lots and lots of money, you don't actually have to give the Catholic Church anything and they won't even threaten you with eternal damnation. Tithing is not required, indulgences are a thing of the past.

The Catholic Church enjoyed a monopoly on Christianity in part because it was damn expensive to reproduce books and most people couldn't read latin even if they had a copy. This gave them control over everyone who didn't want to go to hell. And they made damn sure everyone didn't want to go to hell.

The Church of Scientology doesn't have that luxury. Most people are literate, the information is in the common language (actually, I'm guessing more than one), and books are cheap to reproduce. So they have to use legal means to establish their monopoly. But they are using the same basic formula as the Catholic Church to control members and gain money.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Schadrach]

Currently, that is true, however in the past they did demand 10% of your income. Check out the origin of the term tithe.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientology is a race, alright. A Master Race.

A master race to see who can hit rock bottom first, right?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[n0vu5]

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

[HungSoLow]

Don't forget:
* Zombie Jesus (Resurrection)
* Cannibalism (Transubstantiation)
* Human / Deity Chimeras (Son of God)

Re:Racial Bigotry

[dosius]

Anyone below 2.0 on their Tone Scale. Hubbard said either bring them up to 2.0 or "dispose" of them. Many things are below that point: sympathy, fear, regret.

-uso.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[enderjsv]

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

[mark72005]

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.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Areyoukiddingme]

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has never yet spilled blood. Only pasta sauce.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Loko Draucarn]

I'm pretty sure that the Quakers have a distinct lack of blood in their history.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Hubbard came up with "homo novus" to describe a clear scientologist, so yes.... they claim to be another race ultimately.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

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

If it's so great, why does it need to harass its critics like this?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[bishiraver]

Not only that, but they believe that if they learn these things before they're cleansed to a certain point, they die.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are a race, then I'm a completely racist motherfucker.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

"The bill to ban circumcision "

Thats pretty shortsighted and narrow minded of you. There are many medical reasons for circumcision. I had a circumcision to correct phimosis at 25 after having years of bad, painful sex and not knowing what was wrong. Yes, I have lost feeling in the tip and upper shaft of my penis but being able to have sex for hours with no pain (as opposed to minutes) is quite worth it!

Many people are only now realizing that they have this condition, as their ancestors were all circumcised and thus did not suffer from the genetic disadvantage of an irretractable foreskin.

You should be careful what bans you go around advocating. Ban is quite a strong word.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Cro Magnon]

Well, at least it wasn't midiclorians.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[snoyberg]

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.

s/odd/lucrative

Re:Racial Bigotry

[DreadPiratePizz]

I think it's pretty silly myself, but as long as your religion is a purely private practice, you can believe whatever you want. I don't dislike scientology the religion, I dislike the church as an institution, and the way they mistreat, extort, mislead and harm not only their own members, but their critics. What is discussed on slashdot is actually the tip of the iceberg. These DMCA takedown notices hardly compare to some of the other stuff the church pulls. Forced child labor in the Sea Org, attempts to infiltrate and even overthrow governments, medical neglect of its members, framing critics for bomb threats, the list goes on. That's pure insanity, not what they choose to believe.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Why be racist when it's soooo easy to hate everyone equally?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[sorak]

I knew they claimed to be a religion, but I wasn't aware that Scientologists now claimed to be a "race"...
Was this done to claim additional protections?

It is racial bigotry. Some of us were going to make fun of thetans

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Um dude. Circumcision was part of the Covenant with Abraham, not Moses.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but for how many centuries did the RCC practice tithing and indulgences? Starting around the Council of Epaon (517 CE) to Boniface IX curtailing excessive abuses, right through Leo X's offering of indulgences for the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica (1517 CE, which in part led to Luther's 95 Theses)... right up until the Council of Trent (1562 CE) and Pius V's cancellation of all monetary indulgences (1567 CE).

So yes, you can "belong," but for over a millennium, you really couldn't be "saved" without shelling out some dough... Much like you can be a Scion without ever really crossing the Bridge.

To this day, there's still a Section for Indulgences within the Holy Office, though under control of the Apostolic Penitentiary. It serves a much weaker purpose than it originally had, but to say it was gone altogether is incorrect.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Atriqus]

In short:

Location, Location, Location

Re:Racial Bigotry

[HungSoLow]

You're being pedantic. I'm sure he means banning ritualistic circumcision. It's obvious in your case it is a very good thing. But why mutilate if nothing is wrong?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone that modded this insightful.

Did you read the moderation guidelines?

Did you read the post in question?

I'm pretty sure mods are being given blindly now just cause you see something with +4 on it.

This parent post does not deserve to be modded up. Not only is it offtopic, it's also trolling and flamebaitish. Please read the post before modding them next time.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[petermgreen]

Sure but IMO unless there is a serious medical reason not to such irreversable desicions should be left until the person is old enough to make an informed choice for themselves. Not be forced on a child by thier parents.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[frank_adrian314159]

but it's not full of alien empires and trapping folk in volcanos.

No... It's just full of the heavenly hierarchy and trapping folk inside whales. Not that I support Scientology, but Christians should understand that much of their book of fables is just as unbelievable.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[brkello]

But you guys don't know anything about faith, do you.

Maybe not, but I know when faith is being used to exploit naive people in order to make profit. Scientology is responsible for the death of people because they refuse to let their members get real help for their problems. Any religion that requires you to pay in order to learn more about them is evil and isn't really a religion. If you think something that was written by a sci fi writer on a bet is a true faith...then I really really feel sorry for you.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[dargaud]

Even for medical reasons, there are better ways. But we are way offtopic here, unless considering that thetans are sick dicks.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[GameboyRMH]

I happily ridicule all religions, but there's a difference between a talking burning bush on a holy mountain and Xenu, and anyone who looks at it rationally should be able to see that.

It's when I look at it rationally that I see there is no difference. On the surface all the sci-fi stuff seems bizarre for a religion, but substitute them with suitable cryptic ancient middle eastern replacements and it will all start to seem very familiar.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[warriorpostman]

Seems like it would be a lot cheaper to just go to a used book store and buy $100 worth of used science-fiction novels.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[rrohbeck]

No!!! They were *space ships* that looked somewhat like DC8s.
Can we please have a correct scholarly discussion of this matter? This is news for *nerds*, remember?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[that IT girl]

Why? The ACLU falls for stupid crap every day.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[rrohbeck]

Actually virgin conception is the one "miracle" I might believe.
They happen from time to time. Heavy petting getting too messy...

Now the interesting thing is how long it takes for weird tales to turn into religion. That seems to depend on how closely you align with other religions. Look at the story of the golden book and the angel Moroni. I'd say a century or so. It seems it was similar for the Bible.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[sorak]

The bible may be full of unlikely stuff that the supposed holy figures did, but it's not full of alien empires and trapping folk in volcanos.

I happily ridicule all religions, but there's a difference between a talking burning bush on a holy mountain and Xenu, and anyone who looks at it rationally should be able to see that.

Yes, one is fantasy and the other is science fiction. One reads like a badly written Tolkien novel, and the other reads like a rejected Star Wars plot. The only real difference is that most other religions conform to a style that we are accustomed to, whereas Scientology is a new genre.

As for Xenu, well, try comparing him to the Holy Trinity. On the one hand, you have an evil and powerful dictator, who kills people. Those people have souls that basically turned into ghosts, that inhabit people's bodies and cause mental problems and diseases.

On the other hand, you have three gods that are also one god. One is the son of the other, but they are both the same person. Once, one of them decided that he didn't approve of human behavior, but the only way he could ever forgive them was if his son, who was also him, was killed. He didn't want to do it, but he had to, because he decided that he had to. Maybe it was a rule of the universe, or something. People have souls, which, upon death are transported to a place that exists, but only in another dimension.

Now, if you want to argue about the COS' policies, or things that Scientologists do, or claims that they make, that is a different story entirely...

Re:Racial Bigotry

[jameskojiro]

That would explain all the dead people that the South Park episode caused. They killed off all of Comedy Central Viewers that weren't level III Scientologists.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it so many people, Catholics included, forget that the Church is a 2,000 year old institution with a checkered past? If you want to talk about the good the Catholic Church is doing, by all means. But don't act victimized when someone talks about something or another the church has done in its history.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[ForAllTheFish]

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

Compared to sky-guy creating the whole universe, that's nothing.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[dogmatixpsych]

Tithing, incidentally, goes way back before the Catholic Church. Abraham paid tithing (and no, that was not inserted into the Bible by the Catholic Church) to Melchizedek.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Bringing up things done by the catholics a thousand years ago is stupid. Thats like bringing up slavery in colonial America to try to equalize the current KKK and the United States.

So, ok, the Catholics have done some bad things, but why do they get brought up in every conversation about Scientology?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Master Race ... yet this post is obviously flamebait ...

A MasterBaiting Race?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[NotBornYesterday]

The Orthodox Church would like to differ with you over the "monopoly" reference. Seems they are/were competitors of some sort.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[snspdaarf]

DC10s?

No, can't be the DC-10. Travolta owns a G-IV and 707.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

We Catholics get brought up in "every conversation" about Scientology because of our checkered past, our numbers, our wealth, the enormous size of our organization, our historical significance, you name it.

I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities if people make apt comparisons to Catholicism, but you have not been victimized in any way, except by yourself for choosing to play victim.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

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

So Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all pretty horrid?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[geekoid]

There equally insane, but Scientology goes out of it sway to detroy people...actually, it's part of there belief to destroy people.
That's what makes them dangerous, abusive, liars and a bunch of sacks of shit.

I probably know more about their history then most their members. L. Ron being a family 'friend'.
My grand father could pretty much date L. Ron slide from cute joke to insanity.
If my grandfather was still alive, I'd encourage him to write a book, but he passed away in the early 80's.

On a side note, Two major Harvard studies have shown the circumcised men are more likely to not get aids from a contact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/science/23hiv.html

Stop killing people with your lies.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[geekoid]

She was murdered in their building, and they tried to cover it up.

trying to set this aside becasue other churches have killed people is a non sequter and disrespectful to her friends, and people who are suckered into this multi-level marketing cult.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and i'm still furious that that rib woman got tricked by a snake to eat from a magical tree that apparently means we're exiled from a paradise where you do not have the freedom to state you prefer not to be there!

Wow, how many quotes can we paraphrase into this.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[treeves]

Actually, it was DC-8s, not DC-10s.
Well, "DC-8s without the fans but otherwise identical" as LRH said.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

they did the same thing with the mormon "religion", if only they had the time to do it about all the crackpot cults out there people might actually get educated, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with religion and faith... but when people start claiming that jesus was in america chatting with the native indians and that only one man is allowed to read from sacred scrolls, does it twice and gets variations in the story... or that we came here in spacecraft that look like dc10s... if it sounds like poorly written fiction, chances are it is.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Stormwatch]

Ah, my bad. Thanks for the correction.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Stormwatch]

Did you know circumcision itself can kill?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Khyber]

Worked for the Catholics.

Someone better mod this into Oblivion. Get a grasp of the religion first, moron. Read the literature - ain't jack shit about giving money to attain status nor forgiveness in the Catholic faith.

And I'm not Catholic - just a meek person that believes a higher power is around, we just don't know if it's a living being or a result of a mathematical equation.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Actually, now that I think about it, that's the whole reason why Moses wasn't allowed into the promised land. He didn't circumcise the Israelites like he was supposed to. If you actually read the Bible, its actually full of stories like this. God sends a prophet telling people to do or not do something. They ignore God, say the prophet is crazy, and woe is them. Even the prophets do it. So far from your post being insightful, its really really redundant ;)

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Tubal-Cain]

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...

It was 7 for the livestock. And the waters didn't recede immediately after the rains ended. They were in there for a while.

On the flip side of the coin, Noah didn't need a pair of all animal species. Only one pair of wild dogs would have been sufficient to develop all of our wolf and dog breeds, for example. Oxen, buffalo, cows...same story. etc.

Also, I understand that mammals in kept in dim, confined spaces for long periods of time will go into semi-hibernation (and eat less food).

Re:Racial Bigotry

[mdielmann]

The irony here is that we routinely have people come back from the dead (as defined 2000 years ago), have people 'magically' appear and disappear in regions of the world (what else would a tribesman believe when someone shows up from nowhere and disappears without leaving any trail?), and have children without ever seeing the father or knowing what he looks like.

Yeah, those are crazy ideas, I can't conceive of a way to make them happen.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[guyminuslife]

I know, Scientologists are so effing crazy.

Everyone knows that men were made from dirt and women were made from a rib. There is such a thing as talking magic snakes, and immortal dudes with wings and flaming swords. Human suffering was caused by eating a bad apple. There's a mystical man in the sky, with a beard, who gives advice and grants wishes.

I could go on.

Scientology the religion (as opposed to the church organization, which may have its own problems) gets the level of animosity it does not because it's completely ridiculous, but merely because it's completely ridiculous in a way that we're not already used to.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they are a different race.. Homo Novis (New Man) When you become "clear" you aren't Homo Sapien anymore.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[mgblst]

Scientology: Making dodgy eastern religions look not quite so insane.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[NickDB]

Wouldn't that make it a different species then?

Homo Sapiens is a the scientific name for the Human species, not a race.

So technically they could apply to the WWF for an endangered species grant, and on the other side, rights that apply to a Homo-Sapien doesn't apply to them, so we can kick their ass when ever we want.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[randyest]

I guess you never heard of tithing or the selling of indulgences? Or do you think that because these aren't in current literature means they were never used by the catholic church?

Re:Racial Bigotry

[randyest]

And because of the behavior of it's officials and practitioners. Forcing people to pay thousands for "religious texts." Fair Game. Lisa McPhereson et al. Read all about it.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[randyest]

So, "there's nothing wrong with religion and faith" as long as you agree with it? They're all ridiculous and full of shit when analyzed rationally. That's why they require faith.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[randyest]

Did you just insinuate that the story of Noah's Ark could have actually, literally happened as described? I want to be sure that wasn't subtle sarcasm before I mock you.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh, can't be DC-10s. With DC-8s you can take the engines off and everything else stays in place. With DC-10s, take off the rear engine and the tail falls off.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Tubal-Cain]

Sure. Although I would prefer a discussion over mockery.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Flamebait

But it is true. Breaking News for Nerds.
There is no Catholic race.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[randyest]

Ok, sure. You first. Discuss the size (in cubits please) of a vessel needed to contain two of every species of animal (not variety, which is what your dog comment addresses.) Then elaborate on how many more of each would be required to feed them all for more than a month. You may also wish to delve into waste management, separation of predator and prey, and disease control.

You will, at some point in this effort, be forced to invoke magic. Which is fine if you have such faith, but that doesn't make it logical, rational, possible, or even believable . . . at least without faith in magic.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[James McGuigan]

Let me fix that for you:

The Catholic Church enjoyed a monopoly on Christianity in part because it was damn expensive to reproduce books and most people couldn't read latin even if they had a copy. This gave them control over everyone who didn't want to go to hell. And they made damn sure everyone didn't want to go to hell.

The Church of Scientology doesn't have that luxury. Most people are literate, the information is in the common language (actually, I'm guessing more than one), and books are cheap to reproduce. So they have to use legal means to establish their monopoly. But they are using the same basic formula as the Catholic Church to control members and gain money.

The Church of Scientology has copyright and trademarks over the works/techniques of LRH. Most people are literate, but most Scientologists are heavily discouraged from reading/listening to anything critical of Scientology, which is termed "entheta" and would be considered a block to your spiritual progress. This gives them control over everybody who doesn't want "eternal damnation for all mankind". They use legal means to protect themselves against legal dangers, but they are using the same basic formula as the Catholic Church to control members and gain power, control and money.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[MerlTurkin]

Scientology, like ALL religions is for assclowns.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[MerlTurkin]

Faith=moron IMHO

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Tubal-Cain]

Ok. Honestly, the best source I have found on the subject was this book, (lousy title, I know) but I don't have it available.

Anyways, on the logistics of all the animals fitting on the ark and feeding them, I think I will point you towards this page:
The author puts more theism into it than I would (paragraphs 2-5 are the most level-headed and have most of the relevant information), but the basic concept is the same as presented in the book I mentioned.
There was also a mention of floating islands in the book as possible refuges for some animals (I don't know how seaworthy they are, though).

One thing he does not elaborate on very well is the hibernating (and the fact that the animals would need less food during that time, which I brought up in my previous post). The hibernating also takes care of most of the waste control problem (less food in means less waste out) and the predator/prey conflicts (you don't need to hunt if you are well-fed and sleeping alot).

As for disease control, I am not sure exactly how much weight to apply to that argument. I'm not a vet. I do know that I rarely get sick (and I am not the most sanitary of people), so maybe they were just lucky.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[Thing 1]

If chopping off body parts is your answer to avoiding disease, I fear for your children.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[TheoMurpse]

What's important to note is that not all Christians believe in transubstantiation. Lutherans, for example, don't believe in transubstantiation NOR consubstantiation.

It's not a defense of Christianity (although I am Lutheran). I just wanted to point out that not all Christian sects were created equal. Some were created more equal than others. ;)

Re:Racial Bigotry

[TheoMurpse]

Hey, now. I believe the big bang as much as is rational (that is to say, I think it's the best explanation and will think so until we have a better scientific explanation). But I fail to see how either "everything just suddenly appeared from nothing" or "everything's always been here forever cycling between big crunches and big bangs" are any less "way out there" than "one dude made it all cuz he was bored."

Re:Racial Bigotry

[HungSoLow]

From wikipedia:
"Lutherans hold that within Holy Communion, also referred to as the Sacrament of the Altar or the Lord's Supper,[39] the consecrated elements of bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ "in, with, and under the form" of bread and wine for all those who eat and drink it,[40] a doctrine that the Formula of Concord calls the Sacramental union.[41]"

Are you a special case, or is Wikipedia entirely wrong?

Either way, all Christians believe in the Zombie Jesus, so you're all nuts as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Racial Bigotry

[TheoMurpse]

Wikipedia is self-contradictory and wrong in your cited case. Also from Wikipedia:

However, Luther explicitly rejected transubstantiation, believing that the bread and wine remained fully bread and fully wine while also being fully the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Luther instead emphasized the sacramental union (not exactly the consubstantiation, as it is often claimed).

If some Lutheran sects no longer agree with what Luther wrote, I think by definition they're not Lutheran, right?

Beyond that, the "sacramental union" mentioned in your quote is neither trans- nor con-substantiation.

Either way, all Christians believe in the Zombie Jesus, so you're all nuts as far as I'm concerned.

Either way, all atheists believe in nothing and have no morals, so you're all nuts as far as I'm concerned.

There. See how easy it is to create a strawman or false statement? Christians hardly believe in a zombie Jesus.

Of course.

[dintech]

About time too. They should never have been taken down in the first place. Do no evil!

Re:Of course.

[g0dsp33d]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally they have to. Do no research.

Re:Of course.

[g0bshiTe]

They're just obeying the law, albeit a fairly poorly written one.

As opposed to concise well written laws.

Do those exist?

Re:Of course.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

What is evil here is the law. Imagine an anonymous poster, somewhere on the front lines of a war, exposing some monumental lie or an atrocity by filming it and posting on YouTube. The government or any other entity who wishes for the public to remain ignorant simply issues a DMCA take-down notice. YouTube complies instantly and uncritically. The anonymous whistle-blower will not reveal himself to issue a "counter-notice" because doing so exposes him/her to being "taken down" himself, via a bullet to the head "friendly fire" incident or being found out an "enemy combatant" and disappeared for life into torture in some dark and secret dungeon.

That is why, as I keep pointing out, the so-called "intellectual property" has the ultimate effect of creating a totalitarian society. It happens via a deadly mix of the fundamental scientific illogic of the concept of "intellectual property" being exposed by progress of technology and the resulting ever more draconian attempts to reverse the effects of such progress by those whose profits depend on keeping the populace on a chain. That impacts the society so because totalitarian control of information (as is the only logical outcome of "intellectual property") must also lead to a totalitarian society as a whole.

Re:Of course.

[oyenstikker]

Sure. There are some clear and concise laws that everybody understands.

Like the 2nd amendment.

Re:Of course.

[TheLink]

No time to investigate 4000 take down notices from one organization?

No time to "not be evil".

They didn't just take videos down, they suspended accounts based on complaints from a fictitious organization.

They've allegedly got many geniuses working for them.

Go figure.

Re:Of course.

[HungryHobo]

thing is it's fairly common for takedown notices to be sent by people who don't own the rights. It's basicly the quickest way to get something critical of you taken down (for a time at least) since you can send it in the name of "The imaginary society of america".

If I owned a company or ran an organisation and wanted to get something I didn't like pulled it'd be the first thing I'd do, send takedown notices anonymously.

Re:Of course.

[causality]

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.

Re:Of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

thing is it's fairly common for takedown notices to be sent by people who don't own the rights. It's basicly the quickest way to get something critical of you taken down (for a time at least) since you can send it in the name of "The imaginary society of america".

If I owned a company or ran an organisation and wanted to get something I didn't like pulled it'd be the first thing I'd do, send takedown notices anonymously.

I'm not advocating that this be done. In other words, I am not urging anyone to do anything illegal. That would be stupid -- don't do it. But, I thought of something that would be a very interesting thing to watch, in the event that it ever happens.

Imagine if false DMCA-style takedown notices are used to remove both Barack Obama's and John McCain's campaign advertisements, on television, radio, and the Internet. There's nothing quite like experiencing an abuse of it firsthand to convince a politician that perhaps a law was a bad idea.

Re:Of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod me off-topic now, I don't care.

I just lost my mod-points, otherwise I'd have modded you "+1, Unamarican"

Re:Of course.

[oyenstikker]

whooosh

Re:Of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

well, no duh. so what you gonna do about it?

Re:Of course.

[g0bshiTe]

Actually I think posters statement was very American.

Re:Of course.

[Nadaka]

Very American indeed. We as a nation really need to strip away the injustices that have been enacted to take away our natural individual rights and erode the protections of the constitution.

I am a patriotic American.

Unfortunately this is all off topic. On topic, I am seriously hoping that there are criminal and civil charges filed against the scientologists for sending these illegal DMCA notices.

Take that Xenu!

[Abreu]

I'm glad that the YouTube users fought back.
We really need to make people aware of the criminal actions of this cult.

Re:Take that Xenu!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nietzsche is dead" - God, 1900

What about this cult?

First?

[Odin_Tiger]

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:First?

[oldspewey]

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'?

Get with the program. Today is Transposed Tuesday.

Re:First?

[MyLongNickName]

Wow! I am behind on my Ubuntu distro then. I am still on the J's.

Re:First?

[AioKits]

The Ubuntu 2009 Calendar:

Jittery January
Fabulous February
Mirthful March
Anaphylactic April
Merciful May
Justified June
Jubilant July
Ardent August
Sepia September
Objective October
Nibbling November
Douceur December

Also comes with the days:
Sanguinely Sundays
Manic Mondays (Sorry, had to)
Transposed Tuesdays
Whimpering Wednesdays
Traumatic Thursdays
Fuck-yeah Fridays
Superimposed Saturdays

Order now!

Re:First?

[causality]

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 ...

Re:First?

[pla]

Wow! I am behind on my Ubuntu distro then. I am still on the J

Trust me, you'll love the new features in "Kleptomaniac Koala".

I heard the new AMD/ATI and VIA drivers won't make it in until "Lascivious Lemming", though, so you might want to hold off another few months.

Re:First?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean aserpndosT yusTade?

Re:First?

[Sobieski]

I prefer Smiletember, it's *FABULOUS*!

Re:First?

[oldspewey]

Yo no comprendo

Re:First?

[JakartaDean]

Wow, I'm way behind then, still on the "H"s. But, I gotta ask you, why, why, why wasn't this distro named the "Hungry Heifer"? Just to bring it back on topic, was it fear of copyright infringement by the folks behind "Cheers"? Missed opportunity, IMO Dean

Re:First?

[Fex303]

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'?

Get with the program. Today is Transposed Tuesday.

I think you mean 'Trassponed Tuedsay'.

Re:First?

[russotto]

I mean, the nature of a thing doesn't change just because you place an A HREF tag around it .

Yes, it does. Without the A HREF tag, it's covered by the First Amendment. With the A HREF tag, it's not. Accoring to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, anyway.

Re:First?

[causality]

I mean, the nature of a thing doesn't change just because you place an A HREF tag around it .

Yes, it does. Without the A HREF tag, it's covered by the First Amendment. With the A HREF tag, it's not. Accoring to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, anyway.

That's pretty scary, but all too believable.

Re:First?

[TheoMurpse]

Two THousand Eight's Totally THrilling Edition?

Teach them a lesson

[gooman]

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:Teach them a lesson

[d3ac0n]

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.

Re:Teach them a lesson

[NtroP]

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.

Re:Teach them a lesson

[TheDarkMaster]

Please, remove the word "false" from your sentence and will be much better!

Re:Teach them a lesson

[kiehlster]

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

I'd say the same, but I hear their lawyers are pretty tough, but so are Google/YouTube's. But then again, neither defense can hold up to Chuck Norris. I hear the thetans would have landed on dry ground, but Chuck did a round house kick that caused a massive updraft, which in turn made them all fall in a volcano.

Re:Teach them a lesson

[ViennaSt]

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)

Re:Teach them a lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what they need... A holy martyr to go with their Hollywood Jesus.

Re:Teach them a lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the number of wealthy screen actors who are Scientologists, I wouldn't be surprised if either there are Scientologists in the government calling their faith "none of the above/decline to state", or there are politicians who owe favors to Scientology.

OR, prosecuting them may open up the entire local, state, and/or federal governments to be fair gamed-- this is probably true regardless of the above conjectures, so it would explain the reluctance to bring these guys to court. I don't like politicians much, but I don't want to subject them to that sort of abuse.

Not only this, but Scientologist lawyers are like SCO and RIAA lawyers on PCP. They know the legal process, and how to game it so that a "speedy and public trial" is, on the contrary, such a waste of time and resources that the presiding judge would be tempted to let them off the hook just to get them to go away. Heck, a judge citing their counsel for contempt on procedural abuse would probably be fair gamed. Their dedication to protecting Scientology is such that they can't be bargained with, reasoned with, and in many cases, they feel no pity, or remorse, or fear, etc.

It is very difficult to fight to a draw, let alone win, against a player who is determined to cheat at every turn. They may come to either domination of the world through money and fear, or a violent end complete with firearms.

Re:Teach them a lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Actually, it would be "persecute", 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.

There, fixed that for you...

Re:Teach them a lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

...crazy Scientologists...

Actually,

hmm... what did you say your name was again?

Re:Teach them a lesson

[TheoMurpse]

Anonymous has lost the will to do this anymore. There has been a great shift in the balance of Anonymous. There was always a rift between those who wanted to do stuff for teh lulz and those who wanted to actually accomplish social change.

The lulz people have won out, and since the news media has covered it and a lot of people showed up in Guy Fawkes masks yelling stupid memes, the lulz people think it's not funny anymore.

Anonymous isn't going to fight this one anymore.

You'll never get me copper....

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who replies to this will get a takedown notice! This post is protected by the DMCA.

first post...

[Anonymous Coward]

anonymously of course...don't want some wackos on my trail...

A criminal offense ?

[Spc01]

"While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about." I would like to see someone get busted for filing an false DMCA notice lol. I Think this is like a joke.

Re:A criminal offense ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you're the guilty wiki editor to me!

E-meter videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know if any of them are E-meter instructional videos? I got one off an auction that I thought was really cool 'cause I saw it on the South Park Scientology episode (Is there only one?). This is the only item I have ever gotten off an [attention grammar Nazis: notice I didn't say "off of"] online auction where I got an offer before I had even paid for it! I don't know how to use it, though...

Re:E-meter videos?

[geminidomino]

Apply one probe to either side of a component. Meter will read proportionately to voltage across the component.

Re:E-meter videos?

[michrech]

This probe goes in your mouth.. This one goes in your ear. This one goes in your butt..."

Re:E-meter videos?

[smolloy]

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:E-meter videos?

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

It's nothing more than a half-assed lie-detector.

And since lie-detectors themselves are no more than a half-assed lie-detectors, I'm curious as to exactly what fraction of an ass an e-meter has...

Re:E-meter videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disrupting the flow of your sentence with a comment best left in a footnote is no way to get it in good with the Grammar Nazis.

Re:E-meter videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohm meter. Voltage == potential.

Re:E-meter videos?

[smolloy]

Thank you. I noticed that as soon as I hit submit, and was wondering how long it would take for someone to point it out.

It is true, however, that the Wheatstone bridge is based on a design for a potentiometer, so I'm only mostly wrong... ;)

Re:E-meter videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:E-meter videos?

[be951]

No, wait... switch the first and last ones.

Re:E-meter videos?

[_Sprocket_]

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.

Re:E-meter videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

roflmao

Re:E-meter videos?

[compro01]

It works fine for the grammar nazis, but the style and formatting nazis might be less than pleased with you.

Re:E-meter videos?

[geminidomino]

*watches smolloy stamp his snark into the dust*

+5 informative, -1 That was dickish. ;)

Re:E-meter videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's some more info

Re:E-meter videos?

[Bat Country]

PI/4

Re:E-meter videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nothing more than a half-assed lie-detector.

Not after Dr. Mephisto gets through with it!

The sick thing is this junk science is taken seriously in the US. Go Salem!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Reliability

Re:E-meter videos?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a potentiometer, a potentiometer is a variable resister like the volume knobs on old audio equipment. It is an ohmmeter.

Re:E-meter videos?

[rrohbeck]

A.k.a. lie detector. And we all know how reliable those are...

Re:E-meter videos?

[rrohbeck]

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.

Interesting thought. That's why Scientology doesn't like their myths exposed and tries to keep it in the hands of their high priests, err, thetans?

Re:E-meter videos?

[Al Dimond]

For fail and lose. pi/4 is greater than 1/2.

Re:E-meter videos?

[geekoid]

Manny of these devices have been proven to be leads attached to NOTHING in the device.

A potentiometer is a variable resistor, it doesn't measure resistance. An Ohm meter measures resistance.

Re:E-meter videos?

[Bat Country]

It's a paradox, is it not?

Re:E-meter videos?

[ipb]

/pedant mode on
A potentiometer is a variable resistor.
An e-meter is just an ohmmeter, a device that measures resistance.
/pedant mode off

Re:E-meter videos?

[smolloy]

Thanks. :)

As noted above, I realised my mistake as soon as I hit submit, and have been corrected by multiple people in pedant-mode ever since.

Also, a potentiometer can also be a voltage measuring device with a very similar construction to a Wheatstone bridge, not just a variable resistor (which still makes me wrong, but the fact that it makes you a little bit wrong as well makes me feel a little better;) )

Re:E-meter videos?

[martinw89]

No.

Re:E-meter videos?

[unfasten]

For those interested in saving the above website (which has more info than just the e-meter information):

wget --mirror --page-requisites --convert-links --no-parent --cut-dirs=1 http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html

F.Y.I. 286MB in 636 files

Re:E-meter videos?

[RealGrouchy]

And since lie-detectors themselves are no more than a half-assed lie-detectors, I'm curious as to exactly what fraction of an ass an e-meter has...

That was answered just a couple of posts above yours, here:

"This probe goes in your mouth.. This one goes in your ear. This one goes in your butt..."

- RG>

It should be a civil matter, too

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Perhaps it ought to carry stiff civil penalties as well? At least then it's not the prosecution's option to pursue the case, but the injured party's. Two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars maximum per bogus takedown notice might do the trick.

Re:It should be a civil matter, too

[sqlrob]

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.

How about a false DCMA suit now?

[Anonymous Coward]

With 4,000 videos being removed in a single pass by this entity, isn't it about time to use this as an example in a false DCMA takedown lawsuit? Who is responsible to persue this?

Re:How about a false DCMA suit now?

[KGIII]

Who is responsible to persue this?

That's a tough one. I'd suspect that the best party to actively pursue this would be Google/YouTube through their local police department as they are the ones who can demonstrate the best claim financial harm.

Alternatively the people who had their videos yanked could try but they are a disparate group, probably, and don't likely have the clout of a company as recognizable as Google.

Either way, the persons responsible to pursue this are the police, district attorneys, and judges.

The responsibility to report this (with evidence of course) lies in the hands of those who received the notices and processed them.

Isn't it also illegal

[S7urm]

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:Isn't it also illegal

[omeomi]

Not just to file fraudulant DMCA notices, but also to do so in the name of a Business that doesn't exist?

I think, technically, he could argue that the business is a sole proprietorship named "American Rights Council LLC". Even though the LLC usually implies that the business is a Limited Liability Company, I don't think there's any law that says it couldn't stand for Loquacious Loser Company. You don't need to register a sole proprietorship with anybody, and if it hasn't ever earned any income, I don't think it's even necessary to file a Schedule C on your tax return.

Re:Isn't it also illegal

[S7urm]

even as a sole prop. In order to be considered a "business entity" you have to file with someone. Any entity that "pays" any employee needs to at least have a Federal ID (EIN#) issued to them.

It be like if I claimed "S7urm LLC." and tried to write off the time I spend on here as a "business expense"...probably wouldn't work since my "company" doesn't make "profit" from "this enterprise" :)

Re:Isn't it also illegal

[CodeBuster]

I sincerely hope that some brave soul among those who filed counter-notices follows through and burns American Rights LLC, the lawyers behind it, and CoS to the ground for this flagrant and utterly abusive use of the DMCA under false pretenses and with complete lack of respect for the law or the legal system in general. There needs to be more sanctions for lawyers who participate in these types of farces whether they work for the MAFIAA, CoS, or any other organization which debases the law for their own narrow-minded, petty, and dishonest gain.

Re:Isn't it also illegal

[omeomi]

even as a sole prop. In order to be considered a "business entity" you have to file with someone. Any entity that "pays" any employee needs to at least have a Federal ID (EIN#) issued to them.

That's only true if you have employees. It's completely possible for a sole proprietorship to have no employees, no income, no profits, and no expenses. In that case, you don't have to file anything with anyone. Even if he does have income, he could just claim that tax season hasn't rolled around yet, so he hasn't filed his company's first tax return. If he has no employees, he can file using his SSN rather than needing an EIN.

Re:Isn't it also illegal

[KGIII]

Call it "advertising expenses" and put a link to your business' site in your signature then every post is expanding your potential to do more business.*

*This is why I'm not an accountant.

Re:Isn't it also illegal

[Atario]

My only problem with this is that it buys into the idea that the DMCA is an acceptable law.

What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[mrchaotica]

As geeks, shouldn't we be more annoyed at the obviously non-scientific "big three" religions?

• Despite the name, "Scientology" is no more scientific than Christianity. It is more sci-fi, but that's not the same thing.
• At the moment, mainstream Christianity isn't trying to suppress non-Christian free speech ("ID" dumbasses notwithstanding).
• At the moment, Christianity isn't run for profit (Roman Catholic church notwithstanding).

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Big difference. Lunacy and insanity were penned into the very core of Scientology, along with the authorization to decimate your "enemies", be they real or perceived. The other preaches love and for your fellow man, despite the behaviors of a very vocal minority.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait? Seriously? How can comparing the rule of Fair Game and R2-45 auditing to the 'ethic of reciprocity' be, in any way shape or form, be considered 'flamebait'? Is that you, Travolta?

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[PeterBrett]

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

Citation needed.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also of note is that Scientology is just as hateful towards gays as the Big Three religions

Also, they use gay skeletons in celebs closets to keep them on the hook.

They blackmail members to stay in the religion, since one of the very first things you
must do is divulge your entire sexual history while strapped to a lie detector (e meter.... ).

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

If some of the Big Three religions have their way, it will soon be a crime to mock them too.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Dave Emami]

Not to mention that Christians (and Hindus, Buddhists, etc) don't file DMCA complaints against people who quote their church's scriptures. Pope Benedict isn't going to sue you for copyright violation if you post a passage from the Bible on Usenet and make fun of it (which is analogous to what Scientology did).

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um
Point 1- I agree with
Point 2- I could certainly argue
Point 3- Might not want to cast stones at Roman Catholics. See- Evangilism of all sorts of Christianity.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Quantos]

'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:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

What in earth are you talking about? Every church I've ever been involved with (Southern Baptist, Baptist Missionary Alliance) do not run at a profit. There are no shares or stockholders, no dividends. There are sometimes paid staff, but they are there to serve the needs of the church, members, and community, and typically, many of the church put in large amounts of unpaid volunteer work.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[that IT girl]

Yeah, but they don't make you pay anything and withhold their doctrine until you pay up. They are glad to tell you all about the beliefs that make them so happy. What I don't get is why someone will scoff at a person offering them "eternal life" for free, but then turn around and spend money on an even crazier brainwashing by Scientology.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[that IT girl]

If I had points, I'd mod that up. I never actually thought of it that way.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Quantos]

I don't scoff at them, nor will I argue that they have the right to their own beliefs. My grandfather died at Vimy Ridge so that they would have the right to beleive in what they choose, I may disagree with what they believe, but I will not ridicule them for their beleifs. I simply pitty the victims that are taken in, and choose to stand up for their rights when they are incapable of doing so on their own.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[mrchaotica]

That was my second bullet point: being sued for copyright violation is the means of suppressing free speech.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[mewyn]

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.

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.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[fyoder]

Christianity is way too big a term to classify as for profit or not. Some elements are somewhat mercenary, others totally, some not at all.

But is there any element of Scientology that isn't mercenary? Even their writings are copyright. Though perhaps that's a good thing. If Saul of Tarsus has said "No, you can't see my letter unless you pay me a drachma", Christianity wouldn't be around today.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a different business model. They're unable to withhold anything because their texts are all public domain by now.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[pjt33]

They always try to run at a profit

Try to run at a profit or try to grow? If you're running at a loss then you obviously have problems. If you're consistently breaking even then you have no finances to try to expand - and the fundamental reason that churches exist is to expand. I may well be modded down for saying so, because a lot of people don't like the idea (and I can understand that), but it's true.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Quantos]

Just because they aren't running at a profit doesn't mean that they aren't trying to run at a profit. They have staff to pay, fees to pay to the parent organization, rent, taxes.... The lists of what they need to pay goes on to include trips for the youth organization that they run as well as businessman's breakfasts. Just because you aren't aware of it does not make it so. Attend a members meeting and find out what they really want. Don't get me wrong, I am not against an organization making money so that they don't need to leech off of the public in the way of government gimmes. What I am against are people who steal from the organization to furnish their houses or pay for sexual or drug addictions, and then hide it so that the congregation continues to pay for it. Heck, I'm even against the guys that admit those things and still expect the congregation to pay for it.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Quantos]

Exactly, how else can you pay for a new church. Again, I don't think this is a bad thing but stealing from the organization, and the members is. As a society we need to stand up to this and prosecute them for their actions. They should not be able to hide behind a loophole in the law or break the law to support their own agenda. That's what terrorists do.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[bfields]

I can vouch for this having been a 'Member in Good Standing' of the Protestant Church.

Err, what's "the Protestant Church"?

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[rossz]

While many churches want you to donate a percentage of your income, they do not demand it. I can walk into just about any church in the country on a Sunday morning and sit down for the service without donating a dime. The CoS, however, figuratively charges admission at the entrance.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[mewyn]

Good point. I did neglect to mention that. :)

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the mental gymanstics that have to be done to separate Christianity from other nutbags like the Scientologists. No, seriously. There have been times in the past EVERY religion has behaved like Scientology. Censorship, compulsory religion, profiteering, witch hunts, crusades, genocide; all of them have oppressed others in ways similar to--and far worse than--Scientology.

Additionally, every religion has shit that doesn't make sense at all. How does a Jewish zombie who's his own father make any more sense than a space-faring DC-8? At least space ships fucking exist and could (if we chose) look like DC-8s. Divinely reanimated undead couldn't exist under any circumstances in this universe, so in that respect at least Scientology is a (tiny) bit more believable.

Keep in mind I'm not defending Scientology in the least. I just find that the double standard present in our society in how we (as a society) laugh and jeer at one then grouse in muted tones about the other is quite disturbing, if you ask me. They're all loony, some just have been there so damn long that they're taken as background noise by most people. That doesn't make them any less loony when you step back and look at things from a distance.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

As geeks, shouldn't we be more annoyed at the obviously non-scientific "big three" religions?

• Despite the name, "Scientology" is no more scientific than Christianity. It is more sci-fi, but that's not the same thing.
• At the moment, mainstream Christianity isn't trying to suppress non-Christian free speech ("ID" dumbasses notwithstanding).
• At the moment, Christianity isn't run for profit (Roman Catholic church notwithstanding).

You forgot one. The Roman Catholic Church itself doesn't try to suppress Christians who are not associated with it.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[mrchaotica]

There have been times in the past EVERY religion has behaved like Scientology

Oh, I agree completely! But Scientology is worse right now.

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[gemada]

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

This has to be one of the funniest things i have ever read!

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[daft_one]

I'm 37-I'm not old!

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[RealGrouchy]

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

Hello? Bible belt megachurch faith healers? The ones where the leaders live in multimillion dollar houses (plural) and cheques for less than $5 are tossed in the dumpster?

- RG>

Re:What's with the scientology hatred?

[XchristX]

[quote]
And at least with them you're free to leave and not totally brainwashed.
[/quote]

Tell that to Abdul Rahman of Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert)

Arguably, I'd say Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Jamaat-e-Islami and others are pretty brainwashed (belief in antisemitic conspiracies etc.).

Interesting case of censorship

[megamerican]

Earlier this year radio talk show host Michael Reagan called for the murder of Mark Dice live on air. Mark Dice uploaded a 3 minute clip of the death threat to youtube. Reagan's lawyers filed a DMCA claim on the clip, youtube took down Mark Dice's entire channel which had a lot of original content and over a million views. Dice tried to counter claim but youtube did NOT reinstate his channel. Dice had to make a new channel and upload his content back.

The FBI or police would not charge Reagan for his death threats and Reagan is still on the air.

Re:Interesting case of censorship

[Detritus]

Generalized threats are not a crime. Unless he can show that it was fair use, Dice did infringe Reagan's copyright. Youtube pulling the entire channel is an issue with youtube, not Reagan.

Re:Interesting case of censorship

[LWATCDR]

While calling for this guys death is over the top and uncalled for, Mark Dice is a to be kind not the nicest of people.
And I am a go to church every Sunday kind of guy. He is way far to the right by my standards.

  "Dice founded an organization,[1] variously called The Resistance,[2] The Christian Resistance or The Resistance for Christ, which espouses fundamentalist Christianity and professes conspiratorial beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church,[3] the Illuminati, freemasons, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, the 9/11 attacks and Satanism, and which has been reported to "flood the airwaves of call-in radio and television shows"[4] to promote them. His 450 page book, The Resistance Manifesto details these beliefs.

Dice's activities have been covered by national media outlets. His focus is primarily on political activism, culture jamming, boycotts, and pop culture criticism.

He has called for the Georgia Guidestones to be removed from public property,[4][5] protested a Jessica Simpson music video,[1] called for a boycott of the VeriChip,[1][6] called for Duke University to change the name of its sports team (the Blue Devils),[7] called for rapper 50 Cent to stop wearing a cross,[8] and claimed that Scientology is a satanic cult.[9]

He recently launched a boycott against Starbucks, calling the company "Slutbucks", after featuring a logo of a topless mermaid-type figure.[10][11] He also endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy for president in 2008.

Dice is featured in Alex Jones' film The 9/11 Chronicles, which documents the activities of the 9/11 truth movement."

Re:Interesting case of censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not censorship. It's straightforward copyright violation.

Re:Interesting case of censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. Google/YouTube can do whatever they want. Dice is retarded for creating another channel when their are other services out there. He should of taken his users to a competitor.

Re:Interesting case of censorship

[Fex303]

He also endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy for president in 2008.

Well, I was on the edge till I read that, but now I know he's nuts.

Re:Interesting case of censorship

[beelsebob]

None of the things you're talking about are adding up to being "not the nicest of people". We're talking protest here. Not making death threats. Protest is good, it's vital for society to continue to evolve.

Re:Interesting case of censorship

[LWATCDR]

Okay now about not the most stable guy? I was trying to as nice as possible.
Protest like most things can be good or bad. In this case it is a total waste of time.
And yes I said that death threats where uncalled for and over the top.

Re:Interesting case of censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Great, another cult that brainwashes everyone

[Easy EPMD]

Scientolocraopy can kiss my ass. Seriously WTF guys, have nothing better to do than start a de-facto cult? go outside, hang with yr friends, get some exercise....

Re:Great, another cult that brainwashes everyone

[King_TJ]

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.)

Southpark's Scientology Video

[FudRucker]

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3460051/South.Park.S09E12.DSR.XviD-XOR__Scientology_episode

Re:Southpark's Scientology Video

[schlick]

Here is their own link

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103804/

Re:Southpark's Scientology Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this one up and the GP down. As a non-cable subscribing, non-antenna owning TV owner, I am all for free, legal, non-youtube, non-porn on the Internet.

Re:Southpark's Scientology Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up and GP down. I agree with my brother AC; Comedy Central should be encouraged to put their episodes online, rather than encouraged to sue college students.

Re:Southpark's Scientology Video

[roman_mir]

The site referenced by the parent redirects Canadians to thecomedynetwork.ca, which allows to search shows by seasons and episode titles, but then requires Silverlight to be installed to play the episodes. Well, isn't that just too bad, cause I am not installing it.

Re:Southpark's Scientology Video

[Mashiki]

One of these days we'll actually be able to head to a single website to see the same things that are broadcast in both countries at the same time.

One day...

Google Should Sue

[whisper_jeff]

Given the amount of resources (time) that Google's lost in dealing with these (4000!) bogus DMCA notices, I think Google should file a lawsuit against the offending party. Obviously, I'd love to see the people who posted the videos start a class-action suit as well, but I think Google having to deal with the paperwork, remove the videos, deal with the counter-claim paperwork, and repost the videos represents a significant loss of time and thus money, all because someone is abusing the DMCA. Were I Google's lawyers, I'd use this situation as a perfect chance to deliver a message to all copyright holders - get it right or deal with OUR lawsuit.

Re:Google Should Sue

[S7urm]

Google Owns YouTube?

Re:Google Should Sue

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:Google Should Sue

[Stormwatch]

Google Owns YouTube?

Yes, they do.

Re:Google Should Sue

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Yep, they have since 2006.

Google To Acquire YouTube for $1.65 Billion in Stock

It has to do with branding - the only mention of Google you'll see on the Youtube main page is the "Add to iGoogle" link on the bottom, which doesn't really say much about ownership. It's not until you go to the "Company History" page where they'll mention Google buying them out.

At least that's why I think it's so easy to forget who owns who.

Re:Google Should Sue

[zippthorne]

Which was quite annoying. Google video had a much better interface at the time, and the videos seemed less crappy (encoding-wise...). I'm certain they would've overtaken youtube as "what youtube ought-to have been" if google had given it half a chance.

Re:Google Should Sue

[Anonymous Coward]

Perjury is a criminal offense, they'd have to ask the DA to prosecute and hope his offices aren't busy with real criminals.

Re:Google Should Sue

[bhtooefr]

But the only way they would've done that is to have bought out YouTube, merged its content library with Google Video's, and killed off YouTube.

Also, I'll note that on my 1.2GHz G4, YouTube is watchable. Google Video isn't. Anything larger than about 320x240 in FLV just doesn't work, and is a skipping slideshow. (Granted, I have a 1.6 Core 2 Duo that I watch online videos on. But, video shouldn't be that hard to do right. Flash just sucks the big one.)

Re:Google Should Sue

[Anonymous Coward]

But this may very well have been part of the reason for filing the notices under "American Rights Counsel, LLC".

As far as I know, its effectivly a shell organization with zero assets and is has limited liability.

This is actually standard operating proceedure for the Church of Scientology, to use a large web of shell companies, that are "independent" on paper, but "controlled" by CoS/RTC in practice.

This is expressly for the purpose of providing a legal shield against lawsuits and other legal matters.

The organizations on-the-ground are often assetless, with any profits being directed up-lines in the form of royalties and licencing fees. The CoS churches/orgs, are not owned by the same legal entity that does the day-to-day running. They each individually owned by a shell company that leases the building back to the church/org.

Should one "local org" be sued for a huge sum of money, and they are unable to defend it, they would claim bankrupcy with minimal assets. The landlord is a seperate company and thus will have kept its hands clean of any alledged wrongdoing, as will RTC who only "licence" the works of LRH. Next day, a fresh limited liability is formed gets a "licence" from RTC and a leasehold on the same property. All the staff of the old org are given new contracts and nobody on the outside would realize that anything had happened.

And as someone wishing to sue the CoS, are you willing to spend any significant amount of money suing a shell organization who doesn't even have the assets to cover your legal costs.

Now the claim of purgery, if pursued, might be able to target a lone individual, but someone the CoS would be able to distance themselves from in terms of plausable deniability.

This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad

[MikeRT]

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.

You know one major reason why this would be hard as hell to get passed? Because if it were passed it would not only pressure legislatures to write better, more consistent legal codes, but it would allow for pesky things like drug cops in cases like Kathryn Johnston's shooting death to be tried for manslaughter, perjury in securing the warrant and criminal negligence leading to injury or death.

Re:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad

[S7urm]

Why should people be able to bring CRIMINAL action against a person/entity, when the people (DA, U.S DAs et al) who are responsible and have the legally granted right to bring such actions won't handle the case. You're talking about creating a prosecution from a standing of un-enforcerability. A municipality/city/state/country/tribe has the "power" to create, alter, negotiate, and finalize sentencing aggrements, plea bargains, settlements, etc. whereas a "civilian" prosecutor in a criminal case cannot and SHOULD not be able to make those decisions because they aren't accountable to the constituency of that (state,city,country etc.)

Thus we only allow prosecution to be carried out by empowered individuals in a civic capacity in a criminal court. We delegate non-criminal cases to the Civil courts, because monetary/property gain is the only outcome, as it should be. I'd rather not have some crazy prosecutor, held unaccountable, trying me in a court where I could be put to death.

Re:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

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:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad

[DragonWriter]

You know one major reason why this would be hard as hell to get passed?

One reason why it would be hard to get passed is that it is contrary to the entire theory and purpose of a criminal justice system, to wit, to provide for dealing with offenses that need to be addressed because they threaten the public, not merely the particular victims, and whose prosecution is, therefore, reserved to those who are elected to serve the public interest.

Further, because of protections against double jeopardy, it would allow real criminals to get off by being prosecuted incompetently by independents that were either hyperzealous amateurs or secret coconspirators.

For things where you are harmed and want to sue, we have the civil justice system, and most criminal acts which cause harm to individuals can also be pursued as civil matters.

Re:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad

[compro01]

Keep in mind that criminal prosecutions have a substantially higher burden of proof ("beyond reasonable doubt" vs. "preponderance of evidence") and various other protections (right to legal representation, 5th amendment, etc.) that you don't get with civil suits.

Re:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad

[PPH]

Because prosecutors can opt NOT to file charges. Sometimes they do so for legitimate reasons (lack of evidence), but at other times for totally capricious reasons. Or in exchange for monetary compensation.

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to violate the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Re:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad

[TheRaven64]

You can in a number of cases. For example, there have been a few instances of people brining civil cases for murder against people who got off the criminal charge. The penalties are different, and the standard of evidence required is lower, but the same crime can be tried in a civil or a criminal court in a number of instances.

Re:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad

[Kjella]

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".

Re:This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Perhaps innocent until proven guilty ought to really mean innocent until proven guilty. Sentencing guidelines should be reasonable not politically motivated. Prisons should be clean, safe environoments - yet still devoid of pleasentries and freedom of motion. COUNTER suing a prosecutor - private or public - ought to be possible. If the charges don't get past a grand jury, automatic but statutory damages ought to be awarded. If laws are being unjustly enforced, then those laws need to be revoked and - if still needed -rewritten. Removing the facade of a 'public' prosecutor may expose the inherent suckiness of the system. A LARGE part of the problem is that you can be mercilessly punished without a conviction. Perhaps realizing that big $ does have prosecutors in their pocket, may lead people to give ALL prosecutors less power. Lastly, the DA - the state - should not be judge of who among their employees has to face a "jury of their peers" (AKA we the people).

Mission Accomplished

[rekoil]

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".

Re:Mission Accomplished

[VeNoM0619]

Well if the claims were false. Hopefully the counter-claims aren't even posted? Anyone know?

Re:Mission Accomplished

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they probably don't. The person who would get the information is the person who filed the notice. In this case a nonexistent corporation.

I don't think YouTube even processed the counter notices, Someone told them that American RIghts Counsel LLC does not exist, they checked and restored the accounts.

DCMA = crap

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm SOOOO sick of corporate bulldogs thinking they can control the internet. Give up already, nothing good comes from meddling.

Re:DCMA = crap

[cliffski]

wtf? this is a bunch of lunatics sending out false DMCA notices. it doesn't mean the DMCA is bad, in fact it just highlights the GOOD things about the DMCA, the fact that there are prescribed penalties for filing false reports, which is exactly as it should be.

Re:DCMA = crap

[compro01]

And do you have a single incident of those penalties ever being applied?

Re:DCMA = crap

[cliffski]

do you have a single legit incident of someone contesting one which was not upheld?

From the mouth of the horse itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

From http://forums.enturbulation.org/186-youtube-situation-room-september-edition/more-youtube-fraud-cult-scientology-28179/3/#post553045

"Anon was caught a little off guard this time. Next time, we'll react so fast that their pointy little heads will spin. JewTube is our playground, and we're not going to let them piss in the sandbox again."

Re:From the mouth of the horse itself...

[spun]

The sandbox is closed due to DMCA.

Top Scientologists (and "Church") face fraud trial

[wisebabo]

You did know that "Top Scientologists" and the church are facing fraud charges?

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/09/france.scientology.trial.ap/index.html

Unfortunately they are being charged in France, I don't know if they are in the country or if they will have to be extradited. If so, I don't know if the U.S. will agree. After all, they could claim "religious" persecution.

Typical behaviour of the Scientology sect

[golodh]

This sort of unethical behaviour is well-documented as absolutely typical for the Scientology sect I'm afraid. The term the sect uses to indicate its position vis-a-vis critics or opponents is to call them "fair game". Meaning that they condone, encourage, or initiate thoroughly unethical conduct against them (ranging from slander and defamation, intimidation through harassment in the widest sense of the word to costly nuisance lawsuits).

See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)#Court_cases_involving_.22Fair_Game.22, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karin_Spaink, http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/, http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/idx_coskit.html, http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/general.html

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)). 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:Typical behaviour of the Scientology sect

[Quantos]

Thanks, now I have to get 'clear' again...

Re:Typical behaviour of the Scientology sect

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of us know this.

What has been bugging me is why law enforcement, be it city, county, state, and federal, have been reluctant to prosecute Scientology for its criminal actions.

Doesn't RICO mean anything to anyone?

Re:Typical behaviour of the Scientology sect

[Qubit]

Slashcode picked up your trailing paren and thought it was part of that URL. This should work better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7604311.stm

Re:Typical behaviour of the Scientology sect

[Anonymous Coward]

sect

You misspelled "cult".

Re:Typical behaviour of the Scientology sect

[Anonymous Coward]

From Operation Clambake:

In 1967 the IRS stripped Scientology's mother church of its tax-exempt status. With his organization coming under increasing scrutiny from a variety of governments and tax woes abounding, Hubbard wrote his famous "Fair Game" law, which states that anyone named an enemy of Scientology "may be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed." (8)...

During the early 1970s the IRS "proved that Hubbard was skimming millions of dollars from the church, laundering the money through dummy corporations in Panama and stashing it in Swiss bank accounts. Moreover, church members stole IRS documents, filed false tax returns and harassed the agency's employees." (10)

A US federal court in 1971 ruled that Hubbard's medical claims were bogus and that E-meter auditing could not be called a scientific treatment. The CoS responded by "going fully religious, seeking First Amendment protection...counselors started sporting clerical collars. Chapels were built, franchises became "missions",fees became "fixed donations", and Hubbard's comic-book cosmology became "sacred scriptures." (11)

While the Church of Scientology continued to expand, its private intelligence agency known as the Guardian's Office (GO) ran cloak-and-dagger operations against the mayor of Clearwater, various governmental agencies and anyone else perceived as in their way.

Hubbard had established the GO in 1966 for internal and external security purposes. The GO's purview included attacking critics, keeping members in line and silencing defectors. GO agents "stole medical files, sent out anonymous smear letters, framed critics for criminal acts, blackmailed, bugged and burgled opponents, and infiltrated government offices stealing thousands of files...Critics were to be driven to breakdown or harassed into silence." (12) Eventually, in the early 1980s, eleven GO officials, including Hubbard's wife, were imprisoned following a massive bugging and burgling operation against government offices across the US that Hubbard had personally created and code-named "Operation Snow White." Hubbard, himself was named as an unindicted co-conspirator but escaped justice because no one could find him.

During the power struggles and purges of the 1980s, many people left the church. Some established independent organizations based on Hubbard's writings. The CoS quickly undertook mass copyrighting of all Hubbard materials and took legal steps to shut down the independents. In 1983 the Office of Special Affairs was created to carry on the purposes of the defunct Guardian's Office. (14)

Hubbard advocated harassment of opponents by lawsuit, and so following the CoS's loss of tax-exempt status in 1967, Scientology declared war. For 26 years "...they attacked the IRS consistently on many fronts; suing and investigating individual IRS agents, deliberately obscuring their records, constantly suing the IRS directly, taking out anti-IRS advertisements, funding anti-IRS groups, lying, infiltrating, stealing, bugging, offering rewards for IRS whistleblowers, pressuring congressmen to investigate the IRS, filing countless Freedom of Information Act requests, creating a corporate maze, publishing anti-IRS articles in their own magazines, and other methods. The attacks worked." (15)

In 1993 the beleaguered IRS and the Church of Scientology International reached an agreement, the terms of which were kept secret but were leaked to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL four years later. Per the agreement, the church gained tax-exempt status for itself and its subsidiaries and in return agreed to drop the lawsuits and settle its back tax obligations with a payment of $12.5 million -- a fraction of the estimated amount owed. Many questions have been raised about provisions of this agreement, however the IRS and CoS maintain that it is confidential and will not discuss i

DING DING DING DING!!!!!

[sconeu]

We have a winner. This is most likely the real reason for the mass takedown.

Mod parent up.

Idiot mods

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like the mods can do a god damned thing right, unless of course it's adding a +1 Funny to the latest (re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re)iteration of a Slashdot meme.

Re:Idiot mods

[Foobar of Borg]

It's not like the mods can do a god damned thing right, unless of course it's adding a +1 Funny to the latest (re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re)iteration of a Slashdot meme.

On Soviet Slashdot, mods meme YOU!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Idiot mods

[snoyberg]

In Soviet Scientology, meme +1 Funny you!

(Do I get mod points now?)

Do you really need to ask?

[MikeRT]

Why should people be able to bring CRIMINAL action against a person/entity, when the people (DA, U.S DAs et al) who are responsible and have the legally granted right to bring such actions won't handle the case.

Maybe because the current system basically doesn't work? One of the most glaring flaws that you didn't take into consideration is the fact that under the current system, those people responsible for bringing the charges and prosecuting cases are part of the same apparatus that often needs to be investigated and cleaned out! You know those cases where KBR contractors are accused of raping and murder female soldiers, have tons of evidence against them, and the Army rules it a "suicide" to protect the image of the efforts in Iraq? Imagine if the family could do its own investigation, bring charges to a federal judge, and have the contractors tried by a private prosecutor in federal criminal court? You might actually create some law and order!

Re:Do you really need to ask?

[rhizome]

Maybe because the current system basically doesn't work? ...You might actually create some law and order!"

So, the "system" doesn't work and we don't have any law and order? I had no idea that this is what anarchy looked like!

I think your heart is in the right place, but your mind is jumping to conclusions. Don't be that guy!

Outed?

[Frosty Piss]

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:Outed?

[Anonymous Coward]

They could have a lawyer file a counter-response, and stay anonymous that way. The lawyer wouldn't have to reveal the uploader's name as far as I know. It's even possible that the EFF represented some anonymous uploaders.

Well, it's as legitimate as my religion

[davidwr]

May you be touched by His Noodley Appendage.

Re:Well, it's as legitimate as my religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that was the Christian religion?

Re:Well, it's as legitimate as my religion

[Anonymous Coward]

ramen, ramen

Re:Well, it's as legitimate as my religion

[RealGrouchy]

I was touched by His Noodley Appendage once, and it gave me an epiphany.

All of a sudden, Japanese tentacle porn made sense!

- RG>

Narcolepsy

[snspdaarf]

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.

Well, that would explain my need for a post-lunch nap!

What's Scientology?

[King Gabey]

Funny, I never would have viewed any of those anti-scientology clips if it weren't for these bogus take-down notices...

Re:Top Scientologists (and "Church") face fraud tr

[Nursie]

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

[ZackZero]

I've done some searching, and so far, all Web hits for the entire name "American Rights Counsel LLC" (actual search string, incl. quotes) - even the foreign-language hits - all only point to news postings related to the takedowns. That's 101/101 hits total from a single Google search with that string, followed by 102/102 via Yahoo. Not a single one showing that group in a neutral light.

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).

Who's the good guy again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right wing nutcase versus fundamentalist crazy. This is what happens when extremists collide.

Re:Who's the good guy again?

[Hatta]

Right wing nutcase, fundamentalist.. What's the difference?

Religions and their Back-Stories

[Petersko]

I fail to see why the story of Scientology is any more or less credible than that of other religions.

Xenu and alien souls... Joseph Smith and the disappearing gold tablets... the resurrection of Christ... they're all dodgy, silly stories. The catholics just had a couple thousand years head start. The thing is, baloney stored for 2000 years is still baloney. It's just really old baloney.

I can find fault with their profit-oriented outlook, their penchant for litigation, and their militant us-against-everybody attitude, but to my understanding they're less than amateurs when it comes violence, slaughter, oppression, and heartless wealth accumulation. If they can pull off three centuries of tyranny they might rise up the ladder a bit, but I doubt they'll even start down that path. Even by the standards of today they are a well-mannered bunch. Scientologists don't suicide-bomb people - they generally attack them using the same system that is abused by countless non-Scientologists.

In the meantime they take money from the gullible, and that just makes them a tiny portion of a vast number of opportunists.

Re:Religions and their Back-Stories

[operagost]

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.

Re:Religions and their Back-Stories

[Petersko]

"If the early believers had taken it, would they have been willing to die for what they knew was a lie? "

Good heavens, yes. Besides, it only takes one to steal a body. The rest might legitimately believe the story.

"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."

Using the Bible to validate its claims is a logical absurdity, and having a few facts in it doesn't turn fiction into non-fiction. Not to mention the fact that you can't possibly give evidence to prove that somebody didn't see something. I could tell you I just looked out the window and saw a unicorn humping a dodo bird, and you might think I'm a liar... but you can't prove it.

Re:Religions and their Back-Stories

[Doctor Faustus]

Then where's the body?
Still in the tomb, if there really was a Jesus (a matter of some dispute). The claims that the body disappeared weren't written down until after the people who would have seen that were probably dead.

Re:Religions and their Back-Stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientologists can believe whatever stupid shit they want to believe.

What we just want, is their organization to stop emulating the tactics of the Mafia. That's a reasonable request.

Re:Religions and their Back-Stories

[couchslug]

"Even by the standards of today they are a well-mannered bunch. Scientologists don't suicide-bomb people "

Interesting that Islam is considered to have set the "standards of today".

Re:Religions and their Back-Stories

[snl2587]

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.

Hundreds? Try about a dozen.

Re:Religions and their Back-Stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's actually a theory that it's possible that Jesus didn't actually physically die on the cross. It wasn't uncommon at the time for people to take poison before being crucified, in an effort to die in a somewhat less agonizing (and it was; you had a choice between asphyxiating and dying of exposure while tearing your flesh to pieces trying to support yourself to stop asphyxiating)death, so it's not unreasonable to suppose that Jesus may have done something similar. The effect of this probably reduced him to a catatonic state, so, supposing he was already dead, he was taken down. The followers preparing him for burial (it would be the people closest to him) would have noticed the whole 'not-quite-dead' thing, and given him the antidote to whatever poison it was. Thus, after recovering somewhat, Jesus would have reappeared after being crucified.

Likely, it wasn't a big secret or anything, but merely became embellished when written down later.

I think the Jesus's followers at the time were probably following him more because of the ideas and philosophies that he represented, rather than some miracle that occurred at the end of his direct influence. (I don't think that he could have lived very long afterward, and certainly not been active or public; I don't even want to think about the sheer physical (not to mention mental) trauma he & his body went through)

That being said, it also doesn't make Christianity any less valid as a religion; shouldn't that be judged on underlying philosophy and practice, as opposed to the surrounding stories? By that, while the belief (stories) of the Scientologists read like a (very bad, not even B-rated) science fiction novel and border (have-driven-a-freight-train-through-and-emerged-on-the-other-side) on the ridiculous, the major issue with them is their behaviour towards others, and each other.

Yeah, you have a right to believe/think/do whatever, but you also have a responsibility to ensure that you don't then stop everyone and anyone else from believing/thinking/doing whatever they want. Example; you might want to believe that the universe is actually contained within the tip of a massive ballpoint pen, but then you shouldn't try to stop the guy down the street from believing that you're absolutely barmy.
 

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Which is unavailable in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

So therefore TPB I go.

Digital Copyright Millennium Act

[Anonymous Coward]

It says twice "DCMA" in the article, and only once "DMCA".

I thought it was "Digital Millennium Copyright Act", not the other way around.

Remember

[Moryath]

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 - 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 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:Remember

[digitig]

Of course, Wikipedia's completely bombarded by pro-$cientology stooges 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:Remember

[Moryath]

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).

Growing Immunity

[Doc Ruby]

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:Growing Immunity

[DeadManCoding]

and include the counternotice procedure and framework...

That's all fine and dandy, but suddenly the original takedown notice disappears from SMTP servers, and the counternotice, with all the relevant information, get stored on a "Suppresive Person" database so that the CoS can fuck with them later. You've got the right idea, don't get me wrong, but that's not the right way. I say send it to the 3rd party first so that we still have a trail, and force the company/person/organization to prove infringing works prior to takedown. That way the onus is on the org to get the proof, and all Google has to do is look over the documents to make sure the evidence is there.

Re:Growing Immunity

[Doc Ruby]

I think that you just said exactly what I said.

Re:Growing Immunity

[DeadManCoding]

Correct, but requiring the takedown notice to go to the alleged infringer first completely defeats the purpose of staying anonymous. I don't want to be harassed by CoS jerks, and if I have to keep my name out of publications for that to happen, then I will. And I'm not about to reply to a takedown notice with my full name, address, etc if I know that the reply will lead to harassment.

Re:Growing Immunity

[Doc Ruby]

Well, it's pretty clear that if a takedown notice cannot be delivered to an accused infringer despite taking the required steps to do so (eg. because the accused infringer is anonymous), then the process can proceed to the next step instead. There's no need to either hold up the process or to force identification. The first notice should be sent because it can eliminate a lot of the trouble and undue pressure on the publisher that won't work on a lot of targets if it can be stopped there first.

Followup

[Moryath]

Remember L. Ron's first rule of dealing with the media - "Never Defend, Always Attack."

And of course, any "Suppressive Person" is "Fair Game." (also here). 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:

Wikinews contacted Schaper for exclusive comments. Schaper replied saying that he is a "very strong advocate for the Church of Scientology, the religion of Scientology and a free speech advocate" and "I don't need to go into details but I felt that my family and myself have been direct targets and in an attempt to control the situation, I started to track down and remove online links between me and my religion. This included postings made by HouseSpiderAnon on his videos, who publicly connected the dots and made them available to a larger audience."

"I requested several times to have my information removed from his videos as I wanted no association with his work but he refused, even after I stated several times that he has the right to protest but that I would like to enforce my right of privacy. He refused and demanded documentation of the attacks, something I refused because it was not my attention to allow more documents to be available online in public hand," added Schaper who also said he has been a victim of identity theft and now has the FBI involved in investigating his claim.

"Tustin PD [police department] has been on the case and now the FBI is involved as well. Social Security has been notified and we have seen about 200 attempts to use the SSN [social security number] for fake credit cards applications," Schaper told Wikinews.

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:Followup

[IorDMUX]

I can't be the only one... aren't there any other old GW-BASIC programmers out there who keep reading "$cientoloty" as a string variable, name 'cientology'?

Re:Followup

[ChrisMP1]

Not old (only 16), but I first started programming on IBM BASIC, on an old PC-XT that my grandfather had. I did... That stupid '$' for 'S' always throws me for a loop - I always think 'syntax error' right away when I see 'micro$oft'.

Re:Followup

[IorDMUX]

I always think 'syntax error' right away when I see 'micro$oft'.

Agreed...agreed.

Perhaps I should have clarified; old referred to the language, not the programmer. After all, I'm only 24. I started rudimentary programming BASIC on my parents' IBM PCjr (the kind where you have to insert cartridges into the machine to use different languages). My last project before I moved on to bigger and better places (i.e. C++) was a text-based, time-based Space-Quest 1 parody, complete with fights and some lines and boxes moving around the screen (which taxed the PCjr's graphics hardware to the maximum :p )

Re:Followup

[ChrisMP1]

Of course, at least on the BASIC I'm used to, the variable in 'micro$oft' is 'micro', not 'oft'. $cientology would be a syntax error.

Back then, I only had the few commands I found scribbled on a sticky note stuck in "The ABC's of MS-DOS". I figured out a few on my own, like 'if..then', 'locate', and 'run'. I had no clue what the hell a subroutine was, so anything like that would have been too much.

I think, though, that it ruined me... I can do just about anything with simple procedural commands, but object-oriented just doesn't click. I can use C++, but not the OO parts.

What's really sad

[z80kid]

*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:What's really sad

[Jason Levine]

Actually, it wasn't that she believed it because she saw it on TV (actually, Comedy Central's South Park website ). She's too intelligent for that. Her first response upon seeing the clip was: "This isn't real, is it?"

The real reason that South Park succeeded where I failed was that South Park laid out the Scientology beliefs in an easily understandable fashion. I couldn't seem to do that. So while it sounded like some stupid sci-fi story coming from me, she was able to easily understand the point that the South Park episode was making and use the information they presented to understand Scientology's creation story.

Re:What's really sad

[pablodiazgutierrez]

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.

Re:What's really sad

[Anonymous Coward]

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

That may be true, but man, is she hot!

Re:What's really sad

[krunk7]

Exactly. I don't find Scientology's claims any more ridiculous than those of every other religion I've looked into. Raised from the dead? Omniscience? Omnipotent? Transubstantiation? Eternal garden full of virgins? Reincarnation? Cow is the highest life form?

Thetans, aliens, and seeing into the sole with a tuning fork? Sure, why not.

Oh pulllllleeeze

[istartedi]

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:Oh pulllllleeeze

[Anonymous Coward]

Great reply. Seeing you at 1 and your parent at 5 simply confirms that I'm correct in keeping my threshold at -1.

Mod parent up.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[IgnoramusMaximus]

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.

Not true.

The reason is very simple: in order to "secure rights" one has to control the flow of information. Controlling the flow of information is one of the key societal features conductive for a totalitarian state.

A totalitarian government is helped by "intellectual property" (or more precisely by the necessary laws required to enforce such a scheme) while an open government is hindered by such a scheme (in part by a requirement to contradict its own ideology by enforcing information restrictions). This distinction becomes ever more drastic with increasing ease of mass information dissemination by the general public.

Or to put it more simply: "intellectual property" is all about stopping "unauthorized" information dissemination, and establishment any such "authority" as far as information is concerned, and mechanisms to enforce such "authority", are one of the very pillars of a totalitarian state.

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

Your "analogy" is hopelessly flawed. That is so because the military troop movement is not automatically linked to the freedom of the populace to move. That is, more people moving in their cars does not imply a threat to the military and thus armed troops do not get deployed to stop people from moving. Your analogy would be correct if for example some people were "unauthorized" to move without prior consent of the government and that the numbers of those violating this "law" was increasing, in response to which the government deployed more and more troops and created armed checkpoints to stop these people. At some point a combination of roads, military checkpoints and mass numbers of "undesirable" car owners would result in a totalitarian state.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[istartedi]

OK, let's assume (dangerous, I know) that IP is evil and must be eliminated because it inevitably lead to totalitarianism. By elimination of IP, I mean placing all works into the Public Domain. It doesn't take too much imagination to see the problems this would cause, in terms of disincentives to create. No new drugs, because no patents. Less literature of consequence, becausee no royalties. Please don't cite examples like Radio Head, because they got bootstrapped by the IP system.

Don't get me wrong: I'm fully opposed to the DMCA and the way it's being used.

The DMCA fits into your model of "control of information", but not all IP does that. Patents even require publication.

My only real beef with you and other anti-IP people is that take abuses, such as the DMCA, and use them to paint all IP with a broad brush of evil that's not deserved.

And yeah, the analogy was sure to have flaws as it was whipped up quite hastily. Sorry about that.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[IgnoramusMaximus]

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.

I will even provide for you an analogy, using your premise, more in keeping with the idea of "intellectual property". Imagine the very scenario of roads and cars, as you described. No, the roads by themselves (just like the Internet by itself) do not create the required conditions for a totalitarian state. So a free state has roads with free citizens in their cars on them and a military in its barracks.

But then a group of businesses, in the business of moving furniture, manage to lobby the government for a silly concept of "Motion Property". They argue that whomever moved a piece of hardware from a store to a customers home (a service which this group pretty-much monopolizes) is forever entitled to be the only mover of that item, until the item falls apart, at which point they are entitled to be the only ones moving the remains to the garbage dump. The free state wishes to be "commerce friendly" and passes the laws.

Of course the citizenry laughs at the idea and keeps moving the chairs and potted plants in the trunks of their cars. The "Authorized Movers" are incensed and talk about wide-spread "theft" of their labor, cite multi-billion "losses" and lobby the government to do something about it. After much bribing and cajoling the government passes the MMMA (Motion Millenium Moving Act) to force the populace to behave.

The populace keeps laughing, shaking their heads at the stupidity and points out that they have always done what they are doing now, first on their backs, then on donkeys, and now in cars.

But the money to be made is very great. So the "Motion Owners" manage to get the government to start randomly inspecting cars and suspending people's driving licenses. But in order for this to work, inspection checkpoints have to be established and individual liberties suspended ("temporarily"). Facing "billions" of "losses" the government proceeds to do this to ensure "progress" is not threatened by a "few bad apples". First by using police as a backup and allowing the "Motion Owners" to deploy private investigators in the lead. But that does not work. There are ever more cars, bigger roads are being built and people keep moving their aquariums and flower pots in their trunks.

The government is faced with two choices: give up, or crack down. If it decides to be faithful to the idea of "Motion Ownership" it must crack down, and the only way to do so is via establishing an ever increasing (as the populace keeps finding new way to move their stuff) checkpoints, with ever more violent (because by now the populace is starting to actively resist) methods of enforcing this "Motion Ownership" idea.

Ultimately the decision to be faithful to the idea must transform that society from a free one to a totalitarian nightmare.

And it all begun innocently with a small group of special-interest lobbyists, and escalated because a society keeps building more and more roads and more and more citizens were able to move more and more stuff in their trunks, just as it is with the Internet allowing more and more free dissemination of information.

This is a far more accurate analogy.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[IgnoramusMaximus]

No new drugs, because no patents. Less literature of consequence, becausee no royalties. Please don't cite examples like Radio Head, because they got bootstrapped by the IP system.

You are a victim of years of propaganda. Most of the science of drugs is based on freely available discoveries of other scientists. All science in fact is incremental, that is the last dude adding his piece makes a tiny (in proportion to the body of knowledge before him) contribution. It fact "intellectual property" is a great impediment to science. If every idea in science was copyrighted or patented no progress would be possible as in order to make any discovery at all one would have to pay massive royalties to thousands of scientists and universities!

As to art and literature, only kitsch makers do it to "to get" rich. The very premise of art is to share one's artistic expression with as many people as possible because it is a calling and not a business! Music "industry" simply isn't. It is an oxymoron. A contradiction in terms.

Sure, artists need to eat, but there are many ways to give them that, like for example an updated for modern times system of patronage.

Would we have less crap on radio and TV? Absolutely! But it also would be ... well ... much less crap.

The DMCA fits into your model of "control of information", but not all IP does that. Patents even require publication.

Ultimately all forms of IP are destructive to a society. The enforcement schemes required, coupled with increasing ease of an average denizen to circumvent them, will, as they must corrupt the society into totalitarianism. Patent system on its own, while originally created with good intentions, has the ultimate effect of slowing down progress, which is in direct contradiction of its original premise, even if it was not already corrupted beyond recognition by the unleashed powers of greed that it created to the point that the length of patents is now past 20 years and will likely expand towards infinity. Publication of someone's land deeds is not the same as being able to walk that land.

And yeah, the analogy was sure to have flaws as it was whipped up quite hastily. Sorry about that.

I gave you a more accurate version in the other post. Read it and I hope you will understand the logic behind my original claim.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[istartedi]

In the 2nd paragraph of your analogy, you introduce a concept that's patently silly (no pun intended).

For most people, copyright is not fundamentally silly. The problem with your arguments is that you assumes non-silly ideas inevitably degenerate into silly ideas, which inevitably degenerate into evil ideas.

Of course, ANY idea can degenerate if it's placed in the hands of evil, power-hungry people. The only real way to prevent that from happening is to negotiate positions around the idea, not eliminate it or equate it with what it might become in the hands of the wrong people. It's like arguing that freedom is totalitarianism because it can degenerate into totalitarianism.

So (see my other reply to your reply) while you get no argument from me that powerful interests have perverted IP law, you have failed to convince me that IP is an inherently flawed concept. Getting rid of it would be like closing all the public parks because drug dealers and pervs are hanging out in them.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[buravirgil]

uhmm..."For all intensive purposes"???
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_saying_'all_intents_and_purposes'_or_'all_intense_purposes'

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[istartedi]

1. Having dealt with the issue of patents in software I would agree with you that in *some* areas, patents impede progress. Most software people, myself included, don't want patents in our field; but we still want copyright. Even the FSF doesn't want to get rid of copyright, because without it all their work would be Public Domain--they wouldn't be able to prevent people from using it in works that are a trade secret. You will never be able to eliminate trade secrets, even if you abolish intellectual property law. If you try to eliminate trade secrets, then you have the government knocking on the doors of businesses, forcing them to report on their processes. Now who is the totalitarian?

2. You are making judgements regarding the type of material that would be produced under IP vs. a patronage system. Who are you to judge? In fact, we already have patronage systems (PBS, art galleries, the symphony etc.) for those who have want "highbrow" entertainment. The two systems co-exist side-by-side. Nothing says Daniel Steele and Dostoyevski can't sit on the same shelf. At any rate, you are holding patronage art in higher esteme than industrial art. It's a value judgement. And if patronage were the only wan to fund works then who, praytell, sits on the board of patronage? I'll tell you. The same people who write the laws now. Now who is the totalitarian?

The bottom line? I think Dave Barry said it best when he said the government ought to have a "department of Ida Mae". Ida Mae was a hypothetical aunt who knew nothing other than common sense. Were there such a department, the DMCA would be thrown out. The patent regime would be reduced, and Fewer patents would be issued; but when you came to here and asked her to eliminate all forms of IP she would say NO to that too.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[IgnoramusMaximus]

In the 2nd paragraph of your analogy, you introduce a concept that's patently silly (no pun intended).

The idea of "Intellectual Property" is equally silly. Information simply lacks the necessary attributes to be "owned" and thus to be "property". This is simply the fundamental nature of information, just like motions of someone's furniture cannot be owned. I chose the example specifically to create a close parallel.

If you do not believe me, make this simple thought experiment: Who owns the number "4"? How would you establish an "ownership" of the number "4" or any other integer number? Is there only one number "4" or does everyone who thinks "four" in their heads get another unique number "4" to materialize in their brains? If you cannot answer these, why do you believe that a sequence of integers is somehow magically more suitable to be "owned"? Because, you know, all information is ultimately capable of being encoded as a series of integers....

The problem with your arguments is that you assumes non-silly ideas inevitably degenerate into silly ideas, which inevitably degenerate into evil ideas.

See above. I can demonstrate that "Intellectual Property" is a silly, internally inconsistent idea. Very much like that "Motion Property" example I gave. And yes, most, if not all, of such illogic when applied to law sooner or later backfires breeding evil, and in this conclusion you are indeed correct. Which incidentally was my main point.

Of course, ANY idea can degenerate if it's placed in the hands of evil, power-hungry people.

Some ideas however are particularly compatible with evil, power-hungry people, especially ideas involving control of others. And none is so appetizing to them as the idea of owning and controlling other people's thoughts and knowledge, which, once you get down to its fundamental premises, "Intellectual Property" is all about.

The only real way to prevent that from happening is to negotiate positions around the idea, not eliminate it or equate it with what it might become in the hands of the wrong people. It's like arguing that freedom is totalitarianism because it can degenerate into totalitarianism.

No, the only real way is to prevent idiotic ideas which benefit these "evil, power-hungry" people above all others from being enshrined into laws of societies. Once that happens, the battle is pretty much lost, and the scenario will unfold in the way I described. Such are the historically proven inter-dependencies of such things.

So (see my other reply to your reply) while you get no argument from me that powerful interests have perverted IP law, you have failed to convince me that IP is an inherently flawed concept.

You "failed to be convinced" only because you did not think this through in depth.

Getting rid of it would be like closing all the public parks because drug dealers and pervs are hanging out in them.

No, getting rid of it would be like getting rid of Gulags because torturers tend to hang around in them. Parks and junkies are not an automatic and inevitable association, Gulags and torturers are.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[istartedi]

If you do not believe me, make this simple thought experiment: Who owns the number "4"? How would you establish an "ownership" of the number "4" or any other integer number? Is there only one number "4" or does everyone who thinks "four" in their heads get another unique number "4" to materialize in their brains? If you cannot answer these, why do you believe that a sequence of integers is somehow magically more suitable to be "owned"? Because, you know, all information is ultimately capable of being encoded as a series of integers....

This one is an old-standby of the anti-IP crowd. OK. Owning 4 is ridiculous. Now let's encode "Gone with the Wind" and print it out in decimal. Wow. Given a novel of that length, how many other numbers are there that represent nonsense, or some other novel?

In other words 4!=(an astronomical number beyond human comprehension). In other words, it requires judgement and common sense.

BTW, I'm done with this thread. You have a core belief that IP is an invalid concept, and I don't. That's all we can really establish here, and it's very unlikely that either side will sway the other in a reasonable ammount of time.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Even the FSF doesn't want to get rid of copyright, because without it all their work would be Public Domain--they wouldn't be able to prevent people from using it in works that are a trade secret.

Err... "trade secrets" are also part of the "Intellectual Property" regime. If IP is dead, GPL would be simply unnecessary as anyone would be free to copy any software and no corporation would be able to "lock" down the community's stuff in their product.

You will never be able to eliminate trade secrets, even if you abolish intellectual property law. If you try to eliminate trade secrets, then you have the government knocking on the doors of businesses, forcing them to report on their processes. Now who is the totalitarian?

You are utterly confused. No, abolishment of "Trade Secrets" law does not mean that every business has to operate in the open. It means that the government does not actively protect business secrets! Today, when you divulge some company's "secret", the government will enforce that secret via a court of law and punish you for it! That is what "Trade Secrets" law means!

I just shake my had at the level of brain-washing you've been apparently exposed to...

You are making judgements regarding the type of material that would be produced under IP vs. a patronage system. Who are you to judge? In fact, we already have patronage systems (PBS, art galleries, the symphony etc.) for those who have want "highbrow" entertainment. The two systems co-exist side-by-side.

Not if your system requires me to relinquish my fundamental, inalienable rights as a human being, they can not.

Note that under no copyright system you are still free to "buy" all the music you want from any lousy pop-star in her 15-minutes-of-fame, only you will not be able to get the government to deploy its goons if someone decides not to.

At any rate, you are holding patronage art in higher esteme than industrial art. It's a value judgement. And if patronage were the only wan to fund works then who, praytell, sits on the board of patronage? I'll tell you. The same people who write the laws now.

As I pointed out, without "Intellectual Property" you are free to pay any goofus you want any amount of money to produce your kind of "art". Mortgage your house to pay your diva for all I care. Its your freedom. But you do not get to restrict my freedoms just because you want to "make a killing" by working once in your life and getting paid "like, forevah man!".

Now who is the totalitarian?

See above. Everything you propose involves restricting my freedoms. Everything I propose involves removing restrictions and authoritarian measures required to maintain these restrictions.

The bottom line? I think Dave Barry said it best when he said the government ought to have a "department of Ida Mae". Ida Mae was a hypothetical aunt who knew nothing other than common sense. Were there such a department, the DMCA would be thrown out. The patent regime would be reduced, and Fewer patents would be issued; but when you came to here and asked her to eliminate all forms of IP she would say NO to that too.

As I explained to you before, "Intellectual Property" has nothing whatsoever to do with "common sense". It can easily be demonstrated that it is an utterly internally-inconsistent and wholly unscientific "idea". Your "Ida Mae" would have no choice but to agree.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[Anonymous Coward]

While his rhetoric may be a bit excessive, he does have a point. The US supreme court has repeatedly held that the 1st amendment upholds the right to anonymous speech (for a recent example see McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission). The DMCA doesn't seem to respect this right because if someone files a take-down notice you either have to accept the censorship or give up your anonymity.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[IgnoramusMaximus]

This one is an old-standby of the anti-IP crowd. OK. Owning 4 is ridiculous. Now let's encode "Gone with the Wind" and print it out in decimal. Wow. Given a novel of that length, how many other numbers are there that represent nonsense, or some other novel?

Sigh. They are both information. Information in all forms can be ultimately encoded as numbers. You are trying to pretend that some sequences of numbers are "special" and can be "owned" and some others (which you will arbitrarily choose) are not. Very well, let me demonstrate the depth of illogic this kind of "reasoning" leads to.

Lets take your "Gone with the Wind" encoded as a sequence of integers. Let me re-arrange them so that every sequence corresponding to the word "I" is now replaced with "Ugu". Is the result still "Gone with the wind?" and someone's property? How about if I repeat the process for other words, re-arrange sentences and grammar via an automated process... is the end result still "Gone with the wind?". Where does this stop? Remember there is an infinite number of mathematical transforms which I can apply to this... all the way to reducing the whole thing (irreversibly) to the very number "4" we discussed. Where on the continuum of "Gone with the wind" to "number 4" does "Gone with the wind" ceases to be the magical "Intellectual Property" and becomes "ordinary numbers"?

In other words 4!=(an astronomical number beyond human comprehension). In other words, it requires judgement and common sense.

What you mean is that you expect to get to decide arbitratily, based on your whim (or more practically like on some attorney's whim) what is and what is not "Intellectual Property". Note that it is very much like that "Motion Property" I described in my analogy, whereby the furniture movers get to decide what is and what is not "Motion Property". Contrast this with traditional "private property", like a chair or a table, where no controversy whatsoever exists as to what is and what is not "the chair".

BTW, I'm done with this thread. You have a core belief that IP is an invalid concept, and I don't. That's all we can really establish here, and it's very unlikely that either side will sway the other in a reasonable ammount of time.

The difference between us is that I can demonstrate the validity of what I talk about, you cannot.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[istartedi]

OK, I lied. One last dig:

Where on the continuum of "Gone with the wind" to "number 4" does "Gone with the wind" ceases to be the magical "Intellectual Property" and becomes "ordinary numbers"?

At the same place where a fetus becomes a human life.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[istartedi]

I can agree with that. I'd love to see the DMCA challenged on that very ground. I'd love to see the DMCA thrown out altogether. To boil the whole bloody thread down, my only real disagreement with him is over IP being inherently evil and/or inevitably leading to abuse.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[endymion.nz]

A fetus becomes a human life when it is born (well, it gains legal personage when it is born - I don't want to turn this into an abortion argument). So, Gone with the Wind becomes Gone with the Wind when it is Gone with the Wind, right? If we looked at a string of integers representing Gone with the Wind, subtracted 1 and distributed it with instructions to add 1 before reading, it wouldn't be Gone with the Wind. The copyright holder would have no legal grounds to claim I am distributing Gone with the Wind illegally, and would have to go after the individual readers who add 1 to the string, right?

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[IgnoramusMaximus]

At the same place where a fetus becomes a human life.

A (human) fetus is human from the moment of inception as it carries human DNA, which is the only true criterion which defines human species. If it is aware or sentient however is a completely different question, to which we do not know the precise answer past the obvious observation that the necessary brain structures do not form until late in the pregnancy thus precluding both awareness and sentience before that point.

Having said that, the development of a human fetus has nothing whatsoever do do with "intellectual property" and you bringing it in here is a truly pathetic "Look there! Shiny!"-style attempt at changing the subject when it became apparent that the discussion got way over your head and all your arguments were demonstrated to be invalid.

Re:Oh pulllllleeeze

[TheoMurpse]

I honestly can't tell if your sig is tongue in cheek, but it's "for all intents and purposes," not "for all intensive purposes."

Don't want this to happen to you?

[Anonymous Coward]

When posting to Youtube or any other user submitted content site, simply include the following preemptive disclaimer in your content's description:

I (insert handle), being of sound mind and judgment, hereby contest a DMCA take down notice on grounds of fair use until such time as plaintiff submits a counterclaim with contradicting proof.

These DMCA take downs fly in the face of presumption of innocence. If Clinton hadn't passed the law, I'd swear it was Bush ;)

Wrigley Field Trick?

[istartedi]

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.

Notarized documents?

[Qubit]

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.

Congrats scientology!

[bondjamesbond]

You have peaked our curiosity about these anti-scientology videos on YouTube. I know what I'm doing for at least an hour Saturday morning.

Ok, Google, you want to do no evil?

[Ortega-Starfire]

Sue these bastards.

Granted.

[Petersko]

"I'm pretty sure that the Quakers have a distinct lack of blood in their history."

After a quick search, I'm certainly willing to concede that they are definitely a seriously peaceful bunch. Your point is made.

I'm unwilling, however, to assert that this is normal for religions. I still maintain that all significant religions have had blood on their hands at some point.

Re:Granted.

[Hognoxious]

After a quick search, I'm certainly willing to concede that they are definitely a seriously peaceful bunch.

The fact that you had to do a search means you're incredibly badly informed about the matter at hand. Anybody with (rounding up) at least one clue and an IQ above room temperature has heard of their tendency towards pacifism. Seriously.

I gently beseech thee brother, in the name of all that is holy, to shut the fuck up.

Re:Granted.

[Petersko]

"The fact that you had to do a search means you're incredibly badly informed about the matter at hand. Anybody with (rounding up) at least one clue and an IQ above room temperature has heard of their tendency towards pacifism. Seriously. I gently beseech thee brother, in the name of all that is holy, to shut the fuck up."

No... it doesn't mean that I'm incredibly badly informed about the matter at hand. It means that I don't know everything. You mentioned a religion that qualified, and I looked it up and agreed with you.

What makes you think I haven't heard of their tendency towards pacifism? I know about Quakers, just like I know about the Amish. But I know about Buddhists, too, and although their pacifism is certainly well known, as a group they have blood on THEIR hands.

It's a good day. Not only have I learned that there are no obvious internal Quaker murder scandals, but I have also learned that YOU are a pinhead.

Re:Granted.

[TheoMurpse]

The question isn't whether the religion has blood on its hands at some point in its history. It shouldn't even be whether it has blood on its hands now.

The question should be whether it causes more good than bad now.

Christianity, for all its faults, brings peace to a great many people. Islam may be the same, but I can't claim to be enough of an expert to say one way or another. However, my inclination is to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Confucianism, on the other hand (if you call it a religion), I think has had a net negative effect on the world.

But that could be myopia as well: Confucianism is responsible for practically all of Eastern culture. Aristotle for practically all of Western culture.

Nicely Done.

[Petersko]

You managed a +5 insightful. I managed to head into "troll" territory for the first time in quite a while.

Condensing...

[magus_melchior]

A hard-right conspiracy theorist and political activist with a dirty mouth and tactics (red flags for a 'false teacher' in Christian-speak), who is, ironically, a Ron Paul supporter-- which probably means he's a fiscal rather than social libertarian, as his demands on public figures and individuals smack of authoritarian values.

So, he's essentially Jack Thompson without the law degree/license, with different targets (pop culture in general, Christian hypocrisy with a beam in his own eye, as opposed to violent gaming), and insane*, opportunistic, and/or sensible enough to support Ron Paul.

* Insane, as in not possessing enough of his faculties to recognize that Dr. Paul might not approve of Dice's message.

Who Cares?

[kellyb9]

I mean seriously? who cares if youtube has or doesn't has these videos. Scientology has a huge PR problem as it is, and calling attention to it is only pointing it out to all the wackos that are looking for an outlet to be even crazier. Just let them make their own grave.

L Ron Had a Traumatic Childhood.

[jameskojiro]

That is the only conclusion i get after reading up on all of the so called "cannon" of Scientology.

It talks about bases on Venus, of course he wrote this in the 1950's when we had no idea that putting a base on Venus would result in a toasted roasted base made of of melted slag.

Also all of these races from (sic) Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and Trillions and years ago sounds like Dr. Evil trying to come up with a chronologically relevant amount of time ago.

Of course he came up with this long AFTER Edwin Hubble made a fairly accurate estimate of the age of the universe being several billion years of age, not so long that all matter even photons would have decayed like what Crazy Uncle Hubbard came up with.

Also every story of each race (sic) trillions of years ago all ways have to do with the following:

1. Capturing "thetans" ie. weird disembodied souls.

2. Brainwashing Thetans.

3. ?????

4. Profit

Actually the last 2 steps the church of $cientology added. But why would the aliens brainwash souls, what reason, can they extract energy from them, are they used for a drug or other pleasures????? NOPE, no mention of WHY aliens would want to do this other than be a bunch of cruel jackasses.

I could see if they were using them to power their spaceships or something, but it sounds like L Ron had a paranoid persecution complex and this is reflected in his erratic scribblings.

Some pigs are more equal than others.

[Anonymous Coward]

I especially hate misanthropes.

I just got DMCA notice from youtube (read)

[harrie_o]

Eighteen months ago I filmed a school talent show when my kid won first place solo-guitar (yeah, its still possible in a Guitar Hero world to accomplish real talent in your room at night rather than surfing pr0n).

I posted the show on myspace with ALL THE KIDS VIDEOS for each act so my kid winning wouldn't look so braggart. I got thousands of views for almost a year til his 18-th birthday I decided to remove them all (for sentimental reasons - I marked them all PRIVATE on youtube).

Saturday I got a DMCA notice from Universal Music Group trhu YOUTUBE.

Seems that during intermission one of the hosts played "we are the champions" over the loudspeaker (I never noticed) while he and another kid --layered in 50 T-shirts-- stripped them off to raise money selling them later to pay for the student organization that paid for the show.

On my private video UMG said it knows I infringed their content but was "allowing it to continue".

I deleted the show saving just my kid as I should have done (only sentiment had left it there as private since his 18th birthday and my kid never infringed anyone he won with his own original talent).

Lawyers going after private videos of kids high school talent shows. Disgusting.

CounterNotice

[Anonymous Coward]

As a big FYI, DMCA type rules vary from country to country. Since google is in the US, and the data is in the US, the US DMCA applies which contains a counternotice provision.

However information from the wikipedia article suggests the person who sent the notices is/from Germany. Germany does not respect copyrights (you will not get a german site to respond to a DMCA style request) in the same manner as the US, one in particular is images stolen from websites.

The UK on the other hand, copyright provisions do not include a counternotice provision. So it is apparently common practice to for lawyers to do an end-run around the DMCA counter notice protection by sending english DMCA equivilents to the UK division of US companies, by making the argument that the copyrighted content is available to the UK and is therefor infringing UK copyrights.

So how to screw anyone on the internet:
a) If the site has a .uk registration, send a DMCA-style takedown notice for the content to the UK site. Then if they try to counter notice, it will be ignored.
b) The US has legal penalties for false claims, the US DMCA does not require the ISP to validate claims, only process counter notices. In this story the counter notice process worked on the basis of the company not existing.
c) Even if the US DMCA claim is false, you can request the contact details and sue the people, even if you sent the DMCA under false pretenses.

  Google/Youtube should sue the person who sent the DMCA request for the amount of many-hour time required to remove and reinstate the items, and the end users should sue for the same.

Here's a even bigger thing...

ISP's in attempting to adhere to the DMCA requests operate on a shoot-first-ask-later process , but end-users are not aware of their rights to a counter notice.

You can issue a DMCA takedown for anyone that copies text/images from your blog.

Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazi wikipedia editor? No way!!

Who cares what Scientologists believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is:

What do Super Adventure Club members really believe?

What's Sad About This...

[Cormophyte]

...is that if you, as an individual took this to a DA the response you'd probably get would be "You want me to prosecute him for getting your YouTube account shut down? What are you, twelve?" The fact is that very few people really understand what a cultural and economic powerhouse the internet is these days, and will increasingly be in the decades to come. Everything that happens now sets the stage for what the internet will be when it's a mature content delivery platform, and every time someone gets away with manipulating what's out there, no matter the scale, it makes it that much easier for someone/something to control the internet at large somewhere down the line when the power of easily accessible publicly published opinion is more evident.

Ah, but the oligarchs do at least serve a purpose

[zooblethorpe]

... and, frankly, for all their evils, at least the oligarchs purport to do something useful for society as a whole (i.e., hire all those minions^W employees)...

Cheers,

Religious bigotry, was Re:Racial Bigotry

[GauteL]

You can't justify the actions of someone in the present by referring to the actions of others in the distant path.

The world has moved on since the time of the Catholic monopoly and so has the Catholic church. Not a single person that existed in the Catholic church 400 years ago are alive today.

It is easy, but bigoted, to claim that the only reason for the change of the Catholic church is that they have lost the power to behave as bad as they did, but this completely discount the fact that all members of the current church have grown up in a different world than that of the old.

If the catholic church criticises Scientology this is not hypocrisy because the Catholic ministers of today are not the same as those of old.

Similarly, it is not my fault that my ancestors, the Vikings, pillaged and raped in England and Ireland. And the atrocities of the Nazis are not the fault of my german friends.

Re:Religious bigotry, was Re:Racial Bigotry

[randyest]

But it is the fault of the modern Catholic church that dozens of priests who raped children were shuffled around and allowed to continue to rape children. So there's that. Catholicism, Scientology, $RELIGION, are all deserving of some criticism.

Re:Religious bigotry, was Re:Racial Bigotry

[GauteL]

I never said that wasn't the case. The grand parent used examples of the Catholic church's misuse of monopoly power. That hasn't existed for hundreds of years.

Of course Catholicism or $RELIGION is deserving of criticism at the same level as nations or other communities are deserving of criticism. Since the religions claim to be "pure" and "holy" they may deserve more.

Scientology, however, is using techniques to recruit and extract money from people that have been considered unethical, and have been abandoned, by the general population (and most @RELIGIONS) for so long, that we must be able to hold them accountable for it without being seen as hypocrites.

Churches are tax-exempt by default

[jjo]

Scientology has gained tax-exempt status merely by incorporating itself to operate as a church: the US Internal Revenue Code is quite lenient on this point. If it does not believe a particular organization to be a true church, it's up to the Internal Revenue Service to dispute the claimed tax exemptions.

This is explained in IRS Publication 557, which defines a church as an organization such

1. That the particular religious beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held.
2. That the practices and rituals associated with the organization's religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy.

I think that Scientology fails point (2) above, but believing it and proving it are two quite different things.

Isn't it obvious?

[LukeDuke9]

Tom Cruise programmed Katie Holmes to send those four thousand emails. She has many functions.

Not run for profit?

[Jane Q. Public]

Man, you must not live in Texas.

The bigger cities might be different, but in the small towns I visited, the local ministers had a lifestyle that put most of their church members to shame. God is good. Jesus is great. That will be 10% of your paycheck for tithe, please. 15% if you want to brag to your neighbors.

haha

[Jane Q. Public]

Swish. From behind the line. Three points.