Slashdot Mirror
Terrorists Used False DMCA Claims To Get Personal Data of Anti-Islamic Youtuber
An anonymous reader writes German newspaper FAZ reports (google translated version) that, after facing false DMCA claims by "FirstCrist, Copyright" and threatened by YouTube with takedown, a youtuber running the German version of Islam-critic Al Hayat TV had to disclose their identity in order to get the channel back online. Later, the channel staff got a mail containing a death threat by "FirstCrist, Copyright", containing: "thank you for your personal data. [...] take care your house gets police protection!" Employee names are now on Al Qaeda black lists.
There must be some massive cognitive dissonance going on in media circles at the moment..
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
This is exactly what happens. It's not just baddies, corporations do it thousands of times a day. Until DMCA takedown requests are required to submit proof of ownership and have escalating penalties for false/fraudulent claims, this situation will only get worse.
People also lose their accounts. Google won't even tell the people why their Youtube channels have been deleted. You'll get a vague "broke terms", but the reality is people hiding in their corporations do it daily.
And before any of you wankers say "it's a free service, who gives a shit", please GFYS.
The solution is to require anyone that wishes to submit DMCA requests has to have a DMCA license number and be registered with the country that the company resides in for the lawful take down.
That way youtube can confirm that the email address and license number match the organization that is requesting the DMCA.
To confirm the validity of the email, a random string is sent back and needs to be replied, or a link sent to the email that they have to click on to complete the DMCA.
Make it cost prohibitive to get a license so that only proper organizations can do this. If people monkey around, they get their license revoked and have to re-apply and risk being banned from receiving a license.
Problem solved, DMCA requests become more sane.
How does American Law apply to Europeans and people in Germany --- or do US companies carry the American flag with them when they provide services in Europe and such?
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Unfortunately there are indeed Muslim countries in which the majority of people support killing apostates, yes. (Afghanistan, for instance.)
That doesn't make Chrisq's bullshit any less unreasonable, though. Muslims in Western countries tend not to be like that.
You have to bear in mind that following Muhammad's example, as they have done throughout the world, they will apear friendly and attempt to undermine societies until they have sufficient forces for a violent uprising. Lets hope that when it happens it will go the way of Spain, not Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, and many more.
Look at statistics like the fact that more European Muslims have joined Islamic state than their country's armed forces (it may be true in the US also, I don't know) and you get an idea of what these "peaceful" muslims in the west think.
This is precisely the stance of the US on such things, and why they've been pushing other countries to adopt IP laws which are even stricter than they've been able to pass domestically.
So, yes, profit above all is precisely why we have terribly written laws, with low evidentiary threshold, very little recourse when companies use it incompetently/maliciously, and which more or less say "if you comply, we won't grind you into dust ... if we're morons or lying, there's no penalty for us".
While nobody saw these laws being used by terrorists, at least not that I'm aware, the holes in these laws you could drive fleets of trucks through have been known from the start.
But the copyright cartels have bought and paid the politicians who created these laws, and foisted them on the world. Because the entire process around copyright has made lawmakers beholden to corporate profits, and protecting them before people.
So, yes, if the mere threat of a DMCA(/whatever treaty in your country) causes companies to take action with ABSOLUTELY ZERO PROOF and NO RECOURSE ... this is exactly what you get.
The laws weren't written with the intent of being challenged, or with any proof required on behalf of the claimant. Everything presumes that all of us are guilty, and that the copyright people would be able to legally skirt around the niceties because it was convenient for them. False claims are nothing more than an "oops".
Welcome to the global oligarchy, my friend. The loopholes they paid to have put in for themselves are exploitable by someone else who knows the secret to navigating around them.
But these weaknesses have pretty much been built into them by design. Because the people who bought them wanted it that way.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.” An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse — “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” {2:256} But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.”Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.
I'm not really convinced by that argument:
"Hey remember that one time that one guy killed some people and said that it was for Jesus? Yeah, that means Christians are as bad as Muslims, who in the meantime have committed tens of thousands of separate suicide attacks."
Today in the world, most terrorism comes from the Muslim community. Nobody gets to claim that that factual statement implies that all Muslims are terrorists, because that's not what the statement says. Anyone who makes that false claim concedes all credibility.
A majority of worldwide Muslims support death as a punishment for apostasy. If you think death-for-apostasy is bad, and if you think majority support within a group for a certain policy makes it fair to discuss that policy in terms of that group, then it is fair to say that "Muslims support death for apostates".
Compare that to the statement "Republicans support restrictions on abortion". Is that a true statement? I consider it to be true even though not every last Republican supports restrictions on abortion. When discussing groups, we don't have to account for every last member of the group. If we did, it would be impossible to discuss groups.
The Muslim community has problems -- moral problems. The community generally supports some incredibly horrible things. It is wonderful that some Muslims are not horrible, especially many or most of those who now live in Western countries, as well as a minority of those living in Islamic countries. I hope that that minority grows into the majority someday, but today they are still a minority, and it is fair to discuss Muslims as a group and policies supported by the majority of Muslims.
Muslims as a group support death for apostasy.
Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for women.
Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for homosexuals.
Muslims as a group support blasphemy laws.
Some Muslims don't support those things; most do.