backtop

Print 30 comment(s) - last by omnicronx.. on Sep 11 at 10:23 AM
DMCA claimant found to have no interest in the content it tried to remove

Several thousand videos critical of the Scientology are back online at YouTube, after being removed following the receipt of a torrent of takedown notices from American Rights Counsel, LLC.

Digital freedoms group the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that between Thursday and Friday of last week, YouTube received about 4,000 third-party Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices targeting anti-Scientology videos, including the popular YouTube channel XenuTV.

Videos targeted included footage from Australian and German Scientology-related news reports, as well as videos from anti-Scientology group Anonymous and televised clips from a city commission meeting in Clearwater, Florida, says the EFF. YouTube said the videos were removed due to “multiple allegations of copyright infringement.”

The videos, along with their associated YouTube accounts and channels, were restored once users’ DMCA counter-notices revealed that American Rights Counsel had no claims over the content it targeted.

In fact, informal investigations into the company reveal that it may not even exist.

Mark Bunker, XenuTV producer and noted Scientology “Suppressive Person,” says he could find no trace of American Rights Counsel in the records of the U.S. copyright office or in the results of a Google search.

“American Rights Counsel LLC does not exist,” says Bunker in an interview with Wikinews.” When I got my take-down notices from YouTube I tried to file a DMCA counter-notice, but in order to do that you need to get the name of the contact person to be served with the notice.”

While abuse of DMCA takedown notices is illegal, prosecutions are rare. Anyone invoking the DMCA to remove copyright-protected videos must have a financial interest in the material they target.

Critics are quick to call American Rights Counsel’s actions abusive, and note that it might be time for YouTube to re-evaluate its “guilty-until-proven-innocent” manner of handling takedown requests.

The Church of Scientology says it is a religious organization focused on individual self-improvement, done chiefly through the teachings of founder and science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Its critics, however, characterize it as an organization rife with human rights violations, junk science, and made-up religious claims – all of which are available only through princely donations of money and time.

Opposition to Scientology, previously a limited and low-key affair, swelled after the censorship of a controversial, Scientology-themed South Park episode in 2005, and again after internally-circulated videos featuring a crazed Tom Cruise leaked to the internet. Those events led to the formation of Anonymous, whose members oppose the Church through online videos and worldwide protests.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
How is it really different.......
By theapparition on 9/10/2008 9:10:25 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Its critics, however, characterize it as an organization rife with human rights violations, junk science, and made-up religious claims – all of which are available only through princely donations of money and time.

Sounds like most other organized religions to me.

Let's get this strait. Scientology is a cult. A members-only brainwashing medium where high ranking members have been previously CONVICTED of perjury, conspiracy, blackmail, attempting to fix elections, etc. L. Ron was a bad Sci-fi writer who was a drunk and addict, and who's halucinations and sado-masochistic nature formed the basis for this belief. To even borrow the name "science" in your made up religion is blasphemy at best.

But how is this different from almost any other "religion". I know that statement will rile many people, but it's true. It is a believe system that requires faith with no empirical proof. Any questioning of these "beliefs" comes under fire. DaVinci code? It's a fictional story rife with bad history, but how the catholic church came down on it and tried to have it banned. Muslim cartoons? A frick'n cartoon encites people to kill one another.

No, the problem is with ALL fanatical religions. Not inherent in the actual religion itself. But when more than one exists, how sure can you be that yours is the "one true god"? The only solution is to kill everyone else that doesn't believe what you want or completely surpress their opinions and questioning. Does that seem like a peaceful solution to you?




RE: How is it really different.......
By FITCamaro on 9/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: How is it really different.......
By Mitch101 on 9/10/2008 10:10:53 AM , Rating: 2
No they just try to guilt you to death and call it tithing.

Surmon for today.
1-Que happy music and make people feel welcomed.
2-Compose sermon that makes a connection with the people.
3-Now portray them as possible sinners.
4-Tell them they are forgiven and give them a sense of relief.
5-Que happy music as you pass around the collection plate the guilt and pressure of the person next to you who throws in money will cause you to do the same.

Kind of similar to a High School pep rally.

A long time ago I met someone I know was on the very dark side of the law and he said the best crime to get into is Religion. The people attending will back you to the end of time and the best part of all is its tax free and doesn't require a product.

Most religious places are just Amway without a physical product being sold. Look through the sales pitch. I live in the bible belt now and boy do they take advantage of nice people.

As for Scientology. Yup today we know its a L Ron Hubbard bet. But in 2000 years it wont be to those people. The difference being that we don't stone people to death for differences like they used to so Scientology is here to stay. Heck Jedi is a religion but today's religions are losing money to the Jedi Religion like they are to Scientology. Maybe that's the real reason people are attacking Scientology because it effects their revenue stream and I'm sure actors are a wealth of income they would like to have back.

Plain and simple Religion = Tax Free Business today.


By codeThug on 9/10/2008 3:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
You left out step #6 (per old Bill Cosby album).

6-Attach double sided tape to finger tips and snag money while pretending to give donation.


By phxfreddy on 9/11/2008 1:16:50 AM , Rating: 3
Sounds like the Church of Latter Day Global Warming too!

Yours truly
Damocles other brother Testicles


RE: How is it really different.......
By stephenfs on 9/10/2008 10:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
Battlefield Earth was a great book. Of course when I read it around age 11-12, I didn't know anything about Hubbard. And your comments on religion are good, to the point. I'm a religious person myself, and I have always believed that some of these religions/preachers that ask, ask, ask for money are wrong. As a more respected preacher once said, if you are doing the right things, and helping people, God will provide. You shouldn't have to beg for money.


RE: How is it really different.......
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 1:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a religious person. I got tired of the hypocrisy of people I saw going to church, claiming to be good Catholics. And yes as the guy above said, I got tired of being guilt tripped. I was raised Catholic and still think the Bible is a good book to live a good life by in terms of its values, but I don't believe in Jesus (he existed and was a great man but that's it).

I don't get anything out of going to church so I stopped going. And sorry I don't buy the "God will provide" line. God doesn't actively do anything. We are endowed (either by God or just as how we are) with the ability to make our own choices. Relying on God to do things for you is the weak person's way of not accepting responsibility for when things go wrong.


By straycat74 on 9/10/2008 7:33:19 PM , Rating: 3
Going to church doesn't make you perfect. The people that go there are just as imperfect as a person who never attends, or doesn't believe. So is the pastor, and a good one will let you know that.

Believing in Jesus is another story all together. I was raised Catholic also, but I ended up in a reformed Church that believes in the Bible, not religion.

If you gave up on everyone that said one thing and did another, than you would be very lonely.


RE: How is it really different.......
By theapparition on 9/10/2008 10:56:45 AM , Rating: 1
There are many comments to my original post that echo a similar point, so I'll only address one.
quote:
Other religions don't require massive donations in order to have the supposed enlightenment necessary to receive their teachings. Nor were they started on the basis of a book written by a sci-fi author who is quoted with saying that the best way to make money is to start a religion.

You are absolutely correct that I can walk into a Catholic church (substitute religion of choice) for free, and attend services. I can also find a myriad of information online for free. That's the core tenant that you say differentiates Scientologists from "true" religions.

And I have to say respectfully.......you're all wrong.

In the beginnings of virtually every recognized religion, you had to pay massive amounts to be "enlightened". Payment several thousands of years ago could be either monetary, social, or your very existance (and that of your families, too). Failure to support the defacto religion immediately condemmed you.
If you didn't worship the Pharos, you were immediately put into slavery.
Failure to praise the Greek gods condemmed you.
Romans were one of the most tolerant, but a true Roman couldn't gain any stature without Pagan beliefes.
The Catholic church has been a force behind many of the wars in the last two milenium. Even kings needed permission from the vatican to do many things. Failure to comply got you labeled as a heretic, and you were executed. Some suggest that MILLIONS were killed by being labeled a heretic.
Let's not even go into Islam, which was founded by a known raider.
Etc........

So you say there was no steep price......that is incorrect. Only after hundreds of years of teachings did it become accepted as fact, and without threat of violence, slavery, poverty, or banishment.

And many of those punishments still exist today. Fundamental islam is based on it. Converting to christianity is punishable by death. Even "tolerant" contries like Saudi Arabi allow the murder of a citizen who has converted to christianity.

And the bible is a pieced together book. Pieced together with scripture and gospels from various sources, and carefully chosen for inclusion. There are many other writings from that time that cast doubt on historical events, but those aren't included. Someone came along and said, I like this chapter to put in my book, but not this one, so I'm going to ignore it. That's pretty much exactly what happened. No it's not the work of a sci-fi author, but it is the work of a group that picked and chose what to put in, not a record of historical fact.

So while Scientology has no basis of fact and can easily be dismissed as a cult, I still submit that early religions were no different.......and certainly more barbaric.

I'd like to end that I'm not anti-religion. I go to church with the family. I think generally most religions are fundamentally good, in that they preach kindness, compassion and forgiveness. Basic qualities that are necessary for a strong moral character.
However, when they start to intrude on basic civil liberties and science, something is wrong and they need to be seen for what they truely are trying to accomplish.


By bighairycamel on 9/10/2008 11:48:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
In the beginnings of virtually every recognized religion, you had to pay massive amounts to be "enlightened". Payment several thousands of years ago could be either monetary, social, or your very existance (and that of your families, too). Failure to support the defacto religion immediately condemmed you.


I am glad you said "virtually" because i can see your point. But the history of the beginning of christianity is exactly the opposite. The congregational structure in the first two centuries where supported by donations... tithing was done away with like the rest of the Mosaic law and you pay what you wanted to or could. People were encouraged to spread the gospel but they didn't "condemn" anyone that didn't accept. The books of Acts-Hebrews describe the structure of the congregations in detail.

It wasn't until the Roman mass conversion that christianity basically became a racketeering scam, and greek orthodox where as equally to blame.


By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 1:08:49 PM , Rating: 3
That may be how things were in the past at the start of some religions, but its not how they are now. Sure in some third world countries people are largely forced into certain religions under threat of death, but in nearly all civilized nations, you have the freedom to choose your own.

We're talking about now. Not 2000 years ago. While no, Scientology may not have started any wars, but they certainly have been responsible for the deaths of people. And I'm sorry but when every other civilized country treats this "religion" as the cult it is, don't you think we look pretty dumb recognizing it as a religion?


By omnicronx on 9/11/2008 10:06:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Other religions don't require massive donations in order to have the supposed enlightenment necessary to receive their teachings.
uhhh you ever heard of Jehovah's witnesses? They don't force Tithing, but you basically get shunned if you don't if you make any money at all. I have family members that have converted, and they are suppose to pay 10% of their salaries, and although it is not mandatory, many people will donate much much more. Personally I think this sort of brainwashing is just as bad as what Scientology does, if not more.


RE: How is it really different.......
By Kuroyama on 9/10/2008 9:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
I grew up in a pentecostal born-again Christian family, and after leaving home I rejected the religion. As such I agree to a large degree with your statements about brainwashing and other issues of faith. However, I think a large portion of the anti-religious crowd are equally brainwashed. For instance many Europeans I've talked to can only think of Christianity though the guise of wild stereotypes (but think Buddhists are great), while many Japanese I knew while living in Japan see Buddhist monks as money grubbers (but think Christians are great). Moreover, atheism can become a fanatical religion as well, as evidenced by the way in which Communists have at times persecuted the religious.

I think we should teach science as science, religion as religion, and both the religious and non-religious should stop trying to convince the "other side" that they're a bunch of idiots.


By Ryanman on 9/10/2008 9:41:43 AM , Rating: 2
well said. A lot of straitedge people I know are more influenced by dogma than their religeous counterparts. They spend so much time saying everyone else is wrong just to feel good and rebellious.
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% atheist, but when you get to that point you need to let it go. Live and let live.


RE: How is it really different.......
By drando on 9/10/2008 2:21:45 PM , Rating: 4
Atheism is in no way, shape or form a religion. It's a rejection of the baseless claims of theists. That said, atheists, not atheism, can become as fanatical as theists. Each has the potential to do great harm. Stalin, an atheist, sadly did indeed kill millions because they were religious. Religion puts god before everything and in a communist state the state has to come before everything. There's no room for a god in communism.

It's interesting to hear the different viewpoints of people throughout the world. I had no idea how those other cultures view different religions. Good post.


RE: How is it really different.......
By Myg on 9/10/2008 6:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
Techically, in the United States Atheism could be recognised as a "Religion" however weird that sounds...

Its only a legal status there, with no meaning; just need a following.

"Atheism is in no way, shape or form a religion"

What is a religion then if not an ideology? What is Atheism then if not an ideology? In essentialist terms they are the same thing, just the directions are reversed, no?


By omnicronx on 9/11/2008 10:23:35 AM , Rating: 2
Stalin was not really an atheist, you are exactly correct in his reasoning for banning religion, but it was not because he did not believe in God. Stalin is not the first person (hitler, mao) that took the appropriate steps to gain power, and keep it. It is well documented that after the Germans invaded Russia in WW2, that Stalin reinstated the church because he thought that it could help him.


By johnbuk on 9/10/2008 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
How is it different? Well if you want to learn what most organized religions believe, you can ask them and they'll tell you and provide you with a wealth of information about it for free. If you want to attend their services for free you can. They might ask for donations, but those donations usually aren't required. If someone copies their religious texts and spreads them far and wide, most religions see this as "spreading the word".

As far as the core beliefs go, yeah, space aliens vs. a zombie or warrior or vengeful god aren't that different on face value and I personally don't believe in either. But the differences between religions and cults are greater than your response would lead one to beleive- not necessarily that different in their core beliefs, but far different in how they recruit people and spread their messages and what their goals are.

Yes, there are many, many, many corrupt religious sects, preachers, congregations, etc. based on the more main stream religions too, but a good argument can be made that those are minorities and not the majority. In $cientology, there is no minority, the whole damned organization is a scam. $cientology was founded specifically as a way to gain one man fame and money while most other religions were based on attempts by cultures to come up with explainations regarding the world around them.


RE: How is it really different.......
By othercents on 9/10/2008 10:12:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a believe system that requires faith with no empirical proof

Isn't that life? We are told when we are young that we need to believe and have faith that the schooling we are given will be what we need? There is plenty of proof on the contrary to that belief. We also need to believe that our jobs are stable and we won't get laid off. There is also proof that jobs are not stable. Do you actually believe what all politicians say even when there is proof on the contrary?

Why did so many people stay in New Orleans during Katrina? They believed that they would be safe based on the proof of the previous hurricanes. This is why some people are not evacuating from their houses in other areas. They believe that it will be fine while others believe that it won't.

People need something to believe in. This really comes down to belief in self and that life gets better not worse. You take this belief away and you have a society dependent on anti depression medication. Check with your doctors on this. As faith of the US had declined the number of anti depression prescriptions has risen. Do you really believe your doctor when he says this anti depression pill will cure you? However those with faith are less likely to be depressed.

Other


RE: How is it really different.......
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 1:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but correlating depression with a lack of religion is flawed. I have been depressed at times in life but it had nothing to do with not having a religion. It was because something really bad happened and I was bummed.

I would say the rise in prescriptions has more to do with doctors prescribing medications to people who really don't need them because it gets them money. I dated a girl who was prescribed anti-depressants because she was depressed her engagement fell through. She should've just been left to deal with it and she would've gotten over it on her own. Instead she ended up trying to kill herself because those medications can cause suicidal tendencies as a side effect.


By zerocool84 on 9/10/2008 5:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't read through everything but has anyone mentioned Mormons and the "donations" they are forced to make?


Trapped in a closet
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/10/2008 8:34:32 AM , Rating: 5
Cruise: Don't you understand, L. Ron? It's me! Tom Cruise!
Stan: Yeah, I know who you are.
Cruise: Ha-haven't I done well, L. Ron? Haven't you enjoyed my acting? Which film did you like best?
Stan: Well-h. I mean, you're not... you're not like as good as Leonardo di Caprio, but you're okay, I guess.
Cruise: ...What?
Stan: I mean, you're not Gene Hackman or that guy who played Napoleon Dynamite, but you're okay.
Cruise: I'm nothing. [lifts his head again] I'm a failure in the eyes of the Prophet! AAAH! [runs into Stan's closet and closes the door]
Stan: Hey! Dude, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it.
...
Sharon: What's going on?
Randy: Tom Cruise won't come out of the closet.




RE: Trapped in a closet
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 9:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
We're not coming out of the closet.
So you can just go away.


Ah. Okay.
By knowyourenemy on 9/10/2008 9:06:49 AM , Rating: 2
And just concerning the last statement in this article: does anyone really have any inkling as to how "Anonymous" was really formed? So many news organizations have only come up with theories or third-party responses, with almost all of them being either completely off or more recently tying the formation of the group to the protest of Scientology. Whatever, that's fine. I'm just confused as to why everyone posts their report as fact as opposed to speculation.




RE: Ah. Okay.
By Ryanman on 9/10/2008 9:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's 4 chan. A bunch of the internet badasses decided to create a vandetta.
Doesn't mean I don't support them, but that's all it is. bored teenagers/adults doing random stuff to feel important.


RE: Ah. Okay.
By knowyourenemy on 9/10/2008 9:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
Of course. But sure, saying "anonymous" was created from this is a load of bullocks.


Financial Interest?
By jklauderdale on 9/10/2008 8:55:57 AM , Rating: 2
"Anyone invoking the DMCA to remove copyright-protected videos must have a financial interest in the material they target." Yeah, that sounds about right. I'd say that the "church" has one heck of a financial interest in seeing these videos taken down.

As to the formation of Anonymous, my understanding is that they were already in existence well before the Cruise videos.




RE: Financial Interest?
By 325hhee on 9/10/2008 9:24:47 AM , Rating: 2
Everytime I hear Anomymous, it reminds me of this vid, always cracks me up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY


By mmntech on 9/10/2008 9:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
<sarcasm> Who would have guessed people would start using the DMCA as a censorship tool. I'm shocked. <sarcasm>

It's the unfortunate reality of the ill thought out law. Basically, you can just slap a copyright on any piece of digital media you have. It effectively silences whistle blowers and critics should they get a hold of it and want to go public. Despite prosecutions for refusing DMCA notices being rare, there is a psychological effect to it. It discourages the aforementioned people from coming forward because the threat is there.

There's a large legal grey zone here. In these specific cases, does part of the DMCA violate first amendment rights? That's the big question to answer. Obviously the DMCA needs to be updated or replaced with something that includes provisions for stuff like this. The problem is that it currently is highly unbalanced towards content owners and the line between piracy and fair use has become too blurred. This should be made an election issue.




Gotta love the DMCA
By Polynikes on 9/10/2008 11:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
So much for "innocent until proven guilty."




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki