ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 08/21/2014 08:00 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News High Tech
Twitter to Remove Images of Deceased Upon Family Request
Google Plans Kid-Friendly Version of Its Services
Tom Hanks Releases Typewriter App "Hanx Writer"
Secure Websites Will Show up Higher in Google Search Results
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think the U.S. should do more to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine?
  Latest Events
08/21/2014 04:25 PM
estrella242 receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Antibiotic Taken by Millions Associated With Increased Heart Death Risk'
08/21/2014 04:06 PM
estrella242 receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Bank of America Agrees to Nearly $17B Settlement'
08/21/2014 03:45 PM
estrella242 receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Man Charged With Murder of Pregnant California Woman Had Researched Body Disposal'
08/21/2014 03:14 PM
estrella242 receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Twitter to Remove Images of Deceased Upon Family Request'
08/21/2014 02:51 PM
estrella242 receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Couples With Big Weddings More Likely to Have a Happy Marriage'
08/21/2014 02:24 PM
coronado receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'SeaWorld Produces World´s First Test-Tube Penguin'
08/21/2014 01:55 PM
coronado receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Robber Arrested After Showering, Shaving in Front of 94-Year-Old Victim'
08/21/2014 01:18 PM
coronado receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Man Calls 911 to Complain That Stripper Won´t Have Sex With Him'
  5.732 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/08/2008 08:14 PM ID: 73251 Permalink   

4,000 YouTube Accounts Banned Due to Fake DMCA Notices

 

Over 4,000 YouTube videos and accounts were removed due to fake DMCA copyright infringement notices being sent in to YouTube.

The 4,000 videos and accounts were critical of the Church of Scientology, and were taken down due to a copyright claim by "American Rights Counsel LLC." YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices.

Most of the videos were reinstated about 24 hours after the fake DMCA notices were realized by Youtube. Mark Bunker, a critical Scientology critic, also had his YouTube account suspended for a second time, the last being in June of 2008.

 
  Source: www.eff.org  
    WebReporter: deadtaco Show Calling Card    
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  40 Comments
  
  I was trying to refrain...  
 
I usually try to refrain from jumping on the Scientology article bandwagon, but this one pissed me off to an extreme.

Luana, you may recall me telling you that I'm fine with Scientology until they trample on my Constitutional rights. You even agreed with me.

Then I see crap like this. I'm sorry, but from all the crap I've been reading lately, it looks like Scientology's wet dream is to have the United States Constitution cast into the fire so they can shut up every critic out there.

I know you'll argue against that. It's what you do. However, there is too much evidence that backs up my claim, no matter how hard-core you try to defend actions such as this.

Also, the fake DMCA notices were confirmed to be from a scientologist, so don't try and say this was some sort of setup, which I know you'll do.
 
  by: deadtaco   09/08/2008 08:23 PM     
  Just gotta say it...  
 
SCIENTOLOGY SUCKS !
 
  by: elzorro   09/08/2008 09:44 PM     
  Lou or luana should be here shortly  
 
I've seen a Lou who also posts a scientologymyths.info going around to all the news stories about this and saying that Scientology is not responsible.
 
  by: bob dobbs   09/09/2008 01:59 AM     
  Is it fair...  
 
to assume that people know what DMCA is? I don't. It does not say in the article either.
 
  by: THISISNEWS   09/09/2008 04:27 AM     
  DMCA  
 
Digital Millennium Copyright Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/...


Also, I cannot wait to see if luana or terryeo will even peek their heads out for this one.

Caught red handed!
 
  by: pcXXXtreme   09/09/2008 04:36 AM     
  Why not?  
 
If you know who sent the false notices, speak right up! I don't. Myself, I'll assume it was a manipulative anonymous hard-core, seeking to cause confusion and disruption amongst anonymous.

If you go to youtube for, say 3 days running and search "scienotology" and then sort by date, rather than the default, which is relevance. You'll find 100s of anti-scientology videos posted every day. And not just today or yesterday, for a long time now. Someone(s) is flooding youtube and has been for a while. 4000 videos doesn't even touch the anti-scientology videos on you tube, the number is much much larger.

So I assume it was an anonymous hard core guy, just seeing what he could do. But then everyone has an opinion, hey?
 
  by: terryeo   09/09/2008 06:14 AM     
  @Deadtaco  
 
"Also, the fake DMCA notices were confirmed to be from a scientologist" ?? Speak up boy, name your source, will you? Now I'm asking politely, do you follow?
 
  by: terryeo   09/09/2008 06:18 AM     
  @terryeo  
 
An anonymous hardcore Scientologist?!
 
  by: jonnysodoff   09/09/2008 06:21 AM     
  Who is behind the LLC ?  
 
Opinion is one thing. You have yours and I have mine. But who (and there must be someone) is the "American Rights Counsel LLC" ? Deadtaco said "DMCA notices were confirmed to be from ..." Does anyone have that confirmation link? Is there anything but opinion?

In the meantime, I'll once again opine the LLC is the vehicle of an anonymous hard care person, seeking to cause confusion. And using that to promote Mark Bunker's YouTube ban in an effort to get Bunker's channel reinstated.
 
  by: terryeo   09/09/2008 08:33 AM     
  Sure Terryeo  
 
right after you provide proof that Anonymous was responsible for sending anthrax mailings, an allegation that you've made hundreds of times over the past few months. If we showed you the incorporation papers for the American Rights Council with Miscavige's signature on it, we know it would'nt change your mind anyway, because Scientology can do no wrong in your mind.
 
  by: bob dobbs   09/09/2008 09:54 AM     
  lol  
 
i was gonna post that hours before u did, but said, nah wont jump on the Scientology bandwagon, just yet :p
 
  by: securityunion     09/09/2008 10:12 AM     
  Here we go again  
 
Just waiting on Luana and that guy from the last scientology thread.

Let see:

1. News posted. - Check
2. Scientology suspected of wrong doing. - Check
3. Scientology bot try to shift blame to Anonymous. - Check
 
  by: Jaded Fox     09/09/2008 04:03 PM     
  Meh  
 
Terry, from the tech sites I've been reading over the last two days, it looks like the attacks originated from someone named Oliver Schaper [sp?]. Evidently he is a very outspoken scientologist who likes to make vulgar comments on critics youtube videos.

The register is also claiming scientologist links:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/...

I'll admit that more evidence needs collecting, and I'll find it interesting to see where it leads.

Just remember, you're just as quick to blame anonymous as they were to blame scientology, so you are no more right than they are (although I'm sure you think otherwise).
 
  by: deadtaco   09/09/2008 05:50 PM     
  Who is behind the LLC (third request)  
 
Deadtaco says he is pissed off. And tells us, "the fake DMCA notices were confirmed to be from a scientologist."

So I asked for his link, so we could all view that confirmation. None of the news seems to carry the least hint of WHO the "American Rights Counsel LLC" represents.

Deadtaco's link to the guardian does not confirm. It doesn't even allege. It says such things have been done before and sketches out a history. It makes the Church guilty by implication and opinion. You expect a newspaper to use these propaganda tools, naturally.

The DMCA infringement notices were not "fake", but actual. Many of them later proved to be unfounded and YouTube put clips back up. But there was nothing fake about the notices and YouTube reacted appropriately to the notices.

The remaining confusion comes about then. Who or what is the LLC ? Naturally, those who prefer rumor to fact will rumor. Make yourself happy. But until we have clear indication of who is behind the LLC, I'll stay with my opinion. A hard core anonymous IS the LLC, his motivation (beyond mere temporary confusion) is to misdirect public opinion and attempt to get Bunker's account reinstated at YouTube.

Bob - read from the beginning, follow the sequence. Deadtaco said he had confirmation. I asked for the link. He posted a link that neither confirms nor denies his allegation, but sketches a history (most of it rumor). Therefore, your effort to force me to dance is but typical SP reaction to a politely requested link.
 
  by: terryeo   09/09/2008 08:23 PM     
  @Terry  
 
Who is behind it indeed? You are no better than taco or anyone else - you are pointing a blind finger with no evidence. Why dont *YOU* do the digging and find out who is behind the LLC?

Misdirect public opinion? Are you serious? I do not know a single person that is not a Scientologist that has a positive opinion of the cult.
;)
 
  by: Twisted_Mister   09/09/2008 09:05 PM     
  @Terry  
 
I'll stand right up and apologize at this point for jumping straight to conclusions. When I see that the attack was directed at anti-scientology videos, I took it as a sign of attack from scientology. Could I be wrong? Of course. My 'proof' of these DMCA take-downs was that some of them were actually using Oliver Schaper's name in the takedown notices.

The LLC, by the way, does not exist. It never did - it was a fake company from the get-go.

Now, wikinews has interviewed both Schaper and Bunker, and even Bunker states that he doesn't believe Schaper is responsible. Now, honestly, I don't know much about this Bunker fellow besides what I read on a few Tech sites and shortnews about past youtube aggressions. I would assume that him saying this, however, is a strong statement considering he is mentioned in so many articles.

Wiki News article: http://en.wikinews.org/...

However, I will wait for the evidence to present itself before I go and start pointing fingers at other parties. I made the mistake once, ate my humble pie, and will be careful not to make it again.
 
  by: deadtaco   09/09/2008 09:20 PM     
  I could be mistaken too  
 
We don't know who the LLC is. It would be nice to know. I've looked at wikinews, at various discussion, there is a discussion board for it at youtube as well. I've no more proof of who the LLC is. My opinion is no better than anyone else's.
 
  by: terryeo   09/09/2008 09:29 PM     
  @terryeo  
 
You don't know who the LLC is, because the LLC doesn't exist.

I wonder if anonymous would stoop to the level of scientology and sabotage themselves to make it look like scientology did it? Like scientology did with the anthrax...
 
  by: PeddlerOfFlesh   09/09/2008 11:44 PM     
  @Peddler  
 
"Does not exist" may be a valid, true statement. But it was not an act of God that sent the DMCA notice, that carefully selected, appropriately documented, and listed Video names. It was some person, or group of persons. "Does not exist" attempts to refuse it ever happened. Someone(s) did that all right. Some person or persons is responsible.

The FBI has the anthrax materials. Finding that source is up to the FBI. I sincerely doubt any organization would put themselves at risk by first sending to themselves, then turning the sent material over to the FBI. But hey, we all got opinions, don't we?
 
  by: terryeo   09/10/2008 01:13 AM     
  @Terry  
 
Well, it is a possibility. It's not like the CoS hasn't done similar things in the past.

CBS News Report after the whole Paulette Cooper incident.
Part1
http://www.youtube.com/...
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/...

I especially love when they interview a group of scientologists, and the interviewer asks "Don't you think that what you did was wrong and illegal?"

I believe the response was along the lines of "We don't care. We had to do it for the sake of the church." It's in the newscast if you want it verbatim.

It's things like this that have permanently skewed people's view of the CoS, and generally assume the CoS mailed the anthrax to themselves.
 
  by: deadtaco   09/10/2008 01:27 AM     
  Yes?  
 
Deadtaco, I viewed those two videos. But didn't recognize your praphrased quote there, within either video.

There have been allegations over the years. And there was a group in power within the Church who ware purged because of what they were doing. Today's Church Policy clearly states, "In all circumstances, do not do anything against the laws of the land". That has been policy for at least 10 years. But the Church is large and I'm not an expert. I'm replying to you, but it is well beyond my knowledge to defend millions of people's past actions, or to defend the Church either.

The American Rights Counsel LLC could have been some disinterested, third party, trying out a ploy against an often criticized organization. With plans to implement the same ploy under a different name, to bring down videos critical of anonymous, or critical of the Russian government, or critical of the Islamic religion.
 
  by: terryeo   09/10/2008 02:36 AM     
  Anonymous  
 
Let me explain something. Anonymous has a core and that core isn't what you might thing it is. My youtube account of Terryeo received this message which says that Anonymous is an attempt to form a group that fights suppression, then using that formed group to grow wealthy. By selling Anonymous' services to the highest bidder. Here is the message the identity ChurchOfScientology sent to me.

Call to Action - from ChurchOfScientology (youtube.com)
Long has suppression been fought. First a vigilante group must form. Then it may begin to selling its services to the highest bidder. This is how people grew wealthy before governments adopted freedom of speech, religion, and written words. Anonymous too, is protected by these laws. If you wish to see them stand as they are, desist your action. If you wish to change them by force, you run your own risk.
 
  by: Terryeo   09/10/2008 08:42 PM     
  Meh  
 
The account 'ChurchOfScientology' is just that - It's run by the official Church of Scientology. This is the account that hosts all of the Church's videos and pays Google to do so.

As for people paying off Anonymous, that's a bit of a joke. I haven't seen one ounce of evidence to support this, and it's a rather laughable claim considering Anonymous is just a bunch of people with similar interests protesting something.
 
  by: deadtaco   09/10/2008 11:58 PM     
  Actually...  
 
I suppose you could be on to something. Maybe the Church of Scientology is correct. The only reason people protest is for the money. I mean, everyone knows that the only reason black people protested during the 60's was to get a wad of cash. /sarcasm

To say "the only reason that someone protests is for financial gain" sounds like a desperate thing to say if you ask me. It's an attempt to invalidate the reason for the protest. History does NOT support what you are claiming, contrary to what you posted.
 
  by: deadtaco   09/11/2008 01:55 AM     
  I need an edit button  
 
Ignore the last few lines of my post. I meant to erase the 'contrary to what you posted' text.
 
  by: deadtaco   09/11/2008 01:57 AM     
  Anonymous on YouTube  
 
I make no claim about the contents of the message. I cut and pasted the message. This link: http://www.youtube.com/... is the user who sent that message to me.
 
  by: Terryeo   09/11/2008 02:12 AM     
  @Terryeo  
 
The way you were asking who is behind the LLC made it sound like you thought it was a real LLC and wanted somebody to look into records of who owned it or something.

As for the CoS sending anthrax to itself -- I thought the FBI had come to that conclusion. I also thought it was SN reported. I can't find anything about it. I sincerely apologize for that. I would never intentionally state that a group is responsible for something without anything to back it up. heh, if other people felt the same way such accusations wouldn't even be made.
 
  by: PeddlerOfFlesh   09/11/2008 04:03 AM     
  haha  
 
"A critical scientology critic"

I like that phrase!
 
  by: dook   09/11/2008 04:36 PM     
  once again  
 
Religion. The downfall of society and the destruction of mankind. Name on religion where everyone gets along and no one gets killed for what they believe? There isnt one besides not having a religion and even those people are persecuted for not believing in anything. *shakes head*
 
  by: misscinna   09/11/2008 06:28 PM     
  Title  
 
says 4,000 accounts banned which is incorrect. The article talks about 4,000 take-down notices, i.e. video clips. One account can as much as 4,000 clips all by itself.

On the matter: this case is a fake. I don't know who did it but I do know that this looks just too much like an invitation to bash the church once again . Fascinating in any case, the youtube take-down policy seems questionable. Someone with a phony name comes along, claims copyright for a video clip showing - I assume - some Anonymous guys jumping up and down to Rick Astley music and youtube takes it down? 4,000 of them? Ridiculous.
 
  by: luana1980     09/12/2008 06:17 PM     
  @deadtaco  
 
The youtube account sending around these red herrings "a vigilante group must be built" blah-blah (yes, I got one as well because I subscribed to them) is called Church0fScientology with a 0 (zero) instead of the letter o. You are talking about ChurchofScientology, the official channel of the Church of Scientology.
 
  by: luana1980     09/12/2008 06:23 PM     
  @Luana  
 
Long post warning - sorry :)

Yeah, I figured that out after Terrey cleared it up. The whole thing is getting more and more confusing.

Also, you'll notice that I didn't make any mention of the Church of Scientology in the post headline. This was on purpose, since I cared more about the fact that someone was once again abusing the law to stamp on free speech. My first comment in this thread, however, was admittedly fairly heated. I'm an avid constitutionalist, and I follow what's going on at the EFF website quite often. When I saw the article posted there, just like almost everyone else, my first thought was 'Oh it's that darned scientology again.'

I admitted this mistake, as you can also see above.

If it comes to light that it was a member of Anonymous that did these take-downs, then my aim will be at them. However, from what I've been reading on other blogs/forums, it's beginning to look like someone with a personal vendetta against the protesting portion of Anonymous. It sounds like the attacks may be from a kid from one of the chanology sites with a bug up his butt about the protesters.

I really hope Youtube aggressively follows this so the real story can be uncovered.
 
  by: deadtaco   09/12/2008 06:35 PM     
  @Luana  
 
Long post warning - sorry :)

Yeah, I figured that out after Terrey cleared it up. The whole thing is getting more and more confusing.

Also, you'll notice that I didn't make any mention of the Church of Scientology in the post headline. This was on purpose, since I cared more about the fact that someone was once again abusing the law to stamp on free speech. My first comment in this thread, however, was admittedly fairly heated. I'm an avid constitutionalist, and I follow what's going on at the EFF website quite often. When I saw the article posted there, just like almost everyone else, my first thought was 'Oh it's that darned scientology again.'

I admitted this mistake, as you can also see above.

If it comes to light that it was a member of Anonymous that did these take-downs, then my aim will be at them. However, from what I've been reading on other blogs/forums, it's beginning to look like someone with a personal vendetta against the protesting portion of Anonymous. It sounds like the attacks may be from a kid from one of the chanology sites with a bug up his butt about the protesters.

I really hope Youtube aggressively follows this so the real story can be uncovered.

EDIT: Shortnews just blasted me with a giant 5 page ColdFusion database warning when I tried to submit this. A mod may want to look into it.
 
  by: deadtaco   09/12/2008 06:36 PM     
  And damn these double posts...  
 
Evidently the warning still posted my comment anyway. Hooray for double posting.
 
  by: deadtaco   09/12/2008 06:37 PM     
  @Deadtaco  
 
You are by gosh right about how I did not specify 0 - zero in that name I posted. I could have reduced some confusion by using a little more care. Sorry about that.
 
  by: terryeo   09/13/2008 08:35 PM     
  You know  
 
Plain and simple, I don't care if there are 4 BILLION videos disfounding scientology. The "church" spends a whole lot of time covering up, removing information, and preventing information from surfacing ( though not sufficient, just those clearly visible in the public light) I'm all for something that heals someone, but I'm against and organization that almost mirrors the media related activities of the government of the united states of america ( another atrocity developing daily ) <--- see aaron russo.
 
  by: Burnfactor77   09/17/2008 10:12 PM     
  The Word Scientology  
 
Gets an automatic response from terryeo and luana1980 reinforcing the idea that scientology uses response people to counter bad P.R. defeating the argument that they don't.
 
  by: ichi     09/17/2008 10:31 PM     
  @ichi @Burnfactor  
 
You, like me, are free to opine as you wish. You are completely free to opine that any point of view but your own is "robotic" or prompted by motivations you are unable to specify. I, likewise, am free to opine as I wish to.

I'll tell you now, and you belief as you wish. Anonymous was created by a small group who has established a group, has demonstrated internet expertise, and hopes to profit. Its core members hope to sell its services to undisclosed employers, its core membership hopes to was wealthy by manipulating its more public members to performing public protest.

I, for one, would encourage you to form your own opinion. I also find the situation sad when you have so little self-confidence are that you must name call, disparage and point fingers to prove to yourself that your opinion is, for you, more valuable than anyone else's.
 
  by: terryeo   09/18/2008 04:39 AM     
  Just Proved My Point  
 
N/T
 
  by: ichi     09/18/2008 11:48 PM     
  @luana  
 
Why did you give me a mediocre rating for this article, then say it's because it's 'Entertaining'. What was wrong with my summary?
 
  by: deadtaco   09/19/2008 05:51 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com