Phony DMCA notices close XENU TV on YouTube
Mark Bunker
all fraudulent. I want to file a counter notification but I can not find
any listing of the company which filed the DMCA complaint: American Rights
Counsel LLCThey are not registered with the government according to this
site:http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/index.htmlAnd a google search
for American Rights Counsel LLC brings up absolutely no results.These are
the five videos:Scientology: Rolling Stone Article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BH3o94rRZkScientology: Clearwater City
Meeting - Abuses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd78vId2UnsScientology: L.
Ron Hubbard Jr. Debate 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8baAc5mOVkScientology: Lisa McPherson Part
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWGTcp7thloScientology: TomKat Wedding
Countdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcj7iN9ffbII sent an email to
Youtube to alert them that it is happening to me and to others. I made a
post on Enturbulation and found others hade been hit tonight by the same
phony
company.http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/more-youtube-fraud-cult-scientology-28179/Now
my account has been "permanantly disabled." Hopefully, that premanantly is
not at all accurate and I will be back much faster than the last time this
happened.
Jinkii
> I was hit with five new DMCA copyright notices tonight and I think they are
> all fraudulent. I want to file a counter notification but I can not find
> any listing of the company which filed the DMCA complaint: American Rights
> Counsel LLCThey are not registered with the government according to this
> for American Rights Counsel LLC brings up absolutely no results.These are
> the five videos:Scientology: Rolling Stone Article:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BH3o94rRZkScientology:Clearwater City
> Meeting - Abuses:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd78vId2UnsScientology:L.
> Ron Hubbard Jr. Debate 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8baAc5mOVkScientology:Lisa McPherson Part
> 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWGTcp7thloScientology:TomKat Wedding
> Youtube to alert them that it is happening to me and to others. I made a
> post on Enturbulation and found others hade been hit tonight by the same
> phony
> my account has been "permanantly disabled." Hopefully, that premanantly is
> not at all accurate and I will be back much faster than the last time this
> happened.
you ready for this mark? its a scilon gay-porn-peddlar called Oliver
Schaper who has created American Rights Counsel (ARC lol) and another
"company" whos name escapes me at the moment specifically to DMCA
critical videos and accounts, the Anonymous videos and accounts that
have been affected are just mirroring their videos on other accounts
and sites to avoid counter DMCA namefagging.
you should be cool to counter DMCA tho since your name is public
domain, there is no registration of either of the companies currently
DMCAing videos so it shouldnt be a problem for you to get your account
back since these companies hold no copyright to anything since they
are shells specifically for removing critical material
Jinkii
mudkip...@googlemail.com
vid's he can find,
I had 3 e-mails this morning telling me "ARC" are claiming copyright
on 3 news articals from 3 diffrent news stations i had on my channel.
kennethno...@gmail.com
> On 5 Sep, 12:37, "Mark Bunker" <xen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was hit with five new DMCA copyright notices tonight and I think they are
> > all fraudulent. I want to file a counter notification but I can not find
> > any listing of the company which filed the DMCA complaint: American Rights
> > Counsel LLCThey are not registered with the government according to this
> > for American Rights Counsel LLC brings up absolutely no results.These are
> > the five videos:Scientology: Rolling Stone Article:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BH3o94rRZkScientology:ClearwaterCity
> > Meeting - Abuses:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd78vId2UnsScientology:L.
> > Ron Hubbard Jr. Debate 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8baAc5mOVkScientology:LisaMcPherson Part
> > 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWGTcp7thloScientology:TomKatWedding
> > Youtube to alert them that it is happening to me and to others. I made a
> > post on Enturbulation and found others hade been hit tonight by the same
> > phony
> > company.http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/more-youtube-fra...
> > my account has been "permanantly disabled." Hopefully, that premanantly is
> > not at all accurate and I will be back much faster than the last time this
> > happened.
>
> you ready for this mark? its a scilon gay-porn-peddlar called Oliver
> Schaper who has created American Rights Counsel (ARC lol) and another
> "company" whos name escapes me at the moment specifically to DMCA
> critical videos and accounts, the Anonymous videos and accounts that
> have been affected are just mirroring their videos on other accounts
> and sites to avoid counter DMCA namefagging.
>
> you should be cool to counter DMCA tho since your name is public
> domain, there is no registration of either of the companies currently
> DMCAing videos so it shouldnt be a problem for you to get your account
> back since these companies hold no copyright to anything since they
> are shells specifically for removing critical material
>
> Jinkii
man, this is sick. Why does YouTube let these con artists get away
with this? Could it be because Scientology spends so much money with
them in advertising their bullshit "religion"? Regardless of the
reason that Youtube is so obviously blind to this nonsense, this is
definitely huge news.
Can someone please post links showing that American Rights Counsel is
owned by Scientology or a Scientologist? It would be nice to have
this information to present when complaining to Youtube about getting
Mark's account back up.
It can be difficult contacting Youtube about issues such as this, but
here goes:
http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/request.py (click on
report abuse, General policy inquiry, Suspended account, contact us)
--
Scientology Rulz!
http://www.scientologyrulz.com
xenubarb
"ARC?"
It's this oliver clam guy and a phony LLC. See enturb for more details.
--
--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign:
terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business
opportunity.
$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide."
-Chris Leithiser
Jinkii
> Mark Bunker wrote:
> > I was hit with five new DMCA copyright notices tonight and I think they are
> > all fraudulent. I want to file a counter notification but I can not find
> > any listing of the company which filed the DMCA complaint: American Rights
> > Counsel LLCThey are not registered with the government according to this
> > for American Rights Counsel LLC brings up absolutely no results.These are
> > the five videos:Scientology: Rolling Stone Article:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BH3o94rRZkScientology:Clearwater City
> > Meeting - Abuses:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd78vId2UnsScientology:L.
> > Ron Hubbard Jr. Debate 2:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8baAc5mOVkScientology:Lisa McPherson Part
> > 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWGTcp7thloScientology:TomKat Wedding
> > Youtube to alert them that it is happening to me and to others. I made a
> > post on Enturbulation and found others hade been hit tonight by the same
> > phony
> > my account has been "permanantly disabled." Hopefully, that premanantly is
> > not at all accurate and I will be back much faster than the last time this
> > happened.
>
> "ARC?"
>
> It's this oliver clam guy and a phony LLC. See enturb for more details.
>
> --
> --
> barb
> Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
>
> "$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign:
> terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business
> opportunity.
>
> $cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide."
> -Chris Leithiser
from: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially
misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or
misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees,
incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright
owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured
by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider
relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to
the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the
removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
^ this is why we cannot do the same back to them
Jinkii
(above post is in no way to be considered legal advice or considered
as author indicating any legal standing in any country ever, so there)
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
reported as being illegal by a phony scientologist?
rooooooofllloooollll!
.Lily.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
For further enlightenment, please read some of Truth Seeker's articles:
The Hitchhiker's Guide Through A.R.S. - Complete List Of Truth
Seeker's Articles About This Newsgroup ::
To assure, that the link leads to a google-groups thread, please
preview the long address:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tecyl
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
mark....@hotmail.com
> Mark Bunker wrote:
> > I was hit with five new DMCA copyright notices tonight and I think they are
> > all fraudulent. I want to file a counter notification but I can not find
> > any listing of the company which filed the DMCA complaint: American Rights
> > Counsel LLCThey are not registered with the government according to this
> > for American Rights Counsel LLC brings up absolutely no results.These are
> > the five videos:Scientology: Rolling Stone Article:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BH3o94rRZkScientology:Clearwater City
> > Meeting - Abuses:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd78vId2UnsScientology:L.
> > Ron Hubbard Jr. Debate 2:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8baAc5mOVkScientology:Lisa McPherson Part
> > 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWGTcp7thloScientology:TomKat Wedding
> > Youtube to alert them that it is happening to me and to others. I made a
> > post on Enturbulation and found others hade been hit tonight by the same
> > phony
> > my account has been "permanantly disabled." Hopefully, that premanantly is
> > not at all accurate and I will be back much faster than the last time this
> > happened.
>
> "ARC?"
>
> It's this oliver clam guy and a phony LLC. See enturb for more details.
>
> --
> --
> barb
> Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
>
> "$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign:
> terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business
> opportunity.
>
> $cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide."
> -Chris Leithiser
Check this out:
http://www.eff.org/cases/diehl-v-crook
Michael Crook was this... um... person... that celebrated when US
soldiers were killed in Iraq. He was interviewed on Hannity and Colmes
and that video made it all over the interwebs and he filed fake DCMA
notices against websites to have it removed under the "safe harbor"
portion of the DMCA.
The EFF picked up the case and Crook lost. Might want to contact them
on this one.
Jinkii
<lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rofl! Do I understand this right? A phony critic's account has been
> reported as being illegal by a phony scientologist?
>
> rooooooofllloooollll!
>
> .Lily.
>
>
>
> xenubarb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Mark Bunker wrote:
> >> I was hit with five new DMCA copyright notices tonight and I think
> >> they are all fraudulent. I want to file a counter notification but
> >> I can not find any listing of the company which filed the DMCA
> >> complaint: American Rights Counsel LLCThey are not registered with
> >> the government according to this
> >> search for American Rights Counsel LLC brings up absolutely no
> >> results.These are the five videos:Scientology: Rolling Stone
> >> Article:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BH3o94rRZkScientology:
> >> Clearwater City Meeting - Abuses:
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd78vId2UnsScientology:L. Ron
> >> Hubbard Jr. Debate 2:
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8baAc5mOVkScientology:Lisa
> >> McPherson Part 3:
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWGTcp7thloScientology:TomKat
> >> Wedding Countdown:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcj7iN9ffbIIsent
> >> an email to Youtube to alert them that it is happening to me and to
> >> others. I made a post on Enturbulation and found others hade been
> >> hit tonight by the same phony
> >> my account has been "permanantly disabled." Hopefully, that
> >> premanantly is not at all accurate and I will be back much faster
> >> than the last time this happened.
>
> > "ARC?"
>
> > It's this oliver clam guy and a phony LLC. See enturb for more
> > details.
> > --
>
> --
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> For further enlightenment, please read some of Truth Seeker's articles:
> The Hitchhiker's Guide Through A.R.S. - Complete List Of Truth
> Seeker's Articles About This Newsgroup ::
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2tecyl
>
> To assure, that the link leads to a google-groups thread, please
> preview the long address:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tecyl
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
many words could be used to describe how you understand this,
Erroneous, False, Improper, Innaccurate, Incorrect, Mistaken, Untrue
and just plain Wrong.
buy a Thesaurus, it will serve you much better than the Dictionary you
will be word clearing half of these terms with.
Jinkii
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
A phony critics' account has been reported as being illegal by a real
scientologist!
*ROFLOLOLOLOUDLY! *
.Lily.
mark....@hotmail.com
You seem to be trying very hard to prove that many people who are -
actually- out there doing something are false critics, and that you
would seem to be the only genuine critic. Sounds either paranoid or
like a hidden agenda.
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
A phony critics' account has been reported as being illegal by a true
critic!
And now I say:
Yieepppieh!
.Lily.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tecyl
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Jinkii
the phony critic part, the reply was to lily, i had just upgraded my
browser and hadnt updated my killfile, normal business has resumed
Jinkii
mark....@hotmail.com
Yeah, I saw that after I posted, but didn't see the message come up
until now, so I could remove it. Sorry- I'm slow today :)
mark....@hotmail.com
<lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, than it's this:
>
> A phony critics' account has been reported as being illegal by a true
> critic!
>
> And now I say:
>
> Yieepppieh!
>
> .Lily.
>
>
>
>
> > That makes it even funnier:
>
> > A phony critics' account has been reported as being illegal by a real
> > scientologist!
>
> > *ROFLOLOLOLOUDLY! *
>
> > .Lily.
>
Case in point:
three rapid message insinuating that the OP is a fake critic. Makes me
suspicious. Oh well, these herds cull themselves sooner or later, I
suppose.
Jinkii
lily is a well known scilon op, her aim here is to spread doubt,
casual browsers dont know who is trustworthy and who isnt, although
even a casual glance at the links she pushes will prove that she is as
much a critic as i am a bowl of petunias
Jinkii
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
Nobody has a right to control, why and with whom you are talking. (As
long as you do not break any constitutional laws of course, which you
do not, nor have I seen, you did.)
It is your right under the freedom of speech act and every democracy
has a kind of that act in their laws.
Only weak organisations or constitutions have a need to suppress
freedom of speech. It is always a sign of enervation, if a "power" does
so.
.Lily.
mark....@hotmail.com
I'm seeing the same thing, from an outsider's perspective. It seems a
little bit too heavy handed. And regardless of her sincerity or lack
thereof, it's harmful to the "movement" when someone comes in and
tries to tell you not to trust your strongest allies! THAT alone makes
it highly suspect.
mark....@hotmail.com
<lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jinkii, you should never ever to anybody apologise for posting.
>
> Nobody has a right to control, why and with whom you are talking. (As
> long as you do not break any constitutional laws of course, which you
> do not, nor have I seen, you did.)
>
> It is your right under the freedom of speech act and every democracy
> has a kind of that act in their laws.
>
> Only weak organisations or constitutions have a need to suppress
> freedom of speech. It is always a sign of enervation, if a "power" does
> so.
>
> .Lily.
>
>
>
I'm confoosed- who apologized for posting?
Jinkii
<lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jinkii, you should never ever to anybody apologise for posting.
>
> Nobody has a right to control, why and with whom you are talking. (As
> long as you do not break any constitutional laws of course, which you
> do not, nor have I seen, you did.)
>
> It is your right under the freedom of speech act and every democracy
> has a kind of that act in their laws.
>
> Only weak organisations or constitutions have a need to suppress
> freedom of speech. It is always a sign of enervation, if a "power" does
> so.
>
> .Lily.
>
>
>
i never apologised, i explained, also your sentence structure sucks.
i am from the united kingdom, we do not have a constitution :)
FOAD lily no one would miss you
Jinkii
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
> On Sep 5, 8:16 am, "The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed."
> <lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm confoosed- who apologized for posting?
They all do. Often. If I would dig, I would even find you apoligizing
for having posted to me. Should I start?
.Lily.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
For further enlightenment, please read some of Truth Seeker's articles:
The Hitchhiker's Guide Through A.R.S. - Complete List Of Truth
Seeker's Articles About This Newsgroup ::
To assure, that the link leads to a google-groups thread, please
preview the long address:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tecyl
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
> mark....@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 8:16 am, "The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed."
>> <lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>> I'm confoosed- who apologized for posting?
>
> They all do. Often. If I would dig, I would even find you apoligizing
> for having posted to me. Should I start?
>
> .Lily.
Ah, Mark, and if it's not you, I could find something from Nec. For
sure.
.Lily.
mark....@hotmail.com
<lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> mark.tom...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 8:16 am, "The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed."
> > <lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > I'm confoosed- who apologized for posting?
>
> They all do. Often. If I would dig, I would even find you apoligizing
> for having posted to me. Should I start?
>
Yes.
Android Cat
> I was hit with five new DMCA copyright notices tonight and I think
> they are all fraudulent. I want to file a counter notification but I
> can not find any listing of the company which filed the DMCA
> complaint: American Rights Counsel LLCThey are not registered with
> the government according to this
The Electronic Frontier Foundation might be interested in this.
Last year, they stepped in when Uri Geller tried to take down a critical
video.
http://www.eff.org/cases/sapient-v-geller
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/05/spoon-bending-paranormalist-illegally-twists-copyright-law
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/06/spoon-bending-paranormalist-ramps-illegal-attacks-online-critic
Geller settled (with gag), so they might be interested in a DMCA fraud case
where they can finally put a head on a pike.
--
Ron of that ilk.
mark....@hotmail.com
> Mark Bunker wrote:
> > I was hit with five new DMCA copyright notices tonight and I think
> > they are all fraudulent. I want to file a counter notification but I
> > can not find any listing of the company which filed the DMCA
> > complaint: American Rights Counsel LLCThey are not registered with
> > the government according to this
>
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation might be interested in this.
>
> Last year, they stepped in when Uri Geller tried to take down a critical
>
> Geller settled (with gag), so they might be interested in a DMCA fraud case
> where they can finally put a head on a pike.
>
> --
> Ron of that ilk.
As I recall, in the crook vs Deihl case, he ended up settling as well-
but he had to take a class in copyright law and publicly apologize via
youtube. Might be worth it, and there's definite precedent.
zeeorger
<lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rofl! Do I understand this right? A phony critic's account has been
> reported as being illegal by a phony scientologist?
>
> rooooooofllloooollll!
>
> .Lily.
>
WBM "phony" ???
Lily, get some surgery - to remove OSA's arm up your ass.
z
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
From: mark....@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Phony DMCA notices close XENU TV on YouTube
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 91
Message-ID:
<61c5cf19-74c2-4d54...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
References: <CR8wk.20193$j32....@fe73.usenetserver.com>
<Okbwk.28605$_s1....@newsfe07.iad>
<g9rg1f$lhm$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
<48570b37-eaa1-4f2d...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
<0faf6981-bd8e-4247...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
<d6bcccd8-2ae3-4506...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.46.198.230
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1220627190 24056 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2008
15:06:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:06:30 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=199.46.198.230;
posting-account=60oDCgoAAAAfkx1Zrf_KuvTZMs5HOBDW
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.9.0.1)
Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 webwasher (Webwasher 6.7.6.3649)
Xref: news.motzarella.org alt.religion.scientology:32109221
On Sep 5, 8:05 am, Jinkii <Jink...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Sep, 16:00, mark.tom...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 5, 7:48 am, Jinkii <Jink...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 5 Sep, 15:34, "The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed."
>>>>>> an email to Youtube to alert them that it is happening to me and
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> others. I made a post on Enturbulation and found others hade
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> hit tonight by the same phony
>>>>>> company.http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/more-youtube-fra...
>>>>>> my account has been "permanantly disabled." Hopefully, that
>>>>>> premanantly is not at all accurate and I will be back much
>>>>>> faster
>>>>>> than the last time this happened.
>
>>>>> "ARC?"
>
>>>>> It's this oliver clam guy and a phony LLC. See enturb for more
>>>>> details.
>>>>> --
>
>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> For further enlightenment, please read some of Truth Seeker's
>>>> articles:
>>>> The Hitchhiker's Guide Through A.R.S. - Complete List Of Truth
>>>> Seeker's Articles About This Newsgroup ::
>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2tecyl
>
>>>> To assure, that the link leads to a google-groups thread, please
>>>> preview the long address:
>
>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tecyl
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> many words could be used to describe how you understand this,
>>> Erroneous, False, Improper, Innaccurate, Incorrect, Mistaken,
>>> Untrue
>>> and just plain Wrong.
>>> buy a Thesaurus, it will serve you much better than the Dictionary
>>> you
>>> will be word clearing half of these terms with.
>
>>> Jinkii
>
>> What part is wrong? :S
>
> the phony critic part, the reply was to lily, i had just upgraded my
> browser and hadnt updated my killfile, normal business has resumed
>
> Jinkii
Yeah, I saw that after I posted, but didn't see the message come up
until now, so I could remove it. Sorry- I'm slow today :)
---end quote---
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
reported as being illegal by a phony scientologist?
rooooooofllloooollll!
.Lily.
mark....@hotmail.com wrote:<snip>
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
For further enlightenment, please read some of Truth Seeker's articles:
The Hitchhiker’s Guide Through A.R.S. - Complete List Of Truth
Seeker’s Articles About This Newsgroup ::
To assure, that the link leads to a google-groups thread, please
preview the long address:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tecyl
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
mark.tomles
<lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> mark.tom...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 8:29 am, "The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed."
> > <lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> mark.tom...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sep 5, 8:16 am, "The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed."
> >>> <lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> I'm confoosed- who apologized for posting?
>
> >> They all do. Often. If I would dig, I would even find you
> >> apoligizing for having posted to me. Should I start?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> Subject: Re: Phony DMCA notices close XENU TV on YouTube
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
> Organization:http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 91
> Message-ID:
> References: <CR8wk.20193$j32....@fe73.usenetserver.com>
> <Okbwk.28605$_s1.24...@newsfe07.iad>
> <g9rg1f$lh...@registered.motzarella.org>
> <48570b37-eaa1-4f2d-b7bb-2e86f212f...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
> <0faf6981-bd8e-4247-bc89-87a5fe61e...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
> <d6bcccd8-2ae3-4506-8563-ddf8cbc54...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
Are you serious? Please tell me- since you and I seem to differ on
this- exactly what you think I was "apologizing" for? Was that the
best you could find?
mark.tomles
<lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rofl! Do I understand this right? A phony critic's account has been
> reported as being illegal by a phony scientologist?
>
> rooooooofllloooollll!
>
> .Lily.
>
>
> --
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> For further enlightenment, please read some of Truth Seeker's articles:
> The Hitchhiker’s Guide Through A.R.S. - Complete List Of Truth
> Seeker’s Articles About This Newsgroup ::
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2tecyl
>
> To assure, that the link leads to a google-groups thread, please
> preview the long address:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tecyl
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
That's, what, five posts with the same comment?
Isn't that a Scion technique?
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata, OD, DTS
"Jinkii" <Jin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7d86e818-3c14-4d8c...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
In this case they use the other technic. It is called: distraction from
important, dangerous, scientology truely hurting content.
Like that:
Do I understand this right? A phony critic's account has been reported
as being illegal by a phony scientologist?
rooooooofllloooollll!
.Lily.
xenubarb
> Rofl! Do I understand this right? A phony critic's account has been
> reported as being illegal by a phony scientologist?
>
> rooooooofllloooollll!
>
> .Lily.
Wrong. You got it wrong from the beginning to the end. As usual. Can't
even get the chan slang right. Poor .lily!
>
> xenubarb <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Mark Bunker wrote:
>>> I was hit with five new DMCA copyright notices tonight and I think
>>> they are all fraudulent. I want to file a counter notification but
>>> I can not find any listing of the company which filed the DMCA
>>> complaint: American Rights Counsel LLCThey are not registered with
>>> the government according to this
>>> site:http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/index.htmlAnd a google
>>> search for American Rights Counsel LLC brings up absolutely no
>>> results.These are the five videos:Scientology: Rolling Stone
>>> Article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BH3o94rRZkScientology:
>>> Clearwater City Meeting - Abuses:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd78vId2UnsScientology: L. Ron
>>> Hubbard Jr. Debate 2:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8baAc5mOVkScientology: Lisa
>>> McPherson Part 3:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWGTcp7thloScientology: TomKat
>>> Wedding Countdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcj7iN9ffbII sent
>>> an email to Youtube to alert them that it is happening to me and to
>>> others. I made a post on Enturbulation and found others hade been
>>> hit tonight by the same phony
>>> company.http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/more-youtube-fraud-cult-scientology-28179/Now
>>> my account has been "permanantly disabled." Hopefully, that
>>> premanantly is not at all accurate and I will be back much faster
>>> than the last time this happened.
>> "ARC?"
>>
>> It's this oliver clam guy and a phony LLC. See enturb for more
>> details.
>> --
>
--
--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign:
terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business
opportunity.
$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide."
-Chris Leithiser
mark.tomles
<lilyfire...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no idea what you're trying to tell me. Not being coy, I just
can't see what you're getting at.
xenubarb
What took you so long? ;)
That's .lily...in a clamshell.
mark.tomles
lol, I'm on the lower end of the curve :)
You might say that I'm not the brightest knife in the crayon box.
mark.tomles
well, no matter -what- it is, there's some kind of ulterior motive
there. Frankly, I don't care what it is and I don't have the time or
the inclination to figure it out. I just don't want to deal with the
ins and outs of it.
If she's a rabid Scion-critic, great, at least her heart's in the
right place, and she doesn't seem to be harming the reputation of the
high-profile folks that she accuses. If she's OSA, see part 2 of
above. :)
feministe
news:CR8wk.20193$j32....@fe73.usenetserver.com...
>I was hit with five new DMCA copyright notices tonight and I think they are
>all fraudulent. I want to file a counter notification but I can not find
>any listing of the company which filed the DMCA complaint: American Rights
>Counsel LLCThey are not registered with the government according to this
>the five videos:Scientology: Rolling Stone Article:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BH3o94rRZkScientology: Clearwater City
>Meeting - Abuses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd78vId2UnsScientology: L.
>Ron Hubbard Jr. Debate 2:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8baAc5mOVkScientology: Lisa McPherson Part
>3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWGTcp7thloScientology: TomKat Wedding
>post on Enturbulation and found others hade been hit tonight by the same
>phony
>not at all accurate and I will be back much faster than the last time this
>happened.
>
>
in France, fraudulent such accusations to close a website can send the
person up to one year behind bars. I could think to obtain such a measure
against a stupid cultist from another cult who attacked me before courts
some times ago (I should have the result of the trial very soon).
roger
Calculon
Please ignore troll...a common scilon distraction.
Please ignore troll...a common scilon distraction.
Please ignore troll...a common scilon distraction.
Please ignore troll...a common scilon distraction.
Please ignore troll...a common scilon distraction.
So...back on target...
Removing my one video...temporary irritation
Removing the videos or several anons...grrrrrrrrr
Shutting down Mark's channels again? That really pisses me off.
Most seemed to have got the youtube message Thursday night, Sept 4th
This is apparently the fellow responsible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qucsx3_Ua0
I have written or called where I thought appropriate. If anyone knows
the best coordinated way to correct this, please lemme know.
I pity youtube if they ignore this....
mark.tomles
I would say EFF again, and encourage them to hold youtube liable.
Kilia40
This is about XENUTV!!
Stay on subject target or STFU!!
John Dorsay
Liable for what? I would be amazed if youtube's TOS don't allow it
to close accounts or remove videos any time it wants to. Their
servers, their bandwidth etc. The fact that the removal appears to
have been triggered by a bogus DMCA complaint has no relevance wrt
liability that I can see.
IANAL.
John
mark....@hotmail.com
organization in a newsgroup is kind of like herding cats, lol!
I think that the best advice has been given, unless something was left
out.
Android Cat
Not legally liable, but Google'll look pretty stupid if they accept a mass
DMCA composed with crayon and drool from non-existent company.
And then the floodgates will open. Anyone who wants to can list the top
thousand videos on YouTube and take them down the same way. Rise. Repeat.
mark....@hotmail.com
Perhaps not legally liable, true. But it at least deserves a mention
that they allow themselves to be jerked around by any fool with a
printer.
R. Hill
The thing I don't understand...
Youtube offers a mechanism to file a counterclaim:
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hlrm=en-ch&answer=59826#dmca
However, Youtube itself doesn't provide sufficient information in the
first place to identify the complainant, its exact name, address, phone
number and email address, and a statement that the under penalty of
perjury that the person/corporation is allowed to file a copyright
complaint on behalf of the owner of the copyright.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html
How can Youtube asks to file a DMCA counter notification if *no proper
notification* is filed in the first place?
--
Ray.
Obscene Dog
Apart from the fact it's not just about XenuTV, I think what he was
attempting to say is you are easily lead astray.
Look up the term "Dev T", see how Lily and Roadrunner apply it to you and
see how you fall for it every time.
There's nothing wrong with filling the newsgroup full of friendly chat
and banter but it's more than likely you'll end up in peoples' killfiles
along with Lily and RR.
There is a method of killfiling in google groups.
http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
Maybe you should try it and apply it to Lily and RR :-)
Anyway, back on subject. I don't think this has anything to do with the
fact that the Cult pays $ciTube a shedload of money. I think one
enterprising $cilon has found a new way of fucking people over and, as
usual, they're not being very subtle about it.
$ciTube will probably take this action on any DMCA notice just to cover
their arse and it's not up to them to check the veracity of the notice.
$ciTube's policy:
http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy
Copyright Infringement Notification
To file a copyright infringement notification with us, you will need to
send a written communication that includes substantially the following
(please consult your legal counsel or see Section 512(c)(3) of the
Copyright Act to confirm these requirements):
1. A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on
behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
2. Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been
infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are
covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at
that site.
3. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or
to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or
access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient
to permit the service provider to locate the material. Providing URLs in
the body of an email is the best way to help us locate content quickly.
4. Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to
contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and,
if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party
may be contacted.
5. A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that
use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the
copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate,
and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to
act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.
Such written notice should be sent to our designated agent as follows:
DMCA Complaints
YouTube, Inc.
901 Cherry Ave.
Second Floor
San Bruno, CA 94066
Fax: 650.872.8513
Email: copy...@youtube.com
To expedite our ability to process your request, complaints may now also
be submitted online at http://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form.
You will need a YouTube account in order to utilize this tool.
Please also note that under Section 512(f) any person who knowingly
materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be
subject to liability.
If there are many videos to be removed, or you expect to have an ongoing
need to remove potentially infringing content from YouTube, we suggest
that you sign up for our Content Verification Program, which
electronically notifies us, removing any room for error, and
significantly increases the speed at which we are able to remove any
infringing content.
Counter-Notification
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to
access the instructions.
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person
who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was
removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to
liability. Please also be advised that we enforce a policy that provides
for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers who are
repeat infringers.
John Dorsay
> John Dorsay wrote:
>> mark.tomles wrote:
>>> I would say EFF again, and encourage them to hold youtube liable.
>>
>> Liable for what? I would be amazed if youtube's TOS don't allow it
>> to close accounts or remove videos any time it wants to. Their
>> servers, their bandwidth etc. The fact that the removal appears to
>> have been triggered by a bogus DMCA complaint has no relevance wrt
>> liability that I can see.
>
> Not legally liable, but Google'll look pretty stupid if they accept a mass
> DMCA composed with crayon and drool from non-existent company.
LOL!
Google has the legal right to look stupid, of course. Not
suggesting it's good business practice, just that it is not relevant
to anything EFF might be doing.
Any liability that might exist is with the crayon and drool artiste,
rather than with Google/Youtube.
> And then the floodgates will open. Anyone who wants to can list the top
> thousand videos on YouTube and take them down the same way. Rise. Repeat.
I wonder how many iterations of such a cycle would be needed to
convince Google/Youtube that maybe a bit of due diligence in
reviewing DMCA complaints makes good business sense, even if it is
not a legal obligation. Not that I'm suggesting anyone should fire
off a few hundred bogus complaints, of course.....
John
mark....@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:36:00 -0700, mark.tomles wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 11:27 am, Kilia40 <xenusm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This is NOT about Lilly Fire Red...
>
> >> This is about XENUTV!!
>
> >> Stay on subject target or STFU!!
>
> > organization in a newsgroup is kind of like herding cats, lol! I think
> > that the best advice has been given, unless something was left out.
>
> Apart from the fact it's not just about XenuTV, I think what he was
> attempting to say is you are easily lead astray.
>
> Look up the term "Dev T", see how Lily and Roadrunner apply it to you and
> see how you fall for it every time.
>
> There's nothing wrong with filling the newsgroup full of friendly chat
> and banter but it's more than likely you'll end up in peoples' killfiles
> along with Lily and RR.
>
> There is a method of killfiling in google groups.
>
> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
>
> Maybe you should try it and apply it to Lily and RR :-)
>
meh, I'm not too concerned about ending up on a killfile, but if
something interests me I like to talk about it. I know you're not the
one saying "stfu", but it just seems a little bit futile to try to
control a newsgroup conversation to me.
Anywho, I've given my two cents into this part, hope it works out.
Obscene Dog
> The thing I don't understand...
>
> Youtube offers a mechanism to file a counterclaim:
>
> http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hlrm=en-
ch&answer=59826#dmca
>
> However, Youtube itself doesn't provide sufficient information in the
> first place to identify the complainant, its exact name, address, phone
> number and email address, and a statement that the under penalty of
> perjury that the person/corporation is allowed to file a copyright
> complaint on behalf of the owner of the copyright.
>
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html
>
> How can Youtube asks to file a DMCA counter notification if *no proper
> notification* is filed in the first place?
mark.tomles
I believe that the problem occurs from the following:
DMCA Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation
Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers
(OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to
and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly
block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material
from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming
infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent.
OCILLA also includes a counter-notification provision that offers OSPs
a safe harbor from liability to their users, if the material upon
notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not,
in fact, infringing. OCILLA also provides for subpoenas to OSPs to
provide their users' identity.
As in the case of the Crook case, the ISP's chose to remove the
material first pending evidence or verification rather than risking
legal issues by leaving the material up. But I think the intent is
that it's considered to be a -temporary- block.
Obscene Dog
> it just seems a little bit futile to try to control a newsgroup
> conversation to me.
LOL.
They are controlling the conversation.
Have fun :-)
mark.tomles
EFF senior IP attorney Fred von Lohmann: "Whether linking to
infringing materials can itself create copyright liability is still a
somewhat murky question. Some cases suggest that linking to material
you have reason to know is infringing (i.e., after the copyright owner
notifies you that the material you're linking to is infringing) can
give rise to liability (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse
Ministry), while other cases point the other way (Perfect 10 v.
Google). Of course, I think the latter cases have the better of the
argument. But one thing is clear -- the DMCA's 'safe harbors' for
online service providers (OSPs) give linkers a strong incentive to
remove links upon receiving a DMCA takedown notice, because if they do
so, they are protected from paying damages in any copyright
infringement case. That's one of the problems with the DMCA safe
harbors -- because OSPs have such a strong incentive to simply comply
with takedown notices, courts get fewer chances to decide the
underlying copyright questions, like whether linking to stuff on
YouTube is infringing. So things stay murky. "
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/12/01/fox-commits-copyrigh.html
interview re: youtube and Safe Harbor: http://battellemedia.com/archives/002973.php
Contact info: http://www.eff.org/about/staff/fred-von-lohmann
Magoo
"John Dorsay" <restim...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g9s3l4$5tp$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Yes......and in here is a message about "Target Defense" --which was
Written by L. Ron Hubbard on Feb.17, 1966
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5-DahPt2Jc
Thanks O Dog for the references, also.
Tory/Magoo~~
>
>
>
> John
John Dorsay
> I believe that the problem occurs from the following:
This is more the source of the problem, I think.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act - 17 U.S.C. § 512
Sec. 512. - Limitations on Liability Relating to Material Online
(f) Misrepresentations. -
Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section -
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or
misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys'
fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or
copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who
is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service
provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or
disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be
infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to
disable access to it.
*******
Someone like Mark has a potential claim for damages to his
reputation, I suppose, but that might well be mitigated by the fact
that he has previously infringed. Anons can't even claim damage to
their reputations. Not a great case for Mark, I don't think, even
worse for Anons.
Google/Youtube does incur real cost and loss of goodwill when they
act on bogus claims. If they chose to go after the bogus claimant,
that might actually have an impact on the filing of bogus claims.
But if the bogus claimant is outside the US, there is not likely to
be much Google/Youtube can do either.
Again, IANAL.
John
The Impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
Yes, Magoo again! She wrote, what is the most important thing for her
in a situation like this. A hilarious one, imho, since it seems that a
phony critic has been stopped from posting his phony criticism on
youtube by - guess who - by a phony scientologist! Roofloool.
Sure, now is the time for the friends of named "critic" to quote -
guess who?
Well - watch:
<snip>
> Yes......and in here is a message about "Target Defense" --which was
> Written by L. Ron Hubbard on Feb.17, 1966
!!!!! on Feb.17, 1966!!!!!!! - so readers, never forget it! Just to
pass the big quiz, you know, that which is called: "Win the first ten
pages of the latest issue of the complete Hubbard eternal scriptures
for free and go buy the complete issue afterwards for as cheap as a
house and don't forget that the first ten pages are the introduction
pages written by Tom Cruise and no Magoo is not allowed to compete!"
.Lily.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5-DahPt2Jc
>
> Thanks O Dog for the references, also.
>
> Tory/Magoo~~
>>
>>
>>
>> John
Hilarious.
.Lily.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
For further enlightenment, please read some of Truth Seeker's articles:
The Hitchhiker’s Guide Through A.R.S. - Complete List Of Truth
Seeker’s Articles About This Newsgroup ::
To assure, that the link leads to a google-groups thread, please
preview the long address:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tecyl
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
henri
So long as they don't mind being civilly liable under 17 USC 512(f).
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially
misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or
misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees,
incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright
owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured
by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider
relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to
the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the
removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
---
For that matter, they'd also be criminally liable for perjury, as a
DMCA notification is filed under penalty of perjury.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate,
and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized
to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.
---
Dr. Oliver Schaper has committed thousands of felonies in one 24 hour
period. He's a very upstat Scientologist.
John Dorsay
> For that matter, they'd also be criminally liable for perjury, as a
> DMCA notification is filed under penalty of perjury.
>
> (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate,
> and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized
> to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
> infringed.
>
> ---
>
> Dr. Oliver Schaper has committed thousands of felonies in one 24 hour
> period. He's a very upstat Scientologist.
Do you know how Schaper was determined to be the source of the bogus
complaints? Is the determination strong enough to stand up in court?
John
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata, OD, DTS
"R. Hill" <rh...@xenu-directory.net> wrote in message
news:g9s1vg$p90$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
I am presently having an exchange with a 'coordinator' at the EFF who so far
insists that, despite the fraudulent nature of the 'dmca filings' it is
still necessary to file the counter notice in order to have your bandwidth
back. If YouTube decides they want to. When they get around to it.
Then again the press could always get involved, and out the slime merchant
that's doing the work for the cult.
--
SP Goodman
The Usually Right "Reverend" Norle Enturbulata DDT, DTS, OD
*
http://www.flickr.com/photos/enturbulata
http://www.youtube.com/Enturbulata
http://tinyurl.com/yre7c6
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.scientology-lies.com
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
http://www.scientology-kills.org
*
* " You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way
you can control anybody is to lie to them."
* -- L. Ron Hubbard, "Technique 88"
*
* "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her
crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes
exist...."
* - L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967
*
* "Rather than give psychotics such treatment it would be far kinder to kill
them immediately and completely..."
* - L. Ron Hubbard, "Science of Survival", p117
henri
Unless OSA somehow stole the www.youtube.com/user/oschaper account
which has long been associated with him, I don't see how this wasn't
done with at least his acquiescence. A disgruntled message from him
appeared on this account earlier today before the account was yanked.
Mark Bunker
"henri" <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:l934c411ah5e7u3rj...@4ax.com...
I don't really know this guy. He emailed me this morning to say it wasn't
him and he was sorry my account was taken down.
There was nothing on my YouTube notices that suggested the DMCA notices come
from him. I haven't had time to follow all the threads on this. What's the
basis for believing they do?
Magoo
"Mark Bunker" <xen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lbswk.2515$Zq5...@fe22.usenetserver.com...
I was e-mailed that the DMCA notices came from a non-existant
group called American Rights Coucil LLC.
I'm not sure how this guy connects, but I have read his name in more
than one post.
Glad you're site is back up~ :)
Tory/Magoo~
>
>
>
henri
wrote:
>"henri" <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>news:l934c411ah5e7u3rj...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:54:57 -0400, John Dorsay
>> <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>henri wrote:
>>>> For that matter, they'd also be criminally liable for perjury, as a
>>>> DMCA notification is filed under penalty of perjury.
>>>> (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate,
>>>> and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized
>>>> to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
>>>> infringed.
>>>> Dr. Oliver Schaper has committed thousands of felonies in one 24 hour
>>>> period. He's a very upstat Scientologist.
>>>Do you know how Schaper was determined to be the source of the bogus
>>>complaints? Is the determination strong enough to stand up in court?
>> Unless OSA somehow stole the www.youtube.com/user/oschaper account
>> which has long been associated with him, I don't see how this wasn't
>> done with at least his acquiescence. A disgruntled message from him
>> appeared on this account earlier today before the account was yanked.
>I don't really know this guy. He emailed me this morning to say it wasn't
>him and he was sorry my account was taken down.
>There was nothing on my YouTube notices that suggested the DMCA notices come
>from him. I haven't had time to follow all the threads on this. What's the
>basis for believing they do?
The more I look at it, the more the evidence isn't very rock solid. I
still think it's probably him. He has been comment stalking a bunch
of people on YouTube for several weeks and got thrown off
Enturbulation. He's been making a variety of crackpot legal threats
and signing himself "Esq." and describing himself as a lawyer, though
there's no indication he's licensed to practice law anywhere in the
world.
DMCA notifications have come from "American Rights Counsel LLC,"
"Media House Enterprises," "Dr. Oliver Schaper," and a couple other
names. "Media House Enterprises, Inc." is the parent company of
"Peephole.TV," a porn distribution company run by Schaper, and
described in this Wikipedia article, if you get to it before it's
speedy deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peephole.TV
However, anyone who would commit perjury thousands of times in a
single 24 hour period would probably lie about who they are, too. So
it could be a particularly adept troll who has stolen his identity to
perpetrate these acts.
Of course, it could be Oliver Schaper himself, who is a lying fraud,
and who, if he did do this, would have every reason in the world to
deny having done it. There's nothing rock solid so far. I don't
think that he did it is a particularly bad operating assumption,
though.
Mark Bunker
"henri" <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
This dope appears to be claiming credit. But who knows who is telling the
truth.
http://anonymous-is-a-hategroup.blogspot.com/2008/09/mission-accomplished-mark-bunker.html
BigBeard
:
: "henri" <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
IANAL, but this fiasco involves multiply counts of perjury under
Federal law in making the false DMCA complaints. In which case I
would think the Feds would be all over this with subpoenas for the
records to track down where they actually came from if it were
reported to them.
Has anyone done so?
BigBeard
Katana ko chi, SPsoo
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata, OD, DTS
"henri" <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
"Considered for deletion".
Class act this:
a.. PEEPHOLE.TV (Eastern Time - EST)
b.. PEEPHOLE.TV (Western Time - PST)
c.. PEEPHOLE.TV Color (Asian, Black, Indian, Interracial)
d.. PEEPHOLE.TV Big Ass & Tits
e.. PEEPHOLE.TV Teen & Milf
f.. PEEPHOLE.TV Gang Bang & Gonzo
g.. PEEPHOLE.TV Gay World
Ted Mayett
<restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Liable for what? I would be amazed if youtube's TOS don't allow it
>to close accounts or remove videos any time it wants to.
You speculate on what the youtube TOS might contain. Did it ever
occur to you to *read* the TOS?
--
Ted Mayett
Critical information regarding Scientology:
http://www.solitarytrees.net
henri
wrote:
>: This dope appears to be claiming credit. But who knows who is
>telling the
>: truth.
>http://anonymous-is-a-hategroup.blogspot.com/2008/09/mission-accomplished-mark-bunker.html
>IANAL, but this fiasco involves multiply counts of perjury under
>Federal law in making the false DMCA complaints. In which case I
>would think the Feds would be all over this with subpoenas for the
>records to track down where they actually came from if it were
>reported to them.
>Has anyone done so?
So far as I can tell, nobody. At least nobody has made any specific
statements to the effect that they've contacted anyone who could or
would do anything in this regard, and I wouldn't assume they will. I
also wouldn't assume the Feds would do jack-shit.
IMO the false claims of copyright are themselves a copyright
infringement and could be tracked using the DMCA subpoena provisions.
That's not advice, but OTOH if I had anything taken down in this way,
I'd have done it on the same day by walking five minutes to the
federal courthouse down the street.
It's pretty likely the perp(s) used the Content Verification Tool on
YouTube to do this, considering the vast number of "infringements"
reported. To get access to that, someone has to send in a fax. That
would probably be useful in identifying someone, unless they
fraudulently altered the caller info required by law to be on the fax.
But if it's purely electronic, the logs are going to go away soon if
nobody does anything. Then this just becomes another story that
critics tell with no factual basis to it. Considering the identities
used, though, it is either Oliver Schaper or someone going to a lot of
effort to pin it on him.
John Dorsay
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:35:48 -0400, John Dorsay
> <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Liable for what? I would be amazed if youtube's TOS don't allow it
>>to close accounts or remove videos any time it wants to.
>
> You speculate on what the youtube TOS might contain. Did it ever
> occur to you to *read* the TOS?
Yeah. Why do you ask?
John