Comments:Alleged 'rights group' tries to have 4,000 anti-Scientology videos removed from YouTube
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Let me put it this way
Spelling errors and discrepancy between the words "Counsel" and "Council"
Some words are not spelled correctly in this article -- and the discrepancy between the appearance of the words "Counsel" and "Council" is not explained.
I believe in the original complaints, the company complaining called itself "American Rights Counsel, LLC." However, others are referring to it as "Council."
"Counsel" infers a legal component -- as in "attorney."
The facts in this case absolutely warrant a subpoena. That this LLC is not legit (no one can find it listed anywhere) and the massive attack (over 4000 DMCA complaints) is more than enough to warrant a subpoena for information regarding the ISP and any other data regarding the complainant.
It's clear that these over 4000 complaints were blatantly frivolous; nearly all of the videos and accounts affected held the copyrights or had permission of the copyright holders or fell under the "fair use" category.
YouTube needs to revisit their policy on the DMCA issue. A complainant does not have to provide personal identifying information. A counter-complainant DOES, however.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty in the USA?
—22.214.171.124 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed the spelling things, thanks. Not sure what will come of all this, but it would be interesting to see if action were pursued related to what you say are frivolous complaints. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the footer over the "Internet vs. Scientology" image that says "Used to describe the war which begun between the internet and the Church on January 19, 2008." 2008? Try 1994. http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/rnewman/home.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
IANABCL but if I were youtube...
If I were youtube, I would be looking for the people that sent the bogus takedown notices because it had to have cost serious effort to remove all those videos and accounts, and to replace/reinstate them. As far as I can tell, youtube has been damaged enough to sue the perp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Schaper is a liar.
One of Schapers listed aliases is OLAF SCHAPER. In addition, he owns all of Peephole TV's networks INCLUDING Peephole Gay World. He is not only a liar, but a hypocrite too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)