Talk:Anti-Scientology protest material removed from YouTube following threats of legal action

OR

I sent a mail to Mr. Schaper. We'll see what we get. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sent to youtube too. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I got a reply from Schaper. Anyone, trusted and or accredited, can request to see it. I also sent it through scoop. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OLD NEWS

This happened about a month ago and news media reported about it broadly (incl. eff.org). All the vids went back up. Not newsworthy anymore. 91.121.13.62 02:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Read much? The source from AnonWire is less than 24 hours old, and we even link back to the article you are talking about. When CoS got 4k videos removed. This is a _different_ event. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, their are not as amny users on wikinews than on wikipedia, therefore things are done a lot more slowly. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, this is different. Not the same as what happened a month ago. Wikinews reported on that one too (2 articles in fact), and we were one of the first ones to do so. Gopher65_talk 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision 701582 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 701582 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Image source credit

[1] - I am not sure why the image source is not showing up correctly, can anyone fix this? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

EFF ?

Any word from the Electronic Frontier Foundation about this latest incident? Have they been contacted for a response, given that they have posted 2 blog posts about the prior DMCA incidents involving Scientology/Schaper ? Cirt (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not written them. Given Schaper admits he sent the DMCA's and what not, I didn't think it was needed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth

For the record, I am the UK YouTube user 'ShadowVsScientology' who Oschaper refers to in his statement. My video was removed as were many 'mirrors' of it on other people's accounts. I have yet to be contacted by my local law-enforcement, and in all honesty I believe Schaper to be lying, based on his previous track record. The video in question was created to make the public aware of Schaper and his antics, in response to his threats and intimidation towards memembers of Anonymous; I was not the first person to do this, my video clearly acknowledges in the credits that it is based on earlier videos by other people. Many of those are still up, (as is one copy of mine which seems to have slipped through) Schaper has gone after mine specifically as a personal vendetta; if he was that concerned about the videos that supposedly 'attack' him, they would ALL be gone. I stand by my work, I have no regrets or apologies for Schaper, he brought this on himself.The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Have you filed a counter-claim with YouTube to get the video reinstated, as it is your right to do? --Kitch (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't. Filing a counter claim means giving YouTube my personal details, and these would in turn be passed on to Schaper (who will then give them to the CoS). Schaper knows this, which is why he is having the videos removed in this manner (apart from the fact that filing a claim gets the videos removed instantly). The only thing we have going for us is that a couple of Anonymous members who have already been 'namefagged' (ie identities made known to the CoS) have set up 'honeypot' accounts to host the videos, so that when Schaper takes them down, they CAN file a counter-claim. What I don't understand yet is why no legal action has been taken against Schaper, given that he is blatantly commiting a CRIME by claiming copyright on other people's videos (and I'm talking about instances when he did it under his own name, or under a company name that could be traced back to him). As for the ARC takedown, obviously no-one has been able to conclusively link him to that one yet. Oh BTW, Schaper is back on YouTube as 'ARCwins' (hmmm, what does that username tell you?), and thereby evading the suspension of his 'Oschaper' account.

Bottom line is, he's trying to get me to give up my personal information, which I'm not stupid enough to do.

And for the record, I have contacted the EFF, they are going to love this! The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My video is now available here: http://www.vimeo.com/1844125, I encourage anyone to watch it and decide for themselves if it is 'hate speech' (BTW, it was linked to in the last WikiNews article)! The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell copyright?

Schapper is constantly bitching about copyright on videos made by the users posting them. How do you protect your copyright on someone else's work? This is nonsense. --199.173.225.33 20:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you entirely understand copyright law here. Note that if someone else's work uses part of your work, you are entitled to protect the copyright of that part that is derived from your work. I'm not saying that is the case here, I haven't seen the video so I can't comment on that. But to use an example, if I compile a bunch of images I take from some press agency into a video and then add say John Lennon's Imagine as the background music (whether from a recording or if I record my own version of Imagine) then both the press agency and Yoko Ono will be entitled to sue me for copyright infrigement. This is the case even if I only add 10 seconds of Imagine or 1 photo from a press agency. In there US, there is an allowance for fair use, which means in certain circumstances I can use photos from a press agency or parts of Imagine. But these circumstances are limited and in many cases the limits will need to be tested in court for us to know how far they go. Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Takedown Notice

YouTube finally got back to me, and actually sent me a full copy of the 'takedown notice', ie the thing Schaper filed against me. I've been informed that technically YouTube shouldn't have sent it to me; I now have all of his personal information without having compromised ANY of mine!!

Anyway, the two things of note are,

1) Schaper is complaining SPECIFICALLY about the unauthorised use of his photograph. Incidentally, he is claiming that it was stolen and that the theft is being investigated byt the police in Tustin, CA (he gives a case number). IIRC, the photo was found online by Anonymous and was one of the many bits of personal information that Schaper had made freely available online, if you looked hard enough. So bottom line is, if I remove his photo and re-upload, he has no legal basis to get it taken down again.

2) The takedown notice includes a massive list Schaper has compiled, of multiple URLs to 'Oschaper' videos; only one of those was actually made by me (mine is clearly marked as such and states that mine was inspired by earlier videos made by other users), however he is trying to claim that they are in fact three different versions of ONE video made by ME. In actual fact, they are several different videos. Also, one of the videos has no photograph at all, it is text-only, which contradicts his argument over use of the photograph.

I have posted the takedown notice here, for the benefit of all interested parties: http://forums.scientology-exposed.com/11-raids-operations/oschaper-strikes-back-221/18/ ; when you see the screeshots of the videos, you will see that they are clearly seperate videos and not 'three versions of the same video' as Schaper is claiming. FYI, my video is the one with Schaper's photo large and centered, black borders on either side, and white text. It is available currently on my Vimeo account as linked to above.

Finally, regarding the quote in your article where Schaper says he would like to sit down with Anonymous and chat, we are all for that. We attempted to have a proper discussion with him when he came onto our boards, but he thought it would be more fun to insult us etc. The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

.gif image to .svg

{{editprotected}}

Proposal: Change link - [[File:Youtube.gif]] to [[File:YouTube logo.svg|123px]]

Reason: .SVG file can be scaled and is of better quality than its .GIF counterpart. Cflm001 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)