Thanks Chris for being here.  I spoke to Eddy Goombah tonight who wants to be involved and help anyway possible.  In solidarity with you I have posted your video at the end of my most recent video.  I'm looking forward to seeing if the feds take care of this instead of us having to take this to civil court.  Civil court is boring, I don't think the Hovinds have enough money to cover our lawyers fees when they lose, and I don't want a public apology video from them, which is the likely punishment for losing (precedent: Crook case).  Anyone who had a video removed should just contact the feds who are familiar with the Hovind crime ring, and see if they can help.

 ... more developments to come... Operation Spread Eagle underway.

hey brian, couldnt the reason why the song about hovind getting pulled is because there's actual photos of hovind at the end? they're portraits so they probably do own the rights to those...

but has anyone seen the video cse posted about their copyright policy from 2005? sounds like their footing is their shit needs to be unedited.  

Sapient! I hope you decide to fight your suspension on you tube. Don't give in to those cowardly fucks. Did they give a reason for your suspension? What is your contact with you tube officials?

LOL, now they edited that out, too! 

Just saw a video posted yesterday from CSEministry claiming that all their material was copyrighted on 1 January 2005 see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPer-FjPJJE

I think this a clear fabrication, does this add or subtract from the claim / Operation SpreadEagle?

woops, sorry didn't see the above, already been linked too!

Thanks I have written my letter, and made a video that will be up soon to allow reposting....

Dear YouTube,

This group is currently submitting false DMCA requests on youtube, people are talking with lawyers. I made a video exposing this group (CSEministry) led by a man who sits in prison right now for evading $840,000 in taxes. He is a criminal!! You have been allowing this grave injustice to happen, forcing dozens of people to create individual lawsuits. I made a video standing up to these people and working to do the thing that you should be doing, protecting you and us from abuse of DMCA. I have been removed as a result. My video even included a phone call to a federal prosecutor right at the beginning. I had to call her because your listed phone number is voicemail and rational and intelligent emails exposing this effort to silence critics have gone unnoticed. When you receive a take down notice for a video speaking poorly of creation science from "Creation Science Evangelism Ministries" aren't you the least bit suspicious? Most informed people are aware that claims offered by the creation science community aren't generally backed up by courts, and for good reason. You know as well as we do that trying to silence critics by submitting false DMCA requests is a no no. Many many attempts have been made to try and draw your attention to this matter, it would seem youtube is an unreasonable organization. It would seem your staff is completely unaware even after multiple emails from multiple users explaining the situation which you should not allow to occur. Why must we all fight in court for months? You can look at the videos for yourself and see that (from what I've seen) every single video fit within someones right to their own copyright or fair use.

Please consider reviewing these videos and reinstating all of them immediately. Please also consider reinstating my account. I was doing what you should have been doing.

Rationally yours,

Brian Sapient

www.RationalResponders.com

Youtube account: RationalResponse
(restore our account and we'll keep building your business with the same fervency we always did)



Here are the videos we believe you have removed that should be reviewed, please apply fair use law, we know you know it.

Acorvettes:
"Kent Hovind complete calls from jail (1-4)"
"Kent Hovind complete calls from jail (2-4)"
"Kent Hovind complete calls from jail (3-4)"
"Kent Hovind complete calls from jail (4-4)"

pienaldo:
"Kent Hovind"
"Kent Hovind 2"
"Kent Hovind 3"
"Beware of false prophets"

EGarrett01:
"Kent Hovind destroyed by Evolution Grad Student 1/3"
"Kent Hovind destroyed by Evolution Grad Student 2/3"
"Kent Hovind destroyed by Evolution Grad Student 3/3"

ExtantDodo:
"Kent Hovind - Truth in Arguements"
"Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Age of the Earth"
"Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Dinosaurs and the Bible"

thewayofgrowingpains:
"Kent Hovind vs Kent Hovind"
"Kent Hovind Believes In Evolution"
"Educating Kent Hovind"

RabidApe:
"'Dr.' Kent Hovind"
"Rabidape is having a CONTEST!!!!"

Desertphile:
"Correcting Kent Hovind Lies, 'Lies in textbooks'"
"Correcting a few of Rev Kent Hovind's Lies"

SecularOpinion:
"Understanding Creationism Pt1a: Meet Kent Hovind"
"Understanding Creationism Pt1b: Meet Kent Hovind"

johnplex:
"Kent Hovind: 10 Years In Prison For "Dr. Stupid""

Chrisboe4ever:
"Tribute to Kent Hovind"

qxdc:
"Kent Hovind vs. 2nd law of thermodynamics"

jesusaveswithcoupons:
"FOR ENDISCOMI 1-- Kent Hovind is a Fruitcake"

trebob27:
"Evolution of the eye (marked for deletion in 1 month)"

Kabane52:
"Kent Hovind is a Conspiracy Theorist kook"

socratesone:
"Kent Hovind gets pwended!"


You've also removed the video that exposed this activity from the Rational Response Squad!

Please repost. This video is not copyrighted, and we mean it!

Is it possible to set up a page with the video material which was removed, I would really like to see them!

Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use Law, EFF.

here's rapid apes newest video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw9_XUEKlHU

{fixed}

I'm trying to get RabidAp3 on the phone. He interpreted the law incorrectly (best I can tell). And it's unfortunate, because after we release this information, his info will contradict.

I spoke to Rob Kasunic this morning (for 90 minutes) who works at the Library of Congress. He gave me an official quote on the record, "Youtube is not required by law to pull videos down when a DMCA request is sent in." He went on to explain that youtube could face liability if they are incorrect when getting involved in such matters, however they are allowed to ignore a DMCA take down notice or change their stance on one should they choose to.

http://www.kasunic.com/

http://www.loc.gov/help/contact-general.html

{fixed}

I stuttered and stammered all the way through it, but I made a video that basically puts "Operation Spread Eagle" into a 3 minute video. Spread it around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ANh_Yrm_JA

As far as I understand things, that's correct, isn't it? If not, will someone please let me know? I will take that video down and post a new video with corrections. I made this video so you can easily tell someone about OSE without having to type a lot. All you have to do is this:

you: MAN! SHIT'S GOIN' DOWN ON YOUTUBE!

your friend: What do you mean?

you: No time! Click the link!

I don't have skype and I don't know what it is. Sorry. I could send you the file in an e-mail, but you've shown us that you're taint-deep in work so you don't have time to check e-mail. If you could get someone else to send it to you, I could give the file to them and they could skype it to you. My internet skills basically revolve around forums, YouTube, and porn. Sorry.

I think we should Rick Roll Christians. We should post videos called "God's Free Gift" or some other shit and post a video of "Never Gonna Give You Up" by Rick Astley. Nothing says "protest" like stupid-ass shit such as Rick Rolling. If enough people got behind it, we could make that horrible fucking song our anthem. Christians will run in fear of his 1980s gyrations (they're still struggling to accept that devilish wiggle known as "The Twist" ). Desparate times call for dumbass measures!

Gentlemen,

I’ve only been in the music industry for eight years but I’ve had enough exposure to copyright law to retain a basic understanding of its precepts.

What surprises me, however, is that although I have seen much coverage regarding this CSE fiasco and the slimey tactics of Hovind et al, I haven’t read a great deal referring to what the law actually states. And there seems to be at least one misunderstanding when it comes to copyright that I would like to set straight within the blogsphere:

In the United States, the author of intellectual property retains a copyright on his/her work the moment the work is authored. It is automatic and unavoidable. Thus it is fruitless for either Hovind OR anyone else to ever say the words “This material is not copyrighted” or anything similar.

Firstly, “copyright” is not a verb. It is simply the right to copy and/or issue copies of an original creation. An author retains copyright on his original work of intellectual property automatically (unless he’s under contract that stipulates otherwise, but let’s leave that for now.)

Now, the important part: although the author can’t refuse the actual copyright, he can express precisely what sort of copying, distribution, etc. he will allow. This is precisely what Hovind, CSE et al were doing for years through their statements both on their website (until recently) and in recorded lectures and public speeches. Since there is a great wealth of documented reference to this effect, it is likely that no court in the entire country would rule in favor of Hovind or CSE for copyright violation. YouTube should know this, but they are either too puny, weak, uneducated or simply afraid to say so.

Understand the difference: No original work is copyright free… there are simply some works that the copyright holder has stated unequivocally can be freely copied, distributed, altered, cut up, sampled, mixed or mashed, etc. The Fair Use doctrine of the Copyright Act of 1976 protects for MOST of these already; now imagine when, in addition to that, the author states what Hovind has stated for years: “You can copy these, distribute them, do whatever you’d like, there’s no copyright…. etc.” Even though Hovind is incorrect about the fact that there IS a copyright on his works, his mistake only serves to make his position clearer: I as the copyright holder grant you the right to freely copy, edit and distribute my work.

And there is language to support this. For a primer on copyright law, read this. Under the Exclusive Rights section, you will find one of the rights listed: “to sell or assign these rights to others.” In issuing statements such as Hovind’s, CSE assigns blanket rights to all those who view their materials to freely copy, edit and distribute.

CSE is even FURTHER flawed now in trying to cover up their blunder by affixing a visible copyright symbol and date on their website. First of all,

their hyperlink to the new copyright statement denotes “copyright © 2007 CSE MINISTRY” (you can see this at the bottom of just about every page on drdno.com). But click on that link and you’ll find the statement that “Copyright was placed on all Creation Science Evangelism materials (no matter the production date) effective January 1, 2005.

This creates several problems:

1. There’s a discrepancy here; is it 2005, or 2007?

2. You can’t place copyright on original works whenever you’d like. Copyright is not a thing that you attach to intellectual property. It is something you, the author retain at the moment the work is transfixed upon a tangible medium.

CSE needs to verify the original production dates of ALL their materials, and then place copyright notifications on each one according to the dates of their creation.

3. Regardless of WHEN the materials were produced, if CSE has a long,documented history of allowing anyone to freely copy, edit and distribute their material, then any copyright claims on their behalf from the moment of production to NOW will never hold up in court.

Final point: remember that CSE does retain the copyright, so they DO have the right to reverse their long-standing position on copying their works whenever they wish. It is entirely legal for them to issue a statement saying “We no longer extend the right to freely copy, edit and distribute our materials.” But this should not apply to materials that have already been copied and edited. It only applies from this moment on.

So for all you bloggers who are posting video or text responses to this fiasco, please do not do the disservice of stating that your work is not copyrighted. You retain the copyright. You retained it the moment you created it. Instead, put something like this: “I, the author of this (video/article/etc), am the sole copyright owner, and as such, I grant EVERYONE the right to do whatever the hell you like with this material, including but not limited to copying, editing and distributing, in all territories, in perpetuity.”

And in the future, if people are editing your material in a manner that acts to criticize your views, you can rescind that right, just like the insecure pussies at CSE have done.

Copy that.

PAZ

{font color}

Nero said:  "First, PAZ, I appreciate your layman's understanding of copyright law; however, you are facing about ninety degrees in the wrong direction.  Case law is fairly clear with regard to figures whose works are primarily public and made in a pedagogic forum."
Thank you, sir.  I admit I only have a laymen's understanding, and it was my post's intention to get more knowledgeable people to sound off about these important issues.  I wait eagerly to learn whether CSE's materials are in public domain or not.

To everyone else,
Before I get flamed for having said the following:  "No original work is copyright free…"
I understand there is a world of work in the public domain that is copyright free.  But insofar as it is in the public domain, it's really no longer an original work (i mean, technically, every work of intellectual property is original, even if it's a derivative work.) Public domain means that there is no copyright ownership, and no legal restriction on use.

Again... these are complex laws.  I promise to keep researching and getting more information for all of us.  I am not siding with CSE.. their actions are reprehensible and slimy, and fitting of those whose insecurity with their own beliefs know no bounds.  I just don't like to rally with the crowd when I'm not clear on the information.  

For the record, it MUST be established whether the CSE materials were ever public domain before we move forward.   But please remember that, with respect to the YouTube issue, it does not matter;  CSE CLEARLY granted rights to anyone to copy, edit and distribute their works, and YouTube has no leg to stand on there.

Just in case you haven't noticed yet, Wired did an article about this. Here: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/news/2007/09/youtube_dmca