Creationist vs. Atheist YouTube War Marks New Breed of Copyright Claim

A dispute between an atheist group and a creationist group over some postings on YouTube has critics of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act crying foul. They say it's a new and inappropriate use of DMCA, which is becoming a frequent weapon in nasty political and cultural battles.

YouTube yanked several videos last week that had been posted by the self-avowed atheist group Rational Response Squad. The videos criticized the Creation Science Evangelism ministry. YouTube removed the videos and at one point suspended Rational Response Squad's account.

The videos included content owned by Creation Science Evangelism. But Rational Response Squad argued in an open letter to YouTube that the content fell under fair use.

The videos were eventually reposted, and Rational Response Squad's account was reinstated. "The default, unfortunately, is that (sites like YouTube) take it down, and leave it to the user to issue a counter-notice," said Corynne McSherry, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It was clearly fair use, and their claim was clearly bogus. It was just the fastest way they could think of to get it taken down."

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998, was a sweeping update of intellectual-property laws that, among other provisions, limits liability for online service providers, in return for prompt action when copyright infringement is reported.

The provider is not required to investigate the validity of copyright claims, and the result can be a form of on-tap censorship. But it's not without possible consequences. Filing specious copyright claims is illegal under DMCA rules, and can lead not only to damage judgments and legal fees, but also to public embarrassment when people find out about it.

Brian Sapient, a leader of the Rational Response Squad, said the group plans legal action, although a suit has not yet been filed.

He noted that Kent Hovind, the founder of the Creation Science Evangelism who is serving a 10-year prison sentence for tax evasion, had encouraged use of the content on the ministry's web site.

"(YouTube is) just covering its ass," Sapient said. "Some cases are so clear-cut that YouTube could, at the bare minimum, investigate."

The Creation Science Evangelism ministry did not respond to requests for comment.

Rational Response Squad made a name for itself in 2006 when it launched a campaign to convince the irreligious to upload deliberately blasphemous movies to YouTube. Opponents joined in the game, launching a counter-campaign.

The squad has since become embroiled in several copyright disputes. In a similar controversy earlier this year, paranormalist Uri Geller's company invoked DMCA and asked YouTube to remove a video uploaded by the Rational Response Squad, claiming copyright.

The video depicted magician James Randi, a prominent skeptic of the supernatural, debunking Geller's supposed powers. But Geller said the offending material in the video was an eight-second clip of his "deeply private" family doctor, who had agreed to appear only in the original public performance some 20 years earlier, long before the internet era.

"I couldn't care about criticism," Geller told Wired News. "Exposés are fantastic. I have no problems with atheists, agnostics or other critics, but I don't want my doctor's image splashed over the internet."

Geller said he's prepared to go to court, but hopes it doesn't come to that. "We'd like to settle it," he said. "I'm an easy-going person."

But Randi claimed this is Geller's way to silence critics. "He has always pursued this method," Randi said in an interview.

Both Randi and Geller agree on one thing, however: YouTube is, when it comes to spreading the word, useful.

"Very useful, indeed," Randi said in an email.

"Oscar Wilde once said that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about," Geller said. "When skeptics bring videos out, come on, that's free publicity ... I've been hounded by skeptics for years. I'm used to turning it around."

As more people catch on to how useful YouTube can be for delivering political, religious and cultural messages, DMCA claims are likely to increase. With news cycles moving at light-speed, an illegal copyright claim might well suppress unwanted news long enough to distort coverage. And if previous incidents are any indication, the issues involved could get much weightier, especially in an election year.

In 2003, security-systems company Diebold tried, unsuccessfully, to use the DMCA to remove leaked company emails from the internet. The information revealed serious flaws in the company's oft-maligned electronic voting machines. Diebold lost the case in 2004 and paid $125,000 in damages and penalties for bogus accusations of copyright violation.