Creationists Silence Critics with DMCA

Gothmog of A writes "As Richard Dawkins' offcial site reports, an organization called Creation Science Evangelism Ministries has been submitting DMCA copyright requests to YouTube. This has resulted in the Rational Response Squad (RRS) being banned after they protested against videos being taken down and accounts being closed. The RRS videoes attack creationism (AKA intelligent design) and promote the atheist viewpoint. According to the RRS, the copyright requests are without merit since the material in question is covered by fair use or has been declared to be in the public domain. Behind Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is the infamous Kent Hovind (AKA Dr. Dino) who is currently serving jail time for tax evasion."

Re:Oh Shit

[metlin]

So... Until something has actually happened in retaliation... This isn't really much of a story.

Yes it is. It is the abuse of the law by a group that does not substantiate their claims by science and literally uses the law as a tool to censor points of view that they do not like.

If anything, I do not see why this isn't more of a news.

Panda's Thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

The Panda's Thumb also has a story [pandasthumb.org] about this, along with a video of "Dr." Hovind. Up until a few days ago CSE's website had this disclaimer: "None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely.", now that disclaimer is gone. Is Hovind trying to retroactively copyright stuff that has been in the public domain for years?

Hovind is currently serving 10 years in prison for tax evasion. One would think that his time would be better spent raising money to appeal his conviction, or getting his sentence reduced; rather than filing fraudulent DMCA takedown notices. Unless Hovind's son is running the ministry now while mum and dad sit in the pen. If that's the case then Hovind's son doesn't appear to be anymore aware of the law than his father was.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

Except evolution has nothing to do with thermodynamics. If you took your head out of your ass long enough to read books, you would see that evolution doesn't have a single thing to do with thermodynamics.

Well, that's easily remedied

[Tau Neutrino]

I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation).

Just read these examples of observed speciation [talkorigins.org]. See? Now you are aware!

Re:Oh Shit

[budgenator]

Basicaly you file a DMCA Counter-claim which states that under penalty of pergy you believe the material was identified as infringing by "mistake" and you identify yourself completely enough so that the original complaintant can sue you if it wasn't a mistake. How to Report Counter-Claim of Infringement [ucmo.edu] goes into more detail, you might want to talk to a lawyer first too.

Re:religion

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of retarded mod modded this insightful?

No really. The dumbfuck doesn't beleive in evolution because he "can't see it". Or he is "not aware of it".

Fucking worthless moderators on crack. But fear not, it's "insightful".

Re:FIST SPORT

[MillionthMonkey]

Evolution is just a THEORY, and a shabby one at that. It goes against base thermodynamic principles

The basis for this endlessly-parroted complaint is that evolution makes "simpler forms turn into more complex forms" while the Second Law predicts that in a closed system the entropy and disorder only increases and obviously we can't have that if trilobites are turning into people, right?

But the Earth is not a closed system. It receives high energy, low entropy photons from the sun at 6000K and reradiates low energy, high entropy photons into space at 300K. Any "closed system" that includes evolutionary processes would necessarily have to include the sun as well. Even if local entropy on Earth decreases in certain parts of the biosphere, it's only possible because the entropy at the center of the sun has been increasing the whole time as hydrogen turns into helium. Just imagine what will happen to the Lord's creation once that process comes to an end!

The sun is a cruel trickster- it makes a handy scapegoat in global warming arguments, but with the other hand it undermines this illiterate hocus pocus about the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbidding evolution.

Re:OFF TOPIC

[julesh]

The alleged infringement is of video tapes of his trial for tax evasion.

MC Hawking

[Xtifr]

Geeze, while you're at it, you ought to at least provide a link to the site MC Hawking's Crib [mchawking.com].

Re:Incredibly relevant

[julesh]

The article stating that he is in jail for tax evasion is a blatant red herring. It has no bearing on the group's DMCA claims whatsoever.

Actually it does. The DMCA claims were aimed at silencing criticism of him that stemmed from his imprisonment.

Re:Oh Shit

[aichpvee]

Superstition is belief without evidence. All religion is superstitious, though not all superstition is necessarily religious.

Re:Ugh...why? -- Oh Please!

[NoOneInParticular]

Newton was a genius, but not very rational, no. Let alone humble. Dabbling in alchemy, strong believer in God, declaring that the three body problem was unsolvable (by him) and that therefore the balance in the solar system was actively maintained by God. Nope, not very rational at times. Excellent brain, weak mind.

In the strictest sense,

[falconwolf]

you have it absolutely correct - Thus we still call evolution a "theory".

AH, you bring up something many don't understand about science and theories. Yes evolution is theory, specifically it's Scientific Theory [wikipedia.org], which has a totally different connotation to what many people take "theory" as meaning, how it's used colloquially. When we say evolution is a scientific theory part of it's meaning is that it has not been proved scientifically false as of yet. Then if and when it is proven false the theory is modified to account for the discrepancy. If there are too many discrepancies, it's tossed out and research starts over with a new Hypothesis [wikipedia.org].

Falcon

Re:religion

[Alsee]

I am not aware of...

Thank you.

Most evolution critics are not familiar with any evolution science and simply ASSERT that evidence supporting evolution does not exist. They know nothing therefore they assume and positively assert that nothing exists.

There's nothing wrong with not being familiar with some particular field of science. Most people are not aware of the specific experiments and observations supporting quantum mechanics. Most people are not aware of the specific experiments and observations supporting relativity. Nothing wrong with that.

If someone with no degree and no special study in quantum mechanics or relativity were to assert that the experts in the field were all wrong and claim that there didn't exist any evidence to back up that field, that person would be ridiculed and insulted. For some reason it is only in the field of biology that some people violate that common sense rule, and are shocked and play the persecuted victim when they get insulted and ridiculed for it.

I am not lumping you in that group, at least not yet (grin). You directly mention that you are not familiar enough with the subject, and I take your wording and your post as an honest request "heay, does this stuff exist?". I am merely saying that there is a huge problem with people uninformed attacks on evolution and making (incorrect) positive assertions that evolution supporting information and facts *don't exist*, and that they are the reason evolution critics so often get treated so harshly.

I'm not going to spend much time on your point (1), it will pretty well be resolved as I address point your (2). I'll just say two quick things and move on. There is no such thing as "macroevolution" within the science of evolution... it's like referring to "macrogravity" or "macroelectricity"... the science of evolution only involves and only requires so-called "micro" variation accumulating over time and simply species splitting. There are countless documented cases of speciation if you look up "speciation" on Wikipedia or Google.

I'd like to go into much more depth on "2) To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established... It would also seem a step of faith that the missing transitional forms also exists". Not only can I answer this, I can do so with a single block of evidence that all by itself constitutes an iron clad case for evolution as a whole.

Most of the fossil record is indeed quite spotty. However there is one substantial chuck of the fossil record that is a scientist's wet-dream of evidence. A chuck of the fossil record that proves evolution true, beyond any reasonable doubt. That chuck is phylum foraminifera. (Note: A phylum is the biggest broadest division of life before you start lumping all animals into one group and all plants into another group, a phylum is a higher level grouping than "all mammals".)

Foraminifera are (usually tiny) animals that live in the sea. They grow intricate mineral skeletons. As they die, millions of these fossil skeletons rain down onto the sea floor every day. The sea floor builds up a continuous rain of sediment, including foraminifera fossils, day by day year by year over hundreds of millions of years.

All you have to do is go out on a boat and drop a pipe into the seabed and you can pull up a limitless supply of sediment cores and a limitless supply of foraminifera fossils. The supply of foraminifera fossils is *so* overabundant that scientists have been developing automated computer image analysis systems to sort and analyze foraminifera fossils thousands and tens of thousands per batch. A limitless supply of fossils. A perfectly continuous day by day year by year fossil record from bottom to top in the sea floor sediment.

This fossil record is perfect and continuous. It covers virtually an entire phylum of life. It documents in exqisit detail how one species can and does evolve over time into an entire family tree of diverse descendant species. Not only does it document each and every

The law is straightforward

[interiot]

C'mon, this is really straightfoward stuff...

1. If they're filing false take-down notices, then CSEministry committed perjury, which means they can be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years.
2. Begging YouTube to put the videos up won't do much, because it does nothing to change their liability under the law. Filing a counter-notification will get YouTube to put the videos back up [reddit.com], since that gets YouTube off the hook, and you don't have to go to court to do that.
3. It's not YouTube's job to decide whether a video is covered by fair use or not. It's 1) the uploader's job to figure out whether they want to assert under the penalty of perjury that it falls under fair use, (eg. they should consult a lawyer first) and 2) if CSEministry continues to assert that it's not fair use, then CSEministry will need to take the uploader to court, and then a judge will decide if it's fair use or not

Re:It has been explained before.

[JeanPaulBob]

A. There is no "macroevolution".

Yes, there is. It's a legitimate term, with a useful meaning.

From Talk.Origins [talkorigins.org]:

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.
...
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]).

Re:Oh Shit

[fyngyrz]

I tolerate your atheism; why won't you tolerate my beliefs as well?

I can't speak for the fellow you replied to, but I can tell you why I have a problem with religionists in the USA. It is because they have employed the legal and political systems to impose their beliefs, and behaviors based upon their beliefs, and symbols based upon their beliefs, and declarations based upon their beliefs, upon those who do not share them — one of whom, of course, is me.

For instance, I can't purchase liquor on Sunday; heck, in some places, I can't even shop. My money declares my (completely non-existent) trust in your deity. The country's very oath invokes the Christian god. The pledge of allegiance, something I don't otherwise have a problem with, is now layered with Christian sentiments that literally poison my otherwise highly patriotic willingness to give of myself. The expectation in the courtroom is that I swear to god; if I don't, I am literally putting my future at risk. My own taxes are being directly funneled into "faith-based initiatives." I have to bear the tax burden for religions I find abhorrent, intolerable or simply ridiculous, while they get a (nearly) free ride for property taxes (believe me, I'm in a position to know the facts on this one all too well, I bought an ex-church to live in, the first year we paid the (delayed) assessment for the church, which was $500; the second year, we paid almost five times that as "regular" folks.) There is more, but by now you should be getting the flavor of why I think the legal and political system has been co-opted by Christians.

Now, speaking generally, the problem goes much further. I am offended by all of this because I am not religious, and I am constantly compelled to deal with these religious things. But it isn't just me. Muslims aren't likely to be delighted with finding Christianity in their face all the time, either. Nor are Jews. Nor a whole list of other folks.

What I advocate is a religious and political system that is absolutely free of religious rules, religious oaths, religious slogans, religious tax breaks, religious marriage rationales (for government-sanctioned marriages... churches and religions and their adherents can do anything they like, of course) and so on. Under these conditions, no one would ever be asked in court to make a religious statement and be put in the position of having to state a religious denial or difference from the jury; marriage would be a state of co-ownership and co-obligation instead of one of a puritan sexual measure and an arbitrary enumeration of two; property taxes would be based on property ownership, not religious claims and the lack of them; non-government stores and service providers could stay open any hours they decided made sense for them, for any reason(s) the owner(s) found sufficient; money would simply be money; a pledge of national allegiance would be just that, not a declaration that the country exists under someone's favorite diety; no religious statue or platitude would look upon me from the halls (or lawns) of justice... and so on.

And frankly, I'm all for your religious scientists pursuing ID and any other idea they might have as to how all this stuff got here. I think they're almost certainly wrong, but the only way to know that is to pursue every question to its ultimate limit of supporting evidence and/or contrary indications. However, I think it is very important that such questions be asked without requiring the rest of us to agree either that the question itself is sensible or that the proposed answers are sensible.

So if I seem not very tolerant of your beliefs from time to time, keep in mind I may have just tried to buy a quart of scotch to lubricate an evening of movie-watching at home and found the liquor store closed for the day. Or something along those lines. I run into these things much more often than you might imagine. And they piss me off mightily.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Wavicle]

Actually it is a real post, later in the thread he points out why he flatly rejects the sun as an energy source:

Sorry, my mistake guys, I didn't explain why the Sun doesn't count. Here is the info on that from ChristianAnswers.net:

Is Energy the Key?
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?

[..snip..]

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

We're pretty pissed

[renegadesx]

These flagging have been carried out by Dr Dino's son Eric Hovind. The RSS got involved after RabidApe got suspended and Sapient was basically sticking up for RabidApe. Eddygoombah and co have also been on the receiving ends of takedowns but as far as I know, the RSS and RabidApe are the only ones that have actually been suspended as a result of Hovind's illegal activities.

I have yet to have any of my videos flagged, but I know many people that have. We are really pissed to say the least

Oh and Eric Hovind sent an email to Sapient asking him to "call" Hovind. Sapeient replied that under the circumstances it would be best to talk via email and say any reply will be publicly shown and can be used in a court of law and any reply would be a verification of that. Hovind has yet to reply.

All video's that have been taken down were in full compliance with "fair use". To make matters worse for Hovind, all material used was public domain anyways, the copyright archives (http://www.copyright.org/records) contain no filings reflecting any change from public domain to copyrighted material.

Check out http://www.rationalrespnders.com/ [rationalrespnders.com] to keep updated on the situation.

Re:Oh Shit

[mclaincausey]

Faith-based initiatives have historically been completely abused. If there is a separation of Church and state, then we can honor it in the way we assist the needy.

I also disagree that the slogan is meaningless. I don't want people speaking for me in any sort of collectivist fashion. It clearly crosses the Church/State boundary, and if such a boundary was meant to exist (it was) and if such a boundary should exist (it should), then it should apply to the Treasury as well as every other division of government.

Re:Oh Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, when people start saying 'God told me to kill you,' it's time to lock them up. Weird thing is, organised religions ,,. will even agree with you on this.

Bullshit. Numbers 31 [skepticsan...dbible.com]

Re:Slavery as a coonfederate issue

[ignavus]

"wear a swastika, and try to explain you're just waving an old Christian symbol about"

Except that the swastika is a Hindu symbol, regarded by the Nazis as the "Aryan" symbol.

It has nothing to do with Christianity.

Talk about gratuitous insults ...

Um... Source?

[abb3w]

Up until a few days ago CSE's website had this disclaimer: "None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely."

This would not surprise me. However... the Wayback Machine seems to have a decent collection [archive.org] of content from the CSE website at DrDino.com; my quick sampling indicates they started asserting at least some copyright in 2005, and didn't turn up any quote on those lines. Care to point to a particular page from the WBM?

Re:Oh Shit

[porpnorber]

I said that organised religions discourage psychopaths, not that historical documents do. Of course you can root through the bible and find weird shit; this is about as surprising as saying that you can find things in US history, or even in US law, that appear to contradict the US constitution. But does a Christian choose Numbers 31 as an explanation of their values? No, they'll choose Matthew 22:35-40. It's actually rather more relevant, since this was an occasion on which the founder of the religion was actually asked the question.

But the details of this particular debate aside, religions are like viruses, in this way: that if they are too lethal, they do not themselves survive. In fact, their best odds for survival are typically in becoming beneficial. This is why older religions tend to be more reasonable, and this is why when you get some strange new mutation you can have a nasty surprise.