VIDEO: Citizens arrested in D.C. for reading the Constitution

I was going to preface this with some commentary. Then I decided that this is something that would be better for you to watch and decide for yourself whether this is right or wrong.

Read More

MONDAY NIGHT LIVE has a Myspace page

Yes the rumors are true: Monday Night Live now has its own page on Myspace! And it does a really good job of conveying the off-beat personality of Reidsville, North Carolina's premiere television call-in show, too. On the page you'll find a history of the long-running show, hilarious "in-jokes" like references to Commander Ashtar and Tom Wopat and Richard from Danville, pictures of hosts Mark Childrey and Ken Echols (and maybe a few other familiar faces), and even the show's theme music - "Tusk" by Fleetwood Mac - playing in the background... along with much more! The only thing missing is that Jaybird isn't on the friends list... but maybe he'll get a Myspace page of his own soon (hurry up Jaybird!).

Read More

Judge OKs "Hitler Youth" buttons to protest school uniforms

A federal judge has ruled that two New Jersey students can continue wearing buttons depicting the Hitler Youth as part of a protest against school uniforms, Fox News is reporting...

U.S. District Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. sided with the parents of the students, who had been threatened with suspension by the Bayonne school district last fall for wearing the buttons. However, the judge added in his ruling that the boys will not be allowed to distribute the buttons at school.

"I'm very pleased," said Laura DePinto, mother of one of the students. "I think it upholds the most basic of our American rights, which is to protest peacefully."

Citing a 1969 case in Iowa involving students who wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War, Greenaway wrote that "a student may not be punished for merely expressing views unless the school has reason to believe that the speech or expression will 'materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school."'

Greenaway's decision "follows the law as we saw it going in," said Karin R. White Morgen, an attorney representing both boys' families. "We believed that it was the Tinker decision that applied," she added, referring to the Iowa case.

The buttons bear the words "no school uniforms" with a slash through them superimposed on a photo of young boys wearing identical shirts and neckerchiefs. There are no swastikas visible on the buttons, but the parties agreed that they depict members of Hitler youth.

Bayonne instituted mandatory uniforms last September for grades K-8, and fifth-grader Michael DePinto wore the button several times before objections were raised in November, attorneys for the plaintiffs said.

In a letter dated Nov. 16, 2006, Janice Lo Re, principal of Public School 14, notified Laura DePinto that her son "will be subject to suspension" for wearing the button in school.

Parents of the other student, Anthony LaRocco, a seventh-grader at the Woodrow Wilson School, received a similar letter from principal Catherine Quinn.

After the suspension threat, the boys' parents filed a federal lawsuit claiming the district stifled the children's First Amendment free speech rights. They also have mounted a legal challenge to the uniform policy.

Neither boy has worn the button since the lawsuit was filed, Morgen said.

District lawyers asserted that the image of the Hitler youth was abhorrent because it conveyed intolerance and racial inequality represented by Nazism.

Thanks to Mark Childrey for the heads-up!

Read More

TRANSFORMERS score: Decepticons theme chanting revealed (it's a medieval hymn!)

There's just nineteen days left before the CD of Steve Jablonsky's Transformers score comes out, which a lot of us have been looking forward to since the movie came out. Well, Marco van Bergen has discovered something about the soundtrack. Remember the unearthly chanting that's in a lot of the music for the Decepticons, like when Frenzy is hacking the computer and during the "roll call" scene? Marco and I talked about it and comparisons to John Williams's "Duel of the Fates" from the Star Wars Episode I soundtrack came up. The chorals in "Duel of the Fates" were a Sanskrit translation of an ancient Welsh poem called "Battle of the Trees". So might Jablonsky have done something similar with the Decepticons music?

Well, Marco did some asking-around in the right places and here's what he found out:

I was wondering for a longer time now what the great lyrics in the "Decepticons theme" mean, and today, I found out: The Decepticons theme is influenced by the world famous Dies Irae. Jablonsky mixed it up, and uhm, well now you have a meaningless pot of words:

Low-voice-chant:
Tuba, mirum, Tuba, spargens
Tremor, David, mirum, ante

Chant which gets louder throughout:
Totum totum totum totum David
Totum spargens totum david
Totum quarens, sedisti totum

(I wasn't able to understand the rest of it.)

If ya would translate it, it would be something like this:

Trumpet, casts, Trumpet wondrous
Horror, David, Casts, before

Contained, contained, contained contained David
Contained wondrous contained David
Contained seeking, hope contained

So, it's all kinda nonsense (although the real Dies Irae has a biblical meaning behind it).

Here's the Wikipedia entry on Dies Irae. From the opening paragraph:

Dies Irae ("Day of Wrath") is a famous thirteenth century Latin hymn thought to be written by Thomas of Celano. It is often judged to be the best medieval Latin poem, differing from classical Latin by its accentual (non-quantitative) stress and its rhymed lines. The meter is trochaic. The poem describes the day of judgment, the last trumpet summoning souls before the throne of God, where the saved will be delivered and the unsaved cast into eternal flames.

I can sorta see why this particular hymn might have wound up being "adapted" for the Decepticons theme: just the translation of the lyrics sound dark, foreboding, unearthly...

What a neat find! Thanks Marco! :-)

Read More

Tonight's Drudge Report illustrates a messed-up America

There's so much wrong with this picture that I don't even know where to begin...

There is nothing respectable about Hillary Clinton. There is nothing respectable about Dick Cheney either. They're both power-mad and completely bereft of any real sense of service or humility.

That the Drudge Report believes this is worthy of a screaming headline - complete with Darth Vader graphic - might make it even more ridiculous, if it weren't so altogether tragic.

This country is plagued with rabid Democrats, reprobate Republicans, and rubbish enablers in the bigtime press. And with damned few exceptions, not one of the whole sorry lot has any real clue as to what's actually going on in this world or how they're screwing things up for the rest of us. They are absolutely worthless and it's an insult to our intelligence that we should even be expected to care about these people.

To paraphrase that Nazi from Raiders of the Lost Ark: "Shoot them... shoot them all!"

Read More

TOWN BANS NEW CHURCHES: Reidsville City Council forbids new congregations in downtown area

Earlier tonight on WGSR, Richard Moore appeared with Charles Roark and was (among other things) talking about this week's meeting of the Reidsville City Council. And Richard reported on something that I couldn't believe that I was hearing, so I e-mailed Richard and he confirmed it...

Reidsville City Council has voted to ban new churches from the downtown area.

Here is what Richard told me...

"Current churches can continue to operate, but no new churches will be allowed in the Central Business District. It was put into law today with a 5-2 vote. I think John Gentry and George Rucker voted against it."

Richard also tells me that the Reidsville City Council did not debate whether or not this measure to ban churches was constitutional, but the council did discuss the constitutionality of banning pit bulls.

Only in Reidsville.

Let's review the First Amendment of the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's a pretty sad thing but one way or another, it's occurred to me that as of today every right delineated by the First Amendment has come under attack or otherwise curtailment by public officials in Rockingham County in the past several months. We've had elected officials describe WGSR as "bad for the community" (Ron Price on the school board), sue people for organizing petition drives (Ron Price, again), eliminate free speech in a public hearing (Reidsville City Council's silencing Richard Moore in April). And now with this act, Reidsville City Council is prohibiting both the exercise of religion and the right to peacably assemble.

It could also be noted that beyond simple prohibition, that the City of Reidsville is now acting as a regulatory agency over religious activity.

There may be more to report about this later. I'll post it when it comes across the desk this way. In the meantime, as crazy as it sounds: Reidsville, North Carolina is one town in America that has banned new churches from appearing in its downtown area.

Parse that as you will.

Read More

YOUTUBE/VIACOM AFTERMATH - Part 2: The DMCA Counter-Notification Claim

Because a lot of people have expressed interest in this, and because I haven't been able to see any reason to withhold this info at this point, here is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act counter-notification claim that I submitted to YouTube.

(And in case you don't know what this is about, here's the original post about my situation with Viacom over a YouTube clip that I had uploaded and here's the post about its resolution.)

---

It all started with the following e-mail that I received from YouTube on the morning of August 29th, 2007:

Dear Member:

This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Viacom International Inc. claiming that this material is infringing:

Web Junk 2.0 on VH1 features my school board commercial!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddyVQwpByug

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.

Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.

I read this and a short while later fired off a reply to YouTube's copyright address (copyright@youtube.com):

This is in regards to the video "Web Junk 2.0 on VH1 features my school board commercial!" that has been hosted on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddyVQwpByug

This morning I received the following notice:

"This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Viacom International Inc. claiming that this material is infringing..."

The clip in question that I had posted was from a recent episode of VH1's "Web Junk 2.0" which spotlighted a video that I produced and have full rights to. It can be found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLi5B0Iefsk

My clip was used by Viacom for commercial television purposes without attempting to contact me for permission. I did not mind this. I was in fact honored that they thought it worthy of featuring on their show. If anything *they* are violating *my* copyright because they used it in this way without seeking permission. And now they have caused it to be pulled... when in fact it's my own copyrighted material.

I sincerely request that you look into this matter further and you will find that I do have a most valid claim in this matter. Upon which, I would like to request that you restore the clip as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Chris Knight

A minute later, I recieved the following automatic response from YouTube:

Thanks for contacting YouTube! You've reached the copyright and DMCA compliance team. Your message has been received and is now queued for review. Please note that general help inquiries won't be answered here. For help with other site-related issues, please visit our Help Center at http://www.google.com/support/youtube/.

If you're requesting removal of a video that is allegedly infringing your copyright, please make sure that you have provided us with all of the required information in order to process your complaint. Providing incomplete information may delay the processing of your claim. For the requirements of DMCA notification, or if you have questions about our DMCA policy, please see: http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

Did you know that YouTube offers copyright owners a tool for submitting notifications more easily? If there are many videos to be removed, or you expect to have an ongoing need to remove potentially infringing content from YouTube, we suggest that you sign up for our Content Verification Program, which electronically notifies us, removing any room for error, and significantly increases the speed at which we are able to remove any infringing content. To sign up for this tool please visit: http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_program

Regards,
The YouTube Team

That e-mail correspondence all took place shortly after 11 a.m. EST. Five and a half hours later, at 5:47 p.m., another e-mail from YouTube arrived:

Dear Chris,

We received notification from Viacom International Inc. When we're notified that a particular video uploaded to our site infringes another's copyright, we remove the material as the law requires. If you feel a content owner has misidentified your content as infringing, you may file a DMCA counter-notification.

For more information, visit our Copyright Tips page,
http://youtube.com/t/dmca_policy.

Sincerely,

Harry
The YouTube Team

I went to the link that Harry at YouTube sent me. I'd already visited it earlier in the day when I was looking at my options, writing up the report for the blog on what had happened, etc. After this new mail from YouTube I looked over it once again, and immediately began writing my DMCA counterclaim.

I followed YouTube's directions precisely. It didn't take long at all to compose and submit it. I sent it to YouTube at 6:34 p.m., less than an hour after the last YouTube e-mail.

Here it is:

From: kwerkyproductions@gmail.com
to: copyright@youtube.com
Subject: DMCA counter-notification regarding ddyVQwpByug

Dear YouTube,
I wish to file a DMCA counter-notification in regards to the following video clip that was previously hosted on YouTube:

Web Junk 2.0 on VH1 features my school board commercial!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddyVQwpByug

I do hereby state under penalty of perjury that it is my good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

The video clip in question is a segment of the "Animals & Other Crap" edition of the television series Web Junk 2.0 on the cable network VH1, which is owned by Viacom. I used the segment per Fair Use because it is a derivative work from original material of which I am the creator and the copyright owner. The original video can be found at http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLi5B0Iefsk

Viacom did not seek my permission to use this not-for-profit material of my own creation for purposes of commercial television. As such, Viacom infringed on my own copyright. I knew this but did not seek to pursue any legal measure against them. Under the law, I still maintain copyright over even such derivative work.

In pressing YouTube to remove this video clip, Viacom is legally declaring that I am practicing copyright infringement against my own copyrighted material: in effect Viacom is assuming that it owns full copyright of the material.

I am sure that YouTube will appreciate the peculiarity of the matter, and will understand that as the original creator of the material and being one who is not seeking monetary compensation for Viacom's use of it, that I merely wish to continue using the clip under Fair Use. And as such, that you will restore the clip to its original address as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Christopher Knight

(STREET ADDRESS)
(CITY, STATE, ZIP)
(PHONE NUMBER)
kwerkyproductions@gmail.com

I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which this address is located, and that I will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

Once again, this was met with an automatic reply from YouTube:

Thanks for contacting YouTube! You've reached the copyright and DMCA compliance team. Your message has been received and is now queued for review. Please note that general help inquiries won't be answered here. For help with other site-related issues, please visit our Help Center at http://www.google.com/support/youtube/.

If you're requesting removal of a video that is allegedly infringing your copyright, please make sure that you have provided us with all of the required information in order to process your complaint. Providing incomplete information may delay the processing of your claim. For the requirements of DMCA notification, or if you have questions about our DMCA policy, please see: http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

Did you know that YouTube offers copyright owners a tool for submitting notifications more easily? If there are many videos to be removed, or you expect to have an ongoing need to remove potentially infringing content from YouTube, we suggest that you sign up for our Content Verification Program, which electronically notifies us, removing any room for error, and significantly increases the speed at which we are able to remove any infringing content. To sign up for this tool please visit: http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_program

Regards,
The YouTube Team

And this was all that I heard from YouTube for more than 48 hours. On August 31st at 8:45 p.m., the following e-mail arrived:

Dear Kwerky,

Thank you for your counter-notification. It has been forwarded to the
party that sent the takedown notification.

Sincerely,

Harry
The YouTube Team

There was no further correspondence from YouTube, until this e-mail arrived on September 11th at 8:57 p.m. (and I first read it about 20 minutes after it was sent):

Dear Kwerky,

In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we've completed processing your counter-notification dated x/xx/xx regarding your video

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

This content has been restored and your account will not be penalized.

Sincerely,

Harry
The YouTube Team

Well, I checked to make sure the clip was really back and it was. So after waking up my wife to tell her that this was, apparently, finally over with and that the clip was restored, and then making some phone calls, about an hour after reading that e-mail I sent the following back to YouTube:

Dear YouTube,
Thank you for restoring this clip, and I greatly appreciate your assistance in resolving this matter.

sincerely,
Chris Knight

---

And that was basically it so far as official action from this end went. It almost seems to have been too easy, but in all honesty I have to once again thank Fred von Lohmann and the staff at the Electronic Frontier Foundation for helping me out with this. Von Lohmann also suggests referencing the Fair Use Network's site explaining how to respond to DMCA takedown notices.

But if you ever wind up in a similar situation with YouTube or a similar service, and if you believe you do have strong grounds to contest a removal of material that you've posted, you can fight it and the first step is to file that DMCA counter-notification. Indeed, if you don't do this, there is really not much that anyone could do on your behalf. You've got to agree to some pretty serious conditions in filing the claim, such as potentially being brought to court and that you file understanding that you could be held liable for perjury. But if you sincerely believe that you are in the right and if you are willing to fight for your material, then the conditions really aren't terribly unreasonable. I can see that those things are there mostly to dissuade those who might file frivolous counterclaims.

So if this ever happens to you, now you know what I went through in getting my own clip restored on YouTube and hopefully it will help you out, too :-)

Read More

YOUTUBE/VIACOM AFTERMATH - Part 1: The Media Exposure

It took quite awhile longer than I'd expected. This thing got around in a big way, what with The Wall Street Journal and Yahoo! and Slashdot and Ars Technica and seemingly a jillion more outlets that covered it. Lots of people wanted to weigh in on this and for sake of objectivity I've tried my best to include everyone that I could find that raised valid arguments about this issue, regardless of which side they took.

So here ya go: a (more or less) definitive reference to the published articles about the Christopher Knight/YouTube/Viacom incident.

SPECIAL MENTIONS

Kevin Nalty AKA "Nalts" himself provided commentary on the controversy early on with this nice video that I totally dug...

"Viacom's copyright cops get carried away" - by Nick Ferrell for THE INQUIRER also deserves special recognition because this is the first time ever that I've been referred to as a "bloke". Farrell also writes that I "stood for" school board (yes this is a British publication :-)

And The 12 Angry Men Blog bestowed me with the honor of "Hero of the Week" this past Friday :-)

---

PERSONAL INTERVIEWS

"'Saber man', YouTube run afoul of copyright" - by Gerald Witt for the News & Record

"Viacom slaps YouTuber for behaving like Viacom" - by Cade Metz for The Register

"'Star Wars Man' Runs Into Trouble with Viacom for YouTube Video" - by Chad Tucker for Fox 8 WGHP (with video)

"Small Town Man: Victim or Copyright Infringer?" - by Abby Prince for WebProNews

Plus Ultra Podcast Episode 5 with Tracy R. Twyman (audio interview in MP3 format)

"Vindu's View: YouTube copyright fight shows fair and legal different" - by Vindu Goel for San Jose Mercury News

"A tale of two videos: what's mine is mine unless you change it enough to make it yours" - by Vindu Goel for San Jose Mercury news

"Followup: Chris Knight wins battle with Viacom over YouTube clip" - by Vindu Goel for San Jose Mercury News

"YouTube, Viacom bow to light-sabre wielding defender of online justice" - by Cade Metz for The Register

"YouTube video involving local candidate resurfaces" - by Gerald Witt for the News & Record

"Chris Knight's Copyright Infringement Case Resolved" - by Abby Prince for WebProNews

---

PUBLISHED ARTICLES BEFORE REINSTATEMENT

"Viacom Says User Infringed His Own Copyright" - by Slashdot

"Punishing Corporate Copyright Abusers" - by Dan Gillmor for Center for Citzen Media

"YouTube yanks goofy 'Death Star' clip at Viacom's insistence" - by Russell Shaw for ZDNet.com

"So by Terms of Service, you mean like a bull services a cow" - by John Murrell for SiliconValley.com

"Viacom steals video, issues take down notice to the artist" - by Fair Use Day

"Here's Your 15 Minutes And Your DMCA Notice" - by Jason Lee Miller for WebProNews

Viacom: It's Not Copyright Infringement When We Do It" - by Kristen Nicole for Mashable

"Viacom is a Big, Mean Bully" - by Kevin Nalty for Will Video For Food

"Viacom Can Take Your Stuff and Copyright It" - by Evan for Uneasy Silence

"Viacom runs Web video, claims copyright" - by Owen Thomas for Valleywag

"Viacom says that local blogger infringed on his own copyright" - by Darkmoon for LUX.ET.UMBRA

"YouTube Complies with Viacom" - by Jordan McCollum for Marketing Pilgrim

"Christopher Knight's Crapolicious Copyright Case" - by roasty for Crapolicio.us

"This time Viacom is accused of violating copyright" - by Greg Sandoval for CNET News.com

"Chutzpah!" - by Mike Weiksner for Connected Conversations

"Viacom - pokaz hipokryzji" by Antyweb (IN POLISH!)

"Man posts on YouTube: Viacom steals video & then files takedown on Creator" - by Simon G Best for Groklaw

"Viacom Accuses Guy Of Copyright Infringement For Showing Video Of Viacom Infringing On His Copyright" - by Mike Masnick for Techdirt

"Viacom's 'bass-ackwards' screw-up: issues takedown for video it 'pirated'" - by Jacqui Cheng for Ars Technia

"Viacom breaks copyright time continuum" - by DiscoZome for Unknown Worlds Forum

"Viacom orders YouTube to remove a copy of their work they took from said YouTuber?" - by Sean P. Aune for TECHBLORGE.com

"Is plagiarism protected by copyright law?" - by Silicon Valley Sleuth

"Full-Circle Copyright Infringement" - by The J-Walk Blog

"Quand c’est Viacom ce n’est pas une infraction au copyright!" - by Aziz Haddad for Mashable (IN FRENCH!)

"Copyfight: Viacom runs Web video, claims copyright" - by Technology News Blog

"Viacom in a copyright doomloop" - by Adriana Lukas for Media Influencer

"Viacom's Chutzpah" - by Jeff for spin the cat

"Viacom Dings Man For Copying His Own Video" - by Yahoo! Tech

"Viacom Pulls Clip It Doesn't Necessarily Own" - by Jackson West for NewTeeVee

"Viacom Accuses Copyright Owner of Copyright Infringement!" - by Mike Abundo for Inside Online Video

"Misusing and Abusing Social Media and Trust" - by Laurel Papworth

"Viacom's Got Big Balls" - by Bubba for Fazed

"YouTube DMCA Chutzpah? Sorry, Viacom Also Entitled to Play Fair Use Game" - by Donna Bogatin for Inside Chatter

"Urheberrechtsposse: Viacom vs. Knight vs. Viacom" - by Felix Knoke for Spiegel Online (IN GERMAN!)

"Don't make Christopher Knight the posterboy for copyright oppression" - by Evan Brown for InternetCases.com

"Say What?" - by Bob Schwartz for A South Dakota Moderate

"Hypocrisy in the Copyright Infringement Debate" - by Of Zen and Computing

"Viacom slammed for pulling VH-1 YouTube clip" - by Matt Chapman for vnunet.com

"YouTube-Related Legal Disputes, Part I" - by Peter Lattman for The Wall Street Journal

"Viacom s 'bass ackwards' screw-up issues takedown for video it 'pirated'" - by Chad Smith

"Viacom: Fair Use Is What We Say It Is" - by Scott Gilbertson for Wired

"For Me and Not for Thee" - by Sleepcatz

"Audacity: Viacom copies YouTuber’s video w/o permission, then accuses YouTuber of infringement" - by The UTube Blog

"Viacom Once Again Abusing DMCA?" - by Andy Beal for Marketing Pilgrim

"The One with the double standard" - by in the key of :: T

"Viacom: Direitos de autor? O que é isso?" - by OrangeEye (IN PORTUGUESE! I think...)

"Indie Filmmaker in Copyright Spat With Viacom Over YouTube Clips" - by Mark Hefflinger for Digital Media Wire

"Viacom demonstrates the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'" - by Less for Stupid Evil Bastard

"Can you copyright something you've nicked?" - by Dizzy for Dizzy Thinks

"How to Infringe Your Own Coyright - It Happened on YouTube" - by Bogdan Popa for Softpedia

"Christopher vs. Goliath" - by Tilly Gokbudak

"Full-Circle Copyright" - by Bernard Goldbach

"YouTube coypright conundrum" - by Software Online Guide

"Copyright Infringement Goes Meta" - by Erin Simon for Maximum PC

"Hvem eier en YouTube-video?" - by Electroworld (IN NORWEGIAN!)

"Copywrong" - by Rob for Unconventional Wisdom

"Viacom's flexible attitude toward fair use" - by Matthew Sag for Fairly Useful

---

PUBLISHED ARTICLES AFTER REINSTATEMENT

" Viacom Yields to YouTuber Who DMCA Counterclaimed" - by Slashdot

"Return of the Jedi" - by Ed Cone

"Amateur's Counter-Notification on Viacom Results in Clip Returning" - by Kevin Nalty for Will Video For Food

"YouTube restores clip downed by Viacom" - by Nick Farrell for The Inquirer

"Viacom admits mistaken DMCA notice after EFF gets involved" - by The UTube Blog

"YouTube restores Viacom-banned VH-1 clip" - by Matt Chapman for vnunet.com

"YouTube Reverses Course on User’s Video: Reposts It" - by Dan Gillmor for Center for Citizen Media

"Don't Be Bullied By Big Business! Counter False Copyright Infringement Claims" - by Justin Hall for My PC Pros

"Viacom Copyright Infringement Lifted" - by The Judge for Media Morgue

"Remember that guy who got his video stolen by VH1 and Viacom had his clip taken down from Youtube? He filed a DMCA counterclaim, and won" - by reddit

"School Board Candidate Beats Viacom" - by Movieweb

"School Board Candidate Beats Viacom" - by contactmusic.com

"YouTube restores controversial clip protested by Viacom" - by Ruben Francia for TECH.BLORGE.com

"YouTube Honors Counter-Notification Versus Viacom" - by Mike Abundo for Inside Online Video

"Man defeats Viacom in DMCA takedown dispute" - by vurbal for afterdawn.com

"Look Before You Upload" - by John Naughton for The Observer

"Fallen Star Wars Clip on YouTube Has Been Restored" - by Kristen Nicole for Mashable

"School Board Candidate Beats Viacom" - by IMDB Studio Briefing

"I'm Back" - by Jeffrey Starr for Not Bad Films

"Campaigners who get told they don't own the rights to their own election ads" - by The Labour Humanist

"A banner week for music and copyright" - by chooch for Shuroki Online

"Update: good guy wins, Viacom loses" - by Mike Weiksner for Connected Conversations

If there's any more that are found, I'll be sure to post them here also.

Read More

:-) turns 25

It was 25 years ago today that Scott E. Fahlman, a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University, used the following combination of characters in an e-mail:

:-)

It was the first-ever usage of what has become known as an "emoticon".

Happy 25th birthday Colon-Hyphen-Parenthesis!

Read More

YouTube restores Rational Response Squad's account (and commentary about supporting a group of atheists)

Early this morning Brian Sapient of the Rational Response Squad posted on the group's site that YouTube had restored their account.

You might remember a few days ago when I wrote here about how the atheist Rational Response Squad had apparently been targeted by a Christian organization. Creation Science Evangelism Ministries allegedly filed "false DMCA copyright requests" against the Rational Response Squad with YouTube, and YouTube subsequently yanked Rational Response Squad's account. But as you can see, it is now back up.

In the past few days since posting on this blog that I would "give the Rational Response Squad my full support in this matter", plenty of e-mail has come into my box about that. A lot of the sentiment is reflected in the comments made on the earlier post. And many people are really, really angry that I took up sides with a group of atheists on this issue. Especially in light of what, supposedly, Rational Response Squad has done in the past.

The first time that the Rational Response Squad ever appeared on my radar screen was during the weekend, when this affair with YouTube made news. I don't know what the Rational Response Squad has done before.

Saying that I'm supporting them in this matter does in no way certify or imply in the least bit that I'm somehow endorsing their attitudes and tactics in other matters.

But don't take that to mean that just because I do follow Christ, that it's supposed to mean that I automatically endorse "my side" in every situation, either.

This thing is for the Rational Response Squad to hash-out with Creation Science Evangelism Ministries. I don't have a dog in that hunt...

...although I do feel compelled to say this to Creation Science Evangelism Ministries: you guys aren't "getting" it at all. And these kinds of shenanigans aren't doing the ministry of Christ any favors. If anything, this enmity against the Rational Response Squad is hurting our cause, which is supposed to be one borne in love. I can't see that happening here at all.

Why did I, a Christian, lend my support to a group of atheists in this situation? Because it was the Christian thing to do. Nothing more and nothing less. If that doesn't satisfy you then maybe it'll please you to know that it was at least the American thing to do. As in the real America: the people that used to be able to disagree without feeling obligated to destroy each other. The people who used to be wise enough to realize that if it could happen to others, it could happen to them too.

This shouldn't happen to atheists any more than it should happen to Christians.

Read More

Guess what we're going to see this weekend?

Nope, this one won't be in 3-D. But it's still going to look pretty darned awesome, no doubt about it.

Read More

Jim Broadbent is playing Horace Slughorn!

Dark Horizons is the first to report that award-winning actor Jim Broadbent has been cast to play Horace Slughorn in the upcoming film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (and no doubt this means we'll be seeing him again in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as well).

If you haven't read the books, Horace Slughorn is a fairly major character in the sixth book. Slughorn is a former professor of Hogwarts who Professor Dumbledore persuades to come out of retirement and teach again at the school. Slughorn also has a knack for getting attached to students who he believes (and often rightly so) will go on to excel. So naturally, Slughorn appreciates Harry's already-celebrity status.

Broadbent will also be seen this coming spring in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Read More

Happy Constitution Day

220 years ago today, on September 17th, 1787, the Constitution of the United States - the supreme law of this country - was adopted by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Although it could be said that the Constitution was only really "enacted" after nine states agreed to ratify it (New Hampshire became that ninth state in late June 1788), today is by and large considered to be the Constitution's "birthday".

If you would like to read the Constitution (and you really should), here is the full text - including subsequent amendments - hosted by the National Constitution Center.

Read More

Robert Jordan has passed away

James Rigney Jr. - better known by his pen-name Robert Jordan - has died in South Carolina of a rare blood disease.

Jordan was the author of the rather popular Wheel of Time series. He had finished the eleventh book in 2005 and he was working on the twelfth and final book when he passed away. I only read the first volume, The Eye of the World, and that was about 12 years ago but I remember it being a pretty great read. I may have to check out the rest of the series now, especially since a number of people have commented on some rather Christian themes throughout the books.

Read More

LOST's Terry O'Quinn wins an Emmy!

Congratulations to Terry O'Quinn, who last night won his first-ever Emmy - that for Best Supporting Actor in a Drama - for his portrayal of John Locke on Lost!

Lost actually had two entries in the Best Supporting Actor/Drama category tonight: the other was Michael Emerson, who plays Benjamin Linus.

If you ask me, all the Best Actor/Actress categories should have been filled with Lost people. That's the thing about an ensemble show with a cast that strong: practically everyone deserves to be there.

But O'Quinn richly deserves this win. Locke is one of the most fascinating characters in television history and there's not possibly anyone who could have done the the role better than Terry O'Quinn. The more Locke-centric episodes this past season - especially "The Man from Tallahassee" and "The Brig" - were some of the most intense in the show's history (heck, "The Man from Tallahassee" had this whole house screaming). And not just Lost either: O'Quinn has done some amazing work over the past decade and it's great to see him get acknowledged for his efforts.

Read More

MAN ON FIRE: What ALMOST happened to protest uniforms at Reidsville schools

This morning I was going back though the past few months of blog posts looking for something I'd written pertaining to education. In the course of searching I found the video of WGSR's Star Talk on June 14th where Mark Childrey interviewed me about my plans to address the July 9th meeting of the Rockingham County Board of Education while dressed as a Jedi Knight. It was all to protest the "Standard Mode of Dress" (legalese for "school uniforms") at Reidsville Middle and Reidsville High schools that the board had approved.

As was reported here a few weeks later, the board wound up rescinding the earlier vote to implement the policy after POTSMOD (People Opposed To Standard Mode Of Dress) turned the meeting into a media spectacle with picketing by students, black armbands and not just a Jedi but an "escaped convict" too :-)

Well, I watched the video again and it got to the part where I was alluded to Mark that I had "something much more outrageous" in mind if the board continued to refuse to acknowledge us. What this was, I told Mark, would "drop jaws all over the place".

Fortunately, the board did hear us out. And we are thankful that they did and that they overturned their initial vote for the uniforms.

But I was not bluffing. There was something that I had planned to do if the board, at the July meeting, continued to deny our protests.

If the Jedi Costume didn't grab their attention, I was seriously intending to escalate this thing, big time.

The only people who've known about this before now were my wife Lisa, Samantha Fettig of POTSMOD, Richard Moore, "Weird" Ed Woody, and just a few others. They were all sworn to secrecy about it. They also, every single one of them, tried their darndest to talk me out of doing this.

But after studying it long and hard and figuring that (a) if it was in the public interest to do this then I'd have no problem with attempting it and (b) it would be an awesome experience if I survived, I was all the more bound and determined to be ready to do this.

So what was it?

If, after the July 9th meeting, we could not help but believe that the Rockingham County Board of Education was not interested in our concerns about the school uniforms and why we did not want them, then I was going to pick a date and send out a whole wazoo-load of press releases, telling every TV and radio station, newspaper, blogger and whoever else came to mind to be at a certain spot at a certain time.

When the press was all situated, I was going to come out wearing one of those flame-proof suits that cover you from head to toe, set myself on fire, and with the cameras rolling stand there with a sign saying "SCHOOL UNIFORMS BURN ME UP!"

The effect was hopefully going to be like what you see in the photo on the right.

The plan was for me to stand there for several seconds all lit up holding the sign, long enough for everyone to get good footage and pics, and then have volunteers with fire extinguishers douse out the flames.

So intent on going through with this was I, that the announcement of my plan for it was written into the first draft of my speech before the board. Luckily a cooler head (bad pun I know) prevailed and the "threat" didn't make it into the second version of the remarks. But I can only imagine what the look of horror on the faces of all those board members might have been, had I gone through with publicizing it that night...

...and especially what the reactions from a certain few of the members would have been. You see, they're the ones who know me. We've been friends for many, many years. And they would be the first to tell you that they KNOW that I am outrageous enough to try something like this! Emphasis on "try": they're well aware that I would take a stab at it even if success wasn't guaranteed. If the stunt might be glorious and spectacular, that's all I need to know to want to attempt it. Although so far as physical danger goes, this would have been one of the more daring things that I'd have ever considered.

Would I have really done this? For my brothers and sisters in POTSMOD and for the kids at Reidsville Middle and Reidsville High schools, you bet that I would have.

Thankfully (and I really can't stress that nearly enough), things didn't get to that point at all. The board voted 7-3 at the July meeting to overturn the uniforms policy at the two schools. So ever since classes started a few weeks ago the middle and high school students in Reidsville get to wear whatever they want, so long as it adheres to the reasonable dress code.

But for a few weeks there, in the summer of 2007, Rockingham County was almost the site of its very own version of the Burning Man tour.

Look, it could have been worse. At least I didn't have The Wicker Man in mind when I hatched this crazy plot...

Read More

More alleged DMCA abuse on YouTube: Creationists use law to silence critics

Now that the Viacom/YouTube situation is behind me (I hope), I'm in the process of putting together a collection of the various published news stories/blog posts about it all: from the time it began to its resolution. And I'm also working on documenting the step-by-step process that I went through to contest it, including the full text of the counterclaim.

Suffice it to say, one of the things that has happened as a result of all this is that I'm now much more interested in digital copyright matters than I was before.

So this article on Slashdot caught my eye: a pro-atheist group called the Rational Response Squad has had its YouTube account terminated after an organization called Creation Science Evangelism Ministries allegedly flooded YouTube with "false DMCA copyright requests". The termination apparently came after the Rational Response Squad tried to contest the copyright claims (I'm assuming this means that the Rational Response Squad filed DMCA counterclaims as I did in my situation).

I definitely don't agree with the Rational Response Squad and what they stand for. And there's probably not much at all that these people would ever appreciate about my being a believer in God and a follower of Christ (albeit a very imperfect one).

All the same, if these allegations are true then a dire injustice is being done to the Rational Response Squad by way of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And YouTube has a lot of explaining to do.

And if Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is indeed attacking its critics with fraudulent claims like this, then the people behind it are showing a very poor example of Christ-like character. And they should be called out for that. But right now I'm more concerned about what is happening with YouTube and the DMCA.

I can almost understand what happened with YouTube so far as my incident went. They were put between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". And under the DMCA once a copyright claim was received, they had to act accordingly. They acted wrong, but in looking back and knowing more about it than I did before, I don't see how YouTube had any choice under the law but to remove it... at least until I filed the DMCA counterclaim.

But this situation with Rational Response Squad and Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is, in many ways, far worse than mine was. The thing with my video was at best, I like to think anyway, ignorance. The actions against the Rational Response Squad could - it might be argued in a court of law - be criminal.

However what is really troubling is that, if the report that Slashdot posted is true, then YouTube has terminated the Rational Response Squad's account without a complete and considerate investigation of the matter. And maybe I'm thinking on a way wrong level here when I say this but after reading what is supposedly happening with the Rational Response Squad, it's enough to make me wonder what might have happened to my own account when I filed the counterclaim against Viacom's move against my own YouTube video. Without the considerable press that my situation generated, would YouTube have been just as keen to not have my account be terminated?

You would think that YouTube would give every claim and counterclaim the seriousness that each deserves, even knowing that many of them are no doubt going to be frivolous. That's to be expected of any enterprise that's put itself in the public position that YouTube has done. But to possibly not only fail to investigate such inane claims but also acquiesce to them goes so far beyond negligence, that I also cannot but believe that these actions would be criminal in nature also.

As I said before: as a Christian, I don't agree with what the Rational Response Squad stands for. But if what they are saying is true and they are indeed being quashed on YouTube by Creation Science Evangelism Ministries, then I'll give the Rational Response Squad my full support in this matter.

I'll close this post out with an observation using my personal "worst possible epithet for anything". This situation, along with my own and numerous others, proves one thing: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act sucks donkeys balls to no end.

Read More