Added: Jul 4, 2008
From: themaskedanalyst
Duration: 9:5
This is a video response to the "DMCA: Anonymity verses Accountability". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY7tgsogP6MHe posted his video as a response to one of my videos. Yet, he has blocked me, so I won't be able to post my video as a response to his. Pretty pathetic, Inmendham. Pretty pathetic.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is possible to file lawsuits against anonymous defendants, and it is possible for anonymous defendants to defend their anonymity by filing motions to dismiss or motions to quash a subpoena. Here are a few interesting stories involving John Doe lawsuits.http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1174986234526http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070925-video-professor-upset-by-criticism-sues-100-anonymous-critics.htmlhttp://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/12/video_prof03.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/business/main3364365.shtmlhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/24/autoadmit_libel_case/http://www.crn.com/security/208400657--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/07/02/piercing-the-veil-of-anonymous-bloggers/"More fundamentally, in situations where a site does not choose to do any of the above, there is the John Doe subpoena. A complaint that states a reasonable claim against John Doe defendants for unlawful online speech usually will result in a judicial order that a web site or ISP provide available information about the speaker. Generally that information will include at least an IP address, and often the full name and postal address. Such data has been plenty for the recording industry and the government to identify defendants and proceed against them. I predict a similar outcome in the AutoAdmit case. (Indeed, Concurring Opinions' own Frank Pasquale recently found his name in use as a pseudonym for a blogger running a gripe site critical of a health care company; in that case the court has allowed the plaintiff to "pierce the pseudonymous veil" and discover the blogger's identity.) We may need some better procedures for discerning when such "piercing" on the basis of a complaint is appropriate, but I believe this doctrine will develop, just as it did in "corporate veil" cases. In that sense, we are evolving toward a model that allows psudonymity, but rarely true anonymity."-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Church of Scientology has a history of harassing their critics. Would a $10 deposit by one of their members stop other members from harassing a critic whose name was revealed after filing a false DMCA? (Not that I am saying the Church files false DMCAs in order to harass their critics. This is a hypothetical example of what COULD happen—it is not a statement of fact of what HAS happened.)http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Sceintology%20and%20the%20DMCA.htm
Channel: People
Tags: anonymous dmca inmendham lawsuit proposed solutions
Rating: 4.76 (37 ratings) Views: 597' favoriteCount='2 Comments: 30
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - Actually, attacking people verbally usually is much more persuasive than Photoshop jobs--that is if you can present yourself logically and back yourself with evidence. A verbal attack backed with logic and evidence carries far more sting than a Photoshop job.
GothicNights Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - When VIACOM takes over YouTube you won't have to worry about DMCA's you'll have more to worry about being sued for watching a copyrighted video.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - First, I had good circumstantial evidence at the time to make that accusation. I based it on my claim that it was Nick Gisburnes' video on Islamic teachings--a video very critical of Islam, that was the cause of Nick's suspension, and on Youtube's (false and misleading) information presented to Nick that it was pulled because it violated "community guidelines") or some such wording.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - It looked like Nick was the victim of a flagging campaign by someone, based on Youtube's faulty initial statement. The only community who would possibly be offended by that video was the Muslim community. So it was a logical and reasonable conclusion based on Youtube's faulty statement.And yes, I did retract it as soon as I discovered that Youtube's original statement was wrong.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - So yes, I was wrong in that case--but if everyone had to be 100% certain that 100% of the things they said was true, then no one would say anything REMOTELY controversial, and scumbags could get away without fear of exposure. There is a long history of Supreme Court cases going back to NYT v. Sullivan recognizing the need for a breathing room for speech.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - The person who is being sued should have an opportunity to quash that subpoena, and the court should only order that the identifying information be disclosed if it finds that the Plaintiff has a reasonable chance of winning his case. That provides a safeguard against having to give up your docs to someone who files a bullshit suit, while allowing someone who has legitimately been harmed due to defamatory speech to pursue his case in court.
HumanTruth0000 Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - themaskedanalyst-"Bullshit, liar, Stupid "-Calm down sir. My words of u blocking me was more of a thought and general question. I just forgot the question mark. I NEVER said that. "You blocked me" as a direct statement if u check. I said "you would" . And u are extremely disrespectful. Considering I have been. I see where u are coming from on all this. You are not an impartial analyst since u know what I am saying has validity.
HumanTruth0000 Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - themaskedanalyst-BTW I in no way have been attacking u verbally. But I think u trying to counter my point in general? IMHO I think u are wrong on that sir. I get mail BS myself(stings), but that is NOT the same as a person that is public:their city known, name, & them being phototoshop & their picture posted all over, them being labeled things with video titles, by some people that think it is freedom while they do it behind secret accounts. The world is about the visual.
HumanTruth0000 Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - themaskedanalyst-I even said it before that too if u bothered to calm down sir: "would be real weird if u did...when i been respectful". "You would/ would be real weird"-Good job at distracting the issue merely because I bring up a valid point u don't like to hear because it makes u a hypocrite. You & I are perfectly safe from anybody messing with us unfairly: verbal comment is nothing.But u hide behind mask thinking cool for those public get all freedom fun by those secret or just idiots.
HumanTruth0000 Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - PS sir. I saw your photoshop video.U are completely uninformed & have no idea how bcj99 is trying to change what he did & that it is about bullying now. bcj999 had video titled "inmendham holocaust denier" for week.Ask around.He photoshop the picture,posted in conjuction. He also was loving inmendham after jonesr999 blockings since he admits he 5star him way after that without watching vids.He did not even know about virtualholocaust until told.He is pretending now for freedom & bullying,lol.
GoddnRunn Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - The cases you have cited in this and previous comments concern public figures. In your view when does a YT video maker become a public figure?
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - That is an EXCELLENT question! And unfortunately, it would take way too long to answer in the comments section. Let's just note for now: 1) Truth is an absolute defense whether we are talking about a public or private figure.2) If we are talking about a private figure, the defendant may still make erroneous statements and be protected, depending on the circumstances. The plaintiff would have to prove AT LEAST NEGLIGENCE on the part of the defendant before winning a libel suit.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - Each state is allowed to adopt its own fault standard of what the Plaintiff must prove before winning a libel case. Most states make the plaintiff prove the statement was made negligently--others set the bar higher. A few states treat private and public figures alike in that they require a showing of Actual Malice.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - A person may become a limited (or vortex) public figure if he has access to the media and he has thrust himself into a controversy. Say someone with access to the media has thrust himself into a controversy over issue X. If someone else makes a defamatory statement about this person in relation to issue X, then that person will probably be ruled a public figure. This deserves a LOT more attention than I can devote in the comments section.
TheSpiderMind Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - "A few states treat private and public figures alike in that they require a showing of Actual Malice."The malice requirement is an accommodation to the Constitutional protections of free speech-- all state laws must take this into account when dealing with defamation pertaining to public figures. If they do not, they are subject to being overturned by the Courts. It's really the constitutional analysis that sets the rules here, and the state common law and statutes must reflect that.
GoddnRunn Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - Would be interesting to know what the courts in 2008 consider to be "the media" in the era of YouTube-like services. Was probably very well-understood what "the media" meant to everyone when the voices of newspaper, radio and television oligopolies were ubiquitous.
ndclark Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - You hit Gary right between the eyes with his hypocritical bull. He is a blocking fool. Good Job.
ndclark Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - Clear and to the point on the DMCA anonymity issues. Thanks great commentary.
Zea107 Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - Have I told you before that I love the newest mask?This is the make it or break it case for anonymity.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - Thanks Zea. I've seen Inmendham's complaint and I don't think his case is going to get out of the starting block--at least not in its present form. He is certainly not going to be able to pierce anyone's anonymity with his complaint as currently written.Of course, he is guaranteed at least one shot at amending his complaint to strengthen his case. The Court may give him more than one opportunity to amend, but that is at the Court's discretion.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - Based on the quality of the original complaint, I have my doubts about Inmendham's ability to sufficiently modify the complaint so that a Court will order the piercing of anonymity.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - I am GUESSING that the courts would look at Youtube as a Media. And we all have more or less equal access to this media. Some of us have more access to it because we have more subscribers--but all our videos are indexed so they will show up on searches.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - In this particular instance, anyone who cared about this matter and was aware of bcj's or jonesr's defamatory statements about Inmendham would be able to see Inmendham's videos and hear his side of the argument. So it seems he has sufficient access to the media to meet this part of the test for determining who is a public figure.
JohnRaytheon Says:
Jul 7, 2008 - nice mask dude... lol mr. roboto
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - You write: "themaskedanalyst-U would block me for a valid point just because u dont like to hear it because there is some hypocrisy."BULLSHIT!!! The fact that you are still allowed to post shows that you are a LIAR. I do not block people for that--(not that any of your points are valid, but even if you act like a blithering idiot, I will let you spew forth your stupidity--and others can see it for what it is--stupidity.)