Godwin's law and the moon hoax

[darren r]

 I personally found many of his views and political leanings to be distasteful (putting it mildly) and reeked of a bitter, narrow-minded man unable to move on with his life.

True enough. His politics were all over the place and clearly the result of pain and anger rather than any deeper reasoning. Although he always struck me as being one of those, perhaps uniquely English, old bigots who could hold terrible views about certain groups of people whilst being unfailingly polite to individual representatives of said groups.

[Luke Pemberton]

Yes and no.  DMCA is different than witnessing a crime.  For one, copyright violation generally is a civil matter and it is my understanding that some specific interest in the infringed material is required to legitimately make a take down request.  OTOH, Google is acting to legally protect itself from a broad based claim of ignoring copyright infringement that could have site wide repercussions for YouTube.  They take a shoot first and ask questions later approach to take downs.  It is a mess that leaves us all at potential risk for legal costs for things we do that were perfectly OK before the DMCA.

That makes sense and is consistent with my memory of a previous discussion. The point about Google acting to protect itself is interesting. If Vincent were to file a DMCA on material that does not belong to him, such as BBC material Jarrah uses, is it possible that YouTube could examine a counter claim from Jarrah but still keep the video down if they assess it to be in violation of the BBC's copyright? As you point out, they wish to protect themselves.

[smartcooky]

Yes and no.  DMCA is different than witnessing a crime.  For one, copyright violation generally is a civil matter and it is my understanding that some specific interest in the infringed material is required to legitimately make a take down request.  OTOH, Google is acting to legally protect itself from a broad based claim of ignoring copyright infringement that could have site wide repercussions for YouTube.  They take a shoot first and ask questions later approach to take downs.  It is a mess that leaves us all at potential risk for legal costs for things we do that were perfectly OK before the DMCA.

That makes sense and is consistent with my memory of a previous discussion. The point about Google acting to protect itself is interesting. If Vincent were to file a DMCA on material that does not belong to him, such as BBC material Jarrah uses, is it possible that YouTube could examine a counter claim from Jarrah but still keep the video down if they assess it to be in violation of the BBC's copyright? As you point out, they wish to protect themselves.

Good answers. Thanks

So in the case of youtube (Google) Vincent is going to be able to act with impunity, because even of he doesn't own the copyright, youtube are going to take the safe route and take it down. Then, even if White makes a counter-claim, he has no standing because he is not the copyright holder either, so the disputed material is likely to stay down.

[raven]

It's still dirty pool, and I don't like it one bit. It only adds fuel to the claims that Apollo Nutters are dishonest shills. I've always felt that if we are to defend Apollo successfully we must be Caesar's wife; above reproach. Engaging in such low and, in this case, illegal tactics is reprehensible in my opinion.

[Luke Pemberton]

Then, even if White makes a counter-claim, he has no standing because he is not the copyright holder either, so the disputed material is likely to stay down.

Not as yet. I understand that all of White's counter claims have been successful, which I am pleased about because Vincent is acting in an irresponsible manner.

[Noldi400]

Yes and no.  DMCA is different than witnessing a crime.  For one, copyright violation generally is a civil matter and it is my understanding that some specific interest in the infringed material is required to legitimately make a take down request.  OTOH, Google is acting to legally protect itself from a broad based claim of ignoring copyright infringement that could have site wide repercussions for YouTube.  They take a shoot first and ask questions later approach to take downs.  It is a mess that leaves us all at potential risk for legal costs for things we do that were perfectly OK before the DMCA.

That makes sense and is consistent with my memory of a previous discussion. The point about Google acting to protect itself is interesting. If Vincent were to file a DMCA on material that does not belong to him, such as BBC material Jarrah uses, is it possible that YouTube could examine a counter claim from Jarrah but still keep the video down if they assess it to be in violation of the BBC's copyright? As you point out, they wish to protect themselves.

Good answers. Thanks

So in the case of youtube (Google) Vincent is going to be able to act with impunity, because even of he doesn't own the copyright, youtube are going to take the safe route and take it down. Then, even if White makes a counter-claim, he has no standing because he is not the copyright holder either, so the disputed material is likely to stay down.

Yes and no, I think.  Jarrah can get Vincent's account terminated - VC's yesiamawizardjohnny YT account is  shut down with the message "This account has been terminated due to repeated or severe violations of our Community Guidelines and/or claims of copyright infringement.", but I honestly don't pay enough attention to those two to know whether that's his current account.

JW has a long history of throwing copyright violation accusations at anyone who shows a portion of one of his videos in order to debunk it - which, as I understand it, a Fair Use of the material - which has led to more than one of these DCMA feuds.  I can't applaud Vincent's tactics or judgment, but I can't work up any sympathy for JW either.

In fairness, I guess I should admit that I probably couldn't generate much sympathy if a meteor fell on him either - although his ego is so inflated it would probably just bounce off (he refrained from commenting about Chang'e 3 because he didn't want the Chinese government to know he was keeping an eye on them? Really? Really?!)

[Luke Pemberton]

It only adds fuel to the claims that Apollo Nutters are dishonest shills.

Precisely. All the hoax sites and videos in the world will never change the fact that 12 men walked on the moon because of the enterprise of 400 000 people. Leaving the hoax material out there only shows the contradictions of their claims. The more claims they make, the more inconsistent their story becomes. White's videos are now a litany of contradictions and errors that he's actually done the hoax theory more harm than good. That takes some doing given the quality of Bill and Ralph's pamphlets. Vincent is pouring fuel on the fire with his actions.

[Glom]

Has anyone been in contact with Vincent since he stopped posting Here?

[Luke Pemberton]

Has anyone been in contact with Vincent since he stopped posting Here?

He's disappeared into the shadows since his proclamation 'I will file all sorts of fraudulent DMCA and TOS violations.' I don't think that many were in contact with him the first place. He can be a bit of a firebrand, but that's just youthful inexperience so I can forgive him for that. Most contacts were tugs on the reins. I hope Vincent is reading this and ceases his DMCA campaign for several reasons.

[JayUtah]

Please excuse my ignorance in this case, but does one actually have to be the owner of a copyright in order to complain about a breach? In legal terms, anyone can report a crime;

I think Jay has posted on this subject before, but I can't remember the thread. I'm sure this debate came up over Jarrah versus Mark Gray.

Anyone can report a crime, but it is actionable only by a designated officer of the court.  A private citizen cannot bring criminal action or compel the state beyond its normal charge of duty to prosecute a crime.

Conversely in a tort, only the injured party himself has standing to bring suit.  A bystander, for example, cannot sue you for negligence because he saw someone slip and fall on your icy front porch.  Nor can the children of a deceased author sue for defamation if a critic libels him post mortem.

Copyright is one of those that is actionable under civil law for most cases, but under criminal law for egregious violations.  In order to commit a criminal violation of copyright law, the infringement has to be willful and for the purpose of commercial gain, among other things.  Infringement per se is not inherently criminal.

[Luke Pemberton]

In order to commit a criminal violation of copyright law, the infringement has to be willful and for the purpose of commercial gain, among other things.

Pirating a pre-release demo of a film for instance? It is probably the same in the US as here in the UK, where films are released to the British Board of Film Classification, film critics and other parties for various promotional reasons. These often find their way into the public domain as pirate copies and are sold at profit. That is certainly a criminal case of copyright infringement. I certainly know from cinema visits that recording a film on video equipment is criminal, the warnings are there for all to see before the certificate is shown and the film rolls.

[ineluki]

He now insinuates that the Chinese space program is faked but declares that the Chang'e 3 soil analysis proves the Apollo missions were faked. Can't have it both ways......

Nice theory, but unfortunately my experience with conspiraholics is different. They will believe anything that goes against a "official" view, without any check if there are any contradictions between the claimed scenarios.

[Noldi400]

  Nor can the children of a deceased author sue for defamation if a critic libels him post mortem.

I believe that when there is an estate that exists as a legal entity, in the case of a major author such as Heinlein or Steinbeck, the estate itself has standing to bring legal action.  Or am I remembering incorrectly?

[Luke Pemberton]

Nice theory, but unfortunately my experience with conspiraholics is different. They will believe anything that goes against a "official" view, without any check if there are any contradictions between the claimed scenarios.

My favourite must be from an ardent hoax devotee who claimed the astronauts would not have traversed the van Allen belts alive, while simultaneously arguing on another thread that Apollo 8 astronauts had to cover up seeing UFOs when they were orbiting the moon.

[Luke Pemberton]

  Nor can the children of a deceased author sue for defamation if a critic libels him post mortem.

I believe that when there is an estate that exists as a legal entity, in the case of a major author such as Heinlein or Steinbeck, the estate itself has standing to bring legal action.  Or am I remembering incorrectly?

An interesting article on Tolkien's estate, albeit the Daily Mail.

Tolkien estate sues