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.
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.
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.
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.
Do u wear that mask so that u don't have to worry about others "voicing their opinion" of you by labeling videos of you that crosses lines, or photoshop you things that "steps on toes" and post it all over the internet. Like they can step on your toes by labeling u fun things with your image? Good arguments. Take of that mask then on your videos sir.
HumanTruth, I see that you feel free to voice your opinion on my page without showing your face--heck, you don't even have any videos up so I can't even see a masked face or here your voice. Does that fact by itself invalidate your opinion?
Whether I wear a mask or not has no bearing on the validity of my opinions. Even if people are unable to Photoshop my face, they can attack me (and my opinions) verbally.
themaskedanalyst-Exactly sir. That is why I think those that are not public, have no right to speak about "freedom" to do anything under guise of free speech to those that are public, while hiding. I think u would agree that a lot of that has been going on. Of course, u don't criticize any of that. But its comforting to criticize those are getting dumped on unfairly, by a lot of people secret, and say its freedom, while U are safe from it. Attacking your opinion verbally...that is the same?
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.
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.
themaskedanalyst-U would block me for a valid point just because u dont like to hear it because there is some hypocrisy. If u think there is no validity in what I said,your "analyst" pseudonym is a misnomer. The masked still holds: You are perfectly safe, as I am, from anybody really trying to cross lines with you. But u think it is ok others that ARE PUBLIC get screwed with extreme attack & lines being crossed, just cause u don't like them. Criticism is not what has been going on.
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.)
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.
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.
BTW sir: Even inmendham has not blocked me (yet) when I criticized him on different times in his videos or say he can be a real ahole when I comment on other's videos. Or when I say he deserves some criticism: Not the BS of some players hiding behind private accounts though or half-idiots(bcj999). Would be real weird if u did when I been respectful huh sir? Too bad, I think the mexican wrestler mask is cool.
I have an idea. YouTube offers a fully identified account for $10/year. You supply your credit card, and YT stores your name and address. When you post, your name is available to the video maker. Video makers can CHOOSE to block commenters (or even viewers) who are not fully identified and so can silence drive-by haters. The incentive for users to pay the $10 is that they get to post on these maker's videos. YT gets a potentially valuable business model.
There's one other thing to make this idea sound. Uploading a video continues to be free but requires submission of a credit card. The uploader still remains anonymous to all but YouTube. This requirement is to hinder users becoming identified, stealing content of a video maker who permits only identified users, and then uploading it under an unidentified account.
You might say this is a violation of fair use principles. I disagree. A copyright holder can lawfully sell/give her content to people who identify themselves to her and require by confidentiality agreement that they do not distribute the content to other persons.
I have no problems with paying youtube $10/year--hey, I'd be in favor of paying them $10/month to post IF they changed the way they implemented the DMCAs in a way that would safeguard us from having to reveal our identity because of bogus complaints.
However, I have real problems with having the person who makes a video getting our docs if we comment on the video. The person making the video may be a psycho who could be pushed over the edge, if, for example, we exposed a fraud on their part.
Presumably you wouldn't subscribe to a person who you think might be a risk of foul play? You would also only reveal your name to the video maker. Your address would be readily available to YouTube in the event that the video maker intended to take legal action against a subscriber. As for "exposing a fraud", you could still do this anonymously (to the video maker but not to YouTube) - just not on the channel of the video maker you're trying to expose.
I don't mean to vilify you for this but remember the false accusation you made on YouTube against the Muslim community? To your credit you apologized swiftly but in general, is an apology enough when someone may have lost their job or been denied a job as a result of an accusation? Perhaps pseudonymity is more practical than pure anonymity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scientology's Fair Game policy is still very active. If it weren't then I don't think ANONYMOUS would be as big as it is. Many of the ANONs I've spoken with seem to have family in the COS or are former members.
The idea that a DMCA complaint becomes valid only if the filer intends to follow it up with a frivolous lawsuit has that special jackassian ring to it that so typical of an Inmendham argument.
Inbredham is the number one coward on YouTube. He's proved it time nad again and I hope when the litigious mother fucker loses his lawsuits and as a result of the countersuits against him winds up living in a dumpster behind his local K-Mart
This has been flagged as spam show
You imply that the church of scientology _isn't_ organized crime?
ZarlanTheGreen 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nice mask dude... lol mr. roboto
JohnRaytheon 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have I told you before that I love the newest mask?
This is the make it or break it case for anonymity.
Zea107 3 years ago
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 3 years ago
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 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Clear and to the point on the DMCA anonymity issues. Thanks great commentary.
ndclark 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You hit Gary right between the eyes with his hypocritical bull. He is a blocking fool. Good Job.
ndclark 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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.
HumanTruth0000 3 years ago
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.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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.
GothicNights 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do u wear that mask so that u don't have to worry about others "voicing their opinion" of you by labeling videos of you that crosses lines, or photoshop you things that "steps on toes" and post it all over the internet. Like they can step on your toes by labeling u fun things with your image? Good arguments. Take of that mask then on your videos sir.
HumanTruth0000 3 years ago
HumanTruth, I see that you feel free to voice your opinion on my page without showing your face--heck, you don't even have any videos up so I can't even see a masked face or here your voice. Does that fact by itself invalidate your opinion?
Whether I wear a mask or not has no bearing on the validity of my opinions. Even if people are unable to Photoshop my face, they can attack me (and my opinions) verbally.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
themaskedanalyst-Exactly sir. That is why I think those that are not public, have no right to speak about "freedom" to do anything under guise of free speech to those that are public, while hiding. I think u would agree that a lot of that has been going on. Of course, u don't criticize any of that. But its comforting to criticize those are getting dumped on unfairly, by a lot of people secret, and say its freedom, while U are safe from it. Attacking your opinion verbally...that is the same?
HumanTruth0000 3 years ago
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.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 3 years ago
I do not block my critics from commenting on my videos--no matter how stupid the comment is. Your comment is proof of this fact.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
themaskedanalyst-U would block me for a valid point just because u dont like to hear it because there is some hypocrisy. If u think there is no validity in what I said,your "analyst" pseudonym is a misnomer. The masked still holds: You are perfectly safe, as I am, from anybody really trying to cross lines with you. But u think it is ok others that ARE PUBLIC get screwed with extreme attack & lines being crossed, just cause u don't like them. Criticism is not what has been going on.
HumanTruth0000 3 years ago
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.)
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BTW sir: Even inmendham has not blocked me (yet) when I criticized him on different times in his videos or say he can be a real ahole when I comment on other's videos. Or when I say he deserves some criticism: Not the BS of some players hiding behind private accounts though or half-idiots(bcj999). Would be real weird if u did when I been respectful huh sir? Too bad, I think the mexican wrestler mask is cool.
HumanTruth0000 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have an idea. YouTube offers a fully identified account for $10/year. You supply your credit card, and YT stores your name and address. When you post, your name is available to the video maker. Video makers can CHOOSE to block commenters (or even viewers) who are not fully identified and so can silence drive-by haters. The incentive for users to pay the $10 is that they get to post on these maker's videos. YT gets a potentially valuable business model.
GoddnRunn 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's one other thing to make this idea sound. Uploading a video continues to be free but requires submission of a credit card. The uploader still remains anonymous to all but YouTube. This requirement is to hinder users becoming identified, stealing content of a video maker who permits only identified users, and then uploading it under an unidentified account.
GoddnRunn 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You might say this is a violation of fair use principles. I disagree. A copyright holder can lawfully sell/give her content to people who identify themselves to her and require by confidentiality agreement that they do not distribute the content to other persons.
GoddnRunn 3 years ago
I have no problems with paying youtube $10/year--hey, I'd be in favor of paying them $10/month to post IF they changed the way they implemented the DMCAs in a way that would safeguard us from having to reveal our identity because of bogus complaints.
However, I have real problems with having the person who makes a video getting our docs if we comment on the video. The person making the video may be a psycho who could be pushed over the edge, if, for example, we exposed a fraud on their part.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Presumably you wouldn't subscribe to a person who you think might be a risk of foul play? You would also only reveal your name to the video maker. Your address would be readily available to YouTube in the event that the video maker intended to take legal action against a subscriber. As for "exposing a fraud", you could still do this anonymously (to the video maker but not to YouTube) - just not on the channel of the video maker you're trying to expose.
GoddnRunn 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't mean to vilify you for this but remember the false accusation you made on YouTube against the Muslim community? To your credit you apologized swiftly but in general, is an apology enough when someone may have lost their job or been denied a job as a result of an accusation? Perhaps pseudonymity is more practical than pure anonymity.
GoddnRunn 3 years ago
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 3 years ago
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 3 years ago
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 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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?
GoddnRunn 3 years ago
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 3 years ago
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 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"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.
TheSpiderMind 3 years ago
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.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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.
GoddnRunn 3 years ago
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 3 years ago
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.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In my opinion....Gary only wants the rules to change in his favor so they make it easier for him to find lawsuit victims and file .
TheYouToobPolice 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Scientology's Fair Game policy is still very active. If it weren't then I don't think ANONYMOUS would be as big as it is. Many of the ANONs I've spoken with seem to have family in the COS or are former members.
bcj999 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gary posted a video response to you, but he's BLOCKED you so you can't post one back?
That is some spineless bullshit. He can have a voice in the conversation, but silences yours?
Kudos for giving him the time of day.
TheThirdRevelation 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great vid
bbugmenott 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The idea that a DMCA complaint becomes valid only if the filer intends to follow it up with a frivolous lawsuit has that special jackassian ring to it that so typical of an Inmendham argument.
OutMendham 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Inbredham is the number one coward on YouTube. He's proved it time nad again and I hope when the litigious mother fucker loses his lawsuits and as a result of the countersuits against him winds up living in a dumpster behind his local K-Mart
ratman1987 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He made a video response to you after blocking you? LOL what a loser.
He did the same thing to Rose Bushy.
theBigTakeover 3 years ago