i find it this highly arrogant no mortal could ever no the deep awnsers to life i dont know if there is a god but i dont have an ego big enough to claim to have it all figured out if you claim you know there is no god you are an idiot whos thinking will never be on an elevated level einstein is alot smarter than you people and he believed in a higher power
Who ever made this video has only a one track mind before the existance of space time the creation of the atom was essential to the big bang the fact that our universe contains laws like gravity and the expansion with dark matter should be proof of a god scientist agree the set order and the fact that the universe follows mathmatics to a tee is bafeling some one had to make these laws some thing had to use math to create it it is easy to imagine a disordered universe wer no laws are present
Ah, I see everyone has been schooled by your acute knowledge of an incredibly large number of scientific areas of study, MrCameron34...
Why not enrol in an English Language course, just to get you up to scratch. Then, go to college, get a science/mathematics degree, and follow it with a PhD. Once you've achieved this, you should at least have some clue of the general consensus of scientists on a number of topics, and will perhaps say something which occasionally is factually accurate.
@BlindPacemaker I assume this is a joke. Your English is absolutely abysmal, as I have demonstrated many, many times. Even in your first sentence you abuse the ellipsis. However, on this rare occasion, someone else's English was somewhat poorer than yours.
@BlindPacemaker You're correct. It was terrible English. Open a book. Read a page. Tell me how many ellipses you see, and how many resemble your abuse. Answer: None.
@electroexecutee Are you claiming that never, at any point in time, in any book written, has an ellipsis been used in this manner? Please, tell me this is what your claiming...
@BlindPacemaker Is that what I claimed? Read my post again, very slowly. How many resemble Y O U R A B U S E?
For someone who claims to be a scientist, you're absolute abortion. What do your foster parents think? They must be so disappointed. You should seriously consider killing yourself. You have nothing to offer society, and society is above you. Go on, get it over and done with. Then I can crap on your grave, which would be very fitting.
Male & female have been created to make couples & give birth to their young ones. Mother and father love their young ones giving them the lesson to love humanity. But when this law is violated originating bastards community end result in the form of wildest form of man is being observed. Peace love harmony & humanity are disappearing at a fast pace from the earth violating the nature making way for earthquakes, sea storms & destruction of mankind by man & mother nature in the worst possible way.
I'm a Christian too, and I have no affiliation to Kent Hovind, or Richard Dawkins, I just choose my own beliefs and make my own conclusions. Neither youtube scientists, or fanatics in the scientific community or religious community influence my life.
Well you can't figure out everything by yourself. Humans aren't that smart. So you need to constantly learn from others, and let others influence you. The freedom of thought you're talking about isn't a positive thing imo.
Allowing comments is one thing, as that implies that the comments will be posted without moderation. However, going through and deleting comments that aren't spam or trolling comments simply because you don't like what they have to say is censorship. I believe that is the allegation being made.
Right. Illustra Media produced "Case for a Creator", based on Lee Strobel's book and also featuring him as a speaker. Eternal Productions produced "A Question of Origins".
Sorry but even though I'm an atheist and I despise creationism, I won't support ExtantDodo because he censors the commens on his videos and channel. This is unacceptable, and hypocritical. Sorry, but I support him being banned.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually that is censorship. If he wants to post videos criticizing Kent Hovind, then it would be wrong of him to block users from expressing their views on his videos and channels.
^a rare species thought to be extinct on the internet... naiveteus gulliblus. has never seen forums destroyed by mods who believed no one should ever be banned/blocked. good luck with that dude. btw posting on a private site is a privilege, not a right. i hope you never meet a real troll...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nope. There's a difference between trolling and expressing opinions and views. I guess you are too dumb to realize that. In any case, ExtantDodo deserves to remain banned, and I won't support restoring his account.
Calling people dumb because they don't agree weakens your point. Earlier you said "censors comments on his channel". You gave the strong impression deleting comments for ANY reason was censorship. You sound like a "concern troll".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I honestly don't care. If you are too stupid to understand basic English, then by definition you are a moron. Sorry, but you are too stupid to talk to. ExtantDodo deserves to be banned. Don't like it? Go run in a corner and cry about it. Nuff said.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sorry kid. But if you are butt hurt over someone in the internet then you have some serious psychological problems that need working out. I feel sorry for you. You're an angry little boy.
Has anyone seen the nonsense that VFX is preaching regarding the 5 senses and reasoning? That video clearly fails on multiple levels with his demonstrations of flawed logical thinking. I posted a few comments but he deleted them and he also blocked the ratings for that video.
Are there any suspects regarding ExtantDodo's account suspension?
I would certainly be willing to share what I know and have learned with ED. Question is: will they listen? I mean, look at what they said following the AiG DMCA. Like then, they'll probably deny all fault and point the finger at creationists.
And any hope of avoiding future DMCAs would require that they remove most of their videos, including probably all in the "Critical Analysis" series, and re-engineer how they go about making their rebuttals. Will they be willing to do that? Probably not.
The bottom line on the creationists is that they feel free to engage in pious deception and when called on it want to wail, "persecution!" These copyright violation claims are as ridiculous as their god claims. It's just another attempt to silence the voices of rationality.
The law says no less than 10 *business* days after the counter-claim is filed. It was filed on Nov 20, and 10 business days would mean tomorrow (Dec 4) if it wasn't for the Thanksgiving holiday. The earliest they'll be reinstated I believe is Monday (Dec 8), with next Friday being the latest.
That would be the case about Gerald Ford's memoirs you mentioned earlier.
Yes the case is strong for ED's use being academic criticism, but even then there are still limits on how much can be used.
I just finished analyzing the "Case for a Creator" rebuttal, and it's safe to say he reproduces the *entire* video in that. Remove his rebuttal frames and you have the original video virtually in its entirety.
Again, that is not fair use, academic criticism or not.
If you are claiming ExtantDodo reproduced entire videos and critiqued then you are wrong.
ExtantDodo has highlighted important PORTIONS of videos to critique their substantive claims. He cuts out the banter and deals with specific arguments.
And that is fair use.
If the creationists don't like their videos criticized then they shouldn't make asinine claims.
Using the phrase "entire video" is incorrect, and I should've used, and have used, the phrase "substantial majority" which more fits.
But they didn't "highlight important portions". Analyzing the CA-WotM episode, they used about 21 minutes of a >28 minute episode in their debunk. They reproduced 75% of the original episode. You cannot possibly say that is fair use.
No. There were two DMCAs filed by two production companies: Illustra Media and Eternal Productions. AW posted that on an annotation pop-up shortly into this video.
Did you skip over the stipulations about amount and substance of the portion used? It's that alone that erases virtually any case ED may have had.
You're right that what's happened establishes a pattern in people's minds, and it's caused people to overlook the details and make assumptions. AW assumed "foul play", tf00t said the claims were "bogus", and it's doubtless that ED is thinking the same thing.
If you're gonna accuse creationists of logical fallacies, don't use them yourself.
I believe ExD have a strong case personally. Reproducing even the entire video for critical analysis I would argue is fair enough, provided it doesn't damage sales. EP sell the material, but also make it available online for free, so ExD are not damaging their sales.
Since ED's vids are critical, the effect they have on sales or the market is inapplicable to a finding of fair use.
Again, the use of the entirety of a copyrighted audiovisual work to make a derivative work has never been upheld as fair use. And it arguably never will because of the flood gates it opens.
And one other thing to consider: did ED need to use the entire video? I would argue that he did not. He could have made his points just as easily without reproducing the entire original video.
Some might be, but not all are. Taking VFX's actions, or CSE's actions, and claiming all creationists are like that is a logical fallacy unto itself.
And the unfortunate thing is that this is exactly what appears to be happening. The assumption is being made that these DMCAs cannot be valid without actually seeing whether they just might be.
Now if they call you a censor, and that causes damage to your reputation, then yes, you might have a claim for libel. For it to be libel, your reputation has to be damaged in a demonstrable way. That's to prevent you from suing for libel everyone who calls you a jackass.
One thing to remember, fair use is a *defense*, something to be employed after a claim has been made. So if you use someone else's work in your own, they can legally claim copyright infringement and it's not perjurious. And it's also your prerogative to prove fair use, not theirs to disprove it.
There was recently a decision at the District Court level, however, that would require fair use be taken into account before a copyright claim is made. Here's to hoping it becomes universal.
Perjury requires that the statement you make be knowingly false -- i.e. you are lying, you know that you are lying, and you are still lying anyway. And perjury requires that *someone else* prove that a particular person knew they were lying when they made a particular statement.
Libel is causing foreseeable harm to someone by publishing defaming or misleading statements. So them screaming censorship back at you is not libel.
Okay I've sent in my complaint using the text provided.
This sort of thing really is absolutely proof that creationists know what they're preaching is a lie. Ken Ham seems to only feel comfortable brainwashing children. What a vile, unprincipled man he seems to be.
To paraphrase Bill Hicks: when are these supposed followers of Jesus going to demonstrate their humility and compassion by turning the other check? Not ever! They're all in for the money and nothing else.
I fail to comprehend how it's absolute proof. An organization that produces a creationist video is asserting their copyright against someone they believe has breached the limited room of fair use.
When did asserting your copyright against someone who's essentially copied your video without your permission become equated with censorship?
Do you 'really' believe it's a copyright issue? I find that incredulous. Do these people file complaints against Christians using clips: I bet they don't. Have you heard Ken Ham's demented talks where he brainwashes children into doubting science? The reason the videos are taken down is because the creationists are frightened these videos could give YouTube users (eps younger users) information which could make them come to question their belief in a 'loving' Creator.
Here you're wrong. thunderf00t HAS had DMCAs used against him. And you can NEVER violate copyright for Kent Hovind because he does not HAVE a copyright, and he states that at the beginning of all of his videos!
But we're not talking about that. Those were examples being demonstrated, not arguments employed.
The argument is that in the case of ED's latest suspension, individuals are assuming that the DMCAs filed against ED cannot be valid, possibly based on the previous actions of CSE and VFX, without looking into the facts.
These must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, meaning the previous actions of VFX and Hovind's group don't apply to what's happened with ED.
Good point. I've been looking through his videos, and I'm not certain, but I'm pretty damn sure Lee Strobel's work is copyrighted (cuz he's a cheap lawyer bastard).
I just came from the tf00t fiasco, and Hovind's son has tried the false DMCA's sooo many times, it would be more likely at first glance that it was just ilegitimate (and extremely illegal) action. So, even though we can't really tell at this point, there's logical grounds to assume either.
This sort of thing happens far too often, far too easily - people simply silence those they dislike or disagree with by filing false DMCA reports. the people filed against then have to spend time filing counterclaims, waiting, and giving out personal info to get their account back up - just in time to have another false DMCA filed against them, taking it back down.
Youtube needs some kind of safeguard to ensure that DMCA reports filed are for actual cases of copyright infringement.
'This time it was Eternal Productions filing over A Question of Origins. The counter notice was forwarded to them earlier today; so, we should be back in about a week and a half.'
Well-made, sir. You have my undying compliments for making such a video. Here's to hoping that this particular video gets featured (No matter how unlikely) so this signal can be propagated further.
By the way, this is the first video of yours I've watched, and I have one minor note to put forward: Cool accent. :)
Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.
ED seems to fit 3 of those nicely.
The big thing against them is volume used and detracting to the value of the copyrighted material. Though if factually disproving BS is wrong then this country is messed up.
I would like to ask a question to Andromedaswake: Do you have any comments on the fascinating repeating nature of the universe,eg. quasars w/ electron density clouds in atoms? I'm NOT a creationist although I 'like' chaos theory stuff, pattern detection etc.
cont/ NB. Wild inferences must not be made via these generalised patterns. The laws of nature should not be guessed! Speculation/hypothesese are o.k. as long as labelled as such.
I then contacted the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), NCSE (National Center for Science Education), EFF (Electronic Frontiers Foundation) and EFA (Electronic Frontiers Australia)
I hate to say it, but the copyright claim is legitimate. As I've argued, they have a valid claim against the video; in this instance you just happen to be a distributor of it. The fact that ED gave you permission to upload the video to your channel does not make you immune to copyright claims from other parties against the content of the video.
And I'm sure you're not going to be the only one getting DMCA claims for mirroring ED' videos.
I have a "good faith" belief that I have received approval from the copyright holder of "A critical analysis of A Question Of Origins". This is enough for me to file a DMCA counter claim without committing perjury.
This is only stage 1 of this process. Stage 2 involves an injuction in the district court. It is now up to Eternal Productions to commence action within the next 10 days if they firmly believe that the ED critical analysis is not covered by "fair use". If the vids are reinstated...
o hey. dude. WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR SERIES!!! I WANT WELCOMETOTHEUNIVERSE NOW!!! iv been waiting for fucking AGES!! your videos kick fucking ass but its been so long since you made any. if you are still a long way off from releasing ep 1 (thank satan you dont live in NZ or you would be hostage forced to make riveting videos for the rest of your days) then please point me to some other really good astronomy channels. im desperate.
Instead of screaming censorship, has anyone (besides me) thought that there might actually be legitimate copyright concerns? I mean ED basically reproduces the *entirety* of a video within his own, and we're not talking about a two minute video, more like *an hour*.
Fair use gives you only so much room, and ED vastly exceeded the room that is available. That's why he got nailed three times prior, and it's why he got nailed again.
If the first DMCA claim had been legitimate, they would have only got nailed once.
If the second had been legit, they would have only got nailed twice.
The fact that they have now got nailed four times in no way lends support to the idea that ED have done anything wrong. In fact, the repeated success of the counter-filings says the opposite; the DMCA is being abused to silence them.
ED filing a counter-claim and getting the account re-instated makes no statement to the legitimacy of the claim. It means that whoever filed the DMCA did not provide notice to YouTube within the required 10 days after receiving the counter-claim that it will be pursued in Court.
For all we know, the claims could still be pursued in Court. The claimer has 3 years to do so from the day they filed the claim with YT, regardless of whether his account is re-instated.
That's the law, but I'm not arguing about the law, I'm pointing out a logical sequence.
Whilst there is a 3 year window, I'm sure the Axis of Idiocy would have taken it to court as soon as possible rather than simply repeat their DMCA filings in a way that blatantly suggests they're hoping those they try to censor with it will just give up. There is also the issue that a DMCA is filed under pain of perjury. Answers in Magic don't want a judge pointing it out publicly to them.
Are creationists not allowed to assert their copyrights? I've pointed out that ED essentially reproduces a video within its own in its entirety, which is a violation of copyright and *not* fair use. That is being asserted against ED by numerous parties because he violated the copyrights of numerous parties. If he has his account reinstated again, there might even be more filings because his videos will once again be available.
It isn't enough to say that this is not fair use. Explain how it is not. Kent Hovind's videos were by his own word in them copyright free and his organisation suddenly thought they could impose pre-conditions on this after it was already in the public domain.
Answers in Genesis videos are frequently mirrored on Christian sites without problems. Ken Ham's minions can easily be shown to be not acting in good faith.
I've already explained several times how what ED has done for his vids isn't fair use. In all actuality, however, it's ED who once again has to defend why he feels his use is fair use.
"[AiG] videos are frequently mirrored on Christian sites without problems."
They could have received prior permission, unless you can show they did not. Plus arguing selective enforcement will get you nowhere. That's like telling a cop he should be looking for a killer when you get nailed for speeding.
That analogy only works if there is a murderer doing some murdering in plain sight of said cop. The point was that bad faith on the part of the creationists can be demonstrated. Whilst it is possible creationist websites have permission, the sheer number of replicants makes me think it isn't likely in most cases.
I've scrolled up and read through all the comments, I can't find where in this thread at least you explain how ED has breached fair use, only that they used too much of a video.
Exactly. That means that his use doesn't qualify as fair use, and therefore infringes on a copyright.
"That analogy only works..."
Bad analogy actually, I'll admit. A better analogy would be an officer pulling over one speeder on the freeway after many have already gone by, as that is a clear example of selective enforcement.
From my perspective it's beyond obvious, but I've also studied copyright law extensively so I have a good idea of what is and is not fair use.
Using an entire work or a substantial majority of it without the permission of the copyright holder to create what is obviously a derivative work has *never* been upheld as fair use.
This is why I will again say that ED does not have much of a legal leg to stand on.
Need to make a mild correction to the second paragraph. It should say:
Using an entire audiovisual work (meaning video) or a substantial majority of it without the permission of the copyright holder to create what is obviously a derivative work has *never* been upheld as fair use.
I can't believe I'm saying this again, but here goes: the two DMCAs that resulted in ED's latest suspension were *not* filed by Creation Science Evangelism, and were not filed against videos that aimed to debunk Hovind's videos.
Kent Hovind says in his videos "none of the materials [...] are copyrighted, so feel free to copy these and distribute them freely." Filing DMCAs concerning material released in the public domain to silence the critics is dubious
Except it wasn't Creation Science Evangelism who filed this latest batch of DMCAs. To my knowledge, they filed only one against ED. The production group behind Way of the Master filed one as well, if I recall correctly, and I don't know who filed the third, though it seems to be asserted it was Answers in Genesis.
I suggest you watch this video by Thunderf00t: /watch?v=8TzmkjXuRcY
As you can see, on each video there is a disclaimer saying that says the videos are not copyrighted. It says the same thing about the videos on their website. Kent Hovind actually says they are not copyrighted on the videos.
They waived the copyright on these videos, that is what makes their actions so sickening. They are not filing the DMCAs because of copyright, they are doing so because ExtantDodo disagrees with them.
I suggest you rewatch this video so you can see who filed the two latest DMCAs against ED. It wasn't Hovind's group, it was Illustra Media and Eternal Productions, who have a copyright on their videos, Case for a Creator and A Question of Origins, respectively, and are asserting it against ED by filing the claims in accordance with 17 USC 512.
Are creationists not allowed to assert their copyrights?
Apologies for my claims, I can see now that an annotation was added to the video showing who filed the DMCA this time.
I still stand by my claim that these organisations are wrong in filing the DMCAs. Three times ED has been suspended in the past for the same reason and in all occasions the groups did not respond to the counter-notice put forth by ED.
If these people really feel like they have a valid copyright claim, why wont they respond to the counter-notice?
Respond how? What do you expect them to do? Send an e-mail to ED saying with further copyright arguments?
The next step beyond the notice and counter-notice is for the one who filed the DMCA to petition the Court for injunctive relief. There isn't any response to the counter-notice to be given other than to serve ED with Court papers. Which if they exercise that option (they still can), we won't know unless ED passes along the news.
That's my point, in the three times this has happened in the past it never went any further than the counter-notice.
If these groups truly thought that their copyright was being infringed upon then they could file the court order to stop the videos being restored and take ED to court for filing a false counter-notice.
But they don't do that. Maybe they will this time, but if history is anything to go by then ED will be back in a week.
You make it sound like getting a court order is a simple process. It's far from it, and it's expensive as well. Court costs and court dates, filing fees, lawyer expenses, and other expenses.
Unless whoever filed the DMCA feels there is something to gain by pursuing it in Court, they probably will just avoid the expense. However if ED repeatedly violates copyrights of the same organization, then they'll probably go forward through the Court.
i did look the only thing they could get nailed on is volume used and detracting from the value of the Copyrighted work but what criticism wouldn't detract from the value of the work when the criticism is debunking BS with facts. Plus criticism and teaching have already been decided to be within fair use.
The CR holders have every right to try and claim infringement though.
They will NOT take notice. This has been happening for at least 2 years and there have been law suits against YouTube over account discrimination. They don't care. They will never care. It's time to build a new YouTube that cares about its customers.
File a counter notification. Then should try to sue for the censorship. Youtube know the system is easy to exploit, remember the election fiasco, basically they do not give a shit. Someone needs to go after and make an example of someone who is abusing the DMCA.
Message sent. Hope that it helps, and as an aside, may I just say to any and all who think that censorship is a legitimate means of promoting their own opinions, all you are actually doing is exposing just how flimsy your apparent position is.
Message sent to Youtube. There needs to be some consequences for those who abuse the DMCA system. My patience for Youtube's "guilty until proven innocent" stance on intellectual property is wearing thin.
sent and done...perhaps creating multiple Extantdodo mirrors to post the videos would work? the more accounts there are, the more people they would have to silence...
andromeda do you know where extantdodo is? they made amazing videos
evb4mvp 1 year ago
ExtantDodo were self-admitted Satanists. The moron who is narrating this video is an oblivious Nazi.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
@waketheoblivious
As always, your an idiot.
Feralus69 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Samples of EVOLUTION "Missing Link" Science Fiction SORCERY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Orce Man, 1982, 4 mo. old Donkey Bone
- Nebraska Man, 1922, discarded Pig's Tooth
- Piltdown Man, 1913-53, planted manufactured HOAX
- Lucy, 1974 unsupportable
- ida, 2009, classification unsupportable
- Colored Moths fraudulent conclusions
- ect, ect, ect ...... planted frauds and insupportable bullshit
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
i find it this highly arrogant no mortal could ever no the deep awnsers to life i dont know if there is a god but i dont have an ego big enough to claim to have it all figured out if you claim you know there is no god you are an idiot whos thinking will never be on an elevated level einstein is alot smarter than you people and he believed in a higher power
MrCameron34 2 years ago
Who ever made this video has only a one track mind before the existance of space time the creation of the atom was essential to the big bang the fact that our universe contains laws like gravity and the expansion with dark matter should be proof of a god scientist agree the set order and the fact that the universe follows mathmatics to a tee is bafeling some one had to make these laws some thing had to use math to create it it is easy to imagine a disordered universe wer no laws are present
MrCameron34 2 years ago
Ah, I see everyone has been schooled by your acute knowledge of an incredibly large number of scientific areas of study, MrCameron34...
Why not enrol in an English Language course, just to get you up to scratch. Then, go to college, get a science/mathematics degree, and follow it with a PhD. Once you've achieved this, you should at least have some clue of the general consensus of scientists on a number of topics, and will perhaps say something which occasionally is factually accurate.
BlindPacemaker 2 years ago
@BlindPacemaker I assume this is a joke. Your English is absolutely abysmal, as I have demonstrated many, many times. Even in your first sentence you abuse the ellipsis. However, on this rare occasion, someone else's English was somewhat poorer than yours.
electroexecutee 1 year ago
@electroexecutee My use of the ellipsis was not poor English.
BlindPacemaker 1 year ago
@BlindPacemaker You're correct. It was terrible English. Open a book. Read a page. Tell me how many ellipses you see, and how many resemble your abuse. Answer: None.
electroexecutee 1 year ago
@electroexecutee Are you claiming that never, at any point in time, in any book written, has an ellipsis been used in this manner? Please, tell me this is what your claiming...
=)
BlindPacemaker 1 year ago
@BlindPacemaker Is that what I claimed? Read my post again, very slowly. How many resemble Y O U R A B U S E?
For someone who claims to be a scientist, you're absolute abortion. What do your foster parents think? They must be so disappointed. You should seriously consider killing yourself. You have nothing to offer society, and society is above you. Go on, get it over and done with. Then I can crap on your grave, which would be very fitting.
electroexecutee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Male & female have been created to make couples & give birth to their young ones. Mother and father love their young ones giving them the lesson to love humanity. But when this law is violated originating bastards community end result in the form of wildest form of man is being observed. Peace love harmony & humanity are disappearing at a fast pace from the earth violating the nature making way for earthquakes, sea storms & destruction of mankind by man & mother nature in the worst possible way.
yahoovisitor 2 years ago
I'm a Christian too, and I have no affiliation to Kent Hovind, or Richard Dawkins, I just choose my own beliefs and make my own conclusions. Neither youtube scientists, or fanatics in the scientific community or religious community influence my life.
Now that is freedom of THOUGHT
primitiveUFO 3 years ago
Well you can't figure out everything by yourself. Humans aren't that smart. So you need to constantly learn from others, and let others influence you. The freedom of thought you're talking about isn't a positive thing imo.
LunarPoet 3 years ago 7
I'm a Christian...I love watching ExtantDodo, Thunderf00t, and DonExodus. Great information on those vids.
And thank you andromedaswake for posting.
workingclasstheist 3 years ago 17
ExtantDodo is back on Youtube. Woo Hoo!
unixhead101 3 years ago
His videos are set to allow comments. Just keep in mind there is a line between blocking spam and censorship
knight1b 3 years ago
Allowing comments is one thing, as that implies that the comments will be posted without moderation. However, going through and deleting comments that aren't spam or trolling comments simply because you don't like what they have to say is censorship. I believe that is the allegation being made.
brandishwar 3 years ago
I'm getting tired of this shit! Four times!
exo0O 3 years ago
If what EnigmaHood says is true, I urge ExtantDodo to open up the comments section of their page (when reinstated) to ALL dissent.
Dumbasses have a way of showing themselves as such.
Hate Speech?... Well, Even I draw the line there.
DodoJesusDiedForYou 3 years ago
Right. Illustra Media produced "Case for a Creator", based on Lee Strobel's book and also featuring him as a speaker. Eternal Productions produced "A Question of Origins".
brandishwar 3 years ago
Sorry but even though I'm an atheist and I despise creationism, I won't support ExtantDodo because he censors the commens on his videos and channel. This is unacceptable, and hypocritical. Sorry, but I support him being banned.
EnigmaHood 3 years ago
Thats not censorship. We all get to decide what comments we want on our videos and channels.
seraph2211 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually that is censorship. If he wants to post videos criticizing Kent Hovind, then it would be wrong of him to block users from expressing their views on his videos and channels.
EnigmaHood 3 years ago
^a rare species thought to be extinct on the internet... naiveteus gulliblus. has never seen forums destroyed by mods who believed no one should ever be banned/blocked. good luck with that dude. btw posting on a private site is a privilege, not a right. i hope you never meet a real troll...
expectusagain 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nope. There's a difference between trolling and expressing opinions and views. I guess you are too dumb to realize that. In any case, ExtantDodo deserves to remain banned, and I won't support restoring his account.
EnigmaHood 3 years ago
Calling people dumb because they don't agree weakens your point. Earlier you said "censors comments on his channel". You gave the strong impression deleting comments for ANY reason was censorship. You sound like a "concern troll".
trinity12357 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I honestly don't care. If you are too stupid to understand basic English, then by definition you are a moron. Sorry, but you are too stupid to talk to. ExtantDodo deserves to be banned. Don't like it? Go run in a corner and cry about it. Nuff said.
EnigmaHood 3 years ago
My mistake. Not a "concern troll". Just a troll.
trinity12357 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry kid. But if you are butt hurt over someone in the internet then you have some serious psychological problems that need working out. I feel sorry for you. You're an angry little boy.
EnigmaHood 3 years ago
Has anyone seen the nonsense that VFX is preaching regarding the 5 senses and reasoning? That video clearly fails on multiple levels with his demonstrations of flawed logical thinking. I posted a few comments but he deleted them and he also blocked the ratings for that video.
Are there any suspects regarding ExtantDodo's account suspension?
xavierartorivs 3 years ago
AW did have them posted in a video annotation. Two DMCAs this time apparently: one by Illustra Media, the other by Eternal Productions.
brandishwar 3 years ago
I would certainly be willing to share what I know and have learned with ED. Question is: will they listen? I mean, look at what they said following the AiG DMCA. Like then, they'll probably deny all fault and point the finger at creationists.
And any hope of avoiding future DMCAs would require that they remove most of their videos, including probably all in the "Critical Analysis" series, and re-engineer how they go about making their rebuttals. Will they be willing to do that? Probably not.
brandishwar 3 years ago
DONE!
vassekb 3 years ago
I have just reported the problem by using the link and filling out the form, asking for ExtantDodo's return.
KaseyAkira 3 years ago
The bottom line on the creationists is that they feel free to engage in pious deception and when called on it want to wail, "persecution!" These copyright violation claims are as ridiculous as their god claims. It's just another attempt to silence the voices of rationality.
Kafir014 3 years ago 2
why isnt extant dodo back yet?
11mc22 3 years ago
The law says no less than 10 *business* days after the counter-claim is filed. It was filed on Nov 20, and 10 business days would mean tomorrow (Dec 4) if it wasn't for the Thanksgiving holiday. The earliest they'll be reinstated I believe is Monday (Dec 8), with next Friday being the latest.
brandishwar 3 years ago
That would be the case about Gerald Ford's memoirs you mentioned earlier.
Yes the case is strong for ED's use being academic criticism, but even then there are still limits on how much can be used.
I just finished analyzing the "Case for a Creator" rebuttal, and it's safe to say he reproduces the *entire* video in that. Remove his rebuttal frames and you have the original video virtually in its entirety.
Again, that is not fair use, academic criticism or not.
brandishwar 3 years ago
brandishwar,
If you are claiming ExtantDodo reproduced entire videos and critiqued then you are wrong.
ExtantDodo has highlighted important PORTIONS of videos to critique their substantive claims. He cuts out the banter and deals with specific arguments.
And that is fair use.
If the creationists don't like their videos criticized then they shouldn't make asinine claims.
g12er 3 years ago
Using the phrase "entire video" is incorrect, and I should've used, and have used, the phrase "substantial majority" which more fits.
But they didn't "highlight important portions". Analyzing the CA-WotM episode, they used about 21 minutes of a >28 minute episode in their debunk. They reproduced 75% of the original episode. You cannot possibly say that is fair use.
brandishwar 3 years ago
did PCS file the complaints?
nihilusmaster 3 years ago
No. There were two DMCAs filed by two production companies: Illustra Media and Eternal Productions. AW posted that on an annotation pop-up shortly into this video.
brandishwar 3 years ago
Did you skip over the stipulations about amount and substance of the portion used? It's that alone that erases virtually any case ED may have had.
You're right that what's happened establishes a pattern in people's minds, and it's caused people to overlook the details and make assumptions. AW assumed "foul play", tf00t said the claims were "bogus", and it's doubtless that ED is thinking the same thing.
If you're gonna accuse creationists of logical fallacies, don't use them yourself.
brandishwar 3 years ago
I believe ExD have a strong case personally. Reproducing even the entire video for critical analysis I would argue is fair enough, provided it doesn't damage sales. EP sell the material, but also make it available online for free, so ExD are not damaging their sales.
AndromedasWake 3 years ago
Since ED's vids are critical, the effect they have on sales or the market is inapplicable to a finding of fair use.
Again, the use of the entirety of a copyrighted audiovisual work to make a derivative work has never been upheld as fair use. And it arguably never will because of the flood gates it opens.
And one other thing to consider: did ED need to use the entire video? I would argue that he did not. He could have made his points just as easily without reproducing the entire original video.
brandishwar 3 years ago
Fair use also covers any educational use, and debunking creotard nonsense can definitely be classified as education.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
Fair use has its limitations on how much you can use, regardless of the use. Fair use does not mean free rein.
brandishwar 3 years ago
I'm sorry, I meant libel and slander, as they go hand in hand and I assumed that was the topic...
...and it looks like I misunderstood what you were saying. It was clarified in a later cont'd
Muchodelcrazy 3 years ago
Some might be, but not all are. Taking VFX's actions, or CSE's actions, and claiming all creationists are like that is a logical fallacy unto itself.
And the unfortunate thing is that this is exactly what appears to be happening. The assumption is being made that these DMCAs cannot be valid without actually seeing whether they just might be.
brandishwar 3 years ago
(...cont)
Now if they call you a censor, and that causes damage to your reputation, then yes, you might have a claim for libel. For it to be libel, your reputation has to be damaged in a demonstrable way. That's to prevent you from suing for libel everyone who calls you a jackass.
brandishwar 3 years ago
One thing to remember, fair use is a *defense*, something to be employed after a claim has been made. So if you use someone else's work in your own, they can legally claim copyright infringement and it's not perjurious. And it's also your prerogative to prove fair use, not theirs to disprove it.
There was recently a decision at the District Court level, however, that would require fair use be taken into account before a copyright claim is made. Here's to hoping it becomes universal.
(cont...)
brandishwar 3 years ago
Just filled in the complaint..... I hope enough people did the same.
TijuSujiT 3 years ago
You've completely misrepresented perjury and libel.
Perjury requires that the statement you make be knowingly false -- i.e. you are lying, you know that you are lying, and you are still lying anyway. And perjury requires that *someone else* prove that a particular person knew they were lying when they made a particular statement.
Libel is causing foreseeable harm to someone by publishing defaming or misleading statements. So them screaming censorship back at you is not libel.
brandishwar 3 years ago
Okay I've sent in my complaint using the text provided.
This sort of thing really is absolutely proof that creationists know what they're preaching is a lie. Ken Ham seems to only feel comfortable brainwashing children. What a vile, unprincipled man he seems to be.
mousegeek 3 years ago
I mean 'absolute proof'
To paraphrase Bill Hicks: when are these supposed followers of Jesus going to demonstrate their humility and compassion by turning the other check? Not ever! They're all in for the money and nothing else.
mousegeek 3 years ago
I fail to comprehend how it's absolute proof. An organization that produces a creationist video is asserting their copyright against someone they believe has breached the limited room of fair use.
When did asserting your copyright against someone who's essentially copied your video without your permission become equated with censorship?
brandishwar 3 years ago
Do you 'really' believe it's a copyright issue? I find that incredulous. Do these people file complaints against Christians using clips: I bet they don't. Have you heard Ken Ham's demented talks where he brainwashes children into doubting science? The reason the videos are taken down is because the creationists are frightened these videos could give YouTube users (eps younger users) information which could make them come to question their belief in a 'loving' Creator.
mousegeek 3 years ago
Believe? No. I know this is a copyright issue as I've demonstrated in my earlier comments in this comments section (scroll up to read).
Why are we not seeing DMCAs being made against AndromedasWake, tf00t, AronRa, and others who use *clips*? Because they use only *clips*.
ED doesn't use *clips* though, as I've already explained. And when you scroll up to read, you'll also find where I've addressed selective enforcement.
brandishwar 3 years ago
Here you're wrong. thunderf00t HAS had DMCAs used against him. And you can NEVER violate copyright for Kent Hovind because he does not HAVE a copyright, and he states that at the beginning of all of his videos!
Muchodelcrazy 3 years ago
But we're not talking about that. Those were examples being demonstrated, not arguments employed.
The argument is that in the case of ED's latest suspension, individuals are assuming that the DMCAs filed against ED cannot be valid, possibly based on the previous actions of CSE and VFX, without looking into the facts.
These must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, meaning the previous actions of VFX and Hovind's group don't apply to what's happened with ED.
brandishwar 3 years ago
Good point. I've been looking through his videos, and I'm not certain, but I'm pretty damn sure Lee Strobel's work is copyrighted (cuz he's a cheap lawyer bastard).
I just came from the tf00t fiasco, and Hovind's son has tried the false DMCA's sooo many times, it would be more likely at first glance that it was just ilegitimate (and extremely illegal) action. So, even though we can't really tell at this point, there's logical grounds to assume either.
Muchodelcrazy 3 years ago
Compliant filed - keep up the good work
datamonkey1745 3 years ago
Complaint filed. Thank you to informe us, it is a very good initiative.
kailan555 3 years ago
Complaint filed.
Sleipnirrr 3 years ago
This sort of thing happens far too often, far too easily - people simply silence those they dislike or disagree with by filing false DMCA reports. the people filed against then have to spend time filing counterclaims, waiting, and giving out personal info to get their account back up - just in time to have another false DMCA filed against them, taking it back down.
Youtube needs some kind of safeguard to ensure that DMCA reports filed are for actual cases of copyright infringement.
whatthehellpeople 3 years ago
"Youtube needs some kind of safeguard to ensure that DMCA reports filed are for actual cases of copyright infringement."
The law doesn't give YT much room to respond to copyright claims they receive, so I'm interested to know if you have any ideas in mind.
Remember, YTs actions are only to secure their immunity from civil liability. If they fail to act on a copyright claim, they compromise that immunity.
brandishwar 3 years ago
Any news on this case? Do we know what the definitive reason for his suspension is? Come on people details.
scienceminded 3 years ago
According to Thunderf00t's channel...
'This time it was Eternal Productions filing over A Question of Origins. The counter notice was forwarded to them earlier today; so, we should be back in about a week and a half.'
ExtantDodo2 3 years ago
thanks
scienceminded 3 years ago
Well-made, sir. You have my undying compliments for making such a video. Here's to hoping that this particular video gets featured (No matter how unlikely) so this signal can be propagated further.
By the way, this is the first video of yours I've watched, and I have one minor note to put forward: Cool accent. :)
Stryder467 3 years ago
Bring back Extantdodo! Destroy ignorance.
blujufirst 3 years ago
I support Extantdodo. FAIR USE is FAIR USE.
Fundamentalist behavior on youtube has been shameless. Censorship is wrong.
adgandd 3 years ago 2
btw. I support Extantdodo!
kentmage 3 years ago 2
Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.
ED seems to fit 3 of those nicely.
The big thing against them is volume used and detracting to the value of the copyrighted material. Though if factually disproving BS is wrong then this country is messed up.
logpepsan 3 years ago
I would like to ask a question to Andromedaswake: Do you have any comments on the fascinating repeating nature of the universe,eg. quasars w/ electron density clouds in atoms? I'm NOT a creationist although I 'like' chaos theory stuff, pattern detection etc.
kentmage 3 years ago
cont/ NB. Wild inferences must not be made via these generalised patterns. The laws of nature should not be guessed! Speculation/hypothesese are o.k. as long as labelled as such.
kentmage 3 years ago
Well it's been an interesting day for me. I was hit with 5 false DMCAs for ExtantDodo videos which I had prior approval to upload.
djarm67 3 years ago
I then contacted the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), NCSE (National Center for Science Education), EFF (Electronic Frontiers Foundation) and EFA (Electronic Frontiers Australia)
djarm67 3 years ago
Then filed a DMCA Counter Claim covering the five ExtantDodo videos.
djarm67 3 years ago
Looking at your channel, I'm going to guess that Eternal Productions filed the DMCAs?
brandishwar 3 years ago
Correct.
djarm67 3 years ago
I hate to say it, but the copyright claim is legitimate. As I've argued, they have a valid claim against the video; in this instance you just happen to be a distributor of it. The fact that ED gave you permission to upload the video to your channel does not make you immune to copyright claims from other parties against the content of the video.
And I'm sure you're not going to be the only one getting DMCA claims for mirroring ED' videos.
brandishwar 3 years ago
I have a "good faith" belief that I have received approval from the copyright holder of "A critical analysis of A Question Of Origins". This is enough for me to file a DMCA counter claim without committing perjury.
This is only stage 1 of this process. Stage 2 involves an injuction in the district court. It is now up to Eternal Productions to commence action within the next 10 days if they firmly believe that the ED critical analysis is not covered by "fair use". If the vids are reinstated...
djarm67 3 years ago
Have uploaded extantdodo's 'hovindism' series to my channel.
golddigger159 3 years ago
Well, I tried to upload, but the videos were rejected for being too long. If anyone wants a copy, then send me a PM.
golddigger159 3 years ago
....but MOST videos were too long...
golddigger159 3 years ago
aha, the dancing astronomer.
Lachy101 3 years ago
This is sad and unfortunate to see humanity at such a low level. Common Ken Hamm, are you sad that your God won't bail himself out?
lolhowdoishotweblol 3 years ago
Some people(religions) can't handle criticism! Go ExtantDodo!
dagawker 3 years ago 6
Message sent. Xian losers.
Liaoxiornis 3 years ago
can the dude help that offered pro bono publico adviec to Thunderf00t in the VFX thing? This looks like the flaggers need some RL slap on the wrist.
AgiHammerthief 3 years ago
o hey. dude. WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR SERIES!!! I WANT WELCOMETOTHEUNIVERSE NOW!!! iv been waiting for fucking AGES!! your videos kick fucking ass but its been so long since you made any. if you are still a long way off from releasing ep 1 (thank satan you dont live in NZ or you would be hostage forced to make riveting videos for the rest of your days) then please point me to some other really good astronomy channels. im desperate.
AlmightyFRACTA 3 years ago
um not sure why but the link you gave me isnt the one that your talking about. 5/5 and fav'd tho if that helps!!
jackhartcup 3 years ago
Done and dusted.
UbiquitousChe 3 years ago
message sent
Asmodean1111 3 years ago
message sent
Lpoolboy 3 years ago
Instead of screaming censorship, has anyone (besides me) thought that there might actually be legitimate copyright concerns? I mean ED basically reproduces the *entirety* of a video within his own, and we're not talking about a two minute video, more like *an hour*.
Fair use gives you only so much room, and ED vastly exceeded the room that is available. That's why he got nailed three times prior, and it's why he got nailed again.
brandishwar 3 years ago
If the first DMCA claim had been legitimate, they would have only got nailed once.
If the second had been legit, they would have only got nailed twice.
The fact that they have now got nailed four times in no way lends support to the idea that ED have done anything wrong. In fact, the repeated success of the counter-filings says the opposite; the DMCA is being abused to silence them.
aManApathetic 3 years ago 2
ED filing a counter-claim and getting the account re-instated makes no statement to the legitimacy of the claim. It means that whoever filed the DMCA did not provide notice to YouTube within the required 10 days after receiving the counter-claim that it will be pursued in Court.
For all we know, the claims could still be pursued in Court. The claimer has 3 years to do so from the day they filed the claim with YT, regardless of whether his account is re-instated.
brandishwar 3 years ago
That's the law, but I'm not arguing about the law, I'm pointing out a logical sequence.
Whilst there is a 3 year window, I'm sure the Axis of Idiocy would have taken it to court as soon as possible rather than simply repeat their DMCA filings in a way that blatantly suggests they're hoping those they try to censor with it will just give up. There is also the issue that a DMCA is filed under pain of perjury. Answers in Magic don't want a judge pointing it out publicly to them.
aManApathetic 3 years ago
Are creationists not allowed to assert their copyrights? I've pointed out that ED essentially reproduces a video within its own in its entirety, which is a violation of copyright and *not* fair use. That is being asserted against ED by numerous parties because he violated the copyrights of numerous parties. If he has his account reinstated again, there might even be more filings because his videos will once again be available.
brandishwar 3 years ago
It isn't enough to say that this is not fair use. Explain how it is not. Kent Hovind's videos were by his own word in them copyright free and his organisation suddenly thought they could impose pre-conditions on this after it was already in the public domain.
Answers in Genesis videos are frequently mirrored on Christian sites without problems. Ken Ham's minions can easily be shown to be not acting in good faith.
aManApathetic 3 years ago 3
I've already explained several times how what ED has done for his vids isn't fair use. In all actuality, however, it's ED who once again has to defend why he feels his use is fair use.
"[AiG] videos are frequently mirrored on Christian sites without problems."
They could have received prior permission, unless you can show they did not. Plus arguing selective enforcement will get you nowhere. That's like telling a cop he should be looking for a killer when you get nailed for speeding.
brandishwar 3 years ago
That analogy only works if there is a murderer doing some murdering in plain sight of said cop. The point was that bad faith on the part of the creationists can be demonstrated. Whilst it is possible creationist websites have permission, the sheer number of replicants makes me think it isn't likely in most cases.
I've scrolled up and read through all the comments, I can't find where in this thread at least you explain how ED has breached fair use, only that they used too much of a video.
aManApathetic 3 years ago
"...only that they used too much of a video."
Exactly. That means that his use doesn't qualify as fair use, and therefore infringes on a copyright.
"That analogy only works..."
Bad analogy actually, I'll admit. A better analogy would be an officer pulling over one speeder on the freeway after many have already gone by, as that is a clear example of selective enforcement.
brandishwar 3 years ago
It still comes under fair use as long as it's reasonable, which is something a court will have to decide on.
tetherson 3 years ago
From my perspective it's beyond obvious, but I've also studied copyright law extensively so I have a good idea of what is and is not fair use.
Using an entire work or a substantial majority of it without the permission of the copyright holder to create what is obviously a derivative work has *never* been upheld as fair use.
This is why I will again say that ED does not have much of a legal leg to stand on.
brandishwar 3 years ago
Need to make a mild correction to the second paragraph. It should say:
Using an entire audiovisual work (meaning video) or a substantial majority of it without the permission of the copyright holder to create what is obviously a derivative work has *never* been upheld as fair use.
brandishwar 3 years ago
This isn't an issue of fair use. Hovind's videos are expressly placed into the public domain, which they often explicitly state.
kmaglion 3 years ago
I can't believe I'm saying this again, but here goes: the two DMCAs that resulted in ED's latest suspension were *not* filed by Creation Science Evangelism, and were not filed against videos that aimed to debunk Hovind's videos.
So yes, this *is* an issue of fair use.
brandishwar 3 years ago
Kent Hovind says in his videos "none of the materials [...] are copyrighted, so feel free to copy these and distribute them freely." Filing DMCAs concerning material released in the public domain to silence the critics is dubious
PolarisHorizon 3 years ago
Except it wasn't Creation Science Evangelism who filed this latest batch of DMCAs. To my knowledge, they filed only one against ED. The production group behind Way of the Master filed one as well, if I recall correctly, and I don't know who filed the third, though it seems to be asserted it was Answers in Genesis.
brandishwar 3 years ago
I suggest you watch this video by Thunderf00t: /watch?v=8TzmkjXuRcY
As you can see, on each video there is a disclaimer saying that says the videos are not copyrighted. It says the same thing about the videos on their website. Kent Hovind actually says they are not copyrighted on the videos.
They waived the copyright on these videos, that is what makes their actions so sickening. They are not filing the DMCAs because of copyright, they are doing so because ExtantDodo disagrees with them.
TheGodBen 3 years ago
I suggest you rewatch this video so you can see who filed the two latest DMCAs against ED. It wasn't Hovind's group, it was Illustra Media and Eternal Productions, who have a copyright on their videos, Case for a Creator and A Question of Origins, respectively, and are asserting it against ED by filing the claims in accordance with 17 USC 512.
Are creationists not allowed to assert their copyrights?
brandishwar 3 years ago
Apologies for my claims, I can see now that an annotation was added to the video showing who filed the DMCA this time.
I still stand by my claim that these organisations are wrong in filing the DMCAs. Three times ED has been suspended in the past for the same reason and in all occasions the groups did not respond to the counter-notice put forth by ED.
If these people really feel like they have a valid copyright claim, why wont they respond to the counter-notice?
TheGodBen 3 years ago
Respond how? What do you expect them to do? Send an e-mail to ED saying with further copyright arguments?
The next step beyond the notice and counter-notice is for the one who filed the DMCA to petition the Court for injunctive relief. There isn't any response to the counter-notice to be given other than to serve ED with Court papers. Which if they exercise that option (they still can), we won't know unless ED passes along the news.
brandishwar 3 years ago
That's my point, in the three times this has happened in the past it never went any further than the counter-notice.
If these groups truly thought that their copyright was being infringed upon then they could file the court order to stop the videos being restored and take ED to court for filing a false counter-notice.
But they don't do that. Maybe they will this time, but if history is anything to go by then ED will be back in a week.
TheGodBen 3 years ago
You make it sound like getting a court order is a simple process. It's far from it, and it's expensive as well. Court costs and court dates, filing fees, lawyer expenses, and other expenses.
Unless whoever filed the DMCA feels there is something to gain by pursuing it in Court, they probably will just avoid the expense. However if ED repeatedly violates copyrights of the same organization, then they'll probably go forward through the Court.
brandishwar 3 years ago
i did look the only thing they could get nailed on is volume used and detracting from the value of the Copyrighted work but what criticism wouldn't detract from the value of the work when the criticism is debunking BS with facts. Plus criticism and teaching have already been decided to be within fair use.
The CR holders have every right to try and claim infringement though.
logpepsan 3 years ago
They will NOT take notice. This has been happening for at least 2 years and there have been law suits against YouTube over account discrimination. They don't care. They will never care. It's time to build a new YouTube that cares about its customers.
raymanbrint 3 years ago
'Kay. Any ideas how we're gonna do that?
I sent the message, by the way.
Larty42 3 years ago
File a counter notification. Then should try to sue for the censorship. Youtube know the system is easy to exploit, remember the election fiasco, basically they do not give a shit. Someone needs to go after and make an example of someone who is abusing the DMCA.
dorbie 3 years ago
PCS would have been a good target, but he was just so damned pitiful.
ED should countersue Illustra Media for false claims. Far as I know, this is their second attempt (current videos are down via Illustra)
Fordi 3 years ago
I will send a message.
Ryan44567 3 years ago
me to.
fca81 3 years ago
I sent a message, its getting ridiculous the crap that theyre doing.
Bring Him Back!!!
J0kersL4ugh 3 years ago
I have given my support.
draccataura 3 years ago
Done.
IllusionOdyssey 3 years ago
I didn't know Kent had internet in jail.
OccamsRzzr 3 years ago
done
dancingnature 3 years ago
Take it to court. It's time to put an end to this nonsense.
Friendo1231 3 years ago 2
Ditto.
amoxtlacatl 3 years ago
This is getting freaking irritating with all of the attempts at silencing reason. Bring back the dodo!
TheWindClaw 3 years ago 4
done and done, now I'll do the same thing with my other account and tell my friends to do the same =)
RudeSonOfaBitch 3 years ago 2
Message sent. Hope that it helps, and as an aside, may I just say to any and all who think that censorship is a legitimate means of promoting their own opinions, all you are actually doing is exposing just how flimsy your apparent position is.
ExaggeratedElegy 3 years ago
sent.
BirdValiant 3 years ago
sent.
hookah604 3 years ago
thanks for the mention in the sidebar :)
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago 2
Done. Thanks for the heads up and links.
deiloh 3 years ago
Message sent, and I hope it helps. I would also be happy to mirror their videos.
VileMike 3 years ago 2
Done. Long live free speach.
Ko252 3 years ago
MSG Sent,
Thanks
justtwentyoeight 3 years ago
Message sent to Youtube. There needs to be some consequences for those who abuse the DMCA system. My patience for Youtube's "guilty until proven innocent" stance on intellectual property is wearing thin.
asteroth876 3 years ago 3
Fuck censorship.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago 3
SENT!
derfisch78 3 years ago
Sent. hope it helps
norsecodes 3 years ago
Sent and with best hopes it helps.
lydiasaintjohn 3 years ago
Sent with a wish to protect them against further misuse.
omegavalerius 3 years ago
Sent!
ILYIAB 3 years ago
Request to reinstate ExtantDodo is sent. Hope we will see them soon.
statickk14 3 years ago
sent it.
moebear 3 years ago
I can imagine you already, practicing the Salsa while slowly leaning over to your partner, and saying "... Did you know how Kent Hovind blablabla..."
RedneckkRudy 3 years ago
sent!
hagenttzd 3 years ago
sent
mikemikemofo 3 years ago
Dear Intelligent Design proponents, who is expelling whom, again?
TomSFox 3 years ago 5
great, i'm gonna send it to!
CoolAtheist 3 years ago 2
sent
sirPiteye 3 years ago
Fuckers can't shut everyone up!
dagawker 3 years ago 2
5 stars, message sent, here's hoping that the vox populae will see the way clear for the dodo.
MizarShadow 3 years ago 2
Sent.
latuman 3 years ago 2
sent and done...perhaps creating multiple Extantdodo mirrors to post the videos would work? the more accounts there are, the more people they would have to silence...
MajinOtaku83 3 years ago 3
Done .... thanks for making this v easy to suppoprt
billymatronics 3 years ago 2
Sent
mordinvan 3 years ago 3
this reeks of desperation, in the death throes of their own stupidity, the creatards know their days r numbered
Bockatadi 3 years ago
Sent.
Toocold 3 years ago 3
issue has been submitted. I wonder if CSE or AIG are going to have to learn the hard way like VFX
k9lionheart 3 years ago 2