Watch the following video. It was orignally entitled "Inmendham is very Ignorant" and posted by bcj999. bcj999 removed the video after Inmendham DMCAd it, but before Youtube itself removed the video. I have no idea who did this, but someone must have posted another copy of the video in question here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puv4mFVOQSU
It is a perfect example of the type of video that copyright law should protect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF2YTVYukMs
bcj999 made Fair Use of Inmendham's clips to criticize him. He also featured a Photoshop of Inmendham looking like Adolph Hitler and he explained that the reason he was portraying Inmendham as Hitler is that he doesn't like Inmendham's overzealous use of blocking others to censor what they can say on his channel.
-----------------------------------------
In this video,"Channel Policy", Inmendham says he has blocked 200 people from commenting on his channel and says he is filing a DMCA against bcj999 because of bcj999's use of a picture in which he is Photoshoped as Adolf Hitler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6E1jeT5qko
----------------------------------------
And now, the history that led up to this:
Inmendhanm questioned aspects of the Holocaust and he seems to believe that people make too much of it. Specifically, he doesn't believe that Nazis threw Jews into gas chambers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ua6l7A2pUU (May 31, 2008)
(the relevant part starts around 6:50).
Bcj999 called Inmendham him out as disrespecting the Holocaust victims in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6xGLuSgdYk (May 31, 2008)
relevant portion starts at 2:20
Inmendham makes an indirect response in this video: (June 1). The relevant portion runs from 2:35 -- 3:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voxN4v9a3AE
bcj999 again takes Inmendham to task for his remarks on the Holocaust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJfltS9PKZ4 (June 2)
In the following video, Inmendham clarifies his views and says that 6 million Jews may very well have died in the Holocaust, but he does not believe they died in gas chambers. He said the victims of the Holocaust weighed 65 pounds, and you don't throw someone who only weighs 65 pounds into a gas chamber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgyOt6qfe9A (June 3)
This prompted bcj999 to make his video ""Inmendham is very Ignorant", which in turn caused Inmendham to file a DMCA against bcj999.
------------------------------------
Inmendham is trying to accomplish through the copyright law what he could never accomplish through libel or slander law. Here is one case in which a mayor sued a newspaper editor for comparing him to Hitler and lost.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/pilcheskyopp.pdf
Dunn v. Gannett New York Newspapers, Inc.
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/539574
Thomas Dunn, the mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey was angry with El-Diario La Prensa because of a headline that he thought libeled him. He allegedly told city employees not to talk to reporters for the paper.
The editor of the paper wrote an editorial in which he said:
"But there is also something which I cannot ignore and that is your order to municipal employees not to talk with the reporters of El Diario-La Prensa. That again brings back memories of Adolf Hitler or the censorship prevalent in totalitarian regimes like those of Fidel Castro."
The mayor sued El Diario claiming amongst other things, that this passage was defamatory. The Court ruled:
"The open letter also compares Mayor Dunn with two notorious dictators. The first amendment invariably has been held to protect this comparison. See, e.g., Koch v. Goldway, 817 F.2d 507 (9th Cir.1987) (mayor's comments associating plaintiff with Nazi war criminal were political slurs in nature of opinion); Buckley v. Littell, 539 F.2d 882, 893-94 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1062, 97 S.Ct. 785, 50 L.Ed.2d 777 (1977) ("fascist" not defamatory). Such name calling, in the context of public debate, is protected speech because of the "profound national commitment that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and ... may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times, 376 U.S. at 270, 84 S.Ct. at 720. The speech in the open letter can be characterized as no more than "lusty and imaginative expression ... of contempt.""
---------------------------------------
Inmendham's filing of a DMCA is counter to the purpose of copyright law:
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm
Loading...
13:45
Questioning Inmendham's lawsuit plansby themaskedanalyst1,652 views
I COULD file a DMCA against you, but I won't. You have my permission to upload any of my videos. Just don't take clips of it in order to distort it and put words in my mouth that I didn't say.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
That is the right attitude! I too have had a clip of one of my videos used to mock me. Big deal. IN GENERAL, I think those who file DMCAs because someone doesn't like the Fair Use of their videos either have something to hide or know they can't win a debate on a level playing field of ideas, where one is free to quote his opponent.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
Exactly. If Inmendham wants to show that he doesn't have fascistic tendencies, then filing a DMCA for such a flimsy reason is not the best strategy to follow.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
Suppose a partner wanted to talk about his quackery, and the only way he could present the evidence was to upload a small segment of the show. It's a damn shame that Youtube's rules protect scoundrels.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago
Well, filing a DMCA on BCJ999 was overkill. It's unfortunate that Youtube's rules deny partners the tools necessary to do a first rate expose. Suppose I stumbled taped a show off TV by some preacher quack claiming that God would rid you of cancer and AIDS if you prayed and sent him a donation of $100.
themaskedanalyst 3 years ago