Comments on: Scientology and Dreamhost

By: Seth

Seth — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:13:29 +0000

I’ll agree that CoS are both in the right regarding their copyright AND completely nuts.

I think the Anonymous/DoS/Project Chanology is beyond the pale, though. Why would you stoop to the level of secrecy and bullshit of your enemies?

Isn’t it as disingenuous as using torture to extract information from supposed terrorists or am I reaching?

Either way, I’m curious to what DreamHost interprets my rights to be and what role they play.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:33:24 +0000

Yes, I strayed off topic there.

Technically, I think CoS has a good case to say “this is our copyrighted video that you have no right to republish in full.”

I do think there’s a great argument for fair use if only posting excerpts though. And parodies are obviously protected.

As far as the web host’s role, I couldn’t really fault DH if they capitulated and took full copies of the video down.

CoS are total nut jobs, but they are entitled to the same copyright privileges as anyone else.

By: Seth

Seth — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:22:22 +0000

Rusty, thanks for the comment. It’s an interesting theory that I wouldn’t put past CoS.

I’m actually more interested in what bloggers and other folks who use the internet regularly think about the tactics of both CoS supporters and detractors.

What role does a blogger have? What should a web host do if approached by either side with some of their tactics?

By: thatguy

thatguy — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:08:54 +0000

I support Anonymous efforts. Not the illegal part but the public protesting is great. The “Church” of Scientology has been getting away with this kind of behaviour for far too long. For some reason they seem to have entirely circumvented the laws as soon as they claimed that they were a bonafide “religion”, which happens to coincide with them getting tax exemption by the IRS whom they strong armed into submission. This also means that the mainstream media doesn’t have the guts to fight the “Church”’s army of lawyers.
Hopefully there will be alot of people going to the streets about it, because that would be the backlash that has been long overdue.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:38:48 +0000

I had seen the parodies and bits and pieces of the original, but am just now watching the original in full. Nut job!

I think the story behind this is going to make for quite a case study in viral marketing. Why are they now allowing this video to remain on YouTube after so stridently opposing it staying there earlier?

Theory: they are just fine with it going far and wide, and in fact want it to, but knew that early legal action would generate that much more publicity for it.