The Discovery Institute doesn't like it when you point out their fallacies : Pharyngula

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

• Quick link to the latest endless thread

Register for the Atheist Convention Melbourne 12-14 March 2010

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice.

[Robert Green Ingersoll]

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« Theistic evolutionist beats hasty retreat | Main | Pikers »

The Discovery Institute doesn't like it when you point out their fallacies

Category: Creationism
Posted on: June 11, 2009 8:43 PM, by PZ Myers

Now they're taking advantage of YouTube's easy censorship to shut down a critique of Casey Luskin.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/112212

Comments

Posted by: AgnosticNews | June 11, 2009 8:50 PM

Hm, and they had just taken down 5 videos off of the satire channel "DiscoveryInstituteID" (none of which used material belonging to the discovery institute within the satire, and were all very funny).

They've been mirrored by dprjones.

Posted by: Sauve | June 11, 2009 8:59 PM

Pretty pathetic, imo.

Posted by: Matt | June 11, 2009 9:00 PM

Of course they love to censor. Like their creationist cronies, the "Discovery" Institute stands for nothing but complete and utter censorship, as well as false information that is anti-scientific in nature. It is a shame that some Americans take their slanted research seriously.

Posted by: Rev. bigDumbCHimp | June 11, 2009 9:07 PM

squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek

Posted by: JD | June 11, 2009 9:07 PM

Jeebuz, do we have to stare at his picture? I need EMDR after that.

Posted by: Roland | June 11, 2009 9:18 PM

MoralFags need to take up the cause. Crazy shit is one thing, I'm insane myself half the time, but censorship is never ok.

Posted by: He11razor | June 11, 2009 9:23 PM

PZ Myers, he wants you to host the video yourself, not embed it! If you could do that, that'd be awesome!

Posted by: Alex | June 11, 2009 9:28 PM

This is good news. =)

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | June 11, 2009 9:33 PM

Well, I'd love to help but I know absolutely nothing about copyright law in the US (having said that, I know SFA about copyright laws in Australia either -not my area or interest I'm afraid). I have, however, sent this link to a good friend of mine who is an attorney in Philly who works in this area ansd just LOVES to get his teeth around a juicy pro bono case.

#10

Posted by: ERV | June 11, 2009 9:41 PM

Casey has a history of using his law degree to intimidate people.

Casey attacking a retired professor.

Casey trying to sick a sexist fuck on me for publicizing his misuse of his J.D. on ERV.

#11

Posted by: Edwin Hensley | June 11, 2009 9:53 PM

I sent the link to my attorney, Edwin Kagin, legal counsel for the American Atheists and my attorney in the KY Homeland Security lawsuit. I can not promise anything since he is very busy.

#12

Posted by: JJR | June 11, 2009 9:59 PM

The Discovery Institute needs to be prosecuted for PERJURY over crap like this. DMCA abuse *is* criminal.

#13

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 11, 2009 10:01 PM

Unless they have some actual evidence of copyright problems, they're just a-holes.

And I used to think that we should listen to their side, but by now I'm well aware that they almost don't care at all about the fact that people abuse their system.

They're just bastards! There's almost no doubt at all that this comes under fair usage, because the only reason the dolt is on the clip is to point out his many lies and evasions.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

#14

Posted by: GaryB, FCD | June 11, 2009 10:03 PM

Luskin is such an easy target and so prolific in his creation of crap, I'm amazed there isn't a site dedicated to making sure his stupidity is shown for what it is.

#15

Posted by: E.V. | June 11, 2009 10:05 PM

There's always a little too much white showing around Casey Luskin's eyes. It's ZEALOT GAZE dementia.

#16

Posted by: Roy | June 11, 2009 10:10 PM

The stupid...it hurts...
Seriously, if all the creotards have are fake DMCA and fair use arguments, someone needs to use the law to smack em down. Besta luck to Donexodus in doing that.

#17

Posted by: Dr. Bad | June 11, 2009 10:14 PM

I don't think DI is breaking the law, they are just being spoiled tattletales.

#18

Posted by: Incertus (Brian) | June 11, 2009 10:15 PM

Speaking of the Discovery Institute, Klinghoffer is blaming Darwin for Von Brunn's Nazi love. (Sorry if I'm late on this, but I scrolled down the page and didn't see a post on it.)

#19

Posted by: Dr. Bad | June 11, 2009 10:16 PM

I don't think DI is breaking the law, they are just being spoiled tattletales.

#20

Posted by: GaryB, FCD | June 11, 2009 10:23 PM

I'm not sure if it's my violent nature or not, but there have always been people I feel like belting every time I see them. It's probably the same drive that causes litter mates to kill the weakest/strangest/most different. Of course, I never act on it, but I know it's there, hiding in the wings, just waiting for me to let down my guard. Well, looking at Luskin brings it out in full force.

#21

Posted by: Zar | June 11, 2009 10:27 PM

@Dr. Bad #19

Actually, it is illegal to file a false DMCA claim. It's to prevent people from... well, from doing exactly what the DI is doing right now: abusing the law to censor people.

#22

Posted by: ERV | June 11, 2009 10:31 PM

@ #14-- Theres been a thread dedicated to Luskin at AtBC since 2006 :P

#23

Posted by: Brian | June 11, 2009 10:42 PM

What can you expect from an organization such as The DI? They don't understand science, the don't understand reason and now they don't understand what their rights are under the DMCA.

#24

Posted by: Monado | June 11, 2009 10:51 PM

In a complaint about violation of the DMCA, Google requires several things that should prevent frivolous use, including a declaration that the complainer is authorized by the copyright owner or is the owner. It reminds complainers that frivolous complaints can land them with court costs. And it has a list of suggested contents for countering complaints.

Any chance of getting other sites to adopt similar rules? Does the DMCA itself say what is adequate notice?

#25

Posted by: Zeno | June 11, 2009 10:52 PM

I certainly sympathize with the poor Discovery Institute. After one is insulted by a YouTube video, it's perfectly natural to lash out at the attacker. Of course, using a false DMCA claim as a response (and thus breaking the law), is a terrible mistake committed in a moment of angry self-defense. But it's not really their fault. A competent attorney would have warned the Discovery Institute not to do it, but all they have is Casey Luskin, boy lawyer.

The poor suckers were doomed from the start. (Think of it as natural selection in action.)

#26

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 11, 2009 10:58 PM

I viewed and rated as many of the videos as I could. They are already proliferating as the original is still taken down by YouTube.

The Streisand effect. Marvelous.

#27

Posted by: Nat J. | June 11, 2009 11:02 PM

Ha ha, the pricks.

#28

Posted by: TheBiologista | June 11, 2009 11:02 PM

Wasn't it this sort of carry-on that brought down that goon VenomfangX? He had an itchy DMCA trigger finger too, and when it became clear that he'd been BSing YouTube he had to deliver the worlds most humiliating apology.

Can't wait to see Luskin grovel.

#29

Posted by: SteveC | June 11, 2009 11:07 PM

@#24: doesn't google own youtube?

Yes, yes they do:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15196982/

#30

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | June 11, 2009 11:07 PM

Have the IDiots actually filed suit? Or just complained to YouTube?

I certainly don't know, but I would think that YouTube acts in its own interests, not those of either video uploaders or people who register copyright complaints. YouTube probably does what it thinks it needs to do to protect YouTube, which probably results in temporary shut-downs of innocent parties when complaints are registered.

In any case, I don't do the civil side of the law, and what I know of it stems only from law school. But if actual lawsuits are being filed purely to harass someone who makes a video, there are indeed tort laws to cover such abuse of process. As for copyright suits themselves, it's probably wise for anyone venturing to upload news footage to comment on it to have a copyright specialist standing by to advise you. The law can change rapidly, and might not mean what it seems to mean on its face.

#31

Posted by: Desertphile | June 11, 2009 11:09 PM

Okay, I give up: doesn't the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture Coven have a lawyer or two to bounce this kind of CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR off of first? The DI Coven seems to be following in the foot steps of the Hovind Crime Family when it comes to videos they don't own and they object to: the Coven just filed the DMCA take-down notices and *POOF* the criticism goes away, and even though it was criminal behavior there is not a damn thing that the victim can do about it except wait 15 or 20 days for the counter-notice to be applied by YouTube.

On an amusing note, the Don Exodus video has been mirrored 36 times in the past four hours. I wonder if the Discovery Institute Coven wanted that to happen.....

#32

Posted by: Desertphile | June 11, 2009 11:10 PM

On an amusing note, the Don Exodus video has been mirrored 36 times in the past four hours. I wonder if the Discovery Institute Coven wanted that to happen.....

#33

Posted by: Blaine | June 11, 2009 11:23 PM

Within 1 minute of uploading a mirror of the video youtube emailed me:

Your video, Mirror: Discovery Institute - Casey Luskin - Ignorance or something else?, may have content that is owned or licensed by FOX News Network.

No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.

Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team

Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnrRDLLrxiY

#34

Posted by: Brian | June 11, 2009 11:23 PM

Seems likely that the Discotute doesn't consider checking in with their own lawyers to be necessary before acting, in general.

#35

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 11, 2009 11:25 PM

@30 Liveliest Crib

I'm a librarian, not a lawyer, therefore all the usual disclaimers apply: I am not practicing law and nothing I write here should be construed as legal advice.

To the best of my knowledge, news reports do not enjoy copyright protection. Facts can not have copyright protection. That's why many directories are leased to customers and not sold. A license can protect a listing of facts, not copyright. If it's presented as fact, it has no copyright. (Certain arrangements of facts can have copyright protection, but that's another story). We videotape news reports and documentaries and lend them all the time. FWIW my university's policy states that news reports are fair game for copying because they are presented as factual.

Consider what this means regarding the DI's DMCA violation report. Does this mean that they admit that Luskin's blather was not even intended as a good faith belief that what he was saying was factual? Think about. Their hole gets deeper.

#36

Posted by: TheBiologista | June 11, 2009 11:25 PM

@#33

This is just an auto content identifier thingy. I got it on my own Luskin vid. I just replied with my fair use rationale and heard nothing more. No takedown, no threats. The DMCA, if it comes, will be another matter.

#37

Posted by: Sick and Tired | June 11, 2009 11:44 PM

I can't believe I have to put up with a DI'er in my program at UT-- Rob Koons.

It royally sucks. Sahotra Sarkar already took off from the department. I'm getting out pretty soon too.

These DI people are total asshats. I hope when they finally are brought down, they are brought down in flames, dammit!

#38

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | June 11, 2009 11:48 PM

Stephen Dunlap @ 35:

Oh, I would think that they'd be in some trouble too, but nothing even I say should be construed as legal advice. I read some copyright law in law school, but I've never practiced anything outside of criminal defense. I only know that when it comes to this thing we refer to as "the law," well, things are never as simple as they should be.

#39

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 11, 2009 11:57 PM

Good site:

YouTomb

Videos Removed for Copyright Complaint

http://youtomb.mit.edu/

"YouTomb is currently monitoring 347062 videos, and has identified 16235 videos taken down for alleged copyright violation and 82143 videos taken down for other reasons."

#40

Posted by: GBM | June 12, 2009 12:26 AM

@ 38

I get the feeling that their ilk are something like a hydra, If we manage to utterly destroy the Discovery Institute, in ten years time Luskin will be working for the 'Exploration Association' and talking about how different 'Agent-Caused Arrangement' was from that silly old unconstitutional ID crap.

#41

Posted by: Jim Lippard | June 12, 2009 12:32 AM

#24: Yes, the DMCA says what a proper DMCA notice must contain.

#42

Posted by: GBM | June 12, 2009 12:33 AM

Sorry that was actually @ 37

#43

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | June 12, 2009 12:53 AM

GBM:I get the feeling that their ilk are something like a hydra, If we manage to utterly destroy the Discovery Institute, in ten years time Luskin will be working for the 'Exploration Association' and talking about how different 'Agent-Caused Arrangement' was from that silly old unconstitutional ID crap.

Heh, indeed. But perhaps they'll be stupid enough to transfer their literature verbatim to their new brochures and books -- again!

The legal and scientific team in the Dover case tell a funny story about how the judge had kept a straight, almost motionless face during the trial. He had given no facial cues as to which side had his sympathies until he saw the verbatim language from creationist to IDiot literature, whereupon his eyebrows suddenly raised for the first time.

#44

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 12, 2009 1:03 AM

Huh. Bubble boy's at it again? What a surprise.

#45

Posted by: DoctorDefense | June 12, 2009 1:13 AM

Exciting new pro-choice blog, unlike any other:

http://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com

#46

Posted by: Tully | June 12, 2009 1:39 AM

Just mirrored it. Funny, this is my first video submission.

#47

Posted by: Disabled God | June 12, 2009 1:39 AM

@40

You know 'Agent-Caused Arrangement' would probably get found out as a re-branded intelligent design claim when someone found a version of their text where 'Agent-Caused Arrangement' is written as 'Intelligent Agent-Caused Arrangementgner'.

#48

Posted by: The Outsider | June 12, 2009 3:10 AM

Since nobody seems to have said it yet: thank you, Professor, for your assistance in publicizing this.

#49

Posted by: Kel | June 12, 2009 4:07 AM

What a surprise...

#50

Posted by: Tim Danaher | June 12, 2009 4:12 AM

Thank you GaryB #14 for articulating exactly what I felt the moment I first saw the odious twunt...

There's something about Luskin's smug, self-satisfied, happy-clappy smirk that makes me want to reach through the screen and punch his lights out.

I wonder if he practices it in front of the mirror to hone its annoyance value?

#51

Posted by: Michael X | June 12, 2009 4:17 AM

Outsider,

PZ does not require anyone to kiss his ass. PZ is popular because he popularizes cases like these. His popularity is thanks.

#52

Posted by: Beige | June 12, 2009 4:45 AM

Oh yay, here we go again. Why is the DI so incapable of actually acting with a shred of honesty and decency?

#53

Posted by: strangebrew | June 12, 2009 5:05 AM

'Why is the DI so incapable of actually acting with a shred of honesty and decency?'

Honesty and decency does not cut the proverbial mustard methinks.

You cannot con folks by telling the whole truth,you have to mask, twist, misreport the real truth, and if possible the truth should be bent on purpose to fit.
There is no room for honesty and decency!

In other words they actually lie in order to con their target.
That is what it is all about after all, targeting the hard of thinking, and whipping up the jeebus hysteria ...then pretend hard done and prejudicial treatment and intolerance cos they were alluding to a godwhatwentandgoneanddidit.

Clowns trip over their own feet...Luskin is going for a pratful...it could not happen to a more foolish idiot.

#54

Posted by: Vinifera7 | June 12, 2009 5:17 AM

It is important to shed as much publicity as possible on these types of dishonest, censorship stunts.

The DI will learn that their actions will only bring more attention to those they have attempted to silence.

Not to mention the fact that theirs was an illegal DMCA claim.

#55

Posted by: bitbutter | June 12, 2009 5:27 AM

+- 60 mirrors of the pulled video on youtube at the moment and high profile blog coverage. The Streisand effect is in full effect.

#56

Posted by: DLC | June 12, 2009 5:28 AM

Right. the Dumbo Institute strikes again.
I am not surprised.

#57

Posted by: Seeker | June 12, 2009 5:59 AM

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Disco Institution that group of weiners who promoted a certain waste of celluloid that claimed that their ideas were being "Expelled" from being accessible to the general public?

Irony: 1 - IDiots: 0

#58

Posted by: Seeker | June 12, 2009 6:01 AM

Irony: 1 - IDiots: 0

#59

Posted by: wasd | June 12, 2009 6:13 AM

They have actually perjured them selfs *several times* and issued *several* fraudulent DMCA takedown notices against at least six videos including some excellent parody videos now mirrored by dprjones But thats not the most disgusting part.

Let me quote from these actual discovery institute press releases (emphasis mine):

Discovery Institute Announces Academic Freedom Day Student Video and Essay Contest One Grand Prize Winner will take home $500 By: Staff, Discovery Institute, November 12, 2008
SEATTLE -- Discovery Institute is sponsoring a student video and essay contest to commemorate Academic Freedom Day, February 12, 2009, on Charles Darwin’s bicentennial.

Darwin once wrote, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” That famous quote will be the touchstone for students to communicate support for academic freedom to explore the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.

“The next generation values open dialogue in a way that is aptly expressed in their creativity and imagination,” Discovery Institute Director of Communications Robert Crowther said. “This is a fun way to honor that expression and encourage critical thinking on the issue.”

The video and essay contest is open to high school and college students and will be judged based on creativity, accuracy, and persuasiveness. One grand-prize winner will be announced and have his or her entry officially unveiled at academicfreedomday.com on Academic Freedom Day, Feb. 12th 2008.

The grand-prize winner will be awarded $500 and selected by an illustrious panel of leaders in the ID movement. Entrants in the video category will be able to share their videos online and at social networking sites such as Facebook and YouTube.

For more information on Academic Freedom Day, visit www.academicfreedomday.com.
The work of Discovery Institute is made possible by the generosity of its members. Click here to donate.

From another press release:

In preparation for Academic Freedom Day, the CSC has launched academicfreedomday.com, a website where students and others will be equipped to support academic freedom and fight censorship in tangible ways, like signing the academic freedom petition on evolution, wearing Academic Freedom Day t-shirts, entering the academic freedom on evolution video and essay contest, screening movies like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein and Icons of Evolution, and starting Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) clubs.

from the website www.academicfreedomday.com/actUp.php (google cache)

Entry Rules Essays submitted should be authored by a single student and should be no longer than 2,000 words. [...]
Videos submitted can be authored by up to 5 students and should be no longer than 5 minutes. Videos can use drama, comedy, satire, animation, and other methods to communicates their message.

They actually had a $500 anti-censorship “academic freedom” youtube video contest. They lured innocent high-school students into making the exactly the kind of youtube videos they are now starting a serious, and potentially very costly, legal challenge too.

After all if you encourage students to debate “both” sides and make videos you can expect dunking videos just as much as you can expect those like the ones currently at http://www.youtube.com/group/academicfreedomday which for some reason find the need to mention the bacterial flagellum in a discussion about academic freedom... (Oh and IMHO the whole spontaneous “oh, hi I am troy mcleure” style video where a high school student uses the creativity of young minds to come up with long, winding and way to abstract sentences that cite supreme court cases... isn't all that convincing... And I didn`t know Ben Stein was high school student, but this might help explain things a bit)

Its like that time they lured innocent schools with tight budgets into expensive legal battles and then didn`t show up to defend their “side” of “the two sides”... then they lost, and changed their “teach “intelligent design”” strategy to a “our side is getting censored “academic freedom”” strategy.

But back to the several times the discovery institute perjured themselfs and issued fraudulent DMCA takedown notices against at least six videos. To do so they had to state under penalty of perjury that they own the copyright to the material they requested be removed. In all cases no discovery institute material, except for their logo, is used.

As always dprjones, legal attack dog and guardian saint of all youtube creationist debunkers, is on the case and has mirrored not just the DonExodus video, but also the excellent discoveryinstituteid parody videos.

The reason google is so quick to remove things is because under the DMCA they are liable to the person who claims ownership until they remove the material that supposedly infringes on their copyright, but not liable to the person whose materials are kicked of the net. That is until they get a counter notice by which the person whose material was kicked off-line assumes full responsibility. In this case DonExodus is comepletly safe since its clear that fox news owns the copyright to the Casey Luskin interview.

Casey Luskin, incidentally, could also seen in the excellent video “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Does Homology = Relatedness?” (phylogenetics, Jerry springer and snails in bling!) and the sequel “The Joy of Phylogeny: How To Make Your Own Phylogram” by C0nc0rdance.

C0nc0rdance is the one who probably started this recent round of excellent youtube drama by challenging creationist to find a single non-homologous gene... a challenge which thunderf00t, with a pharyngula assist, turned directly to the discovery institute.

Could it be that this intellectual bitch slap is what brought the attention of the discovery institute back to youtube? Nah, no way, that would be censorship and totally out of line with their philosophy of intellectual freedom... Right?

And to think that after the old school young earth Hovind fanboy VenomFangX was run out of town by the Canada revenue service we worried we would have to settle for some youtube idiot like Geerup, instead we hit the intelligence design mothership!

Excellent drama ahead. Its like "as the world turns" for geeks.

#60

Posted by: Nick Johnson | June 12, 2009 7:16 AM

Why the repost of the original video and the call to mirror it? The DMCA (and Youtube) provide clear guidelines on what to do in a case like this - file a counternotice, asserting your right to post the content. Youtube even provides a convenient link to do so!

In such a case, Youtube will immediately reinstate the video, and you've laid the groundwork for suing their pants off for making a deliberately false claim under the DMCA.

#61

Posted by: 386sx | June 12, 2009 7:30 AM

I still can't get over Steve Doocy's intro to the segment. It makes no sense whatsoever. Hilarious.

#62

Posted by: Felix | June 12, 2009 7:49 AM

Weren't they /resp. their cronies) allowed to use Imagine by John Lennon in Expelled? Now someone else does the same thing using a television clip instead of background music, and suddenly they're up in arms about copyright?
Despicable hypocrites.
I don't think they're as dumb as they appear to be - they know well that they have a huge financial backing, that there's always some fat rich family-focused wannabe-theocrat who's willing to shove over some hundred thousands of greenbacks.

#63

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 7:59 AM

I don't think they're as dumb as they appear to be

whew that's a bold statement

#64

Posted by: Dutch Vigilante | June 12, 2009 8:09 AM

You can say a lot about Casey Luskin, but he did make a carreer out of one of his hobbies.

I only wish he'd picked rollerskating instead.

#65

Posted by: Josh | June 12, 2009 8:15 AM

@Nick #59

Youtube has consistently failed to protect the rights of its users from abuse like this, the links the provide go nowhere. They respond to public pressure, and almost nothing else.

#66

Posted by: scotth | June 12, 2009 8:42 AM

Who else thinks PZ should offer to go on FoxNews and correct Casey on air?

#67

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 12, 2009 8:45 AM

I don't think they're as dumb as they appear to be

They couldn't be. I suppose they can sit the right way on a lavatory sear ?

#68

Posted by: Nick Johnson | June 12, 2009 8:47 AM

@Josh #54: Say what you like about general customer service, Youtube is scrupulous about fulfilling legal obligations - and responding to a counter-notice is one. They provide an easy way to do it, and an immediate response, and it's the right thing to do in a case like this.

#69

Posted by: Scott Chapman | June 12, 2009 8:53 AM

PZ I fucking love you man

#70

Posted by: AJ Milne | June 12, 2009 9:06 AM

They couldn't be. I suppose they can sit the right way on a lavatory seat?

On the other hand, if they've some issues there, it might go a long, long way toward explaining why they're so very, very full of it, at least.

And that 'glazed psychosquirrel' look on Luskin? I'd expect that's just the grimace you get after a few decades of said difficulty...

(/Today's moral: eat yer All Bran, kids.)

#71

Posted by: dan | June 12, 2009 9:14 AM

remind me of a link to a youtube video downloader..So that I can support the mirroring process..

#72

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 12, 2009 9:19 AM

So it's pronounced "Frengula" now? :-)

What does DMCA mean?

#73

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 9:21 AM

What does DMCA mean?

Here

;)

sorry too much coffee makes me even more of a smart ass

#74

Posted by: Vhyrrimyr | June 12, 2009 9:21 AM

@ dan

remind me of a link to a youtube video downloader..So that I can support the mirroring process..

Assuming you're using firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=Video+Downloader&cat=all

@ David Marjanović, OM

What does DMCA mean?

Digital Millenium Copyright Act

#75

Posted by: Lord Zero | June 12, 2009 9:56 AM

Scott #65

That would be awesome. Im sure PZ
would be able to avoid of the BS they will
throw him in tv...
And strike back hard with science and reason,
live on national tv and even around the world in the
live feed.

#76

Posted by: IanMHopping@AOL.com | June 12, 2009 10:10 AM

While it is obvious that the glare of public counter-argument is something that the flawed hypothesis of the DI wish to avoid, there seem to be some mistakes in this counter-argument.

1) Just because DI don't own the copyright doesn't mean they can not draw You-Tubes attention to it. If someone offered you a pirated DVD you are allowed to report it to the police- you don't have to wait for the studio to find out! The notce from YouTube did not show that DI claimed copyright.

2) Just because it is for the purposes of education does not mean it is exempt from copyright.

3) Ditto non profit.

4) News broadcasts are copyright, even if the facts can not be. The delivery is the copyrightable bit.

5) Fair use cuts both ways- there is a limit on what it comprises (usually taken as 5%).

Obviously the defence is where the broadcast was used for him to respond and criticise.

The 'Imagine'/Expelled decision was wrong. Though the producers claimed that it was being used for 'fair comment' (on their claims of what evolution led too) they were not commenting on the song itself, but rather using it to subliminally make a supposed connection Liberalism=Evolution=Holocaust. The 'fair use' is for the purposes of literery critiscm

#77

Posted by: Seraphiel | June 12, 2009 10:32 AM

The youtube copyright complaint form has this:

By checking the following three boxes, I state UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that:

* I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.:
* I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
* This notification is accurate.

I suppose it is possible that the actual complaint came from someone at Fox News, or that Fox News authorized someone else to file the complaint.

I rather hope this is not the case though, because then whoever filed this complaint would be guilty of perjury and liable for damages...

#78

Posted by: Spiv | June 12, 2009 10:52 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry

Why this is not federal law I do not understand.

Is Luskin in California? Google sure is. If so it would certainly make things easier.

#79

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 10:57 AM

Iamhopingmad

Friendly advice, using your email address (assuming that is it) as your name is a bad idea.

#80

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 12, 2009 11:10 AM

Friendly advice, using your email address (assuming that is it) as your name is a bad idea.

The spam would be bad enough, but imagine the Kwok having your email address. I expect a demand for another bit of camera equipment would soon arrive.

#81

Posted by: HughCaldwell | June 12, 2009 11:30 AM

He asks us to 'meer this video'. What's he talking about?

#82

Posted by: SteveM | June 12, 2009 11:39 AM

He asks us to 'meer this video'. What's he talking about?

mirror not "meer". To post a copy of something elsewhere.

#83

Posted by: Newfie | June 12, 2009 11:39 AM

Who else thinks PZ should offer to go on FoxNews and correct Casey on air?

You're making the mistake that Fox Noise cares about truth.

Casey is some smarmy sack of shit, isn't he? Professional liar. He doesn't believe what he says, himself.

#84

Posted by: Lily | June 12, 2009 11:52 AM

Casey Luskin has one of the douche-iest smiles I've ever seen. I kinda want to slap him in the face with a wet piece of ham.

#85

Posted by: Steve_C | June 12, 2009 12:35 PM

When he speaks you know he's lying. His voice drips with deception.

#86

Posted by: Qwerty | June 12, 2009 12:55 PM

The two drunk ladies need to pay another visit to the Discovery Institute to bitch slap Casey!

#87

Posted by: Russ the Atheist | June 12, 2009 1:16 PM

Contact the ACLU. They helped me for free when I was in highschool(about 10 years ago) and the Principles tried expelling me for things said on my personal website, which was in no way related to the school. Their claim was that students were accessing it on school computers and it was disrupting the learning experience. After several appeals I was cleared of all charges. All credit should go to Aaron Caplain from the ACLU for providing legal representation pro bono.

#88

Posted by: Draken | June 12, 2009 1:20 PM

By checking the following three boxes, I state UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that:
* I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.:
* I have a good faith belief that the use of the material [etc.]
* This notification is accurate.

The line with "faith" and "belief" is of course what triggered DI to file the notice. They never bothered to read the rest.

#89

Posted by: eddie | June 12, 2009 2:02 PM

Any chance this can make a real dent in the DI's source of funding?

#90

Posted by: sharky | June 12, 2009 2:29 PM

Seraphiel--in order to use the DCMA, you actually do have to swear that you are the holder of the copyright of the infringed item.

This step was intended entirely to keep censorship from taking place, so the DI have triggered exactly the booby trap that they were supposed to.

You might want to check out a past incident of public DMCA abuse and resultant public egg-on-facery here: http://boingboing.net/2007/08/30/science-fiction-writ-1.html

#91

Posted by: eddie | June 12, 2009 2:51 PM

I refreshed the page and the vido is gone!

#92

Posted by: the Nihilist | June 12, 2009 3:04 PM

@ CalGeorge in #39
Great link, thank you for sharing. ^_^

@ Michael X in #51
Its generally not considered ass-kissing if it is a genuine acknowledgment.
Its called good manners, you might want to try it sometime...

@ Rev BDC in #63
I'd be inclined to agree with you.
As much as it pains me to type this: They seem to be smart enough to keep their coffers full and their Cause sufficiently promoted.
~damn, I feel all dirty now AND not in a good way~
@_@

@ Scotth in #66 & newfie in #83
I concur. Maybe we could go all guerrilla tactics on them and take over the set of Fox&Friends
*evil giggle*

@ Qwerty in #86
This is Casey Luskin we are talking about here, wouldn't just 1 sober Capuchin monkey be enough?

#93

Posted by: Brock Lesnar | June 12, 2009 3:05 PM

Law? What law? We don't need no steenking laws...

#94

Posted by: Qwerty | June 12, 2009 3:59 PM

From an email from Casey Luskin to Tiana:

"I have a long track record of acting in good faith to try to build bridges between ID proponents and proponents of evolution for the purpose of having warm, friendly, civil, and serious dialogue and debate over ID and evolution. "

Yea, his appearance without any proponent of evolution shows his seriousness about debating evolutionists.

#95

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | June 12, 2009 5:55 PM

@94

Yeah, Casey builds bridges in the same sense that Wile E. Coyote creates "shortcuts" for the Road Runner...with approximately the same results.

#96

Posted by: tus | June 12, 2009 9:01 PM

i hope they take em to court.

#97

Posted by: Enkidu | June 12, 2009 10:24 PM

Can't wait to see Luskin's face repeating these words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4

#98

Posted by: North of 49 | June 13, 2009 5:20 PM

Tim #50:

There's something about Luskin's smug, self-satisfied, happy-clappy smirk that makes me want to reach through the screen and punch his lights out.

Gary B #20 and Lily #84 had similar observations.

It may interest you to know that the admirable language that brought us schadenfreude has a word for this as well.

Backpfeifengesicht is German for "a face that cries out for a fist in it".

Fits well, doesn't it?

#99

Posted by: DavidK | June 14, 2009 1:05 AM

I viewed the original video a couple of times and something became quite apparent to me. I don't know if anyone else picked up on it.

Did you notice how well scripted the show was? Commentator - question Q1, Luskin - pat answer #1. Commentator - Q2, Luskin - pat answer #2, etc. Each time Luskin had a prepared, pat answer with accompanying graphics. It was so well choreographed within the time alloted as well, hardly an ad lib interview. Fox News, along with the Dishonesty Institute, scripted this propaganda down to the minutest detail. I don't remember the commentator's name, but he was an accomplice too. Well done Fox!

#100

Posted by: DavidK | June 14, 2009 1:12 AM

I viewed the original video a couple of times and something became quite apparent to me. I don't know if anyone else picked up on it.