Casey Luskin misrepresents science

thatgaybloke Says:

Jun 13, 2009 - Ah - of course. I knew the fault had to lie with me somewhere.

TruthSurge Says:

Jun 13, 2009 - hahaha damn, I thought about mentioning leasure but said, ah, don't want to be called a grammar Nazi and now look! Jeebus Chrost! Measure... leasure... makes sense. :) English is effed up anyway.

TruthSurge Says:

Jun 13, 2009 - I know you went overboard to trim a lot out but I was just saying you could have left the fox part in and still been okay because it was part of the issue. the questions being asked, that is.

rozeboosje Says:

Jun 13, 2009 - The most irritating thing though is that I KNOW it should be "leisure" but I mis-spelled it anyway XD

rozeboosje Says:

Jun 13, 2009 - Certainly

TruthSurge Says:

Jun 13, 2009 - haste makes waste! hehe I find that the faster I try to do things, the more mistakes I make. Not to mention getting odler OOPS older. :)

roentgen571 Says:

Jun 13, 2009 - these next few days are going to be interesting. I sincerely hope Donexodus nails the DI to the wall.

rozeboosje Says:

Jun 13, 2009 - He is the only one who can because nobody has responded to THIS video or, as far as I know, to dprjones'

Kattarina98 Says:

Jun 13, 2009 - AFAIK, anyone could notify YouTube of a breach of copyright, e.g. if I spot a video containing clips of a Disney movie ... The claim against DonX2 was made by the Dishonesty Inst. So the weasels hid behind the broad back of their buddy, but I guess it is up to Faux News to follow it up, isn't it?

Kattarina98 Says:

Jun 13, 2009 - BTW, for a mirror to go through the automatic control, silence the intro music and cut off the "Moment of Zen" at the end, et voilà!

rozeboosje Says:

Jun 14, 2009 - You can notify them, yes, by sending an e-mail or something. But in order to file a DMCA you MUST act on behalf of the copyright owner and with their consent.

rozeboosje Says:

Jun 14, 2009 - Not quite - DonExodus2 posted text over Casey's utterances, and interjects with his own commentary.

Kattarina98 Says:

Jun 14, 2009 - Yes, now I remember, the Dishonesty Institute did not just send a report, it actually claimed ownership.

themaskedanalyst Says:

Jun 14, 2009 - Not really, AnonEyeMouse. YouTube would not be breaking any laws if they ignored a DMCA claim. The DMCA gives YouTube a strong financial incentive to remove videos without question when they receive a complaint, but YouTube does have the option of ignoring it. What the DMCA does is it gives YouTube immunity from copyright lawsuits that would arise over copyrighted videos posted to their site.

themaskedanalyst Says:

Jun 14, 2009 - But if YT WANTED to allow a video to remain because they thought it was important and fell under fair use, they certainly have the option of ignoring it and risking a potential lawsuit. They DO have some choice in the matter, and if they tell you otherwise then they are liars.

themaskedanalyst Says:

Jun 14, 2009 - Great video! Hope DI gets nailed to the wall.

rozeboosje Says:

Jun 14, 2009 - Absolutely. Maybe we should try and find a good lawyer willing to take this sort of a case pro bono, and have him at the ready the moment one of us is in a position to take a false DMCA-ing asshole to court.

golddigger159 Says:

Jun 14, 2009 - T-foot took pity on venomFX because he was a stupid, delusioned individual so did not press charges. Discovery Institute is not an individual so they should be charged and taken to court for their illegal actions.

rozeboosje Says:

Jun 15, 2009 - Absolutely. I hope DonExodus2 is taking the necessary steps right now.

AnonEyeMouse Says:

Jun 15, 2009 - My understanding was that if YT did not take a DMCA'd video down, even if that claim later proved to be unsubstantiated, they could still be sued for impeding the process. If this is right, then it's fair to say they HAVE to remove DMCA'd videos because to do otherwise would be to an invite to sue them. If this isn't right... well then it isn't and I'll shut my big hairy mouth. Oh... love your vids by the way...

athywren Says:

Jun 16, 2009 - DMCAs; because sometimes, your position has no defense... ...and because sometimes people take the piss and use your materials unfairly and without permission, but mostly because your position is indefensible.

rozeboosje Says:

Jun 16, 2009 - A DMCA is perfectly justifiable ... IF you create video material on a commercial basis and one day you find some asshole has posted it on YouTube without your permission. Sadly some people don't seem to understand that.

athywren Says:

Jun 16, 2009 - Yeah, hence that second part in the middle there, but most people seem to have mistaken the "law" with a "club," and tend to use it in the case of being called on how foolish they are. PS Good job calling Mr Luskin on his professional foolishness.

leorcc Says:

Jun 17, 2009 - Shouldn't Fox News be classified as an oxymoron?

rozeboosje Says:

Jun 17, 2009 - LOL