tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post8852268479733892359..comments2023-10-22T13:55:34.868+01:00Comments on TechnoLlama: Scientology misuses copyright. Again.Andres Guadamuzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04772686466126007620noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post-9256918685345295932009-06-26T15:48:53.693+01:002009-06-26T15:48:53.693+01:00The CoS (aka L'Ron's Love Den) uses its me...The CoS (aka L'Ron's Love Den) uses its members to do its dirty work. The DMCA actions should be taken at face value; that is, an attempt to destroy people's right to Free Speech online. To Hell with the Sci-Ti's !!nutcupretractionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post-1948062683576871262008-09-11T11:28:00.000+01:002008-09-11T11:28:00.000+01:00Funky! Do we have a Scientologist in the house? Th...Funky! Do we have a Scientologist in the house? <BR/><BR/>The DMCA notices were filed by a company called "American Rights Counsel LLC". However, no such company exists in the United States:<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/5pa76c<BR/><BR/>You can only make a DMCA take-down claim if you are the copyright owner, or if you are legitimately entitled to do so. So it was perfectly acceptable to assume that the claim came from Scientology HQ, as filing a fraudulent DMCA claim could have negative consequences for the individual(s) involved. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I mentioned that the Church of Scientology has been involved in the past in misuse of copyright law to remove content it objects to. This is in character with their modus operandi.Andres Guadamuzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04772686466126007620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post-56866258614691378222008-09-11T01:51:00.000+01:002008-09-11T01:51:00.000+01:00If you're going to rag on the Church of Scientolog...If you're going to rag on the Church of Scientology, at least get your facts straight. <BR/><BR/>The Church of Scientology didn't make the takedown request. One man did, apparently an overzealous Scientologist. <BR/><BR/>Church HQ can't be held responsible for the actions of its parishioners, any more than the Vatican is responsible for all Catholics.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11234373241628177446noreply@blogger.com