Christian Science Evangelism v.

Their Youtube Critics

 

Kent Hovind, the head of the Creation Science Evangelist Church, really hates the theory of evolution. He believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that the Flinstones got it right--that early humans and dinosaurs really did coexist. He built a dinosaur-based theme park in his backyard, and he loves to be called "Dr. Dino". He proudly calls himself a science teacher with a PhD in education. However, this is misleading because his he has a religious-based PhD in Christian education--not in science. Hovind is a very controversial figure, but there is one thing about him that no one will deny--he is a man of his convictions. He was convicted on 58 counts of tax evasion including 12 counts of failure to pay $470,000 in employee taxes and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions in order to avoid reporting requirements. This fact, and the fact that Kent Hovind makes scientific blunder after scientific blunder, has been the subject of much mirth and criticism in videos on Youtube. Hovind's critics have been having a field day-- so much so that you might say they've made a monkey out of him. This didn't sit well with Hovind's fellow Creation Science Evangelists and someone from within their church-- possibly Eric Hovind, Kent's son, went on a DMCA rampage to get critical videos removed.

 

Proof that Someone Associated with Creation Science Evangelism sent out DMCAs.

CSE Blogs is the official blog of Creation Science Evangelism. There is a post on cseblogs.com announcing that CSE has a new Youtube channel, and following the link in the post leads to the cseministry channel. Now, note the exchange in the comments section:

tmtoulouse

Said this on September 13th, 2007 at 4:48pm:

---

Are you enjoying the illegal dropping of DMCA against youtube videos that are critical of the convicted felon Hovind? How in the world are audio tapes from a prison used in a trial copyright CSE? Lieing for Jesus! There is a provision in the DMCA that could be enforced to make sure the rest of the Hovind family winds up in jail as well. God willing it happens.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Folks, there were a few groups of desperate skeptics who had chopped up parts of Dr. Hovind’s seminars in hopes of trying to convince others to hide from our Creator too. They then posted those edited portions on-line. They’ve been there on-line, deceiving folks for some time. CSE recently asserted its rights and asked major video hosting sites that the chopped up seminar parts be taken down.

A win for the good guys! . . .

 

There is some more interesting discussion of the DMCAs on the thread, interspersed with a lot of talk about religion and evolution. I'm not going to copy and paste it all here, but to save you the trouble of reading through a lot irrelevant crap, I have listed the posts that are relevant to this discussion. Feel free to read through them if you are interested.

 

 

 

 

The Swath of Destruction

 

According to Rational Response Squad, DMCAs issued by Christian Science Evangelism affected over a dozen accounts and, depending on how one counts the videos, roughly 20 videos were removed. I don't want to clutter up this page with all the accounts affected and videos removed, but if you want to see a fairly complete list, you can visit this page

However, there is one video that was DMCAd that is really worth watching.

 

 

 

 

What is especially notable about this video, aside from its cleverness and catchy tune, is that neither Hovind nor CSE had any copyright interest in it at all. The person who sent in a DMCA to get this video removed committed perjury.

Many of the videos that were DMCAd, however, did indeed use clips from Hovind's videos in order to criticize him or his theories. However, it is doubtful that CSE can legitimately claim copyright infringement because it looks like they waived interest in their copyright and released their videos into the public domain. And even if they didn't give up their copyright interest, use of their clips should be protected by Fair Use.

 

 

Evidence that CSE waived copyright

 

This video by Thunderf00t provides multiple pieces of evidence of Kent Hovind saying that their videos are not copyrighted.

 

 

Here is another good video by Thunderf00t documenting CSE abuse of the DMCA.

 

 

 

 

Reed A. Cartwrite wrote on Sept. 12, 2007:

Hovind’s critics have a strong case against CSE’s DMCA claims because CSE’s own website waived copyright: “None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely.” That waiver appeared in the About Creation Science Evangelism page as recently as yesterday. It looks like they’ve scrubbed their site today, after this waiver was pointed out to them. Apparently, CSE is trying to retroactively remove their productions from the public domain. (They can’t legally do this, but has the Hovind Bunch ever acted within the law?)

 

And finally, someone mirrored the About Creation Science Evangelism page before the copyright message on it was changed. You can see the waiver for yourself.

 

Fair Use

Even if CSE had not waived copyright, the Fair Use Doctrine gives people have the right to use clips of Hovind's videos without his permission in order to criticize him. Unfortunately, someone apparently associated with CSE doesn't think so. One of Hovind's groupies made the following bold claim in the comments section of CSE's blog.

 

I understand that CSE and the Hovinds gave open domain to copy and use their material only intact as produced by their ministry for the purposes of promoting and distributing the teaching of Dr. Hovind. Anyone who maliciously edits such material for a purpose other than the one intended by Dr. Hovind and CSE should be banned. They have every right to limit how and what their material is used for. Dr. Hovind wanted his lectures to get out, intact as he produced them. In one instance he said that his sarcastic jokes could be edited out, if people didn’t like them. But he never said his material could be sliced and diced in ways not commensurate with the mission statement of CSE and Dr. Kent Hovind.

I support what CSE and the Hovinds have done in getting those videos taken off YOuTube and other venues. It’s amazing how many of those little devils have come out of the wood-work, and are now whining like little whipped pups.

Whine On,

The Campus Minister at campusministry

 

Obviously, The Campus Minister comes from the "God Loves Censorship" school of theology. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers knew better. As I discussed here in detail, the purpose of copyright law is not to give an author control over how his work is used. The purpose of copyright law is to further the advancement of knowledge by creating an environment conducive to the creation of new works. The First Amendment, supplemented by the Fair Use doctrine of copyright law, explicitly allows us to use the excerpts from the works of others for the purposes of news reporting, criticism, commentary, and parody. This is brilliantly explained in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin. In this case, a District Court granted Suntrust's request for an injunction against Houghton Mifflin preventing them from publishing The Wind Done Gone (TWDG), a parody that borrowed elements from Margaret Mitchell's Gone With The Wind (GWTW) in order to lampoon it. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the history and purpose of copyright law before declaring the injunction unconstitutional. Judge Birch, author of the decision, noted that

Randall has fully employed those conscripted elements from GWTW to make war against it. Her work, TWDG, reflects transformative value because it "can provide social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579, 114 S.Ct. at 1171.

While "transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, ... the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors."

 

Hovind's critics similarly borrowed from Hovind's works in order to "make war against" them. To suggest, as The Campus Minister does, that Hovind's critics should not be able to use Hovind's works in order to mock him and his ideas is to miss the entire point of copyright law.

Judge Marcus wrote a brilliant concurring opinion that those who wish to turn copyright law into a tool for censorship should heed.

. . . it is not copyright's job to "protect the reputation" of a work or guard it from "taint" in any sense except an economic one--specifically, where substitution occurs. . . .

Suntrust may be vigilant of Gone With the Wind 's public image--but it may not use copyright to shield Gone With the Wind from unwelcome comment, a policy that would extend intellectual property protection "into the precincts of censorship," in Pat Conroy's words. "Because the social good is served by increasing the supply of criticism--and thus, potentially, of truth--creators of original works cannot be given the power to block the dissemination of critical derivative works." . . . "Copyright law is not designed to stifle critics. Destructive parodies play an important role in social and literary criticism and thus merit protection even though they may discourage or discredit an original author."  (citations omitted).

Table of Contents

Home

Back to DMCA Abuse

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Please attribute excerpts you take from my work to themaskedanalyst and include a link to themaskedanalyst.com.