Comments:Anti-Scientology protest material removed from YouTube following threats of legal action

Thought crime
More scientology DMCA abuse. If they've got nothing to hide why are they so litigious?

Only Part Of The Story...
Please note my additional commentary on AnonNewsWire in regard to this story: http://www.anonnewswire.org/pages/1.

Ollie, if you're so brave, why did you file anonymous DMCA claims against Shadow's video against accounts, namely Shadow's and mine, where you knew that people would fight back? I'd like Wikinews to ask him that. I think that should engender an interesting response. - QAnon

QAnon and his quick judgments
QAnon, why don't contact Schaper directly and ask him? Leave your ego off Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.195.196 (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go
Again.--66.229.17.181 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Free speech
This man may be an advocate for Scientology's free speech, but free speech applies to ALL regardless of content. What about the rights of the videos' posters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.101.132 (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous can't even proof content
The major issue seems to be that Anonymous claims that their videos showed protesters while Schaper claims them to be personal attack videos. If Schaper is wrong he should burn in hell but Anonymous should apologize if he only cited attack-videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.195.196 (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Despite the fact that I am a Scientologist, none of the videos removed, where removed on behalf of the Church of Scientology or any organization associated with the church."
Does the original quote really say "where" instead of "were"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs) 07:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. It is exactly what he said, and how he typed it. Though I think a correction could be made. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Free Speech.
So it's fine to protect your own free speech by oppressing other's? Scientology is reaching new levels of bullsh*t. 195.10.114.211 13:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No...
Well, as seeing the video's myslef, I would have to say that most of them are not hate crimes. However, I do see how same may be viewed as hate crimes by Schaper. Anonymous is not trying to harm anyone, as displayed by our protests last year, we are trying to expose Scientology censoring information about themsleve's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.22.0.253 (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

this guy is full of rubbish. he'd love to have a one-on-one with us? we tried to discuss things with him and he wouldnt have it. he just kept getting more abusive. why cant he make up his mind about why he took the videos down, one minute its hate speech (which is not what dmca is for - using it for such is illegal) then its infringing his copyright (which its not). kick him in the teeth and tell him to fuck off.

Copyright
So what is if he owns a copyright on material in the videos? I searched Youtube for his videos and I sound some that have been on the site for a long time against him and he has not removed them. If somebody submitted a counter-DMCA notice we will now what is really going on and can stop the pointless speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.62.193.41 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

According To Oliver Schaper
Scientology teaches that advocating free speech means supporting or defending your beliefs by blocking an opposing view; Even if it needs to occur illegally.

Maybe a Scientologist could answer this, "What do you think it means when someone wants to learn the pro's & cons of ANYTHING; and that ANYTHING is preventing all criticism from being heard ?"

Actually I don't want an answer because I already know it, but please feel free to think about the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.46.75.100 (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

also acording to scientology the holocost and 9/11 were orcistrated by the "psyks" http://gawker.com/5155157/scientology-proves-psychiatrists-caused-911 so keep in mind who we are dealing with. these guys are nuts! freaking nuts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FBI who?
Why does Scientology and its assorted nutters say this sort of tosh?

"The producers of these videos are based in the U.K. and local law-enforcement has been contacted by the FBI"

Contacted by the FBI? I sincerely doubt that the FBI has got nothing better to do with their time than get in contact with the UK police in order to prosecute these evil youtube users. When will they accept that the UK is an entirely unrelated country to the united states? We don't HAVE any of these "first ammendment" things.

The FBI can't do anything about things that happen in the UK, we don't pay them, we don't vote for the people who boss them about, and the laws of the US mean nothing when you're not in the US!

What's his doctorate in anyway? Does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirronTM (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps his doctorate is in BSing, because he seems to be rather decent at it. --Smackdat (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology vs. Anonymous? No Contest.
The people that the scientologists are trying to subvert are the people who could pretty much control the internet if they had the inclination. By messing with us, he's just being moronic. Free Speech is FREE! Also, when will people in the U.S. learn you can't screw around with other country's material. They've tried this with TPB and 4chan, and now they're spreading into YouTube. There's just something wrong with a "religion" that has to copyright its symbols and ideas. Matt White (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal fight?
I just wonder if this is even an issue in which the Church of Scientology is involved because if one of their members contests material which may or may not be copyrighted he has every right to do so. I have seen the videos published by Anonymous and they have in deed Schaper as the only target. All videos with his image have been removed while others which just promote a critical text have not been removed. What happens if he is right and the photo used is indeed copyrighted? We're out to place judgment and still don't know all the facts.

In reference to free speech, we all know that you can't run into a Bank or the Airport and scream bomb (sure you can but it would be fun to watch you taken out by security). Free speech should remain free but should pure insults and attacks be protected as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.62.233.149 (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Really Oskar?
Quote:

The videos in question have been produced by an YouTube (U.K.) user to directly attack me and my companies. I made the requests in accordance with YouTube's terms and condition, after confirming directly with YouTube and the local ECTF office in Los Angeles, to remove material that infringes on my copyright

at what point has your name been copyrighted?

Very interesting that Oskar/Oscar/Ollie Schaper would complain about any free speech issue when he is reputed to be involved in the porn industry.

Even more interesting that he is a Scientologist, one of the "most ethical people in the World"-group.

He does not own the copyrights to the material he complained about. Perhaps those that had videos removed should consider a class action lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilsmistress (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
Can anyone who has actually seen the videos and has a decent understanding copyright law comment on whether there is likely to be any merit to the DMCA complaint? (In other words, was there anything in the video that may have been copyrighted by Schaper.) A lot of people are saying there isn't but I'm not convinced many of them actually understand copyright law (e.g. they probably don't understand the concept of derative works) Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Schaper sounds like a freakin' crybaby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.219.133.241 (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Schaper is so full of it and so is scientology!
Anonymous hasn't broken any laws. I've seen seen the protest videos and they are indeed harmless. Its the Scionerds that drive their cars into them, pour water on them, steal their materials from them, ban them from entering fast food restaurants, and verbally and physically harm them. The only reason Scientology is taking legal action is because they don't want the public to be aware of what's really going on at their centers. These videos posted by Anonymous are evidence of what Scientology is really like and just goes to show that we really could do without them. Germany's giving them the boot, as well as France, Belgium, New Zeland, Australia, The U.K. is trying to get in on it, and even Spain is thinking about revoking their recently acquired religious status kicking them out. Its only a matter of time before the U.S. gets in on it, and Anonymous is playing a vital role in it. I say kudos to Anonymous and sincerely hope their videos are back up and running soon (which they no doubt will be given Scientology's inability to truthfully back any of their ridiculous claims) and keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinigami (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Anonymous hasn't broken any laws." As bad as the Scientologists are, Anonymous doesn't exactly have a squeaky-clean rep either. --Smackdat (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just going to make everything worse because it is the same thing that they did to start the revolt from Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.146.33 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.41.202 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Free Speech
You can talk hatefully if you want to. Church of Scientology is a sham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.199.129 (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be a doubting Thomas. I bet you're one of those people who thinks that the QRay doesn't improve your health 75%. The ions gradually remove hidden thetans from your wrists, DUH! --204.81.230.204 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Response from youtube?
I would be more than surprised if youtube responded. Difficult to get in contact with google in general. (maybe send a fax) Logictheo (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

He deserves it.
I say he deserves such treatment when he decides to screw around with Anonymous this way. If you don't like being attacked, then don't try to supress our right to freedom of speech with bullsh** DMCA claims through a bullsh** organization. —Raziel (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientologists are ratarded as fuk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.156.207 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Scilons trying to stomp out free speech
Nothing new. DMCA takedowns are NOT legit because of the Fair Use act. which protects 99.9% of all the anti-scientology videos on youtube. Youtube is scientologys buttbuddy it seems. We put up incriminating stuff and they freak out and do evenything they can to keep people from seeing it. The same thing happend with the tom cruise video. Why cant scientology see that the more they try and censor that more people will cry out in protest? Why can't they see that what they face is not a group or assortment of likeminded individules but a LEGION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "I think Anonymous has shown in..."
I think Anonymous has shown in the past and present that they like to control the Internet. Posting false statements or posting as somebody else would fit the Anonymous profile. &mdash;70.6.233.201 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)