Hammond DMCA Claim Update

[caramelcreme777]

(04-19-2011 07:28 AM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:they can't do a thing about it.

Their next big move would have to be to launch a lawsuit and then hope I back down rather than spend the time and money to fight them.

And as you might imagine, the task of taking on a multi-million dollar corporation with a huge budget for legal wars would be a wee bit daunting even if the cause is just.

I'm sure 20/20 would LOVE to help you out.

[sparkysugarsdad]

If they're not a cult, why are they acting like one?

[Darrell]

I'm just sitting here thinking of the absurdity of a church trying to keep its sermons from being spread.
If they're really glorifying God and honoring Christ then what's the issue?

Don't most churches WANT more and more people to hear their message? Don't they spend thousands and millions of dollars per year putting it on TV, radio, in print, and on the Internet?

Even if the message is being questioned or mocked the principle is that "whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached." So it doesn't matter who repeats it or shares it or copies it, the Word stands on its own barring some kind of editing or changing of the basic content.

This attempt to censor copies of Jack Schaap's sermons just goes to show how far Hammond has fallen from the Gospel when they see people spreading news of their sermons as some kind of threat.

[Mommy2Kids]

I was always told to not say or write something I would be ashamed of if it was repeated in public.

If he (Schaap) has to hide his sermons, it is because somewhere, deep down in that arrogant, narcissistic heart of his, he feels guilt or shame over his words.

Or not.

[sparkysugarsdad]

My guess is he got a very serious call from his attorney telling him to take the stuff down.

[Darrell]

(04-19-2011 12:35 PM)sparkysugarsdad Wrote:  My guess is he got a very serious call from his attorney telling him to take the stuff down.

Then his attorney should also have given him a primer in not attempting to violate the First Amendment rights of folks are using excerpts of his video for commentary purposes.

[Dude]

I'm sure that some people are getting ready to throw something at me, but have you considered contacting the ACLU? They will represent you for free as long as you, personally, agree to forego any attempt to sue for damages (e.g. you only seek to have your rights upheld and not to come out ahead financially). In recent years, they have been pretty good about defending quasi-news sites and Internet political commentators whose rights were being violated. I can't imagine that they would view a politico-religious commentator as much different and you meet the definition of the quasi-news site. Just a thought.

Plus, it would protect you depending on where the venue was (the FBC terms seemed to indicate Indiana as their choice of venue). I don't know where you live, but if it's not close to Indiana that's what could get you.

[Tikatu]

(04-20-2011 11:10 PM)Dude Wrote:  I'm sure that some people are getting ready to throw something at me, but have you considered contacting the ACLU? They will represent you for free as long as you, personally, agree to forego any attempt to sue for damages (e.g. you only seek to have your rights upheld and not to come out ahead financially). In recent years, they have been pretty good about defending quasi-news sites and Internet political commentators whose rights were being violated. I can't imagine that they would view a politico-religious commentator as much different and you meet the definition of the quasi-news site. Just a thought.

Plus, it would protect you depending on where the venue was (the FBC terms seemed to indicate Indiana as their choice of venue). I don't know where you live, but if it's not close to Indiana that's what could get you.

Not throwing things at you at all; it would be interesting - almost poetic justice - for the ACLU to be part of this. The only problem I see is that having the ACLU come in will make Shaap's incipient cries of "Persecution by unbelievers!" louder and more strident.

[RobMille]

(04-20-2011 11:10 PM)Dude Wrote:  I'm sure that some people are getting ready to throw something at me, but have you considered contacting the ACLU? They will represent you for free as long as you, personally, agree to forego any attempt to sue for damages (e.g. you only seek to have your rights upheld and not to come out ahead financially). In recent years, they have been pretty good about defending quasi-news sites and Internet political commentators whose rights were being violated. I can't imagine that they would view a politico-religious commentator as much different and you meet the definition of the quasi-news site. Just a thought.

Plus, it would protect you depending on where the venue was (the FBC terms seemed to indicate Indiana as their choice of venue). I don't know where you live, but if it's not close to Indiana that's what could get you.

I'm normally a card carrying member of the ACLU (currently expired, but not for too long), but there's almost no chance they would be even slightly interested in the case. They are happy to protect/defend/sue when it involves government incursions on your civil liberties, such as suing to limit the DCMA, but I can't imagine they would have the slightest interest in case between 2 private parties. Maybe if you got to a pretty high level appeal that they believed there was some opportunity to weaken the DCMA or strengthen free speech rights by joining a suit, but I can't see them getting involved in a case like this. I think there's some foundation that does love to fight DCMA stuff, but again don't know how much they get involved in private party DCMA disputes.

[NewJohn]

"It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt." - Mom
After my last thread trying to take a opposing side and having my "humanity and morality" questioned I hesitate to post but it may do good to see another side. I love to see the silliness of Schaap and the fundy thoughts. Darrel has a way to show the absurdity of the IBF thought process. But lets imagine someone makes a web sit called "Who is Darrel " They show Darrell in his Drudge hat, tell how Darrel's cousin was kicked out of PCC then show a video of Darrel's wife talking psychobabble and his children playing on silly toys. It goes viral in fundyland. Would we here be upset? Cry foul? Or would we laugh at the joke? This will be my last post as I am sure it won't be well received but remember, those are people children on the camp brochure.