Kent Hovind is an evil creationist liar who is currently cooling his backside in prison, convicted for evading $840,000 in taxes. That’s the good news. It’s downhill from there.
His group, Creation Science Evangelism, has been on a pogrom — a jihad, if you will — taking down YouTube videos that reveal Hovind for what he is: an evil creationist liar. This group has been sending YouTube notices of copyright infringement, claiming that the anti-Hovind videos are using copyrighted material from Hovind himself.
There’s only one small problem: Hovind has said in the past that his videos are not copyrighted! * So why would he then turn around and say they are copyrighted? Why, to illegally silence his critics, of course!
Did I mention he’s an evil creationist liar?
CSE has sent YouTube many of these notices, and YouTube has been responding by suspending the accounts of the users. I don’t blame YouTube for this; they have to take down the videos until they can determine what’s what. It’s Hovind’s group that’s the real decaying rot of society here. JanieBelle has details of the first shot across the bow by Hovind’s noisome cult, when RabidApe was suspended from YouTube. And now she has the goods on their suspension of the Rational Response Squad (NSFW language on both links; in fact, in most of the links in this post). The RRS says this is a felony, since Hovind’s group is making multiple false copyright claims.
A creationist like Hovind breaking the law? Heaven forbid!
Oh wait. He’s already in prison for a felony. Silly me.
It’s not so much the felonious actions that tick me off (though the upside is that they are actionable) as it is the wanton and horrifying misuse of the law to silence critics. They must know what they are doing is wrong and illegal. As I’ve said before, I guess, for creationists, the Ninth Commandment is optional.
Here is an RRS video on the topic (hosted by Janie, since RRS is suspended).
Here is another video made by RRS and hosted by Revver, just in case:
If you have a blog, and any sense of reality and decency, spread the word. Link to Janie, link to RRS, or host the videos above on your own site.
We must not let felonious, lying, evil men like Kent Hovind win.
*Note: the video linked shows a Hovind web page which explicitly says the materials are not copyrighted; that statement has now been changed to say all materials unless explicitly stated are copyrighted. Revisionism, anyone?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:32 am
What does “The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God” have to do with creationists lying?
You must be thinking of that other set of ten commandments, but the real Ten Commandments are found in Exodus 34.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:39 am
As always, thank you for the link love, Dr. BA.
This really needs to get spread around as much as possible, so thank you also for bringing it to the attention of your much wider audience.
YouTube really needs to be a little more careful in their constant capitulations to creationist whining. As I’m sure you’re aware, this is not by any means the first incident like this, only the latest.
It’s about time that evil creationist liars be held to the same standard as everyone else.
If you can’t produce the experiments, it’s not Science.
If your schtick doesn’t stand up to critical examination, you can’t censor your critics.
And if you don’t obey the law, you go to jail.
Kisses
September 14th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Everything you create is copyrighted. If you say it’s not, that’s just a license for others to use it; you still have the right, you’re just telling people you won’t enforce it, and you can change your mind whenever you want. The good news, though, is that nobody should be subject to liability for posting those videos prior to his about-face; there’s a pretty clear estoppel defense there.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:45 am
[...] Original post by The Bad Astronomer [...]
September 14th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Now, now, no name-calling! While I have never been or will never be a creationist, I recognize they have a right to be wrong (and unfortunately propogate that wrongness onto their often numerous offspring).
I’m afraid using the words “evil creationist” together this way will only make creationists more defensive and less receptive to your observations in general — and these are some of the people who have the most to benefit from reading the contents of your site! Now, I realize you weren’t trying to call every creationist evil, and that your words were not intended to inflame the full body of creatists, but those who identify with the word will probably be offended just the same.
We have to remember that those with fundamental creationist belief systems were generally steeped in that belief system from birth, and those who strongly cling to it lack either critical thinking skills or adequate exposure or ability to comprehend the enormous body of evidence to the contrary. Hardly the fault of them.
Now, I’m not defending felons or people who intentionally deceive others with what they know is false. No am I defending those who in any non-defensive action attempt to cause harm to others (which is my minimum standard for calling someone “evil”). There are plenty of truly evil people in this word, but I don’t think that the evil people that are creationists have evil rooted in their creationism itself — it is simply a reflection of their character, and some use that character to couch or attempt to spread and/or enforce their creationist beliefs.
That said, I love this site and its mission, Phil. Keep up the good work!
September 14th, 2007 at 11:25 am
> CSE has sent YouTube many of these notices, and YouTube has been responding by suspending the accounts of the users. I don’t blame YouTube for this; they have to take down the videos until they can determine what’s what.
They may have to take down the videos, but under no interpretation of the law do they have to suspend user accounts, certainly not before they have “determined what’s best”. In this case this should be, at least, until the user has had a chance to respond with a DMCA counter-notice. If they file a counter-notice and Hovind doesn’t file suit in a real court within 14 days, the law *requires* Google to reinstate the videos, even if Google’s private judgement says the videos are infringing.
And if Google wanted to side with the users, they could after receiving the counter-notice (and deciding the user was right in this case) sue Hovind. Apparently, the submitter of a fraudulent DMCA notice becomes liable for damages to the service provider and not (just) to the end user who posted the video.
Ref: http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132
Regarding the DMCA notices and Youtube actions in this case, not enough details are in the linked posts. On the RRS site they write that “Unlike false copyright complaints, we’re unsure currently how we can have this rectified at the youtube level.” So was this a DMCA notice or not? Either way, Youtube/Google shouldn’t be absolved of all responsibility just like that for suspending user accounts without due process.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Phil, great to see you help bring this issue the publicity it deserves!
Rand – the thing is that even if the material was copyrighted, the use of the material in the videos that were pulled clearly fell under “fair use”, which allows the inclusion of clips of copyrighted material for the non-profit purposes of education or criticism.
No matter how you look at it, CSE were NOT within their rights to claim copyright infringement over material that used short clips of their material for the purposes of criticism.
In addition, CSE has claimed copyright over completely original material, which contains only briefly displayed photos of Kent Hovind – by no conceivable stretch of imagination do they have any plausible claim over such material.
I do not know what sort of penalties the law dictates for such abuse of copyright claims, but I do hope that it’s not just a slap on the wrist. If there aren’t swift and significant repercussions, then there’s the danger that this sort of abuse will become a tactic commonly used by pseudoscientists and various frauds and peddlers of superstition, to silence the critics they’d rather not face.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Not all creationists are evil. They are all wrong, but not necessarily evil.
Hovind is a) a creationist, b) a liar, and 3) evil. Therefore my use of these words is correct.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Phil,
Thank you for helping spread the word. I will post about this later today.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Priceless video, especially the cartoon song at the end
Let’s hope this is competently & swiftly resolved.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/09/hovinds_goons_u.html
Can’t seem to access the Dawkins forum at the moment, but I’ll create a thread there (unless someone else hasn’t done so already).
I’ve heard of this problem before on youtube. You don’t even have to have any evidence that someone has used copyrighted material, you can just accuse them. And of course, youtube has to play it safe and take it down.
Kent’s a pain in the *** even when he’s already in jail! Grrrrr!!!
September 14th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
As I understand it (and IANAL), Fair Use can be used as a defense against a claim of copyright infringement — i.e. after the filing of a lawsuit. The situation with DMCA is not so clear-cut. It may be that the law will be interpreted such that fair use cannot be claimed in a DMCA action. (Intellectual property law experts, correct me if I’m wrong about that!)
Rand is correct in saying that the copyright holder may assert that right at any time, even if it was waived earlier (as in this case). So if fair use is out of play and CSE chooses to revoke the waiver of copyright, we may never see those videos on YouTube again.
It certainly seems to me that the revocation of the accounts should and will be overturned. But once again, this is only a layman’s opinion.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
In any case, the videos criticizing Hovind’s argument are a clear case of fair use.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
It seems to me that the simplest thing we should do is just mirror the hell out of all the videos that Kent doesn’t like. Is he going to try and send out bogus DMCA notices to 100 people if they are all posting the videos in question via their own separate youtube accounts? I mean, how much resources does it take for them to get a lawyer to issue the paperwork versus the effort required to just click the upload button in youtube?
Somebody just needs to get all the videos in question in avi or mpg format and start spreading them around.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
i would suggest that if you are savvy enough that you get a copy of these videos and repost on your own YouTube account (or newly created account if you don’t want your main one locked) so that there are a bunch of users with these videos.
Having said that, it’s a little harder than that because in order to keep a “banned” video on YouTube you can’t just take the original video and upload it again because YouTube is smart enough to recognize the “signature” of a video. You have to tweak the video a little, chop out the first 2 seconds (although I hear that doesn’t work anymore) or chop out a blurb in the middle (hopefully without messing up the content).
Or maybe add your own intro title and closing credits to make them look different. Suggested title, “Doing my part to thwart Creationist CyberTerrorism (or DoucheBag-ism)”
September 14th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24328&p=405486#p405486
September 14th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Slashdot had a related article about this earlier today (companies forcing youtube to take down videos). They pointed out that the locked user can file a DMCA counter-claim
September 14th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
once again the creationist activist community has shown their duplicitious side. they are liars and worse everyone with a youtube account should repost those vids, they can’t DMCA everyone
September 14th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
[...] liar, fraud, huckster, swindler Kent Hovind gets videos exposing his lies removed from YouTube. More from the Bad Astronomer: There’s only one small problem: Hovind has said in the past that his videos are not copyrighted! [...]
September 14th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
[...] liar, fraud, huckster, swindler Kent Hovind gets videos exposing his lies removed from YouTube. More from the Bad Astronomer: There’s only one small problem: Hovind has said in the past that his videos are not copyrighted! [...]
September 14th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Filing a DMCA takedown claim is incredibly easy. It doesn’t take more than a few minutes, and doesn’t require a lawyer. On the other hand, issuing a counter-claim under the DMCA is equally as easy.
From looking at the sites linked, I can’t see any mention of the people whose accounts were suspended having made a counter-claim, in which case YouTube is acting entirely appropriately, doing as they are obligated by the law.
http://www.denisemccune.com/blog/2007/09/on_sfwa_vs_scribdcom_the_dmca.html has some nice info on the DMCA.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
From Hovinds point of view, he’s not evil. He’s just trying to make a few(million) bucks. In a society that espouses a “greed is good” attitude, how could anyone possibly take umbrage? I rather doubt he’s really a creationist believer either. It’s merely the easiest way to drain the bank accounts of gullible people. Now, as to lying, well yeah! You certainly aren’t going to make money off the gullible by telling them the truth, as in,”Hi. I’m here to RIP YOU OFF. Now, start forking over those bucks!!!”
In simpler times, when low tech tribes were faced with the necessity of separating the truly human from the human-like, they used man hood tests to identify those with the ability to control their instinctual drives. Those who failed were often times slowly simmered over a low fire for many hours until they were appropriately tenderized. Thus the psychotics and serious sociopaths became usable protein. Perhaps we’ve gone too far in our development of “civilized” behavior???
Gary 7
September 14th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Nice one, it’s fantastic to see someone calling these guys’ bluffs.
Keep up the good work.
September 14th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Make them less receptible than they are?
Divide by zero?
September 14th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
[...] BadAstronomy – helping to spread the word, by Dr. Phil Plait) Kent Hovind is an evil creationist liar who is currently cooling his backside [...]
September 14th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Thank you for posting this!
September 14th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I’m going to have that song in my head all day at work tomorrow……
September 14th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Submitted to FARK.com, got redlit..don’t know why (not interesting enuff for the masses.?)
I tried.
Passing this on to all I know..thanks, Phil, for keeping such as this in the spotlight.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:45 am
‘Inconsistent’ – perhaps.
But labeling an alleged moralist
[even religious] person who’s been
imprisoned for his non-payment of
federal taxes -&during an immoral war-
“felonious” ?
This ;iteralism is hardly staking
any moral high ground, my people.
I can salute Hovind for refusing to fly
under that radar.
I’d rather soon join him,
and Irwin Schiff, if it means opposing
this illegal, politicized administration.
After all, that branch of ‘evil-doers’
has successfully manipulated our
courts. Most of America’s felons
are my politcal allies!
September 15th, 2007 at 4:44 am
This is exactly the wrong way to go about something like this.
Youtube is just covering their collective ass. File a DMCA counter notification. Youtube will then be in the clear to post the videos again, and any further ado will be between the two claimants.
Regarding a recent similar issue:
quote:
…Knight had the courage to file a DMCA counter-notification claim with YouTube – something that happens all too rarely on the net, according to Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a big-name digital watchdog.
“Almost no one ever files a counter notice. That’s the biggest problem we’ve encountered [with DMCA claims on sites like YouTube],” von Lohmann told us. “Most people have no idea that right exists.”
Plus, in filing a counter notice, you risk a lawsuit. “It can be very intimidating when you’re just one guy against a media company. In order to send a counter notice, you have to certify that you believe the take-down was inappropriate – and you have to certify your willingness to be sued.”
source: http://www.theregister.com/2007/09/13/youtube_viacom_bow_to_light_sabre_wielding_video_maven/page2.html
September 15th, 2007 at 7:34 am
I’ve actually had the pleasure of hearing Kent Hovind speak in public. He generally speaks only to Baptist Church audiences, where a couple thousand people, nearly all of them uneducated in the ways of science, listen rapturously to all his oh-so-reasonable explanations of why it makes perfect sense that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Afterwards, he made this really awesome paper airplane that flew really high and got stuck on the roof of the church.
But anyway, that’s pretty much what Hovind is best at – preaching to the choir, in complete isolation from any real scientific context. He very, very rarely agrees to debate the issue with scientists, and then he regales his audiences with stories of how he totally made a fool of those secular scientists by totally busting their claims of silly things like “rivers carving out canyons” and “radiocarbon dating.”
I was pretty happy when I read a few months ago that he was in jail.
But I don’t know, I’m not getting as riled up about this particular incident as you are, because I see it more as a problem with YouTube itself. I always hated YouTube, so bull like this hardly surprises me.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am
God is why, science is how. And men like that give any religion at all a bad name.
Activate “Think like the enemy mode”:
He must have been created for the purpose of colonizing Pluto.
Deactivate “Think like the enemy mode”.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I think few people know that it’s possible to contest a takedown notice, or how to go about that. One organization can file dozens of takedown notices against different parties, but each of those parties is individually responsible for defending their work, and many of the most likely don’t know how. So the “shoot ‘em all” approach is effective in getting at least some content removed.
It would be nice if, when signing up for a YouTube account, there was a checkbox (checked by default): “Do you agree to allow YouTube to file DMCA reinstatement notices on your behalf?” Then YouTube wouldn’t even have to remove videos in response to takedown notices; they could immediately file a reinstatement notice and then notify the video’s poster of the event.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
BA, it really looks to me like you’re using the words “evil” and “liar” to deliberately incite a lawsuit from Hovind, a la PZ Meyers’s “crackpot” case. This would bring a lot of publicity to you, your site, and the science you promote here, so of course it’s in your best interest.
I fully support you in this effort. Bring it on
September 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
No way, Carey, BA is too good for that. Sueing is wrong.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am
I just dropped by my Youtube account.
Half my subscriptions are missing. Because of these guys.
Give ‘em hall, Phil.
September 16th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I am appauled by Hovind’s actions. However, it is not right to generalize all creationists as “evil liars.” Hovind is a scumbag..but not all creationists.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Sorry about that Pluto comment. I now understand that even if it was a joke, it was mean and not funny.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Video download not working… let me know by email where I can download them, i’ll make sure they get another extra home to be in… where they are not and cannot be protected by american copyright laws, since it’s newsworthy and contextually quoted with regards to a debate about current affairs, and if anybody files a dmca against them, they are in for alot of trouble.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:59 am
PZ Myers cites several spots where Hovind gives express permission to copy his stuff: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/more_lawyer_games_from_creatio.php
September 17th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Go to http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html to file a D-I-Y Counter Claim. The DMCA shouldn’t be abused to destroy free speech.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:49 am
We ought to thank both Google and Mr. Hovind for this.
More people will hear about this than if Mr. Hovind hadn’t said a thing.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t watch the Emmy’s on TV last night and would never have known about Sally Field being censored when speaking out against the Iraq War. Thank you Fox for being such perfect idiots.
Go Gidget Go.
Enjoy.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:57 am
No, I’m not trying to incite Hovind to sue me. I am trying to do the right thing, which is to expose this guy for the slimeball he is.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I disagree. If someone says their work is “not copyrighted” it is very likely that they are declaring that it is in the Public Domain as opposed to an implicit copyright license. Copyright licenses only work if the work is copyrighted. He certainly didn’t release his work under an explicit license with with caveats and such–nor could he if the work is “not copyrighted”–so Public Domain is really the only reasonable interpretation.
Once a work is released to the Public Domain it is free for all to use forever. It is a bell that cannot be un-rung otherwise the concept of the Public Domain would have no value since authors could simply remove their works at will, stranding people who had used the works and causing harm and unfair legal jeopardy to those users. Fortunately that is not how the Public Domain works.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am
While copyright automatically applies to your work on creation you can relinquish this copyright and release into the public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain). This release is one way, you can’t get it back.
Whether the precise wording that Hovind used initially is equivalent to releasing into the public domain, I don’t know. However, what he did write would seem to be irreversible for those materials. He can, obviously, retain full rights over new material…
Of course, fair use for criticism is, as noted above, a legal exception even if he retains full copyright.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Happy to link to your story in my blog.
http://buddhaglass.blogspot.com/
Looks like Hovind has a history of ignoring the law:
The building of [Kent Hovind’s Dinosaur Adventure Land] has created a “tempest in a teapot†kind of controversy with local government. Essentially, Hovind converted the backyard of his home at 29 Cummings Road into a theme park, improvising an entrance off Palafox and refusing to file the proper zoning-permit requests with Escambia County. Hovind was charged on September 13, 2002, for failure to observe county zoning regulations, but through many legal maneuvers (multiple requests to have judges recuse themselves, switching lawyers and eventually requesting a public defender, and various stays requested, once for failing to appear), the case is approaching its two-year anniversary in the court system with no conclusion imminent. The charge is a second-degree misdemeanor resulting from refusing to pay a $50 permitting fee.
This is not Hovind’s only scrape with the law (a visit to the Escambia County Clerk of the Courts Web site shows over a dozen court cases involving Hovind and his family). A month before the misdemeanor charge, Hovind was charged with felony assault, battery, and burglary with assault or battery. Charges were dropped in December 2002 when the victim, a member of Hovind’s congregation, withdrew the complaint. (A lengthy description of the incident and an e-mail tit-for-tat between Hovind and his accuser can be found at http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind.) More significantly, the Internal Revenue Service raided Hovind’s home and office in April 2004, confiscating financial documents related to the ministry and the park since January 1997. The IRS is charging that Hovind is evading taxes on more than $1 million in annual income and does not have a business license nor tax-exempt status for his ministry and the park (Norman 2004).
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/hovind.html
September 17th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
You don’t blame YouTube? I sure do. Those spineless gits need to stop caving in to every complaint and actually investigate them first. It is rediculous how quickly YouTube accepts a complaint and jerks the video being complained about. This isn’t a recent thing, it’s been an epidemic for years now. Those users who get suspended should *sue* YouTube for this, I swear; they must be violating their own TOS somehow.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Anyone can view the older page through the “wayback machine”, http://www.archive.org/index.php
September 17th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Anyone can view the older web page through the “wayback machine”,
http://www.archive.org/index.php
Once you put something on the Internet, you can’t take it back.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I think there should be a public record of successfully countered take-down notices.
Then when someone receives a take-down notice, they can check to see whether the sender has a history of harassing people using the DMCA.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I just coincidentally caught Headline News talking about the Emmys. They mentioned Sally Fields. You know what they said? She stuttered through her acceptance speech, and lost her place when the audience applauded. No mention of censoring.
I just checked the YouTube website for policies on copyright infringement. The Help Center has a page of policies:
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/topic.py?topic=10550
Specifically:
So Hovind et al are filing statements of copyright infringement, and YouTube is responding as legally required and pulling the offending material. Furthermore, for accounts with multiple violations, they are following their own clearly stated policy and terminating those accounts. However, they notified the account holders of the DCMA claim against them. The linked article about Christopher Knight demonstrates that if you file a counter claim, they will repost the material and reinstate the accounts, per law. Ergo, the first response should be to file the counter claim.
That said, it is still smarmy for Hovind to be making these claims of copyright infringements and having material pulled.
JK said:
> I think few people know that it’s possible to contest a takedown notice, or how to go about that. One organization can file dozens of takedown notices against different parties, but each of those parties is individually responsible for defending their work, and many of the most likely don’t know how. So the “shoot ‘em all†approach is effective in getting at least some content removed.
True, but YouTube posts in the help section instructions for how to file the counter notice.
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=58127
So YouTube can’t be faulted for following the law that requires them to pull copyright infringing materials upon notification, and they make the information easy to find and easy to follow for both takedown notifications and counternotifications.
> It would be nice if, when signing up for a YouTube account, there was a checkbox (checked by default): “Do you agree to allow YouTube to file DMCA reinstatement notices on your behalf?†Then YouTube wouldn’t even have to remove videos in response to takedown notices; they could immediately file a reinstatement notice and then notify the video’s poster of the event.
Won’t work. First off, if YouTube filed the counter notifications, they would be explicitly making themselves open to liability for any copyright infringement. The whole purpose of the DCMA is to protect orgs like YouTube to post materials and be covered for inadvertent infringement by third parties using their site. If they actively file the counternotice, they are claiming they know what material is copyright protected, what is Public Domain, and what is Fair Use. Thus, they become liable.
Shade Tail said:
> You don’t blame YouTube? I sure do. Those spineless gits need to stop caving in to every complaint and actually investigate them first. It is rediculous how quickly YouTube accepts a complaint and jerks the video being complained about.
Except YouTube is explicitly following the DCMA law regarding safe haven. They HAVE to pull the material upon notification, and can’t wait to investigate. They are acting fairly by notifying you that your material was pulled because of a DCMA notification and telling you how to file a counter notification. They can’t repost until they receive a counter notification. Otherwise, they are legally liable and could be sued for infringement. You may not like it, but that is the law. As for violating their own TOS, no they are not. Read them. I linked above to them. They pull accounts for repeat violators of copyright. If you counter notify, then they will reinstate.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Okay, Headline News had another Emmy segment. This time them mentioned the censoring, and showed both what home viewers saw and what she said.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
So far so good
Not really. (1) if you give someone the right to copy a work freely, you cant unilaterally revoke that right. You can cease granting that right to new people, but you cant unilaterally revoke it from those you have already granted it to. And (2) if you explicitly state that it is not copyrighted, as Hovind did, that places the work in the public domain, and once a work is in the public domain, it cannot be removed.
IOW, everything is copyrighted by default, but you can waive copyright, and Hovinds earlier actions have done so.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Dan Armak said:
> They may have to take down the videos, but under no interpretation of the law do they have to suspend user accounts, certainly not before they have “determined what’s bestâ€. In this case this should be, at least, until the user has had a chance to respond with a DMCA counter-notice. If they file a counter-notice and Hovind doesn’t file suit in a real court within 14 days, the law *requires* Google to reinstate the videos, even if Google’s private judgement says the videos are infringing….
> Either way, Youtube/Google shouldn’t be absolved of all responsibility just like that for suspending user accounts without due process.
Hold on. I don’t know the full details of the incidents in question, but can guess at a sequence of events that does absolve YouTube. When they receive the DMCA notice, they have to pull the video and notify the video poster. If the poster files the counter notice, they have to notify the original claim filer, and if no lawsuit is opened in 14 days, then they repost. If the person who posted the videos does NOT file the counterclaim and reposts, or even if they do counterclaim but repost the material before the 14 day period, then they are repeating the copyright violation and showing a disregard for the legal system. YouTube is right to protect their safe haven by canceling accounts of users who disregard the legal process and violate YouTube policy (repeat copyright violations). If it is eventually shown that the original poster was not violating copyright, or the counterfile goes into effect and no lawsuit is filed in 14 days, then the user can get their account reinstated.
> And if Google wanted to side with the users, they could after receiving the counter-notice (and deciding the user was right in this case) sue Hovind. Apparently, the submitter of a fraudulent DMCA notice becomes liable for damages to the service provider and not (just) to the end user who posted the video.
Yes, but they would have to show legal damages in order to sue Hovind. The only damages I can think they could come up with is damage to reputation, and that’s probably hard to defend. Certainly there’s no dollar damages because the user accounts are free.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
ShavenYak’s very clever, but if we went with that set of commandments, we’d be free to murder and fornicate, as long as we didn’t have steak with béarnaise sauce.
Canonically, the Ninth Commandment is “Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.” (Exodus 20:16, repeated in Deuteronomy 5:20).
Just for clarity, there are 613 Commandments (mitzvot); those ten are sort of cherry-picked for Christian purposes; the ones that appear in Ex 34, because they deal with ritual observance only, get read down for us Gentiles, and apply only as much as, say, the prohibition on planting trees in the churchyard (Deut 16:21), astrology (Lev 19:26), or the need to call a priest to inspect the shower if there’s mould growing in it, and ensuing utter chaos (Lev 14:34-57).
September 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Hey! it looks like the videos are back up on youtube.
Check out http://www.rationalresponders.com/
I guess sometimes the good guys do win.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:58 am
[...] had to laugh while reading this article about a Creationist who ended up in prison: Bad Astronomy Blog » Kent Hovind: creationist liar and evil, evil, evil It’s funny because not so long ago a Creationist from here actually tried to stop me from posting [...]
September 20th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
[...] to suppress criticisms of his bad science. Well, check this out: now CSE has been caught red-handed revising their licensing. Where before they declared everything free and good to disseminate, now they are retroactively [...]
September 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Why can’t the same be done to them. Since the DMCA puts the onus on the wrong side, it could also be used on creationists to hamper their efforts to spread ignorance
Sure 2 wrongs don’t make a right…. except maybe in this case
September 27th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I didn’t get to read all the comments but a lot of the ones I read were pure creationist-bashing. I don’t know much about this Hovind person or what he did, but no matter what he did, he’s not an evil person… just maybe very stupid.
Some of you say the creation views are ignorant…. I have not learned much about evolution but I do not see how that could be possible. Maybe I have just not heard all the facts, or maybe I have heard false facts, I just don’t know yet, but that doesn’t give me the right to go around saying it’s an evil belief and that it is -an irrational philosophy, gibberish that’s utterly worthless- (and yes, I call evoluion a belief just as I call creation a belief because none of us were there to actually witness it.)
I have been a Christian since I was young enough to know what God was, but I try not to look at facts with a biased view. Still, I hear an evolutionist’s explination and can see the holes in it.
Oh, also something I just thought of that has nothing really to do with creation/evolution, (hey, just stop reading if I’m making you angry) but all you who hate Christians, I almost don’t blame you. Christians have made it hard for people to like them. But they’re human, just like you are, and humans make mistakes. Even if you don’t share their veiw-point you can still be nice and hear what they have to say without taking their heads off for it, even if you refuse to be open-minded to it (don’t worry, we’re being close-minded when you talk, too.)
If you don’t like my opinion, I’m sorry, but that’s what it is, and if you really want to you can have your own opinion, but that’s what it is.
(Sorry if there are typos and mistakes, I usually proof-read everything but it’s late and I’m seeing two of everything.)
October 21st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
To allyou folk out there especially you “loving” evolutionists who label creationists as “evil”, then please provide the proof of evolution and the falsity of creationism. I’m a dumbo. I’ve heard His side of his story (Creation). Now lets hear yours. If youre man enough to right the right the wrong. Normally it is the atheists who are so vociferously make such remarks without proving that God does exist. I’m agnostic. I’m not sure God exists. So how about it you atheists and evolutionists, show me what modicum of intelligence that permeates the grey matter of your “superiorness” over believers of creationists!!!
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Just like an evolutionist, attack the person with third party innuendos and avoid attacking the persons theory with first person stated facts. In the end though , given a choice, even with his infalibilities, Im far better off on Kents side.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:50 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]
December 27th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Only in america can a person like kent hovind be put in jail for nothing. He asked the irs to show him why he owned taxes for his ministery they never even responded back. He even said he will pay everything if they showed him why, not even a response. It says in THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICA that any that any religious entity is tax exempt, but i guess the constitution in the words of bush sr. “is a god damn piece of paper”. He is in jail for using his right of freedom of speech. He gets 10 years while child rapists and murderers get slaps on the wriste or maybe worse a $22 fine, now thats justice amazing. There is no evidance that the evolution theory is a fact, thats why they call it a theory. All of you say he dose not have a real degree or the qualifications to be a scientist. Guess what , Charels darwin and charles lyle pretty much the founders of the evolution theory. Darwin went to collage to be a pastor no science classes period, but yet all you evolutionists believe every word of his book. Lyle the author of the geological colum (The book that darwin read right after collage and started believing in this theory) was a lawyer. No biology classes, anytype of science classes, a man who lies for a living, but yet all of you believe every word.
In 1960 classroom books read the earth is 500 million years old. 1970 it was 900 million. 1980 it was 1.5 billion. When i was in school it was 2.5 to 3 billion and now its 4 to 6 billion. I say that the earth is somewhere between one week and ten billion years old, now lets say that is a scientific fact and put it in our school books, wow already feel like a believer in the evolution religion.
But I guess people that talk about what the goverment disaproves of go to jail. Wow reminds me of when I Lived in communist russia same story, but one difference russia dose not do that anymore.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:39 am
My friends, I have been studying physics and chemistry for five and a half years now and have had lots of time to think about cosmology for many years before that. If what you are saying is so true, why do you go about raging viciously against Hovind? Of what are you really afraid? What is it that makes you so angry? Where is your calm, reflective reality?
I mean, if you are correct, you have the answers and he is just like you only mislead. Why do you hate so and justify his doctrine of sin in which the very wickedness in which you rage against him and other persons is exposed. You are indicted by your own actions.
Is not the real reason that you are wilfully ignorant of the creation? I have studied science tertiary level for four years and am more and more convinced (in every way) of creation every day. However, holding this conviction I am not the least bit intimidated by the false view of evolution nor am I afraid of an objective honest enquiry.
Why do you behave so insecurely, if after all you were really right? As for me I seek to win you for your sake, not with malice, but with a respectful challenge. After all, the premise that I take is one in which all mankind is of one blood and we are all descendents of Adam and Eve through Noah (whether we realise this or not).
There is enough evil in the world. What can be gained now by adding to it. As for Hovind, I do not know all the facts. I do know however, that evil persons often walk free and that good people sometimes are imprisoned (which is not to prove/disprove his innocence).
Who would not agree that Galileo was not wrongfully put under house arrest by the authorities of his day? Who would not say that Socrates was wrongfully sentenced to death?
Is it not so that in America, religious organisations are tax exempt? Was it not under this premise that Hovind operated? Naive or not, Hovind is not automatically guilty.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
He is one of the best persons in our cruel world! he tells the truth! Everybody should believe in Bible and Creation because iur Lord is coming very soon!
February 24th, 2008 at 8:51 am
[...] the project goes any further, I want to be sure that Kent Hovind, creationist, liar, convicted felon, and Pseudo-Scientific Douche-Bag with a fake “Dr.” degree from a fake [...]
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Well said “Physics and Chemistry Uni Student”.
Evolution is an unproven myth, but I defend evolutionists’ right to be wrong, to the end…. and guys, as far as Kent Hovind is concerned, rather than hurling hate and invective at him…try to forgive, and don’t fall into the age old trap of judging Christianity, by Christians…. none of us are perfect….instead, look to our perfect Christ.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:14 am
The problem with people like you (Phil) is that you say you reject creation because there are no facts (according to you) to support it. Why don’t you be honest with yourself and admit that even if you saw cast-iron proof that supported creation, you would still refuse to accept it? You see, accepting creation means accepting the one who created it all – God, the creator, and thus, life takes on a whole different perspective, namely, that you are accountable to him because he made you! That, is what evolutions/atheists just cannot stomach because it means all men will stand before God and answer to him.
When you take evolution to it’s logical conclusion you are left with one thing – NO PURPOSE TO LIFE. Therefore, it is far more comfortable to believe in something (yes evolution requires mountains of faith) that means a person can live life as wickedly as they want to and not be held responsible or punished.
Well Phil, it’s like this; if I follow your evolution, I can do what I want and get away with it. Let’s face it, many go through life pursuing nothing but evil and destruction. However, If I follow God’s Word, then it’s a different ball game because the day of reckoning is coming for all of us. Who’s got more to loose Phili, you or me?
P.S – you say you like facts. Show me your facts to support your hypothesis. Here are mine – the 2 laws of thermodynamics! study them!!!!!
Craig.
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of Gos is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:37 am
You know dr hovind is right so u put him i jail.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Hovind, is fighting for your brains not to be washed with Satanic propoganda. Survivor of the fittest. The weak die the strong proceed.
The taxes that are not paid to teach your children shoot each other.
Because most of you don’t listen there will be more shootings, more violance, more opression, more desasters, untill everything that could be shaken is shaken. One day your eyes will open to the truth but it will be too late. Like in the days of Noha people are so full of themselves, talking about science and how smart they are. Show me one person that can live a thousand (at list) years by his will, or if you are so smart by the “wonderful” law of evollution and controll your destiny. Say no to death and I will take my words back. Until then I say most of you are doomed. God sends the prophets so people would listen, but the history of the mankind is so repetative and predictable. You will say no to God, no to truth, no to anything good. But it is fulishness of the mankind, the wise of the world are stupid, because they live in the short term. Hovind lives in the long term.
What harm has he done and what bad in the physical sense his teaching created? Evolution created: Suicidal rate
Divorce rate, adultary (VICH, Parentless children, abortion every day 4000 babies is killed in US registered), racial hatrid, Feminism, Greed, violence, murder, rape, prostitution, homosexuality, preversion.
Fill the land with the inocent blood, sin and rebelion against God and
feel the breath of wreath of God almighty responding to the Sadom’s and Homora’s filled cup of sin. One more drop and the evolution will not save you, while Hovind will get his reward for the faitfulness.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Wow it’s amazing to me how you call the man evil. So, you must believe there is such a thing as evil, while there is also such a thing as good? Then it wouldn’t it be safe to say there is such a thing as a morale law, to differentiate between good and evil. And if you posit such thing as a morale law, you must posit a morale law giver, but that’s exactly what you are trying to disprove. If there is no morale law giver, then there is no morale law. If there is no morale law, then there is no good. If there is no good then there is no evil. So explain to me what you mean by calling him an evil man?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
I find nothing wrong with the teaching of Creation over the Evolution teachings. It is simple and common sence to those who beleive in a true God. Scientist who completely refute creations teachings obviously dont beleive in the One True God. All those who beleive in Evolution will stand and Face the Creator on Judgment Day and see if they can push their man made lies in Him (they wont go very far)
The Bible is Very Clear that each produces after its own kind and in the New Testament it clearly points out that there is a difference in kinds!
1Corinthians 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.
1Corinthians 15:40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.
1Corinthians 15:41 [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.
I feel sorry for Kent Hovin I think he should of been a bit more cautious concerning his tax issues, he may have made a mistake there, but at least he stood up for truth concerning the Bible and thats the bottomline you either beleive in God (Creation) or you beleive in man without God (Evolution) But one thing for sure every Evolutionist will beleive in Creation when they die (But it will be too late).
We have no right to judge another man. Lets pray for Kent Hovin
September 15th, 2008 at 1:04 am
I’m a Christian (Creationist)
But I’m going to come at Christianity from a non-religious perspective.
So what if Evolution is right, I don’t matter and am a random abberation of nature. And me being an Evolutionist means after I die I just stay dead end of story.
If Christianity is right I matter, and am created by a wonderful God who loves me. When I die I live forever in a wonderful place, with no sickness, or sin, where everything is perfect.
NOW REALLY WHICH OUTCOME AND LIFE SOUNDS BETTER
And all you have to do is believe in God and accept Jesus as your Savior!!!
February 12th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
What’s great is all the evolutionists can do is attack Kents character because they certainly touch his logic and science about the rediculous, unscientific, illogical and still unproved myth of evolution! Next time pay your taxes dude.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
There just mad that kent hovin makes there theory look like a crock, which it is, lol, get off it, just because your mad that your religon in evolution is dead, and has no real proof, and someone like kent hovin debate’s the issue’s with great results, for the simple fact that he is right, and they are wrong, rather the word of god is right, everything from there carbon dating, and in between, this is really about everyone not wanting god in there lives, so now that he has exposed the B.S, with the big dud, now we are going to make him out to be a bad guy, the publisher of this website needs to get a clue, never mind one of the worst things I have ever read, take a writing class would ya, lol………..
The lord said, I am the way, the truth, and the light, only through Jesus christ are you saved………………………….
May 11th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
These anti-Hovind web sites rely too much on character assasination. Frankly, his issues with the IRS are irrelevant. The latter agency is guity on all accounts too – as a bullying gang of theives. It is constantly under the legal microscope itself.
As a professional archaeologist for 25 years, I find that Mr. Hovind raises important and provocative issues, many of which are difficult to answer. If his reliance on the Bible is unnacceptable to you, well so is the current quai-religious manner in which the thorughly discredited ideology of Darwinism continues to be preached in our schools. Give the man his due. He has pointed out many very real problems, and his detractors do nothing but demean and disparage him while dodging his most important assertions. Mayby thats because he’s on to something.
May 11th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Gary Navarre, if Kent Hovind raises questions which you cannot answer, then I wonder if you are all you claim to be. A web search on your name plus “archaeology” doesn’t bring up any professional organizations, schools, or research groups.
And of course, your phrase “discredited ideology of Darwinism” was a big hint as well.
Nice try. But we rely on facts here, not claims of authority. Of course, Hovind has neither.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:09 am
There you go again (Phil). Attack the person, since the subject matter is too tough. OK. We’ll keep it simple. One question as an example:
Hovind reports that the “Lobe Finned Fish” was once believed to be extinct and was known only from fossils. It was dated by the geologic formation in which its fossils were found to a bit over 400 million years. Then one was recently caught, proving the species still lives. The reaction was surprise that this species was still living after all this time, but no one wuestioned the geologic column by which it has been dated. Tell me, if this species was ideed living over 400 million years ago, how come it’s modern representative hasn’t evolved one iota? The specimen caught was identical to its fossil ancestor.
This same problem occurred when a “celiocanth” was netted by fishermen recently. The latter species was once thought to have died out “millions and millions” of years ago. But the modern fish was anatomically identical to the fossil examples. Something wrong with dating by the geologic column perhaps?
May 12th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Ah, the whiny trolls have re-energized this thread, sounds like fun.
RE: the coelacanth (learn to spell, and look up data before making a fool of yourself) was first discovered in 1938 (when the Earth was 4026 years old..) which isn’t ‘recent’ even to an old fart like moi.
Why did it not change? Why should it if the environment it lives in didn’t lead to mutations forcing changes? That’s the ‘if men evolved from apes…’ fallacy. Sharks are still very similar to prehistoric forms, as well. Change is only needed when the environment leads to mutation being beneficial, it’s not ‘automatic’.
J/P=?
May 12th, 2009 at 1:45 am
An unsatisfying answer John, and incomplete. The problem of circular dating among rocks and fossils is a very real one and has been around long before Hovind. We are not well tied to our past. Note below:
BUILT BY CORRELATION, L. DON LEET (Harvard) & SHELDON JUDSON (Princeton), “Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. This process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the Latin for ‘together’ plus ‘relate’”. PHYSICAL GEOLOGY, P.181
NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ. “And this poses something of a problem,: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?” TIME FRAMES, 1985, p.52
J. E. O’ROURKE, “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.”, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51
TOM KEMP, Oxford, “A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?” New Scientist, Vol.108, Dec.5, 1985, p. 67
DAVID M. RAUP, U. of Chicago; Field Museum of N.H., “The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity…Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found.”, FMONH Bulletin, Vol. 54, Mar. 1983, p.21
D. B. KITTS, Univ. of Oklahoma, “But the danger of circularity is still present…. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation….for almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.”, Evolution Vol. 28, p.466
“Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science.” I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.
“The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion.” More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], “The Dogma of Evolution,” Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.
BOTHERSOM DISTRESS, STEPHEN J. GOULD, Harvard, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980. “Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. …They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”
“WE KNEW BETTER”, NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of Natural History, “And it has been the paleontologist, my own breed, who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: …. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.”, TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144
GOOD RECORD-BAD PREDICTION, NILES ELIDRIDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. … One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46
THERE’S A GREAT DEAL MORE!
May 12th, 2009 at 2:33 am
“When you’re losing, change the subject”
Damn, trolls are just SO predictable.
J/P=?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:55 am
Not at all – what Hovind is getting at with the fish and other arguments is that the geologic column is demomstrably innaccurate. He traces this to the fact that the column, by which fossils are dated, was erected with reference to a flawed assumption that observable geological features on earth were created by the same slow geologic processes that we observe today. This however, does not appear to be true, as the following statement makes clear:
RECORD IS CATASTROPHIC, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Univ. of Chicago, “A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a ‘way of life’ although they may avoid the word catastrophe… The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks….one can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one.” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Vol.54, March 1983), p.2 1
Thus, a modern fish is assumed to be over 400 million years old, when it might be only a few millenia old. The geologic column may well be in need of drastic overhaul if supposedly extinct fish keep turning up where they shouldn’t.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 am
Kent is 100% normal: he knows what is going to happen to all of you not believing in GOD………….. he just wants to help all of you. and now you diss him. I still think no evil man will try to get so many people for God. SO think again if you do not want to believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!God is coming to get all his Children… And for the people that says he`s a lier. no man on earth is perfect. every one on earth has sin. That is the reson why Jesus Died for u!
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
Slamming other people is EASY. . .but being willing to stand up for the truth (even in the face of slander and imprisonment) takes guts.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
If I were a felon then I would feel privileged to share a cell with a man of such great knowledge, or even being in the same prison would be a privilege. Wow, could you imagine the bible study and sermons going on? It would be awesome. I hope he continues his great commision that God has given him. He’s one of my favorite preachers. I pray that he does his accounting a little different though