Uploaded May 2008 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Mark Bunker, a leading critic of Scientology, lost his xenutv1 account a few weeks ago. The timing was particularly unfortunate because it interrupted plans for publicizing a major interview he had with actor Jason Beghe, a long time Scientologist who left the church and is now one of its most famous critics.
Mark can only get his account back if he convinces Viacom to withdraw the DMCAs it filed against him. This video examines Viacom's claim and provides a way for Mark to get Viacom to drop their complaint and get his account back.
Mark's website: xenutv.com
Mark now posts his videos here since he can't post at Youtube:
vimeo.com/channel7828
Visit the vimeo.com to see the Jason Beghe interview.
L. Ron Hubbard, is quoted as having said, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion."
don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html
Sites about Scientology
Sites questioning Scientology's actions.
exscientologykids.com
abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=4702271&page=1
themaskedanalyst.com/Sceintology%20and%20the%20DMCA.htm
Scientology sites
scientology.org
religiousfreedomwatch.org
Mark discusses the loss of his Youtube account here. Check out the letter by a BayTSP employee acting on Viacom's behalf which says Mark's use of Viacom's clips were "clearing infringing":
xenutv.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/my-youtube-account
Two threads on Enturbulation.org relevant to Mark's lost account:
forums.enturbulation.org/100-xenutv-situation-room/continued-man-harpoons-xenutv1-megathread-9979/22
forums.enturbulation.org/100-xenutv-situation-room/viacom-emails-wbm-will-not-retract-10495/7
The Viacom DMCA dragnet of 2007: Viacom issues 100,000 DMCA takedown notices to Youtube. Nearly 60 of them are totally bogus.
themaskedanalyst.com/Viacom%20Dragnet.htm
Viacom did not consider fair use in their dragnet. LiberalViewer lost his account for a while because of this.
themaskedanalyst.com/LiberalViewer.htm
The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued Viacom because their DMCAs did not take fair use into consideration The lawsuit was ended when Viacom reached an understanding with the EFF to give fair use a wide birth. Here is the relevant press release.
eff.org/deeplinks/2007/04/viacom-gives-fair-use-wide-berth-youtube
This post mentions that the two Colbert clips that Mark posted were under 2 minutes each:
forums.enturbulation.org/100-xenutv-situation-room/new-direction-drumming-up-dead-story-10756/2/#post196662
The Purpose of Copyright Law:
themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm
On Fair Use:
themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm
Mark's blog posts where he commented on the Colbert videos. This commentary may add the transformative element that would persuade a Court that this was Fair Use.
xenutv.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/will-smith-scientologist
xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/the-book-of-stephen
Wendy Seltzer is an expert on internet and copyright law. Her experience is somewhat relevant to this discussion. Read about it here:
wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html
wendy.seltzer.org/media/DMCA-counter-notification.pdf
Mark Bunker, a leading critic of Scientology, lost his xenutv1 account a few weeks ago. The timing was particularly unfortunate because it interrupted plans for publicizing a major interview he had with actor Jason Beghe, a long time Scientologist who left the church and is now one of its most famous critics.
Mark can only get his account back if he convinces Viacom to withdraw the DMCAs it filed against him. This video examines Viacom's claim and provides a way for Mark to get Viacom to drop their complaint and get his account back.
Mark's website: xenutv.com
Mark now posts his videos here since he can't post at Youtube:
vimeo.com/channel7828
Visit the vimeo.com to see the Jason Beghe interview.
L. Ron Hubbard, is quoted as having said, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion."
don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html
Sites about Scientology
Sites questioning Scientology's actions.
exscientologykids.com
abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=4702271&page=1
themaskedanalyst.com/Sceintology%20and%20the%20DMCA.htm
Scientology sites
scientology.org
religiousfreedomwatch.org
Mark discusses the loss of his Youtube account here. Check out the letter by a BayTSP employee acting on Viacom's behalf which says Mark's use of Viacom's clips were "clearing infringing":
xenutv.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/my-youtube-account
Two threads on Enturbulation.org relevant to Mark's lost account:
forums.enturbulation.org/100-xenutv-situation-room/continued-man-harpoons-xenutv1-megathread-9979/22
forums.enturbulation.org/100-xenutv-situation-room/viacom-emails-wbm-will-not-retract-10495/7
The Viacom DMCA dragnet of 2007: Viacom issues 100,000 DMCA takedown notices to Youtube. Nearly 60 of them are totally bogus.
themaskedanalyst.com/Viacom%20Dragnet.htm
Viacom did not consider fair use in their dragnet. LiberalViewer lost his account for a while because of this.
themaskedanalyst.com/LiberalViewer.htm
The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued Viacom because their DMCAs did not take fair use into consideration The lawsuit was ended when Viacom reached an understanding with the EFF to give fair use a wide birth. Here is the relevant press release.
eff.org/deeplinks/2007/04/viacom-gives-fair-use-wide-berth-youtube
This post mentions that the two Colbert clips that Mark posted were under 2 minutes each:
forums.enturbulation.org/100-xenutv-situation-room/new-direction-drumming-up-dead-story-10756/2/#post196662
The Purpose of Copyright Law:
themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm
On Fair Use:
themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm
Mark's blog posts where he commented on the Colbert videos. This commentary may add the transformative element that would persuade a Court that this was Fair Use.
xenutv.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/will-smith-scientologist
xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/the-book-of-stephen
Wendy Seltzer is an expert on internet and copyright law. Her experience is somewhat relevant to this discussion. Read about it here:
wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/15/dmca_saga_act_ii_counter_notification.html
wendy.seltzer.org/media/DMCA-counter-notification.pdf

![Blunty3000, Utubedrama, and Censorship: Part 2
This video provides a detailed response to Blunty3000 and his support of the censorship of haters. The issue is not as simple as Blunty suggests, and legitimate free speech could be the inadvertent casualty of an anti-hater campaign. Such a campaign could also backfire and severely hurt Youtube.
Here is a link to Blunty3000s video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWG-zgaXH40
Bluntys blog where he discusses haters in general and Trevor Rieger in specific:
http://www.bluntmation.com/content/
Utubedramaqueens video, where Trevor describes why he thinks Youtube censored him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEojLdCxDQo
Information about Richard Nixons enemies list:
http://www.answers.com/topic/nixon-s-enemies-list
Michelle Malkins First They Came video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOb6Vh3qaAY
New York Times v. Sullivan—The seminal libel law case.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html
The original passage from NYT v. Sullivan that I bent to fit this situation:
A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount leads to a comparable self-censorship. Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred. [note 19] Even courts accepting this defense as an adequate safeguard have recognized the difficulties of adducing legal proofs that the alleged libel was true in all its factual particulars. See, e.g., Post Publishing Co. v. Hallam, 59 F. 530, 540 (C.A. 6th Cir. 1893); see also Noel, Defamation of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875, 892 (1949). Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is, in fact, true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so. They tend to make only statements which steer far wider of the unlawful zone. Speiser v. Randall, supra, 357 U.S. at 526. The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. It is inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
My video discussing the Nick Gisburne affair. Nick was originally told by Youtube that he was being censored for inappropriate content. Youtube later told him that he was being banned forever because of copyright infringement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By6aqz_79Uc
Youtubes bungling of the Gisburne affair earned it some really bad press. Watch Michelle Malkins video and pay close attention to the comments underneath it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/21/banned-by-youtube-iii/
This video by Ron, the Washington, D.C. copyright lawyer, discusses the Tur v. Youtube lawsuit. It is absolutely essential to watch this video for people to understand why Youtube should be careful not to get a reputation for censorship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr9SQ4qkMMk
Update: Trevors Utubedramaqueen account has been banished and he is now posting as Utubedramaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUUEczUFCsg Blunty3000, Utubedrama, and Censorship: Part 2](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bjcsNRpa4jY/mqdefault.jpg)








