Uploaded July 2008 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
This is a video response to the "DMCA: Anonymity verses Accountability".
youtube.com/watch?v=qY7tgsogP6M
He posted his video as a response to one of my videos. Yet, he has blocked me, so I won't be able to post my video as a response to his. Pretty pathetic, Inmendham. Pretty pathetic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible to file lawsuits against anonymous defendants, and it is possible for anonymous defendants to defend their anonymity by filing motions to dismiss or motions to quash a subpoena. Here are a few interesting stories involving John Doe lawsuits.
law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1174986234526
arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070925-video-professor-upset-by-criticism-sues-100-anonymous-critics.html
consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/12/video_prof03.html
cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/business/main3364365.shtml
theregister.co.uk/2007/06/24/autoadmit_libel_case
crn.com/security/208400657
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/07/02/piercing-the-veil-of-anonymous-bloggers/
"More fundamentally, in situations where a site does not choose to do any of the above, there is the John Doe subpoena. A complaint that states a reasonable claim against John Doe defendants for unlawful online speech usually will result in a judicial order that a web site or ISP provide available information about the speaker. Generally that information will include at least an IP address, and often the full name and postal address. Such data has been plenty for the recording industry and the government to identify defendants and proceed against them. I predict a similar outcome in the AutoAdmit case. (Indeed, Concurring Opinions' own Frank Pasquale recently found his name in use as a pseudonym for a blogger running a gripe site critical of a health care company; in that case the court has allowed the plaintiff to "pierce the pseudonymous veil" and discover the blogger's identity.) We may need some better procedures for discerning when such "piercing" on the basis of a complaint is appropriate, but I believe this doctrine will develop, just as it did in "corporate veil" cases. In that sense, we are evolving toward a model that allows psudonymity, but rarely true anonymity."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church of Scientology has a history of harassing their critics. Would a $10 deposit by one of their members stop other members from harassing a critic whose name was revealed after filing a false DMCA? (Not that I am saying the Church files false DMCAs in order to harass their critics. This is a hypothetical example of what COULD happen—it is not a statement of fact of what HAS happened.)
themaskedanalyst.com/Sceintology%20and%20the%20DMCA.htm
This is a video response to the "DMCA: Anonymity verses Accountability".
youtube.com/watch?v=qY7tgsogP6M
He posted his video as a response to one of my videos. Yet, he has blocked me, so I won't be able to post my video as a response to his. Pretty pathetic, Inmendham. Pretty pathetic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible to file lawsuits against anonymous defendants, and it is possible for anonymous defendants to defend their anonymity by filing motions to dismiss or motions to quash a subpoena. Here are a few interesting stories involving John Doe lawsuits.
law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1174986234526
arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070925-video-professor-upset-by-criticism-sues-100-anonymous-critics.html
consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/12/video_prof03.html
cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/business/main3364365.shtml
theregister.co.uk/2007/06/24/autoadmit_libel_case
crn.com/security/208400657
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/07/02/piercing-the-veil-of-anonymous-bloggers/
"More fundamentally, in situations where a site does not choose to do any of the above, there is the John Doe subpoena. A complaint that states a reasonable claim against John Doe defendants for unlawful online speech usually will result in a judicial order that a web site or ISP provide available information about the speaker. Generally that information will include at least an IP address, and often the full name and postal address. Such data has been plenty for the recording industry and the government to identify defendants and proceed against them. I predict a similar outcome in the AutoAdmit case. (Indeed, Concurring Opinions' own Frank Pasquale recently found his name in use as a pseudonym for a blogger running a gripe site critical of a health care company; in that case the court has allowed the plaintiff to "pierce the pseudonymous veil" and discover the blogger's identity.) We may need some better procedures for discerning when such "piercing" on the basis of a complaint is appropriate, but I believe this doctrine will develop, just as it did in "corporate veil" cases. In that sense, we are evolving toward a model that allows psudonymity, but rarely true anonymity."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church of Scientology has a history of harassing their critics. Would a $10 deposit by one of their members stop other members from harassing a critic whose name was revealed after filing a false DMCA? (Not that I am saying the Church files false DMCAs in order to harass their critics. This is a hypothetical example of what COULD happen—it is not a statement of fact of what HAS happened.)
themaskedanalyst.com/Sceintology%20and%20the%20DMCA.htm
