Hovind’s Goons use Fraud to Remove Critical YouTube Videos

| 42 Comments | 1 TrackBack

From reports that we are getting, starting yesterday a user account on YouTube, called cseministry, began fraudulently claiming that any video which criticized the felon, cheat, liar, fraud, huckster, etc. Kent Hovind violated the copyrights of the Creation Science Evangelism.

Under the draconian DMCA, CSE can use such false claims to silence their critics, with little legal risk to themselves. Once a claim has been filed, YouTube is required by US Law to remove the content immediately and without any review. The real copyright holders then have to jump through hoops to get their content back on YouTube, that is assuming that they haven’t already been falsely banned.

Hovind’s critics have a strong case against CSE’s DMCA claims because CSE’s own website waived copyright: “None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely.” That waiver appeared in the About Creation Science Evangelism page as recently as yesterday. It looks like they’ve scrubbed their site today, after this waiver was pointed out to them. Apparently, CSE is trying to retroactively remove their productions from the public domain. (They can’t legally do this, but has the Hovind Bunch ever acted within the law?)

But more infuriating to me is that several users have reported that CSE is claiming copyright to homegrown videos that contain no CSE content, and in many cases no content by anyone other than the YouTube user. They are issuing clearly fraudulent DMCA complaints to remove videos critical of their organization and the liar that ran (runs?) it. This type of behavior should land the rest of the Hovind Bunch in jail except that fraudulent infringement notices are not illegal under the DMCA.

Update: And Now a Video

1 TrackBack

Apparently the followers of a group known as the “Creation Science [sic] Evangelism Ministries,” led by currently imprisoned tax evasionist Ken Hovind, have been sending false DMCA copyright takedown requests to YouTube on any and all video... Read More


The Electronic Frontier Foundation has dealt with precisely this sort of thing in the past. They should be contacted ASAP.

Wait, under Fair Use act you are allowed to present portions of copyrighted materials if for the purposes of critique. I am sure of this.

They are not disclosing the full truth on copyright laws: satire and criticism are protected.

Following up on my previous post. The EFF has actually helped out with exactly this sort of situation. For a specific example see http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2[…]mg-crossfire . The EFF’s homepage is at http://www.eff.org/ . If they get involved Hovind and his ilk won’t know what hit them.

Just a side note, but Hovind’s bunch clearly can’t handle criticism. All of their videos they’ve uploaded under that account have both ratings and comments disabled. It must suck to be a liar who’s lies are easily dispelled. :-)

Highly recommend reading EFF’s Blogger IP facts: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php

Also, you might try getting some screenshots from the internet archive of the old non-copyright notice.


Finally, Chilling Effects has a form available that will generate the counter notices necessary to get stuff posted back. It takes awhile because it has to go via snail mail.


“DMCA” (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) not “DCMA.”

Fixed. I wonder what acronym is stuck in my head and made me transpose the letters.…

Interesting tidbit–if you go to cseministry’s Youtube site (following Reed’s link above) you find that for every single one of his/her videos, it says “ratings have been disabled” and “adding comments has been disabled.” What a surprise.

Funny short video on the copywrite status. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gd3[…]SSw&NR=1

I have a small handful of videos critical of Hovind et al. on YouTube. So far they still exist (probably still under their radar)…

I usually go trolling for “creation vs evolution” videos to critique (in my own slightly-educational slightly-entertaining way), and I noticed a few days ago a new bunch of videos from a new account, “cseministry”. I couldn’t believe my eyes. These are new productions of videos, looks to be run by Kent’s son Eric. Most of them are only 1-2 minute “previews”, but the production values are MUCH better than they used to be. Looks like they’re still getting money from somewhere.

It was ACHING for commenting on, but, as you’ve noted, all comments *in all forms* are disabled. I’m not sure what they’re trying to prove with that, but it’s suspicious at the very least.

I think now the eyes need to be focused on ERIC Hovind at this point. He seems to have taken the reins, since Kent is out of commission for another 10 years or so.

Not to suggest that anyone take action like this, but what prevents someone from filing a claim stating that cseministry’s videos violate a copyright?

Ummmm. Fraudulent DMCA notices *are* illegal. DMCA takedown notices have to be made under penalty of perjury stating that the filer represents or is acting with the authority of the copyright holder. If the law firm submitting the notices does not represent the copyright holder, they are very likely guilty of perjury.

You are correct, ruidh, but that is a very limited requirement. CSE just has to assert that the videos infringe on their copyrights. They don’t have to claim that they own the copyrights to the videos. Their claims of infringement are not made under penalty of perjury, according to my understanding of the DMCA.

Of course, without seeing the actual takedown letters, we can’t know if they perjured themselves.

And you find this latest gambit in the wall of stupitity foisted on us all for the last 6-10 years surprising? Why?

Gee, it’s clear that this is an outright attempt at censorship. Let’s remember that the next time Creationists whine about their views being “censored” from the science classrooms.

And you find this latest gambit in the wall of stupitity foisted on us all for the last 6-10 years surprising? Why?

No one said it’s surprising. Congratulations on a moronic point-missing straw man.

Ironically, Hovind also mentions in various *videos* that he didn’t copyright the material. Most of the videos put out by Hovind are still up on Google video. Many of these are the full 1 or 2 hours long, not just excerpts or advertisements. The newer vids on Youtube would probably have to be just excerpts as there is a very short time limit (10 minutes?) for YT vids.

Clarification… some on YT can post longer vids, but it is only in certain circumstances



Do i sence anger from the duty theist?

I’m presuming that this latest claim of “violation of copyright” is related to the pseudo-legal tax/law/reality denier gambit of claiming your own name is copyrighted, and therefore anyone sending you a bill/subpoena/etc. owes you money for violation of copyright

in the land of jeebus, reality is whatever you want it to be

digressing, if I were a mindless worshipper of some sort, I’d probably call my kid Kneel, too

I found a Dr.Dino mirror which they may have overlooked and which still has the “feel free to copy” notice.


In 20 years time, people will look back on the DMCA as one of the worst pieces of legislation enacted since the Sedition Act. It may not have the emotional and human impact of a Military Commissions Act, but it is profoundly harmful to intellectual freedom and technological progress. In less than 20 years the business models it was designed to protect will be all but forgotten, and all that will be left is the censorship and retarded economic development it fosters.

It’s knda funny how Kent Hovind didn’t see himself as subject to the laws of the state or gov.…but only to God.…Now tries to twist the laws he claims to shun, in his own favor.

I sort of feel like an ACLU lawyer defending a neo-Nazi’s right to free speech on this one.

This time, Hovind et al. may well be in the right, for three reasons:

(1) One cannot “commit a work to the public domain.” It’s an unfortunate loophole in the Copyright Act of 1976. A copyrightable work enters the public domain only upon expiration or copyright or creation by the United States government. Anything short of that is merely a promise not to sue, which can be unilaterally withdrawn at any time. I think this loophole should be fixed, but that’s the way the law is at present.

(2) Fair use is a defense against a particular claim of infringement, not a right. That is, the burden will be on the party claiming fair use to demonstrate fair use by a preponderence of the evidence. I think the fair use claim is probably a good one, but it is not certain (and yes, I have looked at the videos in question). That means that the party that holds the copyright in the allegedly infringed materials is perfectly within its rights to object to the alleged infringement.

Side note to comment 206666: No, satire is not protected as fair use; parody is. For some value of those two terms, which lawyers � unfortunately � define differently from (and almost incompatibly with) literary critics and the public at large.

(3) The DMCA (17 U.S.C. � 512) does not require that all assertions of copyright come from a registered copyright. Thus, whether Hovind et al. have registered their copyright is completely irrelevant. The DMCA only requires that someone have an exclusive right under the Copyright Act, not the present ability to file suit.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear, though: I am tremendously amused by the “infringing” videos and think that they do fall within fair use, and that they do perform a valuable public service. However, it’s not my right to make that determination for Hovind et al.; it’s theirs. And if they object to being debunked in this fashion, copyright law � as a content-neutral statute � provides them certain tools to enforce their rights, among them the DMCA.

Anything short of that is merely a promise not to sue, which can be unilaterally withdrawn at any time.

I think the videos criticizing Hovind have two firm pillars to stand on here.

First, Hovind specifically waived the copyright. This is different from just a promise not to sue. Part of his shtick is to encourage copying of the materials. As a pragmatic matter, there is no way to call back such a claim today. Hovind would need to track down every person who copied the work and notify them. Unworkable.

Second, I’d argue constructive contract. The makers of the videos have acted on a promise from Hovind, and they have detrimentally relied on Hovind’s promise not to sue. Hovind may be able to retract his copyright waiver for future users if he can reasonably put them on notice that the rules have changed (which I don’t think he can, but that’s a different matter). But I think he should fairly be estopped from making a copyright claim in this matter where he expressly waived copyright, and others detrimentally relied on his promise.

Hovind could buy his way out of that agreement – he owes the creators of the rebuttal videos some substantial fees in that case. If I created the videos, I’d get an injunction instead to keep him from complaining, and an order to YouTube to put ‘em back up.

Uri Geller has been doing something similar. http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/3[…]susing-.html.

Someone definitely needs to contact the EFF.

The bans have continued over the past 24 hours, as user accounts like RationalResponse has been suspended. The RationalResponse account was also suspended for a time over claims made by Gellar, though they fought back, and they are also going through the proper channels to fight back against this as well. I’ve never been a big fan of the RRS’s tactics, or research and conclusions for that matter, but I’m glad that they’re aggressively trying to bring an end to the illegal activity.

My goodness, it’s clear that this is an outright attempt at censorship. Let’s remember that the next time Creationists whine about their views being “censored” from the science classrooms.

Ed (206929), I think you’re confusing retrospective remedies with prospective remedies. Your arguments that the disclaimer of copyright operated to grant a license would work powerfully against a claim that past distributions of the altered video via YouTube cannot support a claim of infringement, or at least those distributed prior to the withdrawal of the disclaimer. They very well might limit any damages claim for future infringements to nominal damages of $1 and cause denial of attorney’s fees. However, the Hovindoids would still be entitled to an injunction against any further distribution of the video… precisely because copyright is not a mere contract right that can be contracted away without certain formalities.

Of course, all of that assumes that fair use failed as a defense; it probably wouldn’t, but that’s not at issue when a DMCA notice gets sent.

I’m thankful for the controversy. It’s the only way I’d ever take the time to even remember this *unktard idiot in the first place. I’m sure that’s the case with many lurkers who never post. I’m not that shy.

Honestly, now I’ve got to make room in my aging brain for a “Hovindoid category”, when I’m just now starting to remember the names of the last three contestants on Big Brother.

I’ll give it to you guys though. With so many asshats to keep track of it’s alway an amusing visit to pop in over here.


C.E. Petit. Remember that the CSE also filed DMCA for video that they DON’T owe the rights to. For example the audio tapes of Hovind in jail and that parody song. Surely there is no loopholes in the law to allow someone to do that!!?!

Slashdot is reporting the story of youtube responding to the counterclaim. Quite an interesting story there. Viacommm pinching a youtube video and broadcasting without bothering to acquire permission from the maker of the clip. When the poster posted a clip of the broadcast to brag about it, Viacomm had the gall to serve a DMCA take down notice. It appears the original poster got his clips back on line after filing a counterclaim.

According to slashdot postings many people don’t know that they have the right to file counterclaims under DMCA. Let us fire some counterclaim and see what the goons do.

Ummmm. Fraudulent DMCA notices *are* illegal. DMCA takedown notices have to be made under penalty of perjury stating that the filer represents or is acting with the authority of the copyright holder. If the law firm submitting the notices does not represent the copyright holder, they are very likely guilty of perjury.

While that’s true on paper, in practice, as long as you can afford a lot of lawyers, you can send fraudulent DMCA takedown notices with impunity. Just ask Viacom.

Crap, guess I messed up my linkage. That’ll teach me to preview.

Oh well. Dr. Plait from BadAstronomy has also picked up the story:

Kent Hovind Creationist Liar and Evil, Evil, Evil

Pete Seeger told how he once “owned” the copyright to the National Anthem. “I wanted to put it on a album, but there was no recorded copyright. The Folkways lawyers were worried- so they copy righted the song for me.”

Has any copyright been filed on the Hovind videos?

CSE have announced their entry into YouTube on their blog site. http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=85

They mention nothing about removing the videos in the blog entry, but it is brought up in the comments.

The cult fraudulently DMCA-ed two of my videos, and YouTube removed them.

There is a video at YouTube that contains footage of Hovind himself stating that none of their videos are copyrighted, and encouraging people to copy them.

You can comment on the videos at GodTube.

They may have comments enabled on “GodTube”, but that doesn’t mean they accept comments. The other day there was one comment left on the Promo video. Yesterday it was gone. None of the videos have any comments.

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

Hovind is a fraud, and needs to be exposed for the false teacher that he is. Please note that I am NOT an evolutionist, but a born again believer of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hovind makes numerous silly ‘scientific’ allegations. But worst of all, the uses UNCONTEXTUAL, and mostly UNSCRIPTURAL Bible-referances to support his ‘creation science theology,’ thereby twisting the Bible and deceiving thousands of gullible Christians who do not have the knowlege of God’s Word, or do not know that God has commanded His believers to “test and prove everything to SEE whether it is of God.” He alleges, “Ice held up by earth’s magnetic field, as well as ice under the crust of the earth, created a green-house effect, that’s why everything grew huge in Eden (lizards became dinosaurs and humans became giants, and all of the vegetation was gigantic, {the vegetation grew something like 30 meters a day!}) That’s why Adam and Eve lived to be 900: they breathed 32% oxygen instead of our 22% and they had double the air pressure to increase the oxygen. That is what happened to the dinosaurs: they suffocated after the flood because the greenhouse effect was gone! An 80 feet Apatosaurus or brontosaurus had nostrils the same size as a horse, and it could not exist in the different atmosphere. TRUTH: There is one fatal flaw in this assumption: life on earth would have been quite unbearable in such a thick bubble of ice! Just think of a wet, cloudy day; now multiply that cold, sunless day by a thousand – or a million! Such a thick layer of ice would not have caused a ‘green-house effect.’ It would have kept out the sunlight, making earth a cold, heavily clouded, (if not dark) place. How can vegetation and animal-life survive under such conditions? In reality, no human is able to tell for sure what Eden was like. HOVIND: The original creation was above the oceans. The oceans used to be inside the earth, sub-terrainian water chambers, and fountains of the deep that broke open at the flood of Noah. [And sculptured the mountains, etc. As Hovind preaches that there were no mountains before the flood!] TRUTH: Gen. 1:6-10: The earth was in the midst of the waters, which might originally have been one solid land mass. God divided the waters of the ground from those of the air – [He created an atmosphere and a stratosphere, which spans from 9 – 60 km. above the earth, and God does not speak of layers of ice that could have caused a ‘greenhouse effect.’] Then “He gathered the waters under the heavens and let the dry land appear. He called the dry land EARTH and He called the waters SEAS.” Seas, surrounding the dry land, lakes, marshes, and certainly under water rivers and springs; waters that continually bubble up and seep into the ground again, (Gen. 7:11.) WHAT “ORIGINAL CREATION” is Hovind talking about? Does he suddenly believe there was more than one Genesis-creation? THERE WERE NO OCEANS UNDERNEATH THE EARTH, AND GOD DID NOT RE-CREATE THE EARTH AFTER NOAH’S FLOOD, because Noah’s flood was not the cataclysmic flood which created the Grand Canyons, etc. All the sea-animals and fish survived Noah’s flood, and Noah took 2 of each of the land-species to populate the earth! Hovind: “Adam, Noah and his sons were giants, Noah’s ‘cubit’ (measure from elbow to fingertip) was so much bigger than that of a normal man. They were giants because of the greenhouse effect.” TRUTH: So, the ark, (built to accommodate dinosaurs, nou doubt,) was so much bigger than we thought, reckons Hovind, yet Noah took only BABY animals. But Gen. 6:4 explains that giants were hybrids between humans and demons, and God incarcerated the demons that left their spiritual world to marry humans: Jude 6-7; 2 Pet. 2:4-6. When Jesus said in Mt. 22:30 that angels do not marry, He was not saying that angels are without gender. He was saying it is unnecessary to reproduce in heaven; it is the spiritual world. It is a known fact that demons can and will have sexual intercourse with humans given the opportunity. In Gen. 6 their offspring, physical GIANTS, were so offensive to God that He decided to drown them all. Only Noah and his family did not participate in this sin, therefore God preserved them through the flood: Gen. 6. Adam and Noah were definitely NOT giants! Giants also lived AFTER the flood, without the ‘greenhouse effect.’ Therefore this hybrid-species was again planted on earth - and through the same means as explained in Gen. 6. One example of their descendants was the Philistine Giants in the time of David: Deut. 3:11; 2 Sam. 21:16-22. HOVIND: “A canopy of water overhead increased air pressure which allowed trees and other vegetation, insects and reptiles to grow larger, as insects breathe through their skin – explaining 18 inch mosquitoes, 19 inch cockroaches, 1 m. centipedes, giant sharks of 80 feet – but now the GENES FOR LARGENESS ARE GONE, FOR SOME REASON!” TRUTH: So, were they so big because of the ‘greenhouse effect’ or because of their genes? AND HOW CAN GENES JUST GO? Poor Adam, living with such huge mosquitoes! So, according to Hovind, God did not create dinosaurs and some other animals to be huge; they were/are mutations that continued to grow! But many huge creatures, which God had really created this way, (Gen. 1:21), are still living in the oceans and places like the Amazon. Huge insects, (18-inch mosquitoes EXCLUDED, thank God!), are still living there - maybe even other huge animals we are still not aware of. But NO 300-ton land-dwelling dinosaurs. No Tyrannosaurus Rex, etc. HOVIND: “During this time reptiles never stopped growing. People stop growing; when you’re 16-18 years old, vertically, at least… So before the flood when reptiles lived to 900 years, they became dinosaurs!” TRUTH: All of a sudden Adam stopped growing at 18, but reptiles didn’t. And what about elephants, mice, etc. How big were they at 900 years old? These answeres address only a FEW of Hovind’s insane ramblings. This man is NOT a teacher from God. This man with his multimillion dollar dinosaur-enteprise is a FRAUD!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on September 12, 2007 3:31 PM.

Tangled Bank #88 was the previous entry in this blog.

Nelson vs. Ruse “undebate” is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter