Run DMC(A) – UPDATED

WordPress logo blue
WordPress logo blue (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Update: S. Carr is posting around the web various suggestions I “doctored” the photos, as displayed here. I gave up reading the forum when S. Huller sorta came to my defense, suggesting nothing was there, and that maybe this is just a conspiracy within a conspiracy (Inception?). Of course, what they have is my outlook screengrab. They don’t have my gmail screengrab where all the sent emails go to wait the day of resurrection.

Neil does bring up important thing in his latest post. It seems DMCA requires one to post on the site and not email the site owner a personal takedown request. I did not do that. I further thought Automattic would have investigated this or included this in the check-off list. They did not. Is it WP’s fault? No.

Now, Neil and the relict of Google’s field will spend some time proving I doctored the photos. Maybe they are correct. Maybe Huller is correct… or maybe there is as sometimes reported a glitch with Outlook on a Mac. But, one thing you cannot do is to break in Gmail’s servers. I mean, unless I am a Freemason and have contact to the Illuminati.

Regardless of the evidence produced, their will be nothing to prove to anyone that Neil is wrong. Of course, Neil also claims he didn’t receive WP’s first notice so I guess they lied too.

__

Update (5 July, for you Aussies.) 

I wrote the below comment in response to the relict’s post here (the links are added).

I.am.too.a.timelord.

You got me, I guess, unless this is a conspiracy within a conspiracy like Huller first suggested. Of course, if I have an gmail screengrab, I guess that would solve absolutely nothing. The thing about mythicists is that they don’t take kindly to evidences…

As I have stated on other blogs, my big mistake was seeing it go as far as shutting the ENTIRE site down. My apologies. That was not my intention or my actual request. I believed, in good faith (all rights reserved and the cc, which we clearly have a disagreement over), I had the right to remove my content from Neil’s blog. This has happened before, not with Neil’s blog, when someone was stealing entire posts. I actually catalogued this on the blog some time ago.

Unfortunately, when Neil disobeyed Lord WordPress, which I pray to daily if not hourly and have been known to sacrifice various companions (Dr. Who reference), he had his own blog shut down.

Now, gents, I really enjoy this posts, I do, and I urge you to take this comment as fuel for the fire. Burn.down.the.internet.

As you are now on WordPress.org, i would equally urge you to use the jetpack comments (wish I could convert, but I am still a but superstitious) and find the All-in-One SEO plugin. This latter plugin helps with, well, SEO — search engine optimization. I have a few more if you want the tips. Anyway, best of luck and cannot wait to see what happens ‘next well’ as Steve Carr is hinting at.

Steve Carr is out promoting an impending lawsuit. Should be fun. I mean, because unlike Online Policy v Diebold, this was a one time issuance, and made in good faith due to previous existing examples. They seem to think the email (do I or do I know have a screengrab) is part of the DMCA issuance… and that would be a no. But… there you go. Let’s rock-n-roll.

Sure wish they’d get back to bashing Bart. E, however, as that is at least one we can agree on.
__

If you haven’t heard, Neil’s website is (most likely temporarily) suspended.

Under DMCA, you cannot quote in full unless authorized. There is a process then to ask for removal ONLY of the content copied IN FULL. One cannot simply ask for the removal of an entire website, even on WordPress, due to subject matter or words used. (Unless it is deemed radical hate speech or something like child porn).

The first is this:

You ask the author to remove the copied content (not the post, you can still post a link and have fair use) or summarize.

If the author does not, Automattic (who runs and is ultimately responsible for DMCA (federal law)) takes over. They will disable the post and ask you (the copier) for your response/challenge where the author gets say whatever he/she wants about the use of the copied content. Neil could have responded or amended the post.

During this time, the content and only the content (not the website) was hidden. Then, he re-posted it by himself and against what wordpress.com’s policy says.

In other words, I asked Neil not to repeat the entirety of the post, but he didn’t care. He had the chance amend his post to remove the copied content (and he copied every word from start to finish) or seek authorization. When he not only refused but re-posted it, it was not in my hands any longer.

Neil, on his FB, is saying this today:

“My Vridar blog was deactivated by WordPress because I exposed Joel Watts, a published New Testament “scholar”, as a fraud and liar — He complained to WordPress that I had quoted his own (fraudulent) blogpost in full as part of my analysis of it. I am therefore deemed to be in some sort of violation of copyright law.”

That’s not exactly true… And yes, I do have emails to prove it. See the link below for the process.

What could Neil have done? Easy. Removed the copied in full content or asked for permission. Or challenged the removal request. Instead, he put the material back up.

Neil can spin it and that’s fine… But…in the end, he is lying, again.

Anyway, there you go.

Update:

Neil has taken to various places to distribute my personal contact information, including my name and address. Where did he get this from? The DMCA notice he says he never received.

Anyway, I wanted to post a few things, to help my defenders along:

First, Neil left a comment on the blog:

comment

I then sent an email to him, shortly there after… Note the time difference. I know he’s in Australia.

sent email

When he didn’t reply, I sent in the request later that evening. You will note that it included ONLY the link to the content and specified the content:

dmca request

Note as well Neil had the chance to respond or challenge. Notice as well, originally, the ONLY think disabled was the POST. When Neil went to re-post, that’s when the blog was taken down. He had ignored (although he says he failed to receive) notices.

Timeline

  1. June 26 – 12:43 AM, Neil leaves a comment. 
  2. June 26 –  12:56 PM, I’m awake, refreshed, at work and email him, deciding to see if he’ll respond first.
  3. June 26 – 9:48 PM, Hearing nothing, and a little perturbed, I file a DMCA complaint with WordPress (Automattic) requesting ONLY MY CONTENT be removed.

Final Email:

final email

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

62 Replies to “Run DMC(A) – UPDATED”

  1. I should really pay more attention – this all slipped me by. Since you’re a fraud I look forward to SBL with even more interest now…kidding of course. Having read your excellent work I can only say that if all biblical scholars were as meticulous and knowledgeable as you are we’d be a much more professional group.

  2. You give a guy 7 hours to check email and respond. Not even one work day?

    You are a f* douche.

    No doubt, you know this already, and are proud of it. But still… there it is.

    1. I edited your comment because of the language.

      Please note the time difference with Australia. It was the middle of the day, if I am calculating this right.

      But, you also forget that my email was the first notice. The second as the DMCA disable only of the post, something Neil clearly got and understood and then instead of following the process, reposted.

      Either he can’t read, or is dismissive of any sort of authority. Oh well. His loss.

    1. thanks. You’d be surprised at how many people are suggesting otherwise. Of course, they aren’t speaking to the issue, still believing I had somehow shut down the blog… but oh well.

      1. The vituperation over at Exploring our Matrix is astonishing, all from self-appointed (and self-conceited) “apostles of reason.”

  3. I think you are within your rights. I’m not sure that I would have done the same (I find that few people share my willingness to give their content away), but I understand entirely the impulse, and I think most people would agree with you on the point of fact.

    What might be kind is to write to WordPress, indicating that you did not intend to take the whole site down, and asking if they could either supply an export of the site to the author (including images) or else just suppress the copyright material.

    It’s just a thought, and might be impractical. But I bet Mr G. feels like he has been kicked in the proverbials right now. All his work gone… Whether it was work that was of value to anyone else is neither here nor there. Do as you would be done by, in other words.

  4. ROGER
    I find that few people share my willingness to give their content away.

    CARR
    Do you have a Creative Commons licence on your site? How do they work? I’m a little confused by them.

  5. You have some nerve. Your website had a Creative Commons Attribution license which explicitly gave Godfrey the right to reuse your blog posts with attribution. Your DMCA claim was fraudulent.

      1. “Hardly”? Are you denying that your website had a notice stating its contents to be subject to the Creative Commons 3.0 attribution license? I saw it for myself.

        Or when you say “hardly”, do you mean that it is not fraudulent to license content to someone under the CC license, and then issue a DMCA takedown notice? After all, you did sign your name to a form that stated “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate.”

        1. Paul,

          Have you noticed the copyright at the bottom of every page? The one that says ALL RIGHTS RESERVED?

          But, let’s say CC was just as you believe. Let’s say I’m in error. I file a complaint with WP. Neil responds and says “CC.” Guess who then is told by WP, “Look, Dude, CC.” That would be me.

          What happened tho? I filed the complaint. WP looked at it, my site, my CC, and my bottom copyright notice, and then asked Neil to respond. In the meantime, they disabled the singular post. One post. Neil claims he never received the request. Sure… But he enabled the post and they took the site down. As is demonstrated, WP says Neil is the one responsible for his site coming down.

          This is why complaints are filed, to have them adjudicated. If I was in the wrong, nothing would have happened except I would have gotten a strongly worded letter (I assume) about CC and (c).

          At what point does this become difficult for people to understand?

          1. You filed a petty, false DMCA takedown notice against a website that had written embarrassing things about you. The content was a couple of sentences, not even worth calling a creative work. Your website had a big Creative Commons notice in bold text on the sidebar linking to a full-page description of your copyright license that allows anyone to copy your material with proper attribution.

            “At what point does this become difficult for people to understand?”

            Why is it everyone understands this except you, is the mystery.

          2. I think people understand perfectly well that you changed the copyright notice on your blog after the fact and that Neil’s post was perfectly legal under your copyright notice as it existed at the time he quoted your post in full. There is nothing confusing about a childish and foolish cover up.

          3. No, not really. The bottom, except for the name, has always said ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Finding that CC was not what I wanted, I did change it. Unless you deem change bad…

          4. “Ah, so you didn’t answer anything else I said, ignoring the process and the other (c) notice.”

            Because your excuse amounts to “if I were doing something wrong, someone should have stopped me before anything bad happened.” Surely your approach to morality is not that childish.

          5. Um, Paul, this is not morality. This is that I asserted a stance, feeling within my right to do so.

            Or would you advocate no one asserts their legal standing unless they check with you first?

            But, you keep ignoring everything else.

            What if WP said I was wrong, after reviewing my site? Because they are supposed to review my site. They wouldn’t have sent Neil a request, if they thought I was wrong.

          6. Yes, really.

            Ejusdem generis: “In the construction of laws, wills, and other instruments, the ‘ejusdem generis rule’ is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held to apply only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned.” Black’s Law Dictionary.

            Ergo, your general claim of “All Rights Reserved” neither supersedes nor broadens the rights you specifically reserved under the Creative Commons.

            I very much deem change of the ex post facto legal variety bad.

          7. Vinny,

            Didn’t realize Black’s Law Dictionary was law and was in use by the DMCA.

            As I’ve said several times, in several places, I submitted the request to WM/DMCA for review. Once they reviewed it and found it worth it, they then asked Neil to respond.

            At what point do you guys not get that if WP/DMCA had agreed with you guys then nothing at all would have happened? But guess what, they clearly do not agree with you so something happened.

            Pseudo-scholars and pseudo-legal experts.

            Because that is what makes the world go ’round

          8. I graduate 8th out of 225 in my law school class. How did you finish in yours? What you don’t realize about the law is quite evident in everything you have written.

          9. Oh good. a “real” legal guy.

            Fantastic. Now, tell me if you are on WP’s DMCA team. Oh, you aren’t?

            So, in other words you really aren’t answering the questions at hand. WP/DMCA reviewed the request. Shame they didn’t ask such a wonderful expert like yourself.

          10. It doesn’t matter. As an ethical principle, you abused a law designed to prevent the theft of intellectual property in order to pursue your personal vendetta.

            There was nothing in your post that materially worthy of protection. What you created was list of links, Godfrey reposted the links with commentary…that’s fair use.

            What did you feel you needed to protect? Did Godfrey misrepresent your position? I am not sure what harm you accrued as a result of Godfrey reposting your post, other than a bruised ego.

          11. you opinion, I guess, but that is what this is about, right? Opinions. In my opinion… in your opinion…

            And yet, it was WP’s DMCA opinion that moved my opinion along.

            Thanks for playing.

  6. i am fairly certain that the “creative commons license” and “all rights reserved” are not being used in the way everyone thinks they should be used. I dont think use of the creative commons license would have prevented Joel from asserting his right to request a takedown.

    1. No, cc would not necessarily allow copying with attribution, but it depends, too, on what type of work is being protected and how it is being used. This was a very short, non-fiction blogpost under a CC license. Due to its length and the fact that Godfrey embedded it in a critique, properly attributed it to Joel Watts, it seems a stretch to conclude that this was a DMCA violation. Shame on WordPress for giving credence to the claim.

      However, shame on Watts for making such a petty complaint. There’s virtually nothing in that post worthy of protection. What material difference does it make if Neil summarizes Watts’ insults or quotes them verbatim with attribution? It is petty and shameful that Watts took that action.

      By the way, Watts did not follow Automattic policy as stated since he did not post a removal request on the site itself.

  7. This is likely to be my only comment regarding the matter. Paul makes the claim that Joel was out of line because of the CC license (I believe that it was a Creative Commons Attribution, NonCommercial, Share Alike 3.0 United States License. license).

    Now, the closest shot I could get on the web archive of Vridar was from April 30, 2013 http://web.archive.org/web/20130430223337/http://vridar.wordpress.com/ (the ones from June 28 did not load anything). Two moths before this fiasco, there was no CC license found on Neil’s blog. See Update 2.

    Now, if we look at the conditions for the Share Alike, we see this:
    Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/deed.en_US, emphasis mine)

    Regardless of whether or not the post in question was licensed under a Creative Commons license, Godfrey still violated the conditions of the Creative Commons license by not having “the same or similar license to this one” on his own blog.

    Game. Set. Match.

    Update:
    On Vridar.org, I found the permissions page (which would have been exported) that has Vridar listed as a Creative Commons Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Still not the “same or a similar license”.

    Update 2:
    I did find the permissions link on the archived page, but could not access it to verify what license was used on the blog previously.

  8. Hi Joel, I’m no fan of Godfrey & co, but Steven Carr posted the following comment on James McGrath’ s blog, that I’ve reposted below. I’d be interested to know your response?

    In Joel Watts post at http://unsettledchristianity.c… there is a screen shot of the email Watts allegedly sent Neil Godfrey.

    In his screen shot, he is not connected to Gmail.

    Remarkably, there is a message in the sent folder from June 27, although the system says , ‘Last Synced’ on June 26.

    His screen shot shows June 26, 12:56 pm as the local time, exactly the same time as the email Watts allegedly sent.

    Remarkably, Watts knew he would have to take a screenshot as proof he had sent the email and did so on June 26, at the time he posted this email, and two days before he knew he would have to do a screenshot.

    The alternative is that on June 28, Watts reset the time on his computer to June 26, and then created an email as of June 26, and produced a screenshot with the system time at June 26….

    But he forgot that the system date and time would also appear on his screenshot. (Oooh, that’s a bad mistake…)

    He should have photoshopped the system time to be June 28, the date he allegedly prepared this screenshot.

  9. My head is going to explode! Your inquisition examiners are going to be offered a job at NSA by Booz Allen Hamilton. Six figure salary and office in Hawaii, with no references required. NSA and Mossad are now on your case, since it obviously involves Middle East peace and deep religious overtones. Either that, or your inquisition examiners have an excess of free time, and nothing better to do. Have a beer, and forget about it.

  10. Joel, the link you provided in the latest update about an Outlook for Mac glitch only applies to mail accounts on Microsoft Exchange servers. It has nothing to do with your situation.

    1. Mark,

      Thanks. Although, it is possible that the sync issue is not simply with exchange but with sync. I guess I could Skype you and show you the not/connected to gmail issue, but then again, what fun would that be?

      1. Um, no. Only Microsoft could make a product that can’t sync with a Microsoft product on a different platform. Adding a gmail imap account to any mail client in the world is simple and it works great.

        You could take a new screenshot of either an up to date and connected Outlook window or gmail sent items folder web page. But what be the fun in proving your critics wrong?

  11. Joel, I see you continue to make friends… Hee Haw, LOL 😉

    I still miss the fun of the King James Only and Trinity discussion days…Sir Scholar. Let’s have a day where we go back in time, back to the fundamentals of your faith, yes YOUR faith, for I am now an atheist. Yup, I progressed beyond Agnosticism. I believe that Jesus is swell and all, but you know, I have to save myself.

    Man alive! Why do you post these people’s comments? Very few people would ever post comments deriding their own character. But, then again, there is no one like you, Joel!

    Hope all is well with the family.

    Delores

    I still like coming here and reading your posts when I’m feeling a bit melancholy about my status.

  12. Joel

    I’ve been saying this elsewhere, but it really should be addressed on your blog. You have chosen to obfuscate S. Carr’s accusation that you “doctored” the screenshot of your email to Godfrey. But the fact is, you did.

    Anyone can look at the screenshot near the top of this post and see that the system date and time are exactly the same as the date and time of the email to Godfrey, even though emails from the “future” date of the 27th also appear in the sent list. The System Preferences menu is open, as well as the date and time preference icon at the bottom of the screen.

    What you did is obvious. You changed the system date and time to make the email look older than it was.

    There is no Outlook “glitch” that would produce this. You wouldn’t have to have Illuminati powers or break into Gmail servers. It’s much simpler than this. You dated an email by changing the system date and time, but carelessly left the system date and time and the app used to change them on the screen grab.

    I don’t think you needed a fake email to “conspire” against Godfrey. Everything else about this mess is probably just as you describe it. You notified WordPress that Godfrey had copied your post, Godfrey ignored or overlooked the warnings from WordPress and reinstated his post that WordPress had hidden, and WordPress took down Vridar. I believe you when you say that you didn’t mean for it to go that far.

    I don’t know why you faked the date on the screenshot of your email to Godfrey. Perhaps you thought you HAD emailed, insisted on the point a few times, then realized later that you had no record of an email in your sent box. In a way, it has no bearing on the big debate about whether Godfrey broke copyright rules.

    But the fact remains, you posted a faked screenshot of an email to Godfrey on this blog; it’s a small lie that grows larger and larger the more you evade it. The sooner you admit this dishonesty, and apologize for it, the sooner you can begin to rebuild your integrity.

    1. Beau, I appreciate your concern for my integrity. Of course, as of yet I haven’t answered and nor am I like to answer anything NG and Carr say. I could show the gmail sent box view, but what good would that do? One could simply claim I’ve doctored that one, or question why I waited so long to show it. So, I’ll sit here and watch. I’ve linked to the post on vridar in this blog and called attention to it, by the way. So, no worries.

      1. Joel,

        You keep saying that you “could show the gmail sent box view”, but you are wrong about why that would do no good.

        It would do no good because it would not change the screenshot you already posted and the fakery it clearly displays. Who knows, maybe you did send Godfrey an email when you say that you did. But, whether that’s true or not, you have already posted a screenshot on which the system date and time has clearly been changed to make an email appear older than it is.

        I called this a “small lie”, but I think I was wrong. This screenshot required forethought and an intent to deceive everyone who reads your blog. That is no small matter. It is probably the most egregious action taken in this entire conflict between you and Godfrey.

        It is sad, and harms more than your own integrity, but also affects the integrity of those with whom you associate, online and elsewhere.

        A lie muddies everything it touches.

  13. Joel,

    How is it meaningful to say “your mind seems made up”, when you have given no explanation for that screen shot beyond a link to a site about outlook glitches having no relation to the case.

    You have never answered. You have only offered derision, distraction, and dismissiveness to those who point out the tampering in your screenshot.

    1. Yes, I thought the link might help. No, that is not the only issue with Outlook Mac, but I still use it as a my primary source. Yes, there are other issues. I have 4 Outlook databases right now, each containing emails I cannot get to unless I… wait, I have no need to answer. Sorry.

  14. Joel

    It is dismaying that you throw out more irrelevant details, then dismiss it all as a joke with an insincere “sorry”.

    Outlook Mac issues, outlook databases, and emails that you cannot get to… These things do not change the system date and time stamp clearly seen in the top right corner of your Mac. Only you can change the date and time stamp, by using the system application that appears in both the menu and open icons of your screenshot.

    You are not only refusing to answer, you are prolonging and expanding an obvious falsehood. The evidence for time/date tampering on your screenshot is clear. Your evasions are ironic, coming from someone who argues so strongly for the existence of Jesus.

  15. No Joel, you have not even begun to do any of those things. You haven’t offered a single explanation. You have not even said, “I did not tamper with the time and date on the screenshot.”

    Can you even bring yourself to deny it?

    1. Beau, unless needed, I try to limit posting/convo until Monday. You know, weekend time. I’m not always successful…

      I realize you don’t like anything I’ve said, and are most likely in the middle of responding, but we can go round and round on this. I’m not. I’ve stayed out of it and the let the chips fall where they will fall.

      So, best of luck. Feel free to comment and have a great and wonderful weekend!

  16. Very well Joel. Since you deny that the system time and date were altered in the screenshot and decline to offer any other explanation, there is nothing else to be said.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.