'Anarcho-Capitalist' Stefan Molyneux, Who Doesn't Support Copyright, Abuses DMCA To Silence Critic
from the funny-how-that-works dept
I'm not one who gets tied up in particular philosophies or philosophical movements, so I have to first say that until someone on Twitter pointed this story out to me, I had no idea who Stefan Molyneux was. I was vaguely aware that there were folks supportive of anarcho-capitalism, but I tend to find people who identify too much with philosophies, rather than realities, a bit tiresome. Either way, Molyneux, who writes and speaks frequently about being against "state" violence and has spoken out about how he doesn't support intellectual property law, apparently chose to make use of the DMCA to take down a bunch of videos from "TruShibes" an account that apparently has mocked Molyneux and apparently hypocritical actions/statements he's made. As I type this, this is what TruShibes' YouTube account looks like:That video also highlights a post on Molyneux's Facebook page in which he declares "IP must die" in response to an article by Mark Cuban on reforming patents.
Molyneux: So there was a guy... I won't say troll, because that will poison the well. There was a fellow out there.Now, Molyneux's position that the trolling/harassment was a problem is a perfectly reasonable argument to make. But YouTube has a process for dealing with harassment and cyberbullying, and it's not abusing federal copyright law to silence those videos. And, while it's unclear if FreeDomainDamon was actually bullying Molyneux's readers, from everything that people have been presenting online in various forums, it seems pretty clear that TruShibe was not doing that, but was merely critical of Molyneux. However, thanks to multiple copyright claims against TruShibe's YouTube account, the entire account has been taken down.
Rogan: A gentleman.
Molyneux: A gentleman of trolly persuasion. I do these call in shows, and people talk about philosophy and ideas and whatever. And he had gotten some of those calls, and through means I don't pretend to understand, you know doxxing -- where you start revealing people's personal information -- he got pictures of their kids, he found out where they lived...
Rogan: What?!?
Molyneux: He had just done stuff where he was...
Rogan: So someone called in and he got pictures of their kid?
Molyneux: What can I tell you?
Rogan: Why would he do that?
Molyneux: Can I pretend to know why people do this, no.
[....]
Molyneux: So, everyone uses my stuff and I don't care about it. You can do a search on YouTube for my stuff and everybody who said 'I'd really like to reuse your stuff' I'm like 'hey, go for it.' Right? But we had a number of listeners who called in and said, 'listen, this guy is doing some pretty creepy stuff with my personal info here, I'm not comfortable with this.' So we used that mechanism to take that down. It's got nothing to do with copyright or anything like that, I just felt that listeners were being acted against in a negative way. A significantly negative way, so that's what we did. It's got nothing to do with copyright or anything like that. People use my stuff all the time.
It does seem odd for someone who claims to be an anarchist and against "state violence" to then use copyright law to take down critical videos. I can understand the desire to avoid having listeners intimidated or harassed, but abusing copyright law seems like the wrong way to go about it. Not that it seems likely this will lead to a lawsuit, but the very fact that Molyneux flat out admits that this "had nothing to do with copyright" while using copyright law to silence a critic suggests that he may have opened himself up to DMCA 512(f) claim for "materially misrepresenting" his copyright claim with regards to the videos (many of which would have a strong fair use claim as well.
Either way, if you're going to go around claiming that you're against intellectual property and an "anarcho capitalist," it's going to look pretty sketchy when you use a federal law like copyright to censor someone else's speech that is critical of you.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anarcho capitalism, censorship, copyright, criticism, dmca, stefan molyneux, trolling, trushibes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There should be a line of attorneys at the guys door, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This seems like the perfect time for some plucky IP lawyer to step in on TrueShibe's behalf and see how far Molyneux really wants to take this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other news Mickey mouse turns 175 and is still protected by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should watch the embedded video. About midway through, the video narrator makes the point that Molyneux could easily have filed an abuse report to YouTube. But he didn't do that, and used the DMCA instead.
It could be that he was just confused. It's just as likely that he figured he couldn't file bogus abuse reports as easy as bogus DMCA reports. After all, the anti-abuse policy is YouTube's internal policy, so truly bogus reports can be ignored. The DMCA is enforced by law (what he would call "state violence"), so YouTube can't easily afford to ignore bogus DMCA claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opportunities
I've seen co-workers time after time be turned down for a job their over qualified for to someone who's absurdly under qualified just because that person is willing "tweak" stats or numbers. It's hard to complain to someone doing this, because after all the industry is rewarding them for this behavior. I'm sure we all know the effects of conditioning and positive reinforcement.
I personally feel those who don't take advantage of the rules to achieve their goals are fools. Although I wouldn't have announced it on the radio.
Molyneux is not changing his stance on his beliefs, just acknowledging this is how he accomplished his goal. If anything this should demonstrate the blatant errors of the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opportunities
This was clearly an attempt (which appears to be backfiring) to leverage state aggression to censor critics, and not the first one as Moly tried it before with Liberating Minds a few years ago.
It's all very hypocritical. Unfortunately Molyneux has never handled direct criticism well. People who disagree are frequently removed from his own forums (so much for philosophical 'discussion'), however that's his own house where he's clearly free to do as he likes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opportunities
No... thats being a hypocrite.
-
"Although I wouldn't have announced it on the radio."
That would make you a dishonest hypocrite.
-
Its like an environmentalist going out and buying an Escalade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Opportunities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opportunities
Most who? Most people I know would call this unethical. Of course, those same people (and I) thing the phrase "playing the game" is most often used to excuse unethical behavior.
"It's hard to complain to someone doing this"
No, it's really not.
"I personally feel those who don't take advantage of the rules to achieve their goals are fools"
I personally feel that people who are willing to engage in behavior they condemn in others are corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opportunities
What Molyneux did went beyond legitimate defense. It's more like someone against drug laws turning in a neighbor for smoking pot because they keep throwing trash on his lawn. There are more appropriate ways of handling the situation than abusing an already-unjust law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opportunities
Sounds like you have no moral compass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Color me surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Color me surprised
Was kind of my impression too. Though, you know how there's always that one creepy dude who hangs around college kids long after he should be gone... ? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That one creepy dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Molyneux - DMCA - Tru Shibes
Just to let you know, my case was filed Friday in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California - case number 2:14-cv-8288
here is the Complaint:
https://app.box.com/s/vny50dtkbrj9ptaufj4a
Raven
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Color me surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Color me surprised
Scratch an ancap, find a randroid.
Also, their flag is piss-yellow and black. It could be mistaken for a "For Dummies" book, which is kinda funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Color me surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Color me surprised
Right, which is why it's a self-contradictory phrase. You can't have a functional capitalist system without regulation, because it will always devolve to monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Color me surprised
But "regulation" (in the sense of special rules applicable only to business), no.
There are very few natural monopolies - most of the "classic" types turn out not to be naturally monopolistic in the medium term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But "regulation" (in the sense of special rules applicable only to business), no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But "regulation" (in the sense of special rules applicable only to business), no.
I see no evidence that governments can do anything about that.
Other, perhaps, than shutting down capital markets altogether. (See, for example, the history of the Soviet Union...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Color me surprised
Government interference in the market exists primarily to create monopolies and cartels. Often times, they are even explicit about that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Color me surprised
That sounds very similar to the system we have now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Color me surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Color me surprised
No, it's not. Capitalism is an economic system where trade and industry are controlled by private owners rather than the state. You can absolutely have a capitalist system without a free market (there are numerous examples in the US).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Color me surprised
How much political discourse boils down to differing interpretation of words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Color me surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Color me surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Color me surprised
You'll be surprised - it is not 1985 any more.
I think the proportion of pretty young women involved in any political movement is a leading indicator of its popularity.
We've arrived at a "libertarian moment". I don't know how long it'll last, or how far it'll go.
But there is something new going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Color me surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Color me surprised
Maybe I have, I don't know. I only know (as I said) that I have never before heard the term used in a serious manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DeFOO
From a man willing to use the gun of the state to stop Tru Shibes from pointing out how crazy his own words are (what most of the videos were) he is showing his members he is a statist willing to use the gun of the state to get whatever he wants, even if the charges are completely fraudulently. Therefore, all FDR members should end their relationship with Molyneaux ASAP. But, since many members are so deep into the group, they pretty much worship Stefan, so they cannot even see the hypocrisy of his actions and accept his BS explanations. Go to the FDR forums and read the thread under general messages entitled "Because people have asked" and see if the cognitive dissonance doesn't destroy your own mind with frustration!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not odd at all; it's perfectly consistent with that view of the world, which for all its high-minded talk of principles generally has one overriding guiding principle at its core: "Me First!"
Afterall, if even their dear Supreme Leader, Ayn Rand, took government assistance when it benefited her, why shouldn't the rank and file do the same thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mirror
Here's the one that seems most comprehensive.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXtp2ZZWZcRrhrR9ICWO71g
And while I'm at it, shameless self-promotion of my own Molyneux article, including links to many more resources.
http://dana.nutter.net/blog/?date=2014-08-18
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It also highlights a major problem with how the DMCA ought to be interpreted: Should takedown requests count as strikes even before the person accused of infringement has had a chance to respond? Should they count as strikes even after a counter-notice has been filed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truly this man is an intellectual giant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not trying to defend the guy (whom I know thing about) nor the travesty that is the DMCA; just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But barring that, it's not even selective application, as the channel in question was obviously reporting on the content in his videos, not re-distributing en-masse. There are supposedly protections for re-using content in this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THE NEW WORLD ORDER'S DEMOCRACY
the solution is get back to that
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
You know? That one the people have failed to keep lying thieving spying murdering oath breakers from stealing in the past fourteen years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why
If there is a bad side to this whole palava it is that the law is bad and Youtube/google is not interested in quickly resolving issues regarding big media or others abusing it.
Up to now you have mostly been great with the content you write Mike but this time I think you slipped up a little and did not take the high road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why
So, because it's regularly abused, we should be okay with it being abused again?
Up to now you have mostly been great with the content you write Mike but this time I think you slipped up a little and did not take the high road.
What, exactly, is "the high road" here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pragmatism
If pragmatism is our guide, then morality has no place and we should simply try to figure out what works best, no matter who prevails or who suffers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pragmatism
Because morality is better than what's best?
What a repugnant, self-righteous dichotomy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pragmatism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pragmatism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pragmatism
I believe you are reading too much into the sentence. My issue is with people who define themselves by philosophy.
I'm all for people having a set of rules and morals to live by, but I think it's a personal thing. My general problem is when people identify themselves as *part of a named philosophy* they tend to be rather cultlike and antagonistic towards other opinions.
I have a personal moral code and rules by which I live, but I don't name it nor identify with any particular group.
It may be a personal bias, but I find those who so closely identify with certain groups to be insufferable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolls are the real hypocrites
The political system under which we live offers someone no choice in a situation of self-defense or even just dispute resolution, OTHER than the only thing it can offer: which is the threat of violence.
Trolls are the ones exploiting this fact, and the vulnerability of Stef's callers, in order to push him into a position to have to use it. So that they can later cry 'hypocrisy!'
Fuck those assholes, and fuck you for taking them seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trolls are the real hypocrites
Tru Shibes wasn't a troll, they exposed contradictions in Stefbot's ideas and changing bios. You're the one exploiting false narratives to exempt Stefbot from moral responsibility for his decision to use force.
If "trolls" were a problem, he could have use Youtube's procedures deal with it. Quit being a coward and justifying Stefbot's use of the gun he claims to despise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trolls are the real hypocrites
So Molyneaux is a troll, or simultaneously employing and condemning state power is not hypocrisy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business cycles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business cycles
That's because for some reason governments insist on procyclical policies (austerity during recession, spending during expansion) rather than countercyclical (the opposite). It makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TruShibes has been Doxxed
TruShibes has been Doxxed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know, if I thought a law was stupid and could be abused, then demonstrating how the law can be abused seems like a valid point to make.
I may be being too generous though, I have no interest in the parties involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's the aggressor?
The confusion is similar to when Ron Paul took Social Security payments. Paul does not believe in Social Security, but since the government is already taking his money, there's no sense in not using the system. After all, you don't really have a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who's the aggressor?
That's not at all similar. Social Security is simply getting back the money you put in. It's more similar to a retirement account. The money Ron Paul received was his money being returned to him.
In contrast, using the DMCA when you oppose copyright is pure hypocrisy. He isn't getting back anything he put in. It's more like if someone is opposed to guns goes out and uses a gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Substance or Speculation?
"from everything that people have been presenting online in various forums, it seems pretty clear that TruShibe was not doing that, but was merely critical of Molyneux."
That's not an argument.
"It seems" isn't even a statement of fact. This is a statement of persuasive sophistry.
Is X the case? Yes? Substantiate the claim.
Is X the case? Are you not sure? Step away from your keyboard and do further research, motherfucker.
This is the manner in which Mike Masnick's expensive Cornell University prepared him to engage ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Substance or Speculation?
Note: no one else seems to think that's the important word here. Because it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Substance or Speculation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]