Healer became an anthem of faith for believers, many of whom are suffering illnesses and were praying for Mr Guglielmucci.
The song, featured on Hillsong’s latest album, debuted at No. 2 on the ARIA charts.
In a YouTube video, he tells how the news from the hospital that he had “quite an aggressive form of cancer” inspired his song. “I just went home. I knew I had to go home and needed to get alone with God,” he says in the video.

Except Guglielmucci didn’t have cancer, which has led to a police investigation (Guglielmucci has been soliciting and receiving donations), and some degree of embarrassment on Hillsong’s part.
Somewhat hilariously, Guglielmucci’s father, when interviewed, chose to blame his son’s need to perpetrate religious musical fraud on his addiction to internet pornography, a connection I don’t quite see, no matter how much I squint.
And here’s where the story gets interesting. Even though videos of the song have been littered all over Youtube for awhile now, Hillsong has issued DMCA takedown requests on all the videos. Copies of the video, some which had received up to 300,000 views, now read:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Hillsong Publishing

A good friend of mine, Deana Holmes, edited the video down (which shows Guglielmucci on stage, introducing Healer with an oxygen tube inserted in his nostrils) and put it up on Youtube, which is the copy embedded below.
While I don’t think the video needed Deana’s insightful commentary in order to bulletproof it as fair use, her commentary does supply some welcome context. I’ll cheerfully host a full copy of the video (which can be seen here, at least for the moment) because publication of the entire song, at this point, falls under fair use–the video’s newsworthiness as evidence of Guglielmucci’s fraud trumps whatever copyright interest Hillsong has in controlling the publication of existing copies, so long as Hillsong’s apparent interest is in burying its own shame in the deceit. See DMCA sec. 512(f), and Deibold v. OPG, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004) . Realize that I’m not accusing Hillsong of participating in Guglielmucci’s fraud, only that they are misusing copyright law to distance itself from the entire unholy mess.

Then I ventured to figure out which ISP was hosing RINF.com, and found out that it was Zen.co.uk, to which I then sent off the same request, cc’ing RINF.com. Zen.co.uk replied that I had no copyright claim for a host of reasons, all of which were nonsensical. I replied (again, cc’ing RINF.com) with reasons why I certainly did retain a copyright claim, namely because RINF.com had failed to honor the Creative Commons license, which appears at the bottom of every page of this blog. The particular license, 2.5, requires attribution and does not allow for commercial use by others, but otherwise permits republication. Zen.co.uk replied that it would take action to honor my request (which was merely to remove my article).

Apparently Zen.co.uk honored my request in a big way, as this article in IndyMedia UK demonstrates. It seems that Zen.co.uk pulled the entire RINF site down. And while I’ve no way of knowing whether this action was because of my complaint, the details in the story suggest it is:

At approximately 1:30pm yesterday afternoon an order was issued to shut down the British ‘alternative news’ web site ‘RINF.com’ for the publication of anti – Scientology material.

Well, that certainly looks like me–anti-Scientology material. The problem is that RINF.com, and IndyMedia UK immediately jump to the wrong conclusion as to the Who and Why, identifying Scientology as the force behind the removals, when in reality it was likely me (although this may be coincidentally related to a matter which I’m unaware, but it seems doubtful). While IndyMedia has no way of actually knowing this, RINF.com site owner Mick Meany–who was directly emailed and cc’d as to my aforementioned complaints, should know.

Speaking via telephone last night ‘RINF’ founder, Mr Mick Meaney said “It’s still not completely clear what has happened but one thing is perfectly clear – the closure of the site is solely motivated by Scientology.

Again, it should be perfectly clear, if Mr. Meany would check his email.

In any case, perhaps this post can help clear up this matter. Scientology shouldn’t be blamed for this site removal, which I think is a bit extreme–I just wanted RINF.com to comply with the Creative Commons terms (I was even willing to overlook the fact that the site is ostensibly commercial). That said, I’m not a bit sorry for Mick Meany and RINF.com either–they’re scraping content that isn’t theirs, retitling it in a misleading manner, and failing to attribute to the actual author.

Onto new e-meters! Well, one new e-meter. eBay listing here, and screenshot here, in case it disappears. The listing is due to expire in 4 days and can be “bought now” for $1400. The seller is from the US, and the e-meter is relatively new (a Mark Super VII Quantum).

UPDATE/CORRECTION:
There are TWO e-meters for sale on eBay. This other e-meter (a Mark Super VII) doesn’t attach a picture, however. Link to sale here. Link to screenshot here. The bidding is up to $260 on this model, and the seller is from London.

One thing I would like address up front, however, is that the title of the Slashdot article linking here is a bit misleading. The VeRO program doesn’t quite give Scientology access to eBay’s database–it’s an administrative tool whereby VeRO members can remove listings. It’s not a slight distinction and should at least be pointed out. That said, it is true that the VeRO program allows rightsholders to police infringements themselves without interference from any human at eBay; these dynamics (including the prohibitive cost of responsive litigation by sellers) dictate a scenario where overreaching is inevitable.
Another point a few emailers made is that the DMCA safe harbor rule would come into play here, and if sellers wanted to restore listings that were removed, all they would need to do is counternotify. This is true only in the context of an alleged copyright violation, however. Trademark and patent law are not covered by the DMCA safe harbor provision, and it is trademark and patent which has served so far as the bases for removal when Scientology has complained, based on emails and conversations I’ve had with affected sellers. So counternotifying is generally not an option for sellers of e-meters on eBay. See the EFF’s Safe Harbor FAQ for more on this.

Not surprisingly, he turned to eBay, where a Scientologist buyer can remain blissfully unaware that his seller is a declared suppressive person. But every time he attempts to sell his e-meter on eBay, the listing is removed within hours by the Church of Scientology, which claims that the listing violates their intellectual property rights. See screenshots of the auctions while they were up here [update; personal info redacted] and here, and respective “Invalid Item” eBay pages here and here. And it’s not just Bill—I’ve watched numerous e-meter listings from other sellers removed before they even receive a bid.

If you’re uninitiated to eBay, you’d probably think that for each of these removals, the Church of Scientology informs eBay of the violation of its rights, eBay considers the merits of their argument, and then only then does eBay yank the listing. But that’s not what happens at all. Instead, eBay effectively deputizes Scientology, which logs into eBay and removes the listings itself.

The mechanism that permits the Church of Scientology (and others) such broad access and discretion is called the Verified Rights Owner (“VeRO“) Program. Membership in VeRO is obtained simply by submitting a form to eBay explaining that you are an Intellectual Property rights holder.

It should come as little surprise that VeRO members routinely overreach, as the cost of challenging a listing removal is almost always prohibitive. (See my paper on this subject here, and see the brave husband and wife exception to this rule here.) The VeRO Program makes a great deal of sense for some types of listings—counterfeit Rolexes and Gucci handbags appear on eBay with such frequent regularity that those companies would be hard pressed to handle these trademark violations any other way.

But Bill’s e-meters (and the e-meters other ex-Scientologists have attempted to sell on eBay) are not counterfeits and do not violate the Church of Scientology’s trademarks, patents, or copyrights. Some sellers have even included the serial number found at the bottom of each e-meter in their listings in order to authenticate them. There is no source confusion, as every seller whose e-meters have been removed have made it clear that they took the photo of the e-meter, and that they are not affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Patent law doesn’t prevent the resale of patented items, and patent law barely covers e-meters anyway, the first having run out years ago and the 2000 patent only covering “improvements” on the “Quantum” e-meter. And copyright law barely applies here—all of the listings I’ve observed have been originally written, for one thing, and regardless, Scientology (from what I can gather) has only issued VeRO complaints under patent and trademark bases.

In short, the Church of Scientology is at least constructively aware that the e-meters being listed on eBay are authentic, and so have no basis under trademark—or under any other intellectual property basis, for removing these listings. What’s actually going on here is that Scientology is abusing eBay’s VeRO program, knowingly alleging Intellectual Property violations that clearly don’t exist, so that they can limit the secondary market for e-Meters, controlling both the price and who can get them.

It shouldn’t shock anyone that Scientology is trying to limit (if not eliminate) the secondary marketplace for e-meters, since they have a strong motivation to control the price on e-meters from their own production line (they update to a newer more expensive model every few years), and a strong motivation to control to whom they’re sold. The economic motivation should be clear enough—Scientology doesn’t want what few members it has being exposed to a secondary market because it would undermine their monopoly on a prohibitively expensive and infrequently purchased item.

Scientology’s other motivation for wanting to be the only game in town is intrinsically cultish—it has long perpetuated the idea that e-meters should never be used outside of the auspices of the Church. In other words, not only should Scientology be the sole sale source, but it should also be able to dictate every element of the post-sale environment—who can use it, how it can be used, etc. If e-meters are being sold on eBay, it doesn’t know the purchaser and can’t therefore control how and by whom it’s used.

Indeed, the warning label at the bottom of each e-meter demonstrates the kind of control to which I’m referring. The need for a label came about after the FDA took offense at Scientology’s claim that the e-meter retained medical benefits; the court eventually agreed with the FDA and mandated a disclaimer, which has morphed from the original into the following:

By itself, this meter does nothing. It is solely for the guide of Ministers of the Church in Confessionals and pastoral counseling. The Electrometer is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily function of anyone and is for religious use by students and Ministers of the Church of Scientology only. (emphasis added)

But if the Church of Scientology has no real legal basis by which to remove eBay listings of e-meters, why would it assert, under penalty of perjury (as it must do to use eBay’s VeRO program), that it has “good faith belief” that the listing they are removing constitutes an infringement? It’s a roll of the dice no doubt, but the odds are in its favor that Bill—like almost anyone else similarly situated—will not sue to have the listing restored, litigation being profoundly cost prohibitive, especially against the Scientology litigation machine, even where the item removed could have sold for up to $5,000.

But Bill and the other similarly afflicted sellers are not without a legal basis for a complaint. It’s possible to argue that Scientology is engaging in price fixing, tortious interference with a contract, misrepresentation, perjury, unfair competition, discriminatory business practices, and religious discrimination, to name a few off the top of my head. Scientology’s intellectual property rights in its e-meter stop well short of being able to prevent a secondary market from existing, but eBay’s VeRO program permits them to essentially do just that.

This is not a new development—it’s been going on for nearly 8 years, as this Slashdot story shows. But it’s high time eBay did something about it.

But Gaby Darbyshire’s response indicates that Denton plans to argue something more interesting: Because everyone was talking about the clip it somehow transformed itself into news, and can therefore be published as fair use. The problems with that argument are that (1) Denton helped turn it into news, and (2) there is a lack of case law supporting it. Indeed, the most obvious case on point works against Denton, that being Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997) (unlicensed broadcast of Reginald Denny beating during LA riots not fair use). So I don’t think this fair use argument will work if CSI decides to actually sue.

In Denton’s favor, it will be difficult for Scientology to show substantial damages, since the purpose of this video is by their own admission non-commercial, not to mention four years old. And while it’s obvious they’re being “damaged” in the sense that it’s airing is bad publicity for them, bad publicity isn’t calculated as damages in copyright law. Scientology can show enough damages to keep the suit from being dismissed, however, and since they’re not rational actors in the economic sense (they’ll spend $1000 in legal fees to get your $1 in order to either set a precedent or brand you a criminal), the possibility that they would bring a complex suit to bleed Denton of legal fees is real.