Dan is essentially defending Sye’s decision to steal from Alex and Jim. As a bit of background, Alex and Jim recorded a podcast (which means that they own the copyright) and specified that, if Sye wanted to use it, he had to meet some conditions. He was not allowed to edit it. He was not allowed to sell it or otherwise try to make money off of it. He was not allowed to use in on any specificly christian site. And he was not allowed to use it to promote any site. Sye agreed to these terms. But he chose not to honor them. He edited the statements of Alex and Jim to try to make them look confused. He attempted to sell his edited versions. He used it to promote christian sites.
Now, let’s consider Dan’s defense. “To catch you up, Jim and his ‘Robin’ Alex demanded unfairly that Sye could not use his own voice from the Skype conversation that they had, for any purpose.” Well, he’s editorializing — some might say “poisoning the well.” But it looks like he is saying that Sye couldn’t post it under any conditions. That is simply not true. Sye simply rejected those conditions as he wanted to misrepresent Alex and Jim, draw attention to sites endorsing his religion, and make money. Also, Dan is claiming that Sye was just using his own voice. That is also false. Sye was using Alex’s and Jim’s voice (with some words and sentences edited out to suit his purposes.)
Dan also procedes to say, “So a couple of people did use it and and they immediately sent YouTube’s Lawyers, and legal team, after the people that posted Sye’s voice in that Skype conversation with a DMCA take-down notice.” Well, I’m not aware of any third-party posters. Perhaps Alex can clear that up. I am aware of Sye’s postings and they did not only include Sye’s voice. Dan continues, “So since others used it, and so did Jim and Alex, Sye posted it too.” Again, I am not aware of any “others” who used it. I am aware that Sye used edited versions to support his position and wallet.
Next, Dan calls Jim a hypocrite because he had spoken out against SOPA, and act that would have allowed the rich and powerful to make a frivolous claim of copyright infringement and have a target’s site blocked and provide no recourse to the target. Well, Jim was not advocating the dismantling of copyright law. Indeed, even in those old posts, he supported DCMA. The fact that he uses it is not an act of hypocrisy. Under DCMA a claim of infringement can be challenged and the matter settled in court. Under SOPA, the owner of a small website could find his site blocked, his assets seized, and himself with no ability to present his case that the charge of infringement was false.
Sye could, in principle, challenge the infringement claim. The challenge wouldn’t go very far when Alex or Jim provided the original which includes Sye agreeing to the terms. That’s why Sye didn’t bother with a challenge. He knew what he did was wrong in the eyes of the law. But he feels that outsiders have no rights in the eyes of his god. Interestingly, his god did not intervene on his behalf.
And, ultimately, Dan is demonstrating what I said before. He does not think it morally wrong when one of his fellow christians acts to harm an outsider.