an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Sye Ten Bruggencate’s Comprehension Failure

When Circular Sye last appeared on Fundamentally Flawed, he explicitly agreed that the audio from the podcast could NOT be used by ANY religious organisation, including using it in a Youtube video. So I was somewhat surprised when today I saw this –

Yup, it’s a video, made by Crown Rights, DIRECTLY infringing the copyright of Fundamentally Flawed, and showing just how little an agreement means to Sye Ten Bruggencate!

Here’s the response video I’ve made, including the FULL show, have a listen….

Just goes to show, one cannot trust Sye Ten Bruggencate to even keep his word – what a fine advert for Christianity he is!!


EDIT: A successful DCMA claim has seen the offending video sent to the Youtube graveyard.

Single Post Navigation

28 thoughts on “Sye Ten Bruggencate’s Comprehension Failure

  1. Alex B, we have a law over here in the states called the DCMA, given that Sye is a Canadian I believe and you are over in the UK I don’t know if it could apply. However Youtube is owned by Google an American company so it might. The law allows one to make a request of a online hoster to take down copyright infringing material and it is up to the one accused of infringing of proving that they were in fact not. The law is awful but heck, if it is on the books and you can use it against Sye I say do so.

    • Keep in mind NOW that Alex JUST violated the agreement by posting audio on Youtube to which you forbid, you have just given permission to Sye to use the audio also by doing so. Great work. I will be sure to tell Sye to fight it in using the Fair Use Act.

      All we do, though not necessary, is post video with this in the description:

      FAIR USE NOTICE: This post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this post is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

      I should know I fought Viocom AND WON on this very issue. Sye is in the right to use the audio as he pleases. I recommend that Sye challenge the accusation and then you as the accuser will be FORCED to take him to court otherwise your claim will be rejected. Sye DO NOT TAKE VIDEO DOWN! Fight Alex. You will win because of his actions here.

      • “Keep in mind NOW that Alex JUST violated the agreement by posting audio on Youtube to which you forbid” ….er, I OWN the copyright on it! Any member of the Fundamentally Flawed team can do anything they like with audio they own!

      • Ultimately, the whole point is that Sye has proved himself, and his fellow Christians, to be utterly untrustworthy. He specifically agreed NOT to do what has happened. Even if the DCMA is unsuccessful, Sye and his acolytes have been shown to be dishonest.

        I guess honesty isn’t a priority for certain Christians!

      • Speaking of “Comprehension Failure “

        >>He specifically agreed NOT to do what has happened.

        Not so. Do you have evidence for that? He said he understands what you said but I did not hear him say “I agree”, did you?

        I could be wrong though. I am fallible as you fully know.. :7p

        Besides all of that, in the Fair Use Act Sye has every right to use it ESPECIALLY NOW since you are slandering him. So he can reference it freely no matter if it was someone else originally posting it or not. You have already lost the fight with this, public, post.

        We understand why you’re placing a target on Sye’s head though, but your anger is misdirected. To direct that anger properly you would need a mirror.

      • Alex Botten on said:

        ” Not so. Do you have evidence for that? He said he understands what you said but I did not hear him say “I agree”, did you?” AHAHAHAHAHA!!! What a weasel you are, Dan!

      • “should know I fought Viocom AND WON on this very issue.”

        I only found one post at your blog on that issue, but if there’s something else I missed you can link it. According to that post your victory over Viacom was actually a compromise, where you managed to get your account restored in exchange for removing all of the infringing content. Maybe Sye will have a similar “victory” in this case.

      • You’re right Max. I said I would fight it in court if necessary to get my account back and the Attorney pleaded that he just wanted his clients videos removed. I just wanted my account back and didn’t care about the Colbert interview. He said I was more then welcome to link to their version online, so I did remove it in an act of kindness and I got what I wanted anyway. I had the law on my side and if I pushed would win. They relented and in an act of kindness, I removed the one video and linked to it instead.

        If Alex wishees to get snarky, he would certainly lose, and Sye should battle that one since the law would be on his side. was a great help to me in that matter and was prepared to fight viocom with me. I thought it was the right thing to do to compromise for that one case. I still won and got what I wanted.

  2. I’ve filed a claim. Hopefully it’ll get the video removed

  3. Alex, you specifically asked him to not use it for any “commercial purposes”

    There was no Ad’s placed on that YouTube video.

    Also, Sye had nothing to do with the promotion or creation of that video. It was all me. If you want to address anyone, address me. He didn’t even know about it until it was made and I posted it for him to see. Also might I add, I didn’t even make the video. A friend of my ministry did.

    We have a law in the United States called “Fair use” where we are allowed to post clips for commentary. That we did. Thanks again.

    I don’t know why your so ashamed to have this posted…

    Here is what you said:

    I do not give my consent for any part of this DEBATE to be used for COMMERCIAL PURPOSES either by Sye, Eric or any third part ministry….

    One. This was not used for commercial purposes.
    two. This video was not submitted to YouTube for Ad revenue. So again…no commercial purposes.
    Three. Ministries are not commercial according to US law. So even if Eric did post it, it wouldn’t fit under that category.

    I could go on. Ultimately were protected by the satire law, or Fair Use law in the US.

    So how about you guys be honest for once and just admit that based on what you said…we followed the rules.

    • There’s an advert for ‘’ at the start, and an advert for Crown Rights Media at the end. If you think that isn’t advertising using material that doesn’t belong to you, then I suggest you get praying to your god for forgiveness.

  4. Tekhak:

         According to copyright law, any use (other than “fair use”) of copyrighted material not explicitly authorized is forbidden. Obviously, “fair use” is your best bet in a legal defense. But I am not sure that will work for you. First, there are those two web addresses in the video. More importantly, you bill this as how to debate an atheist in general. You are, therefore, not giving commentary on the “Fundamentally Flawed” podcasts. I don’t think a “fair use” claim will fare very well.

  5. Dan:

         “Not so. Do you have evidence for that? He said he understands what you said but I did not hear him say ‘I agree’, did you?”
         You do realise that you just admitted it wasn’t “fair use,” right?

  6. Dan Marvin (Debunking Atheists) said:
    Not so. Do you have evidence for that? He said he understands what you said but I did not hear him say “I agree”, did you?
    Bear in mind, people: This is coming from a member of a religous group who claims to be the honest ones; in fact this group frequently claims that it’s non-xians who have no basis for being honest; that in fact when we are honest, that we are “stealing” from <btheir worldview!

    Yet you can see here just how flexible these people can be when it comes to being “honest”!

  7. Damn it, just scroll above to the comment right above it.

    This comment is where I deal with Rick Warden’s defense of that 1 Samuel 16 verse.


  8. Nuts…just scroll up to the very previous comment before the one that I linked to.


    • Ydemoc on said:


      I read yours and Steve’s exchanges with Hezekiah. You both continue to expose his unreasonableness with every post you guys make. It’s almost as if he relishes his irrationality, like those who executed so-called witches by burning them at the stake, and who, no doubt, in their religious fervor, relished doing what they did. I wonder how Hezekiah accounts for his irrationality? That might be a good question to ask him, just to watch him dodge having to admit that he accounts and justifies his irrationality like he accounts and justifies everything else: Faith.

      Faith: Justifying and accounting for irrationality since the day man invented God.

      Might be a good bumper sticker.


  9. It’s unbelievable the lengths apologists will go to to defend deception when it’s their god who does it (ie. as seen in 1 Samuel 16:1-5).

    This is my latest reply to Rick Warden on the subject.

  10. Pingback: Hilarious « an atheist viewpoint

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: