The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

Discussion in 'Youtube and Vimeo Problems' started by DeliciousCakeSF, Sep 8, 2008.

  1. Prozac4Tom Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    Ollie is now famous. When he gets to prison, he should fetch a high price.
  2. momISanon Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Ollie, you can't escape Anonymous! Just a word of advice, STOP TRYING TO FUCK WITH THE INTERNET! Kthnx.
  3. yknot Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    Of all the videos to choose from, they linked to the Jason Beghe interview.

  4. QAnon Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    Celebs are smexy and get Teh Press. Look how much attention we got thanks to Variety picking up the Katie Holmes raid.
  5. yknot Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    I know, but historically journalists have made the choice to try to give an appearance of "staying neutral" (avoiding getting sued, more like) by just reporting the bare bones of the story, mentioning critics but glossing over the critics' message and leaving it up to the reader to do more research if they felt like it. This reporter could have not included any links at all. Instead, they not only linked to Wise Beard Man's channel, they embedded the Beghe interview. I take that as an indication of a tide shifting.
  6. 043 Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    haha, oh Oliver... what a stupid asshole.
  7. Whanonstler Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    He gonna get raeped den sol' fo' whole carton a da menfol cigarettes! :fuckyou:
  8. Anne Ominous Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    QAnon, if you can keep pushing legally, this would be awexome. Oschaper in prison would be delish.
  9. Anonynamefag Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    He brought this all on himself.
    NEVER fuck with Anonymous on our own turf.
  10. Prozac4Tom Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    A whole carton? I figured a couple packs, but I didn't take inflation into account. I think he's going to really like prison life as a gay pornography distributor. I bet he learned lots of great techniques to use in prison!
  11. Thetanonymous Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    Methinks we need some harpoons going in the comment section there....
  12. The Shadow Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper


    In the comments section, some dude bawwwwwwws about them having ripped off the story from Wikinews and links to it. So I was reading it, and check this out:

    One user claimed that he had shot and uploaded one of the videos that was taken down. "How can someone else file a claim against a video I MADE?," said ShadowVsScientology, one of the YouTube users who had a video deleted. Since he owned the rights to the video, he alleges that the American Rights Counsel had no legal grounds to request its removal.

    I'm just trying to remember where it was that I said that....might have been on here, but I'm sure it was in one of the emails I sent to YouTube, which is the odd thing, how would Wikinews have seen it? (EDIT: It was on one of the YouTube community posts I left, durrrrrrrrrh!)

    Also they link to one of the mirrors of my video, cheeky sods. That link is being changed to my own....
  13. QAnon Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    Anne, I wish I could. Believe me, I'd love to do it. I put myself on the line to do it when I filed the counter-claim. But we just don't have the evidence to prove who did this. All I've got on my side is the same thing that most people have: a takedown notice from ARC.

    But I am willing to do this, there is no doubt. We've got the potential for damage. We just don't have the tools right now to press. However, given the way this has been going, we're going to have that opportunity, and soon. When they Epic Fail in the same category multiple times like they have with YouTube, Anon learns moar and moar.
  14. Prozac4Tom Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    Would Graham be able to get the information needed from YT to prosecute for these false claims? People seem to be concentrating on ARC making those claims, but there were quite a few that were done by Oliver Schaper and his media company.
  15. genoramix Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper


    and scientology is supposed to make the able more able. It actually achieves to make the stupid more stupid, that's for sure.
  16. QAnon Member

    Re: The (Sponsored by Intel) Pipes In! re: Oschaper

    P4T, the one problem with this is that the Ollie takedowns occurred at the beginning of this whole mess, and happened to people who aren't name-fagged. We were forced into Reaction Mode, and by that time, the strategy on their side changed from Ollie's legit companies to the false fronts they used. Apparently, someone on the other side figured out that Ollie could be hauled into court very, very easily, and once there, could be compelled through legal pressure to spill beans.

    Oh, God, I'm about to get J. Swift on everyone, so my apologies in advance. I have this feeling that this started out as an Ollie thing, then word got around through OSA channels about what Ollie was doing. Given the Hamburg situation and the flood of videos OSA knew would come from it, there possibly was a "Leave Anonymous To Me" message sent to Ollie from OSA, and OSA took over the operation, leaving Ollie as a convenient cut-out target for Anon to go after.

    Of course, OSA didn't know that Anon would go after Ollie regardless because he was playing Billy Butthurt before this, but that's neither here nor there.

    As I said on Slashdot earlier, the timing was critical. Popular Anon YouTube channels had to be taken down prior to the Hamburg videos being uploaded in order to try to minimize exposure of those videos (apparently OSA doesn't know about the Search function on YouTube). They didn't anticipate name-fagged Anons and OG immediately filing DMCA counter-claims, which exposed the false nature of the claimants to YouTube, causing YouTube to do a total 180 in rapid fashion; in fact, thanks to the discussions here when Ollie started on his joke of a crusade, they probably didn't expect Anon to file any counter-claims at all due to name-fagging potential. They expected the channels to be down for days, and for there to be a chill effect on other Anons to upload videos. The damage was reversed in less than a day.

    There was also a layer of plausible deniability on OSA's side: the OSA big-wigs were all headed to Hamburg, so if this blew up in their faces (which it did), they could blame it on their subordinates and claim it was a rogue operation. If that didn't work, they always could lay the blame on Ollie. The only question is: who exactly was that cut-out layer meant for? Was it to protect CoS, or was it to protect the OSA hierarchy from the Wrath Of Dave? How much did COB know and when did he know it?

    Make no mistake, this is a disaster for CoS. They've now lost YouTube permanently as a weapon against Anon, and considering the importance of YouTube to Anon, this loss is crippling. What Anon did on YouTube was the Peenemunde Raid of Chanology. We've defanged them seriously, and dealt OSA a major blow in prestige and image.

    Our Victoly here may be one of the greatest recruitment tools available to help bring more exes into the fold ("see, OSA tried to carpet-bomb these wogs into submission and were pwned within 24 hours"). More exes mean moar and current dox. Moar and current dox mean more weapons for our side.

    The dominoes are tumbling.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins