After reading the rest of his posts in that thread and you giving him a second chance, I say ban him permanently and be done with it. Sounds like another ranter on our hands no matter what help/advice he gets on this forum. He all ready has a negative input towards windows and now it seems this forum as well and any further discussion on this subject will only antagonize and incite him more for even more negative input.
As this user is plainly here to ruffle some feathers and because he was using multiple accounts he has now been removed. He had in fact already tried windows 7 beta but apparently hated it but still wanted someone to buy him a copy free of charge!
I initially gave him the benefit of doubt but as he had created a new account before the ban was over he was in line for a ban regardless..
I have no doubt that we haven't heard of the last from this idiot and would ask people to be vigilant in case he makes further accounts.
The above for mentioned comments are full disclosure from our Staff Forum discussions regarding Justin Breithaupt.
I am sorry to have to post some bad news into the Linux forum, for which we have a small, but fledgling community of Linux supporters.
Last month, the creator of a Linux distribution called “JULinux” came to Windows7Forums.com to pose a challenge to our members. His challenge involved getting a free copy of Windows 7, so that he could somehow prove his operating system was superior. He used the name usacomputertec. After a spam ban was made, Justin Breithaupt came back to our website with the name “JustUseLinux”. From there, he threatened the site repeatedly about how he would make multiple videos documenting how he was banned. This all happened last month, and he published a series of videos on YouTube called the Windows 7 Challenge. The majority of his videos attack Windows7Forums.com as being anti-Linux, and unfriendly compared to the Linux community.
We mostly ignored his comments. Then, this month, we attempted to address his complaints. He filed a false DMCA takedown order with YouTube in order to get our video removed. While this is great publicity for him, it is also perjury in United States Federal Court. Our use of his comments fall under Fair Use doctrine, because they are based on commentary that is related to video that is in regards to a website that I own. The comments in his videos are derogatory and rude. As owner of the site, I immediately began filing counter-claims with YouTube about this DMCA report. For those who don’t know, a DMCA take down notice means that someone has violated the “Digital Millennium Copyright Act” in the United States. However, Fair Use laws also allow for freedom expression in creative and non-profit works.
Prior to Justin Breithaupt filing his DMCA claims, he posted nearly a dozen messages to this YouTube video. However, instead of the one friendly reply we made to his initial video back in July, Justin had nothing but negative comments to say about Windows 7 Forums again. And when he was explained, in writing, and through the many e-mails he sent us today, about why he was banned, he filed a DMCA claim with YouTube.
Because our video is no longer accessible on YouTube, I am publishing it here. I am also going to post the e-mails that Justin Breithaupt sent me, repeatedly, and throughout the day.
“I'd like you to explain to me what I'm hiding as far as the real reason I was banned in the first place because I guess I must not know because I told everyone everything I knew and understood about why I was banned. As far as being banned because you guys thought it was spam I don't know how what I said could have been considered as spam and I don't know if I should believe that story. I just find it very strange that a person can come into a forum and instantly get banned. Anyway I really could care less about the Windows7Forums thing. The only reason it was a big part of my videos was because I wanted to keep everyone updated and I didn't understand why the Windows 7 community behaves so differently from the way the Linux community behaves. It seems like you guys are a lot more critical.
In all honesty like I said in the comments on Youtube I never expected anything like the experience I had with the Windows7Forums.com community. I have to admit I'm Linux biased but I just thought that the reaction I got was unacceptable. See when I first started using PCLinuxOS I had similar problems with them but I discovered it wasn't me they had a problem with but my Christian Faith. Others who were handy capped and couldn't spell correctly were also banned and made fun of. So when I started the Ultumix community I vowed to accept anyone and support anyone no matter what version of Linux they were using if I had the time. Of course if you want to digg up more dirt on me just look up Ultumix and you will find all kinds of slander from a couple years ago that was put up by an anti Christian hate group and some Jehovah's witnesses. When I tried to comment on their site they picked threw my comments and deleted anything that made me look credible and left the stuff that sounded bad so that it all looked bad. Yes they made a website dedicated to me and my volunteers. They were mad that I packaged Christian software with Linux. So one day I contacted Richard Stallman and he told me how to take care of the situation and it all worked out. The thing is that I'm not really looking for your approval, I'm not targeting your website, and I'm not trying to cause any trouble. All I'm trying to do is give Windows 7 and it's community a fair chance. I did that and it failed. End of story. I am truly sorry over any hurt feelings.
If this was my forum and this happened and someone posted a youtube video about it I would re-evaluate my site, look at my moderators, maybe get rid of some of them, apologize to whoever it happened to (which you did), and hope that it didn't happen again. I wouldn't loose any sleep over it at all. The one thing I wouldn't do is say anything about it or post a response video. Rather I would try to make things right and not ban him a second time even if he created a duplicate account and ask him or her to post a positive video on Youtube about the Windows7Forums saying that they admitted the problem, fixed it, and are making steps to make sure it won't happen again.
I'm willing to do that but first I would need to be convinced that you do admit there is a problem, that you have taken steps to ensure it won't happen again, etc. Then I'd post a follow-up Youtube video stating that sense the experiment the Windows7Forums.com has taken action to improve it's quality of service.
Your Youtube video won't have a negative impact on me anyway. I'm not concerned about it.
I'll pray that we can work threw this like responsible adults instead of resorting to some sort of online war.”
“Oh by the way nothing against you but when I hear someone bragging about certifications it only makes me suspicious of if they actually know anything. Any computer Tech around here who comes to me with a bunch of certifications knows nothing about fixing computers except how to format them and reinstall everything or how to do things according to some book or manual that doesn't work in real life. Most of these certified experts have no idea how to work on a computer because they weren't required to to get their certification. An excellent example is the A+ certification. It's all written.
I use Linux boot disks, and usb drives to fix just about everything weather it's a Windows problem or another OS. Most of these certified people have no clue.”
...Book knowledge is great, but real world implementation in field service is equally important. I am not one of these people that has acquired no experience. However, this is a broad assessment and it is impolite to make a stereotypical comment like this. The reason why I took so many certification exams, and passed them, was to show to several employers, and clients, that I am qualified in certain areas of information technology. It was done, in many cases, for an organization I worked for, to give people confidence that someone was working for them, and not for themselves. I never asked for a raise at that organization.
I have a 3 1/2 year background in forensics that does not convince people of computer knowledge. However, early certifications allowed me to gain the trust of employers and colleagues.
It is true that some certifications are insanely easy - but these are mostly entry level ones, as you say: A+.
The further down the road you get, the harder these exams become. For the certifications I acquired, I used self-study guides, experience, and no classroom training. I have been working with computers since I was a child.
Certifications allow individuals, who do not have the time or resources to acquire a IT-based degree, or who have chosen a different field of expertise, to show clients, employers and colleagues that they have a skill set. I have seen it all done wrong by certified individuals, as well. But this is a problem that exists on an individual and organizational level - it is not caused by the certification idea itself. IT people have no union to represent them, and businesses have few ways of confirming, or understanding, the knowledge that a IT worker has outside of word of mouth. I view these fields as still being in their infancy, much like electrical engineering was in the early 20th century.
I only state that I have certifications in my videos, on occasion, so that people feel some security that I know what I am talking about. You could argue that collegiate degrees are also just a piece of paper. Doctors and lawyers regularly commit acts that violate their oaths, for financial gain. They can function in that capacity, but it has no bearing on an individuals work ethic, knowledge, or applied science/field work.
Your comments on YouTube make the Windows7Forums.com website out to be a bunch of people who do not tolerate Linux users when this is not the case. Your initial ban was considered to be an error, but no sooner than we convened to correct it, you had already started posting with multiple accounts. This is what resulted in the ban. This was later explained on the comments page, but you deleted them all, which was unfair and insidious. Our moderator guidelines allow for members to object to a ban to an administrator, but we also do not take threats such as.. [paraphrase] "If you do not unban me I am going to create a 3rd video..."
This is just childish behavior.
My further explanation can be found in a response to your comments on that video, which, for your knowledge, no comments will be deleted. You will not be blocked from posting additional comments either.
Filing a false DMCA claim is considered perjury in the United States and violates federal law. Perjury is a felony in the United States. Please beware of this spammer and forum troll. He seems to exhibit signs of obsessive and manipulative behavior, at least in my opinion, and, to put it quite bluntly, he is hell-bent on covering his ***.
August 24, 2010:
Today, I tried to contact Justin Breithaupt in regards to his DMCA takedown of our video. I had hoped that I could arbitrate an agreement with him, seeing that if my counter-claim is accepted, he may be facing a statute of limitations of up to five years for felony perjury charges. Of course, I did not actually tell him this. I was trying to be polite.
I would like to address your DMCA claim which you made against my video critique against your Windows 7 Challenge. Neither of us have anything to win in this debacle, and either of us could have a permanent strike on our account since I have filed a counter-claim. Accordingly, there are several problems with your claim that you should be aware of, yet I would also like to discuss with you the possibility of you contacting YouTube to retract your claim. I believe that the video I produced serves no value to either the Windows or Linux communities, respectfully, at this time. The attempt of my video was to directly respond to your negative comments about the website ... To that end, it is important for me to also recognize your concerns.
Clearly, you do not like Windows 7. I felt, and still feel, that you targeted my website, in order to discredit the Windows community and hype up your OS distribution. Admittedly, I often make video tutorials to help people learn more about Windows, because that is where my field of expertise is, and that is what my entire website is about. In this case, we are not that dissimilar. Based on all of these facts, I would like to tell you that if you felt hurt that you were banned from Windows7Forums.com, I would like to personally apologize. But our rules are not flexible
...I want you to know that I believe we can work this out amicably. If you retract your DMCA claim with YouTube, I will remove the video, since I don't want it on there anyway, but also don't want a strike on my account. In exchange, I will be willing to produce a video, or write a forum post, explaining that we have resolved our differences in a way many other people would not be able to do. You could also do the same. I may be willing to go so far as to exchange links between our sites and YouTube channels. We are never going to see eye to eye on Windows or Linux. But I'm not against Linux, I'm against misrepresentation against people who don't use it, for whatever reason that may be. This is all up to you. I have filed a counter-claim against your DMCA take-down. The reason for this is the following: The video is a critique protected under Fair Use and 1st Amendment Rights.
The purpose and character of the video is for non-profit purposes.
The portion of the copyrighted work used is minimal at best.
The effect of the use of audio recording in question has no value on market value.
The video itself is a response to critiques created by you against my website.
If you filed a false DMCA, it could be considered felony perjury under US law.
If I am right, this takedown violates my 1st Amendment Rights, Civil Rights, and entitlement under Fair Use Law under the US federal law.
Critiques, parodies, and minor use of the works of others are permitted under Free Speech in our country. Just as you could come out with a video talking about how bad I am, or my website is, I could very well do the same to you. Free speech and the ability to criticize someone, something, or an idea we don't like is what makes our country free.
I don't think this is the right way to deal with things. Let's face it, you got banned from one website for making 2 accounts, in the span of a couple hours. During that time, you posted a lot of links to videos, and committed, what we term on moderated social networking sites, ban evasion. I recognize you may not even have been aware of the rules, but what happened did happen. To claim that we did this because we didn't like you is just false. If you were aware of our rules, it is possible that what you did was done so that your video would show how horrible Windows 7 - or its community - is. The truth is, we are but one Windows community and forum site. There are countless others. The purpose of my video, was to refute your arguments and critique them. This is covered under Fair Use Law.
"If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:
quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case."
... That being said, if we can admit that we have both insulted each other, and each, in fact, hurt each others feelings, we could resolve this the right way - both of us contacting YouTube and ending the claim, with me deleting the video, and both of us coming out with a joint statement. I would like to see what you think about this, because I never expected you to file a DMCA over audio clips where you talk about my site. There is still time for you to cancel the complaint and there is still time for me to delete the video once you do. And there is time for us to work together to resolve our differences.
Look. I didn't read your e-mail I will get to it later today. As far Youtube I've been a Youtube partner sense before you could be with Youtube. I know all the rules because I'm held to a stricter standard then non Youtube Partners. You did violate the rules by copying content from my videos that I uploaded and sense I didn't like the slander you spoke against me I used that leverage to my advantage. All my Linux friends wrote me before I even told them about the video. They were discussed with the video. Most of them couldn't finish watching it because they thought you were very boring, and in general a jerk. They told me in their own words that you twisted everything I said and that this was all just slander. Slander is illegal. I'm not pressing any charges against you because I trust that this will be the last time you will try something like this. I don't have to file charges anyway because if you don't leave me alone (not a threat just a fact) you will receive the same treatment that you give me from much larger numbers from the Linux community because your ticking them off and they are much smarter than you and I can't be responsible for their actions. In the past as a Christian I told them to stop defending me and attacking my enemies but they wouldn't stop. I can't control them and their anger for people like you so please for your own good just stop now.
I have certainly stopped contacting Justin Breithaupt after this cryptic message. I am not sure when his army of supporters, all of whom use JULinux, will come and attack me, one thing is for sure, it looks like Mr. Breithaupt's manipulations may be getting the better of him this time (opinion).
I appreciate your response to this threat. Peaceful solutions allow everyone to sleep at night. I was troubled to see that Justin claims he is a Christian, while so clearly not acting like one. As a Christian myself, I do not like to see people hiding behind such claims while antagonizing others against Christianity because of their hypocrisy.
So please accept this note as an apology for how this man acted, on behalf of the "real" (I hope anyway) Christians out there...
By the way, I like Linux in some ways, but I'm a regular Windows user as well.
There's room for all of us, and I'm glad to see a Linux forum on this board.
I too applaud your actions, you saved yourselves a LOT of trouble by taking this action. For the last few years he has been in the Linux community, doing probably whatever he did here (which I didn't see, but I imagine what it was like). JULinux used to be called Ultumix, an internet search of that with his name will yield results all over the internet. He has calmed down lately, but I got a notification of new activity on something I'm subscribed to, a hunch had me search again to see what he's up to. I am hoping it doesn't turn into what it was, him on virtually every forum I checked on. Same thing on all of them, some banned him, some didn't. Arguing and no willingness to work with or listen to anyone, in his eyes he is right and everyone else is wrong, and against him.
Anyway, I joined to tell you how lucky you were to stop it before it got too out of hand. I am a member of the Linux community, it's all I use for my personal business because it does everything I need, and it's free. Since I'm cheap, and build my own systems (aside from my laptop, which Win7 sits on happily, but unused except to help others), it works out well. I do work on many Windows and a few Mac systems for family and neighbors, which I have never even suggested to them to use Linux (except perhaps old machines they were considering throwing out that were low spec for XP). I agree there is room for all of us.
Although I have no power to speak for the Linux community, I apologize for his actions as well. Many of us have tried to help him, I was one of them (and that won't happen again), to calm him down if nothing else, but apparently he is not able to listen. There are bad apples in every group.
I'd just like to make a few things about the fight the administrators of this site had with USAComputerTec / JustUseLinux clear?
1. Is it legal for you to give out free copies of Windows 7? (Not as in free free, but as in Free Trial? I think that's what he was trying to ask for, not for a free full version)
2. Why exactly was he banned at first? (Like, in what did he do that was it considered spamming?)
3. Why did the same administrator ban both of his accounts and delete his posts?
P.S. Sorry if I have this thread in the wrong section for it. I'm not exactly sure what section this would belong in... I don't mean for this to be spam in any shape, way, or form, and I don't mean to break any rules by asking this in a thread. I just signed up here and have no clue what I'm doing.
In this specific instance, I would actually tell you that this question has almost no relevant meaning to what this individual was trying to achieve and what our abilities are to moderate content under our Terms of Service guidelines and beyond. Distributing, giving out a trial, or giving out a free copy has nothing to do with what this guy attempted. It has little to do with why he was banned. In fact, we have only given out one legitimate, retail boxed copy of Microsoft Windows 7.
Here is some background: Not long before Justin Breithaupt (JULinux)'s arrival on the website, we held a giveaway entitled the "Millennium Celebration Award". The top tier individual who won, sabrehagen, was sent a free retail copy (free for him - not for the website) of Windows 7 Ultimate Edition. This was sent directly to Australia, as a gift, with an enormous shipping charge associated with it. This was due to his major contribution to the website and through a soundly performed non-biased selection process, which ultimately, was conducted by three administrators at the time, including myself, having reviewed many tens of thousands of postings, and using internal mechanisms to find view counts, replies, and a number of other variables. Then, a content review took place.
The award was a gift wrapped, legitimate copy of the operating system. At this time, the giveaway was designed to encourage members to post quality information and get involved in the community. This giveaway was not a big success, but it made someone happy. We had hoped it would inspire individuals to help others, contribute to the website, and expand our overall outreach of the website. We spent many hours discussing this idea. It is my belief, although I am not certain, that this man, Justin Breithaupt, caught wind of this giveaway, seeing that it had ended with an individual who had received the gift (A YouTube video was created thanking the community and showing the gift wrapped box -- which I can assure you, with 100% validity, was sent to this individual - who did formally thank us for its receipt). Other mentions were made in different areas of the website, and awards were given out on profiles and so forth.
Interestingly, the winner of the competition had made only one post, and to this day, that post has received hundreds of thousands of views due to the content of the original post and the subject matter of the thread. We intentionally never put down a artificial limit of who could receive the gift, and knowing full well that many people wanted the gift -- we would get some people feeling upset that they had, perhaps, contributed X number of posts/threads and not received the gift. However, the gift was not about who had the most posts, who had seniority, or anything of that nature. We did stipulate that it would be sent to whomever we had determined had drafted the best original posting on the site. To this day, I believe that this determination was made by the community itself, overall, as the number of views for which that thread has is enormous, and the number of replies, equally interesting in thought provoking activity.
Now, there are so many unique, well-written posts on the site, there is much to be said about this gift altogether, as we could not afford to send out many free copies of Windows 7 willy-nilly. The idea of sending out many legitimate retail copies of Windows 7 to top contributors is a very nice idea, and I certainly wish we could do it more often. However, the failure of this particular giveaway to generate the type of activity spike we were hoping for, in order to enrich the site with new members and so forth, as well as the costs associated with giving out such an award, did not incline us to continue holding giveaways. In general, many giveaways can be seen in a negative way as well. For example, one may argue that people view them as being gimmicky and so forth. This is not to say we would not, at some point, hold a promotional event sometime in the future of this magnitude. It would be great if we can gather and collect the resources currently required to host another giveaway, properly market it on the website, and make it more participation intensive.
This giveaway, at the time, was extremely costly for the website, as at the time, the website was incurring enormous fees in terms of hosting fees, specifically. Many of these costs have been mitigated, but now, we are focused on delivering content in a different way. Whereas before, we did rely on one solid method of content delivery, we now rely on an entire network of CDN servers throughout the world. So while costs in the hosting area have been off-set, new costs have emerged, including costs for domain renewals and ever-present licensing fees.
The cost of actually sending the gift to the individual was not entirely calculated, as we did not anticipate a winner all the way in Australia. And thus, having found no online stores in Australia which would accept U.S. currency to ship to the winner, a decision was made that a legitimate, retail copy would be sent directly from New York, United States to Perth, Australia. Paperwork was filed to ensure this did not violate import/export laws with the carrier and so forth. The delivery incurred import tax and a specific designation needed to be given for the gift to pass through customs and safely reach the winner. Thus, much paperwork needed to be filed through international courier to get the gift to our winner. And it was my goal that the gift be sent reasonably quickly, wrapped professionally, and sent at the utmost expedience to the winner of this contest, within reason
To be more precise, that contest ended not long before Justin joined, demanding a free copy of Windows 7. The initial problem with Justin Breithaupt's initial attempt to acquire a "free copy of Windows 7" is that he engaged in a practice, that by our best moderating standards, would be considered solicitation. This online solicitation, to the best of one of our administrator's knowledge, constituted either a spam advertising campaign or a disingenuous attempt to make a mockery of either the website or the greater Windows community in a non-constructive way. Our giveaway was a truly genuine attempt, from its conception, to make someone happy that they made a great contribution. Its primary function was not to solicit a massive response from our members or viewers (although that would have been great!). That could have been considered a secondary function.
However, as the owner of the website, I am fully authorized to make purchasing and executive decisions for the website, and that does include giving away free items. We have drafted many abandoned proposals on how to reward our members and visitors with "neat stuff", including, in the past, mousepads, t-shirts, coffee mugs, and all sorts of items. However, while conceptualizing making one great looking mouse pad or coffee mug is quite inspiring, the logistics of distributing them world wide, for us, is almost impossible. We must also, in cases where trademark and copyright is concerned, respect such matters. You will observe, for instance, that we have gone to great lengths, on every page, to indicate that this site is not owned or operated by Microsoft. Yet, we have loose affiliations with the business, for which we are proud, and this includes a Partnership Program membership, Microsoft MVPs, and in our early beginnings, the use of the site by some members of the product development team. Many of the website's staff has contacts with agents and representatives of the corporation, and from time to time, we do, on rare occasions, request information when possible.
2. Why exactly was he banned at first? (Like, in what did he do that was it considered spamming?)
The ability for any business, organization, or institution to purchase private property, and give it to anyone it pleases, is a simple, fundamental property right. Even if we could freely have sent Justin Breithaupt (JULinux) a "free copy of Windows", the possibility of this ever happening became zero not long after this man joined our website.
You must understand the absolute ridiculous nature of this request. For instance, while I may give my car, my home, or even a wash cloth to an individual, under no circumstances, would I welcome, a person barging onto my property demanding a free car, home, or wash cloth. Likewise, on a forum of this type, we do not accept these types of solicitations, as a matter of etiquette, and what some would term "netiquette", and a matter of implied policy concerning what could be construed as spam, software piracy, unlawful activity, copyright infringement, or some kind of combination thereof. Now the initial ban was made for spam solicitation. Justin Breithaupt solicited the site, in a quite annoying and menacing way, that this would draw immediate skepticism. Clearly, as adults, we all know that Windows is not free. Many of us are firmly aware, including Justin Breithaupt, who claims himself to be a developer, that Microsoft Windows is a closed-source proprietary product. I would consider this the same as going to an iPod website and demanding a free iPod. Walk into a place where people talk about cars, and ask for a free rental. Whatever it was - it was disingenuous and designed to bolster his YouTube video, whereas he clearly tries to establish, that simply due to the fact that his system is free, it must therefore be better. This was a trolling type of mechanism that this man would ultimately use to bolster his video and position it in such a way that he would create feedback -- the type of feedback you're receiving right now.
After Justin Breithaupt was initially banned for spam solicitation, it was then quickly explain by Justin Breithaupt that he was making some kind of video challenge. This information takes time to get to us and to discuss if a mistake has been made. After this information was relayed to the rest of the administrative team, we actually did hold a private teleconference call regarding the ban, as, in the past, we had become quite diligent about criticizing nearly every single ban we would make during those times. We felt it very important to evaluate every single one, and still do to a great extent, on the off chance some bizarre error or misunderstanding could have taken place. We would evaluate the facts and try to get to the bottom of them. Even today, it is quite rare that someone actually formally objects to a ban. This is mostly because we do not simply ban users for unprovoked reasons, and have implemented quite strict protocols that all moderators do follow. These internal rules, which we follow, are the result of years of experience managing online forums, chat forums, implementing network content filtering, and so forth. The internal policies are also the result of online and offline experience in IT administration and the culmination of years of discussion and revision, as well as business experience and general rationality. So whereas we are now at a point, where we can honestly say, that most bans are accurate, the reasons themselves are conveyed to the user immediately.
However, in the case of a spam banning, as we have a zero tolerance policy on spam, software piracy discussion, and several other Terms of Service rules, no warning is necessary, a reason is given immediately once access is removed, and that is that.
3. Why did the same administrator ban both of his accounts and delete his posts?
In order to understand what took place with Justin Breithaupt and the JULinux debacle, you must first understand that by even using this service, and the services of many other websites, you are in fact accessing computer systems that are not, in fact, public property, nor are they public domain. These computer systems are under, in almost all instances, private ownership. As soon as access is restricted to those systems, and that announcement is visible and apparent, any attempt to bypass such restrictions does violate the law in almost every country in the world. Evolving standards have provided us with laws, provisions, and guidelines that most websites (and courts) follow. Therefore, that access, can be restricted, at any time, and, under the law, for nearly any reason. Our goal was never to alienate Justin Breithaupt (the creator of JULinux). In fact, it is my contention, that his goal was to alienate us. In fact, no sooner than he explained that he was working on some project - a video project we had no understanding of, etc. - this man immediately bypassed our ban, and by doing so, arguably, broke the law by accessing a computer system or network without permission. He bypassed the security apparatus that banned him in the first place, thus creating a "ban evasion" scenario. He then began posting about how we must "Try it again" and attempted to hijack the conversation on the website with multiple postings (many of them exactly or nearly the same), e-mail threats about putting "all of this in his video", and so forth. To put it mildly, he trolled the site, accessed computer systems he was not permitted to access (and in fact, explicitly denied permission to access). The mere act of creating a secondary account, which was not banned, violated our Terms of Service agreement, and for that reason, he was immediately banned, using even heightened measures to prevent his continued access to the website.
No matter what he may claim in his videos:
He was not denied access for no reason.
Mid to large portions of his YouTube videos are a clear critique of this website.
As far as I can tell, there is no real "Windows Challenge", other than to see how quickly you can get banned on a forum by acting half your age...
There was no desire to stifle any constructive criticism about the Microsoft Windows operating system in any way, shape or form.
His critique of our website was uncalled for, unprecedented, and unprofessional, but entirely within his rights. This therefore leads to Windows7Forums.com absolute right to respond, using portions of his critique, and perhaps the entire video series itself, in any type of response video.
His e-mail campaign consisted of threats to our administrators about the consequences of banning him from using the website and not providing the free copy of Windows 7...
To deal with his ramblings, a decision was made, in this specific instance, to create a response to his video.
He then filed a DMCA "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" claim with YouTube, to try to take down the video and following this, we began working with YouTube to send them the bizarre and increasingly threatening and grandiose messages he had been sending us (at one point he warned me that although he could control himself - an army of raging supporters could not be stopped and that we should all be worried about this ... yes, he really did claim it was an army...)
Filing a false DMCA violation is serious business. At the time, and perhaps, even still, no one has actually followed through with a federal lawsuit and won on YouTube, in order to get a video taken down. Deals have been struck with media publishers and YouTube to avoid liability, but there were never any in-court activities, as they would no doubt cost millions.
YouTube ultimately restored the video after Justin Breithaupt failed to file a federal lawsuit in the United States, and after initial paperwork was sent to both him and YouTube regarding what Windows7Forums.com considered to be a violation of 1st Amendment rights.
YouTube ultimately restored Windows7Forums.com response video, finding no basis for action. Our arguments included the fact that his videos have no monetary value, and therefore there is no civil liability or loss. Other arguments included the right to free expression, derivative works, and most importantly, fair use.
The matter was ended without incident, and the totality of the ridiculousness of the entire incident cannot be understated. We combine a combination of commercial, non-commercial, and middle of the road solutions to host this website, including Linux, and have for many years. I perform database administration, software updates, general maintenance, and other tasks for this website, in Linux, all the time.
There is no "Windows 7 Challenge". Use whatever operating system you are most comfortable with, fits your needs both monetarily and realistically, for whatever it is needed for. Does an apple taste better than an orange? Do you like rice better than lentils? It was a nice try.
I hope this explains our side of the story and not the one you see on some truly mean-spirited videos from this man.
First I'd like to explain that, like ranchguy, I stumbled by chance across this thread and, having had some previous experience with Mr Breithaupt, was motivated enough to create an account simply to post here.
Mike, you can be very sure that by taking the action that you did you've almost certainly saved yourself some serious future headaches. The pattern you've been subjected to is not an unfamiliar one; Mr B has been banned from many online communities for his self-promotional activities and sense of entitlement (including Wikipedia, after which he set up his own online encyclopedia in competition: PediaOpenness Home - PediaOpenness.org). As you no doubt know, in the open source community there's no greater sin than taking someone else's hard work, rebadging it, and attempting to sell it for personal gain. However, not only did he do that but then he requested community help when his 'distro' (actually just a remix) didn't work. It doesn't take a genius to figure why he's well remembered in certain quarters. His boundless energy, mindless optimism and absolute self-belief, combined with an almost total cluelessness and an unshakeable conviction in the brilliance of his schemes (if only everyone else would do the work for him that he can't do for himself), is a difficult combination to deal with. Trouble is he really means well (for linux, at least, absolutely NOT for Windows) but seems incapable of learning from previous mistakes. It's sad but he's better outside of your community p*****g in than inside it still p*****g in. You did the Right Thing.
Hello win 7 forum members. just wanted to add to this post because a certain someone decided to start some trouble in a linux based facebook group the i am a member of called linux candy. it was rather funny that we were able to berate him into leaving our normally pleasant little community for all around general douche-baggery. i hope the actions of one delusional linux user doesn't sully the image for the rest of us linux users out there. that truth is most linux users, do in fact still use windows for many tasks, and i for one can honestly say that windows 7 is quite nice and my personal favorite of all of the microsoft releases. we will always co-exist and that's just how it is. thanks for giving me some fun reading on this topic though.
if it'll make any of you feel better, he got a little scared when he threatened us and a few of us started posting personal information (adresses for his home and business as well as telephone numbers. not to mention a photo of the front of his home & business.) about him and he ran off with his tail between his legs. long story short, here to bot windows and linux users alike self policing against douchebags like him. cheers!
I see there has been more activity since I last checked. Mike, you made your case very clear. I don't think any person in their right mind would think that you did anything wrong in this situation. I have one suspicion though, I suspect the last response you gave was in response to "Mr. B." yet again. I can't prove it of course, and could very well be wrong, but as you know, he seems to be his only supporter, and has often signed up under multiple names (and been caught at it, as you know as well). You've explained your situation well enough.
If anyone has any question as to who was right and who was wrong, just use Google to search for "Justin Breithaupt" or "julinux" or "usacomputertec" or "ultumix" (the name of the former project, renamed to julinux). You will find yourself with hours of reading, showing what kind of person this is. Or you can send me a message, I was there through most of it, and can point out some specific reading material. To put it mildly, this is not a nice person. A conversation with a rock would be more productive than dealing with this guy.
In short, its an alternative Operating System derived from Unix designed some years ago and kept alive in universities, etc. by programmers and engineers who donate their time. It's a free OS with a lot of free applications.
Elmer that's Linus van Pelt you are talking about. So close, yet still so far away.
LUnix, short for "Little Unix",[SUP][/SUP] is a Unix-like operating system designed to run natively on the Commodore 64 and Commodore 128[SUP][/SUP] home computer systems. It supports TCP/IP networking (SLIP or PPP using an RS232 interface). Unlike most Unix-like systems, LUnix is written in 6502assembly language instead of C.
The first version of LUnix was released in 1993, the current version 0.21 dates from 2004. Amongst others, it supports preemptive multitasking, unix pipes, a variety of protocols like TCP/IP, SLIP, PPP and RS232, dynamic memory management and virtual consoles. It contains a web server and clients for telnet, POP3 and FTP and can act as a terminal or terminal server over RS232.
LUnix was developed by Daniel Dallmann and contributed by Ilker Ficicilar, Stefan Haubenthal and Paul Gardner-Stephen in late 1990s. The first generation LUnix had support for faster RS232 via clever software tricks, 80 column VIC and VDC screen support, PS2 keyboard support, and small set of standard Unix commands. It is possible with this first distribution to attach two keyboards and two monitors and one RS232 terminal to set up a 3 simultaneous, multitasking sessions on a C128.
According to Wikipedia that is. :-D
PS Linux is not an OS, it is the kernel to the GNU OS. Just putting that out there.
I don't have audio on this computer, but I went to 3:46. I see his name, email, phone, etc. displayed, which was displayed all over the internet, and on his personal and "distribution" website, and in many rantings he posted himself, at least back at that time. Is that what he's complaining about? I wish my memory wasn't so good so that I didn't remember seeing his contact info all over the place. Of course he barged in on every forum I was a part of at the time, and made his presence ...well known....
Here I thought he settled down, then I get an "alert" email for this nonsense. 2.5 years later, after he saw it, talk about not being able to let anything go.