The Bogosity Podcast, early and ad-free!
Become a subscriber at Patreon, SubscribeStar, or Discord.
Use the links at donate.bogosity.tv.
Welcome to the Bogosity Podcast for the week of January 18 2026,
the podcast that turned into a ballroom blitz.
This is your host, Shane Killian. Let's hebraize the News of the Bogus.
Nice to know some people are still fighting the horrible DMCA and its inhibiting effects on free speech!
In this case, it's X Corp who has filed suit against the National Music Publishers' Association
as well as Sony, Universal, and several other labels.
The nub of this lawsuit is that the DMCA ends up being used,
not to deal with copyright infringement, but for antitrust and unfair competition violations.
X has been trying for three years to negotiate with the publishers towards a settlement,
but that never came to fruition, with X saying they were using the DMCA as part of an extortion racket.
Instead of making individual deals with the platform,
the music publishers and the NMPA colluded together to try and force X to pay more than they otherwise would have,
with NMPA President David Israelite
threatening a large-scale program of DMCA notices that would overwhelm X if they didn't agree to a partnership.
X filed: "Rather than engage in a competitive process and individually negotiate a license for their catalogs,
the Music Publishers colluded through NMPA in a concerted refusal to deal with X independently.
The object of this scheme is to coerce X into taking licenses to musical works from the industry as a whole,
denying X the benefit of competition between music publishers—
a goal that is in keeping with NMPA President and CEO David Israelite's admonition
that the music-publishing industry should work together 'to expand the pie,'
and not turn on one another to try and get a bigger piece of the pie."
"As part of this conspiracy, Defendants weaponized the DMCA against X,
using the DMCA as a pretext for their extortionate campaign.
To coerce X into negotiating licenses with all Music Publishers,
Mr. Israelite emailed X on behalf of all music publishers in October 2021
and threatened that NMPA would soon launch a massive program to inundate X with DMCA takedown notices
on a scale larger than any previous effort in DMCA history.
That program, Mr. Israelite warned,
would harm X by quickly turning many of X's most popular users into repeat infringers,
requiring X to deplatform them."
X, then Twitter, refused to sign a deal, so starting in December 2021,
the NMPA began sending weekly notices totaling some 200,000 posts over the first year.
The campaign has resulted in the suspension of more than 50,000 users. Quote:
"The purportedly infringing content includes the same kinds of content that NMPA's lawyers and executives—
including Mr. Israelite—have themselves reposted on X.
This is unsurprising, given that NMPA's takedown notices have targeted posts
that are not subject to any legitimate claim of infringement."
In 2023, the NMPA sued Twitter for $250 million,
claiming that Twitter hadn't properly licensed the music its users were posting to its platform
and didn't adequately respond to DMCA notices.
The case was dismissed and the parties entered into settlement talks, which ultimately failed.
This isn't about, people should be able to post infringing content to X.
It's about who gets to set licensing terms and how much X has to pay. Quote:
"Mr. Israelite made clear that this harm could be avoided by entering into industrywide licensing discussions.
When X did not take NMPA up on licensing negotiations on behalf of the music-publishing industry,
NMPA and the Non-Majors made good on their threat.
Starting in December 2021, NMPA began bombarding X with takedown notices virtually every single week
related to thousands of posts that allegedly infringed the Non-Majors' copyrights."
Your reminder that bad-faith DMCA notices are supposed to be perjury.
Your additional reminder that, out of the many millions of proven-fraudulent DMCA claims since the law was passed,
there have been precisely zero indictments for perjury arising from them.
Quote: "Warner Chappell's correspondence with X is telling.
A Warner Chappell Senior Vice President emailed X in March 2022—
three months after NMPA sent its first takedown notice.
The SVP made plain that Music Publishers—collectively—
held a veto right over whatever licensing agreement X might strike with record labels.
When negotiations failed to materialize, the SVP emailed in May 2022 and again leveraged NMPA's takedown scheme:
'As I mentioned, we've chosen not to be involved in any NMPA takedown activities to date
as we have been hopeful that X would engage with us as they develop their music strategy,
but we are getting regular inquiries from senior management about X's licensing status.'
The SVP's email was clear: if X did not start engaging with Warner Chappell quickly,
Warner Chappell would join the conspiracy—
operating through NMPA to attempt to force X to take industrywide musical composition licenses
and burdening X with takedown notices
until X accepted the extortionate proposal Mr. Israelite had made on behalf of all music publishers."
They also filed: "Not only have NMPA's takedown notices claimed
content similar to that posted by NMPA executives and lawyers was infringing,
but they have also forced X to remove posts that are not subject to copyright protection
by issuing takedown notices as to such posts."
And what they have is as good as a confession, quote:
"Although they are competitors, the Music Publishers have joined together
to exploit their combined monopoly power to force X to make an all-or-nothing choice:
either take licenses from all the Music Publishers or else face a targeted attack—
including on its most popular users.
Defendants have admitted that this is the purpose of their conspiracy.
Speaking on behalf of NMPA and its co-conspirators, Mr. Israelite told X
that 'we are open to starting a conversation' about musical composition licensing,
just as Defendants had done with TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, Roblox, and Snap.
These companies, according to the Music Publishers, 'all pay fees' to every Music Publisher.
If X was not willing to pay each Music Publisher, the Music Publishers would target and harm X."
Yeah, so, how are they different from the Mafia?
X is seeking damages and a permanent injunction.
If only Facebook, Snap, and the others had done so long ago, maybe this wouldn't be an issue!
But at least we have one that isn't just going to be a lapdog for the big content cartels.
Presenting: the greatest game this side of Yuggoth!
You are H.P. Lovecraft's cat, and your name is Ni***
...Right. We can't say that on a podcast.
Anyway, that's the point: Your name is a joke.
So now, you are out for revenge. You become...the NecronomiCat!
Using the Necronomicon, you come to the present day to buy a gat.
That's a gun. For a cat.
It's a phat cat gat.
But the Necronomicon is treacherous, and it let in Lovecraft's monsters.
Now, in a crumbling world, you must fight!
Build your team, buy guns and armor,
buy items of dubious legality, defeat the bosses of each level.
Then take Lovecraft down!
Play NecronomiCat! The link is at cat.bogosity.tv.
Yeah, we're doing cat.bogosity.tv, not...that other one.
What, you want me to get kicked off the Internet or something?
As we've said many times on this podcast,
one sure-fire way to tell if a regulation is bogus is to see if politicians exempt themselves from it.
There have been numerous cyberattacks on the UK government recently,
including a couple of high-profile ones in the Legal Aid Agency attack and the Foreign Office Breach.
So their new Cyber Security and Resilience Bill represents a complete overhaul of cybersecurity regulation,
amid increasing concerns due to the proliferation of datacenters.
The UK's National Cyber Security Centre says that between September of 2020 and August of '21,
40% of attacks were against the public sector.
So, then... why does the bill exempt both central and local government?
Oliver Dowden said in the House of Commons this week, quote:
"I would just urge the Minister, as this bill passes through Parliament, to look again at that point,
and I think there is a case for putting more stringent requirements on the public sector
in order to force Ministers' minds on that point."
The bill was introduced in the opening days of Keir Starmer's term as Prime Minister,
and not too long after that, his email was hacked by the Russians.
Minister of State Ian Murray thanked Dowden for his comments
and said that the Government Cyber Action Plan would hold government departments to equal security standards.
Just, you know, not in any way legally enforceable.
Dowden said, quote:
"I would caution him that, in my experience, cybersecurity is one of those things that Ministers talk about
but then other priorities overtake it.
And the advantage of legislative requirements is that it forces Ministers to think about it.
I do think that more pressure needs to be brought to bear on Ministers
in terms of their accountability for cybersecurity.
I fear that if we don't put this into primary legislation,
it's something that can slip further and further down Ministers' in-trays."
A year ago, the National Audit Office published a report
that showed a litany of security flaws against the 58 governmental department systems they reviewed,
and noted that the problems were being addressed at a staggeringly slow pace.
That doesn't sound to me like people who can placate the public by saying, "We'll do it, just trust us."
If you're on the Wi-Fi in a coffee shop or hotel,
anyone on that network can get access to your traffic.
Do you really trust all of those strangers?
For that matter, do you really trust your ISP?
A VPN can protect you from prying eyes, disguise your location, and even foil government censors.
It's essential in this day and age, so go to vpn.bogosity.tv and you'll be taken to BoxPN.
Starting at just $2.99/month,
you can get unlimited high-speed connections to VPN servers all over the world,
and they don't log connections so your privacy is assured.
Travelling abroad, just VPN home and don't worry about what those other governments are doing.
Back at home, stop your ISP from traffic-shaping
and messing with the quality internet access you're paying good money for.
You can connect from multiple machines at once, including your smartphone or tablet,
and it supports all the secure standards including OpenVPN and SSTP.
Bypass censors and surveillance with your own secure VPN connection. Go to vpn.bogosity.tv.
So, good news: the Fourth Amendment is still a thing.
One of the big threats to the people lately has been the fact that
police can claim that they think there's an emergency in your home,
burst in without a warrant, and then search whatever they want and arrest you on whatever crap they can find.
The basic principle holds, and the court unanimously agreed that the police can, quote:
"enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable
basis for believing that someone inside needs emergency assistance."
But that doesn't make it a fishing expedition that allows them to do whatever they want.
They ruled: "We repeat today what we have held before:
An officer may enter a home without a warrant if he has an objectively reasonable basis
for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.
The officers' entry satisfied that test.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment (even though not all the reasoning) of the Montana Supreme Court."
Justice Kagan's majority opinion didn't really go into why,
so thankfully we have Gorsuch's short-but- sweet concurrence to clarify things. Quote:
"But to me, a question lingers: Why?
Does the Fourth Amendment tolerate this limited emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement
just because five or more Justices of this Court happen to believe that such entries are reasonable?
Or is this exception more directly tied to the law?
The answer, I believe, is the latter. From before the founding through the present day,
the common law has generally permitted a private citizen to enter another's house and property
in order to avert serious physical harm.
In those circumstances, and many others, courts have historically held
that property rights give way to concern for human safety."
That's the key point: a private citizen can do it, so a police officer can.
The obvious next logical step is: an officer therefore cannot do anything that a private citizen
wouldn't be allowed to do in that scenario. In such a case, probable cause would be required.
Quote: "So, for example, a private citizen who enters a home to render emergency aid lacks license to do so in
a manner which a reasonable man would not regard as necessary to address the apparent emergency.
Today's decision echoes both the common-law emergency aid rule and its limitations.
It does so, to be sure, in the context of a law enforcement officer, not a private citizen,
who sought to enter another's home.
But on this point as well the common law has spoken,
long providing that officers generally enjoy the same legal privileges as private citizens.
And, reflecting the common law here again,
this Court has held that the Fourth Amendment usually permits officers lacking a valid warrant
to take actions that any private citizen might do without fear of liability."
Which doesn't in any way give them carte blanche, quote:
"For a period, to be sure, the miasma created by this Court's Katz era
led some to think the scope of the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment
depend on nothing more than current judicial instincts about reasonable expectations of privacy.
But that confusion cannot last forever, for no one should think the rights of Americans hang on so thin a thread.
Instead, and as Justice Story recognized, the Fourth Amendment is made of sturdier stuff."
He also clarified in a footnote:
"King v. Coate does not establish that the common law demanded an exacting
showing of actual necessity to defeat a claim for trespass.
Coate involved an effort to involuntarily confine a person in a madhouse for two months, not a claim over a home entry.
And it is hardly surprising that the common law would demand a good deal more
to justify a serious deprivation of liberty
than to excuse an invasion of property rights aimed at protecting human safety."
Here's something we need to consider:
that the court's laxity about warrantless surveillance needs to be reconsidered in this light.
The standard of "objective reasonableness"
cannot be "just because five or more Justices of this Court happen to believe" so.
This is leading some legal circles to speculate that it may be time
to take another swing at challenging warrantless surveillance.
Twice, Gorsuch referenced Carpenter v. United States,
the case we covered back in 2018
that says the government must obtain a warrant to access cell site location information from phone providers.
We can also see a bit of that in Sotomayor's concurrence, which as per her usual is more wordy and less intelligent.
Quote: "That conclusion, on the facts of this case,
does not mean it will always be objectively reasonable for officers responding to a mental-health crisis
to make a warrantless entry.
A different mix of information might have led to the conclusion
that the officers' entry itself would put the occupant (and officers)
at a greater risk of escalation and serious injury."
And as she pointed out in a footnote, quote:
"Case has not challenged the reasonableness of the officers' manner of entry
or their conduct inside his house after entry.
As a result, neither the decision below nor this Court had occasion to consider the reasonableness of that conduct."
In short: Police (like a private citizen) can enter a person's home without permission
if they believe that emergency assistance is needed,
and their only activities are directly tied to that assistance.
No evidence collected as a result is permissible in court.
Now, the relevant question is, will it actually make a difference?
I want to tell you about the eyeglasses I've been wearing for years.
As people can see on my videos, I have a very strong prescription,
which makes glasses more expensive, especially when I need computer glasses,
reading glasses, prescription sunglasses,
and most expensively, progressive lenses for general everyday wear.
To save money while still getting quality glasses, I get them from Firmoo.
In fact, I just got a pair of progressives with high index aspherical lenses
in a nice pair of frames my wife loves, for just over $100.
It would have been $500 to get them through my eye doctor.
Not only do they look good, the glasses are durable.
I've worn many pairs for several years without problems.
All orders come with a 30-day return policy,
a 3-month warranty, and one-on-one customer service.
Go to firmoo.bogosity.tv any time you need quality glasses at a low price.
Once again, that's firmoo.bogosity.tv.
And now it's time to hyperpolarize this week's Biggest Bogon Emitter.
And this week, it goes to the Waltham Community Access Corporation in Massachusetts,
or WCAC, for having to be taught a lesson in basic fair use.
They're a creation of and funded by the Waltham city government
and broadcast public and government channels, including city council meetings.
They're also notorious for portraying city officials in a positive light.
Channel 781 news is a competitor, providing an alternative, critical view of the city government.
According to Mitch Stolz, the EFF's IP Litigation Director, WCAC sent a series of bogus DMCA takedown notices
which led to YouTube shutting off their channel just days before a critical municipal election.
So Channel 781, represented by the EFF, sued WCAC.
The broadcast was a government meeting that was absolutely in the public domain,
and that had no creative input from anyone at WCAC.
Stolz wrote: "The DMCA gives copyright holders a powerful tool
to take down other people's content from platforms like YouTube.
The 'notice and takedown' process requires only an email, or filling out a web form,
in order to accuse another user of copyright infringement and have their content taken down.
And multiple notices typically lead to the target's account being suspended,
because doing so helps the platform avoid liability.
There's no court or referee involved, so anyone can bring an accusation and get a nearly instantaneous takedown."
And your reminder that filing a counter-notice requires you to give your private information,
including name and address, to the person who filed the takedown notice.
WCAC forced the channel offline because they didn't like their coverage of city council meetings.
Your reminder as well that this isn't abuse of the DMCA; this is exactly the reason for it!
Quote: "WCAC claims they considered fair use,
because a staff member watched a video about it and discussed it internally.
But WCAC ignored three of the four fair use factors.
WCAC ignored that their videos had no creativity, being nothing more than records of public meetings.
They ignored that the clips were short, generally including one or two officials' comments on a single issue.
They ignored that the clips caused WCAC no monetary or other harm, beyond wounded pride.
And they ignored facts they already knew, and that are central to the remaining fair use factor:
by excerpting and posting the clips with new titles,
Channel 781 was putting its own 'spin' on the material—in other words, transforming it.
All of these facts support fair use."
In their motion for summary judgement, they filed:
"To be sure, the media professionals at WCAC were capable of assessing fair use, had they chosen to do so.
Instead, irritated that Channel 781 did not seek advance permission for its work,
WCAC chose to disregard three of the four fair use factors
and ignore facts that would have been central to any good faith inquiry.
WCAC knew that its ministerial video recordings of government meetings
fulfilled a government function delegated to them by the city,
and that the recordings contained vanishingly little creative input by WCAC, if any.
WCAC knew that by excerpting carefully selected clips from those recordings
and posting them to its YouTube channel for a different audience,
Channel 781 was transforming their meaning and message.
And perhaps most importantly, WCAC knew that Channel 781's posts
did not and would not harm any licensing market or other financial incentive of WCAC."
"Disregarding these and other facts, WCAC staff cherry-picked a single component of the fair use inquiry
that they thought supported their goal of taking down Channel 781's posts—
that the clips at issue contained only excerpts of the meeting videos without additional content."
Channel 781 is non-commercial, but it shouldn't matter if it were!
These are city council meetings whose contents should be freely available to everyone!
One of the controversies was over a meeting where WCAC Executive Director Maria Sheehan
was asked why WCAC didn't provide captions for the hearing impaired.
She responded that they weren't required to do so and no one had requested them.
At that same meeting, quote:
"The discussion then turned to Channel 781's use of WCAC's government-meeting clips.
Sheehan told Kastorf that 'the problem with what you're doing
is that you're not just using these clips to inform people—you're putting your spin on them.'
Sheehan said she would consult WCAC's board about creating a new policy on clip usage,
under which Channel 781 would need to request permission for each individual clip.
WCAC subsequently created a draft of such a policy but never published it.
Kastorf explained that, while requesting permission might be standard industry courtesy,
fair use under copyright law allowed Channel 781 to use short clips
for commentary and public-interest reporting."
Actually, since it's a government proceeding, they should be allowed to use the whole thing!
This isn't the sort of thing you can copyright!
News Director Chris Wangler, quote: "asserted that the clips 'merely copy',
a lot of it is used without permission, and the main focus is the copywritten material.
He concluded that 'Those will be the ones we should file copyright claims against.'
Sheehan agreed with Wangler's recommendation and informed Board President Justin Barrett
that WCAC would move forward with takedown notices."
There is no possible way this is in any way resembling a good faith belief!
They should know that this sort of thing can't and shouldn't be copyrighted!
They're just trying to silence dissenting voices.
Which, again, isn't really an abuse of the DMCA because it's the whole reason it exists! Copyright is just a cover.
Once again, under the DMCA, WCAC committed perjury.
Who wants to bet they'll never, ever be prosecuted for it?
So all of that makes WCAC this week's Biggest Bogon Emitter.
And now let's mischaracteristicalizationify this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.
Ugh. RFK Jr. again.
About autism, again.
He's been a grifter about this for a long time,
touting one bogus therapy after another that supposedly treats autism but doesn't,
and is actually more likely to cause them severe harm.
The FDA used to have a page warning about these, until RFK took it down.
For example, chelation therapy, which is a treatment for heavy metal poisoning such as lead or arsenic.
Chelating agents bind to these heavy metals allowing them to be excreted through urine or bile.
It can be very risky, placing extreme stress on the kidneys which could result in renal failure,
disrupt the balance of electrolytes, and gastrointestinal issues.
It can also get rid of a lot of important minerals as well as the heavy metals, leading to all sorts of problems.
Chelation therapy should only be done under the supervision of qualified professionals
and after a proper medical profile.
Seriously, this should only be considered if the consequences are bad enough that it outweighs the risks!
Chelating anyone—especially a child—for something like autism,
which it has basically zero chance of affecting,
is irresponsible bordering on insane!
There's hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which is used to treat decompression sickness suffered by divers.
Again, no help to autistics, and has risks of its own.
Especially when it's used by ignorant flim-flam artists who don't know what they're doing!
In fact, a year ago, a 5-year-old boy was killed by a so-called "wellness center"
who put him in a hyperbaric chamber to treat his autism.
One spark later, the chamber exploded and burned him alive.
Four people were charged with homicide for disregarding basic safety measures,
like, using polyester sheets and pyjamas which created the spark that caused the ignition.
Remember that autism is a genetic disorder that causes the brain to be fundamentally structured in a different way.
None of these products—nor anything else in existence—can restructure the brain,
although a lot of them can damage it!
A lot of this is related to the anti-vaxxer nonsense such as blaming thimerosal in vaccines.
Thimerosal has trace but harmless amounts of ethylmercury,
which the body processes and gets rid of in 24 hours.
Oh, but it has mercury, so something something chelation!
Again, thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines over 20 years ago,
with no affect whatsoever on autism rates.
But, of course, they pivoted to aluminum.
Even though aluminum isn't a heavy metal and the aluminum in vaccines is a salt!
Generally either aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate.
Aluminum salt is an adjuvant, which boosts the body's immune response to a vaccine,
meaning you don't need as big a dose to get the job done. You'd think that'd be a good thing!
By the way, other things with aluminum salts: every single thing you eat and drink!
They're naturally present in soil and groundwater!
Children will get far more aluminum salt from breast milk than they will from vaccines!
One of the hucksters Kennedy hired is David Geier,
who was disciplined by the Maryland State Board of Physicians in 2011 for,
among other things, putting the health of autistic children at risk
by treating them with unproven and dangerous hormone and chelation therapies.
He was also fined for practicing medicine without a license.
But, I guess once you're in government, you can do that all you want!
Other fake autism treatments include detoxifying clay baths that don't detox anything,
raw camel milk (random), chlorine dioxide, and essential oils.
For all his complaints about the profit-mongering of Big Pharma,
Kennedy and his cronies have made millions promoting these unproven and dangerous products and treatments.
Here's a good way to see if someone is sensible:
if they're against both RFK Jr. and Anthony Fauci having anything to do with public health!
Because if you think either is good and the other bad, you're part of the problem.
So all of that makes RFK Jr. this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.
Well, that wraps up this "I haven't felt this awful since we saw that Ronald Reagan film"
edition of the Bogosity Podcast.
I hope you enjoyed it; if you did, please go to donate.bogosity.tv for several ways to support,
and discord.bogosity.tv to join the discussion.
Subscribe at the Discord, Patreon, or SubscribeStar and you can listen early and ad-free.
Thank you for listening. Until next time, here's a quote from Christopher Hitchens:
"Human beings are pattern-seeking animals who will prefer even a bad theory or a conspiracy theory to no theory at all."
The Bogosity Podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International license.