Benny Hinn Tried to Shut Me Down

Benny Hinn just took down two of my videos about him for alleged copyright infringement, giving me a

copyright strike.

If I get a second strike, I won't be able to upload for a week.

And if I get a third strike, this entire channel will be deleted from YouTube.

The stakes are high.

Let's talk about why Hinn took down these two videos, whether Hinn's takedown of these videos was

legitimate, and what we can do about this.

No retreat.

No surrender.

A new age. An age of freedom.

It's no secret that Hinn hates criticism.

He has said that he wants to shoot John MacArthur with a Holy Spirit machine gun for criticizing his

ministry.

And he has publicly cursed his critics.

I won't show the clips here because it's likely that Hinn will issue another takedown notice for those and

give me a second copyright strike.

How can we make Hinn regret taking down my two videos for what we will see are completely

bogus reasons?

It's so simple.

The Borg hurt you, and now you're going to hurt them back.

In my century, we don't succumb to revenge.

We have a more evolved sensibility.

Well, you can watch this entire video to help this video go more viral in the YouTube

algorithm.

And then you can subscribe and watch all my other videos to help this channel reach even more people.

Because the more you watch, the more YouTube recommends all these videos to more people.

The silver lining of Hinn taking down my videos is that I get to make this video.

Why did Hinn take down these two videos?

For alleged copyright infringement.

Of course, I did use video clips of Benny Hinn in these videos.

But there is something called fair use, and these videos clearly fall within the

category of fair use.

Fair use factor number one says,.

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for

non -profit educational purposes.

Courts typically focus on whether the use of copyright -protected material is transformative.

This means whether the use adds new expression or meaning to the original material, or whether it

merely copies from the original.

Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair use, but it's still possible to monetize a

video that contains fair use materials.

The two videos in question use video clips in a clearly transformative manner.

They comment on, analyze and critique the video clips that were used, which means they add

new expression or meaning to the original material.

Fair use factor number two says,.

The nature of the copyright work using material from primarily factual works is more

likely to be fair use than using purely fictional works.

Check.

The material used were factual works.

They were video clips of Hinn's teachings and statements, and they were used to critique Hinn's ministry.

Fair use factor number three says,.

The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole,

borrowing small bits of material from an original work, is more likely to be considered fair use

than borrowing large portions.

But if what's borrowed is considered the heart of the work, sometimes even a small sampling

may weigh against fair use.

Check.

The videos only use small bits of material, which were then commented on and critiqued.

What was borrowed was certainly not the heart of the work, since they were just short snippets of Hinn's teachings.

Fair use factor number four says,.

The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.

Users that harm the copyright owner's ability to profit from their original work are less likely to be

fair uses.

Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.

Again, the videos in question do not at all harm the copyright owner's ability to profit from their

original work.

Nobody is going to watch my videos as a replacement for Hinn's teachings.

The clips I used were far too short for that, and my purpose for using the clips was completely different from

the purpose of the original videos.

So clearly, Benny Hinn is ignoring the clear, fair use nature of these two videos.

Clearly, Hinn is upset about the criticism, and is seeking to abuse YouTube's copyright reporting system

to take down videos that are critical of his ministry.

Now, what am I going to do about this?

I'm going to fight back.

I've already submitted a counter -notification arguing my case against these two videos being taken down.

Benny Hinn's organization now has a certain amount of time to decide what it's going to do.

It has two options.

First, it can choose not to fight my counter -notification and allow the two videos to be

reinstated.

Obviously, this would be the ideal scenario.

Or second, it can choose to take me to court and fight against my counter -notifications.

In this case, I would have to decide whether I want to spend the money to fight back in court.

Whether I do this will depend on whether I think I would win, as well as how much this would all cost.

I would need to seek legal counsel to make my final decision.

But I really want to fight back.

Benny Hinn is one of the worst, most deceptive false teachers out there, and I want to send a clear

message that I will stand up to his bullying.

I'll keep you all updated on if you can help and be a part of this as things unfold.

Of course, this is not a fun situation to be in.

It's stressful to have a copyright strike, to be closer to having my channel taken down by YouTube, and

to consider how much a court battle with Benny Hinn might cost.

Benny Hinn is a millionaire with a big organization and tons of resources at his disposal,

and I'm just one person.

I recognize that speaking biblical truth and calling out lies from supposed Christian pastors

can oftentimes have serious consequences.

I've already experienced a couple of takedowns and a copyright strike from Joel Osteen.

The Osteen sees some YouTube videos that are critical of its distorted and

incomplete gospel message, feeling threatened.

I must get rid of them.

The Osteen immediately begins the process to instruct YouTube to take down the

videos.

The battle is over, and the little YouTube creator has defeated

the mighty Osteen.

Mike Winger recently experienced a copyright strike from Joel Osteen also.

So this is why I got a copyright strike on my YouTube channel.

What it means, I'm canceling my next two streams, by the way, and why I'm not going to try to sue Joel Osteen or his

church over the issue.

Colin Miller has experienced a copyright strike from Stephen Furtick.

It is actually against United States law for Elevation Church to falsely report me for copyright infringement.

But, of course, Stephen Furtick and his henchmen, for whatever reason, believe that they're above the law of the land.

They think that they can report me and make a legal case against me when I've done literally nothing wrong.

And many other Christian content creators have experienced copyright strikes from other teachers, such as T .D.

Jakes and others.

But we're not going to back down.

God hates false teaching that distorts the gospel and does not save.

And we're going to continue boldly proclaiming biblical truth.

To help us fight, just subscribe and watch as many of these videos as you have time for.

As always, thank you all from the bottom of my heart.

Let's win this together.