This is just getting weirder and weirder. What kind of dummies are behind Expelled, anyway? First they lied about the premise of their movie to get interviews; then they copied Harvard/XVIVO's cell animations; then they
Anyway, no matter how the lawyers dance, one thing is clear: the makers of Expelled have been paragons of ethical dubiety, doing their best to skirt the edges of the law and sneak as much doubtful, dishonestly obtained content into their little propaganda movie as they can. I guess they had to skimp on the budget for the actual content of the movie to scrape together a very large advertising budget — it's as if their movie is a metaphor for all of Intelligent Design creationism.
This just in:
Premise Media threatens John Lennon with lawsuit. Not his estate...John Lennon.
I'm starting to wonder how these people manage not to choke to death on their own saliva. Did they have any expectation that they weren't gonna get busted pulling this crap? If so...I dunno, it just scares me that I drive on the same roads as these people.
Maybe Dembski is right, and the producers of Expelled purposely infringed copyright in order to generate publicity.
I have absoloutly no idea how to produce and/or distribute a film, but even I am well aware of the existance of copyrights and the need to ask permission to use other people's work.
It is almost as if the producers have an overwhelming desire to fulfill their pathetic little prosection complex.
It's brilliant actually. If they fail they can claim it is because of a vast Atheist conspiracy rather than their lack of ethics. "We told you so!!!" Big Science beats the little guy down with unfair tactics!!! It will fuel the paranoia that keeps the conspiracy nuts fed.
Pigs...singing... I can only say it so often.
Obviously, that should have been "persecution" complex, but with them seeming to beg to be sued, maybe I was right the first time.
"Prosecution Fetish" may have been the correct term.
Prediction: The movie will be pulled from theaters shortly. A week or two later, some of those chain emails will begin circulating about how "anti-Christian" Big Media is, taking all of these copyright violations and lies and turning it into "See how much we're hated by everyone? Nope, no way at all to catch a break, the Super-Scary Rest of Reality is just that threatened/afraid/in Satan's service!"
...only add a few spelling errors, more exclamation marks, crazy font colors, and probably some untraceable "eyewitness" account of PZ devouring fresh-baptized babies while guzzling sacramental wine. That oughta make sure everyone knows it's good and accurate.
Didn't you hear? Come the tribulation, we're going to have the roads all to ourselves, so the only real problem will be dodging the empties.
Unless, of course, they're wrong about that as well...
PZ,
I'm beginning to worry that you are neglecting your Trophy Wife (tm).
They chose music from John Lennon? What? I just can't imagine(Pun intended) what they were trying to do. Lennon is famous for his songs denouncing religion.
Has anyone here seen this film yet?
From the folks who have seen it, I am to understand "Imagine" is used for a montage of Nazi and Stalinist atrocities, showing what happens when there is no religion.
As the Pope said when examining the Vatican's washroom, Holy Crap! As a film industry pro myself, I can tell you: Doing a cheapass knockoff of the XVIVO animation is one thing...but you do not gank music. Music rights, as anyone who saw how the industry flattened Napster back in the day and continues to go after file sharers with the big guns a-blazin', are protected more fanatically than the Sheik of Araby's harem. If Mathis and his gang of idiots really did use this music in their film without permission, they can expect no fucking mercy. Yoko's lawyers especially will swoop down like a squadron of Stuka bombers. Expelled might have to change its name to There Will Be Blood II: Creationist Boogaloo.
Is the movie industry always this rife with sneakiness and dishonesty?
Oh, hell yes.
This is penny-ante shit though; the stuff I've come to expect from the smaller independent companies. The big ones are too smart to waste money on potential lawsuits when they can simply get alternate music of the proper rights for a hell of a lot cheaper.
But.. I thot that beleeving in god makes U all MORAL an stuff!?
Tyler DiPietro:
A Molly just for that!
By the way, there seem to be some contradictory statements in the air about licensing that Killers song, so I doubt we've heard the last of this.
They have the audacity to sue the very people they stole material from?
You have to love, however, that their name is 'Premise'. It shows you exactly the sort of reasoning they employ; They base everything off of a premise, and reality is apparently relative beyond that, extending even to ownership and production of materials which they take, and so on...
I'm confused by this, because the movers and shakers in the music business have made it very clear in this post-Napster world that they will aggressively go after anyone who reproduces their music without permission. The Expelled people would have to be living in a pretty deep cave to be unaware of this.
So, they either:
1. Copied stuff thinking that a few superficial alterations would be enough to avoid copyright infringement
2. Copied stuff knowing it was copyright infringement but hoping no one would notice
3. Copied stuff knowing it was copyright infringement and wanted to be caught in order to generate publicity
If 1, they are stupid. If 2, they are dishonest. If 3, they are both.
According to the Dawkins.net article they did license the Killers song
I am beginning to wonder if they haven't done this stuff intentionally so that their movie will never actually be seen in the "real" production run for the theaters, thus allowing them to claim that it was a vast conspiracy to prevent its showing, and not their dishonesty that led to it never being shown... Nah, that would take intelligence, and at this point... Forrest Gump could beat them at fracking one card monty, while they where looking at a cheat sheet with the correct card written on it.
Uh oh. They're messing with the RIAA--they're dead meat! They go after kids and grandparents.
"THEY" probably did it on purpose.
"OH, WOE IS US. EVERYONE IS SUING US BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO JESUS." (sic)
One wonders whether the venues in which this propaganda film plans to open would have any liability in view of the plaigerism and copyright violations. Since they stand to profit by the showing of the film (ostensibly) might they not be considered accomplices after the fact? After all, if the film becomes 'popular' as a result of its controversial ethics then are not the theaters also benefiting from the illegal use of copyrighted material and are they not therefore liable for both direct damages (any revenues they obtain) and incidental damages?
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make inquiries to those venues as to what their potential liability might be once they have been informed that the film has dubious credentials.
Just saying...
"...no matter how the lawyers dance..."
Dammit PZ, you've just seared a recurring animation directly into my brain.
Dee ba dee ba dee ba dee doo, dee ba dee dey do...
Will we get to see it on ytmnd?
U.S. copyright law specifies a fine of up to $150,000 per willful infringement.
In other words, if you show a film containing one willful infringement to 400 people, especially if you charge these people for the viewing, you could conceivably have 400 instances of copyright infringement.
The amount of liability can quickly skyrocket. If these guys truly did use music without obtaining a license, there are probably two possible outcomes:
1. A court injunction could be sought by the copyright owner(s) to prevent screening of the film.
2. The film could be allowed to proceed with release based on a settlement agreement with the copyright owners. Such an agreement is not likely to be cheap, and could conceivably run into the tens of millions of dollars or higher as the copyright owners have all the leverage.
Since the film is scheduled to premiere this week, at least 700 or more release prints have already been struck and sent to theaters. This could put the producers in quite a bind as they probably don't have budget to edit and re-strike all those prints. If they pulled the release it would be a nightmare for them (broken contracts, etc.)
I doubt that their e&o (errors & omissions) insurance would cover something so boneheaded as willful copyright infringement. Given the highly commercial nature of filmmaking, I also doubt that a judge would see the infringement as accidental or inadvertent. And certainly a fair use defense would be out of the question.
This kind of crap is normal in the movie industry.
Look at the lawsuit over revenues for LOTR to see what the bigger production outfits get up to.
So, someone on the extreme right does a propaganda piece akin to Mike Moore's extreme left propaganda piece, and everyone goes nuts?
Rob- Way to miss the point completely.
Don't you love how he turns any criticism into further proof of his conspiracy?
Conspiracy theorists can't be reasoned with because they will construe any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for it.
@ #22... First time I've ever seen the word "jesus" verbed. Awesome. Am so stealing that.
Do you know how much of the songs they use? Because you are allowed to use up to 15 seconds of a song under the fair use clause...
Imagine there's no Ben Stein.
Livin' in the world.
No ID crap before us.
Below us no bullshit.
Imagine all the scientists.
Living life in peace.
You hoo hoo
May think I'm a songwriter.
I'd bet you're the only one.
Imagine there's no Ben Stein.
Livin' for today.
(I completely apolgize for this. Do I get the Head Ass award?)
"Apologize"
MikeM, here's the preview key. Learn it; use it; love it.
But wait - weren't they the ones complaining about the nefarious atheists who were trying to "steal" copies of their movie?
"("What else would you expect them to say?" asked Mark Mathis, the film's associate producer. "They're absolutely infuriated when anyone dares question their philosophy.") "
Uh, Mr. Mathis? We're talking about music here.
Can anyone possibly see them as anything other than irritating crybaby wankers now?
Actually, Rey Fox, that aside was Mathis's response to the "outraged bloggers ... [who] characterized [the film] as 'creationist propaganda.'"
Quick, order your FREE! "Age of the Planet Earth" from Dr. Dino. Makes a great coaster for your favorite alcoholic beverage. If you overindulge, you can put it in the player and see if it makes sense.
http://www.drdino.com/expelledoffer/?gclid=CP-z7ZOy4ZICFQ8qIgodtAwQ6Q
Perhaps the movie is *intended* to not-quite open at all, or the version that opens publically will be missing the songs and clips, while the "private screening" version with all the [stolen] bells and whistles stays in "church-hall-only" screening mode.
BAH!
Still a wanker, of course.
#17
>Do you know how much of the songs they use? Because you are allowed to use up to 15 seconds of a song under the fair use clause...<
This statement is incorrect for several reasons.
1. There is no "amount" of a song you can use for "Fair Use." If you read the US Copyright law, you won't find any specification of 15 seconds.
2. "Fair Use" would probably not apply in the case of "Expelled" because there are strict limitations on what qualifies as Fair Use - usually it's for scholarly criticism or review, or parody, or a news report, etc. The fact that this is a commercial film and the music is not the focus of the content of the film would tend to rule out Fair Use.
3. Fair Use is a defense or exception to copyright infringement. Only a judge, based on copyright guidelines, can determine Fair Use. For example, a two-second audio sample used in a Hip-Hop song without permission is probably not Fair Use and would probably be considered infringement.
1) There is no 15 second rule. Fair use is determined by number of factors, which are deliberately nonspecific. Samplers are often limited to 15 seconds, but that's just convention. If the purpose is to preview the song than that's reasonable, but this wasn't. They wanted to ram home the point that 'no religion too' leads to communist China.
2) Premise said they used 25 seconds of Imagine, which given that it's a 3 minute song means they stole 15% of the song. Assuming they are telling the truth. Given their pitiful truth record they could be playing it for hours.
maybe they got all of the proper video and music rights from the proper people for the movie 'crossroads'........and now there is just some innocent confusion
LOL
Get over it, people. Their use of the song is protected under fair use. In a movie that deals with Darwinist suppression tactics, don't you think they had some inkling that this kind of accusation was going to be made?
Which part of "fair use", Hugh?
I would like to see Yoko sue these dweebs and win, but it's not clear to me that the use of a snippet of Imagine wouldn't be fair use, if the intention is to criticize and satirize.
I'm not saying the movie is scholarly, or critical in the sense of actual "critical thinking" but it does sound like their intention is to satirize and criticize the sentiment of the song, among other things. (And my understanding is that "fair use" does not require that the satire or criticism be good---bad parodies or criticisms of good art are still protected.)
I would hope that if the shoe was on the other foot, we could use hunks of theist songs with appropriate imagery to reveal their wacky and unpleasant signficance, even if the artists didn't approve. (As they generally wouldn't.)
What Paul W. said.
This movie is coming out, and, given that it is a call to arms, will surely influence the culture wars over evolution.
There is no point in all you Dawinists fantasising that this issue will have any impact on the film. The damage to the atheist and materialist worldview will be done by this film, like it or not.
Seems to be a symptom of propaganda movies... Geert Wilders' Fitna movie also breaks several copyrights. The ironic part is that Wilders went to law school! Although he never finished his studies; figures... I guess he missed the course on copyrights! :-D
There may not be a 15-second rule, but there is a 5-second rule.
Pay attention, now: If you accidentally drop a song on the floor, you can still listen to it if you a) pick it up within 5 seconds and b) blow on it.
There is definitely, definitely a 5-second rule. </rainman>
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
Why, the "use" part of course. The "fair" part can screw itself.
My bet is, they did it on purpose knowing "full well" they will draw the publicity and in case they are threatened with lawsuits they will be able to point and say "See, they try to suppress us. We told you so" ...
I actually wrote them a new theme song for free but that ungrateful lot refused to use it.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/
Hugh gakked:
I believe you've recently forfeited the right to criticise anyone for "fantasising", Mr. Jampton.
For those of you who are surprised by the choice of John Lennon's music as soundtrack to the film: Some years ago I saw a documentary from a congregation of evangelical christians were they were singing Imagine with a couple of choice words altered:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And ONE religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
I can't remember what they did to the first verse regarding heaven and hell.
Kseniya,
You wrote
"I believe you've recently forfeited the right to criticise anyone for "fantasising", Mr. Jampton."
My name is "Slaman".
And why exactly can I not criticise Darwinists for their unrealistic fantasises about seeing "Expelled" get into trouble?
If they are trying to jesus their way of life with this movie, how come they lucifer the music?
I dog a rat.
D'oh-ver! More specifically, do you remember Dembski and the Vice? We do.
Vise. [Dembski has many vices, but no Vice. Fortunately.]
Hugh Slaman:
Yoko Ono's a Darwinist? I thought she was Japanese...
Yssi;
I did a Google search, and came up with a blog that linked to the following "revision" of Imagine. I am guessing it is the one you meant :)
IMAGINE
Revised by Fredi D'Alessio
Imagine there's a Heaven,
It's easy if you try,
A hell below us,
Above us Holy sky,
Imagine all the people
Living for God's way ~
Imagine there's no hatred,
It isn't hard to do,
No cause to kill or die for,
And one religion too,
Imagine all the people
Living in Christ's peace ~
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world believes as one
Imagine shared possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No deeds of greed, no hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world ~
You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one,
I hope someday you'll join us,
And the world will Love as one
( Found at http://dalessio.topcities.com/Imagine.htm )
The site has the original and the revised version side by side, and an explanation of the changes.
It is like the punchline for the joke about the pygmies chanting "NULL" around a giant stone oval: "Is nothing sacred?"
I am praying for you all...
saw expelled commercial on comedy central and my disgust came to fruition.
I totally dig Hugh's (#43) undeclared but still clear definition of "fair use"!
It is surely the one the Wile E. Coyotes behind "Expelled" were assuming, because it is the one Xians use at all times: "fair use" means it's fair when they use it, because their cause is just!
Of course, for a Muslim lovin' Darwiniot lib'ral atheist to simply quote a passage for purposes of criticism or parody is far, far over the line of both Xian decency and the "big L" Law!
Courtesy, rules, laws, facts, etc. are there only to serve the moment's convenience, which they wish to interpret on a strictly case-by-case basis.
[i]And why exactly can I not criticise Darwinists for their unrealistic fantasises about seeing "Expelled" get into trouble?[/i]
Well, in the real world, when you're wrong, it tends to undercut your argument.
I think he meant "fair game."
"I am praying for you all..."
Knock yourself out, Sparky.
The damage to the atheist and materialist worldview will be done by this film, like it or not.
LOL
WATERLOOOOO!
you morons have SUCH a short memory.
as was suggested elsewhere....
*cough*DOVER*cough*
do try to recall all the predictions the IDiots made wrt to how the Kitzmiller trial was going to show how ID was teachable in Science class, and would spell the "death knell" for the ToE.
Hugh, do you know what delusion means?
do you know what projection is?
are you morons even capable of realizing you do nothing but project delusions?
It's so utterly pathetic.
the only thing this film is going to do for Xians, is freaking backfire.
all it will do is speed up the demise of your own religion.
...and you morons are embracing it like a fuzzy sweater.
go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot some more.
It's brilliant actually. If they fail they can claim it is because of a vast Atheist conspiracy rather than their lack of ethics. "We told you so!!!" Big Science beats the little guy down with unfair tactics!!! It will fuel the paranoia that keeps the conspiracy nuts fed.
Pigs...singing... I can only say it so often.
then stop saying it.
it hardly matters what form the film would take (even if it was some junior high production), or whether it's released or not.
NO MATTER WHAT, the conspiracy nuts will be fed.
that's what makes them nuts.
Frankly, for those of us who DO actually spend time trying to debunk this shit for REAL students, it would make for far less tedium having to debunk just why it was never released (really, it's a no-brainer), vs. having for the umpteenth fucking time to explain why Darwin /= Hitler.
I'd be happy if this thing never saw the light of day, simply because of the time it would save me.
While Hugh is a moron of the first order, he is probably correct that the use of Imagine comes under the rule of fair use--since the overlaying images are clearly intended to indicate what these is idiots think the consequences of no religion are.
If we take the three cases presented
XVIVO video: the creationists mistook the video as a faithful representation of the molecular goings on in a cell--not surprising since they think it was designed and deterministic--therefore changing the colors would be enough. Unfortunately, it is an artistic representation, which is subject to copyright.
The Killers: Rights obtained
Imagine: Intended for criticism, therefore falls under fair use.
The second one is safe. The third one is most likely all right (their criticism doesn't have to be thoughtful or thought provoking).
They are screwed on the XVIVO thing though :)
Thanks IAmAMaurauder! Looks very similar to what I had in mind....
"the only thing this film is going to do for Xians, is freaking backfire."
Well, that would count at least as one achievement...
Really, you are giving it too much importance.
It is much more likely that it will have no influence, neither positive nor negative. How many people will change their ideas because they have seen or read about this movie ? Some might get a bit overly excited, one way or another, but when the dust settles, it will go largely forgotten. Just a big waste of time.
I raised this point on the Richard Dawkins site but will do so here as well. Isn't it likely that they use this bit of "Imagine" in order to attack its "no religion" message? I.e. they might juxtapose the words with images of some kind of Nazi hell that it's suggested the absence of religion would involve or lead to? If so, that seems legitimate to me: Lennon's song is a well-known icon of anti-religious feeling, and that kind of ironic comment on it would be a reasonable tactic for an advocate of religion to adopt (reasonable in the sense of genuinely invoking free speech values, not in the sense that the message is correct). On that scenario, I do actually think they'd have a pretty strong legal case - they could defend their use of the song by saying they play just enough of it to make a savagely ironic comment on its message. Indeed, the law should permit this sort of thing, and we should all likewise be permitted to show snippets of Expelled in a satirical way.
If it's like the above, it's a completely different situation from the way they seem to have imitated Harvard's cell film, frame by frame, for their purposes (no one has suggested that they were trying in some way to comment on the Harvard film, or even that they wanted their audience to recognise it).
Of course, I'm in the dark like almost everyone else, not having seen Expelled. I have no idea whether what I'm hypothesising above matches the reality. But if it does, then on this particular point they may be on stronger ground (both morally and legally) than y'all assume. It could explain why they have legal advice supporting their action, if that's actually the case.
I see that laserboy made the same point while I was composing my comment.
Maybe if they switch to the Andy Williams cover of Imagine, everything will be OK. It would probably play better in Branson anyway.
I always wanted to knock on Lennon's door and ask for his piano.
If he said, "Get the fook out of here!" I would have replied, "Imagine no possessions!"
Re #68, 71. I've little knowledge of US copyright law, but I still think they were unwise to annoy Yoko Ono!
Count me as another one of those who thinks the infringement is possibly deliberate, so as to gain "controversy".
I've received spam on it twice now. (I assume they got my email from the same lovely bastards who put me on the LDS Living mailing list.) The spam keeps playing up the "controversy" and they'd talked about how enraged atheists are "crashing" screenings.
Fair use - huh! John Lennon stole Imagine from the creative folk at Extremely Stupid: No Intelligence Allowed. Not only did he steal it, but he stole it several decades before they wrote it! That evil Scouser clearly borrowed an atheistic time machine from the scheming scientists and used it to go forward to 2008, half inch the song, take it back and claim it as his own, oh, the immorality!
And Douglas Adams nicked that plot idea from me, to...
Oh dear, I've spilled juice on my bib, NURSSSEEE!!
"First they lied. . . "
I always find it amusing when one who believes in a self-created universe wants to talk about morality as if it actually exists.
Sheesh, these Expelled own goals are piling up so fast you could forgive people for thinking that Mathis, Stein & co were on our side - that is if they weren't so mind-bogglingly retarded, willfully misrepresentational and flat-out dishonest.
Planet Killer- EXPELLED!
Jim: that's fascinating. How is it relevant to anything?
Jim, does assuming the universe to be created by God make morality any more existent?
How does invoking God make "lying" immoral? Because God said so? Why did God have to say so? If "morality" is just people following "God's command" (for which there is no justifiable basis), then morality still remains an arbitrary proposition.
Thou shall not lie is an arbitrary thing for God to say because he/she/it does that for no apparent reason.
And if you are of the opinion that at least obedience to God will ensure some sort of moral behaviour, then think again- which God, who's interpretation? Considering that scripture has been used in the past to justify all kinds of bigotry and intolerance, I don't think a strong case can be made that "obedience to God" can ensure to make the world any better.
The basis for morality is unclear as of now. Maybe studies in primate morality and the field of neuroscience will help to shed some light on the subject.
So please stop with your self-righteous tone. The problem of morality is not solved that simply by hurling "God" everywhere there is a gap in our knowledge.
Steven -- I'm happy you're fascinated. Now try thinking about it a bit.
@Jim:
Do you always lift off the top of your skull to display your absence of brain publicly? Or was that an accident?
> Is the movie industry always this rife with sneakiness and dishonesty
No. Quite the opposite, they're are absolutely anal about getting the legalities right.
For instance, an acquaintance of mine had a career 20 odd years ago in a minor cult band. During the 1990's one of his songs was selected for an Alicia Silverstone film. What he didn't know was that one of his former bandmates had been appropriating the royalties for the previous 15 years.
The hollywood lawyers found out during their due diligence and not only strong armed the former bandmate into properly allocating the royalties, but also into refunding the previous 15 years worth - they refused to allow the song into the film otherwise.
So now he gets a regular check from both the filmmakers and the former bandmate.
It's a nice little earner for him.
Vise Strategy? Is that the one where they stick their balls in a vise and then point to the crank while shouting "C'mon you Darwinist bastards! Grab hold and spin. We DARE you!"
PZ has given Sam C (#76) and probably a lot of other people the impression that Premise is suing XVIVO for damages based on some XVIVO wrong. As I read the earlier post, however, it was a declaratory judgment lawsuit. The Declaratory Judgment Act is mainly to allow suits that would otherwise be considered advisory because the plaintiff (sue-er) is not accually accusing the defendant (sue-ee) of anything. The one suing just wants the court to declare that what it is doing, or is about to do, is okay, so that it knows before it's too late whether it's conduct will get it successfully sued. It's actually a responsible course of conduct, not some kind of extremely hypocritical and ironic countercharge.
I've been thinking about it, and the missing step in your logic is "morality only exists in non-self-created universes". Let us know when and if you actually have any evidence for that. It's a bit like claiming that "the rules of tiddlywinks only exist in non-self-created universes."
Possibly what you mean is that morality isn't really morality if it isn't dictated by bigfella belong sky, him angry. Again, good luck with that.
Disciple @#22 wrote:
"OH, WOE IS US. EVERYONE IS SUING US BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO JESUS."
If such a being as Jesus actually existed, I'm sure he *would* find them pretty damn trying.
I think what Jim @77 means is that if he did not believe the sky-daddy was watching him all the time, ready to torture him for all eternity if he doesn't do as he's told, he thinks he would go around lying, stealing, raping, murdering etc.. He can't understand that many people have internalised moralities, which they try to follow (not always successfully of course) because they recognise that if they don't, this causes unnecessary suffering for others. However, let me assure you Jim - it's quite safe to let go of the sky-daddy, it's very unlikely you'll turn into a monster of evil if you do - ordinary social approval and disapproval from others are likely to prevent it, even if you're not yet grown up enough to exercise fully autonomous self-control.
No, no, you guys shouldn't call me self-righteous. No one looks down a longer length of nose than some of you guys. Now this will sound like a really strange question to you, but I'm just wondering what you think. You know, I'm kinda stupid and all, so it does me good to learn from those of a higher intellect.
Is it immoral when a lioness kills a defenseless wildebeest?
@Nick Gotts:
Oh, I thought he was just a dribbling moron pushing keys at random...
"OH, WOE IS US. EVERYONE IS SUING US BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO JESUS." (sic)
That was beautiful.
Well, I'm glad to know that the artists do not actually support this film. I was disappointed thinking that the Killers had willingly given the rights to their song to these people.
"Oh, I thought he was just a dribbling moron pushing keys at random..."
No, no, no. If I were doing that, I would be building a universe. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm just messing around before I go to work. That's all.
I am praying for you all...
Thank you for continuing to do nothing of value.
"It's a bit like claiming that "the rules of tiddlywinks only exist in non-self-created universes.""
I think this is a fascinating response.
ooooh oh oh I can see where this is going. Pick me oh great and mighty Jim, pick me please pleeeeeeaaaase.
Step 1: Is it immoral for an animal to act as animals do?
Step 2: Humans are animals
Step 3: Since humans are animals, it is all right for humans to act like animals
Step 4: therefore God
WOOOOHOOOO
In other news. Frogs are animals too, therefore we should all have balloons in our throats. Whats more a sparrow can fly, so should I recommend that you jump off the top of a building?
Jim, the "self righteous" comment came from me and I don't think you know me enough to say if I do look down my long nose or not. But then maybe I should have extended the same courtesy to you and not called you "self righteous" just after reading one post. So, I will apologize.
As for your question: this is probably the dilemma that most vegetarians (like myself) have to face- "Is it wrong to kill animals for food?". My view is that we can only strive for morality when it is within our practical limits. So, I would NOT be Okay with a Lion eating wildebeests when it is already full(by the way, I don't think Lions in the wild do this) and I personally wouldn't go about killing animals for food(especially the higher ones) unless my survival depended on it.
Its not a perfect fix, but seems to me the only practical solution to the problem.
Now, a question for you. Does bringing God into the picture make this dilemma go away?
The religiously revised version of Imagine (given in #59) is another example of their idiocy. They are effectively admitting that heaven and hell don't exist by having to imagine them instead. So it becomes a cynical piece about religion merely existing (and being publicly supported by those few in power who know it to be false) in order to control the peasantry.
Not only are religionists hard to parody (because one can't be more absurdly stupid than some of them are in reality) but they apparently fail at making parodies themselves.
Not surprised they had to use something of John Lennon, afterall he/they were/are more popular than Jesus Christ.I laugh everytime I see that clip,and he was right.
Akshay said:
The almighty is a fan of violent nature shows, apparently. Either that or said wildebeest is evil and undergoing a bit of righteous smiting.
So, I would NOT be Okay with a Lion eating wildebeests when it is already full.
However, that's nothing to do with the question, which is about the morality of a lioness killing a wildebeast.
My take is that only moral agents can act in moral, or immoral ways. Lions are not moral agents, therefor it is impossbile for anything they do to be moral or immoral.
Jim, a lion does not, so far as we can tell, have the ability to empathise with the gazelle - to understand what it feels like to be that gazelle. Probably it cannot even empathise with another member of its social group, and if this is so, nothing a lion does is either moral or immoral. The same, of course, is true of a new-born baby. The abilities necessary to make moral choices gradually develop - or in the case of psychopaths, fail to develop - in the course of childhood maturation and socialization. Similarly, we infer that these abilities evolved, gradually, in our individual ancestors. In some non-human social mammals, we can detect the beginnings of an ability to understand that another is suffering and to offer comfort (if you have a dog, you may have noticed this). In some closer relatives, apes and monkeys, there are the rudiments of a sense of fairness, and on the other side, possibly of a capacity to enjoy the suffering of others - to be cruel. There is no sharp line, in development or evolution, between beings that cannot act (im)morally, and those that can. However, as Edmund Burke said:
"though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable."
Thus we have absolutely no difficulty in saying that adult, mentally normal human beings can make moral choices, act rightly or wrongly, etc., and that tapeworms can't, however disgusting we find their activities.
Graculus, you say
" However, that's nothing to do with the question, which is about the morality of a lioness killing a wildebeast."
To a certain extent you are right. Since it is we (humans) who arbitrate on such matters, it ultimately boils down to what "we" think is more moral.
However, your use of the word "moral agent" is rather vague. Would a child be a moral agent? If a 5 year old kid kills his/her pet, would that be immoral? Come to think of it, which is immoral? - the intent or the action?
If a moral agent is defined with accountability in mind then at what age do human beings become moral agents?
So a Yale-educated lawyer making a religious propaganda film failed to clear copyright on an extremely famous and openly anti-religious piece of music by a notoriously anti-religious artist, a copyright controlled by the artist's similarly inclined widow who has a history of being willing to get litigious, but scrupulously did so for another song which I've never heard of by a group I've never heard of, whose objections if any would provoke nothing but yawns from the public at large. Hmmm.
You know, one might begin to suspect that the purpose of this film is not to make money, but to garner the absolute maximum amount of publicity in order to disseminate the IDiot premise. A big public court battle, starring Ben Stein and Yoko Ono and featuring footage of John "Bigger Than Jesus" Lennon, might do more to further that goal than the movie itself, as reportedly crappy and unlikely to succeed as it is.
A propagandist with deep pockets might even consider it worth losing a case like that, just for the press, while they would not want to get involved in the same kind of case with a more obscure group of artists unlikely to garner that level of publicity.
See the wit and wisdom of Edmund Burke @102.
Human beings become moral agents as they become adults- a gradual process, onto which law and custom place somewhat arbitrary dividing lines.
"A defenseless wildebeest" says someone (#97) who seems to represent a certain sort of fierce stupidity that literally believes in the rather nice Bible line about "the lamb lying next to the lion" or some such.
DEFENSELESS!!!
Imagine with me the first time s/he + choir, in order to stave off their hunger but using only hand-fashioned spears and stones, attempt to run down and kill one of these large, fast, horned creatures that generally move in herds. These aren't fluffy little domesticated pet rabbits with cute names, after all: they evolved to survive.
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. If I remember the rule-of-thumb the producers and engineers use, I think it's six-seconds. It could have changed since the last time I talked about it with one of them. BUt it's too early in the AM for me to call and find out for sure.
The Reviews on RottenTomatoes are mostly negative.
One exception so far: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=44147
Mr. Douglas seems to say he is evaluating it solely on how interested the film makes him in the issue, not on the factual accuracy. If you feel the need to comment, please remember that this isn't a black and white issue to people who never needed to take a biology course.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/
I think I will try to see this in Berkeley on Friday morning, to potentially rub elbows with NCSE or Prof. Johnson.
So, they're using "Imagine" as the track for scenes of death camps?
I think someone (not me, I'm in no way a film-maker type person) should do reply video showing scenes historical Christian atrocities (not forgetting to point out the Christian contribution to the Holocaust), with background of suitably chosen hymns, CCM, etc.
Yeah, I'm fantasizing about the movie getting shut down for stealing stuff, the news getting out, and society waking up and declaring all Creationists to be amoral nihilists like they are.
But I know that's highly unrealistic, and thus a fantasy.
In the real world, I want this movie to come out and be shown openly, so that anyone can go see it, beyond the Expelled crew's ability to control. That way, I and any other blogger could watch it and write negative reviews. I mean, come on. The Expelled crew is afraid of real publicity. That's why they get shrill whenever anyone criticizes them. Just take a look at what Mathis was saying when we started linking the movie's name to criticism because we want that information to be made available. Apparently a totalitarian like him believes that free speech is a crime. That's why he's been screaming for no one to talk about the movie.
Oops. Left off a closing tag.
Anyway, on Jim's millenia-old stupidity: I know the whole stupid story. About the only thing I've ever seen theists offer for a non-secular moral basis is "Might makes Right."
If I remember the rule-of-thumb the producers and engineers use, I think it's six-seconds.
Rules of thumb are not legal protection. From
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch
Imagine shared possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No deeds of greed, no hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world ~
COMMUNISTS!
and since I was just at the Library of Congress site anyway, here is some more information about fair use:
[emphasis added]
And even if this film crashes horribly and does not make a profit, I don't think it can be claimed to have been for a "non-profit educational purpose" to begin with.
"ethical dubiety"
Dubiousness. Dubietude. Dubietudinous. Dubitudininity.
Hmmmm.
In future, how about we agree to call those sneaky fuckers "ethically SUSPECT"?
For Paul W. and the Culture War Over Evolution: It remains one of the saddest statements about humanity that there could possibly be anything resembling a "culture war" over things that are verifibly and demonstrably true. You are welcome to your faith - in god, alien abductions, perpetual motion or any other thing. That you hold out hope that a weak bit of film, full of distortions and lies, might somehow advance your desperate denial of (really quite simple) facts, reveals far more about your intellect than it does about the state of the debate.
I like this comment. It could be about anything the clown doesn't understand, and he'll make his pronouncement of doom and superiority. But I find it to be ludicrous, as if his ignorant blathering of him and his followers will stop the Theory of Evolution. Let's look at the history of evolutionary thought in the West:
In ancient Greece the first Theory of Evolution was introduced: Anaximander claimed life originated in the sea and moved to land. Empedocles postulated natural selection. However, early Christians found their work disturbing and would destroy it, leaving little record of their full thoughts we know by direct knowledge.
Epicurious is another famous Greek philosopher who did early work on evolution and the Roman Epicurian, Titus Lucretius wrote a poem (De rerum natura), describing the development of the living earth in stages: from atoms colliding in the void as swirls of dust to early plants and animals springing from the early earth's substance, then a succession of animals, including a series of progressively less brutish humans. Like the Greek philosophers in evolutionary thought, this work was suppressed by the early Christian Churches and barely survived to this day.
This was not the only knowledge suppressed by the Church. Most knowledge was suppressed and Europe entered what is known as "the Dark Ages." Something which Hugh seems to be more than willing to re-visit. But, the early ToE was suppressed, of that there is no doubt.
Once Western Christendom re-established contact with the world, mostly the Arabs, the religious leaders took the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle and incorporated them into their religious philosophy. They did not do the same for Anaximander and other naturalist philosophers whose ideas did not match-up with the strict fundamentalist/ignorance-based Christian churches. However, the ideas did make it into the west, if slowly, from Arab lands.
However, while we were wallowing in our ignorance, these ideas continued to be taught, and expanded by Muslim philosophers, in Muslim countries and schools until the 19th Century. Al-Jahiz, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, Nasir al-Din Tusi, and Ibn Khaldun discussed and developed these ideas. Translated into Latin, these works began to appear in the West after the Renaissance and may have had a substantial impact on Western science and both Erasmus and Charles Darwin, as well as Patrick Matthew, the "co-discoverer" of the Theory of Evolution.
Lucky for Darwin and Wallace, had not a fundamentalist, religious fever spread through the Muslim world before they were born, stopping Arab progress in virtually all scientific disciplines, we might have been looking at a Muslim as the father of the Theory of Evolution. But the Arabs went fundamentalist and they, literally, lost their scientific creativity -- crushed by the heavy hand of religion.
Still, even before Wallace and Darwin, there were others who were nipping at the edges of modern evolutionary thought in the west. Descartes was early into the mechanistic universe, and though his philosophy was not well-formed toward evolution, there were allusions.
In 1751, Pierre Louis Maupertuis wrote of natural modifications occurring during reproduction and accumulating over the course of many generations. That these changes would, over time, produce races and even new species, thus accurately anticipating the idea of natural selection.
G. L. L. Buffon later suggested that what most people referred to as species were really just well-marked varieties modified from an original form by environmental factors. For example he believed that Lions, Tigers, leopards and house cats might all have a common ancestor. He speculated that the 200 or so species of mammals then known might have descended from as few as 38 original forms.
Between 1767 and 1792 James Burnett included in his writings not only the concept that that man had descended from primates, but also that, in response to their environment, creatures had found methods of transforming their characteristics over long time intervals (this was BEFORE DARWIN). So if you have a gripe about man no longer being the center of the universe, Darwin isn't the first or the the last.
Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather, in 1802 published his poem Temple of Nature, in which he described the rise of life from minute organisms living in the mud to its modern diversity. Many people believe that much of Charles Darwin's ToE originally came from his grandfather who, considering the era he lived in, felt that he couldn't publish the theory due to potentially being burned alive as a heretic.
So, here we are, despite 2000 years of suppression, attacks, and antipathy by the wholly-ignorant god-botherers, with the Theory of Evolution going strong. Because good ideas, with solid facts and theories, tend to make it.
Like heavier-than-air flight.
And there's not a damned thing you can do about it. Your last victory in America was Scopes. Since then, you've lost and lost and lost and lost. And your children, generation after generation, and despite your mega-churches, are becoming less-and-less religious.
Sure, we're behind the Europeans. Which makes sense as we were founded, in great extent, by religious fanatics. But we're getting there. The only question is: Will we get there fast enough before your "last throws" idiocy destroys us.
...stirring the ire of Yoko Ono...
Something no sane person should do.
Hey, maybe these lawsuits will act as de facto stupidity offsets- I grudgingly fork over my eight dollars, knowing it will go to XVIVO and Yoko Ono instead of Mathis and Stein.
Also, it's not immoral for a lioness to kill a wildebeast, but for her to kill another lioness? Hmmm...
Now we know why they were so confident that Harvard people can't successfully sue them. Their company won't have anything left after Yoko Ono's lawyers are finished with them.
Imagine there's no creationist ethics
It's easy if you try
No facts below us
Above us only lies
Imagine all the creationists
Prevaricating for Jebus...
"ooooh oh oh I can see where this is going. Pick me oh great and mighty Jim, pick me please pleeeeeeaaaase.
Step 1: Is it immoral for an animal to act as animals do?
Step 2: Humans are animals
Step 3: Since humans are animals, it is all right for humans to act like animals
Step 4: therefore God"
Laserboy, I think you went in the EXACTLY opposite direction from where Jim was actually going. Maybe Jim will explain.
If they are trying to jesus their way of life with this movie, how come they lucifer the music?
I dog a rat.
D'oh-ver! More specifically, do you remember Dembski and the Vice? We do.
Vise. [Dembski has many vices, but no Vice. Fortunately.]
Since we're talking about the nature of morality, I just want to note that the producers of Expelled are neither stupid nor clever for stealing copyrighted material and recording interviews under false pretenses. Rather, their actions are perfectly consistent with a strictly consequentialist moral philosophy.
Consider: The whole thesis of their film is that evolution is wrong because of what they see (falsely) as the consequences of evolution. Now, if something that is true can nonetheless be wrong because of consequences, then it naturally follows that something false can be right because of its consequences. If you believe that making your movie is a morally good thing, then anything you have to do -- lie, cheat, and steal -- is the right thing to do.
They knew that PZ and Richard Dawkins would never sit down to do an interview for the movie they planned to make, so they lied. They knew that Yoko Ono would never license the music to them, so they stole it. But because they are strict consequentialists, not only do they believe they did nothing wrong, but they believed that in this case, lying and stealing were positive moral goods.
Now, if someone were to lie to them, or steal from them, that would be wrong.
Re: Lions and wildebeest
It occurs to me that a certain class of creationist does see the lion vs. wildebeest affair as immoral.
Lions only eat meat, after all, because of The Fall. In the Garden of Eden, they ate berries and grass and rode bicycles built for two with their wildebeest buddies. But due to the infection of sin, decided to start eating them.
Ergo, carnivores act out of sin, making their hunts immoral.
Steve "But is it immoral to hunt water buffalo?" James
And if there's one person whose ire you do not want to stir, it's Yoko Ono. And I'm only, like, 16% kidding.
Moses,
nice summary of pre-darwinian evolutionary thinking, however, you say, "Sure, we're behind the Europeans. Which makes sense as we were founded, in great extent, by religious fanatics. But we're getting there."
I don't think there is much evidence to support this. First, during the 18th, 19th and first part of the 20th century, the level of religiosity in the USA was not higher than in W.Europe, quite the contrary. The great Philosophers and other thinkers of the Enlightenment seem to have influenced the foundation of the USA at least as much as they influenced the great European revolutions. A significant difference in the level of religiosity between the USA and Europe started becoming evident only after the second World War. The reasons for why W.Europe experienced a much faster decline in Religiosity than in the USA are the key to predicting the future evolution of Religiosity in these post enlightenment cultures.
I wish to share your optimism when you say "we're getting there", but I see very little evidence of this. Quite the contrary, everything in this presidential election seems to confirm the idea that America is very far from having rid itself from its religious fantasms. Only when I will see a credible candidate that is able to keep his religious beliefs for himself will I agree that America is "getting there".
As I've said before on a similar copyright matter, this is ID, so copied errors don't count as evidence for inheritance from earlier identical information.
Until you can show that God didn't take the words and music of John Lennon, put them in the head of a designer working for him, and thus produced these similarites by divine design, you don't have a case.
OK, you don't have a case using ID standards ("standards").
Oh damn, the IDiots forgot that courts haven't shifted over to believing that magic accounts for the evidence that the materialists insist are due to causal mechanisms. There's always a flaw. Now it's even more important that science be freed from the shackles of materialistic thought, for the courts are likely to side with the atheist materialists who claim that "evidence" actually points to identifiable events.
That's how despotic atheists are, though.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Can you point me to some sources for that? I must admit I'd assumed the difference went much further back - that in the 1600s only religious fanatics thought it worthwhile going to live in a remote wilderness, where your chances of dying in the first year were quite considerable, just in order to worship in one way rather than another!
super artichle thanks administrator.
Whatever you say, Mr. Jampton.
Oh, gosh... I can't imagine.
Never assume malice if incompetence will explain the situation just as well.
They really are just that stupid.
@127 --
Nick Gotts, check out Ron Numbers "The Creationists" (newly revised with the dover trial!). The fundementalist movement really started in America circa 1920s. While there were some creationist clubs in the UK, they never really enjoyed the same popularity they do here.
the colonists were, as I understand it, motivated more by political reasons than strictly religious interpretations.
It's a really great book actually.
I nominate 122 and 123 for best consecutive posts in a longer thread.
But "dubiety?" I need a pronunciation on that.
ice
Moses, one small correction to an otherwise fascinating survey of evolutionary thinking. By the time of Erasmus Darwin, the British were no longer burning heretics.
Proverb: The complete lack of evidence is a sure sign the conspiracy is working.
The theory of evolution is not a worldview. Science is not a worldview.
Also see comments 56 through 58.
Then why do you tell us? You were told in no uncertain words not to tell anyone:
LOL!
:-o
Great explanation. Highly parsimonious.
I know this one has kind of been driven into the ground, but there really is no length standard for copyright infringement. As long as it is recognizably that song, then they're screwed. And to my knowledge, almost no for-profit works are considered Fair Use. I'm trying to think of any........ Nothing coming to mind. Abusing John Lennon. It's like Middle School chorus all over again.
This sort of idiocy has to be purposeful. They are doing it so that when they are sued again and again, they'll "prove" that the world is out to get them, giving them more control over their flock.
@131 - Thanks Hypatia's Girl. (Hypatia's my heroine, by the way.)
Nick #127,
if you take one indicator, "belief in God" (allthough it is not equivallent to religious fundamentalism, the two are strongly correlated), both the USA and W.Europe were at above 90% in the 50s. Nowadays, Americans who answer Yes are still at above 80%, whereas in W.Europe, more than 50% answer "No or Not sure".
This means that the divergence happened after the 2nd WW. Something stopped the erosion of faith in the USA. Something enabled the phenomenal rise of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism over there. And that wasn't because their ancestors were more fanatic than those European ancestors.
Though I regret making the comment in the first place, I'm beginning to think that my comment to Joe Blow about spending a night with scented candles, lubricant, and Ann Coulter's latest would more properly have been bestowed on Mr. Jampton, if at all, though I think editing to "Vox DayXXXXXXXXTheodore Beale's latest" would have been more appropriate.
I'm just curious, if you believe in God, how many commandments can you violate before you get your rejection letter from God? You've got a pretty good start on your checklist, I think, though there are limitations to what you can do online.
Ben Stein is a trained & experienced lawyer.
Ben Stein loved and studied the law so voraciously that he was valedictorian of his Yale law school class.
Ben was a Yale Law classmate with Hillarious Clinton.
Wham Bam Obama is a trained lawyer, too.
Much of Ben's life has been spent teaching the sacred art of dubiety in the sacred halls of law school.
Dubiety is the practice of making statements causing bewilderment & confusion - leading to incapacitation & vaccilation.
Dubiety is the heart of forked tongue lawyering.
O J Simpson was charged dearly (every penny of his personal wealth) for his personal dose of dubiety delivered by the best of the lawyerly dubieters in Supernation.
The system is working perfectly for the incumbent lawyers.
Ben Stein knows his law, lawyering, and how to deliver dubiety.
Ben's schtick is NOT NEW!
Having defended copyright infringement lawsuits, I can say with certainty that "innocent infringement" (i.e., "gee, we didn't know!") is not a defense. Moreover, unlicensed use of a song for purposes other than news reporting, parody of the song itself, or education/scholarly work is not fair use. The only question in my mind is whether Premise will settle out of court before a court enjoins them from showing the film and/or imposes statutory damages. Actually, there's another question: what about the theaters and distributors? They are exposed to copyright infringement liability for showing the film (although they may have contract clauses under which producers or distributors will indemnify them for any liability--I don't know).
"I am praying for you all..." - Daniel@60
Thank you, Daniel. And in the same spirit, I will reason for you.
Moreover, unlicensed use of a song for purposes other than news reporting, parody of the song itself, or education/scholarly work is not fair use.
Could they win the case by claiming that Expelled is an educational/scholarly work?
Valor,
How about Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music? That's a personal favorite of mine. Any time the Supreme Court has to analyze 2 Live Crew songs is bound to be pretty comedic.
Usually, in this context, when someone says "I pray for you", he doesn't really mean what he says. It's one of those fundamentally hypocritical statement that a certain type of Americans seem to be so very fond of. What they really mean is "I hope you will be punished" but it seems rude to say this, hence the hypocrisy.
They know very well that prayer is supposed to only work when it's done secretly and is genuinely honest, but it doesn't matter, it's just one of those things they say. Their "morality" is full of contradictions anyway, so who cares ?
Moreover, unlicensed use of a song for purposes other than news reporting, parody of the song itself, or education/scholarly work is not fair use.
My impression (and Russell's, see our comments above) is this would be defensible as fair use, if they're mocking the song in an educational/critical way.
If I undersand the use of the song in the film, they're making fun of the song and making a larger point in doing so. Their point is wrong and stupid, and made unfairly and deceptively, but my impression is that fair use law doesn't take those things into account; it's legally "fair" to criticize and satirize good art badly.
I'm not a lawyer, though, and I don't claim to know exactly where the law draws the lines.
One thing which I've learned empirically through years of hanging out on skeptical internet fora: authoritarian-follower personalities seem to be compelled to parade their symptoms in public. I have no idea why this is; perhaps the field of social psychology could shed some light on it.
Now, about the Expelled loons:
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs on a popsicle stick, are these dinkleackers taking filmmaking lessons from Dylan fucking Avery? That smug little moron got into very hot water by swiping footage shot by the Naudet brothers and using it in his conspira-loon fantasy "Loose Change". Perhaps deliberately provoking this kind of trouble will become SOP for the paranoid conspiracy theory industry.
oops, the first paragraph in my previous comment was quoted, but I messed up the tag. (And missed that fact in the preview. Doh.)
Sorry.
OK, not to go totally off-thread, but has everyone else noticed that the "professor" in Expelled's tv ads looks just like the crazy professor in the Chick booklet "Big Daddy?"
The TomatoMeter stands at 10% right now:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/
Expelled owes a cultural debt to Jack Chick? Say it ain't so!
A few answers for you:
1) Yes, Hollywood has a COMPLETELY different set of ethics when it comes to what academics perceive as stealing or plagiarism. They just do. It's hard to believe, but I've lived here for 14 years. Its a different world, and a different business. Read Art Buchwald's account years ago of trying to get justice for his screenplay they stole for "Coming to America." It's just different.
2) The guys behind "Expelled" know this world.
3) Academics don't.
4) With the advent of reality television and the internet, the laws on propriety, especially for documentaries, have been greatly loosened. Duping people into interviews and stealing material has become commonplace. It all sucks. We spent a lot of money on Dodos for rights and clearances for everything, so I can sleep at night. But I have a lot of friends who don't bother, and nothing happens.
5) Don't hold your breath for some sort of legal coup de grace to happen to this movie because they stole material. And by the way, the story is already over -- they've scored their major victories, they've gotten their huge media exposure, they've been taken seriously enough to be written up in Time and Newsweek (albeit negatively). They're already popping the champagne. Sorry.
I have heard it said that when people don't have the truth on their side they tell people to "Shut up", as Dawkins does.
When people don't have a legit argument they attack the people.
Can't you handle a fair fight about the issues?
Are you unable to defend your theories on the merits and therefore get into name calling?
Since is since but your opinions affect your interpertation of data. Your since becomes subjective and therefore questionable.
By resisting the dialouge and telling people they are stupid for not believing your opinion, you are just pushing thinking people away from your biased 'science'.
Your positions are suspect.
Jim @ 90 (re: lioness and wildebeest):
No. The lioness' actions in that case -- and in all cases of lioness actions, we might reasonably suppose -- are amoral. Naturalizing ethics does not mean that all natural phenomena are either moral or immoral. See Nick Gotts @ 102 for a nice intro to some of the reasons why.
The funniest thing about the movie to me is that one trailer - the one that shows Ben Stein being sent to the principal's office - is utterly defenseless, because the tongue-in-cheek suggestion of discrimination doesn't even stand upp to simple reason.
On a bench outside the office, the conversation between Ben and another student goes:
Student: What did YOU do?
Ben: I made a movie.
Student: Must have been some movie...
Well, indeed it was - one rife with plagiarism, copyright infringement, intentional deception of its participants, and willful distortion of the content the movie addresses. Oh, and add in a ridiculously misleading 'argument ad Hitlerium', for good effect.)
No wonder he was sent to the principal's office -- he deserves a sight more than that little slap on the wrist, I think.
Since is since but your opinions affect your interpertation of data. Your since becomes subjective and therefore questionable.
And how does your "since" explain PYGMIES + DWARFS?
You mean like your substanceless rant.
Yes, you have a point, you're as vapid, vile, and useless as virtually every other IDiot.
Dawkins wrote several books explaining things. You just try to smear him.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Paul W., I think that a court may find a distinction between using a song to parody the song itself, and using a song that contains a particular idea in order to parody the idea. Fuzzy distinction, definitely, but courts draw fuzzy distinctions all the time ;)
They also have strikes against them in using the work commercially, and in leaving the song as-is (they would probably have a stronger argument had they re-written the lyrics, which could more arguably be considered "transformative" of the work). Courts also look at the "purpose and character" of the work. I wonder if, in this case, the obvious erroneous conflation of atheism and Nazism would undermine this aspect somewhat. I wouldn't have high hopes on this point, but courts HAVE held that the social value of the message being conveyed plays a role in determining whether the associated use was fair or not.
Of course, I'm not a copyright attorney. These are all guesses based on vague memories of my copyright and trademark law class years ago.
@Nick Gotts:
No problem, that book is totally fascinating. And Hypatia is totally cool, although a pretty good example of either how Darwin can't be blamed for humanity's urge towards cruelty, or that Darwin was supercool and figured out how to transport his ideas back in time more than a thousand years.
Maybe I'll email Ben Stein and see if he can't straighten that out for me.
When you don't like an idea you attack the source.
As an example of the nastiness of YOUR followers, look at the derogatory terms used by your 'thinking' bloggers to speak of the other side of the debate. Loon,idiots, dweebs, sneaky fuckers, these are obviously very rational and intellectuals who are able to have a rational conversation.
The fair fights over the issues have been fought and won over and over. The arguments have been defended on their merits thousands of times. The people making the creationist argument have been shown to be wrong at every turn. They deserve to be called names, as they cannot come up with a convincing argument and instead claim persecution because we won't answer the same unconvincing argument again and again.
The only fault I see in the ad hominem attacks from this side of the "debate" is that it makes it easier for you and your ilk to claim persecution and believe there is a debate to be had.
Are you unable to defend your theories on the merits and therefore get into name calling?
WTF do these mouthbreathers think goes on in science, what with all the mountains of published research they assiduously avoid reading?
That's called defending the theories on the merits, asshole --published research. The name calling is just to vent steam at you mentally and ethically deficient scumbags.
As has been pointed out previously, Yoko Ono is probably the person in the music industry one would least want to tussle with.
Too bad her uni-gloved, rhino-challenged partner-in-crime has had difficulty lately; together they could have bought the Disco Institute.
Glen is just another example see post 157
You mean like your substanceless rant.
Yes, you have a point, you're as vapid, vile, and useless as virtually every other IDiot.
Dawkins wrote several books explaining things. You just try to smear him.
Glen D
I am happy you agree with Dawkins, but I disagree with Dawkins, and that makes me stupid, vapid, vile and a useless idiot?
Nice debate!
My point was made by Glen, thanks Glen!
we use those tems because they are being Looney Sneaky idiot Dweeb Fuckers...
They're behaving exactly as we call it. It has everything to do with their pathetic "idea" and how they lie, distort, steal, whine and behave like assholes to support their insipidly bad movie.
Any questions Bob?
Rational people can also be dismissive and abusive of people that deserve it. Some of us are really good at it too.
CJO also has little to base his attacks on. He does not know me but says:
WTF do these mouthbreathers think goes on in science, what with all the mountains of published research they assiduously avoid reading?
That's called defending the theories on the merits, asshole --published research. The name calling is just to vent steam at you mentally and ethically deficient scumbags.
I would guess my masters degree does not matter to him!
Thanks CJO!
But...you don't really want to debate, do you? I mean, your post didn't ask any questions, or make any biological claims, or anything like that. No, you want to jump in, call people names for a while, and then scamper off.
If I'm wrong, prove me wrong by putting your money where your mouth is and write a "rational" post where you actually say something substantive, instead of just whining about how mean we all are.
Back at you Steve.
I have not, however, gotten into name calling as others this site seems to enjoy.
Why don't you go hang out on the playground where behavior like this belongs!
When you don't like an idea you attack the source.
As an example of the nastiness of YOUR followers, look at the derogatory terms used by your 'thinking' bloggers to speak of the other side of the debate. Loon,idiots, dweebs, sneaky fuckers, these are obviously very rational and intellectuals who are able to have a rational conversation.
That's the thing. You and Ben Stein and the producers are lying fucking scumbags, and irremediably stupid, to boot. There is no fucking idea not to like, just lying scumbags to hate. You don't deserve to be involved in a rational conversation. You have earned no respect whatever. You deserve every single piece of abuse directed at you, and then some, which you know full well since you're rolled over like an abused, mangy cur, begging for it. Lying asshole.
Yeah, let's take advice from the guy resorting to ad hominem right there about rational conversation.
Here's a hint: Irrelevant insults do not make ad hominems. They're only ad hominem fallacies if they're used as a premise. You're using an irrelevant detail about us as a premise to argue that we aren't being rational. We may insult Creationists, but those are irrelevant to our arguments.
The fact that we sling around insults is never going to change the fact that there are still no good arguments for ID or against evolution. So don't change the subject.
What a stupid fuck!
You totally missed my point, lying asshole, and dishonestly attacked your original strawman.
You're a total fucking hypocrite. We'd engage on the substance if you weren't a hateful ranting liar. But because all you specious morons can do is to accuse and lies, we call you morons and liars. The evidence is overwhelming that you are those things, and that you have never once engaged honestly with any kind of substance.
Once it is fully determined that you're a lying sack of shit, we are entitled to call you a lying sack of shit.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Stein, Bob, and other second-rate losers:
What's so sad is that they're just stupid enough to think that they've scored a win with that close-minded, fallacious, and completely disingenuous set of lies.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
In The God That Wasn't There Brian Flemming 'quoted' from Gibson's Passion of the Christ, knowing that a lawsuit from Gibson would be highly unlikely given it's obvious impact on Flemming's sales. I would have loved it if he had sued, as Expelled are loving all this white noise over this piece of trash.
As many more knowledgeable on this than I have pointed out, The Expelled team have deep pockets, are well insured and the largest single category in their budget breakdown is probably entitled: "Lawsuits".
On The Killers, from what I've read, they have granted the license, and their singer is a Mormon. Furthermore PZ and Dawkins were both duped regarding the films intent, so it's possible others, like The Killers, were too.
Shorter Bob Marrone: WAAAAAH! You use insults, therefore I can ad hominem you over that! WAAAAAH! I'm sad that you won't debate points I refuse to raise while I'm blustering over trivial objections!
I would guess my masters degree does not matter to him!
Thanks CJO!
What an unutterable waste of the time and effort of presumably sincere educators, just to allow another mouthbreathing cretin loose on the world, deluded that he's worth more than a pile of shit because he has a master's degree.
Someone should acquaint himself with the Doggerel Index. Been a while since I advertised that.
"I have heard it said that when people don't have the truth on their side they tell people to "Shut up", as Dawkins does."
When has Dawkins ever said that? Please, point me to one quote of him saying that.
"When people don't have a legit argument they attack the people."
And when people have absolutely no argument, they whine about the tone that the other side uses. Blah blah blah, heard it a million times before.
Bob, kiss my ass.
Is your only point coming here to be boring and pointless?
You're ignoring everything that has gone on surrounding the movie and a history of ID propents who lie, steal and behave like children.
Do you wanna get into irreducible complexity here? really?
What do you wanna talk about?
We feel like trashing the pathetic movie and it's shills...
your whiny little bitchfest isn't going to change that.
#86 pholidote - Thanks for clarifying the XVIVO thing. That sounds a lot more reasonable.
On morality:
There is no such thing as Good or Evil. These are concepts created by man to describe actions that are either beneficial or detrimental to the survival of an individual or a group in a social context. In addition these concepts only apply to organisms capable of acting outside of pure instinct. Actions by these organisms against different organisms outside of the social context can only be described by these terms if the survival (percieved or actual) of the society is effected by them. For example: A lion killing a wildebeest for survival can not be described as Good or Evil. There is no "morality" in the action. It is simply a complex organism carrying out it's instincts in order to survive. However, if a society projects "suffering" onto other organisms then it may define the unnecessary killing of a wildebeest as "evil" because the action is detrimental to the survival of the "conscience" or culture of the society.
In human society actions of individuals can be described using morality terms. If a human chooses to perform actions that would jeopardize the survival of the group in order to fulfill selfish desires, this can be described as "Evil". For example: A primitive man kills his fellow hunter so that he can claim the prestige for bringing back a wildebeest to the clan. The loss of the hunter could seriously jeopardize the long-term survival of the clan thus his actions could be defined as "evil". However, killing the wildebeest in the first place is necessary for the survival of the clan and is thus a "Good" action. Note that these definitions only apply within the context of the society. If the other wildebeest were capable of thinking such they would certainly find that killing the wildebeest to be evil and that one man killing another man would be good.
As a society becomes more complex then much more subtle actions can fall under moral definitions. For example: A boy torments small animals out of shear malice. This could be defined as "evil" since it shows that the boy fails to show empathy for those that are weaker than him and if left unchecked could develop into more destructive behavior. However, this example is only valid given that the society that the boy exists in sees that benevolence to weaker creatures is an important trait for the overall survival of the society.
The exact definition of what is beneficial or detrimental is entirely dependent on the society and what it needs to survive, either actual physical survival or cultural survival, but regardless these definitions will arise directly from the nature of the environment or the culture of the society. The actual presence or absence of God would have no bearing on these definitions. An Atheistic culture would still be bound by the same influences for survival and individual actions would still have beneficial or detrimental effects for the survival of the individual and the society. It is still detrimental for an individual to kill another, it is detrimental for an individual to steal, or lie, or rape. God is not a necessary component of morality.
Again CJO shows how smart she or he is.
Not sure how I lied.
Now after hearing the rants on this site I am more curious than ever to see the movie. What are you afraid of?
I am not a Stien sycophant.
I logged on to this site to see what it said.
I am offended by the kind of approach some supposedly thinking people use when they are questioned.
If I were Myers, I would be embarassed by the rationality of his followers.
There is little in these posts except verbal violence.
I was told by a good friend of mine who is a Dawkins fan that that is what people do when they have no place else to go, they attack the person.
Why not ask me questions about what I think about the question rather than assuming you know me or my thoughts.
That would be a risk, and you can't risk that, can you?
Don't bother to respond, I already know how you will respond, with more verbal violence.
PS I am a strong believer in what Darwin said, sorry to dissapoint you all. You have been beating up on someone who agrees with MOST of what the scientific community says. Only an idiot would believe everything they are told, or proceed without all the facts as some of you have done.
Sorry CJO, you have painted yourself an as ignorant and intollerant!
That's not how comments work. You come here and make a sensible statement, you will receive sensible replies. You come here and rant and call people names, you'll get the same back. We're not really interested in asking you questions when you haven't even proven that you can make a substantive comment.
P.S., what "question" are we supposed to be asking you about, anyway?
Oh, final tip: when you come here and act like an ass, people will treat you like one, regardless of whether you "believe[] what Darwin said."
Bob Marrone:
Here's a radical idea.
1. Ignore the people who irritate you. Turn the other cheek, as it were.
2. Seek out one or two of the thousands upon thousands of websites, published papers, or books on the subject of evolution.
3. Spend an hour reading one. Spend a day. A week. A month. A year. Twenty years. It's your life, your choice.
4. When you feel you have a good working knowledge of the material, and feel confident that you can present an informed opinion on what the theory of evolution attempts to explain, the evidence supporting the theory, known problems with the theory, and what kinds of evidence could falsify the theory, c'mon back and have a reasonable conversation with the people here who've been spending YEARS learning about the subject and working in the field.
In the interim, I suggest you stop pretending that you know what you're talking about. It really doesn't look good.
"I was told by a good friend of mine who is a Dawkins fan that that is what people do when they have no place else to go, they attack the person."
You give us nothing else TO attack except for your smug self-righteous whinging about how mean we are. And believe me when I say we've heard it a million times before. And what's more, we don't really give a shit about the opinion of an admitted gadfly. If you're trying to shame us, you're wasting your time.
Another point: This thread is about the possible copyright infringement perpetrated by the Expelled people. If you have something to say on that subject, as have many people who know more about copyright law and the music business than I, then by all means, say it. That's how participating in a discussion works.
If you want a reasoned discussion, you have to say something reasonable first.
You're obviously new to the whole mess. Mark Mathis is busy trying to get us to shut up and stop linking to criticism. I want this movie to come out, so we can all roast it. It's already become an embarrassment to the producers, who put up transparently false bravado, and shamelessly repeat old canards. Expelled has nothing new. I have yet to hear any new arguments coming from their crew.
"Whining" is not "questioning". If you want to ask a question, quit hiding behind irrelevancies like insults and ask us a meaningful question. Or are you, like the entire Expelled crew, going to wuss out on that, too?
We've said our pieces over and over and over again. There's nothing new to add, except our retaliations against passive-aggressive verbal violence like yours.
So stop wussing out and ask us a meaningful question.
When you control the playing field, there's no where to go. Give us a question so that we can answer it. But no, you'll just keep ad homing by raising trivial objections over irrelevant insults. Sounds like you don't have anywhere to go, to me.
I'll take that dare without any hesitation: What is a good argument for Intelligent Design?
Here's where you'll just continue whining in order to deliberately avoid a debate and claim that your stubbornness is our fault.
So, you come in here, spouting ad hominems, changing the subject, and blaming your evasion of debate on us, and you're disappointed in our logic? Pot. Kettle. Black. You sure act like one of the Expelled crew, trying to suppress debate.
Re: #154
Holy smeg, Bob, that is some wide screen projection, there!
Come back when you actually comprehend what's going on.
Geez. Has Joe Blow passed the "You just proved my point!" baton to Bob?
Oh, Bob, I did want to address your initial point:
How interesting that you should choose lead with that particular bit of common wisdom. Please read this.
I'm not disappointed. Just slow. :-)
How come all the defenders of ID never actually refute the evidence that the makers of Expelled have lied from the very beginning? Oops! I actually thought for a second that they'd look at the evidence. IDiots have been sweeping evidence under the rug for years, so why expect otherwise?
Welp, according to my running tally, the Expelled gang have
broken every commandment in Ben Stein's Bible except for the one about having sex with a goat.
laserboy,
You wrote
"While Hugh is a moron of the first order,"
That is so sweet!
I wouldn't be as sure as you are that Premise are "screwed on the XVIVO thing", as you so gracefully put it. From ERV's site, it seems they are not using an animation in the released version of the film that is even close to the XVIVO one.
By the way, I'm not too thrilled with your own level of intelligence!
Cheers!
Hugh
bob @ #161 doth intone :
You mean like calling everyone that accepts the validity of the MET a Nazi, like the producers of Expelled are doing ?
Those are relatively TAME words compared to the ones vomited forth by the anti-evo crowd over the decades.
If someone *IS* a 'loon', 'idiot', 'dweeb', or 'sneaky fucker', and consistently acts that way, AND there is EVIDENCE they are acting that way, there is no harm calling them a 'loon', 'idiot', 'dweeb', or 'sneaky fucker'.
You are, essentially, saying we should NOT call liars and frauds liars and frauds, for it may hurt their feelings.
The $1,000,000 questions that no ID advocate has ever answered : how, EXACTLY, is invoking the unknowable whim of an unknowable being qualify as a 'better' answer than evolution ? Or qualify as an answer at all ?
REAL scientists know they could be wrong - which is WHY they rely on EVIDENCE !
It isn't enough to whine 'YOU COULD BE WRONG !!!!'; to gain any ground, you must DEMONSTRATE the other idea IS wrong, and explain WHY you think that (requires actually KNOWING something about the subject).
"Since you can't prove an undefined/undetectable being DIDN'T do it, you must leave that option open !" whinges the anti-evo, "Really, you must ! REALLY !! YOU MUST !!! To do anything else would hurt my fragile feelings !!!"
"For those of you who are surprised by the choice of John Lennon's music as soundtrack to the film: Some years ago I saw a documentary from a congregation of evangelical christians "
As I remember (quite a few years ago now) Roberta Flack performed it with the 'atheist' words modified to religious.
and it's down to 9%
http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/
as rpenner mentioned above, there is one positive review from http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=44147
However, that review includes such gems as
"On the surface, Ben Stein seems to be pushing for open debate and discussion rather than the scientific community bullying anyone who offers disparate ideas, but he doesn't exactly go about this in the best way, especially when the film shows Darwin's influence on the Nazi ideals and comparing Darwinists to communists, both extremely flawed and overly flip arguments that hurt the film more than it helps. Stein's intentions are also somewhat deceptive, because while he never outright says "intelligent design should be taught in the classrooms," the film's marketing campaign seems to say otherwise, something that's difficult to ignore when attempting to analyze the film on its own merits."
There are many other such disparaging remarks. He seemed to say the film sucked because a: the production value is pretty crap, b: it's biased and c: intentionally misleading.
Somehow, that warranted a 7.5/10!!!!!
Well...so that was the good review.
How do you know this Hugh?
@191 "the Expelled gang have broken every commandment in Ben Stein's Bible except for the one about having sex with a goat."
That's really more of a guideline.
I mean, forty years in the desert, right? Who could blame you?
Steve "These things just happen" James
Welp, according to my running tally, the Expelled gang have
broken every commandment in Ben Stein's Bible except for the one about having sex with a goat.
Really, you're commanded to have sex with a goat? I never knew that!
I guess that explains the old expression, "I may look at other women but I'll always be in love with ewe."
It is an interesting argument Bob, except it is really only true if both sides are playing with the same rules, and if it is the first time and not the tenth or the hundredth time the argument has been repeated. You come to me with a new argument and I call you names and tell you to shut up, without considering your argument, you would have a point. You come to me for the thousandth time, or the ten thousandth time and repeat the same tired argument that was proven wrong a thousand or ten thousand times earlier and I call you a name is a completely different situation. It proves first and foremost you aren't playing by the same rules, that you haver no interest in being honest, or learning a single thing, you just want to annoy me to the point I reply out of frustration so you can claim I'm a big meanie.
Creationists, who you seem to think need defending from us mean atheists, have literally be coming at us with the same arguments for better than 150 years. And despite the fact they know they are wrong, have been proven wrong on every level time and time again, they continue to repeat the same lies. They aren't interested in debate, in rational discussion, in the fair exchange of ideas, they are looking to club their opponents into submission with a never ending assault of ignorance. Because the think if they can get a "darwinist" to walk away in disgust that will make their side right, that it is a victory for their side. Creationists have more patience than we do, but then I suspect they lack imaginations so that's no surprise.
But to come here at the tail end of lifetimes of the same pointless repetitions of the same tired and false arguments and then act like we aren't entitled to some frustration doesn't really make us look like the self righteous ones. We'd be more than willing to educate people who don't understand biology if they'd just be willing to learn. But religion closes minds instead of opening them, learning has never been a high priority of the faithful. They think they know everything already.
"Rational" and "polite" are not synonyms. As scientists, we have trained pretty hard to call a spade not a stick, not even a shovel, but a spade, so if someone fits the criteria for being a dweeb, we will publish the hypothesis that he actually is one.
If you can't stand the heat, what are you doing in the chemistry lab with the hood open, your head over the sandbath, and the sandbath set to 400 °C?
Why don't you say anything substantive? What you've done so far is, I'm sorry to say, indistinguishable from concern-trolling. Please do go ahead and falsify the hypothesis that you are a concern troll; if you succeed, I'll gladly announce that I was wrong.
There is no 'fair use' for this kind of thing - even if they were making a 'satirical' point, they weren't satirizing the song.
And basically, if that movie screens for a paying public with un-cleared music in it, the publishing and copyright holders can set their own price. Every TV show, every movie made today employs music supervisors, whose job it is to find and secure the rights to music. And if they screw up - and I've seen it happen, where a song that should have cost a few thousand gets on the air uncleared, and the producers were suddenly hit with a $30,000 bill - they get fired.
So, the produces have a problem. Either they re-call 700 prints, destroy them, re-edit and re-mix the tracks (call it $20K), then 700 new prints (at aprox $3K per, or $210K) - by tomorrow - or they're probably looking at $1Million+ to go to Yoko Ono. Think a million is to high? That's what Led Zeppelin's publisher asked for for one of their songs in a film I worked on (even after the band approved it's use!). I say if they only have to pay 1M, they got off cheap!
http://img210.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bensteinliesmementomv4.jpg
Created by me. I suck at the photoshop, but it gets the point across.
Related to Expelled, New Scientist has an excellent collection of pieces called Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions. It doesn't reference the film directly, but it is undoubtedly a reaction. It is a series of 24 articles, some on misconceptions about evolution in general (e.g., "Natural selection is the only means of evolution" and "Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment") as well as some targeted directly at creationism (e.g., "Half a wing is no use to anyone", "Evolution is an entirely random process"). It's a nice summary of a lot of useful information.
(I also learned some cool stuff, such as bird lungs only pass air one way, and are thus more efficient than mammal lungs. Neat!)
Bob:
Okay, I've scanned through the comments in this thread but the only ones I can find that you've authored are all devoted to accusing Pharyngulites of doing precisely what you're doing in each of your comments, attacking the person and not the content. Perhaps I've missed the essential post in which you've actually given your own views on the issues at stake here. In any case, I'll bite: what are your views?
beagledad wrote: "Moreover, unlicensed use of a song for purposes other than news reporting, parody of the song itself, or education/scholarly work is not fair use."
That's not how it is *supposed* to be. Small samples transformed into a new work used to be (and arguably should be) fair use, but the 6th Circuit ruled in 2005 that even 1.5-second samples require a license.
I doubt it. New Scientist is a UK publication, and the number of people in the UK who will have heard of Expelled, or Ben Stein, is vanishingly small. However, I agree that this a good collection of short pieces and can provide useful ammunition against wilful ignorance.
it gets better than that, their bones are hollow to facilitate the flowthrough lungs, the air goes first into air sacks in the bones before flowing through the lungs. The other advantage of hollow bones of course is they are lighter so enabling flight.
Considering adaptations like this in birds it is really quite remarkable that bats managed to get airborne too. Which brings us to an example of something that would disprove evolution, if bats had hollow bones and flowthrough lungs too.
Peter Ashby said:
Given the scientific and ethical standards on display from the Expelled mob why do I suddenly have an image in my head of one of them reading your comment and then taking a drill to the bones of some innocent bat?
Hollow bones, no
flowthrough lungs, yes
It seems that the issues surrounding copyright infringement for documentary filmmakers are well known by now. Those Darwinists who are droolong at the prospect of "Expelled" suffering from such copyright infringements are advised to consider the following:
STANFORD, Calif., February 27, 2007--The Fair Use Project of the Center for Internet & Society at Stanford Law School announced that it has teamed with Media/Professional Insurance and leading intellectual property attorney Michael Donaldson to provide critical support for documentary filmmakers who rely on the "fair use" of copyrighted material in their films. . . .
"Documentary filmmakers who use copyrighted materials in their work under the 'fair use' doctrine of copyright law have come under tremendous pressure in the face of demands for huge licensing fees from copyright holders and overly-aggressive enforcement of copyrights," explained Lawrence Lessig, founder and director of the Center for Internet and Society and the C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law at Stanford Law School.
"The mere threat of a lawsuit can keep an important film on the shelf for years," Lessig said. "This has been a tremendous problem for documentarians because their films depend on the inclusion of copyrighted material they seek to comment on, discuss, and contextualize."
In order to help solve this problem, the Fair Use Project has announced that it will agree to provide pro bono legal representation to certain filmmakers who comply with the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use published by the Center for Social Media at American University (www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fairuse). Accordingly, the filmmaker will have counsel in place prior to the release of the film should the filmmaker face claims of copyright infringement. Media/Professional, in turn, will provide insurance coverage against copyright infringement liability in the event the filmmaker proves unsuccessful in defending the claim. In situations where the Fair Use Project is not in a position to promise pro bono representation, Donaldson and other leading intellectual property attorneys will be available to defend claims at favorable rates.
- from http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/pr/51/
Droolong? I like it. Sounds like it should be the common name of a sirenian, though.
Umm, Hugh, buddy, just because the Fair Use Project happens to exist does not mean they will be interested in the least in helping out the Expelled folks. I rather imagine they won't. Their help would likely not be solicited anyway. So, you know, thanks for advising us and all, but it's really not necessary or all that relevant.
You are a bit slow Hugh. The press release doesn't say that they will defend any documentary maker for any reason. There is a key sentence in there that defines Stanford's requirements:
Imagine probably does fall under this criteria, however, from the descriptions available, the cell animation certainly does not. The overlaying images during the snippet of Imagine might be taken as a comment on the message of the song. However, the cellular animation is presented as a representation of the cell as if it were a machine. It does not discuss, comment on or contextualize the work that it is derived from, making it copyright infringement.
I also think you miss the point by a mile in assuming that we are all hoping that the alleged copyright infringement will block the film's release. Rather, we see the alleged copyright infringement as a another direct and unambiguous sign of the film maker's dishonesty.
We all hope that this dishonesty gets as much publicity as possible because people who do not understand science and how it works rely on what they believe to be credible sources for their understanding. Discrediting a dishonest source is, therefore, useful.
Hiya Bob!
Welcome to the internet! While trolling sites you are not able to even begin to form any concept for attempting to understand, you will note that when you shit from your mouth, people slap your ignorant, lying face.
And Bob, I personally call you a liar. Can you even comprehend why? I'll let your lying ass know, just for the fun of it:
You gave your lying ass away, Bob, when you said: "PS I am a strong believer in what Darwin said,..." in #181.
Bob, do you "believe" that's a chair your worthless butt is sitting on? Do you "believe" that's a computer screen you're looking at? Of course not. You know that sad waste of space your butt occupies is on a chair, you don't need to "believe" it. Same with the computer screen, same with Darwin, Bob.
No sane scientist, no sane educated person, in fact, "believes" in what Darwin said, Bob, because what Darwin said has been proven tens of thousands of times. It is not necessary to "believe" what is real, Bob.
You are a liar, Bob, who thinks he can pretend to "believe" what intelligent, educated, sane people know and get away with it. But you didn't. Too bad, so sad.
BTW, Bob, if you're not lying about your "masters" exactly what is it in? Biblical Archeology or some other field of lying bullshit?
Hey, "inquiring minds want to know!"
Is Christianity in itself not based on plagiarism of Egyptian and other older Pagan religions? It is a pretty well documented Christian principle (or should I say ethics?) to steal a story, twist it and pass it off as literal. Burn the original source material and anyone challenging the lies (Library of Alexandria, anyone?). The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur (an Anglican priest) is an interesting read on these matters.
On the subject of how how it is possibly ok that the fimmakers use "Imagine" supposedly because the accompanying visuals parody how life would be like if there were "no religion", I suppose it's naive to ask how a film which claims people lose jobs just because they tried to promote ID, should then turn, abrubtly, into parodying a song because it's supposedly against religion, when that's (we are lead to believe) got nothing to do with ID? What has the song got to do with losing jobs in this context?
After all, nobody is talking about religion are they? ID is not a religious concept at all, is it, so why would such a parody be relevant in such a "non-religious" film? Or (duh) perhaps it is ... and they will have to admit as much to make try to make that particular case in court?
I just got an email from our family church, suggesting that we go see this new Expelled movie that's opening in town today. I shot off an email to the web person outlining why it shouldn't be promoted, but what surprises me is that it's playing in upstate New York. We were ignored completely during the prescreenings. Anyone know the true extent of the opening theaters?
Hey Nerd of Redhead - Is this the bunch of children you mentioned?
HELP! The Ottoman Empire has returned!
Patricia, that was Clinteas that mentioned it, not I. Still, it looks a bit weird.
Nah. The airsacs do ramify through bones (which is how the bones get hollow) but there is no evidence that this facilitates airflow in any way. The airsac/flowthrough system would work exactly the same if the bones were not involved.
Unless David M. proves me WOTI again.