Yoko Ono vs. Ben Stein: Imagine There's No Expelled...
from the who-do-you-side-with? dept
Talk about a legal argument I'd want no part of: Yoko Ono is suing the makers of the anti-evolution documentary Expelled. The movie has received a ton of bad press, and there have been widespread dissections with the many problems in the movie which seems to have difficulty understanding what the scientific method is actually about. Apparently, in one part of the movie, the famous John Lennon song "Imagine" is used, and some of the people complaining about the movie got angry at Ono, thinking she had licensed the song to be in such a controversial movie. The clip was not licensed -- but the filmmakers claim that it's protected fair use, saying that they're using a short clip of the song for commentary purposes. I haven't seen the film, nor can I find that particular clip online, but, as awful as Expelled sounds, I have a hard time siding with Yoko Ono on this. Media companies have, for too long, been overly aggressive in claiming that any use of music in a movie must be licensed. That seems to go against the concept of fair use entirely, and it would be good to change that. I just wish it wasn't with a movie such as this one.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Sharing all the world
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sharing all the world
NB Attribution should be unnecessary, but for the benefit of those who have never heard these words, they are the lyrics to the song 'Imagine' by John Lennon.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
probably the line
GREAT line, esp when you hear it as "no religion to" ,one o)I support Ono on this, hope she sues the pants off these idiots.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
From what I've heard the lyrics to the song aren't really in tune with Stein's views...'no religion too' from a guy pushing creationism? Maybe the song was being dissed by Stein, something like 'Hey, only hippies have no faith!'? I understand Yoko for going after them, for putting Lennon's amazing song of peace and understanding in a film masquerading as a 'documentary' exploring the failings of Darwinism, without even going so far as stating facts to support their views, just another christian-right attempt to look as though they possess rational thought-processes. I wouldn't want my deceased husband's work anyway involved in that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"did not see th emovie'
I love that people who did not see the move want to get all upset about 10 seconds or so of a song used to make a point. The point being that the thought of having an opinion that does not support the mainstream cannot and will not be tolerated. The film is about well respected professors that mention "intelligent design" in some way in an official paper and are swiftly removed from there positions. I thought the movie was well done, I can understand if your afraid to think that there may be a different answer than is proposed by main stream media, that this movie may be upsetting to some. I am glad that it was Ben Stein that did the move and not a Christian, Ben Stein is a Jewish person so it does not come with the Christian baggage. It is simply that with all the complexity of life and balance on this planet and of the rest of the observable universe, that this is not possible with out some intelligent design. See the movie, then complain about the content if you don't like it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Cry more ol' lady..
waaaa.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Screw her!! I remember her and her druggie husband protesting the government, claiming free speech this and that. Now she wants the government to do something for her that is going to put pressure on someone's (albeit bad) freedom of fair use/speech?? Fuck her.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hey
I just read somewhere that the chicken is related to the T-rex.
Aint that cool? I think so.
What a funny outcome of evolution.
I wonder what these (creationists) started out as...
... ok, I'm gonna go with "HILLBILLIES for $100!"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Thank you to
roadiebob. Often time people who are bigots make points and argue about something which they do not know. I do not get involved about arguments about molecular biology because I have not been trained in it, although I am a highly trained teacher of European history. How can you argue about a movie you have not seen? Well it is easy, you listen to your friends and talking head pundits that tell you what it is about. That makes your argument null and void. Well they (your friends and pundits) could be wrong. No matter what you have heard please wait to make an argument for or against the movie until after you have seen it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
sorry
about the typos. Typing is NOT a strong suit.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Off Topic
The creation/evolution debate is really of topic and I'm sad it made it into the original post. This is about fair use.
That said.....
The movie is about the TREATMENT of creationists and even some tolerant Evolutionists by the "scientific" community.
These are the ones that take their THEORIES to be FACT - and are OFTEN disproved or flabbergasted by observations in nature.
For instance - our entire concept of the cosmos is going to be tipped on it's head soon. The Universe is electric. (thunderbolts.info) and the "scientific" community has tried (because of pride) to suppress or basically "ignore" the facts of the observations.
At any rate - back to fair use....
The Movie's expose of critics of Creation is it's main point... and the scientific community would like to "image...no religion too"... so I think it fits. Fair use.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I have absolutely no real knowledge of laws surrounding this, but couldn't they approach it from a defamation of character angle? If it was used without permission (even though permission may not be required), but people are still relating the song's use to Yoko in a film that has been widely criticised, does she have a case there?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Proof
Ben Stein's movie, as he describes it, attempts to lay down the argument that there is not any more hard evidence of cross-species evolution than there is hard evidence of a creator. Both are inferred. Both require faith. Pick your faith.
He also notes in interviews that someone that doesn't "believe" in Darwinism is often not allowed free speech. It will interesting be interesting to see how this blog entry's discussion does, or doesn't, support his point.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: "did not see th emovie'
The film is about well respected professors that mention "intelligent design" in some way in an official paper and are swiftly removed from there positions.
Or not:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=2
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Well, I figured out how to change Mike's thoughts on copyright. Just get a bunch of Christians to start downloading music.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
this song is completely retarded. who cares.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
'It is simply that with all the complexity of life and balance on this planet and of the rest of the observable universe, that this is not possible with out some intelligent design.'
And that is the problem. This is the 'argument' that is often used to refute the theory of evolution, but it is simply not so. Evolution supporters have no pretense of knowing where life comes from, because noone does at this point. But, if you believe in god, then you can certainly believe you know that too.
'having an opinion that does not support the mainstream cannot and will not be tolerated' This is also false. Science is not about dividing opinions into right and wrong ones, nor does it have anything to do with opinions at all. Simply put, it has to do with what makes sense. What can be proven in a rational way using causal relations between factors, AKA 'scientific reasoning' or 'scientific method'. This is what an intelligent human being should be using to study the world around him. Humor me, roadiebob, try using the scientific method to prove creationism. And 'I said so' doesn't constitute a cause.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: hey
I just read somewhere.
And it must be true.
Cause the goverment would not let them print it if it was not true.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Proof
Darwinism is just the theory of evolution via natural selection. It doesn't really touch on Speciation, which is what most creation/evolution arguments boil down to nowadays.
The repeted use of "darwinism" by creationists to describe anything that isn't creationism is just further proof that they put very little actual research into what they claim.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Fair use to be determined
If Yoko doesn't like the fact that the song is being used she has the right to sue for protection. If it is "fair use" she'll lose and life will go on. If the courts find out she is right, then the song will have been protected.
I don't think anyone has the right to think that they can use someone's work to make another product to sell and expect that this issue wouldn't come up. Usually people would ask permission and find another way to express the same point if turned down.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Creation vs Evolution
In actuality, it's:
Creation + Evolution
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It is interesting
That the people who disagree with the movie's premise think that its morally/ethically acceptable to bend fair use policies (law) to harm someone they don't like.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It is interesting
It's more interesting to note your interpretation of what people are saying. No one, not even Mike, has sided with Yoko on this. Some have been outright hostile to her. The most criticism the use of the song has received is that it might not fit Stein's claims, not that it was unfair to use it.
Most of the comments here have come down to the (boring and tired) "debate" of creationism vs evolution.
As I said, your interpretation is rather interesting. It's as if you are deliberately attempting to be victimised.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
huh?
GREAT line, esp when you hear it as "no religion to" ,one o)
I support Ono on this, hope she sues the pants off these idiots.
-----------------
whats your point again? I think I missed it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
PFFT!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
whats your point again? I think I missed it.
People use religion as an excuse to kill (amazing concept)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re-align: Trish.
'having an opinion that does not support the mainstream cannot and will not be tolerated'
"This is also false. Science is not about dividing opinions into right and wrong ones, nor does it have anything to do with opinions at all. Simply put, it has to do with what makes sense."
That may be true of Science, Trish, but certainly not of Politics. It is the politicians who are driving the content of this film (and thread). To attempt to stay in power they try to push ideas they don't agree with out of the mainstream. Hence, the movie, the use of the song, and the lawsuit.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
You'd be hard pressed to find something people *don't* use an an excuse to kill.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Barry
ur a stoopid retarted moranic looser
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So tell me.....
Creation and Evolution are one and the same! We were created and we are still evolving. The perspective is on the word "Creation". One way or the other life began. That is in itself "Creation".
And as far as fair use goes... Mr. Lennon wrote and performed "Imagine", and it is well within his estates writes to give or take away permission on its use. And if you don't ask permission, then you don't get to use it. If you don't agree, just try creating something, lets say you created a peace aggreement that stopped a war between to nations, only to have it taken and used by another nation as a base for fratricide, just because they think it fits! Just because you THINK fair use fits or does'nt fit is in the eye of the beholder.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Christians to start downloading music.
I'm pretty sure they already do. Try a search for Christian rock on Pirate bay, quite a bit available. If I knew the names of any of the groups / performers, I'd do a more in depth search. Kind of ironic in a way.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"whats your point again? I think I missed it.
People use religion as an excuse to kill (amazing concept)"
People use lack of religion as an excuse to kill (amazing concept).
There, fixed it for you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Comments made by Mike:
Mike makes several interesting comments.
Sure. Any controversial movie does. What you're failing to mention is that it's also recieved a ton of good press and "scored an impressive $3.2 million in its opening weekend, more than all but eight other movies." (http://digg.com/movies/Expelled_propelled_to_box_office_top_10)
Making it sound like the movie has only recieved negative press is not the (mostly) balanced view I've up to this point enjoyed from Techdirt.
As you haven't seen the movie, perhaps you don't understand that it's not about the scientific method. It's about how the academic and scientific communities restrict and block those who delve into areas that are not (for lack of a better word) "popular".
This has been true for many years. Look at today, much research on what might be termed "global cooling" is ignored or shuffled off to the side...despite the fact that global cooling was a "known fact" ten years ago (just like global warming was supressed back then). Research into cheap alternatives to name brand drugs, same thing. There's many different examples that could be used (and some of which that I've seen on this site).
I've seen the movie, and to get back to the topic at hand Expelled used several lines from John Lennon's song "Imagine" (two if I recall correctly).
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
The point they were making was that by forcibly stripping "religion" out of the scientific and academic communities, you were limiting what people could and could not explore (in the context of the movie, you could explore whether life was created on the backs of crystals, or aliens, but not by a "higher power", whether that be Krishna, God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster).
The main part of the movie was to point out that freedom to choose what you researched...whether it be wrong or right...whether it made sense or not...was being restricted.
Oh, and in my opinion, definatly fair use, especially since it's styled as a documentary.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
My Goodly Christian Thoughts...
I don't like John Lenin. That song is communist tripe!
Here's the real deal -- baby Jesus made everything, and so God owns the copyright to everything. I mean, Jesus does. I mean, his daddy, God. I mean, God is Jesus... Christ, I'm confused now. Jesus is his own father? No, wait... God made Jesus to save everyone from God's wrath... or something.
Everything came from nothing, as in the Big Bang Theory, which works, by the way, perfectly with these statements:
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.
And Jesus.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So what do YOU think the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting over?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ono it's the Mr Bil Show
Shut up OKO you pan-fried commie. You didn't write the song. And as far as creationism vs. Darwinism, My God, it takes way more faith to believe in Darwinism than it does Creationism. Put the Bong down hippie freaks and think with the braid that GOD gave you.
I like the thought of Intelligent design, otherwise, I would have a superiority complex, knowing that I am so much smarter than you undeveloped life forms wanting to call yourselves human. You are about 300,000 years behind me!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I don't disagree, but I hardly think people need to use religion as an excuse to kill, there seems to be quite a lot of killing for non-religious reasons as well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE: So what do YOU think the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting over?
everything?
Its like asking what Africans fight over.
A: Anything that pisses them off.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Off Topic
Theories are more well supported than creationism. That electric universe documentary is based on very incorrect understanding of astrophysics. If you can fall for that, then I assume youll fall for Expelled as well.
Listen, scientists know what theyre doing. If they didnt, we would all be throwing our feces at each other. Give the scientists a break, they do this stuff for knowlege,not as a pissing contest. Though R Dawkins certainly makes it out to be just that...
BTW, that one guy that they said got fired for his views. He wasnt fired, his contract wasnt renewed because he published articles that werent properly peer reviewed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: So tell me.....
And as far as fair use goes... Mr. Lennon wrote and performed "Imagine", and it is well within his estates writes to give or take away permission on its use.
Er, except when it comes to legally defined fair use. The whole point of fair use is that such uses are *not* within his estate's rights to take away permission on.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Lying POS pseudo-docementary
Before seeing "Exposed", check out www.expelledexposed.com.
None of the prof's in the "documentary" lost their position because of their views on ID ...
Alan
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mechanical license to use a recorded work in a commerical movie has always been very expensive, and closely protected by the record companies and artists involved. Mr. Stien and his producers were foolish to use this song without proper permissions and payments. Yoko is right on this and should seek an immediate injunction to stop all screenings of this film until the issues are resolved.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I Agree
This would be an awful thing to be a part of. While the song within the film was "fair use", it was used badly and as a means to an awful end. I could mention all the of terrible things wrong with Expelled, but there are only twenty-four hours in a day. Perhaps there should be a disclaimer on fair use, saying that it only legally qualifies for fair usage if it used for good intead of stupid.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
anything that makes the liberals mad
anything that makes the liberals mad, cant be a bad thing.
In the US where blacks that say whitey is bad, become professors. And muslins who say kill Christians become professors. And where someone who says maybe God is involved in day to day life, get fired.
So I see this is a great thing. ;-)
Push the liberals buttons!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
HAHA
I love the "anyone, anyone" quote on the trailer.
HAHAHA
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: So tell me.....
Oh... and BTW try useing a peice of footage from a NFL game without thier permission.... I'll lay odds that if someone wanted to use your likeness without permission or paying you for it, fair use goes out the window. Its just how far we, and I do say "we", are willing to go before we are all exploited.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Quick clarification
The movie is not a Christian film, as Ben Stein is NOT a Christian, nor is it anti-athiest, but it is movie that shows how aethiets are killing freedom of thought against thows who do not follow the Theory of Evolution.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
HAHA
Your a looser
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ok.. I really don't mean to post this twice but try useing a peice of footage from a NFL game without thier permission.... I'll lay odds that if someone wanted to use someones likeness without permission or paying you for it, fair use goes out the window. Its just how far we, and I do say "we", are willing to go before we are all exploited.
Just to get myself heard
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
not to nitpick
but Ben Stien's Jewish, not Christian.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
killling the name
If you read the lyrics, its pretty much saying "dont be an ass to people, greed and hatred suck" (in very lay-person speak). It seems yoko isn't fulfilling her dead husbands wishes. Just saying.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why did they waste their time?
Did they think people would really care to watch this movie?
Why did they bother to waste money, time, and their reputation against something that has been scientifically and mathematically proven such as evolution. It's only a "theory" because it happens on such a large time scale that you can't observe it in one lifetime. Plenty of other "theories" are more-so-than-not solid fact, especially with dealing with space phenomenons.
So, these idiots decide to toss years of scientific research out of the window stating that it can't be proven (usually having understood the concept all wrong to begin with), and instead decide to blindly follow a book that has absolutely no foundation other than it self-proclaiming that "God said so".
I should write a book about nonsense and contradicting stories, hide it in a cave somewhere in an air-tight box, and in 2000 years some idiot will find it and it'll become a religion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The point they were making was that by forcibly... The point they were trying to make doesn't matter the question is did they have the right to use the song for any reason or to make any point. Oh, and in my opinion, definatly fair use, especially since it's styled as a documentary. That is what Yoko has the right to have determined in court.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Well, I figured out how to change Mike's thoughts on copyright. Just get a bunch of Christians to start downloading music.
Huh? What does religion have to do with anything? And, you fail to note that my position remains constant on this. I'm siding with the movie makers, even if I disagree with the content of the film. Or did you not read that far?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What is Fair Use? And don't tell me the Law!
except when it comes to legally defined fair use But my question still remains: How far are we willing to push "Fair Use"? When will it become to much? Yes I do believe in fair use, but not what our law makers dream up for us, we are a over indulgent society and we really have a hard time stopping before its to late. Don't believe me, check your history, many people have died for thier rights to something or another. And it does not always make sense. People have killed each other over inches of dirt, just because they "Believed" they had "Fair Use" of the land. And I'll be the first to admit that "Belief" or "Faith" has never been my strong point, but I do have a sense of pride in the human spirit. I do believe in that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What is Fair Use? And don't tell me the Law!
But my question still remains: How far are we willing to push "Fair Use"? When will it become to much? Yes I do believe in fair use, but not what our law makers dream up for us, we are a over indulgent society and we really have a hard time stopping before its to late. Don't believe me, check your history, many people have died for thier rights to something or another. And it does not always make sense. People have killed each other over inches of dirt, just because they "Believed" they had "Fair Use" of the land. And I'll be the first to admit that "Belief" or "Faith" has never been my strong point, but I do have a sense of pride in the human spirit. I do believe in that.
Yikes. Fair use over content, an infinite good, is quite different than taking away someone's property (a scarce, rivalrous good). To compare the two does nothing to help this conversation.
Fair use is defined in the law. You claimed that it was not.
You are incorrect.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What is Fair Use? And don't tell me the Law!
So you would back a law, just because it is the law? That still does not answer the question; How far are we as a society going to push "Fair Use" before it goes that far? I have been in politics for 5 years as a city councilman, and I will question the right to make laws just because we "Think" we have the need. I do believe that in the end we will "Law" us right out of existance.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: hey
How can the t-rex be related to the chicken when the dinosaurs became extinct before chickens were around?
Which came first the t-rex or the egg (or chicken)? Maybe the t-rex is similar in genes to the chicken, but they cannot possibly be related.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Meh...
I'm sick of bronze-age myths, and the Cro-Magnons that believe in them...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: hey
That just illustrates that you have no idea how Evolution works ;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: hey
Gee we could have had "Kentucky Fried T-Rex".....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: not to nitpick
the last I checked, Judaism is a religion...too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's not whether you support
Agree with several posters that this is appropriation of Ms Ono's property. (We may or may not like her; "imagine" that is was owned by Sony or Karl Rove or Greenpeace.)
It was appropriated to make a point (and to make money). How can Ben think he's entitled to use art owned by others to make a point - or to make money - without licensing it? Would he object if you embedded a clip of his show in a movie without licensing it?
Fair use might apply if the movie were commenting on the song, or the Beatles, or some such. In this case the movie appropriates the song as a potent cultural shorthand - and for that you need permission.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: "did not see th emovie'
BUUUUSSSSSSSSSTTTED!!
I hadn't read that before but it's pretty damn informative about the agenda behind the movie, not that I'm surprised.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: "did not see the movie'
Um... Judaism is the foundation of Christianity, and Christ was a Jew (I know, a lot of rednecks deny this, but it's clearly stated in the Bible). To say "Ben Stein is Jewish, and therefore his statements have no reflection on Christianity" is just... ignorant.
The chaos that is the observable universe is absolutely possible without "an intelligent hand involved."
However, the main point of this article is that Ben's producers took liberties with copywrited, protected materials, and did not receive permission from said material's owners. Whether you like Yoko Ono or not, she and her departed husband would have never allowed the use of their music in the making of this movie.
Even other musicians have to get permission from song owners to use 5 second clips from their music in another song. Same goes for movie sound tracks.
It's a simple matter of legality. They failed to follow the law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
The law holds for EVERYONE. Not just the ones you like.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Naming names
What is it with all the name calling? If you have a reasonable argument and vaild points, (on either side of either issue) name calling immediately nullifies any consideration by rational thinkers.
*mumbles* bunch of goobers
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Ono it's the Mr Bil Show
Whether she wrote it or not, now that John is dead, she and his children own the rights. Period. It's called copyright infringement.
And btw, I thought the believers in intelligent design thought the earth was only a couple of thousand years old? (no where near 300,000.) You can't even get your make-believe facts right?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Accident
I want all you people to walk outside in the morning and look at the sun coming up and the blue sky, or the night sky with all the stars in the sky and say, "yup, this all happened by accident." If you think the world we live in happened by chance, that somehow nothing turned into something, how does that make any sense? How do you rationalize that...to me, it doesn't make any sense at all
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: "did not see th emovie'
*they're positions.
Sorry, that is in the main-stream dictionary only. Although I support your alternative viewpoint and whatever dictionary you may use.
PS.
Not really
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
People use the reason of opposing or lack religion to kill (amazing concept)
Just thought I would help you both out. Seeing as how ever since there has been a "god" people have killed in his name.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
*lack of religion
sorry about that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
ok, so to edit again... maybe we should say to wage wars.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: My Goodly Christian Thoughts...
"I don't like John Lenin. That song is communist tripe!"
actually it would be more along the lines of Anarchism, as he is also speaking about the abolishment of government.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Ono it's the Mr Bil Show
"I like the thought of Intelligent design, otherwise, I would have a superiority complex, knowing that I am so much smarter than you undeveloped life forms wanting to call yourselves human. You are about 300,000 years behind me!!!"
actually I think you mean "underdeveloped" not "undeveloped".
you sure are smart though... too bad you can't spell. "braid that GOD gave you" ??? I didn't know he was a hair stylist.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmm... I thought Fair Use has to do with...
...reviewing or commenting on the item in question, not using it in the background of a commercial production. I could be wrong.
But I'd like to point out that, no matter what the law says, if a big company used a song clip created by two kids from Podunk, America that was posted on YouTube in the background of a movie, I think everyone would be upset that they weren't paid for the usage and would be on thier side.
Just sayin'...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Off Topic
In the field of science, theories ARE practically facts.
Scientific theories are unlike theories of everyday man.
Theories are guess in our regular usage but in science, they are supported by mountain of evidences.
When something is a scientific theory, it is nothing to scoff at. You're looking at trying to prove facts wrong. That's very hard to do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
You shouldn't be replying to threads on religion, IP, free speech, and the scientific method with your apparent lack of proper education. Please, only speak when spoken to.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Accident
I do that every day.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"did not see the movie'
I don't remember anyone saying Christianity did not originate with Judaism or that Jesus was not a Jew. What I was saying is if that movie had been done by James Dobson or Robert Schuller or any of the other well known Christian leaders, the anti-Christian crowd would have gone crazy with it.
I guess you see Chaos when you look at the word and the sky , I see an amazingly well orchestrated event. From the air that I breath, to the gravity that holds me to the ground, to the moon that sucks up most of the meteors that head our way, and a planet (Jupiter) that performs much the same function. The blood that carries the nutrients throughout my body, the brain cells that hold more information then any man made computer system and has a faster recall rate. The Atmosphere that protects us from the solar radiation. The weather systems that keep our planet from being a dead wasteland. The ability to communicate with our mouths, and hear the beauty of the sounds around us, I could go on and on but you get the point. Its too well put together to be an accident.
I guess I do not see the pieces all fitting together without some force of design. I also could not face death without thinking of an afterlife. How sad if I were to think that everything we do here is insignificant. There is no reason to aspire to anything beyond survival until your lucky day arrives and you no longer need to face another insignificant day.
As far as Yoko Ono, giver her some money if that is what makes her feel better. The production company probably should have used a different song, or asked her to use it.
I wonder if every one that utters "Beuller... Beuller" contacts Ben Stein or the studio that owns the rights to that movie?
I amazed that this thread has gone on so far about such a small amount of material.
To sum it up... I sleep better at night knowing that there is something higher then me keeping things together. If you sleep better thinking you are the top of the ladder when it comes to running the universe, then so be it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
expelled belongs in the sewer with all the other crap
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: hey
That is by far the most ignorant statement in this thread so far.
If the genes are 'similar' then yes, indeed the creatures are related. Have you never heard of distantly related organisms? Take a few of the species of saber tooth cats, and African tigers of today. Genetically similar and related, tho distantly. The same goes for woolly mammoths and elephants.
Birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs, and the partial genetic samples we've been able to find from dino remains shows a strong link.
Study your genetics a little better before spouting off, mmm'kay.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Study your blog a little better before spouting off, mmm'kay?
Hey, people. This is supposed to be a thread about fair use. Not about God and Jesus and Ben frickin' Stein.
It's pretty annoying to those of us who actually have comments and would like to read comments about fair use. Not God or Jesus or Ben frickin' Stein.
Go argue about it here, http://www.amazon.com/tag/religion/forum?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx417AUXOWKSRN&cdThread=TxN5 E3BNT507Z4 instead.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
most comments
have missed the point Yoko is wrong on this one as to religeon we got rid of all the false gods bar one time to drop the dead donkey.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Councilman?
RE #57
Wow. You scare me more than most, especially since you're a town leader. It appears that you think we are pushing the law of "Fair Use" beyond it's limits, and if we keep pushing this Fair Use, we'll go too far.
That's entirely backwards. For about 400,000 years of human existence, there was no such thing as copyright, trademark, or patents. Then in the past blip of time, society has greatly expanded intellectual property laws - whether you think that's for the better or the worse. That means in the past two centuries, a massive reduction in what constitutes Fair Use.
And in this most recent decade, it's the IP laws and the aggressive push for increased ownership of ideas that is getting stretched beyond the scope of the word of law, the constitution, and the intent of the Fathers of the Republic.
Fair Use is a layman's pitifully small right to craft a joke, make a parody, show a clip, quote a work, backup a video. Fair Use is not being stretched beyond it's original scope, much to the contrary, it is under perpetual attack.
Let the movie take snippets from songs, but not the entire song, since that's the law of the day. That stands whether you like the movie or not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Councilman?
'Fair use' is a redundant and invidious concept, a paltry concession against the intrinsic unfairness of copyright. The thing is, copyright is intrinsically unfair in the first place.
Fundamentally, use of a published work can be fair (in the true sense of the word) even if it involves making unauthorised copies or derivatives.
Unfairness only tends to occur when people make misrepresentations of others or misattribute each others' work.
If the use of Imagine misrepresents John Lennon as endorsing something he did not, such as creationism, then the use is unfair.
As long as the use does not impair truth then it is a fair use.
Of course, despite being a fair use, it may still infringe someone's copyright, but that infringement doesn't constitute unfairness, merely a contravention of someone's anachronistic and intrinsically unfair privilege.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Maybe trademark law is a better fit?
I'm definitely on Yoko's side with this one, but not on the basis of copyright infringement. The facts Mike presented clearly demonstrate that people are wrongly inferring Yoko's approval of the content of the film, or association with the film, because the song appears in it. To me this seems like the sort of thing that trademark laws were designed to avoid. Personally, I think it's fair to say that Imagine (or virtually any Beatles song) is sufficiently iconic to be a "trademark".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Fair Use?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Fair Use?
Given the general tenor of many of the above comments, I presume the commenters would agree that submitting a plagiarized copy of a paper to your teacher would be just fine since it is, after all, a fair use.
Based upon the information contained in the linked article, it appears that Ms. Ono does present a relatively strong case for both copyright infringement and common law unfair competition. Even a cursory review of just the fair use factors used by the courts demonstrates why the defendants will likely find themselves in a precarious legal position. For example, the first fair use factor includes whether or not a use is for profit or not for profit. News reports say this movie is being shown at theaters throughout the country and seems to be doing quite well. There goes the first shoe to drop, with others to follow.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Fair Use?
MLS, that's rather misleading -- which surprises me, since you're usually quite fair, especially on copyright stuff.
Commentary and criticism is a legitimate fair use defense, and the moviemakers claim they're using the song not for the song, but for commentary purposes.
As for the four factor test, it's rather misleading to point to just the profit one. You know as well as I do that this isn't a check box test, but that you use the four factors to get a general sense of whether or not something is fair use. The fact that it's used in a for profit venture does not, by itself, exclude it from being fair use.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Fair Use?
I did not go into any detail simply because I did not see any useful served by discussing all the fair use factors set forth in the statute and associated case law interpreting and applying the statute. For those who might deem it important, the statute is presented below.
"17 USC ยง 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified