Slashdot Mirror
Creationists Violating Copyright
The_Rook writes "The Discovery Institute, more a lawyer mill than a scientific institution, copied Harvard University's BioVisions video 'The Inner Life of the Cell,' stripped out Harvard's copyright notice, credits, and narration, inserted their own creationist-friendly narration, and renamed the video 'The Cell As an Automated City.' The new title subtly suggests that a cell is designed rather than evolved."
It's a good thing they're a lawyer mill. Because Harvard's going to sue the shit out of them.
Now, I'm not going to say all Creationists are dumb. I've met a few who aren't. But what in the hell were these guys thinking? "Oooo... let's use their video. They'll never catch on, and even if they do, what are they going to do about it?"
Dumbasses.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
They ignore common sense, who could have guessed they would ignore other peoples copyright?...
To call the Discovery Institute's use of the Harvard video merely "copyright violation" overlooks the more fundamental problem, because the DI did not just copy and redistribute the content without permission, but in fact (a) distorted and misrepresented the meaning of the content via overdubbed narration, and (b) knowingly misrepresented the authorship of the content. The former is fraud (though perhaps not in a legal context), and the second is plagiarism (which does satisfy the legal definition).
Violation of copyright is really only the superficial issue, and only addresses the ownership of the original work.
The creationist/intelligent design cabal is successful because since the time of Darwin, they have understood that their views cannot be defended through legitimate scientific inquiry, and can never be by definition. Therefore, they attack evolution by natural selection by appealing to and exploiting public passions, fears, and ignorance, and cloaking themselves in psuedoscientific legitimacy. They hope to insinuate themselves into rational discourse by invoking a false sense of objectivity and open-mindedness, appealing to the public to "hear both sides," which is merely a sophistic tactic to put their position on equal footing with decades of confirmed and verified scientific theory.
In the end, what I truly don't understand is why the creationists are so hell-bent on disproving evolution. History has shown us time and time again that when religion fights science, religion ends up with egg on its face. (Galileo and his support of Copernican heliocentrism comes to mind.) If I were devoutly religious, the last thing I would want is to try to prove God's existence, because then such a proof would obviate the need for faith in the first place. Such a desire to enshrine one's belief in the language of science seems horribly misplaced at best, and ultimately, is a far greater detriment and threat to religion than science. Meanwhile, the scientists can only follow the path that nature reveals.
Actually, no. You won't find ANY supporter of the "information wants to be free" idea arguing that taking somebody's work, striping the copyright, modifying parts of it and selling it as your own product should be somehow acceptable. Quite the opposite is the case: information DOES want to be free, but the COPYRIGHTS have nothing to do with it. Check tha recent law suits of BusyBox authors, or the numerous suits on behalf of the author of the netfilter software for example.
But I suppose you already know that and you were only trolling, correct?
Your post isn't going to be modded down because the rest of us are bigoted (or even merely biased) against your viewpoint, but because it fails to address the reality of the situation. (1) The Discovery Institute did not secure permission to use the video. (2) The video was shown with the copyright removed. (3) The substance of the video was changed by overdubbed narration that implied that the video depicted evidence of intelligent design in biochemical mechanisms. (4) Through the removal of copyright information and failure to refer to the actual source, the DI plagiarized the video by presenting it as its own original work rather than a derivative work. This action is not covered under fair use.
I would also like to point out that complaining that your post will be modded down is not somehow a sort of magical incantation to prevent it from actually being modded down. That sort of reverse psychology does not work, especially when you fail to have any legitimate points.
That depends on whether you tried to pass the video off as your own creation. That, in essence, is the core of the issue with the Discovery Institute's usage. Despite the title of the summary, the copyright violation is not what lies at the heart of this matter--it is the plagiarism. Surely your students cannot reasonably assume you were the sole author of the video. The same could not be said of a large, well-funded organization such as the DI.
If you're a creationist, everyone in here is a troll. What, with the science-voodoo and all.
My UID is prime. Hah!
Your post is misleading, because the controversy over intelligent design, and the problem that scientists have with it, is not that it is true or false. The creationists/ID proponents would like people to frame it in such a context, because it pits scientists against dogmatic faith in a supernatural creator. I will only say this once, because it is so obvious that it is a wonder that it needs to be said at all:
The problem is that the theory of Intelligent Design* is not science.
Note that this statement does not say anything about the truth of ID. It merely states that ID as a proposed explanation of the origin of life does not satisfy fundamental criteria necessary to be called science. I cannot tell you whether ID is true or false, because I DO NOT KNOW. But I can tell you that it isn't a scientific theory. Why its proponents seem so desperate to enshrine it as science and somehow believe that shrouding it in the mantle of science would increase its legitimacy, I cannot understand. I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the universe had a divine creator, as I am also willing to entertain the notion of a supernatural origin of life, as are many scientists. But as scientists, none of us can rationally place those notions in a scientific framework.
*Note that I use the phrase "Intelligent Design" here in its broadest context--that the origin of life is supernatural, rather than in its specific statements that strive to demonstrate this claim (e.g., the argument of irreducible complexity).
I doubt it was meant in mockery. Unfortunately, I think those guys are dead serious with this.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No.
That's not hypocritical. They didn't just copy the Harvard video, they stripped the copyright statement! That's plagarism. Note that even the most liberal OSS licenses (e.g. the two-clause BSD) still maintain that you are not allowed to remove the copyright notice. And I doubt you'll find many slashdotters who would claim that plagiarism should be allowed.
If they had just copied and distributed the Harvard video, I'm sure not many people here would have objected.
I'm a scientist. If you make copies of my articles and propagate them, I'm happy. If you take my articles, change a few things, remove my name and add yours, I'm angry.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
If you have any discussion about the legal rights of any religion, then using one of the established religions as an example, you risk starting a flame-war. So you need to create a hypothetical religion based on a particular character. All religions have one or more gods who helped create the world, and stories about interactions with humans in the past, thus in the case of Pastafarianism, The Flying Spaghetti Monster fills the role of being a God, and allows the discussion to take place without insulting anyone.
An exampled discussion: Should religion artwork be allowed in government buildings?
If all religions are to be treated fairly, then if you are to permit marble sculptures of religions figures, then you must allow be willing to accept sculptures of His Holy Noodlyness. If you are to permit paintings of a guy in white robes, white curly hair, and a long beard, then you must also be willing to permit paintings of a plate of spaghetti reaching out.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
'Separation of Church and State does not equal Sterilization of Church from State.'
Actually it does, you see, after you separate things they are no longer combined. As you have already pointed out, it is not practical to represent everyone's beliefs (numbers are irrelevant, if a single person has a belief they are equally entitled to have that belief respected as another individual who happens to have a belief shared by many others); therefore the only way to respect ALL religions is not to represent any of them in government.
As I am sure you will agree, the best solution is to not include religious representations on city halls at all (particularly since they lack any legitimate function). Just as religious moral values have no place in our laws and should instead be instilled by family and friends and enforced through stigma in those same circles. An excellent example is prostitution, without a moral component defined by religious values there is no justification for laws against prostitution and thus there should be none. Instead, families with those beliefs should teach their children not to be or solicit prostitutes and leave those with other values alone.