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."
This is going to be interesting...lawyer mill vs the number 1 law school in the country. Not only that but the poster above makes an interesting point about fair use (although I think it was more intended as flaimbait). Probably not fair use in this case though as they didn't "comment on" the movie ,they simply took a part of it and worked it into their own creation, derivative work if I understand correctly. Regardless of the legal merits of the situation, I hope the media at large pick up on this, after they posted fake DMCA takedowns to silence their opponents they go and do this...not exactly ethical, even if it was "legal."
-Buck
I'm not a lawyer, but sue them for what? Don't you have to prove that you lost money when you are suing for damages? Clearly what the creationists did was illegal/immoral, but it seems like people are blowing this our of proportion. I think what will happen is the creationists will remove the video and "sort of" apologize for plagiarism - by sort of, I mean they'll blame some scapegoat who "didn't know better, and has been removed from the organization. "
I have used this video in my intro biology class, telling them it is an absolutely marvelous video and that by the time they graduate they will understand the complex processes depicted. I have spoken through it, thereby adding my own narration. Does this mean I am going to get sued too? In finding this video for my class I noticed many versions out there on youtube and other video sites, ones which had the copyright notice absent already, so does this mean I would get sued for showing those instead of the original? It's not like they posted the video on a site representing it as their own, it was part of a powerpoint presentation and I really doubt there is solid grounds to show they did anything wrong. Just because they are pushing their own agenda which the poster disagrees with does not mean they are any worse than other people making up a powerpoint presentation and not citing every graphic and video they find on the web.
I truly want to apologize for the criminal stupidity that perpetrated this.
No, I don't work for DI or have any association with that particular group. I've been down this road before on Slashdot, but it bears repeating: I am a religious person. But I am not a "Christian", in fact, I am scored by Christians for the most part. I don't particularly believe in "intelligent design", because it doesn't make sense to me. I prefer to see God as a scientist rather than a "Creator". Anyone who has studied any kind of religion in college (most people at my old community college took comparative religion for an easy humanities credit) will realize that the Bible is full of allegories and euphemisms. Who are we to say that Adam and Eve were the first creations of God? Maybe they were the end result of an experiment being run by God; the first to understand, so to speak, what they are and their place in the natural order of Earth.
To think that we sprung up out of the ground is preposterous to me. Fundamentalist Christians will point to the Bible saying "God created Adam from the dust of the earth" as proof of intelligent design. Is it at all possible that "the dust of the earth" is the primordial ooze scientists refer to? Could, as Robin Williams said, the passage "God said 'Let there be light'" be a euphemism for the Big Bang?
I do believe in science as well; we have made some amazing advancements in the last 20 years. I am excited to read of a new scientific breakthrough or a new understanding of something that seemed miraculous not 10 years ago. Now, if you will all excuse me, I'm going to go back to reading. Putting something as ethereal as my religious beliefs into words is not nearly as easy as it might seem. And thank you for reading what to most would probably seem to be a psychotic episode put into words.
"Slapping lipstick on a pig does NOT make it Natalie Portman. Paris Hilton, maybe, but not Portman." - UncleTogie
Rap Artists.
I fail to understand why the parent is Modded 5. Have we at Slashdot become bigots? When a rock cover re-contextualizes a piece of music and gives it a new meaning, it is considered great (assuming you know, its not just some hero worshiping schlock.) When Jimi Hendrix covered "All Along The Watchtower" he took a previously good song and created a new (and in many people's opinion more powerful) piece of art. Even more radical was his cover of the American National Anthem, itself a 'cover' of an old drinking ditty. Art is made from the parts of other art, building on or refuting previous works to create new and more vibrant works much in the same way that science builds and refutes older science. Bookingkeeping the credits on art have not been necessary before, why now? Why is "All Along the Watchtower" more legitmate then "Planet Rock"? Please stop applying this shit-poor double-standard to techno/dance/disco/rap/hiphop/pop... Please stop telling people "Yeah, I like everything but country and rap". Please stop mentioning "Rap Artists" in that tone on Slashdot ever again- You shame us all. In the words of the great Afrika Bambaataa "Guys who say 'I'm just a hip-hop dj' don't know jack crap what hip-hop is."
Justin Roberts
Besides, any argument that can be used to prove daft punk sucks, is most obviously shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJPdVVOmbz4
And what you decry is a vital part of freedom, in my view.
In the film "Bowling for Columbine", Michael Moore chopped up (and spliced in) copywritten videos of Charlton Heston speaking a set of words he actually uttered months apart.
This was a distortion, a misrepresentation and, yes I suppose it could be said to be propaganda. It also made the point that a lot of people believe the NRA is too cold and uncaring about things like school shootings.
He won an academy award for that film.
Whether one is pro or anti Moore's arguments, surely we could agree that what he did should be constitutionally protected?
And yet he did exactly what you decry.
I'm not sure that what the DI did meets that test though. They apparently reproduced nearly the entire film, stripping out the narration. Unless we accept, as one commenter above argues, that the narration was the core of the copy written material, I don't think their actions pass muster.
But I think that's because it's reproducing too much of the copy written material and not putting in enough of their own.
If you don't agree with me, think about it like this. If you "chop up and re-arrange and 'misrepresent', what I've just said to argue against me, then you would, by your arguments, be breaking the law. This post, after all, is copyright and owned by me. It says so right at the very bottom of this page!
Regards,
-Holmwood
Yes, it is possible to create your own Work of Art based on another work. No one argues against that. I never claimed that DI's creation shouldn't be protected by the same copyright laws that protect Harvard's creation. If the Discovery Institute cries foul after you took their version of Harvard's video, stripped everything except the narrative and made new pictures that fit the narrative, but show something completely different, then the Discovery Institute might well go after you for copyright violation, if you don't ask their permission and don't give credits.
Actually he just gave the hungry people a way to eat and share the food they had brought with them, but hidden, and without exposure of what they had with them to those around them.
Or do people really believe the people of that time were so foolish to follow someone teaching a better way of life than the dog eat dog world they were living in, without taking food with them and protecting it?
As to the cell design issue, we do have the knowledge and ability to genetically design and create life today. Its only a matter of time before we come to understand gravity enough to create a universe and work it to generate another life cycle that will then repeat the process.
Why? The fundamental, more fundamental than sex or pro-creation efforts, but that of survival.
If you are all that exist, the only way to know you are alive, not dying, is to grow. So the big picture plan is to expand what all exist in existence and by way of creating consciousness and all that can exist in consciousness that allows further expansion of what exist in existence.
And you don't need religion to know this, but only your own built in survival instinct and self consciousness enough to learn how to create things far beyond what other animals are capable of.
I'm not saying copyright violation is a good thing. I'm questioning your sincerity.
Parents are responsible for children's actions. They get full leeway to punish the child as they see fit, but they have to compensate any damages the child did. So they can be sued, and I see nothing wrong with this.
And everybody makes mistakes. This does not change the morality of things. Last november a car blew up in the middle of a muslim quarter of jerusalem. Why ? Because the bomb maker used summer time, and the delivery guy used winter time. The fact that they blew themselves up does not change the fact that they're monsters, and guilty. Likewise the fact that the police sometimes falsely accuses, does not mean they should be disbanded.
Besides we all know that both you and I have made false accusations. The only thing this changes is that they should be more careful, and they owe an apology to this woman. It obviously does not mean you or I or anyone else deserves immunity from civil lawsuits, which is what you're trying to push.
Well, if you really wanna know... It's not so much the worship of spaghetti, it's the worship of a spagetti MONSTER.. that flys!! And the fact that, if you legalize religion in schools, then you must legalize it for ALL gods - Old, fatherly, white men in clouds, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Cthulu, Zeus, Osiris, all of 'em...
Congratulations, you've just rediscovered Gnosticism.
*ducks & runs*
Nova covered ID/Creationism recently... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
I agree, Gold Digger is a much better song to use as it so closely resembles the original work. However, I take issue with your statement "It required little talent to do, just a 'Best of Ray Charles' CD." I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you defending Gold Digger or are stating that this is an example of poor use of sample which is detrimental to Hip-hop as a whole. If you mean the latter I have to cry foul on that logic. Let's imagine that you very much like Gold Digger and in your opinion find it to be a great work of Hip-hop. Your use of talent in your post is ambiguous to me: a talented minimalist composer can create great works out of very little music. This could be considered talent and therefore means that, Kanye, using a single looped sample (so extra drumbeats added, but mostly unchanged), has displayed much talent in using that one sample and his own rapping to create a song you find to be very good. However if talent means skill in playing music, or in the case of hip-hop many samples cooperating from many sources, then Kanye is no good. This opens up a terrific line of reasoning in which: The Beatles will always be greater then Fats Domino, Zepplin over the Clash, Dragonforce over everybody else. It specifically leads to the conclusion that Maximal music > Minimalism. This puts the whole of modern pop (itself very minimal relative to other genres like jazz and classical) in a very poor state.
That sort of response elevates dialog everywhere.
Now, take a deep breath. You evidently didn't read the post -- mine or the one above it. I'll try and refrain from casting sneering aspersions on your intelligence, but I certainly will raise an eyebrow at your limited reading comprehension.
That OP (above my OP) made an argument that people who aren't having valid debate (in his view) aren't entitled to the defense of fair use in copyright. To cite again, since you must have missed it even though I quoted it right at the top of my post:
My argument was very simply that freedom depends on people being able to do precisely that. (I also noted that I don't think the DI passes as they didn't engage in fair use as I see it).
I cited the Moore example: by sneakily chopping up entirely separate speeches of Heston's and splicing them together (with a cut in between the two sentences to obscure the fact that Heston was wearing a different tie in the second).
It surely would be a bad thing to declare that Moore is "violating freedom" and deserves some judicial sanctions for that, would it not?
Now, in your continuing effort to entirely miss the point, you say:
"Depends... Did the viewers understood it was taken from two different footages?"
This utterly irrelevant to the argument above, and shows an appalling degree of cluelessness, but ok, I'll bite. No, the viewers did not understand this. You know, I know, and the GP knows because we've read about it. I didn't notice the first time I saw the film because of the clever cutting of scenes.
And you're still entirely missing the point. For a sneering fellow who calls others dumb and muppets and dumb kids, you are remarkably dull-witted, aren't you?
Read what I wrote above. No, go back. Read it ten times if you have to.
The Moore response was not to justify (or attack) what DI had done. It was to comment on the item I quoted at the top of my post which was the original slashdot conversation, now repeated here, again:
Moore did exactly that: chopped up, rearranged, and misrepresented someone else's message for propaganda purposes (possibly good propaganda purposes if you happen to agree with his views). And that is indeed freedom. He has a right to take copyrighted video and do that; You and I have a right to take copyrighted words, statements and of Moores and present them to make our point.
It's called fair use and the First Amendment.
The clue to bad speech isn't to silence it by making it unprotected by fair use doctrines, it's to have good speech countering it.
Yet you failed utterly to grasp this point, and instead launched off into a set of ad hominem sneers about the intellects of those adults around you.
I agree that the Discovery Institute seems to fail, because it took an entire work and ran it in sequence. That doesn't look like fair use to me.
The analogy is exact. And I am stunned that you are not only incapable of seeing it but that you fee