Google Ordered To Remove Anti-Islamic Film From YouTube

cold fjord writes "The Verge reports, 'Google and YouTube must scrub all copies of Innocence of Muslims, a low-budget anti-Islam film that drew international protest in 2012, at the behest of an actress who says she received death threats after being duped into a role. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a temporary takedown order on behalf of Cindy Lee Garcia, who filed a copyright claim against Google in an attempt to purge the video from the web. While actors usually give up the right to assert copyright protection when they agree to appear in a film, Garcia says that not only was she never an employee in any meaningful sense, the finished film bore virtually no relation to the one she agreed to appear in. In a majority opinion, Judge Alex Kozinski said she was likely in the right.' — Techdirt has extensive commentary on the ruling that's worth reading. It seems likely there will be an appeal, with the distinct possibility that Google and the MPAA will be on the same side."

Comments

In before...

[o_ferguson]

...Streisand Effect.

Re:In before...

[bazmail]

You're missing the point. The fact that you can get a copy of the movie using some technical workaround is meaningless.

The important point is that the law says you are not allowed to see it on YouTube. Its a right that you had yesterday that you do not have today. Part of the massive, slow and irreversible erosion of our rights.

Re:In before...

[The Rizz]

There's a difference in this case; the Striesand Effect refers to the fact that trying to take something off the internet not only doesn't work, but gives you lots and lots of negative publicity for trying to do so (and highlighting the original issue which would otherwise be obscure and largely unknown), causing more damage than the original problem.

This doesn't apply in this case because:
1) The Innocence of Muslims is already known to pretty much everyone on the internet due to the events surrounding it in 2012.
2) The publicity can only help Ms. Garcia in this case, as making her disapproval known will likely help stop the death threats.

Re:In before...

[o_ferguson]

Yeah, thankfully Google can still point me in the correct direction: https://www.google.com/search?...

Re:In before...

[ackthpt]

People who make death threats aren't rational people. Expecting them to suddenly behave rationally is without merit. They'll just move on making death threats to the next person in line they have some perceived (real or imagined) gripe against.

Re:In before...

[o_ferguson]

Well, she may get fewer death threats from Muslims and more death threads from internet freedom nutters...

Re:In before...

[ShanghaiBill]

People who make death threats aren't rational people.

If the death threats achieve the desired end, then why aren't they rational?

Re:In before...

[Great Big Bird]

I think you are misusing the word 'right', what you should be using is permission or privilege.

Re:In before...

[The Rizz]

Well, she may get fewer death threats from Muslims and more death threads from internet freedom nutters...

Only if she actually wins in the end, and even then they'll likely be less terrorizing and more pathetic.

Really, I think it's likely that she expected to lose this fight, and it's the publicity surrounding it she was after - even a temporary injunction done in her name is likely to give her some relief from the death threats. And who knows? Maybe her actions could lead to the fatwa being lifted against the actors, and only targeting the producers/director/etc. who actually did this on purpose.

Re:In before...

[Sarten-X]

I didn't realize that laws now singled out YouTube. I also didn't realize that my rights are somehow more important than anybody else's. In fact, usually it's the opposite - I'm not usually allowed to exercise my rights if doing so would infringe on others' rights.

There are three relevant laws in this case. First is the long precedent of case law saying that a contract must be made in good faith to be enforceable. Second is the long-standing interpretation of copyright law saying that people own copyright on their own appearance. Finally, there's the DMCA's takedown provisions.

Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*. This is a pretty standard part of the release contracts, which are indeed covered under contract law. However, in this case it seems the producers didn't make the release contract in good faith. That means the contract is thrown out, so the actress still owns copyright on her likeness as used in the movie, so she has legal standing to issue a DMCA takedown request.

This is not an erosion of our rights. This is enforcing the rights we already have. Cindy Lee Garcia's right to control her identity is being upheld.

* Especially for photos, model appearance is usually pretty weakly protected, actually. If the picture's subject is even a little famous, there's an easy argument to be made for fair use. Similarly, movie extras don't really get legal grounds to claim the whole movie, but responsible producers will have them sign releases anyway. Main characters, on the other hand, can easily claim that their appearance is significant to the final work, defeating any fair-use defense.

Re:In before...

[chispito]

The important point is that the law says you are not allowed to see it on YouTube. Its a right that you had yesterday that you do not have today. Part of the massive, slow and irreversible erosion of our rights.

There's no right to view a video on the internet.

Re:In before...

[cpt kangarooski]

Second is the long-standing interpretation of copyright law saying that people own copyright on their own appearance.

Got some cases you can cite for that?

Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*.

And publicity and privacy rights, which are what you get releases for, are not copyrights. They are not even vaguely related.

Re:In before...

[Anonymous Coward]

People who make death threats aren't rational people.

If the death threats achieve the desired end, then why aren't they rational?

If the desired end is to make all Muslims look like a bunch of backwards hotheaded savages who can't tolerate the kinds of criticism and ridicule that Christians and Jews long ago learned to accept ... then yes they achieved the desired end.

If I made a movie making fun of the Bible today, how many death threats could I expect? Oh yeah. Zero.

Muslims are just like the african american youth who want to dress and look and act and talk like gangstas. Don't cry foul if you are also avoided like gangstas and hassled by the cops like gangstas. It's not discrimination, it's a package deal. Ok you convinced us you are dangerous and psychotic. Now we perceive you as a menace. See the connection?

Re: In before...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly the same misuse as before. Did you even read?

Re:In before...

[Mashdar]

It's like my right to drive, or my right to buy the linguine my grocery store just stopped carrying. They eroded my past :(

Re:In before...

[Mashdar]

He didn't say the threat wasn't rational. He said the person wasn't rational. Big difference. In either case, the desired effect of a death threat is usually a dead person, not a youtube takedown :)

Re:In before...

[DaMattster]

You're missing the point. The fact that you can get a copy of the movie using some technical workaround is meaningless. The important point is that the law says you are not allowed to see it on YouTube. Its a right that you had yesterday that you do not have today. Part of the massive, slow and irreversible erosion of our rights.

This is precisely why we need a community-owned internetwork that is decentralized and outside of corporate and government control!

Re:In before...

[mjwx]

People who make death threats aren't rational people.

If the death threats achieve the desired end, then why aren't they rational?

Is everything that achieved automatically made rational?

Or in other words, are you saying that results not only justify the means, but the motivations as well.

Re:In before...

[EvilSS]

Second is the long-standing interpretation of copyright law saying that people own copyright on their own appearance. Finally, there's the DMCA's takedown provisions.

Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*. This is a pretty standard part of the release contracts, which are indeed covered under contract law. However, in this case it seems the producers didn't make the release contract in good faith. That means the contract is thrown out, so the actress still owns copyright on her likeness as used in the movie, so she has legal standing to issue a DMCA takedown request.

No no no no no no no. This is totally false and thrown around on here all the time as truth.You do NOT own copyright to your own appearance. You have certain publicity rights that prevent using your likeness for marketing/endorsement purposes without your permission. For example, I can photograph you in public, make giant 20 foot tall prints, exhibit and sell them at a gallery all without your permission. I cannot, however, use them to market the gallery show in advertising. You also have an expectation of privacy when you are not in public but just the act of knowingly allowing yourself to be filmed (vs covertly) would cancel that out. In this case the actress does own copyright to her performance as an artistic work, even in the context of a part of a bigger artistic work. This is where you start to need to make sure you have a contract. It becomes the same sort of situation as a band producing an album for a record label.

I'm really curious (but not enough to go looking, obviously) what in the contract that the 9th felt they violated. Generally these contracts are pretty generic and favor the producer. I doubt it had a "no muslim hate" clause (but hey, who knows).

Re:In before...

[Runaway1956]

Actually - no. It is my right to see or hear any damned thing I choose to see or hear, if it is otherwise freely available on the net or on the airwaves. It isn't a "privilege" and I need no one's "permission". It is a "right".

These judges are stepping on the people's right to share views, opinions, and information.

This woman is getting death threats? Hmmm. So, her fear of the death threats trumps the people's right to communicate freely? Oh - well then - I can understand now why the NSA must monitor every digital communication. The president is afraid that we might be badmouthing him behind his back! It all makes sense now! I move that we quadruple the budget of the NSA immediately! /sarcasm

Re:In before...

[pla]

I think you are misusing the word 'right', what you should be using is permission or privilege.

No. No, he did not misuse the word.

We have a first amendment right protecting us from the government saying what we can and can't say. You may find IoM horribly offensive, but the systematic attempts to censor it since release amount to nothing less than a violation of that right.

This BS line about the director "tricking" the actors amounts to little more than prison camp guards crying about just following orders. "Oh shit, that jokey inflammatory C-movie we made actually got someone's attention? Quick, deny, deny!"

Re:In before...

[Runaway1956]

Wow. Copyright on my appearance. So, the next time I commit a burglary, and some surveillance cameras actually record me in the act, I can claim copyright on my appearance to have the evidence quashed. Sounds good to me!

Re:In before...

[Anonymous Coward]

The desired outcome of a death threat is some action.

If you wanted them dead, why would you warn them you're coming...?

Re: In before...

[cpt kangarooski]

Sigh.

No, publicity rights are a branch of state tort law. Copyrights are a sui generis branch of federal law.

And a copyright release is just a copyright license (or more rarely, an assignment), which means that it pertains to a particular creative work. A publicity release has to do with using someone's face, image, statements, etc. While you could conceivably have them both in the same form, it's rare that you'd need to or want to.

And I assure you, they are not related even the teeniest tiniest bit. Not in their policy goals, or how they originated, or which governments created them, or who gets them, or how long they last, or what they cover. There is no commonality.

Are you too lazy to google for the difference between copyrights and publicity rights? Perhaps this web page from the Library of Congress will help you out: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/co...

Re:In before...

[EuclideanSilence]

There's no right to view a video on the internet.

"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."
-- James Madison

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:In before...

[UnknowingFool]

Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*. This is a pretty standard part of the release contracts, which are indeed covered under contract law. However, in this case it seems the producers didn't make the release contract in good faith.

And you are sure of that? It depends on the contract. Here is a standard contract.

Key phrases are "motion picture tentatively titled . . ." and "I understand that [filmmaker] may enter into agreement with another person to rerecord my dialogue or record voice-overs. . ."

Re:In before...

[TrollstonButterbeans]

^^ He is correct

I watched the "Innocence of Muslims" and it is almost unwatchable, but historically accurate, but the acting is terrible and the movie is certainly offensive to Muslims -- or at least the ones that kill Dutch people over political cartoons -- so it is hard to decide if there is a true loss here, entertainment-wise.

But the government shouldn't be deciding what we watch on the boob-tube, the Internet tubes or Youtube or even Their-Tubes. Not even their own tubes, but that is a story for another time.

Re:In before...

[Artifakt]

The director didn't "trick" the actors - if the judge is correct in his analysis, the director committed fraud against the actors. No quotation marks, just a real criminal act, which, if true, also makes releasing the film automatically a criminally negligent act, (reckless endangenrment) again without any quotes around the facts.
It's like Traci Lords may have genuinely tricked the directors of her first few films into thinking she was over 18, or she may have "tricked" them, but it doesn't matter, as you still have no right what-so-ever to watch an X rated film that features a person still a minor under US law. People can argue over whether the producers knew Ms. Lords was under 18, or not, but it simply doesn't change whether you have a right to watch those films, either way.
        The argument in this case runs the same way, the judge has ruled that, at the very least, there wasn't a valid contract. (The producer was a previously convicted felon, who had legal restrictions as part of his probation against using an alias, and yet used one in representing himself to the actors and in signing their contracts, and who has pled guilty to this, and three other charges including making false statements, He's already convicted and serving time). Presumption of who is "tricking", or tricking whom also follows. You're trying to make this a debate over who may have committed this or that other act of trickery that is yet unproven, and may be just a matter of tort law either way, and ignoring that one side has been convicted of criminal acts, which makes your whole point moot. The contract is invalid, and all the actors have the right to seek protection from the consequences of their involvement. They are threatened with death, and that threat exists as a consequence of whole set of proven criminal acts.
        They have that right in some jurisdictions even if every single one of them suspected, or even knew that the producer was an ex con, or that the law prohibited him from using an alias, just like we can charge one person who planned a bank robbery with murder in the commission of a felony, even though the 'victim' was one of his fellow robbers. But if you want to claim you know for an absolute fact that all the actors knew the producer was committing a crime, go right ahead and claim it. They still have a right to be protected as much as possible from being killed as a consequence of the producer's felonious actions, and you don't have a right to have them put at further risk, whether that feels like your first amendment right is what you're invoking, or not.

Re:In before...

[Sarten-X]

...Bad Sarten. No Slashdotting while drunk...

Re:In before...

[erikkemperman]

I haven't watched it, and even if I had I wouldn't be able to comment on its historical accuracy. But given how long ago the subject lived it strikes me as unlikely that any current movie could claim such accuracy, even if they made a point of trying -- which IoM didn't, from what I've heard.

Also I think you are confusing the cases of a Dutch columnist who was murdered and a Danish cartoonist who was threatened, so historical accuracy doesn't appear to be your forte either (no offense).

Re:In before...

[SuricouRaven]

It's not the first time. Sometimes makers of slanted documentaries have to turn to deception to get people to appear. 'Expelled' comes to mind.

Re:In before...

[xenobyte]

Actually you're missing the point yourself. The idea behind the Streisand Effect is to circumvent censorship, and ordering the removal of all copies is clear-cut censorship regardless of the motivation behind the removal. As censorship always must be fought on every level and with every means, it is essential that we spread as many copies of this move as far as possible so it will be easy to find it.

Re:In before...

[jandersen]

And thus the silly posturing commences.

First a question for you: If this had been a group of muslims funded by al Qaeda, who had made a grossly inflammatory hate movie against your greatest hero, whoever that is, would you have come out to defend their freedom of speech? Probably not, is my guess - you would somehow have managed to quell your righteous indignation, I'm sure.

Secondly, this is no different from the other laws concerning obscenity. You are not allowed to walk around naked or have sex in public - not because nakedness or sex are "wrong" as such, but because a lot of people would feel upset about it and would start complaining loudly. If hate movies like this crap is covered by "freedom of expression", public obscenity should be as well. Why don't you give it a try and see how far you get?

Re:In before...

[xenobyte]

Actually - and this is important - the movie offends Muslims but obviously not as primary intent. As it is historically accurate it primarily offends due to it revealing some pretty painful truths, and the fact that some Muslims takes offense to pictures of Muhammad. Both of these reasons are exactly why movies like this *must* be available out there. People needs to know about the pedophile prophet and we must erode and tear down the idea about Muhammad not being pictured. That's what the Danish cartoons did, or tried to do. But we must repeat and repeat until they get desensitized enough to just accept it because it is all part of an elaborate smoke screen designed to hide core aspects of the religion from public review and debate. They insist on calling it a religion of peace but the middle east have been at war for a thousand years because of it, and now several areas in Africa has followed into the pit of completely stupid ethnic wars over religion with Islam as the prominent primary aggressor.

Re:In before...

[xenobyte]

Wow. Copyright on my appearance. So, the next time I commit a burglary, and some surveillance cameras actually record me in the act, I can claim copyright on my appearance to have the evidence quashed. Sounds good to me!

Except you were filmed committing a crime and while trespassing will make your rights null and void.

People filmed with hidden camera and the recording used for entertainment - this requires a signed release from all recognizable persons, and is they don't have that, you can sue - and win big. This has happened several times and now nobody plays the odds and they all get the releases they need. Not always easy which is why you don't see that many hidden camera shows anymore.

Re:In before...

[erikkemperman]

What makes you say the film is historically accurate? What would you say is the primary intent of the movie -- informing the public? If either were true, why did the makers had to deceive the actors -- who were working with a different script than what ended up in the movie apparently -- and overdub significant portions of their lines?

As to the pedophile prophet meme... It seems to me this is projecting today's standards onto ancient history, and you're doing so selectively. I am pretty sure that at the time it was completely normal in Christendom too to consider females adults after they first menstruate.

Finally, I don't think Islam is significantly more -- or less -- violent than basically any other organized religion I can think of save Buddhism. And recent history in the Middle East is much less due to Islam then it is due to their cursed oil and *Western* meddling because of that. Read some of the declassified reports in which the US called the ME a "great prize".

So, for example, Iran -- whom we are supposed to be so very affraid of -- has not fought offensive wars for centuries. They have been, however, been forced to defend themselves from Iraqi aggression (backed by US/UK) and been deprived of their democratically elected moderate government on two occasions, again mostly instigated by US/UK agents. The fundamentalists in Tehran (despicable though I find them) are a direct result of Western actions.

Re:In before...

[Kjella]

If the death threats achieve the desired end, then why aren't they rational?

If the desired end is to make all Muslims look like a bunch of backwards hotheaded savages who can't tolerate the kinds of criticism and ridicule that Christians and Jews long ago learned to accept ... then yes they achieved the desired end.

Nothing would please the extremists more than to cause a deep and lasting split between muslims and the rest of the world. There's 1.6 billion muslims in the world, most of them perfectly harmless. In fact, when you hear about extremists attacking girl's schools and killing everyone those children are probably muslim. The parents who sent them there are probably muslim. Many of the teachers probably are, too. The markets they attack, shops they burn, the people they threaten and harass are mostly muslim. They attack any local policemen, military and other security troops that are muslim. Terrorists want people who are afraid to control and people who are angry to join them. They don't give a fuck if the average civilian is caught between a rock and a hard place if it serves their purpose.

They're looking to start a chain reaction where the more they attack, the more the western world retaliates and the more collateral damage which produces more resentment, more extremists, more terrorists which leads to more attacks and so on. Part of that is conditioning the masses, creating the feeling that the rest of the world hates them is pretty good seeds for creating an believer/unbeliever concept just like Hitler did with über- and untermenschen. They don't need to get everybody in on it, they just need to make people too afraid to stick their neck out. Which is rather easy when you're on the "über" side of the equation, pretend to say your prayers, keep your head down and STFU and hopefully nobody comes to chop it off.

Re:In before...

[Sique]

If I made a movie making fun of the Bible today, how many death threats could I expect? Oh yeah. Zero.

This is quite not the case. Life of Brian, Franca Rame.

Re:In before...

[Sique]

Luckily all the 32 armed conflicts of the year 2000 involved christians. We won!

Re:In before...

[Stormwatch]

If this had been a group of muslims funded by al Qaeda, who had made a grossly inflammatory hate movie against your greatest hero, whoever that is, would you have come out to defend their freedom of speech?

How factually correct is their movie?

Re:In before...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is enforcing the rights we already have. Cindy Lee Garcia's right to control her identity is being upheld.

Similarly, movie extras don't really get legal grounds to claim the whole movie...

It's hard to square your support and the statements above with the facts below.

Cindy Lee Garcia appears in the movie for a total of 5 seconds:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/bad-facts-really-bad-law-court-orders-google-censor-controversial-video-based

"Google also didn't understand the rationale for going beyond the five seconds that Garcia appeared in the movie to have the entire movie removed."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/secret-innocence-muslims-order-caused-683895

So, now we've set a precedent that someone appearing for 5 seconds in a video where they didn't know the final topic can have it taken down via copyright. Say goodbye to filming on location, investigative journalism, and any kind of controversial documentary.

Re:In before...

[slickepott]

If the hate is within the rights of your freedom of speech - sure I would.

And sure, run naked too. I won't and I guess most won't but I wouldn't care personally if people did. That's their problem. :)

Re:In before...

[flyneye]

Its too low budget and obviously biased to be believed. If they had a point made by any fact, it was lost in their enthusiasm to trash Islam.
However this opens the door to Christians taking down Atheist videos, Atheist taking down Christian videos, Islamic taking down Jewish videos, Jews taking down Islamic videos, $cientologists taking down Subgenius videos, Subgenii taking down $cientology videos and Anonymous taking down any server that displeases them.
I think we can live with a few offensive videos and keep everyones grubby mits to their goddamn selves.

Re:In before...

[AmiMoJo]

Evidence in criminal cases is not subject to copyright limitations.

Re:In before...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a problem (I think Carl should wear a blue sweater). You devise a solution (Let's write a death threat to Carl saying that unless he wears a blue sweater we will kill him). You test your solution. And observe the result.

Seems pretty rational to be.

It's also likely to have you ending up i jail. But if going to jail was a price you were willing to pay for making Carl wear a blue sweater then it is still rational.

Re:In before...

[CaptSlaq]

Its too low budget and obviously biased to be believed. If they had a point made by any fact, it was lost in their enthusiasm to trash Islam. However this opens the door to Christians taking down Atheist videos, Atheist taking down Christian videos, Islamic taking down Jewish videos, Jews taking down Islamic videos, $cientologists taking down Subgenius videos, Subgenii taking down $cientology videos and Anonymous taking down any server that displeases them. I think we can live with a few offensive videos and keep everyones grubby mits to their goddamn selves.

And thus the prophecy from FSM will be fulfilled: Cats will be all that is left on the internet.

Re:In before...

[silentcoder]

That was terrible choice of example - since the right to life has *always* trumped free speech rights and death threats are specifically (and have always been) excluded from said right.
Now whether you can extend "you may not make death threats" to "you can suppress something because it leads to death threats" is an entirely *different* debate - but your wording was terrible - because it's a long established thing that somebody's right not to receive death threats DO trump freedom of speech - at least of those who want to make them.
The same goes for incitement to violence or speech likely to incite a panic.

Re:In before...

[silentcoder]

> I am pretty sure that at the time it was completely normal in Christendom too to consider females adults after they first menstruate.

Actually that lasted until much, much later - Shakespeare's Juliette is a mere 12 years old and yet "younger than her are happy mothers made" - marriage age in Dutch colonies average 16 for boys and 14 for girls until the 17th century and it wasn't until the 20th century that most countries saw it go higher than age 20.

As late as the 1950's it was still legal for a minor below the age of consent to marry in most countries if she had parental permission. Since then this has largely changed- while minors can marry in most countries today (provided their parents consent AND sign an emancipation form) they cannot do so before the age of sexual consent anymore.

Now this doesn't mean we should approve of it, or that we cannot judge ancient practices by modern standards (if only to avoid repeating the mistakes) but we certainly should be consistent when doing so - and there is absolutely no religion or culture on earth (least of all Christendom and Judaism) which is innocent of this particular practice,

Re:In before...

[silentcoder]

Actually this may be the most sane response to this entire debate I've read yet. Where are mod points when I need them.

Re:In before...

[Eunuchswear]

Finally, I don't think Islam is significantly more -- or less -- violent than basically any other organized religion I can think of save Buddhism.

Save Buddhism? You've never heard of Sri Lanka?

Re:In before...

[Eunuchswear]

Why isn't she using the law to have these fanatics hauled in front of a judge for the death threats they sent her?

Could it be related to the fact that there is a "Hussein" in the POTUS's name ?

No.

Cretin.

Re:In before...

[bigrockpeltr]

or Burma recently

Re:In before...

[pla]

Wow, where to start...


you still have no right what-so-ever to watch an X rated film that features a person still a minor under US law

You want to compare a crappy vitriolic C-movie to child porn. Okay, you've established the tone here, if not much else...


and yet used one in representing himself to the actors and in signing their contracts

Violating a condition of release doesn't invalidate an entirely unrelated contract, nor does using an alias - If you sign up for a credit card under your dog's name, it doesn't magically relieve you of the burden of paying for charges you make on that card.


ignoring that one side has been convicted of criminal acts, which makes your whole point moot

Prior criminal convictions don't invalidate an entirely unrelated contract. OJ can still sign a contract with a publisher to explain to the world how he "would have" done it (though as a tangential issue, he can't profit from it until he pays off the civil penalties against him).


and you don't have a right to have them put at further risk

Quite right - I don't. They did it to themselves by appearing in the movie in the first place. And now they get to face the consequences of spewing hate. Sorry, but they don't all magically get a "do-over" because of the even worse asshattery of the producer.

Re:In before...

[Runaway1956]

I suppose that I should stop burglarizing the NSA's offices then? And, the FBI? That just sucks - I guess I'll have to go back to working for a living.

Re:In before...

[erikkemperman]

All right, maybe I didn't phrase that very well. My impression is that Buddhism, on the whole, is a less violent philosophy than other religions. I am never sure if Buddhism counts as a religion because it has no god (or, if you prefer, everyone is potentially godlike.

Oh and offtopic, but Heartland in your .sig? Sarcasm?

Re:In before...

[TapeCutter]

Yes we can and do live with offensive videos, I agree if you don't like it then don't watch it. However, I think the notoriety of the clip, the misrepresentation of the film by the producers to the actors (resulting in credible death threats against the actors), and the lack of any discernible "art", adds up to that "something special" required to pull it from major content providers such as YT. Of course it won't be "wiped from the internet" but I think they already know that, and that the best they can hope for is to get the major commercial sites to comply.

Re:In before...

[interkin3tic]

I don't know, I think all the cultists who are murderously upset at this actress probably already know about it. I'm skeptical that Al qaeda reads "The Verge."

Re:In before...

[brainboyz]

But how long until they're ordered to scrub any page containing it from the search results?

Re:In before...

[Eunuchswear]

Re; The heartland video.

No, it's not sarcasm. They invited Scott Denning to their fake "ICCC6" conference and he demolished their idiotic denialist bullshit.

Great line to close on: Are you cowards?

Re: In before...

[brainboyz]

1st Amendment acknowledges a right. Suppressing the video is suppressing the right.

Re:In before...

[erikkemperman]

Thanks for confirming, I figured as much :-)

I'll take a look, just as soon as I'm not supposed to be working. If you like this kind of demolishing you might find Naomi's Klein piece here worthwhile. (I have been bashed before for linking to the Nation, but nevermind).

Re:In before...

[CmdrTamale]

Is this easy enough, far enough?

http://thepiratebay.se/torrent...

Currently one of 7 torrents, 4 seeded.
--
With horror you look on as you click on SUBMIT.

Re:In before...

[otc-lame]

However this opens the door to Christians taking down Atheist videos, Atheist taking down Christian videos, Islamic taking down Jewish videos, Jews taking down Islamic videos, $cientologists taking down Subgenius videos, Subgenii taking down $cientology videos and Anonymous taking down any server that displeases them.

No, it doesn't. Did you even read the summary? I mean no one reads the article, but at least read the summary ffs. The actress was duped, it's being taken down on the basis that it's a misuse of her image. That doesn't open the door for any damn thing. Sickening that the post got modded insightful.

Re:In before...

[flyneye]

I do not offend myself with the artistic endeavors of others. I do find disgust in hurried product that COULD have been done better in spite of budget. I give it a D+.

Re:In before...

[flyneye]

This ISNT the first time this film has been taken down.
Didnt the summary read the summary?

Dangerous precedent

[bazmail]

Doesn't this mean that all videos critical of religion can potentially be subject to similar orders?

The "church of scientology" will be all over this one.

The constitutional protections, and by extension US citizens, take in in the ass yet again.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Ralph Wiggam]

The complainant is not a random critic who disagrees with the content of the film. And under normal circumstances, an actor would not have the standing to file a takedown notice either. But this woman claims that she was duped into appearing in the film under unusual circumstances and the judge seemed to agree.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Trashcan Romeo]

I've been watching a lot of old "Law & Order" episodes recently and every time a character says something pious about "constitutional rights" I can only snort with derision at what a period piece the show is now. In our time - what might be conveniently described as "The Cheney Era" - the only rights you have are those that pose no inconvenience to the government or the business interests that rent it. If it suits the government to have you killed, you will be killed - and with no messy court paperwork to bother about. If it suits Comcast to monopolize broadband access, the FCC will roll out the red carpet before them.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[jklovanc]

This is a very specific instance where the actor claims that she was hired for a film about one thing and the film turned out to be about something else. Would you have a problem with being hired for a film about the advantages of having a father figure but when the film comes out it is actually about the benefits of pedophilia? It is not about religion; It is about misrepresentations on the filming contract.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Aaden42]

Susan Sarandon supposedly hated Rocky Horror and regretted ever appearing in it. Shall we tear down all the copies of that?

If nothing else, judges in cases like this should take to heart that once something is published on the Internet, it’s forever. I know no judge wants to hear, “You don’t have the power to do that, your Honor,” but the fact of the matter is there’s no way to ever remove something like this from public view.

See also: Star Wars Christmas Special...

Re: Dangerous precedent

[bazmail]

It's taken down because it falsely represents the views of the actors

What the hell does that even mean? They are actors, pretending to be someone else, i.e. pretending to have different views, thoughts, feelings etc. Its their job to "falsely represent themselves".

Re:Dangerous precedent

[jrumney]

Doesn't this mean that all videos critical of religion can potentially be subject to similar orders?

No. It does mean that all videos where the cast has been duped into starring in a film of a completely different nature than they thought they were making can potentially be subject to similar orders though.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Ralph Wiggam]

Susan Sarandon supposedly hated Rocky Horror and regretted ever appearing in it. Shall we tear down all the copies of that?

Can she convince a judge that her contract to appear in the movie was invalid?

Re:Dangerous precedent

[noh8rz10]

Susan Sarandon supposedly hated Rocky Horror and regretted ever appearing in it. Shall we tear down all the copies of that?

yes please. why would people sing and dance about such topics?

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

Censorship is intolerable, and this decision is unjustifiable. If you care about freedom of speech, you agree with me 100%.

Re: Dangerous precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to use a model's image or performance for non-fair use purposes, you must have a VALID release to do so. People have publicity rights. Ie. you cannot use my face to sell acne creame without a release.

She is suing to regain her publicity rights and to prevent her performance from being used. The judge agrees the producer acted in bad faith and restored her right. The producer no longer has a valid legal right to continue to use her performance therefore Google also no longer has a right to show it.

It's unlikely we will see a flood of such lawsuits based on the argument against respectable content producers.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[TheGratefulNet]

I just checked the bay and its up there. of course. and its not coming down.

youtube is irrelevant. anyone who wants to see this can just grab it from tpb.

the judge, while he might have meant well, is a moran. and he's encouraging more take-downs and more people making death threats. he's rewarding the 'rule by fear' and I don't like that one bit.

I realize I'm not the one who could be getting the threats; but maybe putting her into protection or giving her a new ID is the better way. taking down the video just appeases the primitives and that is NOT going to help anyone in the long run.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[ATMAvatar]

I would want to see a copy of the script before I performed one take of the movie. I just assumed any actor or actress would do the same.

The only scenario for which I could feel sympathy for Ms. Garcia would be if the script was radically changed during the course of filming to the point where it was completely different. Even then, my sympathy is limited because I would personally insist in having a clause in the contract to terminate early when big script changes occur.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[AK Marc]

A performer owns copyright of their performance, unless otherwise agreed. Most actors sign away these rights. She may have signed away those rights, but is arguing a breach of contract that would nullify that assignement of her copyright on her own work. If she is correct in that breach of contract assertion, then she should still hold copyright over her performance, and her scenes would have to be cut to end up with a work that the "owner" would be able to distribute.

The principle issue here is not copyright, but contract law.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Holi]

So you decided to disregard everything the summary and the article said and make some bs comment. Brilliant

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Holi]

Are you reading impaired. Did you fail to understand that the producers actually lied to the cast about the movie they were creating. That is the reason the contract was invalidated not because the movie was bad.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Holi]

Absolutely not. This has fuck all to do with freedom of speech, this has to do with being honest in your contracts and not trying to dupe people into making hate pieces.

Your statement demanding everyone agree with you shows how little you actual care about free speech.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Holi]

So lying in a contract is ok? and What the hell does the 9th amendment have to do with this.

You really want the 9th amendment revoked when it is the only thing that protects the majority of your rights?

Re:Dangerous precedent

[cpt kangarooski]

A performer owns copyright of their performance, unless otherwise agreed.

No, not quite.

A mere performance, by itself, is not copyrightable. In order to be copyrightable, a performance must be fixed in a tangible medium. This always raises the question of whether the person doing the fixation is the actual author, or at least a joint author, with equal rights in the work. Basically it hinges on creativity. If the actor is in charge of their own costuming, lighting, cinematography, and direction, and everyone else is just following orders like a robot, with no creative input, and we set aside issues of works made for hire, then yes, the actor would be the sole author of the film. But if the actor isn't in charge of everything which, along with the performance, is being filmed, then they may be only one of many authors, and if it's the actor who is following orders like a robot, the actor may not have contributed any sort of authorship at all.

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony is what you'll want to take a look at.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaIjustin]

Absolutely not. This has fuck all to do with freedom of speech

Really? Did government thugs order that a video be censored? Yes. Therefore, it's related to freedom of speech.

Censorship automatically makes this a free speech issue, and censorship is intolerable 100% of the time. If you disagree, you obviously don't care about freedom of speech, though almost certainly you'll try to claim that this isn't True Speech, so it's not a violation of free speech rights to censor it. Know that I'll hear none of that nonsense.

Your statement demanding everyone agree with you shows how little you actual care about free speech.

Incorrect. That would only be true if I demanded that government thugs censor any speech that I disagree with.

Fuckin' Slashdot.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't even read an article we're not putting any hope on you being able to read the script.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[jklovanc]

They changed the script after filming as they dubbed over her dialogue.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[mooingyak]

So lying in a contract is ok?

Totally agree with your point here, but ...

and What the hell does the 9th amendment have to do with this.

I think he meant the 9th circuit, as referred to in the summary:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a temporary takedown order on behalf of Cindy Lee Garcia

Re:Dangerous precedent

[ultranova]

Even then, my sympathy is limited because I would personally insist in having a clause in the contract to terminate early when big script changes occur.

I guess making such demands as to keep you from ever appearing in any movie would be an effective way to avoid being in this situation.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Artifakt]

Find my earlier post in this thread, and read it. You owe a couple of people, at least one of which is ten times the person you might ever hope to be, an apology (starting with the judge you keep calling a thug, and ending with Holi). The question is not whether you will hear nonsense, it's will you hear facts, when those facts make you look petty and judgemental.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

Censorship is not only pointless, but intolerable. Look, if you don't like freedom of speech, then just say so.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

I found your post, but I see nothing that contradicts what I said. A video was censored, and it was a government thug that ordered it to happen, making this a free speech issue.

I suppose you think I am the type of person who would sacrifice freedom for safety? If so, I will say this: I am not. Now, go get molested by the TSA.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[lister king of smeg]

I've been watching a lot of old "Law & Order" episodes recently and every time a character says something pious about "constitutional rights" I can only snort with derision at what a period piece the show is now. In our time - what might be conveniently described as "The Cheney Era" - the only rights you have are those that pose no inconvenience to the government or the business interests that rent it. If it suits the government to have you killed, you will be killed - and with no messy court paperwork to bother about. If it suits Comcast to monopolize broadband access, the FCC will roll out the red carpet before them.

The Vice President actually has very little power all he gets to do is count congressional votes and act as a tie breaker in the senate, sit in on the security counsel meetings, and is on the board of the Smithsonian thats pretty much it, oh and make an ass of themselves to draw attention media attention away from the president when he has screwed the pooch. So why are you saying the Cheney ere? Would it not be more accurate to say the Bush/Obama ere?

Re:Dangerous precedent

[rastos1]

I've been watching a lot of various movies and TV series recently and every time a character says something pious about "constitutional rights" there is a reply along the lines: this is a matter of national security and you have no rights or you are charged under terrorist laws and you have no rights. No lawyer, no phone call, no keeping the mouth shut, no fair trial, ...

FTFY.

As far as I can see, the public should be pretty much educated about that by now.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Megol]

Like a /. neckbeard would get any acting role...

Re:Dangerous precedent

[AK Marc]

'A performer owns copyright of their performance, unless otherwise agreed.', this may be true but it has to be significant enough to warrant copyright in the first place

That was a given that wasn't argued for or against by either side, so I'm curious how you think that's a critical issue.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

I don't want government thugs taking down any website. I thought that was clear from my comments.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[vux984]

I don't want government thugs taking down any website. I thought that was clear from my comments.

"Censorship is intolderable" doesn't make "child porn websites tolerable".

They are BOTH intolerable as far as I'm concerned, so when the two principles overlap in opposition I'm prone to take a more nuanced approach to looking at the right thing to do.

I do not see any benefit to society in having an illegal child porn video of a pre-teen, taken without her knowledge or consent, and against her wishes, online;

What possible benefit do you imagine?

Re:Dangerous precedent

[mrjimorg]

Hmmm... what about all the people that show up in Borat like movies?

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

I would derive no benefit from it, just like I derive no benefit from your comment. However, I do not want government thugs censoring anything, as I care far more about free speech than I do about stopping the child porn bogeyman. If you want to talk about going after rapists, fine, but if you're trying to convince me that censorship is okay, don't bother.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[vux984]

I would derive no benefit from it, just like I derive no benefit from your comment.

I didn't ask what benefit you derived personally, but what benefit you imagine imagine society derives from such a video remaining online.

The harm to the affected people is evident, so what is the benefit? Not to you, but to anyone.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

I didn't ask what benefit you derived personally, but what benefit you imagine imagine society derives from such a video remaining online.

Sorry, but I don't think things should be banned merely because society doesn't benefit from them; I see that as tyranny.

The harm to the affected people is evident

The rape is what's harmful, if they were raped. I do not believe mere speech can be harmful.

Not to you, but to anyone.

Anyone? Some people find great pleasure in child porn. Not just pedophiles, either.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[vux984]

The rape is what's harmful, if they were raped. I do not believe mere speech can be harmful.

I see harm to the victims and their families in the ongoing shame and humiliation simply by being out there, readily available to the public.

In the general case I see harm in speech such as menacing death threats, and even bullying.

Anyone? Some people find great pleasure in child porn. Not just pedophiles, either.

Fair enough. And I suppose I don't have any objection per se to child porn that is not an otherwise illegally made recording.

I think the ongoing shame and humiliation of the victims is a price society should not deem worth 'indulging their great pleasure' in the material.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

I see harm to the victims and their families in the ongoing shame and humiliation simply by being out there, readily available to the public.

Emotional 'damage' is subjective. Allowing the government to ban things based on that is tyranny.

In the general case I see harm in speech such as menacing death threats, and even bullying.

I don't.

I think the ongoing shame and humiliation of the victims is a price society should not deem worth 'indulging their great pleasure' in the material.

Well, again, I care about free speech and am 100% opposed to censorship, so I don't think people's emotional nonsense should determine what needs to be banned.

But the censorship crowd has already lost. The Internet is simply too big a phenomena for you people to control it, and for that, I am grateful. Hopefully, in the future, new technology will arise that makes it even more impossible.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[vux984]

Emotional 'damage' is subjective

True, but its the damage that matters here. Even the rape itself is often far more damaging at an emotional level than a physical one. If you drug and then rape someone the physical impact of the rape may well be all but gone after a couple showers. Its the emotional damage that stays with you.

Allowing the government to ban things based on that is tyranny.

ban based on what? things that are subjective? that's ridiculous. The difference between rape and consensual sex is a subjective judgment too. So I guess we can't ban rape... because there's no real way to establish whether there was consent or not except some sort of subjective decision by a jury?

I don't.

Others do.

Well, again, I care about free speech and am 100% opposed to censorship, so I don't think people's emotional nonsense should determine what needs to be banned.

Yeah, I care about free speech too. But I don't think people's emotional state is 'nonsense'.

But the censorship crowd has already lost.

Are we using the same internet? I think the internet is getting steadily more constricted.

Hopefully, in the future, new technology will arise that makes it even more impossible.

Hopefully the future will bring about a society with loftier dreams than that.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

True, but its the damage that matters here.

The subjective emotional damage. It is this sort of mentality that allows government thugs to, for instance, censor 'swear words' on television, or ban public nudity; it's just nonsense, and it is tyranny.

The difference between rape and consensual sex is a subjective judgment too.

Simply incorrect, and you're missing the point. It's based on consent and ownership of the body. Separate hurt feelings from the *objective fact* of whether or not someone gave consent. And I merely said we should not ban things just because people's feelings get hurt, not that we can eliminate subjectivity from everything.

Yeah, I care about free speech too.

No, you don't. You only care about speech you don't vehemently disagree with.

Are we using the same internet? I think the internet is getting steadily more constricted.

It may seem that way, and they certainly try to implement censorship, but if you've been paying attention, they are failing.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Ralph Wiggam]

They sign legally binding releases after the scene is filmed.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[vux984]

It is this sort of mentality that allows government thugs to, for instance, censor 'swear words' on television, or ban public nudity; it's just nonsense, and it is tyranny.

Same 'mentality' I suppose, but a vastly different degree. And it doesn't take a lot of empathy to see the difference.

Separate hurt feelings from the *objective fact* of whether or not someone gave consent.

  There is no way for a 3rd party like 'society' to determine the 'fact' objectively. Hell, even the rapist and victim may well honestly disagree on whether consent was given.

No, you don't. You only care about speech you don't vehemently disagree with.

Nope. I do. I just don't let it be the single consideration.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

And it doesn't take a lot of empathy to see the difference.

The situations aren't exactly the same (I never said otherwise), but censorship is always evil.

There is no way for a 3rd party like 'society' to determine the 'fact' objectively.

Nor do they need to. There is such a thing as "good enough" in the 'justice' system. Your problem is that you conflate the act of banning something because it 'causes' people emotional 'damage' with getting rid of all forms of subjectivity everywhere; that's just nonsense. The two simply aren't the same.

Nope. I do. I just don't let it be the single consideration.

It should be the single most important consideration, if you care about free speech.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[vux984]

but censorship is always evil.

So is forcing someone to live in a world where another member of their society can run a website hosting videos of them being raped.

Most of society thinks that's evil too. Maybe you don't and that's fine. But you are in the distinct minority, most of us do.

It should be the single most important consideration, if you care about free speech.

One can care about free speech without it being the only consideration in all situations at all times.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

So is forcing someone to live in a world where another member of their society can run a website hosting videos of them being raped.

People say things that I don't like all the time. I for one don't even care about kiddie porn. But you don't see me asking for censorship and abandoning my principles.

One can care about free speech without it being the only consideration in all situations at all times.

Either you care about free speech and oppose censorship, or you don't. There is no in-between.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[vux984]

But you don't see me asking for censorship and abandoning my principles.

I see you perpetuating evil by mindlessly following the strictest interpretation of your principles regardless of the consequences in the real world.

Either you care about free speech and oppose censorship, or you don't. There is no in-between.

Either you care about human dignity or you don't. Evidently you don't.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

I see you perpetuating evil by mindlessly following the strictest interpretation of your principles regardless of the consequences in the real world.

The consequences are that people's feelings get hurt. I see you perpetuating evil by taking the easy, evil way out (censorship) and destroying freedom in the process.

Go get molested by the TSA.

Either you care about human dignity or you don't. Evidently you don't.

"human dignity" (an ambiguous piece of shit) means little to me in the face of important things like freedom of speech.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[vux984]

Go get molested by the TSA.

The only harm caused by that is to "human dignity", which you don't think is at all important anyway.

"human dignity" (an ambiguous piece of shit) means little to me in the face of important things like freedom of speech.

Yeah, god forbid we try to have the best of both.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

The only harm caused by that is to "human dignity", which you don't think is at all important anyway.

It's a vague piece of shit, and no, I don't think hurt feelings are an excuse for censorship.

However, like rape, getting molested by government thugs is a violation of your personal space and a violation of the constitution. You're desperately trying to compare incomparable issues (One is an argument against government thugs censoring information, and the other is an argument *for* government thugs getting into people's lives and violating the fourth amendment and privacy rights.) so you can justify your precious censorship.

Yeah, god forbid we try to have the best of both.

You can't *have* the "best" (What does that even mean? It's 100% subjective.) of both. Hurt feelings are not, never will be, and never have been an excuse for censorship. Look, I get it; you don't care about freedom of speech. Just admit that you're a censorship lover and be done with it.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[vux984]

Just admit that you're a censorship lover and be done with it.

Not happening because i don't love censorship. I see it as a necessary evil in some cases, where the harm of it not doing it exceeds the harm of doing it.

That we disagree on the how to measure the relative harms is evident, but that doesn't make me a 'censorship lover'.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[gIobaljustin]

Not happening because i don't love censorship.

You want to marry it.

So much for satirical documentaries

[Anonymous Coward]

The Yes Men do this all the time.

Copyright?

[wiredlogic]

How can someone who performed in a work-for-hire claim copyright? They own nothing other than the cash they were paid for their services.

Rather than Streisand herself she should just change her name. It sucks to have to do so but that's her only recourse.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

It opens the door for every actor to sue the producers for copyright violation. The judge is basically saying that the director has no right to edit the film in a way the actors disapprove of, because the actors are being "creative".

Re:Copyright?

[Ralph Wiggam]

How can someone who performed in a work-for-hire claim copyright?

She's claiming that the work for hire contract was deceptive and is not valid. The judge apparently agrees.

When this story first broke, some people tracked down the film's creator. He seemed like a real scumbag who would certainly be capable of shit like that. He is an Egyptian Coptic Christian, and his people have certainly been fucked over by the Muslim majority in that country. But that movie seems like a terrible idea on many levels.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how a "regular" actor could sue, they must all have contracts that they work-for-hire or signed release forms etc. giving them no rights

lots of "reality" shows, girl-gone-wild etc. would be in big trouble if they could be sued every time some one thought they were put in a bad light

Re:Copyright?

[AK Marc]

How can someone who performed in a work-for-hire claim copyright?

When the contract for the work for hire is invalid (not in good faith or fraudulent), as is claimed here.

Or if that offends you, she claims she was defrauded, and the judgment she's seeking for the remedy for the fraud is partial-ownership of the copyright.

Re:Copyright?

[Holi]

Deceptive Contract.

Please people read and use some common sense. The producers lied about the movie, they did that because they knew that no one would work on the movie they were actually creating. Hence the invalidated contract.

Slander - not freedom of speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

I generally respect American-style freedom of speech when it comes to stupid and distasteful things. (I am not a US citizen). However, this isn't only about freedom of speech - it's about defamation and slanders. If it falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film in a way they did not, they have every right to sue and try to get this taken down.

Unfortunately, it won't really help their reputations though. They might want to consider posting their own followups for clarifications on their positions.

I actually agree with this. I don't care if Fred Phelps screams messages of bigotry and hate, but I sure as hell would draw the line if he misrepresented MY opinions within his messages.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech.

[icebike]

It doesn't "falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film", and the WHOLE POINT of freedom of speech is that you don't get to PICK AND CHOOSE.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech.

[aardvarkjoe]

So make the statement yourself (without hiding behind the anonymity of Slashdot.)

You don't get to put words in someone else's mouth without their permission, though.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech.

[wagnerrp]

If it falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film in a way they did not, they have every right to sue and try to get this taken down.

While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law. Actors working for hire have no copyright claims unless explicitly documented in their contract. Having this video taken down using copyright claims is a miscarriage of justice.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech.

[Holi]

There is no 1st amendment issue at stake here. No one has said the movie cannot be made, just that you may not lie in your contracts and trick people into working on something they would not normally do.

Again not a 1st amendment issue but a contract issue. As the producers no longer have a right to distribute with out Garcia's permission.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech.

[squiggleslash]

While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law.

Unless the actress has a copyright interest in the finished work, which apparently she does. It's right there in the summary. You did read the summary, right?

Seriously people, why are you fuckers commenting if you're not even willing to read the summary? And why are you jumping to the conclusion that a Judge just pulled this judgement completely out of his ass rather than at least starting with the assumption there's at least some basis for the decision?

Oh, and you idiots who keep screaming "Freedom of speech" - here's the problem. The movie in question isn't being censored because of content, but because one of the makers (the actress in question) of the film has no desire to see it published. That is, actually, her right. The producers of the film can get around this by making the exact same film, only without the actress's involvement this time.

People withdrawing their works is a time honored tradition. And in this case, unlike, say, Kubrick removing Clockwork Orange from UK theaters, the person demanding the work be withdrawn has actually been hurt, and is hurt by the movie continuing to circulate.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech.

[gIobaljustin]

People withdrawing their works is a time honored tradition.

Censorship is also a "time honored tradition," but it's still completely intolerable. I hope our society someday grows out of this and realizes that free speech is a fundamental right that shouldn't be infringed upon like this.

But I gain some enjoyment when I think about how they can't possibly censor it all. This video is absolutely everywhere at this point, and the censorship crowd has lost, even if they won a small victory by getting it removed (for now) from Youtube.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech.

[wagnerrp]

While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law.

Unless the actress has a copyright interest in the finished work, which apparently she does. It's right there in the summary. You did read the summary, right?

Except... she doesn't. She was being paid under contract for her performance, which unless explicitly specified otherwise in the contract, means she transfers all copyrights of that specific performance to the studio (or individual) producing the work. The entire music industry has been operating under this concept for half a century now in order to screw over signed artists. This ruling, if not overturned by a higher court, is going to open a huge can of worms.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech.

[gnasher719]

While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law. Actors working for hire have no copyright claims unless explicitly documented in their contract. Having this video taken down using copyright claims is a miscarriage of justice.

Actually, that seems to be the other way round. The actor _has_ the copyright on his performance, except when the contract says otherwise. Of course the contract says otherwise. Every contract between film companies and actors says otherwise. Just like my employment contract says that the copyright for code I write at work is assigned to my company. But if I write code for my company, but the contract is invalid because the company directory was banned from doing any business and lied about it, they didn't pay me and didn't intend to pay me, then the code is _mine_, no matter what the contract says.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech.

[Megol]

While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law.

Unless the actress has a copyright interest in the finished work, which apparently she does. It's right there in the summary. You did read the summary, right?

Except... she doesn't. She was being paid under contract for her performance, which unless explicitly specified otherwise in the contract, means she transfers all copyrights of that specific performance to the studio (or individual) producing the work. The entire music industry has been operating under this concept for half a century now in order to screw over signed artists. This ruling, if not overturned by a higher court, is going to open a huge can of worms.

A contract that is void due to criminal activity. FFS this isn't rocket science!

And In Other News...

[MightyMartian]

And in other news, King Canute has officially commanded the tide to stop coming in. We'll keep you abreast of any late breaking details from this fascinating story.

Garcia had to file this legal complaint

[Applehu Akbar]

Because if she succeeds is suppressing the film, she gets to keep her head.

But meanwhile, because even the more marginally sane decisions of the "Ninth Circus" are routinely blown away by the SCOTUS, this one will certainly not survive. Garcia therefore has a window of a few months to arrange for a new identity.

Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint

[wagnerrp]

Whether you agree with the result of the ruling or not, this should not have been handled using copyright claims. An actor for hire with no ongoing royalties stipulated in their contract has no copyright claims on the content.

Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint

[DaHat]

Because if she succeeds is suppressing the film, she gets to keep her head.

That's a rather silly idea... as it assumes that no one who would desire to kill her would have any other means of finding the movie... or for that matter hasn't seen it already.

If anything, this suit has made her more of a target as all of the sudden more personal information is available.

Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint

[blackraven14250]

It's not based in copyright claims, though. It's based on an invalid contract.

Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint

[AK Marc]

Why wouldn't this survive? She claims she was defrauded in her contract, and her demand for reparation of the fraud is partial ownership of the copyright.

This case seems to be all about the contractual dispute, copyright is a minor issue. But in slashdot world, the copyright becomes the major issue, and the contractual dispute/fraud is ignored.

Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint

[AK Marc]

There's copyright on sheet music, and copyright on the performance (on a CD, concert DVD). There's no question that a performer owns the copyright on their creation. The acting contracts recognize this and assign copyright to the producers (or whoever). That wasn't an issue that seems argued by anyone in the court case.

The point of argument was whether the contract was violated, and if so, what remedy should be applied. The actor asserted that the contract was violated and because so, the copyright she assigned as an actor should be invalidated, returning copyright to her as the artist.

Just because so many on Slashdot don't understand copyright doesn't mean that the copyright issues were disputed at all. If you don't like that, consider it this way, she was defrauded by a contract made in bad faith. Movies have copyright. As a reparation for the wrong she suffered, she was awarded partial ownership of the copyright for the work she added to. Again, the issue is the contract, and the copyright doesn't enter in, except as an undisputed award for a disputed contract disagreement.

But all the idiots on Slashdot focus on the undisputed copyright issues as the major contention point. It wasn't.

Interesting...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While it's pretty obvious why everyone involved wants this particular issue to go away, it would be...striking... if that sort of legal reasoning didn't end up causing even more of a disturbance among American corporations and their assorted hired guns than the movie did among the hicks 'n zealots subset.

Basically, something that looked a whole lot like a work for hire is suddenly not a work for hire anymore because the hireling didn't really approve of the changes made elsewhere in the production process. It's hard to imagine a theory much more dramatic than that, for any company doing business in copyrighted work slapped together by teams of employees.

In fairness, I don't envy the actress who now enjoys the attention of some of the real dregs of abrahamic monotheism, even by the tepid standards of the genre; but the idea that that makes the movie no longer a work for hire (rather than, say, a reckless endangerment suit) has no obvious 'bright line' boundaries that would prevent it from applying to much less dramatic situations. They say that doing 'rights clearance' in film sucks already, imagine if every cast member, and maybe even the memorable extras, gets veto power based on whether they approve of the post-production special effects or not... That'd be fun to try to insure.

Re:Interesting...

[david_thornley]

How did you get +4, Insightful while not knowing the facts?

It's not a work for hire because the contract that would have made it so was ruled fraudulent and hence is unenforceable. This was at least not soley because of the deception, but also illegal and deceptive acts committed by the contractee in negotiating and signing the contract.

That does make a nice bright legal line, and no marginally respectable moviemaker will have any problems from this decision.

May as well be

[SuperKendall]

The complainant is not a random critic who disagrees with the content of the film.

It's close enough as to make no difference. Do you really think that EVERY actress/actor who finds the released movie different than the one she/he worked on can get the movie pulled when they have ZERO ownership of it? Absurd.

The movie was never really a problem anyway - all of the protests against it were shams, as are death threats against the actress (obviously). And yet we are willing to let any person who appeared in a movie have a say over release and distribution... it will never work.

Re:May as well be

[Ralph Wiggam]

It's close enough as to make no difference.

Actually it makes a big difference. To file a court case, you have to have "standing". A random person who's pissed off does not qualify. You have to be directly involved in the situation.

I'm also surprised that an actor in a film was able to get any claim of ownership. An actor is expected to know that a movie can change due to rewrites, or editing, or any of the reasons that films normally change between the beginning and the end of the process. But if you can show that the producer was intentionally deceptive- that he planned the whole time to make an anti-Islam hit piece but told the actors something else, then that's a different story.

Re:May as well be

[Sarten-X]

But if you can show that the producer was intentionally deceptive- that he planned the whole time to make an anti-Islam hit piece but told the actors something else, then that's a different story.

It's a different story, then. Pretty much every aspect of the movie's production and release is shady.

Re:May as well be

[gnasher719]

It's close enough as to make no difference. Do you really think that EVERY actress/actor who finds the released movie different than the one she/he worked on can get the movie pulled when they have ZERO ownership of it? Absurd.

Not everyone. But possibly one who wasn't paid for acting, where there was never any intention for paying her, _and_ the film is something that she would never have agreed to act in.

So not EVERY but this one. And you say ZERO ownership: If she never received the payment that she should have received, then she has SOME ownership.

Ridiculous assertion

[Karl Cocknozzle]

The constitutional protections, and by extension US citizens, take in in the ass yet again.

I am not aware of a constitutional right to commit fraud. The project this person agreed to appear in bore zero resemblance to this one, and while it is true--she definitely has no right to control the work product she agreed to appear in, she has every right to sue over this other work that essentially puts her in the crosshairs of terrorists--totally without permission.

Re:Ridiculous assertion

[Aaden42]

If there’s any suit available to this actress, it’s against the producer/director/etc. of the film for misrepresentation. There’s no conceivable way this should be a copyright case. There’s no way that anyone who was paid for appearing in it by the eventual rights holder (producer/etc.) should retain any right to issue take down demands contrary to the will of the actual owner of the copyright.

Short of a contract that stated she retained any rights (doubtful), then I can’t see how this was anything other than work for hire with associated assignment of copyright.

Re:Ridiculous assertion

[Sarten-X]

If the hiring was fraudulent, being based on false pretenses, then the copyright assignment is consequently void.

Re:Ridiculous assertion

[Holi]

You obviously didn't bother to even read the summary. She did win suit against the producer, which is why she can claim copyright on her image in this movie.

Re:Ridiculous assertion

[Holi]

I am not sure you can claim fraud is free speech, in fact I know for a fact you cannot. Or do you think libel and slander are protected?

Re: Ridiculous assertion

[Aaden42]

Sorry... What I intended to say was, "If there's any *reasonable* suit with the slightest chance of surviving appeal outside the Ninth Circus..."

Re: Ridiculous assertion

[Artifakt]

The producer in this case pled to four criminal counts relating to his contracts with the actors, and has been convicted and is now serving time. He also has a previous history of multiple felonies, including a previous fraud conviction. The whole of every single contract was invalidatable, not by some technicality, but by the very fact that he was a felon still on parole, and used an alias in all his dealings and signings, and that is entirely settled law that such contracts are invalid, before we even get to the counts where he actually admitted to fraudulent representations in those contracts. I'd just about guarantee you that's enough to make the lawsuit, and others like it from other actors involved, both reasonable and prone to survive appeal in any circuit. They could probably survive an appeal to SCOTUS, in the Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis Brandeis or Thurgood Marshall eras.

Please let's just repeal the 1st amendment.

[fustakrakich]

The attitude against free speech is actually beyond majority status. New restrictions will pass easily.

Actually it won't help.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The publicity can only help Ms. Garcia in this case, as making her disapproval known will likely help stop the death threats.

Actually if there was a fatwa put out with her name on it, then the threats won't stop unless it was rescinded.

In any case, all it does is prove to extremists that death threats are an effective means towards censorship.

Re:Actually it won't help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me, wasn't it a tradition in medieval- and renaissance-era Christian nations to marry off girls around 12 years old to men in their 20s and 30s, and even older?

Perhaps you should burn a copy of the religious fantasy that is the Bible as well.

A religion of the sword will die by the sword[...]

It is an historical fact that those of the true religion of peace, the Christians, were the ones who murdered the priests in the last Egyptian temple. It is rather ironic that those who profess peace follow the faith of those who murdered quite literally anybody who practiced another faith within the Christian Roman empire. The hypocracy of that particular faith is stomach churning.

So, if Islam is to die by the sword, let's all toast to Christianity following swiftly behind it.

Re:Actually it won't help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you stop raving about censorship already?

This case isn't about censorship. This case is about a convicted felon who deliberately broke multiple terms of his parole, defrauded several actors by lying to them about the movie he was asking them to perform in, and then published the result on youtube because he felt that his "duty" to warn the world about how evil muslims were trumped the rule of law.

Re:Actually it won't help.

[AmiMoJo]

I don't think fatwas work the way you think they work. A fatwa isn't a command to Muslims that they must write one hate mail per week for the rest of time or until it is rescinded. Like all human beings even if the fatwa remains they eventually get bored and find something else to hate.

Re:Why...

[amiga3D]

Who gives a shit. I mean really, it's a shitty little movie about some crazy people. I don't get all the fuss.

This... doesn't make any sense.

[Spazmania]

The actors don't have a copyright unless rights are granted by the film maker. The script writers have a copyright (unless they're W2 employees) and the cameramen have a copyright (unless they're W2 employees) but the actors have nothing. Copyright vests in whoever puts the work into a fixed form or in their W2 employer if they are acting as an employee. There are a dozen or so exceptions but "actor" isn't one of them.

Re: This... doesn't make any sense.

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright law is utterly unrelated to publicity rights. You're just stringing words together.

Re: This... doesn't make any sense.

[EvilSS]

But actors have publicity rights. If their employment contract is declared invalid, they maintain the right to their publicity. That means the producer is distributing the film without legal standing in violation of copyright law.

Has nothing to do with copyright and only applies to marketing/endorsement, not use in an artistic work.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[EvilSS]

The actors don't have a copyright unless rights are granted by the film maker.

Not true. The actors have copyright over their individual performance as an artistic work. Normally this is assigned to the producers via their contract, but if the contract is voided, it reverts to them. Similar to the situation a record label would be in if their contract with a band was thrown out.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[Spazmania]

A performance does not have a copyright. Only things fixed in a tangible medium can have a copyright. The film of a performance can have a copyright. But that copyright vests in (drumroll) the photographer -- the individual who fixed it into a tangible medium. Not the actor.

It's the plain language of the law man. Look it up.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[EvilSS]

Um, you may want to re-read the article we are talking about here because the 9th circuit says you're wrong:

In Wednesday’s ruling, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, writing for the majority, makes a series of unusual copyright arguments to explain why Garica has rights in the film. While actors typically don’t have an independent copyright in their performances, Kozinski states that Garcia’s role was not a work for hire. The opinion also states that Garcia had given the producer an implied license to use her performance, but that his subsequent conduct went beyond the terms of the license — meaning that she ultimately retained the copyright and could use it against YouTube.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[Spazmania]

If you read the article, you know that it didn't make any sense to the article's author either. The judge envisioned a copyright out of thin air with no supporting law. The constitution explicitly forbids judges from making commonlaw copyrights yet that's just what this joker tried to do.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[Spazmania]

I've read the article. I've also read the statute. And the part of the constitution where it says congress alone is authorized to set intellectual property law.

Kozinski is wrong. Not about it not being a work for hire... were that relevant it might be correct. It's not relevant.

No copyright vests in the performer. Ever. It vests in whoever records the performance or in his employer if he is an employee.

Garcia could not "retain" a copyright because she never created a copyright in the first place! That was done by the cameraman!

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[Spazmania]

Also, he's almost certainly wrong about it not being a work made for hire since work that is commissioned for use "as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work" is one of the nine things congress explicitly calls out as a work made for hire under copyright law. So even if he wasn't already wrong about her having created a copyright in the first place, he'd still be wrong about it not being a work made for hire.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[gnasher719]

Also, he's almost certainly wrong about it not being a work made for hire since work that is commissioned for use "as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work" is one of the nine things congress explicitly calls out as a work made for hire under copyright law. So even if he wasn't already wrong about her having created a copyright in the first place, he'd still be wrong about it not being a work made for hire.

You didn't read the summary, right? There was no work for hire. There was a contract signed, but one of the signers was a convicted felon who used an alias to sign, which was against his probation rules. The signed contract was void. He also didn't pay the actress and hadn't any intention to pay, so if the contract had been valid, he would have still been in breach of his contract.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[Spazmania]

Very well. Then had she any copyright in the work to begin with, it would have vested in her. Unfortunately, she didn't have any copyright to anything.

At least read the circular from the copyright office with the short version of how and to whom copyright vests:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs...

"Copyright law protects a work from the time it is created in a fixed form. From the moment it is set in a print or electronic manuscript, a sound recording, a computer software program, or other such concrete medium, the copyright becomes the property of the author who created it. Only the author or those
deriving rights from the author can rightfully claim copyright."

Garcia isn't the author here. The cameraman is. He's the one who "created" the film.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[EvilSS]

I'm going to have to invoke a variance of Occam's browser plugin and say that, until proven otherwise by an authoritative source, I'll need to take the word of the chief judge of the 9th circuit court of appeals over yours. No offense.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[Spazmania]

Let's be clear: the author is the person who puts the work into a fixed form. Period. There's no subtlety here, no room for confusion. The actor in a movie would not be an author even if he was in every frame and the only person captured on the film.

You go to a concert and tape it, you are the author of that tape. In fact, you have a copyright interest in that tape. As it happens, the singer already had a copyright on a previous recording which makes your tape a -derivative work-. So you can't do anything without his permission. However, the singer could not take your tape and sell it without your permission. That would violate your copyright as the author of that tape.

Are you tracking me now? The author, in whom the copyright vests by default, is the person who puts the work into a fixed form. No one else.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[Spazmania]

I'm not familiar with UK copyright law. In the US where this case happened, it's whoever puts the work into a fixed form.

Also, you can't sign away a copyright before it exists, at least in US law. That trips up a number of people too. If you sign a contract which says, "bob is assigned all copyrights I produce under this contract" but the contract isn't for one of the nine classes of work identified by congress, bob gets nothing. That line of the contract is void. Instead you write the contract to say, "I agree to assign all copyrights I produce under this contract to bob." Now you have a contractual obligation to sign your copyrights over to bob after you create them. Bob doesn't own the copyrights until you assign them, but he owns your promise to sign them over which is functionally the same thing.

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[Spazmania]

No offense taken. But you might want to read the statute. The statute is the authoritative source.

And you should know that the 9th has a reputation as the most frequently reversed circuit. In fact, one term in the 1990s saw 27 of its 28 decisions reversed or vacated by the supreme court. This sort of BS is why.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth...

Re:This... doesn't make any sense.

[david_thornley]

The circular is irrelevant to your point. It's about "work for hire", a condition that makes the person offering the contract the author for legal purposes. It answers the question of who'd have the copyright if the contracts were valid, not whether the actor or camera person is the author. Since the judge in the case thought that the actor had copyright on her own performance unless signed away, and since the sample contract somebody cited earlier had a lot of wordage about handing rights over, I'm going with the judge rather than the pseudonymous person on the Internet. (Of course, if this actually becomes a concern to you, see a real lawyer.)

Laugh

[koan]

The religion of peace, and if you make fun of it we will kill you.

George Lucas will love this

[msobkow]

George Lucas will love this. He'll finally have what it takes to get rid of all those embarassing copies of a Star Wars Christmas.

And every actor or actress that has appeared in a steaming shitpile can claim they were "duped" and demand that those films be pulled, too.

If she got paid, she got paid. Her rights ended at getting paid.

Wow, that piece of crap

[Megane]

I watched it way back when it was being used as the excuse for Benghazi. At first I thought I was being trolled and that it was some joke video people were pointing to instead.

It's like a bad college freshman film class assignment. It was so bad I had to stop halfway through to wash my brain out. And you can tell the "anti-Muslim" language was overdubbed because the overdub audio is so clean.

If there's one reason it should be completely removed from existence, it's because of how horribly bad the thing is.

Islamic violence wins again

[cowwoc2001]

It seems that every time extremists resort to threats and violence, they have gotten the censorship they were seeking.

Many newspapers are now self-censoring for fear of violence. Is this really where we are headed?

Re:Islamic violence wins again

[EvilSS]

It seems that every time extremists resort to threats and violence, they have gotten the censorship they were seeking.

Many newspapers are now self-censoring for fear of violence. Is this really where we are headed?

If we don't let the terrorists win, the terrorists win.

Re:In other news...

[Mashiki]

Ah liberals and democrats, when reality doesn't fit your way, throw a hissy fit. Facts, nasty things right.

radical change to the script

[FranklinWebber]

From the first-linked article:

'...she later found her footage had been edited for the new film and overdubbed with one of the most controversial lines: "Is your Mohammed a child molester?"'

It sounds like she is in precisely the scenario you describe.

Torrents on TPB

[J'raxis]

Time for a good ol' streisand effect. Lookee here:---

Pirate Bay #1
Pirate Bay #2 (720p)
Pirate Bay #3 (640x360)

Personally I always thought this movie was just racist/Islamophobic dreck, but now with the government finally finding a convenient excuse to censor it, I'm downloading all three of these copies and will be seeding them indefinitely once downloaded.

Oh, go on.

[smittyoneeach]

As though that Amendment was worth the characters comprising it, anymore.

My 0.02

[DaMattster]

Artistic freedom should win the day on this one. This is precisely why I am an atheist. Very little good, if any, comes out of religion.

'To learn who rules over you, simply find out

[walterbyrd]

who you are not allowed to criticize.'

-- Voltaire

Only Islam gets this special treatment

[walterbyrd]

You can post all the anti-Jesus, anti-Buddhist, or whatever you want. Everybody has a right to an opinion. Unless, of course, that opinion is critical of Islam. Then your lucky if don't get killed because of some fatwa.

But lets all bend over, and grease ourselves up for an ideology that is far less tolerant that the Nazis ever dreamed of being.

Re:youtube takedowns

[walterbyrd]

1) have thousands of people scream and cry about racism (never mind that Islam is not a race)

2) routinely kill people who are critical of your beliefs.

3) do both of the above all the time.

4) make the world think that *you* are the victim (not too hard to do with all the PC mush-heads we have).

5) have billions in oil money to grease the right palms.

It's a freedom of speech issue.

[walterbyrd]

Why do only Muslims get this special treatment.

Re:It's a freedom of speech issue.

[amiga3D]

What special treatment? The film? Or the protection from getting their feelings hurt?

Re:I don't like it

[epyT-R]

Exactly. What better way for established governments to justify tyranny than to use implied threats of an enemy we're supposed to 'tolerate' under the guise of 'diversity'?

Ignore It

[Number42]

As a Muslim, even though I'm offended by the film, I don't think such a big deal should be made out of this. The only way to win the game of inflammatory Internet actions/comments/videos is to not play.

What about the anti-Christian diatribes ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Them moslems have tons and TONS and TONS of anti-Christian diatribes uploaded on the Net.

They even have videos of them bastards cutting off the heads of the so-called "infidels".

What the fuck is WRONG with the West ?

Why has the West become so pro-Islam ???

Re:What about the anti-Christian diatribes ?

[Optali]

Don't tocuh my balls mister.
Fucking towel heads have no idea on how to make a good anti-christian flick.

Best anti-christian stuff is done in the REAL west: The part of the world were we still honour science and don't walk the streets shooting and doctors for practicing abortions and where churches are sold as flat buildings.

Re: What about the anti-Christian diatribes ?

[Rakarra]

at least spell muslims right you grammar failure

Typical muzzie reaction. Faced with the facts attack the person stating them ... in this case for spelling

Now now, grammar and spelling lovers wade in on every topic.

Re:uhh

[Mashiki]

You know, you should probably just give in and let the hate flow through you. The only thing missing in your post there AC, is openly saying "the jews did it."

When an actor is scammed into participating in a m

[Arancaytar]

And then decides she doesn't want the product of that to be distributed anymore, that's her right. This is one of the best justifications of enforcing a copyright you could possibly come up with.

Know where the problem really is

[3seas]

Know the source of the problem and call it out for what it is.... the truth will stop the problems.
Otherwise ...... KaBoom Nuclear SHTF!!

Jacob battled god all night and for it was given the name Israel meaning "he who battles god". Islam means "voluntary submission to God". So god sent the Mesopotamian originating nomadic tribe of jacob/israel .. Israelite into the forever battle against the Muslims, invading their land. Christianity believes being saved by sacrificing the savior.

But here is a problem with these three. The devil (alien) being Jesus biological father who was not wed to Mary, could have but didn't stop the torturous death of Jesus and took glory in it and previously tried to get Abrams (Abraham) to kill his own son..

And that is how the world was turned upside down... lying prince of the world. So what is really happening with the three above?

Apparently the so called "god", "Allah", "YHWH" prince wants war, for these three can only play out to be WWIII nuclear.

Hinduism oldest religion in the world is "whatever inclusive" and Buddhism "the awakened one".

Add all this up and what do you get? A house fighting against itself will fall. The house of Humans.

Option B:

Realize its all just a trick.... The result of the trick to get the human species to evolve from a subconscious bicameral state, to an abstract conscious state to finally awake where both are integrated to super-consciousness where we will be introduced to the civilization of the universe as we will fully understand the usefulness and limitations of the tool of abstraction and the big picture goal of expanding universal content. Where things will be done on earth as it is in the heavens. Even telepathy (transmission and reception of energy patterns at the quantum physics level) requires interpretation into the abstract and if you interpret something wrong what will your response be, a kaboom?.

Don't believe this? World protest indicate the people of the planet are seeing past the intentional deceptive misuse of our abstract tools.

Sharia is gonna be awesome

[gelfling]

I plan to open an eatery called Gay Mohammed's Bacon Whiskey Bar

Modelling

[phorm]

Indeed. Imagine you're a model. You're given a contract to model for a new line of underwear, or whatever.
You expect that you might show up on a Haynes ad, but unbeknownst to you, they actual use your image - with a little photoshopping - in a propaganda ad (maybe a hate ad etc).

The original contract was to be an underwear model. The use of your image is not valid in the new context.

In this case, the woman contracted for a movie of one type, then had her lines dubbed-over and was used for something completely different.

Larry Flynt - I'm the worst

[CmdrTamale]

Not blaming you, but you left out Larry Flynt.

"If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you. Because I'm the worst."

Mr Flynt is still alive, if not kicking any longer.

Re:They don't.

[amiga3D]

Really? I see ridicule of Christianity all over the boob tube. Bill Maher makes a career out of it. I just have a sense of humor about it. I figure in the end we'll find the truth and I'm betting I'm right.