Slashdot Mirror
9th Circuit Will Revisit "Innocence of Muslims" Takedown Order
The Associated Press, as carried by ABC News, reports that "An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena will hear arguments Monday by Google, which owns YouTube, disputing the court's decision to remove Innocence of Muslims from the popular video sharing service." At the heart of the earlier take-down order, which was the result of a 2-1 split from a 3-judge panel, is the assertion of copyright by actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who appeared in the film, but in a role considerably different from the one she thought she was playing.
Google is supported in its appeal by an unusual alliance that includes filmmakers, Internet rivals such as Yahoo and prominent news media companies such as The New York Times that don't want the court to infringe on First Amendment rights. Garcia has support from the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Musicians. If the court upholds the smaller panel's ruling, YouTube and other Internet companies could face takedown notices from others in minor video roles.
The title is sarcastic. According to Wikipedia, the film is anti-muslim.
EFF and prior legal precedent say that there is no established right of copyright to actors in films... regardless of whether they appear there voluntarily or not.
The actor's role is different; it is that of an employee or contractor.
"innocence of muslims" really?
what an awkward for this to come up as people are held hostage by extremist muslims
Yes I know, not all muslims are like that, religion of peace, vocal minority, blah blah blah
You can defend a bear all you want, it's still gonna rip your face off
Then you will probably be happy to learn that the video is actually anti-Islamic.
I think the heart of the issue is That she signed a release for one use but the film was completely different that what she was told. To me it would seem that any release she signed would be invalid and she would have the same rights as someone who did not sign a release. Any film maker would know that everyone in the film must sign a release.
And for anyone who doesn't remember, this was the film that Obama blamed the Benghazi attacks on. Despite later admitting that, no, oops, that wasn't what caused the attacks at all.
Of course we still don't know exactly what happened with Benghazi since while the Democrats are more than willing to put CIA operations at risk to insult the Bush administration, they sure as hell aren't willing to let anyone know what happened in Benghazi. Maybe in 2022 we'll finally get a Senate report on the truth about Benghazi.
A person who has not commited a crime is innocent.
A person who is accused of committing a crime is innocent until proven otherwise
That person's beliefs, religious or otherwise are in and of itself not criminal. It is what that person does with those beliefs that makes all the difference.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Well, it goes many ways to Sunday, but long story short this has potential uses. Just imagine if an extra on Stupid Franchise That Needs To Die VII could get it yanked if "I didn't expect a certain character to make any appearances" could be a valid argument. (Though I joke, misrepresentation of contract is legally dishonest but should have been a tort with the production team, not a DMCA claim with hosts. She should have taken it one rung up the ladder, so to speak - Google is "too late" in that process.)
This exactly. Its not that the actress doesn't have rights here, it's that the court affirmed the wrong rights. If the filmmaker materially misrepresented the film or the role in writing, that should be a fairly straightforward lawsuit.
In the Benghazi incident only three Americans died
The 9/11 event, over 3,000 perished
The war in Iraq, 650,000 Iraqis perished.
Oops. You only care about dead Americans. Well, 4,000 Americans died in GWB's war. Tell me again why we invaded?
"Oops"?
The attack happened on Sept 11th just before the 2012 election.
You don't really think it was an accident that they blamed some film-maker and threw him in jail to deflect responsibility from themselves, do you?
what an awkward for this to come up as america is involved in more oppression, incarceration and war within its borders and across the globe than any other nation since WW2
America has done bad things, no doubt. But I hardly think it compares to regimes like Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, pretty much any regime in Kosovo, Somalia, etc.
The U.S. generally only plays harsh when countries don't play ball (don't sell it oil, support the USSR/Russia over the U.S., etc.). And it has a nasty history of looking the other way when friendly oppressive regimes serve its economic interests (as in Chile, Saudi Arabia, etc.). But life under direct U.S. rule is far from "oppressive." And even in its economic interests, the U.S. will only look the other way for so long if a friendly dictator becomes openly oppressive.
And all of this hardly makes the U.S. exceptional. Pretty much every developed country does similar scummy things in its own economic and political interests. The U.S. is only exceptional in the reach of its economic and military power. Its methodology and philosophy is pretty unexceptional. In fact, U.S. colonialism is pretty light-handed compared with the historical colonialism of other European countries. The U.S. gives its conquered territories at least some autonomy. Compare that the British and French empires.
And if you want to talk heavy-handed, take a look at Israel sometime. The U.S. is downright sweet and cuddly compared to them. When the U.S. wants to stop your nuclear weapons program, they might send a computer virus and some economic sanctions after you. Israel just goes right to blowing up your nuclear scientists with car bombs.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
LOL @ MediaMatters propaganda.
The White House told the truth
Oh, really??
From ABC: "The "talking points" memo on what the Obama administration should tell the public was the basis for statements made by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on talk shows five days after the Sept. 11 attack to explain what happened.
Rice insisted the attack emanated from a protest over an anti-Islam video produced in America that turned violent and that terrorism was not involved. The White House has since acknowledged the assault was a preplanned terror attack and no protest happened."
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I am a vegetarian. What if I decide I am offended by meat by advertised?
Sounds crazy, but it really is the same thing. People decide what will offend.
Youtube commentator Pat Condell recently made a great video on the subject.
Choosing to be offended
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-sZag4LUNw&list=UUWOkEnBl5TO4SCLfSlosjgg
While it's true that Sadam's military was full of essentially modern day Nazis, [...]
Saddam was not a nazi. He held a iron grip over muslim factions that can't help but to kill each other. And that is exactly what they did once Saddam was removed.
Saddam Hussein was not a model leader but he was a 'moderate' if such a thing can exist in the islamic word. He also was the only one able to control all these retarded Muslim and keep them from murdering each other. He also was the only one capable of protecting the iraqis minority of other religious faith.
All the claim that he killed babies or gas villages are lies. Not believe the CIA in the 1990s made you a tinfoil-hat'er, still believing them in 2014 make you a fool.
The truth is a bit more complex. The Sunnis weren't all that upset about getting rid of Saddam. What really ticked them off was when L. Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army (sending a couple hundred thousand Sunnis out into the world with no job, no money and guns) and then fired every Sunni in the Iraqi civil service.
Only then did we start to see lots of internecine violence.
Then we brought in Nuri Al-Maliki who systematically discriminated against the Sunnis in all walks of life. Which just made things much, much worse.
It was about economic and political power. Once the U.S.bought off (with huge sums of money) the Shia and the Sunnis, the violence largely stopped. After the flow of money stopped when the U.S. left Iraq, the systematic discrimination by Al-Maliki's government pushed the Sunnis right into the arms of what would become ISIS.
Even that is an oversimplification, but there were failures on all sides, and everyone is a loser.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Actually, this movie was blamed for anti-Western riots that took place in several Muslim countries. But in fact, its release happened to coincide w/ the 'Arab Spring' uprisings in the Arab empire.
However, the inane aspect about it is that while Republicans blamed Obama for what happened in Benghazi, fact remains that their position on Libya/Qadaffi was no different from the Democrats. If anything, it was Obama who was showing sense dragging his feet in supporting the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrein and other places. And Republicans - from McCain to Hannity all clamoring for Obama to support the anti-Qadaffi uprising in Libya. Obama would have done well to follow his initial instincts and stay completely out of it.
I'm no fan of Qadaffi, but the Qadaffi who Reagan bombed in 1982 was completely different from the Qadaffi post the Iraq war. In fact, one of the few successes of the Iraq war was that Qadaffi decided to discontinue his chemical/biological weapons programs, and repair relations w/ the West. In other words, the Qadaffi who was lynched in that uprising was no longer a firebreathing hater of the West, or a troublemaker throughout Africa. The rebels, on the other hand, had links to the various Muslim Brotherhood movements in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and were not worth supporting, since their rise to power was gonna mean the emergence of an Islamic regime in Tripoli, similar to ISIS. However, the cretins throughout Western capitals and spanning both Left wing and Right wing parties decided that it was worth supporting them in the name of 'democracy'. Well, we saw how long that lasted, particularly in Egypt.
Truth is, and this comes to the heart of that otherwise badly made movie, that Muslim countries cannot stay democratic, once the power is directly given to the people. Democracy means political, religious and other pluralism - in other words, acceptance and tolerance for political, religious and other views that fly against the mainstream. But Islam is not a pluralistic religion that tolerates other religions, and extending that concept, Islamic sects ain't pluralistic either. That's why you have Shias persecuting Sunnis (in Iran, Syria & Iraq), Sunnis persecuting Shias (in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, ISIS controlled Syria/Iraq, Afghanistan and so on), Sunnis persecuting Ahmadiyas (in Indonesia & Pakistan), on top of your usual Muslims persecuting non-Muslims in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other Muslim countries. Even if the governments in question are democratic, persecution happens, since it's the will of the majority community in each of these countries - that follows a tradition set by Mohammed himself.
As a result, the countries that don't have a major unrest are countries that have anti-Islamic dictatorships @ the top, that keep their Muslim populations hinged. Countries like the ex-Soviet Stans, Algeria, Turkey (before the current Erdogan regime), and Tunisia (before Ben Ali was toppled). Or kingdoms that keep their populations quiet, like Jordan or Oman. Other than that, all the Muslim countries that have gone democratic have also seen Islamic regimes come to power - like Hamas. But the good thing, at least in Syria, is that w/ a full blown civil war going on, you have one group of our enemies - ISIS - fighting the others - Syria, Iran and yes, even Iraq.
The right solution to Benghazi at the time, had anyone in diplomatic circles had a clue, would have been to pull US diplomats & journalists out of all these Arab countries and watch their civil wars from a distance. No handwringing over the rights of people, or anything like that. Just watch them do what they excel at doing - rioting. And keep all Western non-Muslim citizens out of there, warning them that they'd be responsible for their own security if they go despite these warnings and anything bad happens to them - just like Lara Logan.
. It is not fair to criticize someone for being born gay.
Except, there is NO proof that anyone has ever been "born gay". Look deep into your past skywalker, for there lies the answer where your affliction began
If you're THAT much of a coward, they win.
Grow some balls.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
That's all relatively recent developments. Until the 1800s, you were whatever religion the lord of your land was, down to the sect of Christianity. If you didn't like it, too bad- shut up or be jailed or killed.
You were a jew? You can't own land, must live in a ghetto, must be locked in at night, must be one of about half a dozen professions, and would regularly be killed in mob attacks by christians. It was literally better for them in Islamic territory where they only had to pay an extra tax.
You want wars? Well, there were the crusades. And a whole fleet of wars across Europe, especially in Germany, over which particular sect of Christians everyone needed to be.
Even one of the more enlightened countries, England, basically kicked out anyone who wasn't mainstream enough to the colonies. Where they still didn't have religious freedom, you just had areas ruled by smaller sects.
And even today in America, a very tolerant society, you have 1 political party that kisses the nutjobs asses and is moving to make abortion and birth control illegal.
Yeah, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?