We'll all be paying for this for decades (unless we're among the hundreds of thousands in the UK, and probably millions worldwide, who will end up unemployed as a result of the bonus-chasing pinstriped bastards who caused all this), and the same situation will arise again when another bunch of fraudsters figures out a way to multiply money in a totally fictitious manner.
Well, since that comment was submitted, I've gone from +1 to +5 Insightful, then as soon as the US woke up, back down to 0, Troll.
Fuck y'all, you Creationist assholes - I'm burning karma to keep warm, since your asshole fucking bankers and thieves have fucked the rest of the world.
You're all cordially invited to an asskicking at the Trafalgar in Aldershot, UK, as soon as you can make it.
BTW, when the cops come to my house, they generally send six - 'cause four's not enough:P
No - your 'lies-to-children' are a necessary part of a rational education - the gradual unveiling of difficult ideas through metaphor is perfectly acceptable (that's how I learnt, and I'm still reasonably rational).
What isn't acceptable is the teaching to youngsters that the world was designed by some unidentifiable creator, and that science is wrong, which is what these ID idiots are doing.
Their bronze age mythology is stupid and harmful, and they should be marginalised and treated as child abusers.
The clause is vague, but I interpret it to mean that the intentions of the author should be respected, unless the use is obviously for parody.
A parody defense is perfectly acceptable, but the ID film in question is not a parody of Lennon, so I think the case should have gone to court to define whether the misuse of Lennon's work was justifiable.
I'm a rampant evolutionist and atheist, BTW, so judge my opinion accordingly.
"God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all"
Those young women sure suck lots of our precious bodily fluids...
The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107, clause 2 specifically includes 'the nature of the copyrighted work'
'Imagine' is so diametrically opposed to the ideals of the film in question (and a parody defense is not appropriate) that 'fair use' is a dubious defense at best - why should we trumpet fair use for these idiots, when we can look to other instances where fair use is a valid defense?
No, you're not being obnoxious - it's the courts that decide whether something is fair use (hint - it's an 'affirmative defense').
My opinion is that since Lennon would have vigorously opposed the use of his music in a 'documentary' about ID, Ono is perfectly entitled to sue the hell out of the film makers under US copyright law (Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107, clause 2), as the nature of the work is in no way related to ID.
Sure, rights extend to people with whom I disagree - except that in this case, the doctrine of fair use is being misapplied.
See section 17 USC #107, item 2 - the nature of the copyrighted work is in no way related to the nutcase belief in ID, so an ID propaganda film should have no fair use defense in this case.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I think that the film infringes substantially on point 2 - Lennon himself would have been deeply opposed to the use of his music to promote ID, and Ono, though not a person I personally admire, has a right to preserve his wishes.
You're right, in a way - people who don't agree with John Lennon's world view have no business using his copyrighted material in a way of which he would disapprove.
Slashdot Mirror
In other news, Jabberwacky has just been convicted of 'grooming'.
Given her Canadian parentage, I think they used Ehbot rather than Elbot :)
Aware the author is a crook?
I would not buy this cracker's sham,
I do not like it, Sam I Am!
(apologies to the great Dr Seuss :P)
Nope, I'm a Brit, and anyway I despise all politicians equally.
Thought I'd get a funny for the Hirohito's rickshaw, though :P
(Nazi staff car was, IIRC, a Clarksonism of the highest order on Top Gear a few years back, while reviewing a BMW.)
a) a Nazi Staff Car, or
b) Hirohito's rickshaw.
Guess which they choose?
No shit, Sherlock!
We'll all be paying for this for decades (unless we're among the hundreds of thousands in the UK, and probably millions worldwide, who will end up unemployed as a result of the bonus-chasing pinstriped bastards who caused all this), and the same situation will arise again when another bunch of fraudsters figures out a way to multiply money in a totally fictitious manner.
Or there could be the Apple version - "BrokebackDNS" :P
I know, but it was an enjoyable afternoon's trolling - something I only ever indulge in when religion's involved :P
I don't see the relevance of the 1st Amendment here - you're obviously a twat of CR Culver proportions, and deserve to be ignored if I could be arsed.
I'm surprised a clueless ID cunt like you could even read the Copyright act, let alone pen such a long response.
OK - if the 'fair use' defense is criticism, then I stand corrected, but you're still a cunt and so are all your co-religionists.
Oh, and I burn karma to stay warm, so thankyou and goodbye :-)
OK, Mr AC - provide some credible evidence for ID.
Otherwise, you're just another tit proclaiming 'It's my religion, you have to respect it'.
I see no reason to respect your POV if you're so obviously misguided.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.
But the film in question is not a parody or a criticism of Lennon's work, so clause 2 applies.
Well, since that comment was submitted, I've gone from +1 to +5 Insightful, then as soon as the US woke up, back down to 0, Troll.
Fuck y'all, you Creationist assholes - I'm burning karma to keep warm, since your asshole fucking bankers and thieves have fucked the rest of the world.
You're all cordially invited to an asskicking at the Trafalgar in Aldershot, UK, as soon as you can make it.
BTW, when the cops come to my house, they generally send six - 'cause four's not enough :P
es - educating children to believe 3000 year old myths are the truth is child abuse.
I'll happily discuss the matter in person, if you like :P
No - your 'lies-to-children' are a necessary part of a rational education - the gradual unveiling of difficult ideas through metaphor is perfectly acceptable (that's how I learnt, and I'm still reasonably rational).
What isn't acceptable is the teaching to youngsters that the world was designed by some unidentifiable creator, and that science is wrong, which is what these ID idiots are doing.
Their bronze age mythology is stupid and harmful, and they should be marginalised and treated as child abusers.
The clause is vague, but I interpret it to mean that the intentions of the author should be respected, unless the use is obviously for parody.
A parody defense is perfectly acceptable, but the ID film in question is not a parody of Lennon, so I think the case should have gone to court to define whether the misuse of Lennon's work was justifiable.
I'm a rampant evolutionist and atheist, BTW, so judge my opinion accordingly.
Yeah, just look at Arkansas (or Norfolk for those in the UK)...
"God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all"
Those young women sure suck lots of our precious bodily fluids...
The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107, clause 2 specifically includes 'the nature of the copyrighted work'
'Imagine' is so diametrically opposed to the ideals of the film in question (and a parody defense is not appropriate) that 'fair use' is a dubious defense at best - why should we trumpet fair use for these idiots, when we can look to other instances where fair use is a valid defense?
No, you're not being obnoxious - it's the courts that decide whether something is fair use (hint - it's an 'affirmative defense').
My opinion is that since Lennon would have vigorously opposed the use of his music in a 'documentary' about ID, Ono is perfectly entitled to sue the hell out of the film makers under US copyright law (Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107, clause 2), as the nature of the work is in no way related to ID.
Sure, rights extend to people with whom I disagree - except that in this case, the doctrine of fair use is being misapplied.
See section 17 USC #107, item 2 - the nature of the copyrighted work is in no way related to the nutcase belief in ID, so an ID propaganda film should have no fair use defense in this case.
Thanks for the child porn strawman, BTW.
I totally agree - the only CD I've bought in the last few months was Angela Brown's 'In a Dangerous Mood'
She's awesome live, and I got the CD at a gig in the West End Centre.
Check her out at her myspace page - she's one hell of a blues singer.
Go out and see music live, and buy the CDs directly from the artist - it's their living, not some shyster RIAA bastards.
From the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC #107:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I think that the film infringes substantially on point 2 - Lennon himself would have been deeply opposed to the use of his music to promote ID, and Ono, though not a person I personally admire, has a right to preserve his wishes.
You're right, in a way - people who don't agree with John Lennon's world view have no business using his copyrighted material in a way of which he would disapprove.
Yes, I do believe that proponents of ID are evil - teaching kids outright lies is tantamount to child abuse.
No mod points today, but if I had, this comment definitely deserves one.