Creationists Violating Copyright

The_Rook writes "The Discovery Institute, more a lawyer mill than a scientific institution, copied Harvard University's BioVisions video 'The Inner Life of the Cell,' stripped out Harvard's copyright notice, credits, and narration, inserted their own creationist-friendly narration, and renamed the video 'The Cell As an Automated City.' The new title subtly suggests that a cell is designed rather than evolved."

It was planned.

[badran (973386)]

Harvard was created so that they would be able to copy it. You know part of a bigger plan.

Re:It was planned.

[loganrapp (975327)]

Doesn't fair use handle satire?

Re:It was planned.

[Opportunist (166417)]

I doubt it was meant in mockery. Unfortunately, I think those guys are dead serious with this.

Re:It was planned.

[Joebert (946227)]

It all makes sense now.

God didn't create the world, God stole the Devils' science project !

Re:It was planned.

[Opportunist (166417)]

You know, suddenly MS, DRM and the Bush administration start to make a lot of sense.

Re:Slashdot complaining about copyright violations

[Solra Bizna (716281)]

The majority view here on Slashdot is:

• DRM is bad because it prevents people who legitimately own the media from doing what they want with it (including, in extreme cases, play it)
• Copyright violation (at least as far as taking credit for others' work; we'll ignore the issue of piracy) is bad for reasons that don't warrant an explanation
• The RIAA is bad because they're suing innocent people, and suing for much more than actual damages

Does that answer your question?

-:sigma.SB

Well...

[Kierthos (225954)]

It's a good thing they're a lawyer mill. Because Harvard's going to sue the shit out of them.

Now, I'm not going to say all Creationists are dumb. I've met a few who aren't. But what in the hell were these guys thinking? "Oooo... let's use their video. They'll never catch on, and even if they do, what are they going to do about it?"

Dumbasses.

Re:Well...

[AndrewBuck (1120597)]

This is going to be interesting...lawyer mill vs the number 1 law school in the country. Not only that but the poster above makes an interesting point about fair use (although I think it was more intended as flaimbait). Probably not fair use in this case though as they didn't "comment on" the movie ,they simply took a part of it and worked it into their own creation, derivative work if I understand correctly. Regardless of the legal merits of the situation, I hope the media at large pick up on this, after they posted fake DMCA takedowns to silence their opponents they go and do this...not exactly ethical, even if it was "legal."

-Buck

Re:Well...

[Volante3192 (953645)]

I thought Fair Use required attribution of the source?... Stripping it out and claiming it as your own, that's a case example of copyright infringement.

Re:Well...

[belmolis (702863)]

The Copyright Act allows the copyright holder to choose between actual damages and statutory damages, which may be as much as $150,000 per infringement. Furthermore, it is not out of the question that punitive damages will be awarded if the infringement is intentional and egregious, which is arguably the case here. Traditionally, it has been assumed that punitive damages are not available for copyright infringement, but courts have awarded them in some recent cases.

Re:Well...

[by Anonymous Coward]

*in mr burns voice*

Oooh, a lawsuit from "harvard"

What are they going to do, row us to death?

Oh no, I'm so scared!

seen printed in the cell DNA....

[ross.w (87751)]

(C)Copyright 4000BC God
All rights reserved
Reproduction other than by the means provided for in your licence agreement is prohibited

My alternative theory...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't it make more sense to believe that Harvard stripped out the creastionist commentary from the video and slapped on a copyright notice? It would be far too complex to edit a Harvard video to add commentary, thus I must go with this simpler explanation and blame Harvard.

Harvard Can't possibly have copyright

[DullTrev (533249)]

God created everything.

Surprised?

[by Anonymous Coward]

They ignore common sense, who could have guessed they would ignore other peoples copyright?...

So...what you're saying is

[Weaselmancer (533834)]

...the film was originally intelligently designed. Then it evolved.

What to choose...

[fahrbot-bot (874524)]

Creationists stealing from scientists because they cannot intelligently design their own presentation? The Discovery Institute unable to discover anything on their own? Ignoring morality as a means to their own creation? Dishonest lawyers? (OK, that last one's obvious.)

What to choose, what to choose...

Not merely copyright violation

[wickerprints (1094741)]

To call the Discovery Institute's use of the Harvard video merely "copyright violation" overlooks the more fundamental problem, because the DI did not just copy and redistribute the content without permission, but in fact (a) distorted and misrepresented the meaning of the content via overdubbed narration, and (b) knowingly misrepresented the authorship of the content. The former is fraud (though perhaps not in a legal context), and the second is plagiarism (which does satisfy the legal definition).

Violation of copyright is really only the superficial issue, and only addresses the ownership of the original work.

The creationist/intelligent design cabal is successful because since the time of Darwin, they have understood that their views cannot be defended through legitimate scientific inquiry, and can never be by definition. Therefore, they attack evolution by natural selection by appealing to and exploiting public passions, fears, and ignorance, and cloaking themselves in psuedoscientific legitimacy. They hope to insinuate themselves into rational discourse by invoking a false sense of objectivity and open-mindedness, appealing to the public to "hear both sides," which is merely a sophistic tactic to put their position on equal footing with decades of confirmed and verified scientific theory.

In the end, what I truly don't understand is why the creationists are so hell-bent on disproving evolution. History has shown us time and time again that when religion fights science, religion ends up with egg on its face. (Galileo and his support of Copernican heliocentrism comes to mind.) If I were devoutly religious, the last thing I would want is to try to prove God's existence, because then such a proof would obviate the need for faith in the first place. Such a desire to enshrine one's belief in the language of science seems horribly misplaced at best, and ultimately, is a far greater detriment and threat to religion than science. Meanwhile, the scientists can only follow the path that nature reveals.

kdawsonisatroll?

[qmaqdk (522323)]

If you're a creationist, everyone in here is a troll. What, with the science-voodoo and all.

Re:Look for the double standard.

[dotancohen (1015143)]

The difference is, that the average downloader is not changing the words a little then claiming the work as their own. Those people are called "rap artists".

Re:Slashdot is now KDawson's soapbox

[Foobar of Borg (690622)]

KDAWSON IS A FUCKING BITCH AND A CUNT

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Uh, fair use?

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496)]

Actually, no. You won't find ANY supporter of the "information wants to be free" idea arguing that taking somebody's work, striping the copyright, modifying parts of it and selling it as your own product should be somehow acceptable. Quite the opposite is the case: information DOES want to be free, but the COPYRIGHTS have nothing to do with it. Check tha recent law suits of BusyBox authors, or the numerous suits on behalf of the author of the netfilter software for example.

But I suppose you already know that and you were only trolling, correct?

Re:Uh, fair use?

[Sique (173459)]

No. This is something completely different.

It would be right if we found the video without any narrative buried deep in the remainings of an ancient civilisation or something else. Then both narratives would be part of a discourse how to interpret the video. Then the video would be the raw scientific data, and both narratives had their rightful purpose.

Here it is different. The video is in no way raw data. It was choosen, cut, mounted together to help explaining something. In this case the narrative is the core of the video, and the pictures are merely there to illustrate. As someone who routinely draws comics as a hobby I always was playing with the possibilitiy to erase all words in a comic strip and then fill in something else which narrates a completely different story. Misinterpretation of a sequence of pictures is thus no "scientific discourse", it is always possible. At most it shows that the pictures alone are not enough to make the case for what Harvard wanted to explain with the video (but Harvard added the narrative anyway because the knew it was not enough). If the Institute wanted to show that, they might have a case, albeit a weak one.

But in this case it is just making a derivative work of someone else's work without a) getting a permission and b) without attributing it correctly. This is purely a copyright case, nothing else.

Re:"We're Right But They're Bigots" Continues

[wickerprints (1094741)]

Your post isn't going to be modded down because the rest of us are bigoted (or even merely biased) against your viewpoint, but because it fails to address the reality of the situation. (1) The Discovery Institute did not secure permission to use the video. (2) The video was shown with the copyright removed. (3) The substance of the video was changed by overdubbed narration that implied that the video depicted evidence of intelligent design in biochemical mechanisms. (4) Through the removal of copyright information and failure to refer to the actual source, the DI plagiarized the video by presenting it as its own original work rather than a derivative work. This action is not covered under fair use.

I would also like to point out that complaining that your post will be modded down is not somehow a sort of magical incantation to prevent it from actually being modded down. That sort of reverse psychology does not work, especially when you fail to have any legitimate points.

Re:"We're Right But They're Bigots" Continues

[wickerprints (1094741)]

Your post is misleading, because the controversy over intelligent design, and the problem that scientists have with it, is not that it is true or false. The creationists/ID proponents would like people to frame it in such a context, because it pits scientists against dogmatic faith in a supernatural creator. I will only say this once, because it is so obvious that it is a wonder that it needs to be said at all:

The problem is that the theory of Intelligent Design* is not science.

Note that this statement does not say anything about the truth of ID. It merely states that ID as a proposed explanation of the origin of life does not satisfy fundamental criteria necessary to be called science. I cannot tell you whether ID is true or false, because I DO NOT KNOW. But I can tell you that it isn't a scientific theory. Why its proponents seem so desperate to enshrine it as science and somehow believe that shrouding it in the mantle of science would increase its legitimacy, I cannot understand. I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the universe had a divine creator, as I am also willing to entertain the notion of a supernatural origin of life, as are many scientists. But as scientists, none of us can rationally place those notions in a scientific framework.

*Note that I use the phrase "Intelligent Design" here in its broadest context--that the origin of life is supernatural, rather than in its specific statements that strive to demonstrate this claim (e.g., the argument of irreducible complexity).