Creationists Violating Copyright 635
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."
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
-Buck
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
What's the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow. (Score:3, Interesting)
I truly want to apologize for the criminal stupidity that perpetrated this.
No, I don't work for DI or have any association with that particular group. I've been down this road before on Slashdot, but it bears repeating: I am a religious person. But I am not a "Christian", in fact, I am scored by Christians for the most part. I don't particularly believe in "intelligent design", because it doesn't make sense to me. I prefer to see God as a scientist rather than a "Creator". Anyone who has studied any kind of religion in college (most people at my old community college took comparative religion for an easy humanities credit) will realize that the Bible is full of allegories and euphemisms. Who are we to say that Adam and Eve were the first creations of God? Maybe they were the end result of an experiment being run by God; the first to understand, so to speak, what they are and their place in the natural order of Earth.
To think that we sprung up out of the ground is preposterous to me. Fundamentalist Christians will point to the Bible saying "God created Adam from the dust of the earth" as proof of intelligent design. Is it at all possible that "the dust of the earth" is the primordial ooze scientists refer to? Could, as Robin Williams said, the passage "God said 'Let there be light'" be a euphemism for the Big Bang?
I do believe in science as well; we have made some amazing advancements in the last 20 years. I am excited to read of a new scientific breakthrough or a new understanding of something that seemed miraculous not 10 years ago. Now, if you will all excuse me, I'm going to go back to reading. Putting something as ethereal as my religious beliefs into words is not nearly as easy as it might seem. And thank you for reading what to most would probably seem to be a psychotic episode put into words.
Re:Look for the double standard. (Score:2, Interesting)
I fail to understand why the parent is Modded 5. Have we at Slashdot become bigots? When a rock cover re-contextualizes a piece of music and gives it a new meaning, it is considered great (assuming you know, its not just some hero worshiping schlock.) When Jimi Hendrix covered "All Along The Watchtower" he took a previously good song and created a new (and in many people's opinion more powerful) piece of art. Even more radical was his cover of the American National Anthem, itself a 'cover' of an old drinking ditty. Art is made from the parts of other art, building on or refuting previous works to create new and more vibrant works much in the same way that science builds and refutes older science. Bookingkeeping the credits on art have not been necessary before, why now? Why is "All Along the Watchtower" more legitmate then "Planet Rock"? Please stop applying this shit-poor double-standard to techno/dance/disco/rap/hiphop/pop... Please stop telling people "Yeah, I like everything but country and rap". Please stop mentioning "Rap Artists" in that tone on Slashdot ever again- You shame us all. In the words of the great Afrika Bambaataa "Guys who say 'I'm just a hip-hop dj' don't know jack crap what hip-hop is."
Justin Roberts
Besides, any argument that can be used to prove daft punk sucks, is most obviously shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJPdVVOmbz4 [youtube.com]
Re:Wow. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Uh, fair use? (Score:3, Interesting)
And what you decry is a vital part of freedom, in my view.
In the film "Bowling for Columbine", Michael Moore chopped up (and spliced in) copywritten videos of Charlton Heston speaking a set of words he actually uttered months apart.
This was a distortion, a misrepresentation and, yes I suppose it could be said to be propaganda. It also made the point that a lot of people believe the NRA is too cold and uncaring about things like school shootings.
He won an academy award for that film.
Whether one is pro or anti Moore's arguments, surely we could agree that what he did should be constitutionally protected?
And yet he did exactly what you decry.
I'm not sure that what the DI did meets that test though. They apparently reproduced nearly the entire film, stripping out the narration. Unless we accept, as one commenter above argues, that the narration was the core of the copy written material, I don't think their actions pass muster.
But I think that's because it's reproducing too much of the copy written material and not putting in enough of their own.
If you don't agree with me, think about it like this. If you "chop up and re-arrange and 'misrepresent', what I've just said to argue against me, then you would, by your arguments, be breaking the law. This post, after all, is copyright and owned by me. It says so right at the very bottom of this page!
Regards,
-Holmwood
Re:A good example of "repurposing" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It was planned. (Score:3, Interesting)
Or do people really believe the people of that time were so foolish to follow someone teaching a better way of life than the dog eat dog world they were living in, without taking food with them and protecting it?
As to the cell design issue, we do have the knowledge and ability to genetically design and create life today. Its only a matter of time before we come to understand gravity enough to create a universe and work it to generate another life cycle that will then repeat the process.
Why? The fundamental, more fundamental than sex or pro-creation efforts, but that of survival.
If you are all that exist, the only way to know you are alive, not dying, is to grow. So the big picture plan is to expand what all exist in existence and by way of creating consciousness and all that can exist in consciousness that allows further expansion of what exist in existence.
And you don't need religion to know this, but only your own built in survival instinct and self consciousness enough to learn how to create things far beyond what other animals are capable of.
Re:Slashdot complaining about copyright violations (Score:1, Interesting)
Parents are responsible for children's actions. They get full leeway to punish the child as they see fit, but they have to compensate any damages the child did. So they can be sued, and I see nothing wrong with this.
And everybody makes mistakes. This does not change the morality of things. Last november a car blew up in the middle of a muslim quarter of jerusalem. Why ? Because the bomb maker used summer time, and the delivery guy used winter time. The fact that they blew themselves up does not change the fact that they're monsters, and guilty. Likewise the fact that the police sometimes falsely accuses, does not mean they should be disbanded.
Besides we all know that both you and I have made false accusations. The only thing this changes is that they should be more careful, and they owe an apology to this woman. It obviously does not mean you or I or anyone else deserves immunity from civil lawsuits, which is what you're trying to push.
Re:It was planned. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It was planned. (Score:2, Interesting)
*ducks & runs*
Re:ID arguments fall apart under their own theory (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Look for the double standard. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Uh, fair use? (Score:2, Interesting)
That sort of response elevates dialog everywhere.
Now, take a deep breath. You evidently didn't read the post -- mine or the one above it. I'll try and refrain from casting sneering aspersions on your intelligence, but I certainly will raise an eyebrow at your limited reading comprehension.
That OP (above my OP) made an argument that people who aren't having valid debate (in his view) aren't entitled to the defense of fair use in copyright. To cite again, since you must have missed it even though I quoted it right at the top of my post:
My argument was very simply that freedom depends on people being able to do precisely that. (I also noted that I don't think the DI passes as they didn't engage in fair use as I see it).
I cited the Moore example: by sneakily chopping up entirely separate speeches of Heston's and splicing them together (with a cut in between the two sentences to obscure the fact that Heston was wearing a different tie in the second).
It surely would be a bad thing to declare that Moore is "violating freedom" and deserves some judicial sanctions for that, would it not?
Now, in your continuing effort to entirely miss the point, you say:
"Depends... Did the viewers understood it was taken from two different footages?"
This utterly irrelevant to the argument above, and shows an appalling degree of cluelessness, but ok, I'll bite. No, the viewers did not understand this. You know, I know, and the GP knows because we've read about it. I didn't notice the first time I saw the film because of the clever cutting of scenes.
And you're still entirely missing the point. For a sneering fellow who calls others dumb and muppets and dumb kids, you are remarkably dull-witted, aren't you?
Read what I wrote above. No, go back. Read it ten times if you have to.
The Moore response was not to justify (or attack) what DI had done. It was to comment on the item I quoted at the top of my post which was the original slashdot conversation, now repeated here, again:
Moore did exactly that: chopped up, rearranged, and misrepresented someone else's message for propaganda purposes (possibly good propaganda purposes if you happen to agree with his views). And that is indeed freedom. He has a right to take copyrighted video and do that; You and I have a right to take copyrighted words, statements and of Moores and present them to make our point.
It's called fair use and the First Amendment.
The clue to bad speech isn't to silence it by making it unprotected by fair use doctrines, it's to have good speech countering it.
Yet you failed utterly to grasp this point, and instead launched off into a set of ad hominem sneers about the intellects of those adults around you.
I agree that the Discovery Institute seems to fail, because it took an entire work and ran it in sequence. That doesn't look like fair use to me.
The analogy is exact. And I am stunned that you are not only incapable of seeing it but that you fee