Difference between revisions of "Talk:Premise Media"
(Copyright violations to make a point are still copyright violations) |
(you could be wrong, but are certainly missing the point) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
It may be part of a "stellar marketing strategy!" by Premise Media, but it's still copyright infringement. Especially "Imagine," which I know was without Ono's permission. Sometimes the truth is ugly, Ed, but lo! it will set you free.-[[User:Chimera1|Chimera1]] 14:56, 23 April 2008 (EDT) | It may be part of a "stellar marketing strategy!" by Premise Media, but it's still copyright infringement. Especially "Imagine," which I know was without Ono's permission. Sometimes the truth is ugly, Ed, but lo! it will set you free.-[[User:Chimera1|Chimera1]] 14:56, 23 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :The legal issue involved is how many seconds can be used in a documentary; I don't think the law is clear on that. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :The moral issue is academic freedom. The motivation of these "infringement" reports is not so much to ensure that copyright owners get all the money they deserve, but to suppress the message of the film - which, ironically, is that Darwinsts suppress all criticism of their ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:59, 23 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:59, April 23, 2008
A blogger wrote:
- “I think the point is that the truth seems to be a problem for Harvard — that is, the truth in the hands of the wrong people.”
- No kidding…that animation is all over the internet and on youtube of all places. Harvard didn’t seem the least bit concerned until an ID proponent showed it.
- Truth is, that when people really contemplate the inner life of a cell, you cannot miss the design….*that’s what worries them*. [1]
Could be a calculated act
After soaking this all in for a day, I think it is obvious that this is part of Expelled’s “baiting” of the Darwinist establishment. Just look at how quickly P-Zed took the bait for the private screening and the conference call. Same with Dawkins. Now XVIVO has taken the bait.
This is all one big marketing strategy by Expelled, and it has worked spectacularly. [2]
Response to the film as an illustration of the film's point
Those trying to stop this film accused its producers of fraudulence in obtaining interviews, hypocrisy, plagiarism, and copyright infringement. They have attacked the issuers of license for music used, “informed” Harvard about the video, threatened legal action, advocated sneaking in, advocated bootlegging the film, written to try to dissuade theatres from showing it, etc. I kept having visions of roadblocks set up to inspect the tire-pressure and tail lights of the trucks transporting the film to theatres. [3]
Copyright violations to make a point are still copyright violations
It may be part of a "stellar marketing strategy!" by Premise Media, but it's still copyright infringement. Especially "Imagine," which I know was without Ono's permission. Sometimes the truth is ugly, Ed, but lo! it will set you free.-Chimera1 14:56, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- The legal issue involved is how many seconds can be used in a documentary; I don't think the law is clear on that.
- The moral issue is academic freedom. The motivation of these "infringement" reports is not so much to ensure that copyright owners get all the money they deserve, but to suppress the message of the film - which, ironically, is that Darwinsts suppress all criticism of their ideas. --Ed Poor Talk 14:59, 23 April 2008 (EDT)