Judge orders further distribution of Expelled stopped

[AV1611VET]

But I refuse to take this thread seriously on the grounds that you are defending a poor ex 'Avant-Garde' artist who used to climb in and out of a bag on stage while the real artist played music, when the true cause is disdain for a movie you don't like because of the message it contains.

In all my time here, Gawron, I'm not convinced this is true. I don't think it's the message that bothers them - it's the messenger.

It's not what we say they don't like - it's what we are.

Watch the Jews --- they won't say one blessed word against these guys when they rail on their [secular] authors; but just let a Christian even smirk at them, and they're all over us like dill on a pickle.

But the atheists and "scientists" are much worse --- if you don't quote from their scriptures (McGraw-Hill), and quote it accurately, you're anything but a Homo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh my --- LOL --- didn't I /thread this thread earlier?

My bad!

 

[Cabal]

Watch the Jews --- they won't say one blessed word against these guys when they rail on their [secular] authors; but just let a Christian even smirk at them, and they're all over us like dill on a pickle.

Well, we are railing back against Ben Stein's joke of a film, and isn't he Jewish?

Also, most of the discussion here is about Christian creationism, goodness knows some diversity wouldn't go amiss but even so, the best (e.g) Islamic creationism I've seen is from Harun Yahya and that was TERRIBLE. Worse than Kent Hovind, if that were even possible.

But the atheists and "scientists" are much worse --- if you don't quote from their scriptures (McGraw-Hill), and quote it accurately, you're anything but a Homo.

Well, now that is slightly dogmatic, we do also quote from Wiley, Addison Wesley and many other authors. We like the idea of a collective of ideas that discuss the same various truths, despite being written by many authors over hundreds of years.

(HMMMM)

I suppose you have a point in that science is meant to be taken at face value, that's the sort of discipline it is, whereas there's no justification in the Bible that says to take it literally (which is unsurprising, given the amount of cherry-picking done by even the most ardent 'literalists'). But really, there's nothing dogmatic about a discipline which self-corrects. What is dogmatic is believing the same well-flogged religious dead horse while criticising others for not doing the same.

 

[plindboe]

It's not what we say they don't like - it's what we are.

Dogmatic, hypocritical and mean spirited you mean?

If so, you're right. Those are peronality traits I'm not too fond of. I'm a positive person though so I have hopes that you might one day become a decent fellow.

Peter

 

[thaumaturgy]

In all my time here, Gawron, I'm not convinced this is true. I don't think it's the message that bothers them - it's the messenger.

Well, AV, if the messenger wants to gut the American Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8 and intellectual property, then I will fight them.

I don't care if I have to defend Yoko Ono or whomever. (BTW: I don't much like Yoko's "music" and I'm usually not a fan of annoying avant garde art). I do like John Lennon's music. But as has been brought up here, this is an intellectual property law topic, not a religious topic.

Don't conflate the two unless of course while you are busy clipping out Article 1 Section 8 you are busy clipping out the Establishment Clause.

It's not what we say they don't like - it's what we are.

What part of your religion deals with "intellectual property law"?

Watch the Jews --- they won't say one blessed word against these guys when they rail on their [secular] authors; but just let a Christian even smirk at them, and they're all over us like dill on a pickle.

Wow, how did the Jews suddenly get involved?

But the atheists and "scientists" are much worse --- if you don't quote from their scriptures (McGraw-Hill), and quote it accurately, you're anything but a Homo.

Is anyone quoting "scripture"here? Or even science? I have personally on this thread brought up a variety of case law citations. Care to address those?

Or can "stare decisis" take a hike too?

 

[Tomk80]

One of the things that strikes me in this is the complete disregard for intellectual property law by our "christian" defenders here like Gawron and AV.

Let's turn the tables here for a minute. It seems that as soon as a creationist makes a film, stealing is allowed according to these figures. Yes, I'm critical of the movie Expelled for the dishonest piece of garbage it is. I also think stealing is inappropriate. Lying and stealing in one film. Why possible reason can I have for liking the scumbags who made it? The real question is why people like Gawron actually defend it. Tells me something about how honest they are.

 

[AV1611VET]

I also think stealing is inappropriate. Lying and stealing in one film.

I could be wrong, as I haven't been following this. I don't know the movie, I don't know who stars in it, what it's about, or what the hoopla is; but it seems to me that you guys never started pouting about copyright law violation until after Yoko Lennon brought it up.

And again, I could be wrong.

I'm thankful God didn't copyright His material, or you "scientists" would have to get permission from Him first before you could show "evidence" against Him.

 

[Skaloop]

I could be wrong, as I haven't been following this. I don't know the movie, I don't know who stars in it, what it's about, or what the hoopla is; but it seems to me that you guys never started pouting about copyright law violation until after Yoko Lennon brought it up.

Well, not being privy to her licensing practices, we didn't even know there was any inkling of possible copyright violations. I could just as easily say that you guys didn't start defending the filmmakers until after Yoko brought it up.

I'm thankful God didn't copyright His material, or you "scientists" would have to get permission from Him first before you could show "evidence" against Him.

One doesn't have to do anything to copyright material. If it had been written now, it would be copyrighted. But since it's so old, it falls under public domain. Just like the works of Shakespeare and Beethoven; no permission needed to use those. If they want to remake Expelled in a hundred years, they can use Imagine to their heart's content.

Besides, even if the Bible were copyrighted, scientists would be performing a critical analysis of it, which would fall under fair use and not require permission.

 

[Assyrian]

I could be wrong, as I haven't been following this. I don't know the movie, I don't know who stars in it, what it's about, or what the hoopla is; but it seems to me that you guys never started pouting about copyright law violation until after Yoko Lennon brought it up.

And again, I could be wrong.

I think some of the early SMACKDOWN!!! threads discuss copyright issues with some of the animations they used, and I think the use of Imagine was mentioned before Yoko sued.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it had been written now, it would be copyrighted.

By whom?

I have to disagree with this --- God doesn't want His Words copyrighted.

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

[I hope you pro-slavery-NIV lovers read this.]

 

[thaumaturgy]

but it seems to me that you guys never started pouting about copyright law violation until after Yoko Lennon brought it up.

Well to be fair to me, I didn't know about the copyright law issues until recently, but as someone who deals with intellectual property law topics as part of my job in research and development, I assure you that if it is copyright I have an interest in it.

And if you do care to actually follow along with what I've written, you can see that I am still waiting to see how it is adjudicated. I don't think Yoko will prevail since it sounds as if this falls under "Fair Use" criterion. But again, that's just me.

I'm thankful God didn't copyright His material, or you "scientists" would have to get permission from Him first before you could show "evidence" against Him.

No, as stated earlier, Fair Use allows for criticism to utilize pertinent small sections of the work.

But again, that would have required you to have been following along on the posts here.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think some of the early SMACKDOWN!!! threads discuss copyright issues with some of the animations they used, and I think the use of Imagine was mentioned before Yoko sued.

I wouldn't know --- I haven't read one post in the SMACKDOWN thread.

I'll misquote Nathanael here in John 1:46 to make a point:

Can there any good thing come out of Hollywood?

 

[thaumaturgy]

By whom?

Actually he was making a valid point. Under U.S. copyright laws, specifically 17 U.S.C. section 102 copyright protection exists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression now known or later developed.

Basically if you write a poem in the sand on the beach it will effectively be automatically copyrighted.

The difference in copyright and being able to sue someone for copyright infringement is registration which must be pursued through the US Copyright Office

It was more of a commentary of copyright law than on God or anything else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually he was making a valid point. Under U.S. copyright laws, specifically 17 U.S.C. section 102 copyright protection exists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression now known or later developed.

Basically if you write a poem in the sand on the beach it will effectively be automatically copyrighted.

The difference in copyright and being able to sue someone for copyright infringement is registration which must be pursued through the US Copyright Office

It was more of a commentary of copyright law than on God or anything else.

Let me say this, Thaumaturgy --- for the second time in this thread:

In my opinion, I don't think it's copyright law infringement that you guys are really concerned about.

Just my opinion, though.

 

[Morcova]

I'm thankful God didn't copyright His material, or you "scientists" would have to get permission from Him first before you could show "evidence" against Him.

Pretty sure you can't copyright a cultures mythology.

 

[Morcova]

Then again we have someone here who could answer that question..... lets say someone wanted to copyright the bible... is that even close to possible?

 

[AV1611VET]

Pretty sure you can't copyright a cultures mythology.

I wouldn't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then again we have someone here who could answer that question..... lets say someone wanted to copyright the bible... is that even close to possible?

Why don't you ask the publishers of the NIV?

 

[Tomk80]

I could be wrong, as I haven't been following this. I don't know the movie, I don't know who stars in it, what it's about, or what the hoopla is; but it seems to me that you guys never started pouting about copyright law violation until after Yoko Lennon brought it up.

Duh. What kind of argument is that? How else would I be able to know about it until after she did so? Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not check the compliance to US copyright law of every new movie that is out. I usually assume that the people making those movies comply with copyright law.

snipped irrelevancies

 

[DeathMagus]

Then again we have someone here who could answer that question..... lets say someone wanted to copyright the bible... is that even close to possible?

IIRC - you can copyright your translation, but not the original texts. At least, that's how it works with classical Greek works.