Judge orders further distribution of Expelled stopped

[thaumaturgy]

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.

And your opinion is noted. I do care about copyright issues. If the makers of a film, no matter which side they are on, choose to circumvent the laws that protect artists and authors, then they most assuredly should be called to court.

Of course, I honestly do try to live my life by the golden rule. And I don't actually believe that God is going to call me on the carpet for it. I do it because it's just the right thing to do.

If you are skeeved out by an atheist who cleaves to the Golden Rule, then just think of it as an atheist who likes the touchy-feely extrapolation of the Categorical Imperative.

In this case, one should act such that the maxims of ones actions should be universal law can be said to mean:

"The makers of a given movie should expect that if they wish to forego intellectual property right protections for others' works then they must not think intellectual property protection is a valid law and they will not get bent if someone appropriates their work without permission."

Obviously the fact that I have now posted copious amounts of stuff on copyright law and intellectual property law, and since I have basically assumed that in this present case that Yoko will not prevail, and I'm an avowed atheist who doesn't like I.D. or Creationism you'd be hard pressed to paint me into any corner that is somehow a mask for my actual interests in this topic.

I believe I've been openly clear on my stance here and it can hardly be said to be a subterfuge to merely take down "Expelled".

 

[thaumaturgy]

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

As has been pointed out already, under 17USC section 102, if the Bible were written from whole cloth today it would automatically be copyrighted. The fact that these stories have been committed to a known medium of expression of more than transitory nature, long, long ago would indicate that indeed the bible cannot be copyrighted.

That was the original point that Skaloop was making, I believe.

(And it should be noted, since the Bible is hardly an American work, despite the whole JerUSAlem thing that AV likes to post every-so-often, it would hardly fall under U.S. Copyright Law, anyway.)

However, as to whether you could take a known verbal mythology that had never been committed to a tangible medium but was largely known to be in existence for some time, then I am unsure where that would fall. I doubt that it could be copyrighted.

Copyright attaches the second it is committed to a tangible medium.

The ability to enforce a copyright and bring suit in court can only occur after the copyright is registered.

Now mind you, I'm still learning all this stuff as a side-part of my job so I'm no expert by any stretch. But still it is a very interesting body of law.

 

[plindboe]

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.

Try to realize that even though you have this us vs. them obsession, that "them" actually consists of individuals with varying viewpoints. Some of these individuals care about copyright, others don't. Personally I don't in this case.

I hope the film makers will suffer financially, because hateful propaganda deserves no less.

Call that brutal if you want, I call it karma.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

Try to realize that even though you have this us vs. them obsession, that "them" actually consists of individuals with varying viewpoints.

Them knows whom them is.

What's that old saying?

• Cast a sedimentary projectile into a gregarious convocation of canines, and the canine that was clobbered will vociferate his displeasure.

 

[AV1611VET]

(And it should be noted, since the Bible is hardly an American work, despite the whole JerUSAlem thing that AV likes to post every-so-often, it would hardly fall under U.S. Copyright Law, anyway.)

That JERUSALEM thing that I like to post every so often, is a one-word verbalization of the Abrahamic Covenant, and attests to why this country was founded and flourishes.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Try to realize that even though you have this us vs. them obsession, that "them" actually consists of individuals with varying viewpoints. Some of these individuals care about copyright, others don't. Personally I don't in this case.

I hope the film makers will suffer financially, because hateful propaganda deserves no less.

Call that brutal if you want, I call it karma.

Peter

Plindboe, you don't care about copyright here??? Oh no! I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask that you retract that hate-speech! People shouldn't be able to spew such venom and bile on the internets! It's an...an abomination!

Copyright, and moreover, Intellectual Property Law is that which gives us our daily bread! It came unto us to grant us peace! How can you deny the gifts it freely gives to us? How can you simply turn your back on the grace of protection for our works?

I will submit a form for you to the USPTO in hopes that it will take mercy upon you and your applications.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That JERUSALEM thing that I like to post every so often, is a one-word verbalization of the Abrahamic Covenant, and attests to why this country was founded and flourishes.

No, this country "flourishes" because the founders realized we are a nation of laws not of a single religion or religious tests.

This is an outgrowth of our Constitution. A code of mandates that works for a pluralistic society that gives no particular "religious covenant" primacy over another.

Nor does it impose a religious covenant on its citizens.

 

[plindboe]

Them knows whom them is.

What's that old saying?

• Cast a sedimentary projectile into a gregarious convocation of canines, and the canine that was clobbered will vociferate his displeasure.

As I said, you're obsessed. Hopefully one day you'll come to realize that reality is more complex than you currently make it out to be.

Peter

 

[LeSabot]

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.

Yoko Ono has done numerous revolutionary works such as "No. 4" which received wide critical acclaim. There are plenty of hacks in the world of art, but Yoko Ono is not one of them. It is really too bad that you are unable to understand the amazing talent exhibited in her work.

 

[plindboe]

Plindboe, you don't care about copyright here??? Oh no! I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask that you retract that hate-speech! People shouldn't be able to spew such venom and bile on the internets! It's an...an abomination!

Copyright, and moreover, Intellectual Property Law is that which gives us our daily bread! It came unto us to grant us peace! How can you deny the gifts it freely gives to us? How can you simply turn your back on the grace of protection for our works?

I will submit a form for you to the USPTO in hopes that it will take mercy upon you and your applications.

Don't bother, I'll download the form via my p2p.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

This is an outgrowth of our Constitution.

The first "outgrowth" of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, insures no pogrom will occur legally on U.S. soil.

A code of mandates that works for a pluralistic society that gives no particular "religious covenant" primacy over another.

It doesn't have to.

The Abrahamic Covenant is unilateral --- that means that God handles everything.

Nor does it impose a religious covenant on its citizens.

Like I said, as long as we support Israel, God will take care of the "impositions."

 

[AV1611VET]

Yoko Ono has done numerous revolutionary works such as "No. 4" which received wide critical acclaim. There are plenty of hacks in the world of art, but Yoko Ono is not one of them. It is really too bad that you are unable to understand the amazing talent exhibited in her work.

Ya --- well --- while the Beatles were singing "All you Need is Love" and "Revolution" --- where was their money going?

Here's a hint.

 

[MoonLancer]

any paper that uses the term "leftist" is bias. Its a dead give away. Just like any paper on the civil war that directly refers to black people as "n i g g e r" instead of "African American" without a explanation of context is bias.

 

[AV1611VET]

any paper that uses the term "leftist" is bias. Its a dead give away.

Interesting --- so any paper on the Leftist Movement would automatically be dismissed as "biased"?

 

[MoonLancer]

Well you see, you would use the term "liberal movement". Yes I stand by my statement. Its a made up word intended to rally conservatives, as I have only heard this term used by conservatives to conservatives. Its words used by Bill o Reilly, not words used by respected historians or journalists, to describe the political left wing, or liberals, or democrats.

You will be hard pressed to find someone who is liberal who wishes to be called a "leftist"

 

[MoonLancer]

Interesting --- so any paper on the Leftist Movement would automatically be dismissed as "biased"?

see my response about n i g g e r and its context. berhaps you understand the diffrence between calling someone a niger and using the word niger in context to itself.

 

[Bombila]

Moonlancer, JFYI, that's primarily a USA phenomenon. In other countries, being called 'left leaning', or 'leftist', is not a pejorative, but a matter of fact political description. Same for the word 'liberal'. In my country it is the name of one of three major parties.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Tomk80:

"The real question is why people like Gawron actually defend it. Tells me something about how honest they are."

Defend what? I posted here about Yoko Ono, actually starting with a joke. But, since a sense of humor is a distinct rarity on these forums, the usual suspects instantly went into attack mode. The only comment I made about the movie was directed at the negative response to its message. I said nothing about that message itself.

Are you ever on point about anything?

 

[Gawron]

Posted by, err....well, can't remember:

"Yoko Ono has done numerous revolutionary works such as "No. 4" which received wide critical acclaim. There are plenty of hacks in the world of art, but Yoko Ono is not one of them. It is really too bad that you are unable to understand the amazing talent exhibited in her work."

Hey, yeah, (nodding head) grreaat!

Glad you (yawn) enjoyed it.

Sounds really (zzzzzz) fantastic.......

Yeah, not since Tiny Tim has there been someone so (crosses fingers) talented.

I am just so broke up inside that I suck so much I can't appreciate the amazing talent of Yoko Ono. Yeah.......

 

[Bombila]

Posted by, err....well, can't remember:

"Yoko Ono has done numerous revolutionary works such as "No. 4" which received wide critical acclaim. There are plenty of hacks in the world of art, but Yoko Ono is not one of them. It is really too bad that you are unable to understand the amazing talent exhibited in her work."

Hey, yeah, (nodding head) grreaat!

Glad you (yawn) enjoyed it.

Sounds really (zzzzzz) fantastic.......

Yeah, not since Tiny Tim has there been someone so (crosses fingers) talented.

I am just so broke up inside that I suck so much I can't appreciate the amazing talent of Yoko Ono. Yeah.......

You don't have to 'appreciate' her talents or her works. However, some of us find it offensive when you dismiss and belittle someone because you are bored by their output. Some of us find it particularly offensive when you bring up old insults and false accusations against that person because you think it is 'funny'.