Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Creationists Violating Copyright

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the lawyer-on-speed-dial dept.

Science 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."

cancel ×

635 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It was planned. (5, Funny)

badran (973386) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469017)

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

Uh, fair use? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469023)

That's clearly "fair use" by information wants to be freeeee!-ist standards.

Re:Uh, fair use? (0, Troll)

yintercept (517362) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469313)

There might be some claim of fair use for parody or for educational purposes.

Showing that you can stick a different narrative to a data set or to a film is a standard part of discourse. Even if intelligent design is fake science, putting a different narrative to data sets is part of the way real science works.

Scientist A says, "I have a data set and this is what I think happened." Scientist B might take the same thing and say "This story works as well."

Scientist B's showing that a different narrative works for the data is neither plagiarism nor copyright violation. It is discourse.

The article in the link was just about the utter contempt the writers feel about any ideas that fall outside the scope of their narrow little minds. I didn't bother watching the videos, but from the info in the blog I wouldn't say Harvard has either a slam dunk case on proving plagiarism or copyright violation. The fact that a copy exists without citations does not mean that the people doing the parody were passing off the work as their own. The parody clearly is not depriving Harvard of anything, which is the real kicker in copyright cases.

If this video simply exists to show that you can put a different narrative on a piece about cells, then it probably would pass the balancing test. If they were trying to sell it as their own research, it probably would not.

Of course, what people really want to talk about is how much they hate creationists ... A topic I find boring.

Re:Uh, fair use? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469499)

You keep using the word 'parody'. It's not a parody. And it's one thing to borrow someone else's data... quite another thing to borrow their artistic representation of it.

Re:Uh, fair use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469351)

"Information wants to be... specified complexly!"

Seriously, though - it's one thing to argue that people should be free to distribute a message to all who want to hear it. It's quite another to argue that it's okay to chop up, re-arrange, and misrepresent the message for propaganda purposes, and call that "freedom."

Re:Uh, fair use? (4, Insightful)

IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469363)

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?

Well... (5, Insightful)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469025)

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... (5, Interesting)

AndrewBuck (1120597) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469071)

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... (3, Interesting)

rm999 (775449) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469123)

I'm not a lawyer, but sue them for what? Don't you have to prove that you lost money when you are suing for damages? Clearly what the creationists did was illegal/immoral, but it seems like people are blowing this our of proportion. I think what will happen is the creationists will remove the video and "sort of" apologize for plagiarism - by sort of, I mean they'll blame some scapegoat who "didn't know better, and has been removed from the organization. "

Re:Well... (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469181)

You have to prove that you lost *something*, not necessarily money.

Re:Well... (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469575)

You lost *something*, but what is that something? Remember, you are in court, and the burden of proof is entirely on you. Lost sales is the easiest to argue, but will get you peanuts in most cases (probably somewhere around the amount of money you made on the plagiarized art). You could argue that it hurt your image, but that's a whole new complicated ballpark. My original intended point was that while this could be pursued in court, it won't simply because of the massive amount of trouble involved. Harvard may have good lawyers, but lawyers don't work for free.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469183)

No, clearly you're not a lawyer. Moron.

fool. look at the gpl-violations.org project. (1)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469289)

also, i cannot be sued for illegal downloading because i simply have no money to buy this amount of movies (by your logic, not the MAFIAA's).

Re:fool. look at the gpl-violations.org project. (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469507)

Well , they would still lose a certain amount , namely the amount you could have paid for .
But it's not because you can pay for it , that you would ( you still have to eat , pay rent , etc )

In truth , they can not know for certain how much money they lost . They only know they lose money , and they blame it on filesharing , but they can't prove how big that amount really is .

Re:fool. look at the gpl-violations.org project. (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469525)

Are you referring to the RIAA/MPAA? If so, what they do isn't really legal. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA#File-sharing_lawsuits):
"In November, 2006, a Judge in a Brooklyn Federal court upheld the legal theory behind a defense claiming that the RIAA's damages theory -- which calls for aggregating statutory damages of $750 per song in its lawsuits -- is unconstitutional, since the record companies' actual damages are less than $0.70 per song."

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I was always under the impression that to convince a court to have one party pay another damages, you need to *prove* that you incurred those damages, in one form or another. The RIAA argues that it incurred statutory damages, and can therefore charge some insane amount per download; I don't know of many court cases were this was upheld, simply because the people who are being sued usually can't afford a proper defense. In this case, I think a bunch of lawyers can competently argue that they owe a few thousand bucks at most, which Harvard may decide is not worth the trouble or expense (that is my prediction).

Re:Well... (4, Informative)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469509)

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... (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469547)

150,000 dollars is simply a maximum, isn't it? To receive this sum, you still need to argue that the amount you set per infringement is realistic. The reason why we don't witness this is because it never goes to court.

See http://www.bizreport.com/2006/11/riaa_under_fire_for_750_lawsuits_over_70_cent_songs.html [bizreport.com]

Re:Well... (3, Insightful)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469143)

It was intended to be sarcastic, if that helps.

The Discovery Institute is almost certainly going to claim Fair Use or something similiar, but I don't see how they can justify that when they stripped out the credits and copyright notice. Not to mention the narration.

Actually, I think it's the new narration that's going to get it disqualified under Fair Use. By taking the "opposite" tack of evolution (i.e. design), they're in effect, diluting the value of the original work.

Re:Well... (4, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469193)

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... (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469219)

I don't know that they claimed it as their own (did they include their own copyright on their modified version?), but yes, I believe it is standard to attribute any sources.

Re:Well... (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469243)

Assuming here, but if the article's right and Harvard's were stripped out, that would give them de facto copyright on the new one. Since they're not explicitly saying "We got this from Harvard," they're implicitly saying "We did this." A copyright notice is not required to prove copyright either.

Re:Well... (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469269)

Excellent point.

The Discovery Institute could (and should) lose a copyright infringement lawsuit based on that alone.

Re:Well... (1)

argiedot (1035754) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469229)

I'm no creationist, but couldn't they claim that it was an intended satirical spoof?

Re:Well... (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469275)

Even if such a claim could be supported, I doubt that they would take that route. They seem to be very serious over creationism, and I can't see them claiming that they were only poking fun at evolution.

Re:Well... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469111)

*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!

Re:Well... (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469267)

No, don't you understand?! Just like it's okay to kill for baby jesus, it's okay to infringe copyright for him, too!

seen printed in the cell DNA.... (4, Funny)

ross.w (87751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469041)

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

Re:seen printed in the cell DNA.... (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469069)

I thought it was supposed to be 4004 BC.....

Re:seen printed in the cell DNA.... (1)

Soko (17987) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469167)

Yeah, but it took 4 years for the lawyering to be done.

Re:seen printed in the cell DNA.... (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469203)

Well, that only makes sense. I mean, it takes three years to get through law school.

Re:seen printed in the cell DNA.... (0, Offtopic)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469179)

Typo... It's supposed to be 4000BCE (Before Common Era) instead of 4000BC (Before Creationists). :P

My alternative theory... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469053)

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.

Re:My alternative theory... (3, Informative)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469147)

It would be far too complex to edit a Harvard video to add commentary,

Haha. More complex than editing your (posted) /. post?
BTW: You can watch the harvard video here: http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/media.html [harvard.edu]
That was a superb animation. I watched it for the first time 3 months ago. Another version goes with no commentaries but only music and you can find it from Youtube.

Slashdot is now KDawson's soapbox (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469055)

hey fuckhead, good way to put more spin into the slashdot mix. i'll fucking troll this bitch motherfucking cunt. slashdot is a faggot stronghold with fuckheads like kdawson the sack of shit leading the way.
 
how does it make you feel cmdrdildo that kdawson is making a mockery of your site? why don't you kick this bitch in the balls and send his bitch ass packing?
 
KDAWSON IS A FUCKING BITCH AND A CUNT

Re:Slashdot is now KDawson's soapbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469079)

that's what she said.

Re:Slashdot is now KDawson's soapbox (4, Funny)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469201)

KDAWSON IS A FUCKING BITCH AND A CUNT
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Harvard Can't possibly have copyright (5, Funny)

DullTrev (533249) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469061)

God created everything.

Re:Harvard Can't possibly have copyright (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469115)

"we're holding his royalties in trust.."

Re:Harvard Can't possibly have copyright (2, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469127)

Hmm, does that explain "In God We Trust"?

Re:Harvard Can't possibly have copyright (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469209)

Only if you believe that Social Security will still be there when you retire.

Forgot the ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469063)

The topic should be "Are Creationists Violating Copyright?" Unless a Judge has ruled

Re:Forgot the ? (1)

Neeth (887729) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469319)

Yeah, a crime is only committed when a judge has ruled! (why am i replying an AC?)

Surprised? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469077)

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

Re:Surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469345)

This truly is an insightful comment.

Creationism (0, Redundant)

Z80xxc! (1111479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469099)

And God also created this video for us. No, really. What? Of course we didn't copy it from someone else!

God works in mysterious ways! (1)

Digestromath (1190577) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469353)

Through our court documents, we shall prove that God ultimately made this video through divine intervention (hereto known as 'immaculate editing').

Our position is that:

1)Despite the godless, secular nature of Harvard, God none the less inspired them to create the original video

2)Through means of divine communication assigned us the copyright and moral rights, as only the progenitor of the universe can.

3)With His assent, we subsequently created a derivitave work without blasphemy.

4)Profit er...

If the Creationists keep this up... (1, Funny)

Asterra (1087671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469107)

I'll probably go broke from the number of times they'll force me to watch Golden Compass, just to make them unhappy.

Re:If the Creationists keep this up... (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469369)

I just saw a story about this today. I was amazed at the shock and outrage coming from the creationists side of the fence over this film. These are the same people who backed the Narnia movie correct? Maybe I was blinded by my sides evolutionist "beer-goggles" (or perhaps actual beer goggles), but I can't remember the scientific/evolution community crying fowl over Narnia. Did any scientific foundations print up pamphlets to disperse to good atheist parents about the dangerous of The Chronicles of Narnia? Now the tables are turned and they're screaming "No fair! No fair! We're the ones that have a monopoly on propaganda aimed at impressionable children! You're infringing on our IP!" They always seem to want it both ways. All the same, one of the benefits of being on OUR side is that we don't have an emotional connection to the material we're defending. No good scientist clings to theories that have been disproved because his self worth and world view are bound to them. That's effectively what religion is. We have the luxury of being more nimble than that. We can toss things out when something better comes along. The bible is, well, the bible. About time for a revised addition I'd say, we've calculated Pi out a lot further now.

Really, it's a movie. These adults, and I use that term loosely, are getting worked up over a movie for CHILDREN. Do you think 10 year olds will be able to see the deep religious and philosophical undertones of this film? Somehow, I don't think that's what they're going to take away from it.

Re:If the Creationists keep this up... (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469539)

Oh, no. They *hated* the Narnia movie, and hated the Narnia books and the other Christian founded books by C.S. Lewis such as "Perelandra". (I highly recommend C.S. Lewis books for good, out-of-date science fiction and theological thought.) Portraying the Christ figure of Aslan in a different way than standard Christian doctrine is heresy, despite the splendor of it in those books.

And if you don't think scientists scientists, and engineers, get attached to their beliefs, well, you haven't seen a PhD advisor block approval of a thesis that proves 20 years of his research work and his entire lab's purpose was wasted. (It happens in all fields, but it's particularly common in molecular biology right now.)

So...what you're saying is (5, Funny)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469121)

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

Re:So...what you're saying is (1)

Asterra (1087671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469149)

And now it just needs to be "perfected" into Christianity, I suppose.

Oblig. M.C. Hawking (4, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469129)

Fuck the creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them, my trigger finger itches,
They want to have their bullshit...taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould [wikipedia.org] should put his foot right up their ass! ...

Re: Oblig. M.C. Hawkin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469287)

Unfortunately, you'll have to find someone else to do the ass-kicking. Stephen Jay Gould [wikipedia.org] hasn't gone to see his maker, but he is dead nonetheless.

Re:Oblig. M.C. Hawking (1)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469591)

My brother - whoever modded your post as troll was obviously too lazy to get who M.C. Hawking - lyrical terrorist and hard-jamming physicist - really is.

I'd mod you up for the reminder - but I don't have mod rights now - pretend others get it, because we do.

Parody is fair use... (0, Flamebait)

Hamster Lover (558288) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469131)

Yes, but parody is fair use. What else could one conclude other than that the laughably ridiculous antics of Creationists are nothing more than a parody of science?

Look for the double standard. (0, Flamebait)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469139)

I can already tell we'll see the double standard from people commenting on this story: people who download music and other copyright material every day without paying but will somehow be outraged by this terrible display of disregard for copyright. How dare they!!

Re:Look for the double standard. (5, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469189)

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:Look for the double standard. (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469215)

I don't think anyone reasonable here would defend copyright infringement on any level.

The key thing that gets everyone riled up over the music lawsuits are the Machiavellian tactics and utter disregard for proper procedure the MPAA uses in filing the lawsuits.

Well, that's how I am about it at least.

Re:Look for the double standard. (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469501)

> I don't think anyone reasonable here would defend copyright infringement on any level.

Neither did I say reasonable people would defend copyright infringement. It would be the "unreasonable" people I was referring to, probably including abusive moderators; it is Slashdot after all.

Re:Look for the double standard. (0, Offtopic)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469475)

Moderators: Flamebait != DontAgree, although if you really thought about it you'd realize what I said was true.

Re:Look for the double standard. (1)

narcc (412956) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469551)

This is closer to plagiarism. The copyright violation is just an unfortunate consequence of passing off this work as their own. Unlawfully downloading a video is very different from claiming ownership of and redistributing a video.

When's the rapture anyways? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469151)

So fuckwads like this group will be gone so this world can actually advance? Better yet wow about a land swap for them? This is open to all assbackwards "religious" people who'd rather live in the fucking stone ages. Take a vote and let them find a place to call home, rest of the world pays for their move while compensating the people who want to move out of that land. Then we'll wall them off with a 50m wide perimeter around their new land and let them devolve into their little theocratic state anyone tries to climb out or cross the nomans land is hosed on sight? Rest of the world advances while that country dies off in 3-5 generations from inbreeding and stupidity from the survivors who manage to live through the my god is better than your god initial phase.

Re:When's the rapture anyways? (1)

jobsagoodun (669748) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469429)

Not a bad idea. You'd have to provide some sort of exit strategy for those that see the light though - "I'M AN ATHEIST GET ME OUT OF HERE !!".

Re:When's the rapture anyways? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469449)

What should we call it, Israel?

What to choose... (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469159)

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...

Re:What to choose... (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469211)

Creationists stealing from scientists because they cannot intelligently design their own presentation?

It seems likely that making such a 3-d animation like the "inner life of a cell" requires some programming and design and practise. And most people who have actually done some serious programming or design know how to think and get work done. Creationists do not.

The new audio makes it worse! (3, Insightful)

or-switch (1118153) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469169)

What's really strange is that the original version doesn't say anything that would negate a creationists argument, and the creationist version doesn't say anything that would negate evolution. What I find bizarre is that they dubbed over it with a new track and edited the sequencing. The result is that they look like idiots because they get some information wrong, and the guy doing the narration says, "Uh," a lot and stammers his way through it. It's like the edited the original video and gave him one pass to explain what was happening and it was moving too fast. There was NO reason to dub over it.

What's worse than peddling religion in the name of science? Doing it badly! Come on, at least believe strongly enough in your own message to articulate it clearly.

Not the first time... (0, Redundant)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469173)

They are creationists: that's what they do. Take the work of one and claim that another had created it. Haven't you hear what they're claiming about mother nature's creations?

On which day did God create Cells? (1, Troll)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469207)

The whole agrument is nuts and in truth doesn't justify a response. "God made it that way" ends all arguments for them so there is no rational thought behind their position. The real fact is there's an ocean of evidence for evolution and the true age of the Earth on one side and "God did it" on the other side. Where's the debate? The only evidence presented is heavily distorted scientific evidence. Gee sedimentary layers were left over from the great flood. Why are there different layers and different forms of life in each layer? No good response. Cells are very complex highly organized and self repairing, only a genius could have planned them. Or maybe it took a few billion years of trial and error? Why is this fictional date that some one came up with hundreds of years ago so important? It's not mentioned in the Bible he deduced it by adding up ages of the men listed in Genesis, some of them living nearly a thousand years which presents it's own set of problems. There is no form of evidence that will ever change their minds so there's no debate. They can complain all they want that science won't change but that's like trying to talk some one with a winning poker hand into the fact they just lost. Science doesn't need faith they have something far better, the facts.

Re:On which day did God create Cells? (1, Funny)

Asterra (1087671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469241)

I don't know. Personally, I never found their point of view worth a whole paragraph of refutation. A few choice sentences of general derision will always suffice.

Re:On which day did God create Cells? (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469295)

We know that, we just find it amusing that the same institute preaching that Evolution causes immorality is the one that is blatently stealing another's work [er infringing that is] it would be ironic if it were not preceded by earlier nonsense on their account.

Re:On which day did God create Cells? (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469383)

"God made it that way" ends all arguments for them so there is no rational thought behind their position.

I am sure that most anti-evolution parents would want their child to grow up to marry a good looking person of the opposite sex with lots of money and no history of disease in the family.

What's the problem? (2, Interesting)

DrKyle (818035) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469233)

I have used this video in my intro biology class, telling them it is an absolutely marvelous video and that by the time they graduate they will understand the complex processes depicted. I have spoken through it, thereby adding my own narration. Does this mean I am going to get sued too? In finding this video for my class I noticed many versions out there on youtube and other video sites, ones which had the copyright notice absent already, so does this mean I would get sued for showing those instead of the original? It's not like they posted the video on a site representing it as their own, it was part of a powerpoint presentation and I really doubt there is solid grounds to show they did anything wrong. Just because they are pushing their own agenda which the poster disagrees with does not mean they are any worse than other people making up a powerpoint presentation and not citing every graphic and video they find on the web.

Re:What's the problem? (1)

Asterra (1087671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469277)

I probably don't have to tell you this, since you're clearly intelligent enough to grasp the impetus of this particular outrage, but the fact is that those responsible chose to plagiarize in an incontrovertibly political fashion. Politics. Maybe you might feel compelled to argue that this isn't the case - indeed, you have already. But I doubt a jury would buy it. That's an important difference, friend.

Re:What's the problem? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469281)

The harvard webpage hosting the video says the video is 'For education purpose only' and prohibits any commercial use, redistribution or copying. So go ahead and show the inspiring animation for your students in the classroom it's OK :)
Are the creationists going to claim their plagiarism 'educational'? lol

Re:What's the problem? (1)

infinitelink (963279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469561)

Actually I the blog this post links to has some comments on this: it is an educational event...whether or not people like the kind of education. The material was also posted freely, not sold: and I've also seen this video used in my University courses: it's fairly helpful for certain topics in classes such as physiology. Yes, they can claim this to be "educational": lol or not. Other than that the video can be found here: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/6850.html [studiodaily.com] Enjoy. : )

Re:What's the problem? (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469411)

I have used this video in my intro biology class, telling them it is an absolutely marvelous video and that by the time they graduate they will understand the complex processes depicted. I have spoken through it, thereby adding my own narration. Does this mean I am going to get sued too?
Only if you proclaim you made this video in print, a Harvard lawyer is in your classroom, the author of the video is in your classroom, and your are a person of note.

Re:What's the problem? (4, Insightful)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469417)

That depends on whether you tried to pass the video off as your own creation. That, in essence, is the core of the issue with the Discovery Institute's usage. Despite the title of the summary, the copyright violation is not what lies at the heart of this matter--it is the plagiarism. Surely your students cannot reasonably assume you were the sole author of the video. The same could not be said of a large, well-funded organization such as the DI.

"We're Right But They're Bigots" Continues (-1, Troll)

Soloact (805735) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469273)

So, when a darwinist copies something, it's fair-use, but if a creationist copies something it's a copyright violation? Is this "story" going to be a forum for this-group bashing that-group? It sure looks as if it is intended to be such, as it was modded up enough in the "Firehose" to make it to Slashdot's front page. What always gets me is that one group will flame another group, then call it bigotry if that group flames them back, or disagrees with them. This goes for copyrighted material users, file-sharers/industry, race, religion, Operating Systems, etc. Just read the posts above this one and you'll see a lot of bashing already in progress. See bigotry at its' finest. I wouldn't be surprised if my post gets modded down.

Re:"We're Right But They're Bigots" Continues (1)

Asterra (1087671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469291)

I'm going to give you what you so desperately want: 30 seconds of someone else's time. However, that's not even enough time to finish more than one se

Re:"We're Right But They're Bigots" Continues (5, Insightful)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469401)

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 (1)

Tavor (845700) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469557)

Not only that, but there is clearly a morality issue here, as well. The Discovery Institute sounds like only one of a number of such right-wing "Christian" organizations, who try to lead people to "truth" and to "god". Now, I know not of the DI, but I have knowledge of several similar groups who claim Evolution, secularization of the public sphere, etc. are the root cause of urban/moral/societal decay. Most of these groups champion a return to biblical teachings as the route to a moral society.

Now, name for me what document these groups want prominently displayed in schools, courthouses, capitals, etc?
The Ten Commandments.
For a group as "devoted" to the Bible as this, for them to lie and steal just goes to show you to watch out for con-men in a Shepard's guise.

Disclaimer: all material in quotes is because I find the right-wing distortions of said quoted items to be gross perversions of said subjects.

Re:"We're Right But They're Bigots" Continues (1)

pho3nixtar (924810) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469595)

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.
Continuing to reject out of hand the idea that this universe didn't actually come to exist from sheer bastard luck is not somehow a sort of magical incantation to prevent it from actually being true.

Oh wait. Oops... I forgot that this thread was about copyright issues and not about the "inherent dishonesty" that creationists/IDists are allegedly full of. My mistake.

Re:"We're Right But They're Bigots" Continues (3, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469563)

So, when a darwinist copies something, it's fair-use, but if a creationist copies something it's a copyright violation?
Darwinists do not exist. It's simply a pejorative label certain obstinate creation story supporters place on their opposition.

What always gets me is that one group will flame another group, then call it bigotry if that group flames them back, or disagrees with them. This goes for copyrighted material users, file-sharers/industry, race, religion, Operating Systems, etc. Just read the posts above this one and you'll see a lot of bashing already in progress. See bigotry at its' finest. I wouldn't be surprised if my post gets modded down.
I rarely see the "pro-science" side call creationists bigots. More often it's "knowledge deficient" or some synonym there of. Tolerance is a funny idea. You ought only tolerate what doesn't harm you or others. In this case I cannot tolerate creationism. You have already prematurely labeled me a bigot but if it means simply I am intolerant of inadequately supported ideas then thank you I must be a bigot.

Re:"We're Right But They're Bigots" Continues (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469609)

Please give an actual example of where a high profile darwinist copied and modified something from a creationist, modified it, and tried to pass it off as their own.

To Quote South Park (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469279)

Those Bastards!!!

Removing logo good thing? (2, Funny)

Keruo (771880) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469297)

Isn't it better that they removed the logo?
Otherwise it might appear to some person watching that the ramblings were actually created by harvard.

Why oh why (1, Funny)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469303)

They are obviously blinding themselves to the true nature of the Universe! God didn't create it, we did about 7.2 million years from now! And I can't believe nobodies brought up the instrument of the creation, his noodly appendage himself!

God wants to uncreate them (1)

Cannelloni (969195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469315)

Creationism is not science, it is a religious belief. God reportedly laughs at false prophets like this and is amazed at how stupid people can be.

Angry Yanni (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469339)

Man, the RIAA will be PISSED when they figure out those Harvard guys used Yanni's music without his permission...Oh what a wicked circle of lies and deceit!

Not merely copyright violation (5, Insightful)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469357)

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.

Re:Not merely copyright violation (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469505)

Doctrines of belief, whether they're "let's eat human flesh and blood of some poor crucified guy every Sunday and call it Mass", or "let's strap explosives to our bodies to kill children on a bus and go to heaven", fight dirty. They've always done so, and they've survived well enough to still cause mayhem and madness. So I don't think you can really say they always lose arguments with science and its kissing cousins, open debate and reasoning.

But many religions are founded on a core belief that what the priests say is the unquestionable word of God. Discrediting the physically verifiable parts of the Bible seriously, seriously threatens this. It's not belief in the flying spaghetti monster that they need: it's belief in the authority of the priests.

Re:Not merely copyright violation (1)

infinitelink (963279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469585)

This particular instance of dubbing wouldn't count as misrepresentation. First, the DI guys aren't wholly idiots, just very disliked and diasgreed with. Second, this would count as two things: pointing-out particulars that the Harvard group may have, or may not have, pointed out, and then as interpretation: yet I don't even know that they contradicted the other group: this particular video has been popular in anything science-related since its release and though I've never watched the full thing I've seen in used in several presentations at my University.

oh noes! (1)

Meorah (308102) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469367)

This is a slippery slope my dear friends!

If they get away with copyright infringment, they'll be just like the vast majority of slashdotters, and we can't have slashdotters and creationists sharing any similar traits!

no wait, I have a better one...

first copyright infringment, then TERRORISM! Lets nip this in the bud right now! Sick the RIAA on them!

God did it... (0, Troll)

Undead Ed (1068120) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469381)

God spontaneously made the copyrights disappear.

They could make that argument work for 45% of the US population.

Ed

Re:God did it... (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469527)

Those would be same ones who think that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church?

The goal(s) of Creationism (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469419)

Realistically speaking, they chose to throw "city" in the title to further anthropomorphize EVERY.FUCKING.THING. As if "making" the workings of the universe in our own image wasn't enough (and then calling ourselves made in the image of the creator, har har), anything that steps outside of this narcissistic boundary is deemed heretical and vile. Too bad that same self-centered view often leads to the very acts that the deistic religions condemn.

Also too bad that there is no way a respectable judge would rule in favor of the defendant here. It isnt exactly education when the point of the video is to expose a world view based completely (ostensibly) on faith and opinion, not things that can be proven or at least supported via the scientific method, the thing that makes science SCIENCE.

They can steal whatever they want (0, Redundant)

GDubs (1101373) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469493)

God's on their side, so it's okay!

their objective *is* to be attacked (1)

Herve5 (879674) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469593)

up to now, they were in the bad role, the attacker, and the scientists the victims. Now if "Science" attacks them in law, they will posit as victims :(

due to the nature of scores here (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469599)

Seem some thin skinned bible thumpers are at work here. Wonder if there's a link war going on. I also think the headline misses the real crux of the matter and that's the plagerism and misrepresentation. Copyright is just the icing on the cake. Let's see what score I get in my own little experimental post.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?