Dr Dino Dino adventure land and plagiarism
steven
I was watching my copy of Walking with Dinosaurs last night with some
friends and their kids (aftermath of Thanksgiving etc), and noticed
something interesting. The opening credits of the show have a montage
of images, one of which is a long tail with spines on, passing through
undergrowth. I though that this looked very familiar, and I checked
around until I remembered that the same image appears in the opening
few seconds of Kent Hovind's video promoting his ludicrous back-yard
theme park
http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
(uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
the BBC and Universal be told?
Steven
Buckler
By all means, please. I already informed Universal that he was using
the "Jurassic Park" theme, for profit and without authorization.
Buckler
cats...@yahoo.com
Of course. And I believe some regular here already did.
I checked the video again and the music is still there but not at the
beginning and a lot of it seems mangled, as if there was a
half-hearted attempt to downplay it. I wonder if those fine folks at
the studio legal department have had a nice theological discussion
with Kent already (something about the 10 Commandments?). If so, it
certainly wouldn't hurt to give 'em a reminder to continue the
'dialogue'.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Rubystars
<cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bffc31e...@news-server.optonline.net...
I think what upsets me about that the most is that those kids are going to
the park and getting taught by people they trust the wrong things. When they
find out later that what they were taught was wrong, they might resent that
trust being betrayed, and reject Christianity altogether. Most people in
here would probably say that's a good thing though. *sigh*
I really hold a grudge of sorts against YECs because when I was young like
those kids on the video I had no way to know they were lying, and I know
they are indoctrinating people and if those people are really interested in
science they're going to find out differently one day, and some people like
me are then going to get angry..
-Rubystars
John McCoy
I beg to differ with you. For starters, this group is about the
discussion of origins, and here you try to pick on a Creationist for
his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
Secondly, non-profit, low-budget organizations have, under copyright
laws, some rights that including using a reasonable amount of footage
for various reasons.
There's something about the tone of your vindictive arguments, which
includes asking the question if "BBC and Universal be told?" which
suggest to me that you're nothing but propagandists who see yourselves
as fighting creationists and creationism.
I'll tell you one thing, if the who's nicest factor came into play,
I'll stack a really great man like Kent Hovind against you and your
cohorts anyday.
You stink. And the more I think about Kent Hovind and his gentle
approach, and his kindness, the more I think you stink. Where did you
come from, a dumpster?
Let me tell you something. You are arrogant, militant, and obviously
some sort of activist.
And that tells me that you're not capable of considering anything from
an objective approach.
John McCoy
Gyudon Z
>steven...@yahoo.com (steven) wrote in message
>news:<13036f84.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>> Hi,
>> I was watching my copy of Walking with Dinosaurs last night with some
>> friends and their kids (aftermath of Thanksgiving etc), and noticed
>> something interesting. The opening credits of the show have a montage
>> of images, one of which is a long tail with spines on, passing through
>> undergrowth. I though that this looked very familiar, and I checked
>> around until I remembered that the same image appears in the opening
>> few seconds of Kent Hovind's video promoting his ludicrous back-yard
>> theme park
http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
>>
>> This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
>> (uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
>> from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
>> that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
>> the BBC and Universal be told?
>I beg to differ with you. For starters, this group is about the
>discussion of origins,
As I've said, we embrace a wide variety of topics. Creationist dishonesty is a
major one.
>and here you try to pick on a Creationist for
>his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
>going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
Ah, the consequentialist fallacy. It doesn't matter whether it causes hardship
to Universal; what matters is that stealing is wrong.
>Secondly, non-profit, low-budget organizations have, under copyright
>laws, some rights that including using a reasonable amount of footage
>for various reasons.
But the "uncredited, I suspect", if the suspicion is accurate, makes this
oeuvre intellectually dishonest. Anyone who's been to college knows that; it's
part of the English 101 curriculum.
>There's something about the tone of your vindictive arguments, which
>includes asking the question if "BBC and Universal be told?" which
>suggest to me that you're nothing but propagandists who see yourselves
>as fighting creationists and creationism.
According to the inestimable Dr. Eugenie Scott, they need to be fought for the
sake of our children's education.
Well, your children's, anyway. I don't have anyh.
>I'll tell you one thing, if the who's nicest factor came into play,
>I'll stack a really great man like Kent Hovind against you and your
>cohorts anyday.
Liars and thieves may be charming, but I doubt they're truly nice.
>You stink. And the more I think about Kent Hovind and his gentle
>approach,
His gentle lies and plagiarism...
>and his kindness, the more I think you stink. Where did you
>come from, a dumpster?
>
>Let me tell you something. You are arrogant, militant, and obviously
>some sort of activist.
Some "intellectual property rights" activist? That's a surprise.
Well, I guess the Santa Clara University law school would probably kick a few
out. It's a specialty, you know.
>And that tells me that you're not capable of considering anything from
>an objective approach.
Why are activists and objective people mutually exclusive? (this should be
good).
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
cats...@yahoo.com
>steven...@yahoo.com (steven) wrote in message news:<13036f84.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>> Hi,
>> I was watching my copy of Walking with Dinosaurs last night with some
>> friends and their kids (aftermath of Thanksgiving etc), and noticed
>> something interesting. The opening credits of the show have a montage
>> of images, one of which is a long tail with spines on, passing through
>> undergrowth. I though that this looked very familiar, and I checked
>> around until I remembered that the same image appears in the opening
>> few seconds of Kent Hovind's video promoting his ludicrous back-yard
>> theme park
>>
>> http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
>>
>> This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
>> (uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
>> from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
>> that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
>> the BBC and Universal be told?
>>
>>
>>
>> Steven
>
>I beg to differ with you. For starters, this group is about the
>discussion of origins, and here you try to pick on a Creationist for
>his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
>going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
it?
>
>Secondly, non-profit, low-budget organizations have, under copyright
>laws, some rights that including using a reasonable amount of footage
>for various reasons.
If so, what's the hubbub . . . or do *you* think he violated copyright
law too? BTW, according to Hovind's narration of the virtual tour,
"every year, thousands of kids of all ages come from all accross
America to visit Dinosaur Adventure Land". At $7 a pop, are you sure
it is "low-budget"? Or had Kent just lost sight of the truth again
when he talked about the "thousands" of kids?
>
>There's something about the tone of your vindictive arguments, which
>includes asking the question if "BBC and Universal be told?" which
>suggest to me that you're nothing but propagandists who see yourselves
>as fighting creationists and creationism.
And people who deliberately lie to kids, and hypocrites who think its
ok to lie and steal "for Christ", yea, there is a bit of that.
>
>I'll tell you one thing, if the who's nicest factor came into play,
>I'll stack a really great man like Kent Hovind against you and your
>cohorts anyday.
You don't think we're anything like "Dr. Dino"? Gee, that's the
nicest thing anyone's said to me today!
>
>You stink. And the more I think about Kent Hovind and his gentle
>approach, and his kindness, the more I think you stink. Where did you
>come from, a dumpster?
"Were *you* there? Were *you* there?"
>
>Let me tell you something. You are arrogant, militant, and obviously
>some sort of activist.
We didn't build cheesy "theme parks" in our back yards and tell kids
not to believe in Christ. And I think Rubystar has got it right. A
lotta these kids being run thru there will grow up and learn the truth
and be turned off by it and wind up hating religion. Ask Aron-Ra.
Hovind and his ilk probably do Christianity more harm than any
"athestic, materialistic scientist" *ever* did.
>
>And that tells me that you're not capable of considering anything from
>an objective approach.
If Hovind is violating the copyright laws, he is stealing. That's
objective. It's amazing how fast "Biblical literalists" can jettison
the 10 Commandments when it suits their purposes.
>
>John McCoy
Richard Clayton
> I'll tell you one thing, if the who's nicest factor came into play,
> I'll stack a really great man like Kent Hovind against you and your
> cohorts anyday.
A "really great man"? If there were a "Liars for Jesus" club, "doctor" Kent Hovind would be the poster
boy.
--
Richard Clayton (for...@earthlink.net)
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley
Richard Clayton
<snip>
> We didn't build cheesy "theme parks" in our back yards and tell kids
> not to believe in Christ. And I think Rubystar has got it right. A
> lotta these kids being run thru there will grow up and learn the truth
> and be turned off by it and wind up hating religion. Ask Aron-Ra.
> Hovind and his ilk probably do Christianity more harm than any
> "athestic, materialistic scientist" *ever* did.
Ain't that the truth. I know a /lot/ of people who have been turned off to Christianity because of the
behavior of self-proclaimed "Christians." (Note the quotes. I take issue with anybody who proclaims himself a
Christian and fails to act in a Christ-like manner.)
In my opinion, one could do a lot more to promote Christianity by being an outstanding example of virtue,
compassion, and love than by rabidly attacking modern science or lying through one's teeth. But hey, what do I
know?
John McCoy
> From John McCoy:
>
> >steven...@yahoo.com (steven) wrote in message
> >news:<13036f84.01112...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Hi,
> >> I was watching my copy of Walking with Dinosaurs last night with some
> >> friends and their kids (aftermath of Thanksgiving etc), and noticed
> >> something interesting. The opening credits of the show have a montage
> >> of images, one of which is a long tail with spines on, passing through
> >> undergrowth. I though that this looked very familiar, and I checked
> >> around until I remembered that the same image appears in the opening
> >> few seconds of Kent Hovind's video promoting his ludicrous back-yard
> >> theme park
>
> http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
> >>
> >> This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
> >> (uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
> >> from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
> >> that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
> >> the BBC and Universal be told?
>
> >I beg to differ with you. For starters, this group is about the
> >discussion of origins,
>
> As I've said, we embrace a wide variety of topics. Creationist dishonesty is a
> major one.
Note "we're better than thou" attitude. Note: using copyrighted
material (even if used for educational purposes) is "dishonesty" even
if permitted by law.
>
> >and here you try to pick on a Creationist for
> >his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
> >going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
>
> Ah, the consequentialist fallacy. It doesn't matter whether it causes hardship
> to Universal; what matters is that stealing is wrong.
Sarcasm. More stink. More ignorance of the law.
> >Secondly, non-profit, low-budget organizations have, under copyright
> >laws, some rights that including using a reasonable amount of footage
> >for various reasons.
>
> But the "uncredited, I suspect", if the suspicion is accurate, makes this
> oeuvre intellectually dishonest. Anyone who's been to college knows that; it's
> part of the English 101 curriculum.
More stink. Even while evolution is one of the most plagiarized
theories in the world.
> >There's something about the tone of your vindictive arguments, which
> >includes asking the question if "BBC and Universal be told?" which
> >suggest to me that you're nothing but propagandists who see yourselves
> >as fighting creationists and creationism.
>
> According to the inestimable Dr. Eugenie Scott, they need to be fought for the
> sake of our children's education.
Exposing your motives. Fighting, fight, fight. A realm for scientist's
objectivety? Not.
>
> Well, your children's, anyway. I don't have anyh.
Worrying about children. Liar. What about venerial diseases? Do you
care about that? Do you care about violent movies?
>
> >I'll tell you one thing, if the who's nicest factor came into play,
> >I'll stack a really great man like Kent Hovind against you and your
> >cohorts anyday.
>
> Liars and thieves may be charming, but I doubt they're truly nice.
Getting worked up over trivialities? Woe be it to you.
>
> >You stink. And the more I think about Kent Hovind and his gentle
> >approach,
>
> His gentle lies and plagiarism...
Tell me about lies? Not once have I read anything about evolutionists
apologizing for using Haekel's fabricated embryo chart. I guess you're
such a disgusting liar that you could not recognize the pot from the
kettle.
>
> >and his kindness, the more I think you stink. Where did you
> >come from, a dumpster?
> >
> >Let me tell you something. You are arrogant, militant, and obviously
> >some sort of activist.
>
> Some "intellectual property rights" activist? That's a surprise.
>
> Well, I guess the Santa Clara University law school would probably kick a few
> out. It's a specialty, you know.
A specialty that you are ignorant of.
>
> >And that tells me that you're not capable of considering anything from
> >an objective approach.
>
> Why are activists and objective people mutually exclusive? (this should be
> good).
Because you don't care about the errors promulgated in science
textbooks for children. Because you are a pot calling a kettle black,
thus, you are not objective. You're just an activist for
evolutionists, and a mean-spirited one at that.
John McCoy
John McCoy
> On 24 Nov 2001 20:47:39 -0500, jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>
> >steven...@yahoo.com (steven) wrote in message news:<13036f84.01112...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Hi,
> >> I was watching my copy of Walking with Dinosaurs last night with some
> >> friends and their kids (aftermath of Thanksgiving etc), and noticed
> >> something interesting. The opening credits of the show have a montage
> >> of images, one of which is a long tail with spines on, passing through
> >> undergrowth. I though that this looked very familiar, and I checked
> >> around until I remembered that the same image appears in the opening
> >> few seconds of Kent Hovind's video promoting his ludicrous back-yard
> >> theme park
> >>
> >> http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
> >>
> >> This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
> >> (uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
> >> from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
> >> that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
> >> the BBC and Universal be told?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Steven
> >
> >I beg to differ with you. For starters, this group is about the
> >discussion of origins, and here you try to pick on a Creationist for
> >his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
> >going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
>
> Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
> it?
I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
> >
> >Secondly, non-profit, low-budget organizations have, under copyright
> >laws, some rights that including using a reasonable amount of footage
> >for various reasons.
>
> If so, what's the hubbub . . . or do *you* think he violated copyright
> law too? BTW, according to Hovind's narration of the virtual tour,
> "every year, thousands of kids of all ages come from all accross
> America to visit Dinosaur Adventure Land". At $7 a pop, are you sure
> it is "low-budget"? Or had Kent just lost sight of the truth again
> when he talked about the "thousands" of kids?
a 1000 x $7 is $7000. Minus utilities and rental you'd have to say
that's not much. I'm going to travel sometime this year, for my
research. The cost of that alone, with prices down for obvious
reasons, is $1800. For $1800 I get very little in return. I'd say
for what Hovind is doing, that's miniscule. It's very expensive to do
things these days.
> >
> >There's something about the tone of your vindictive arguments, which
> >includes asking the question if "BBC and Universal be told?" which
> >suggest to me that you're nothing but propagandists who see yourselves
> >as fighting creationists and creationism.
>
> And people who deliberately lie to kids, and hypocrites who think its
> ok to lie and steal "for Christ", yea, there is a bit of that.
Call it stealing and I call you liar.
> >
> >I'll tell you one thing, if the who's nicest factor came into play,
> >I'll stack a really great man like Kent Hovind against you and your
> >cohorts anyday.
>
> You don't think we're anything like "Dr. Dino"? Gee, that's the
> nicest thing anyone's said to me today!
Sarcastic, smart aleks. If creationism weren't around, you'd fight
each other.
> >
> >You stink. And the more I think about Kent Hovind and his gentle
> >approach, and his kindness, the more I think you stink. Where did you
> >come from, a dumpster?
>
> "Were *you* there? Were *you* there?"
> >
> >Let me tell you something. You are arrogant, militant, and obviously
> >some sort of activist.
>
> We didn't build cheesy "theme parks" in our back yards and tell kids
> not to believe in Christ. And I think Rubystar has got it right. A
> lotta these kids being run thru there will grow up and learn the truth
> and be turned off by it and wind up hating religion. Ask Aron-Ra.
> Hovind and his ilk probably do Christianity more harm than any
> "athestic, materialistic scientist" *ever* did.
In your eye. Next time I read "gill slit" in an evolutionist
textbook, I'll remember who is a liar, who is a kettle and who is a
pot.
> >
> >And that tells me that you're not capable of considering anything from
> >an objective approach.
>
> If Hovind is violating the copyright laws, he is stealing. That's
> objective. It's amazing how fast "Biblical literalists" can jettison
> the 10 Commandments when it suits their purposes.
Why don't you keep the 10 Commandments? You're not free from it. I
don't care who you claim to be.
John McCoy
Carl M
John McCoy wrote:
>
> cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
[snip]
> > Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
> > it?
>
> I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
> consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
> not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
> to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
> promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's
"education" project? Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or
music. In short, even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from
being stewed in the juices of his own dishonesty yet again.
--
** Remove obvious spam block from the email address
Barrett Richardson
On 25 Nov 2001, John McCoy wrote:
>
> More stink. Even while evolution is one of the most plagiarized
> theories in the world.
>
Plagiarized from what?
-
B
cats...@yahoo.com
>cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
>> On 24 Nov 2001 20:47:39 -0500, jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> >I beg to differ with you. For starters, this group is about the
>> >discussion of origins, and here you try to pick on a Creationist for
>> >his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
>> >going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
>>
>> Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
>> it?
>
>I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
>consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
>not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
>to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
>promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
>
Carl beat me to it but it bears repeating. This "appropriation" of
other people's intellectual property is not being used for education
of any sort. It is in an **advertisement** for his (if his own words
could be believed) highly successful theme park. If he is using this
material without permission, he is stealing.
>
>> >
>> >Secondly, non-profit, low-budget organizations have, under copyright
>> >laws, some rights that including using a reasonable amount of footage
>> >for various reasons.
>>
>> If so, what's the hubbub . . . or do *you* think he violated copyright
>> law too? BTW, according to Hovind's narration of the virtual tour,
>> "every year, thousands of kids of all ages come from all accross
>> America to visit Dinosaur Adventure Land". At $7 a pop, are you sure
>> it is "low-budget"? Or had Kent just lost sight of the truth again
>> when he talked about the "thousands" of kids?
>
>a 1000 x $7 is $7000. Minus utilities and rental you'd have to say
>that's not much. I'm going to travel sometime this year, for my
>research. The cost of that alone, with prices down for obvious
>reasons, is $1800. For $1800 I get very little in return. I'd say
>for what Hovind is doing, that's miniscule. It's very expensive to do
>things these days.
You missed responding to the first point. If he is properly using the
material, there is no problem, whether or not the owners are notified
of its use. The only way you can think that doing so is somehow
harmful to Hovind is if even *you* think he violated the copyrights.
And, of course, I don't think Hovind is raking in a ton of money with
that place. Look at the "rides" he is showing in the video . . .
there is no way that the place can have insurance. The first time a
kid gets hurt, the legal bills alone will wipe his all his "profits"
out. Of course, if the kid (and I **really** hope this doesn't
happen) winds up as a quadraplegic, there won't be any money to take
care of him or her for the rest of their life either. The point was
that Hovind couldn't resist lying in the video by saying that tousands
of kids visit every year, when the place only opened in **September**!
>
>> >
>> >There's something about the tone of your vindictive arguments, which
>> >includes asking the question if "BBC and Universal be told?" which
>> >suggest to me that you're nothing but propagandists who see yourselves
>> >as fighting creationists and creationism.
>>
>> And people who deliberately lie to kids, and hypocrites who think its
>> ok to lie and steal "for Christ", yea, there is a bit of that.
>
>Call it stealing and I call you liar.
If he is knowingly taking other people's property without permission,
I call it stealing. If (and that's a *big* if) he has the right to
use the property, under the law, then there is no problem. The fact
that reporting his use so upsets you strongly shows that even you
don't really believe that.
>
>
>> >
>> >I'll tell you one thing, if the who's nicest factor came into play,
>> >I'll stack a really great man like Kent Hovind against you and your
>> >cohorts anyday.
>>
>> You don't think we're anything like "Dr. Dino"? Gee, that's the
>> nicest thing anyone's said to me today!
>
>Sarcastic, smart aleks. If creationism weren't around, you'd fight
>each other.
The people here that you are talking about, and the scientific
community at large, do debate each other vigorously, even heatedly.
And they do it, as much as humanly possible, honestly and openly, as
far as I've seen. Hovind isn't interested in debate or education but
in indoctrination. IMHO, mere sarcasm is treating him with kid
gloves.
>
>> >
>> >You stink. And the more I think about Kent Hovind and his gentle
>> >approach, and his kindness, the more I think you stink. Where did you
>> >come from, a dumpster?
>>
>> "Were *you* there? Were *you* there?"
>> >
>> >Let me tell you something. You are arrogant, militant, and obviously
>> >some sort of activist.
>>
>> We didn't build cheesy "theme parks" in our back yards and tell kids
>> not to believe in Christ. And I think Rubystar has got it right. A
>> lotta these kids being run thru there will grow up and learn the truth
>> and be turned off by it and wind up hating religion. Ask Aron-Ra.
>> Hovind and his ilk probably do Christianity more harm than any
>> "athestic, materialistic scientist" *ever* did.
>
>In your eye. Next time I read "gill slit" in an evolutionist
>textbook, I'll remember who is a liar, who is a kettle and who is a
>pot.
The next time you read "gill slit" in a textbook, I'll advise you and
the school board to get newer, better books. I'll even vote to raise
my taxes to pay for it. I won't try to keep kids from learning about
science (or anything else, including religion) or get them to chant
slogans so they won't think, like Hovind does.
>
>> >
>> >And that tells me that you're not capable of considering anything from
>> >an objective approach.
>>
>> If Hovind is violating the copyright laws, he is stealing. That's
>> objective. It's amazing how fast "Biblical literalists" can jettison
>> the 10 Commandments when it suits their purposes.
>
>Why don't you keep the 10 Commandments? You're not free from it. I
>don't care who you claim to be.
>
I didn't claim the 10 Commandments as the direct word of God.
None-the-less, I do keep a moral code that includes not having to be
particularly nice to hypocrites, liars and thieves, though I wouldn't
think of physically harming them just for being those things. Unlike
what some supposedly Christian people would do with those who are
heathens and heretics.
Gyudon Z
From John McCoy:
>gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote in message
>news:<20011124210834...@mb-cs.aol.com>...
>> From John McCoy:
>>
>> >steven...@yahoo.com (steven) wrote in message
>> >news:<13036f84.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> Hi,
>> >> I was watching my copy of Walking with Dinosaurs last night with some
>> >> friends and their kids (aftermath of Thanksgiving etc), and noticed
>> >> something interesting. The opening credits of the show have a montage
>> >> of images, one of which is a long tail with spines on, passing through
>> >> undergrowth. I though that this looked very familiar, and I checked
>> >> around until I remembered that the same image appears in the opening
>> >> few seconds of Kent Hovind's video promoting his ludicrous back-yard
>> >> theme park
http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
>> >>
>> >> This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
>> >> (uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
>> >> from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
>> >> that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
>> >> the BBC and Universal be told?
>> >I beg to differ with you. For starters, this group is about the
>> >discussion of origins,
>> As I've said, we embrace a wide variety of topics. Creationist dishonesty
>is a
>> major one.
>Note "we're better than thou" attitude.
Actually, I just don't believe in this drawing up of arbitrary wall for what is
and is not proper to be discussed.
Hang around for a few months; you'll find we discuss practically everything.
>Note: using copyrighted
>material (even if used for educational purposes) is "dishonesty" even
>if permitted by law.
The law establishes a bare minimum of conduct required to be in our society. To
be considered honest requires going beyond the bare minimum, wouldn't you say?
>> >and here you try to pick on a Creationist for
>> >his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
>> >going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
>> Ah, the consequentialist fallacy. It doesn't matter whether it causes
>hardship
>> to Universal; what matters is that stealing is wrong.
>Sarcasm. More stink. More ignorance of the law.
No, I think the law agrees with me that stealing is wrong. According to most
Supreme Courts, it doesn't matter what value the object stolen has either
intrinsically or to the victim.
>> >Secondly, non-profit, low-budget organizations have, under copyright
>> >laws, some rights that including using a reasonable amount of footage
>> >for various reasons.
>> But the "uncredited, I suspect", if the suspicion is accurate, makes this
>> oeuvre intellectually dishonest. Anyone who's been to college knows that;
>it's
>> part of the English 101 curriculum.
>More stink. Even while evolution is one of the most plagiarized
>theories in the world.
Can you give any examples?
>> >There's something about the tone of your vindictive arguments, which
>> >includes asking the question if "BBC and Universal be told?" which
>> >suggest to me that you're nothing but propagandists who see yourselves
>> >as fighting creationists and creationism.
>> According to the inestimable Dr. Eugenie Scott, they need to be fought for
>the
>> sake of our children's education.
>Exposing your motives. Fighting, fight, fight. A realm for scientist's
>objectivety? Not.
Actually, scientists are very objective. The fact that creationism is not
science is manifestly obvious to an objective viewpoint; it takes a subjective
bias to be a follower of it.
Scientists in the NCSE just want our children to learn real (empirical,
objective) science.
>> Well, your children's, anyway. I don't have anyh.
>Worrying about children. Liar. What about venerial diseases?
What about them?
>Do you
>care about that?
Certainly. We need to reduce their incidence in our population. Science can
help us do that.
>Do you care about violent movies?
Love 'em.
>> >I'll tell you one thing, if the who's nicest factor came into play,
>> >I'll stack a really great man like Kent Hovind against you and your
>> >cohorts anyday.
>> Liars and thieves may be charming, but I doubt they're truly nice.
>Getting worked up over trivialities? Woe be it to you.
Are you seriously arguing with me over the point that stealing isn't nice?
>> >You stink. And the more I think about Kent Hovind and his gentle
>> >approach,
>> His gentle lies and plagiarism...
>Tell me about lies? Not once have I read anything about evolutionists
>apologizing for using Haekel's fabricated embryo chart.
I notice you shifted the focus far, far away from Hovind. Naughty John. I could
be an unrepentant liar and a tax evader, but that wouldn't stop Hovind from
being the same, now would it?
The use of Haeckel's chart is not, in fact plagiarism because the chart, like
so many other things that scientists use, is properly cited.
>I guess you're
>such a disgusting liar that you could not recognize the pot from the
>kettle.
Ahh...I'm having a newbie flashback, so I'll just give you the same question I
usually give him in this situation: Do you have any evidence at all of my
having ever lied?
>> >and his kindness, the more I think you stink. Where did you
>> >come from, a dumpster?
>> >Let me tell you something. You are arrogant, militant, and obviously
>> >some sort of activist.
>> Some "intellectual property rights" activist? That's a surprise.
>> Well, I guess the Santa Clara University law school would probably kick a
>few
>> out. It's a specialty, you know.
>
>A specialty that you are ignorant of.
I know enough about it to realize that blatant plagiarism is wrong.
>> >And that tells me that you're not capable of considering anything from
>> >an objective approach.
>> Why are activists and objective people mutually exclusive? (this should be
>> good).
>Because you don't care about the errors promulgated in science
>textbooks for children.
I do care. So does the NCSE; that's why they don't want creationism in those
textbooks.
But I noticed you never answered the question. Why are activism and objectivism
mutually exclusive?
>Because you are a pot calling a kettle black,
>thus, you are not objective. You're just an activist for
>evolutionists, and a mean-spirited one at that.
I'm mean-spirited? Who just spewed out a long string of unprovoked insults?
newbie
Carl M <NO_SPAM_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C012676...@hotmail.com...
it is dishonest.
No one knows what dinos or early man looked like. Only what the artist thinks
they looked like.
But the subject of science is not guessing, or art. In short, stewed in your own
juices again!
On a more serious note... Are you sure that using music in an educational
atmosphere is dishonest?
Perhaps you should visit some museums. I have. Modern exhibits do try to create
an "atmosphere"
using music and other means. They also charge money, you know.
Gyudon Z
>Carl M <NO_SPAM_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3C012676...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> John McCoy wrote:
>> >
>> > cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message
>news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > > Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
>> > > it?
>> >
>> > I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
>> > consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
>> > not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
>> > to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
>> > promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
>>
>> How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's
>> "education" project? Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or
>> music. In short, even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from
>> being stewed in the juices of his own dishonesty yet again.
>>
>So anytime a picture of a dinosaur or early man is used in a science
>classroom,
>it is dishonest.
Only if due attention is not paid to the owner of the rights of the picture.
Then it's stealing.
>No one knows what dinos or early man looked like. Only what the artist thinks
>they looked like.
>But the subject of science is not guessing, or art. In short, stewed in your
>own
>juices again!
But those artistic guesses tend to be based on empirical evidence. Hardly
stewing in our own juices to be doing what science does.
>On a more serious note... Are you sure that using music in an educational
>atmosphere is dishonest?
If it's used without due consideration of the holder of the rights to it.
>Perhaps you should visit some museums. I have. Modern exhibits do try to
>create
>an "atmosphere"
>using music and other means.
Which, hopefully, were obtained with due consideration of the composer's
rights.
>They also charge money, you know.
What's wrong with that? Knowledge is beyond price; you get more than you pay
for.
newbie
Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011125145452...@mb-mv.aol.com...
[snip]
> Ahh...I'm having a newbie flashback, so I'll just give you the same question I
> usually give him in this situation: Do you have any evidence at all of my
> having ever lied?
>
And my answer has been yes, as has yours when the question is asked of you
having "evidence at all of my having ever lied."
Perhaps the best example of real evidence (whether it is still in arvhive, I do
not know) is when you confessed to lying, then retracted when the concept of
intent being required was mentioned. If you did not lie, but confessed, you were
lying. You did confess. So either way, you lied. The fond flashback I get of you
though is "plausible deniability"; the "I don't remember" but at other times "I
have an excellent memory" spiel of yours.
Science is not about getting something wrong by going further than the
scientific method allows, then correcting itself with new information. That is
"science" and it is just as "dishonest" as a creationist who teaches "science"
outside the scope of real science. Like Haeckel. Like many other "science"
tidbits that have been *taught* as science to children and the public. Whether
one thinks that he is right in teaching a certain thing, it is still
indoctrination, if the knowledge used is not solid.
One of your favorites is "the universe is all there is". In reality,
consciousness is all there is. Teaching either as science is equally absurd.
By the way, does anyone have any suggestions on what best to set Outlook
Express' line length ("character wrap")?
newbie
> From newbie:
>
> >Carl M <NO_SPAM_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3C012676...@hotmail.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> John McCoy wrote:
> >> >
> >> > cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> >news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > > Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
> >> > > it?
> >> >
> >> > I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
> >> > consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
> >> > not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
> >> > to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
> >> > promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
> >>
> >> How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's
> >> "education" project? Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or
> >> music. In short, even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from
> >> being stewed in the juices of his own dishonesty yet again.
> >>
> >So anytime a picture of a dinosaur or early man is used in a science
> >classroom,
> >it is dishonest.
>
> Only if due attention is not paid to the owner of the rights of the picture.
> Then it's stealing.
Yea, yea. You might as well be pissing in the wind, than to write "due
attention" without elaborating.
>
> >No one knows what dinos or early man looked like. Only what the artist thinks
> >they looked like.
> >But the subject of science is not guessing, or art. In short, stewed in your
> >own
> >juices again!
>
> But those artistic guesses tend to be based on empirical evidence. Hardly
> stewing in our own juices to be doing what science does.
It most surely is. Guesses based on "empirical evidence" is not science. Neither
is guesses of what constitutes empirical evidence.
>
> >On a more serious note... Are you sure that using music in an educational
> >atmosphere is dishonest?
>
> If it's used without due consideration of the holder of the rights to it.
I'll play your game. Due consideration means paying to see the movie once?
>
> >Perhaps you should visit some museums. I have. Modern exhibits do try to
> >create
> >an "atmosphere"
> >using music and other means.
>
> Which, hopefully, were obtained with due consideration of the composer's
> rights.
You mean write the producer, tell him you represent a museum and ask if it is
alright to play the music?
So it is up to the producer to use the music in any case? Non-profit,
educational or other?
>
> >They also charge money, you know.
>
> What's wrong with that? Knowledge is beyond price; you get more than you pay
> for.
>
Yea, I have certainly got more than what I thought I was paying for more than
once. Sometimes it comes home on my shoes.
Gyudon Z
>Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20011125145452...@mb-mv.aol.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> Ahh...I'm having a newbie flashback, so I'll just give you the same
>question I
>> usually give him in this situation: Do you have any evidence at all of my
>> having ever lied?
>And my answer has been yes, as has yours when the question is asked of you
>having "evidence at all of my having ever lied."
>
>Perhaps the best example of real evidence (whether it is still in arvhive, I
>do
>not know) is when you confessed to lying, then retracted when the concept of
>intent being required was mentioned.
Because you found me saying something that was untrue, and accused me of lying.
It was true that I had said something that was untrue, but the oversight was
unintentional.
>If you did not lie, but confessed, you
>were
>lying.
Ah, but the confession to something that I didn't do was also unintentional.
>You did confess. So either way, you lied.
Oh? I believe we decided that intent is a necessary component. When have I told
an intentional untruth and what was it?
>The fond flashback I get of
>you
>though is "plausible deniability"; the "I don't remember" but at other times
>"I
>have an excellent memory" spiel of yours.
As I explained, I remember what people write to me much more clearly that what
I write myself.
>Science is not about getting something wrong by going further than the
>scientific method allows, then correcting itself with new information.
Correct. But when the conclusions go exactly as far as the empirical evidence
allows, further evidence will require a refinement of the conclusions.
>That
>is
>"science" and it is just as "dishonest" as a creationist who teaches
>"science"
>outside the scope of real science. Like Haeckel.
It is true that comparative embryology is a useful method of inquiry to a
certain extent, but yes, Haekel did take it too far.
>Like many other "science"
>tidbits that have been *taught* as science to children and the public.
Why does everyone focus on how science screwed up in the past? Why not place
the focus about how science has fixed their past mistakes? Arguing against what
scientists considered to be true decades ore centuries ago typically results in
a strawman4.
>Whether
>one thinks that he is right in teaching a certain thing, it is still
>indoctrination, if the knowledge used is not solid.
Again, all modern scientific theories are compatible with every shred of
relevant empirical evidence. They're as solid as they can possibly be.
>One of your favorites is "the universe is all there is". In reality,
>consciousness is all there is.
No, it is a tenet of the scientific method that there is a physical universe
outside of and apart from sentient consciousness.
>Teaching either as science is equally absurd.
Yes; because they are definitions, not theories. The value of a definition
depends on how well it applies where it is supposed to apply, how well it
separates things that it is supposed to define from other things, and how well
it reduces gray areas; in other words, its robustness. Defining the universe as
"the totality of everything that exists" has a great deal of definitive value.
newbie
> From newbie:
>
> >Carl M <NO_SPAM_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3C012676...@hotmail.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> John McCoy wrote:
> >> >
> >> > cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> >news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > > Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
> >> > > it?
> >> >
> >> > I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
> >> > consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
> >> > not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
> >> > to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
> >> > promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
> >>
> >> How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's
> >> "education" project? Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or
> >> music. In short, even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from
> >> being stewed in the juices of his own dishonesty yet again.
> >>
> >So anytime a picture of a dinosaur or early man is used in a science
> >classroom,
> >it is dishonest.
>
> Only if due attention is not paid to the owner of the rights of the picture.
> Then it's stealing.
>
accusing others of the lack of) so there is no excuse for your above response.
Ownership rights and infringement is not the focus of the above exchange, and
you should know it. "How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent
Hovind's "education" project" is a clear question. How _does_ the music *aid*
this "education". Or *any* education.
My post in response to this was on topic: If it is true that using music with an
educational project is dishonest, then any use of music in an educational
project is dishonest. You may have reservations about the validity of this
"education" but that is not the subject.
Music is used as a tool in eduction. Whether the Jurassic Park people care or
not is not the point here, rather it is whether it is dishonest to use music.
Turn on an
educational program on TV sometime. I watched a program recently about RamsesII
son's burial tomb. *Dramatic* music played often. Just gets me right in the mood
to believe what is said, and to take an interest in the subject. Honest or
dishonest practice? Only if it is used for "real science" education in your
view? And when not in your view "real science", then it is dishonest? Or do the
owners of the music determine instead of you whether it is "educational"("real
science") or not.
What purpose is served of the individual who alerts the Jurassic Park people? So
that the so called "educational" project will be hurt? If Hovind had permission
from them, what then? If he had used different music out of copyright, what
then? This "alerting the authorities" to a possible violation *is* mean
spirited, as John McCoy says. This thread has not centered on the nuances and
complexities of copyright law, but on hurting someone.
Gyudon Z
I am operating with the guidelines of copyright law and the dicta of academic
integrity. The elaboration is to be found there.
>> >No one knows what dinos or early man looked like. Only what the artist
>thinks
>> >they looked like.
>> >But the subject of science is not guessing, or art. In short, stewed in
>your
>> >own
>> >juices again!
>> But those artistic guesses tend to be based on empirical evidence. Hardly
>> stewing in our own juices to be doing what science does.
>It most surely is. Guesses based on "empirical evidence" is not science.
No; conclusions based on empirical evidence is science in its purest form.
>Neither
>is guesses of what constitutes empirical evidence.
I suppose guesses is [sic] not, but what is that comment in reference to?
>> >On a more serious note... Are you sure that using music in an educational
>> >atmosphere is dishonest?
>> If it's used without due consideration of the holder of the rights to it.
>I'll play your game. Due consideration means paying to see the movie once?
Means contacting the rights holder and making an arrangement such that
permission is obtained to use it (which is customary for mass media matters
such as this), or at the very least a proper accreditation to the original
source.
>> >Perhaps you should visit some museums. I have. Modern exhibits do try to
>> >create
>> >an "atmosphere"
>> >using music and other means.
>> Which, hopefully, were obtained with due consideration of the composer's
>> rights.
>You mean write the producer, tell him you represent a museum and ask if it is
>alright to play the music?
Professional courtesy, and generally the safest legal course as well.
>So it is up to the producer to use the music in any case? Non-profit,
>educational or other?
Barring the fair-use statutes in 17 USC Sec. 107. But even for cases of fair
use, academic integrity requires giving credit to the originator.
>> >They also charge money, you know.
>> What's wrong with that? Knowledge is beyond price; you get more than you
>pay
>> for.
>Yea, I have certainly got more than what I thought I was paying for more than
>once. Sometimes it comes home on my shoes.
What a low opinion of knowledge this comment suggests. How sad.
Jim Lovejoy
>
> I love the smell of inexplicable hostility in the morning.
>
> From John McCoy:
>
> >Note: using copyrighted
> >material (even if used for educational purposes) is "dishonesty" even
> >if permitted by law.
>
> The law establishes a bare minimum of conduct required to be in our society. To
> be considered honest requires going beyond the bare minimum, wouldn't you say?
>
In so far as use of copyrighted material is concerned, honesty requires,
in my opinion, doing the bare minimum the law requires, and giving
credit where credit is due. Period. Certainly use of copyrighted
material where such use is *explicitly permitted* would not by itself be
evidence of dishonestly.
OTOH, there are enuff other things about hovid (doesn't he have a phony
degree? He certainly issues a dishonest challenge. And his whole man
and dinosaur thing, the only way that could not be dishonest is if it
were published in the onion.) That he is independently convicted of
dishonesty, no matter how squeaky clean he *might* be re IP.
Alistair Davidson
Copyright "theft" is not morally equivalent to stealing. Failing to give
credit is pretty despciable however.
--
Alistair Davidson
Read my comic, Bizmatch! http://www.altgeek.org/lord_inh/comic/index.html
"Disloyalty in a democracy is to stop asking questions."
Gyudon Z
I might venture that there was no excuse for the above comment, as it seems
somdel irrelevant to the comment that it was in response to, but let's see
where this is going...
>Ownership rights and infringement is not the focus of the above exchange, and
>you should know it.
Perhaps you missed the phrase in the above exchange which reads "provisions in
copyright laws", and also the first post of the thread which deals with the
possibility that "Dr." Hovind might have committed unlawful copyright
infringement.
That commentary may have been snipped some time ago, but it still exists.
>"How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent
>Hovind's "education" project" is a clear question. How _does_ the music *aid*
>this "education". Or *any* education.
>My post in response to this was on topic: If it is true that using music with
>an
>educational project is dishonest, then any use of music in an educational
>project is dishonest.
Remember that reading comprehension thing you were talking about? The defense
proferred was that the use of the music in this case had some educational value
(i.e. "pictures and videos to substantiate their view-point") that justified
its misappropriation. Carl M was skeptical that in this case the
misappropriation had any legitimate educational value.
What you have perpetrated then, in equating this particular misuse of media in
education to any possible application of media in education, is to misapply a
specific instance to a general situation, which leads to a groundless
conclusion.
>You may have reservations about the validity of this
>"education" but that is not the subject.
Yes it is. Remember again Carl M's comments: "How does using the music from
Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's "education" project? Afterall the subject
is not movies, film scores or music."
>Music is used as a tool in eduction. Whether the Jurassic Park people care or
>not is not the point here, rather it is whether it is dishonest to use music.
Actually, it is it whether it is dishonest to use this music, without the
approval of its rights-holders, without proper accreditation, and apparently
for no legitimate educational purpose.
>Turn on an
>educational program on TV sometime. I watched a program recently about
>RamsesII
>son's burial tomb. *Dramatic* music played often. Just gets me right in the
>mood
>to believe what is said, and to take an interest in the subject. Honest or
>dishonest practice?
Depends. Did you happen to watch the credits long enough to see where they got
the music from?
>Only if it is used for "real science" education in your
>view?
Well, that actually becomes an issue only if 17 USC Sec. 107 applies. Actually
going out and obtaining the licensing from the rights-holder is a separate
matter.
>And when not in your view "real science", then it is dishonest?
No, dishonesty in this instance is going against copyright law and the dicta of
academic integrity.
>Or do
>the
>owners of the music determine instead of you whether it is
>"educational"("real
>science") or not.
Again, John McCoy proferred "fair use" as a possible excuse for this unapproved
use of copyrighted material. Under 17 USC sec. 107, as articulated by Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, one of the critieria for fair use is that it be for a
legitimate educational purpose.
>What purpose is served of the individual who alerts the Jurassic Park people?
It allows them (or the composer whose work they used, since it's likely the
composer's agent would have negotiatied for the movie people to have only some
of the rights to it) to take appropriate steps to protect their intellectual
property.
>So
>that the so called "educational" project will be hurt?
No, to ensure that intellectual property receives the protection that the law
allows it.
>If Hovind had
>permission
>from them, what then?
Then fair use statutes would not apply, and he would have license to it with
their approval.
>If he had used different music out of copyright, what
>then?
Uncopyrightable music is the common property of humankind. No one has ownership
of it to be infringed.
>This "alerting the authorities" to a possible violation *is* mean
>spirited, as John McCoy says.
No more mean-spirited than the violation itself. Stealing is wrong, whether it
is a million dollars or a music score.
>This thread has not centered on the nuances and
>complexities of copyright law, but on hurting someone.
I believe the nuances and complexities of copyright law have been quite central
to it. Hovind's defenders are the only ones who take the focus outside of law
and integrity, where the issue belongs.
And doing so perpetrates the consequentialist fallacy.
Gyudon Z
Why not? How is stealing the worked silver of a silversmith different from
stealing the music of a musician? Obviously, the silversmith is deprived of the
value of the worked silver in a way that the musician is not, but it seems that
from a moral perspective infringement on property is infringement on property.
>Failing to give
>credit is pretty despciable however.
Agreed.
newbie
> From newbie:
>
> >Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20011125145452...@mb-mv.aol.com...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Ahh...I'm having a newbie flashback, so I'll just give you the same
> >question I
> >> usually give him in this situation: Do you have any evidence at all of my
> >> having ever lied?
>
> >And my answer has been yes, as has yours when the question is asked of you
> >having "evidence at all of my having ever lied."
> >
> >Perhaps the best example of real evidence (whether it is still in arvhive, I
> >do
> >not know) is when you confessed to lying, then retracted when the concept of
> >intent being required was mentioned.
>
> Because you found me saying something that was untrue, and accused me of
lying.
> It was true that I had said something that was untrue, but the oversight was
> unintentional.
With knowledge that it was untrue is not unintentional. That was the reason for
the accusation. It is the reason for all accusations of lying.
>
> >If you did not lie, but confessed, you
> >were
> >lying.
>
> Ah, but the confession to something that I didn't do was also unintentional.
You unintentionally confessed. Hm.
>
> >You did confess. So either way, you lied.
>
> Oh? I believe we decided that intent is a necessary component. When have I
told
> an intentional untruth and what was it?
Then. You acknowledge knowledge of the event. And "we" didn't decide that intent
is a necessary component; I have known that since childhood. You
apparently did not, as you only retracted after I made you aware of the fact
that intent is necessary. That was long after showing evidence that you had
knowledge of the untruth you tried to legitimize.
>
> >The fond flashback I get of
> >you
> >though is "plausible deniability"; the "I don't remember" but at other times
> >"I
> >have an excellent memory" spiel of yours.
>
> As I explained, I remember what people write to me much more clearly that what
> I write myself.
Like I say, good memory. You just remembered what *you* explained, what, a year
ago or more?
>
> >Science is not about getting something wrong by going further than the
> >scientific method allows, then correcting itself with new information.
>
> Correct. But when the conclusions go exactly as far as the empirical evidence
> allows, further evidence will require a refinement of the conclusions.
And of course you believe these "conclusions" are scientific, and correct, and
should be included in the realm of science.
>
> >That
> >is
> >"science" and it is just as "dishonest" as a creationist who teaches
> >"science"
> >outside the scope of real science. Like Haeckel.
>
> It is true that comparative embryology is a useful method of inquiry to a
> certain extent, but yes, Haekel did take it too far.
And there have been many of your "wacky nonentity" creationists that have warned
that this is what they see continues to happen in science. Your statement that
this is a useful method of inquiry itself makes me wonder.
I am told about the peer review process. I get a journal article, I ask
questions about it. I get answers like "Oh, they should not have concluded that,
as they did not have the expertise in that field" or "what they say does not
follow blah blah" and I wonder what scientific method is really used. It has not
been a convincing time on t.o.
>
> >Like many other "science"
> >tidbits that have been *taught* as science to children and the public.
>
> Why does everyone focus on how science screwed up in the past? Why not place
> the focus about how science has fixed their past mistakes? Arguing against
what
> scientists considered to be true decades ore centuries ago typically results
in
> a strawman4.
What you really mean to say, and others do quite often, is these were not
mistakes, just the scientific method. You really think that pushing a few keys
will convince me that science has fixed past mistakes? You do go further than
most in admitting this, I give you that. Yes, what you say can be a strawman. It
can also be a real concern that is not addressed by the typical evolutionist's
behavior.
>
> >Whether
> >one thinks that he is right in teaching a certain thing, it is still
> >indoctrination, if the knowledge used is not solid.
>
> Again, all modern scientific theories are compatible with every shred of
> relevant empirical evidence. They're as solid as they can possibly be.
This is so much noninformation, yet typical. One man's empirical evidence is
another man's speculation. So you found some fossils of an ape-like creature.
You see what man looks like. You say that this ape-like creature *may* have been
man's ancestor. Well, *may* is speculation - not science. And not the scientific
method.
It is neither observed nor observable, nor repeated or repeatable.
>
> >One of your favorites is "the universe is all there is". In reality,
> >consciousness is all there is.
>
> No, it is a tenet of the scientific method that there is a physical universe
> outside of and apart from sentient consciousness.
With consciousness do you proclaim that tenent.
>
> >Teaching either as science is equally absurd.
>
> Yes; because they are definitions, not theories. The value of a definition
> depends on how well it applies where it is supposed to apply, how well it
> separates things that it is supposed to define from other things, and how well
> it reduces gray areas; in other words, its robustness. Defining the universe
as
> "the totality of everything that exists" has a great deal of definitive value.
>
Because it separates "things" that are "supposed" to be defined from other
"things" concerning the universe and what may lie beyond, or co-exist with, huh.
Amazing how you have so much knowledge of everything, how you know what is
*supposed* to be defined from other things, especially when talking about the
"universe". You must, as you define the universe as such.
But I agree that definitions are useful. Just not that one. It has no useful
value, as it is not scientifically based. I suspect it is a definition based on
disbelief in a Creator, and serves no scientific cause. The questions you pose,
such as if the Creator exists he would be part of the "universe", is part of
what I base this suspicion on. There are others, such as if the Creator exists,
how and where was he created. These are knee jerk responses to the incredulity
of a Creator, and not sound logic excercises. Just what did the universe expand
*into*, if there is _nothing_ else besides the "universe", Gyudon? Is this not a
logical question? Does science have an answer for how the "universe" *created*
something from nothing so it could expand into it?
Jon Fleming
Using copyrighted material (even if used for educational purposes)
without attribution is not permitted by law. For example, see
<http://www3.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/ccmcguid.htm>:
"Educators and students are reminded to credit the sources and
display the copyright notice © and copyright ownership information if
this is shown in the original source, for all works incorporated as
part of the educational multimedia projects prepared by educators and
students, including those prepared under fair use. Crediting the
source must adequately identify the source of the work, giving a full
bibliographic description where available (including author, title,
publisher, and place and date of publication). The copyright ownership
information includes the copyright notice (©, year of first
publication and name of the copyright holder)
<snip>
Jon Fleming
Not without attribution they don't.
<http://www3.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/ccmcguid.htm>.
And you think Hovind's stuff isn't for-profit?
<snip>
Alistair Davidson
Amusingly, you just made about half of my argument and then dismissed it...
Music is a public good. I can copy your music, and you have lost nothing.
The natural counter is that the musicians *has* lost something- royalties. But
the concept of royalties is something created by law, not by morality.
However, I would regard it as a moral truism that an artist deserves some form
of reward for their work. Personally, I find my reward in popularity of sorts-
got a thrill recently from seeing my hit counter register 90 readers for my
comic in a single week.
Other desire financial rewards, and I certainly see no hamr in that,
especially if there are costs that need to be recouped. But copyright, while
effective in providing that reward to some, has horrible consequences that
simply aren't worth it IMHO. There are other methods of deriving a financial
reward from your work.
Further reading (yes, I'm "doing a Wilkins" ;) :
"Reevaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail", Richard Stallman, 1996
(yeah, it's a little outdated, but still a classic)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html
"Copyright versus community in the age of computer networks", Richard
Stallman, 2000
http://www.carnall.demon.co.uk/stallman/all.html
"The economics of free reproduction", Alistair Davidson, 2001
http://lists.alug.org.uk/pipermail/announce/2001q3/000004.html
"Liberation Musicology", Eben Moglen, 2001
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010312&s=moglen
"Against Intellectual Property", Brian Martin, 2001 (I think...)
http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/against_IP.html
"Science must 'push copyright aside'", Richard Stallman in 'Nature', 2001
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/stallman.html
newbie
Can you see your reflection in the monitor when you flap your lips like that?
The elaboration is to be found there, I just don't know if you have the
slightest idea of either. Besides, that has not been discussed, nor is copyright
law the subject of the thread. It is turning Hovind in for using the music,
without deciding whether it violates copyright. But you responded to what I
said, and the topic of that was not directly connected with either. I think you
are avoiding it, and continuing in a mean spirited attitude.
>
> >> >No one knows what dinos or early man looked like. Only what the artist
> >thinks
> >> >they looked like.
> >> >But the subject of science is not guessing, or art. In short, stewed in
> >your
> >> >own
> >> >juices again!
>
> >> But those artistic guesses tend to be based on empirical evidence. Hardly
> >> stewing in our own juices to be doing what science does.
>
> >It most surely is. Guesses based on "empirical evidence" is not science.
>
> No; conclusions based on empirical evidence is science in its purest form.
Science in its purest form is looking up to see where the rock came from that
hit you in the head. This event is observable and repeatable. There is no room
for guesses, and your concept of "conclusions" are guesses.
>
> >Neither
> >is guesses of what constitutes empirical evidence.
>
> I suppose guesses is [sic] not, but what is that comment in reference to?
You mean you don't know what you are responding to. "Early man", "dinos" above.
>
> >> >On a more serious note... Are you sure that using music in an educational
> >> >atmosphere is dishonest?
>
> >> If it's used without due consideration of the holder of the rights to it.
>
> >I'll play your game. Due consideration means paying to see the movie once?
>
> Means contacting the rights holder and making an arrangement such that
> permission is obtained to use it (which is customary for mass media matters
> such as this), or at the very least a proper accreditation to the original
> source.
Elaborate on "mass media" as a characterization of Hovind's "Adventure Land",
and cite the relavent copyright statutes.
>
> >> >Perhaps you should visit some museums. I have. Modern exhibits do try to
> >> >create
> >> >an "atmosphere"
> >> >using music and other means.
>
> >> Which, hopefully, were obtained with due consideration of the composer's
> >> rights.
>
> >You mean write the producer, tell him you represent a museum and ask if it is
> >alright to play the music?
>
> Professional courtesy, and generally the safest legal course as well.
Sure you are familiar with copyright laws?
>
> >So it is up to the producer to use the music in any case? Non-profit,
> >educational or other?
>
> Barring the fair-use statutes in 17 USC Sec. 107. But even for cases of fair
> use, academic integrity requires giving credit to the originator.
Ah. Now you reduce this to "academic integrity", and place it inside of lawful
action, yourself. So to address the main focus of this thread, the Jurassic Park
people should be alerted that Hovind is playing one of their sound tracks, and
isn't excercising academic integrity.
The only thing left is your concept of academic integrity as it relates here,
and whether you are right.
>
> >> >They also charge money, you know.
>
> >> What's wrong with that? Knowledge is beyond price; you get more than you
> >pay
> >> for.
>
> >Yea, I have certainly got more than what I thought I was paying for more than
> >once. Sometimes it comes home on my shoes.
>
> What a low opinion of knowledge this comment suggests. How sad.
>
Sad, huh. Are you sad that the knowledge that Hovind shares is thought of by you
in similar fashion?
Andrew Glasgow
jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
> Secondly, non-profit, low-budget organizations have, under copyright
> laws, some rights that including using a reasonable amount of footage
> for various reasons.
I'm sure "Dr. Dino" is low-budget, but I doubt he's non-profit. Or
should that be non-prophet?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| And on the pedestal these words appear: / "My name is Ozymandias, |
| king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" -- Shelley |
Gyudon Z
Because of the faulty parallelism in this sentence, I'm not quite sure what it
means, so I'll just have to take a stab at it. Does it mean, perhaps: "A
statement made with knowledge that it was untrue is not uninentional."?
Be that as it may, I did not know (specifically, did not remember) that it was
untrue, otherwise I never would have said it. We're talking about an offhand
comment made at least a week before I forgot about it and said I never said it,
if I recall correctly.
>That was the reason
>for
>the accusation. It is the reason for all accusations of lying.
A reason particularly ill-founded in this case.
>> >If you did not lie, but confessed, you
>> >were
>> >lying.
>> Ah, but the confession to something that I didn't do was also
>unintentional.
>You unintentionally confessed. Hm.
I always intend to confess only to the things I actually do.
>> >You did confess. So either way, you lied.
>> Oh? I believe we decided that intent is a necessary component. When have I
>told
>> an intentional untruth and what was it?
>Then. You acknowledge knowledge of the event.
I acknowledged the event itself. *After* you showed it to me. Before then, I
had completely forgotten it.
>And "we" didn't decide that
>intent
>is a necessary component; I have known that since childhood.
The confusion was only raised when you accused me of lying when denied saying
something I forgot I said. Since I had forgotten it, by definition I could not
have remembered it, and if I could not remember doing it I could in good faith
say that I did not do something I had actually forgotten doing.
As I recall, I did confess at the time to having an imperfect memory.
>You
>apparently did not,
I never gave the matter much thought until you accused me of lying for an
unintentional action.
>as you only retracted after I made you aware of the fact
>that intent is necessary. That was long after showing evidence that you had
>knowledge of the untruth you tried to legitimize.
Yes, but that knowledge was obtained when you showed me what I said, *after* I
said I never said it. Before then, when I said I never said what I had
forgotten I said, you said I was a liar for saying it, when I did not remember
that I had said what I had forgotten I said. Had I remembered that I said what
I said I never said, I never would have said I never said it.
Got it?
>> >The fond flashback I get of
>> >you
>> >though is "plausible deniability"; the "I don't remember" but at other
>times
>> >"I
>> >have an excellent memory" spiel of yours.
>> As I explained, I remember what people write to me much more clearly that
>what
>> I write myself.
>Like I say, good memory. You just remembered what *you* explained, what, a
>year
>ago or more?
I remember it because it still holds true.
That, and we seem to keep coming back to this discussion every few months.
>> >Science is not about getting something wrong by going further than the
>> >scientific method allows, then correcting itself with new information.
>> Correct. But when the conclusions go exactly as far as the empirical
>evidence
>> allows, further evidence will require a refinement of the conclusions.
>And of course you believe these "conclusions" are scientific, and correct,
>and
>should be included in the realm of science.
Because they are supported by all available empirical evidence, and furthermore
deductive validity applies.
>> >That
>> >is
>> >"science" and it is just as "dishonest" as a creationist who teaches
>> >"science"
>> >outside the scope of real science. Like Haeckel.
>> It is true that comparative embryology is a useful method of inquiry to a
>> certain extent, but yes, Haekel did take it too far.
>And there have been many of your "wacky nonentity" creationists that have
>warned
>that this is what they see continues to happen in science.
But these creationists do not typically present any reasons for saying it.
Haeckel was disqualified for a reason--as comparative embryology grew more
advanced, we saw that he was wrong. Without contradicting evidence there is no
reason to disqualify a theory.
>Your statement
>that
>this is a useful method of inquiry itself makes me wonder.
>I am told about the peer review process. I get a journal article, I ask
>questions about it. I get answers like "Oh, they should not have concluded
>that,
>as they did not have the expertise in that field" or "what they say does not
>follow blah blah" and I wonder what scientific method is really used. It has
>not
>been a convincing time on t.o.
What, just because there is some disagreement in the scientific community?
>> >Like many other "science"
>> >tidbits that have been *taught* as science to children and the public.
>> Why does everyone focus on how science screwed up in the past? Why not
>place
>> the focus about how science has fixed their past mistakes? Arguing against
>what
>> scientists considered to be true decades ore centuries ago typically
>results
>in
>> a strawman4.
>What you really mean to say, and others do quite often, is these were not
>mistakes, just the scientific method.
They weren't. They were conclusions supported by all the evidence available at
the time. Since the time, they have been refined and now incorporate the new
evidence as well.
>You really think that pushing a few
>keys
>will convince me that science has fixed past mistakes?
Science has. No sensible biologist now thinks of ontogeny and phylogeny the way
Haeckel did. What else remains to be fixed?
>You do go further than
>most in admitting this, I give you that. Yes, what you say can be a strawman.
>It
>can also be a real concern that is not addressed by the typical
>evolutionist's
>behavior.
How is arguing against a position that does not exist "real" in any way?
>> >Whether
>> >one thinks that he is right in teaching a certain thing, it is still
>> >indoctrination, if the knowledge used is not solid.
>> Again, all modern scientific theories are compatible with every shred of
>> relevant empirical evidence. They're as solid as they can possibly be.
>This is so much noninformation, yet typical. One man's empirical evidence is
>another man's speculation.
Nope. Empirical evidence is objective; the subjective views of two men make no
dent in it.
>So you found some fossils of an ape-like creature.
>You see what man looks like. You say that this ape-like creature *may* have
>been
>man's ancestor.
Not quite the process used. We say that it is vanishingly unlikely that the
ancestor and modern man do not have some evolutionary relationship below the
Order level, according to the physical characteristics of the skeleton, the
characteristics of the human skeleton, of the other similar skeletons
unearthed, issues of biogeography and age of the fossil itself...
>Well, *may* is speculation - not science. And not the
>scientific
>method.
But the taking of many, many independent lines of evidence into account for one
conclusion, is.
>It is neither observed nor observable,
It is observed indirectly.
>nor repeated or repeatable.
Who said science had to be either? One cannot repeat a supernova, but one can
certainly make scientific statements about them.
>> >One of your favorites is "the universe is all there is". In reality,
>> >consciousness is all there is.
>> No, it is a tenet of the scientific method that there is a physical
>universe
>> outside of and apart from sentient consciousness.
>With consciousness do you proclaim that tenent.
No, with my keyboard I proclaim that tenet. It is one of the two or three
fundamental tenets of the scientific method itself.
>> >Teaching either as science is equally absurd.
>> Yes; because they are definitions, not theories. The value of a definition
>> depends on how well it applies where it is supposed to apply, how well it
>> separates things that it is supposed to define from other things, and how
>well
>> it reduces gray areas; in other words, its robustness. Defining the
>universe
>as
>> "the totality of everything that exists" has a great deal of definitive
>value.
>Because it separates "things" that are "supposed" to be defined from other
>"things" concerning the universe and what may lie beyond, or co-exist with,
>huh.
Because it is a robust definition that has been found to be useful.
>Amazing how you have so much knowledge of everything, how you know what is
>*supposed* to be defined from other things,
Defined in a way that other things are not confused with it, technically.
>especially when talking about the
>"universe". You must, as you define the universe as such.
By defining the universe as the totality everything that exists, things that do
not exist are conveniently excluded.
There are some arguments for defining the universe as the collection of things
that obey the physical laws we've observed, but there is a very slim
possibility that our universal laws are not as universal as we think, so the
totality one is probably better if we find one of those deviant things.
>But I agree that definitions are useful. Just not that one. It has no useful
>value, as it is not scientifically based.
On what are you basing that evaluation, and what do you think the "scientific"
definition of the universe should be.
>I suspect it is a definition based
>on
>disbelief in a Creator,
Based on what?
>and serves no scientific cause.
What criteria do you use for evaluating the service to a scientific cause?
>The questions you
>pose,
>such as if the Creator exists he would be part of the "universe",
That is not a question I currently pose. I may have posed it once, but it was
not done as seriously as I pose most of my current questions.
>is part of
>what I base this suspicion on. There are others, such as if the Creator
>exists,
>how and where was he created. These are knee jerk responses to the
>incredulity
>of a Creator, and not sound logic excercises.
They are actually perfectly logical. If everything requires a creator, how is
it possible for the original creator to exist without being created?
Incredulity is often a good thing. I am incredulous to the possibility that
there is an invisible goblin sitting on top of my monitor right now.
>Just what did the universe
>expand
>*into*, if there is _nothing_ else besides the "universe", Gyudon?
First off, the universe is not expanding; the components of the universe are
standing still, and the space between them is expanding.
Using your terminology, though, I would say that void is what is being expanded
into, or literally, nothing. Void in the sense that it has not undergone any
relativistic warping to the point that it can be called actual space.
>Is this
>not a
>logical question?
Logical, but based on a faulty premise, and hence not particularly useful.
>Does science have an answer for how the "universe"
>*created*
>something from nothing so it could expand into it?
I don't think that void, lacking as it does any spatial qualities or the
passage of time, qualifies as a thing. The universe is expanding into nothing,
and since nothing does not have to be created, it is more accurate to say that
the universe created nothing from nothing.
Which is something we all could have expected.
newbie
If so, then what excuse do you have for doing the same thing? Judge yourself
before you judge others.
>
> >Ownership rights and infringement is not the focus of the above exchange, and
> >you should know it.
>
> Perhaps you missed the phrase in the above exchange which reads "provisions in
> copyright laws", and also the first post of the thread which deals with the
> possibility that "Dr." Hovind might have committed unlawful copyright
> infringement.
No, I don't think "I love Lucy" will be on tonight. But it is an anti-feminist
show, and should be banned.
Did I address what you just wrote? Think about it.
>
> That commentary may have been snipped some time ago, but it still exists.
I am aware of that. Fortunately, posts in threads are not restricted to staying
absolutely in line with the subject the thread may have started with.
You do like to waste bandwidth.
>
> >"How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent
> >Hovind's "education" project" is a clear question. How _does_ the music *aid*
> >this "education". Or *any* education.
> >My post in response to this was on topic: If it is true that using music with
> >an
> >educational project is dishonest, then any use of music in an educational
> >project is dishonest.
>
> Remember that reading comprehension thing you were talking about? The defense
> proferred was that the use of the music in this case had some educational
value
> (i.e. "pictures and videos to substantiate their view-point") that justified
> its misappropriation. Carl M was skeptical that in this case the
> misappropriation had any legitimate educational value.
Yes, you are somewhat right about the events in the thread. Tell me though, what
"educational benifit" could be had from playing the music, if the "educational"
focus is not musical? Music is used for dramatic effect, Gyudon. Carl M may be
skeptical about many things, I don't know. But you are assuming
"misappropriation", and that playing the music needs to be connected to
"educational value". Carl M accuses Hovind in this case of being dishonest
because he plays music that has no educational value? Why don't you respond to
what I write, instead of going on about copyright?
>
> What you have perpetrated then, in equating this particular misuse of media in
> education to any possible application of media in education, is to misapply a
> specific instance to a general situation, which leads to a groundless
> conclusion.
I am not agreeing with or defending what was proferred by "the defense" here,
other than to agree with McCoy that it is mean spirited to talk of reporting
Hovind for copyright violation. And I do not happen to agree(at least not at the
present) with your equaing this as a particular misuse of media in *education*.
And as far as equating a specific instance to situations in general, there most
certainly can be a comparison and correct conclusion. And that is what you
should have responded to, Lucy.
>
> >You may have reservations about the validity of this
> >"education" but that is not the subject.
>
> Yes it is. Remember again Carl M's comments: "How does using the music from
> Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's "education" project? Afterall the subject
> is not movies, film scores or music."
And you think that because he put scare marks around education, that false
education is the subject? Sorry, I don't care to stretch that far without
verification. And if so, then Carl M needs to be more clear how he writes. "Aid"
is the subject. How does music or any dramatic effect aid in education?
>
> >Music is used as a tool in eduction. Whether the Jurassic Park people care or
> >not is not the point here, rather it is whether it is dishonest to use music.
>
> Actually, it is it whether it is dishonest to use this music, without the
> approval of its rights-holders, without proper accreditation, and apparently
> for no legitimate educational purpose.
You are responding to someone else's questions, not mine. Respond to them, not
me with your comments. Do you even know or tried to find out whether Hovind has
done this or not?
>
> >Turn on an
> >educational program on TV sometime. I watched a program recently about
> >RamsesII
> >son's burial tomb. *Dramatic* music played often. Just gets me right in the
> >mood
> >to believe what is said, and to take an interest in the subject. Honest or
> >dishonest practice?
>
> Depends. Did you happen to watch the credits long enough to see where they got
> the music from?
No. Wouldn't matter to me. The question I am posing is is it right to play music
or use dramatic effects in educational activities.
>
[snip]
newbie
Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7l230u8e9ks982bur...@4ax.com...
"Copyright by..."?
newbie
Gyudon Z
Well, I'd have to see the other half...
>Music is a public good. I can copy your music, and you have lost nothing.
>The natural counter is that the musicians *has* lost something- royalties.
>But
>the concept of royalties is something created by law, not by morality.
Here, I think, is where this debate becomes difficult, but I suppose that's how
morality winds up anyway.
>However, I would regard it as a moral truism that an artist deserves some
>form
>of reward for their work. Personally, I find my reward in popularity of
>sorts-
> got a thrill recently from seeing my hit counter register 90 readers for my
>comic in a single week.
Which I suppose works well for you. But the professional musician has a dollar
value attached to every use of his work. This, in one perspective, rather than
the music itself, is what gets stolen in cases of copyright infringement.
>Other desire financial rewards, and I certainly see no hamr in that,
>especially if there are costs that need to be recouped. But copyright, while
>effective in providing that reward to some, has horrible consequences that
>simply aren't worth it IMHO.
The relentless battle to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain comes to
mind. Congress should just enact a one-time act to protect the damn mouse.
>There are other methods of deriving a financial
>reward from your work.
Certainly there are, but the way I see it, the law has assigned a financial
value to something that is of no value intrinsically. I just feel that this
assigned value is as much the possession of the copyright holder as the work
itself, and is therefore deserving the same protection as the holder's physical
property.
>Further reading (yes, I'm "doing a Wilkins" ;) :
You will forgive me for not reading most of your further reading, I hope; it's
what I usually do with Wilkins ;)
Alistair Davidson
> From Alistair Davidson:
>
<snip>
>>However, I would regard it as a moral truism that an artist deserves some
>>form
>>of reward for their work. Personally, I find my reward in popularity of
>>sorts-
>> got a thrill recently from seeing my hit counter register 90 readers for my
>>comic in a single week.
>>
>
> Which I suppose works well for you. But the professional musician has a dollar
> value attached to every use of his work. This, in one perspective, rather than
> the music itself, is what gets stolen in cases of copyright infringement.
<snip>
>>There are other methods of deriving a financial
>>reward from your work.
>>
>
> Certainly there are, but the way I see it, the law has assigned a financial
> value to something that is of no value intrinsically. I just feel that this
> assigned value is as much the possession of the copyright holder as the work
> itself, and is therefore deserving the same protection as the holder's physical
> property.
I guess the difference is then that I see breaking a law, where the law is
unjust, to be morally okay. And I certainly don't see unauthorised sharing
(yes, that's a deliberately emotive term, but then so're "copyright theft" and
"piracy") as being morally equivalent to stealing.
Gyudon Z
What excuse do you have for not doing the same. Judge yourself for not judging
yourself before me before you judge me for not judging myself before you.
And chronologically, you made an only-tenuously-relevant comment before I did
in this thread.
>> >Ownership rights and infringement is not the focus of the above exchange,
>and
>> >you should know it.
>> Perhaps you missed the phrase in the above exchange which reads "provisions
>in
>> copyright laws", and also the first post of the thread which deals with the
>> possibility that "Dr." Hovind might have committed unlawful copyright
>> infringement.
>No, I don't think "I love Lucy" will be on tonight. But it is an
>anti-feminist
>show, and should be banned.
>Did I address what you just wrote? Think about it.
I think we ascribe to different definitions of the words "the above exchange".
To me, it means the exchange that is above. I'm not sure what it means to you
yet.
>> That commentary may have been snipped some time ago, but it still exists.
>I am aware of that. Fortunately, posts in threads are not restricted to
>staying
>absolutely in line with the subject the thread may have started with.
Then why did you berate me for not sticking to the focus? Isn't this hypocrisy
on your part?
>You do like to waste bandwidth.
Isn't that the only reason to have bandwidth?
>> >"How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent
>> >Hovind's "education" project" is a clear question. How _does_ the music
>*aid*
>> >this "education". Or *any* education.
>> >My post in response to this was on topic: If it is true that using music
>with
>> >an
>> >educational project is dishonest, then any use of music in an educational
>> >project is dishonest.
>> Remember that reading comprehension thing you were talking about? The
>defense
>> proferred was that the use of the music in this case had some educational
>value
>> (i.e. "pictures and videos to substantiate their view-point") that
>justified
>> its misappropriation. Carl M was skeptical that in this case the
>> misappropriation had any legitimate educational value.
>Yes, you are somewhat right about the events in the thread. Tell me though,
>what
>"educational benifit" could be had from playing the music, if the
>"educational"
>focus is not musical?
None that is so intrinsic to the educational message that leaving it out would
make the message useless.
>Music is used for dramatic effect, Gyudon. Carl M may
>be
>skeptical about many things, I don't know. But you are assuming
>"misappropriation",
Copyrighted material that is taken and reused with neither permission nor
attribution is misappropriated.
>and that playing the music needs to be connected to
>"educational value".
It's part of the coda of fair use that McCoy was invoking.
>Carl M accuses Hovind in this case of being dishonest
>because he plays music that has no educational value?
No; Hovind is accused of being dishonest because he used copyrighted material
with neither permission nor attribution. McCoy's defense was that this was a
"fair use," but "fair use" requires that there be some value, typically
educational, that justifies the use. It also requires attribution, but that's a
separate issue for now.
>Why don't you respond
>to
>what I write, instead of going on about copyright?
Why don't you respond to what I write, instead of going on about the use of
media in education? What I write is more germane to the topic of discussion
before you hijacked it.
>> What you have perpetrated then, in equating this particular misuse of media
>in
>> education to any possible application of media in education, is to misapply
>a
>> specific instance to a general situation, which leads to a groundless
>> conclusion.
>I am not agreeing with or defending what was proferred by "the defense"
>here,
>other than to agree with McCoy that it is mean spirited to talk of reporting
>Hovind for copyright violation.
What is so mean spirited about protecting the property rights of others?
>And I do not happen to agree(at least not at
>the
>present) with your equaing this as a particular misuse of media in
>*education*.
Hovind is apparantly attempt to educate people who visit, isn't he?
>And as far as equating a specific instance to situations in general, there
>most
>certainly can be a comparison and correct conclusion.
But you are comparing part of it while ignoring the rest. There is nothing
wrong with using media in education, so long as the media used were obtained
without violating the rights of those who created it.
In response to the comment: "How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in
Kent Hovind's "education" project?...even your twisted definitions can not save
Hovind from own dishonesty yet again." You asked: "So anytime a picture of a
dinosaur or early man is used in a science
classroom, it is dishonest". Clearly the issue was not whether the use of media
itself is dishonest, but whether Hovind's use of this particular medium is
dishonest on the principles of fair use.
From this example, the only draw a general comparison and conclusion that we
can draw is that yes, generally it is dishonest to disobey copyright law.
>And that is what you
>should have responded to, Lucy.
>>
>> >You may have reservations about the validity of this
>> >"education" but that is not the subject.
>> Yes it is. Remember again Carl M's comments: "How does using the music from
>> Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's "education" project? Afterall the
>subject
>> is not movies, film scores or music."
>And you think that because he put scare marks around education, that false
>education is the subject?
No, it is because before Carl raised that point, McCoy raised the fair use
statutes which allow for the use of portions of copyrighted material for
educational purposes. Carl found that to be a false defense.
>Sorry, I don't care to stretch that far without
>verification. And if so, then Carl M needs to be more clear how he writes.
>"Aid"
>is the subject. How does music or any dramatic effect aid in education?
In a number of ways, but unless the subject of the education is music or
dramatic, the piece used cannot a priori be assumed to be of such importance
that leaving it out would destroy the educational value.
>> >Music is used as a tool in eduction. Whether the Jurassic Park people care
>or
>> >not is not the point here, rather it is whether it is dishonest to use
>music.
>> Actually, it is it whether it is dishonest to use this music, without the
>> approval of its rights-holders, without proper accreditation, and
>apparently
>> for no legitimate educational purpose.
>You are responding to someone else's questions, not mine.
You never asked a question in that little chunk I was responding to. I have
answered that it is perfectly legitimate to use media as long as the rights of
the owners of that media are protected.
>Respond to them,
>not
>me with your comments. Do you even know or tried to find out whether Hovind
>has
>done this or not?
Use media in education? I think it's pretty obvious he has.
>> >Turn on an
>> >educational program on TV sometime. I watched a program recently about
>> >RamsesII
>> >son's burial tomb. *Dramatic* music played often. Just gets me right in
>the
>> >mood
>> >to believe what is said, and to take an interest in the subject. Honest or
>> >dishonest practice?
>> Depends. Did you happen to watch the credits long enough to see where they
>got
>> the music from?
>No. Wouldn't matter to me.
It matters to this debate. The use of media itself is neither honest nor
dishonest. The use of media without consideration or attribution to its owners
is dishonest.
>The question I am posing is is it right to play
>music
>or use dramatic effects in educational activities.
Yes, if their use violates no one's rights.
John Wilkins
> >Further reading (yes, I'm "doing a Wilkins" ;) :
>
> You will forgive me for not reading most of your further reading, I hope; it's
> what I usually do with Wilkins ;)
[Makes Marge Simpson growling noise]
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally posting refs for over 46 years...
newbie
It means you knew it was untrue.
>
> Be that as it may, I did not know (specifically, did not remember) that it was
> untrue, otherwise I never would have said it. We're talking about an offhand
> comment made at least a week before I forgot about it and said I never said
it,
> if I recall correctly.
Bullshit. We argued for some days about it, and you were fully aware of the lie.
Making shit up and accusing others of the shit is called lying, Gyudon. Hope
that is free of faulty parallelism.
>
> >That was the reason
> >for
> >the accusation. It is the reason for all accusations of lying.
>
> A reason particularly ill-founded in this case.
So you admit to lying about something, then retract when you are told that
intent is required? You did not know intent was required when you confessed?
That was not a lie in itself? Could there be no intent in confessing to a lie
that you did not commit if you had no knowledge that lying requires intent?
>
> >> >If you did not lie, but confessed, you
> >> >were
> >> >lying.
>
> >> Ah, but the confession to something that I didn't do was also
> >unintentional.
>
> >You unintentionally confessed. Hm.
>
> I always intend to confess only to the things I actually do.
You confessed to perpetrating a lie. You did not just confess to telling an
untruth which you were not aware was untrue.
>
> >> >You did confess. So either way, you lied.
>
> >> Oh? I believe we decided that intent is a necessary component. When have I
> >told
> >> an intentional untruth and what was it?
>
> >Then. You acknowledge knowledge of the event.
>
> I acknowledged the event itself. *After* you showed it to me. Before then, I
> had completely forgotten it.
The event was your accusation of something I had said, was it not? You are now
saying that you had forgotten what you said when you said it? Or what?
>
> >And "we" didn't decide that
> >intent
> >is a necessary component; I have known that since childhood.
>
> The confusion was only raised when you accused me of lying when denied saying
> something I forgot I said. Since I had forgotten it, by definition I could not
> have remembered it, and if I could not remember doing it I could in good faith
> say that I did not do something I had actually forgotten doing.
I accused you of lying shortly after you committed it. Grab the little wind up
handle on the back of your head and hold it still for a few minutes, maybe that
will help.
>
> As I recall, I did confess at the time to having an imperfect memory.
Yes. Of course. Such fond memories...May I call you Guido?
>
> >You
> >apparently did not,
>
> I never gave the matter much thought until you accused me of lying for an
> unintentional action.
My accusation was that you had falsely accused me of lying. You didn't give that
much thought at the time??
>
> >as you only retracted after I made you aware of the fact
> >that intent is necessary. That was long after showing evidence that you had
> >knowledge of the untruth you tried to legitimize.
>
> Yes, but that knowledge was obtained when you showed me what I said, *after* I
> said I never said it. Before then, when I said I never said what I had
> forgotten I said, you said I was a liar for saying it, when I did not remember
> that I had said what I had forgotten I said. Had I remembered that I said what
> I said I never said, I never would have said I never said it.
>
> Got it?
Perhaps a main spring overhaul is in order, Guido.
>
> >> >The fond flashback I get of
> >> >you
> >> >though is "plausible deniability"; the "I don't remember" but at other
> >times
> >> >"I
> >> >have an excellent memory" spiel of yours.
>
> >> As I explained, I remember what people write to me much more clearly that
> >what
> >> I write myself.
>
> >Like I say, good memory. You just remembered what *you* explained, what, a
> >year
> >ago or more?
>
> I remember it because it still holds true.
That the mechanism of retention?
>
> That, and we seem to keep coming back to this discussion every few months.
You invoked it.
>
> >> >Science is not about getting something wrong by going further than the
> >> >scientific method allows, then correcting itself with new information.
>
> >> Correct. But when the conclusions go exactly as far as the empirical
> >evidence
> >> allows, further evidence will require a refinement of the conclusions.
>
> >And of course you believe these "conclusions" are scientific, and correct,
> >and
> >should be included in the realm of science.
>
> Because they are supported by all available empirical evidence, and
furthermore
> deductive validity applies.
Guesses are supported by all available guesses based on guesses, furthermore the
guesses are deductive and valid...
>
> >> >That
> >> >is
> >> >"science" and it is just as "dishonest" as a creationist who teaches
> >> >"science"
> >> >outside the scope of real science. Like Haeckel.
>
> >> It is true that comparative embryology is a useful method of inquiry to a
> >> certain extent, but yes, Haekel did take it too far.
>
> >And there have been many of your "wacky nonentity" creationists that have
> >warned
> >that this is what they see continues to happen in science.
>
> But these creationists do not typically present any reasons for saying it.
> Haeckel was disqualified for a reason--as comparative embryology grew more
> advanced, we saw that he was wrong. Without contradicting evidence there is no
> reason to disqualify a theory.
That is not the scientific method, waiting for contradicting evidence. Haeckel
did not have evidence, yet you would have said in those times this is "supported
by all available empirical evidence."
>
> >Your statement
> >that
> >this is a useful method of inquiry itself makes me wonder.
> >I am told about the peer review process. I get a journal article, I ask
> >questions about it. I get answers like "Oh, they should not have concluded
> >that,
> >as they did not have the expertise in that field" or "what they say does not
> >follow blah blah" and I wonder what scientific method is really used. It has
> >not
> >been a convincing time on t.o.
>
> What, just because there is some disagreement in the scientific community?
How can there be disagreement using empirical methods? It's either observable
and repeatable, or not.
>
> >> >Like many other "science"
> >> >tidbits that have been *taught* as science to children and the public.
>
> >> Why does everyone focus on how science screwed up in the past? Why not
> >place
> >> the focus about how science has fixed their past mistakes? Arguing against
> >what
> >> scientists considered to be true decades ore centuries ago typically
> >results
> >in
> >> a strawman4.
>
> >What you really mean to say, and others do quite often, is these were not
> >mistakes, just the scientific method.
>
> They weren't. They were conclusions supported by all the evidence available at
> the time. Since the time, they have been refined and now incorporate the new
> evidence as well.
No. I don't see it that way. Conclusions supported by the limited evidence
available, if the limited evidence limits the conclusions, are guesses.
That is what I see with Piltdown, Kettlewell, others.
>
> >You really think that pushing a few
> >keys
> >will convince me that science has fixed past mistakes?
>
> Science has. No sensible biologist now thinks of ontogeny and phylogeny the
way
> Haeckel did. What else remains to be fixed?
And no biologist before Haeckel thought the way Haeckel did either. What
elemenents with Haeckel needed to be fixed? You will probably say none, that he
used all available empirical evidence to make a conclusion. You really don't see
the problem?
>
> >You do go further than
> >most in admitting this, I give you that. Yes, what you say can be a strawman.
> >It
> >can also be a real concern that is not addressed by the typical
> >evolutionist's
> >behavior.
>
> How is arguing against a position that does not exist "real" in any way?
Which position is it that does not exist. Mine? That mistakes like the one
Haeckel made are no longer committed?
>
> >> >Whether
> >> >one thinks that he is right in teaching a certain thing, it is still
> >> >indoctrination, if the knowledge used is not solid.
>
> >> Again, all modern scientific theories are compatible with every shred of
> >> relevant empirical evidence. They're as solid as they can possibly be.
>
> >This is so much noninformation, yet typical. One man's empirical evidence is
> >another man's speculation.
>
> Nope. Empirical evidence is objective; the subjective views of two men make no
> dent in it.
Again with the empirical evidence, like it were some entity, or fossil that had
written on it " made in 1 million bc". Conclusions can not but be subjective, as
you say the scientific community argues about them. What other def do you have
in mind to use for subjective.
>
> >So you found some fossils of an ape-like creature.
> >You see what man looks like. You say that this ape-like creature *may* have
> >been
> >man's ancestor.
>
> Not quite the process used. We say that it is vanishingly unlikely that the
> ancestor and modern man do not have some evolutionary relationship below the
> Order level, according to the physical characteristics of the skeleton, the
> characteristics of the human skeleton, of the other similar skeletons
> unearthed, issues of biogeography and age of the fossil itself...
Unlikely. If so, cite the ancestors of man down the line. Don't use likely, use
objective science.
>
> >Well, *may* is speculation - not science. And not the
> >scientific
> >method.
>
> But the taking of many, many independent lines of evidence into account for
one
> conclusion, is.
Each line of evidence being a conclusion, or some lines, or how many lines being
conclusions "based on" empirical evidence? You use empirical as if it were a
conclusion in itself. Read up on what empirical means.
>
> >It is neither observed nor observable,
>
> It is observed indirectly.
Some things can be observed indirectly. I can't see an electron, but I can
observe the path of one using an instrument. Observation stops at some point
around here.
When I begin to make conclusions about what I observe, I do not call them
"empirical evidence".
Other things can not be observed indirectly, only make conclusions about the
thing or event that can not be observed.
>
> >nor repeated or repeatable.
>
> Who said science had to be either? One cannot repeat a supernova, but one can
> certainly make scientific statements about them.
One can make statements about anything. Attaching the word scientific to them
does not change the degree of validity. If these statements you speak of change
with the passage of new scientific discoveries, you say that is science. I say
it is guessing wrong, and being corrected later.
>
> >> >One of your favorites is "the universe is all there is". In reality,
> >> >consciousness is all there is.
>
> >> No, it is a tenet of the scientific method that there is a physical
> >universe
> >> outside of and apart from sentient consciousness.
>
> >With consciousness do you proclaim that tenent.
>
> No, with my keyboard I proclaim that tenet. It is one of the two or three
> fundamental tenets of the scientific method itself.
Why don't you remove your consciousness and see if you can maintain those
tenents?
>
> >> >Teaching either as science is equally absurd.
>
> >> Yes; because they are definitions, not theories. The value of a definition
> >> depends on how well it applies where it is supposed to apply, how well it
> >> separates things that it is supposed to define from other things, and how
> >well
> >> it reduces gray areas; in other words, its robustness. Defining the
> >universe
> >as
> >> "the totality of everything that exists" has a great deal of definitive
> >value.
>
> >Because it separates "things" that are "supposed" to be defined from other
> >"things" concerning the universe and what may lie beyond, or co-exist with,
> >huh.
>
> Because it is a robust definition that has been found to be useful.
Robust? Its a ridiculous supposition not based in anything but religious belief.
What is useful about allowing the possibility it is wrong?
>
> >Amazing how you have so much knowledge of everything, how you know what is
> >*supposed* to be defined from other things,
>
> Defined in a way that other things are not confused with it, technically.
What other things, Gyudon?
>
> >especially when talking about the
> >"universe". You must, as you define the universe as such.
>
> By defining the universe as the totality everything that exists, things that
do
> not exist are conveniently excluded.
Circular or what. What things do not exist? Show me.
>
> There are some arguments for defining the universe as the collection of things
> that obey the physical laws we've observed, but there is a very slim
> possibility that our universal laws are not as universal as we think, so the
> totality one is probably better if we find one of those deviant things.
You mean you think man has found the answer to everything, but there is a slim
chance he has overlooked or not found some small things. Sounds like my closet.
>
> >But I agree that definitions are useful. Just not that one. It has no useful
> >value, as it is not scientifically based.
>
> On what are you basing that evaluation, and what do you think the "scientific"
> definition of the universe should be.
No definition can be given to something that is not understood nor has been
measured, or compared to another thing. What we know, we know. Period. I believe
in a Creator, as you know. But I don't ask questions like where did he come
from, and where did that from where he came come from. You ask questions like
this of creationists, but refuse to openly question your own definitions(in this
case, universe).
>
> >I suspect it is a definition based
> >on
> >disbelief in a Creator,
>
> Based on what?
On your response, or lack of, for one.
>
> >and serves no scientific cause.
>
> What criteria do you use for evaluating the service to a scientific cause?
Objectivity vs subjectivity.
>
> >The questions you
> >pose,
> >such as if the Creator exists he would be part of the "universe",
>
> That is not a question I currently pose. I may have posed it once, but it was
> not done as seriously as I pose most of my current questions.
I haven't seen you pose with new "questions".
>
> >is part of
> >what I base this suspicion on. There are others, such as if the Creator
> >exists,
> >how and where was he created. These are knee jerk responses to the
> >incredulity
> >of a Creator, and not sound logic excercises.
>
> They are actually perfectly logical. If everything requires a creator, how is
> it possible for the original creator to exist without being created?
What is infinity? If infinity exists, time exists. Or if infinity exists, the
universe is infinite. Is the universe infinite, Gyudon?
>
> Incredulity is often a good thing. I am incredulous to the possibility that
> there is an invisible goblin sitting on top of my monitor right now.
Perhaps rightly so about "goblins". But are you incredulous that anything
invisible is on your monitor right now. Are you incredulous of any other forms
of conscious forms of "life" exist invisible to your eyes?
>
> >Just what did the universe
> >expand
> >*into*, if there is _nothing_ else besides the "universe", Gyudon?
>
> First off, the universe is not expanding; the components of the universe are
> standing still, and the space between them is expanding.
So we are living in a universe that is only half a centimeter in diameter.
Interesting. I can see why you don't believe in goblins. There is no room.
>
> Using your terminology, though, I would say that void is what is being
expanded
> into, or literally, nothing. Void in the sense that it has not undergone any
> relativistic warping to the point that it can be called actual space.
Thats special. Void, huh. Show me the empirical evidence of this. (TNTL)
>
> >Is this
> >not a
> >logical question?
>
> Logical, but based on a faulty premise, and hence not particularly useful.
Or perhaps you and your premise are full of it.
>
> >Does science have an answer for how the "universe"
> >*created*
> >something from nothing so it could expand into it?
>
> I don't think that void, lacking as it does any spatial qualities or the
> passage of time, qualifies as a thing. The universe is expanding into nothing,
> and since nothing does not have to be created, it is more accurate to say that
> the universe created nothing from nothing.
Where can I buy some of this "void", or is it hard to handle, or contain. I do
have some old canning jars, they hold stuff pretty good. Not any void though
that has a low temperature or is volatile. Is any void available that can
maintain room temp and doesn't explode?
It's probably too much to ask, but do you know where some nothing can be had
also? I'd like to see what I could put into nothing. Maybe a simple baloon
experiment or something along those lines. Hell, this makes me want to go back
to school and be a skientist who can play with all these things.
>
> Which is something we all could have expected.
>
It certainly was. (Goblins dancing to Twilight Zone music)
John McCoy
> John McCoy wrote:
> >
> > cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
> > > it?
> >
> > I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
> > consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
> > not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
> > to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
> > promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
>
> How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's
> "education" project? Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or
> music. In short, even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from
> being stewed in the juices of his own dishonesty yet again.
I have a better question. Why dote about trivialities? This is along
the lines of baby pre-school argumentation. What next, "can my daddy
beat up your daddy?"
John McCoy
John McCoy
if they would be so kind as to mention that, along with Hovind being a
very kind individual, he mails out a disclaimer with his very
reasonably priced videos, that anyone is free to copy them. This sure
beats the tactics used by money grubbing, control oriented
evolutionists.
John McCoy
June
[major 'large-scale' spnippery (does *not* violate 2LoT)]
> >
> > >On a more serious note... Are you sure that using music in an educational
> > >atmosphere is dishonest?
> >
> > If it's used without due consideration of the holder of the rights to it.
>
> I'll play your game. Due consideration means paying to see the movie once?
> >
> > >Perhaps you should visit some museums. I have. Modern exhibits do try to
> > >create
> > >an "atmosphere"
> > >using music and other means.
> >
> > Which, hopefully, were obtained with due consideration of the composer's
> > rights.
>
> You mean write the producer, tell him you represent a museum and ask if it is
> alright to play the music?
> So it is up to the producer to use the music in any case? Non-profit,
> educational or other?
In fact, yes, that is the law. If the museum is playing Mozart, that's
past copyright infringement and does not require permission of the
composer (snicker) or his heirs. But I believe they have to get
permission from whoever recorded the music they actually do play.
It's not quite the same issue, but the Birthday song almost everyone
grew up hearing ('Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy
birthday dear...') is still under copyright. A few years ago, the
copyright owner objected to restaurants, singing telegrams, etc. using
the song without paying for each use. That's why *now* when they bring
you your birthday cake in Ruby's, Claimjumper, etc., they sing their own
made up song!
--
June
cats...@yahoo.com
<lord...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Gyudon Z wrote:
>
>> From Alistair Davidson:
>>
>>
>>>cats...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 24 Nov 2001 20:47:39 -0500, jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>steven...@yahoo.com (steven) wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>news:<13036f84.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
[snip]
>
>Music is a public good. I can copy your music, and you have lost nothing.
>
>The natural counter is that the musicians *has* lost something- royalties. But
>the concept of royalties is something created by law, not by morality.
"Who steals my purse steals trash . . ."
I think it is more than *just* royalties. An artist should have some
control over how his or her works are put to use. They should at
least be notified of its use in an advertisement (such as in this
case) or in a political or social cause (such as in this case) so that
they may deny there involvement in that commercial enterprise or
social cause, even if you don't believe they should have to right to
prevent its use. If I have something with no commercial value
whatsoever, isn't it still stealing if you take it from me without
permission?
>However, I would regard it as a moral truism that an artist deserves some form
>of reward for their work. Personally, I find my reward in popularity of sorts-
> got a thrill recently from seeing my hit counter register 90 readers for my
>comic in a single week.
>
>Other desire financial rewards, and I certainly see no hamr in that,
>especially if there are costs that need to be recouped. But copyright, while
>effective in providing that reward to some, has horrible consequences that
>simply aren't worth it IMHO. There are other methods of deriving a financial
>reward from your work.
>
>
>Further reading (yes, I'm "doing a Wilkins" ;) :
>
[snip referrences for . . . <cough> . . . later study]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Gyudon Z
>Interesting that these evolutionist would attack Kent Hovind.
Why? He's a liar, a fraud, not even a doctor, and now we can add a copyright
infringer to that, it seems.
>tionist would attack Kent Hovind. If only
>if they would be so kind as to mention that, along with Hovind being a
>very kind individual, he mails out a disclaimer with his very
>reasonably priced videos, that anyone is free to copy them.
Good for him, but it doesn't really negate his infringement on the copyrights
of others.
This sure
>beats the tactics used by money grubbing, control oriented
>evolutionists.
Like who?
newbie
How do you know I haven't and don't.
>
> And chronologically, you made an only-tenuously-relevant comment before I did
> in this thread.
Find distinction, using "in this thread", but if this comment of yours has
anything to do with reality, its in response to judging eachother's comments.
And since you invoked my name in a post to another poster and talked about
accusations of lying, you started it. Nya nya.
>
> >> >Ownership rights and infringement is not the focus of the above exchange,
> >and
> >> >you should know it.
>
> >> Perhaps you missed the phrase in the above exchange which reads "provisions
> >in
> >> copyright laws", and also the first post of the thread which deals with the
> >> possibility that "Dr." Hovind might have committed unlawful copyright
> >> infringement.
>
> >No, I don't think "I love Lucy" will be on tonight. But it is an
> >anti-feminist
> >show, and should be banned.
> >Did I address what you just wrote? Think about it.
>
> I think we ascribe to different definitions of the words "the above exchange".
> To me, it means the exchange that is above. I'm not sure what it means to you
> yet.
The same thing, unless you are being tricky and mean what is immediately above,
like the goblin on your monitor.
>
> >> That commentary may have been snipped some time ago, but it still exists.
>
> >I am aware of that. Fortunately, posts in threads are not restricted to
> >staying
> >absolutely in line with the subject the thread may have started with.
>
> Then why did you berate me for not sticking to the focus? Isn't this hypocrisy
> on your part?
I have been! Perhaps I will use the word berate in the future. It will be a key
word between you and I so you will know.
>
> >You do like to waste bandwidth.
>
> Isn't that the only reason to have bandwidth?
Um, I don't think so.
>
> >> >"How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent
> >> >Hovind's "education" project" is a clear question. How _does_ the music
> >*aid*
> >> >this "education". Or *any* education.
> >> >My post in response to this was on topic: If it is true that using music
> >with
> >> >an
> >> >educational project is dishonest, then any use of music in an educational
> >> >project is dishonest.
>
> >> Remember that reading comprehension thing you were talking about? The
> >defense
> >> proferred was that the use of the music in this case had some educational
> >value
> >> (i.e. "pictures and videos to substantiate their view-point") that
> >justified
> >> its misappropriation. Carl M was skeptical that in this case the
> >> misappropriation had any legitimate educational value.
>
> >Yes, you are somewhat right about the events in the thread. Tell me though,
> >what
> >"educational benifit" could be had from playing the music, if the
> >"educational"
> >focus is not musical?
>
> None that is so intrinsic to the educational message that leaving it out would
> make the message useless.
And you think that's the case?
>
> >Music is used for dramatic effect, Gyudon. Carl M may
> >be
> >skeptical about many things, I don't know. But you are assuming
> >"misappropriation",
>
> Copyrighted material that is taken and reused with neither permission nor
> attribution is misappropriated.
Nah. Only sometimes.
>
> >and that playing the music needs to be connected to
> >"educational value".
>
> It's part of the coda of fair use that McCoy was invoking.
Yea, I read that. So? You think I'm McCoy? Horn thinks I'm Josiah(the young mans
name if memory serves). By the way, is coda like codex or spandex?
>
> >Carl M accuses Hovind in this case of being dishonest
> >because he plays music that has no educational value?
>
> No; Hovind is accused of being dishonest because he used copyrighted material
> with neither permission nor attribution.
"How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's "education"
project? Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or music. In short,
even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from being stewed in the
juices of his own dishonesty yet again." This Carl M? Compare the two, his and
yours above. Do they match?
>McCoy's defense was that this was a
> "fair use," but "fair use" requires that there be some value, typically
> educational, that justifies the use. It also requires attribution, but that's
a
> separate issue for now.
Mm, yes.
>
> >Why don't you respond
> >to
> >what I write, instead of going on about copyright?
>
> Why don't you respond to what I write, instead of going on about the use of
> media in education? What I write is more germane to the topic of discussion
> before you hijacked it.
I hijacked nothing, Oh impotent one. What I write is what I feel like writing,
and needs not be "germane" to what you think the topic of discussion is or
should be. If you respond, you should respond to what I write, as I should to
you, else we will be talking past each other. In this case, you replied to my
question about the use of music in education. For some reason you do not want
that concept introduced into the discussion.
>
> >> What you have perpetrated then, in equating this particular misuse of media
> >in
> >> education to any possible application of media in education, is to misapply
> >a
> >> specific instance to a general situation, which leads to a groundless
> >> conclusion.
>
> >I am not agreeing with or defending what was proferred by "the defense"
> >here,
> >other than to agree with McCoy that it is mean spirited to talk of reporting
> >Hovind for copyright violation.
>
> What is so mean spirited about protecting the property rights of others?
Put some spandex on and go thus into the world, superhero fighter of crime and
injustice. Crap. Do you know if Hovind has permission? Do you know there is a
violation of law? Or will you just call the powlice station every time you see
the neighbor acting "funny".
>
> >And I do not happen to agree(at least not at
> >the
> >present) with your equaing this as a particular misuse of media in
> >*education*.
>
> Hovind is apparantly attempt to educate people who visit, isn't he?
I don't know. (Don't you just hate it when I say that?)
>
> >And as far as equating a specific instance to situations in general, there
> >most
> >certainly can be a comparison and correct conclusion.
>
> But you are comparing part of it while ignoring the rest. There is nothing
> wrong with using media in education, so long as the media used were obtained
> without violating the rights of those who created it.
Oh, media. And mood creating music is media. Thanks for telling me! Guess I have
my answer. Bye.
> In response to the comment: "How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid
in
> Kent Hovind's "education" project?...even your twisted definitions can not
save
> Hovind from own dishonesty yet again." You asked: "So anytime a picture of a
> dinosaur or early man is used in a science
> classroom, it is dishonest". Clearly the issue was not whether the use of
media
> itself is dishonest, but whether Hovind's use of this particular medium is
> dishonest on the principles of fair use.
Where in my quotes is "fair use"? Fair use schmair use. Copyright laws sometimes
don't seem logical. I'm not that interested in whether copyright laws were
broken, I haven't seen any evidence yet to comment anyway. What is comparative
is the use of the music, and why the music is allegedly used. Not even at issue
is whether Hovind's spiel is considered "educational", or what that means. You
and others are pissed that the theme from Jurassic Park, which you view as
pro-evolutionary, is being used as a tool to indoctrinate people to Hovind's
beliefs. Yea? And I say, what is the difference between that and some science
documentary that plays dramatic music(the second time I have used the word
dramatic, Gyudon). Is it because one educational topic happens to be in your
opinion valid, and the other invalid, and you object to the use of music?
>
> From this example, the only draw a general comparison and conclusion that we
> can draw is that yes, generally it is dishonest to disobey copyright law.
Downright illegal. You have gone beyond that in another post, though, to whether
an act that is not unlawful, but unethical. You'll excuse me if I hold
reservations about what you consider unethical and "dishonest".
>
> >And that is what you
> >should have responded to, Lucy.
> >>
> >> >You may have reservations about the validity of this
> >> >"education" but that is not the subject.
>
> >> Yes it is. Remember again Carl M's comments: "How does using the music from
> >> Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's "education" project? Afterall the
> >subject
> >> is not movies, film scores or music."
>
> >And you think that because he put scare marks around education, that false
> >education is the subject?
>
> No, it is because before Carl raised that point, McCoy raised the fair use
> statutes which allow for the use of portions of copyrighted material for
> educational purposes. Carl found that to be a false defense.
Then it is false education that was the subject. Statutues do allow for the use
of portions of copyright material to be used without permission for educational
purposes. That is well known. Nothing in Carl M's paragraph above is directed
to or addresses that issue, unless you infer it from the scare marks. I did not
infer anything, I responded to his question "How does using music...aid...in
"education"?"
>
> >Sorry, I don't care to stretch that far without
> >verification. And if so, then Carl M needs to be more clear how he writes.
> >"Aid"
> >is the subject. How does music or any dramatic effect aid in education?
>
> In a number of ways, but unless the subject of the education is music or
> dramatic, the piece used cannot a priori be assumed to be of such importance
> that leaving it out would destroy the educational value.
So?
>
> >> >Music is used as a tool in eduction. Whether the Jurassic Park people care
> >or
> >> >not is not the point here, rather it is whether it is dishonest to use
> >music.
>
> >> Actually, it is it whether it is dishonest to use this music, without the
> >> approval of its rights-holders, without proper accreditation, and
> >apparently
> >> for no legitimate educational purpose.
>
> >You are responding to someone else's questions, not mine.
>
> You never asked a question in that little chunk I was responding to. I have
> answered that it is perfectly legitimate to use media as long as the rights of
> the owners of that media are protected.
And you claim that is your only interest in this, protection of other people
property? I know you think me stupid and ignorant, but I din't just fall off the
turnip truck yesterday.
>
> >Respond to them,
> >not
> >me with your comments. Do you even know or tried to find out whether Hovind
> >has
> >done this or not?
>
> Use media in education? I think it's pretty obvious he has.
Have you seen the video?
>
> >> >Turn on an
> >> >educational program on TV sometime. I watched a program recently about
> >> >RamsesII
> >> >son's burial tomb. *Dramatic* music played often. Just gets me right in
> >the
> >> >mood
> >> >to believe what is said, and to take an interest in the subject. Honest or
> >> >dishonest practice?
>
> >> Depends. Did you happen to watch the credits long enough to see where they
> >got
> >> the music from?
>
> >No. Wouldn't matter to me.
>
> It matters to this debate. The use of media itself is neither honest nor
> dishonest. The use of media without consideration or attribution to its owners
> is dishonest.
The use of the media without consideration by *Hovind* is what the "debate" is
about, and whether *Hovind* is dishonest. "Dr. Dino.." is the header, Gyudon,
not "Copyright Law".
>
> >The question I am posing is is it right to play
> >music
> >or use dramatic effects in educational activities.
>
> Yes, if their use violates no one's rights.
>
Spandex might look good on you. Maybe "Science Man" on the cape would be a nice
touch.
Gyudon Z
>Carl M <NO_SPAM_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<3C012676...@hotmail.com>...
>> John McCoy wrote:
>> >
>> > cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message
>news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > > Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
>> > > it?
>> >
>> > I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
>> > consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
>> > not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
>> > to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
>> > promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
>>
>> How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's
>> "education" project? Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or
>> music. In short, even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from
>> being stewed in the juices of his own dishonesty yet again.
>I have a better question. Why dote about trivialities?
Because it's the law.
.This is along
>the lines of baby pre-school argumentation. What next, "can my daddy
>beat up your daddy?"
Actually, it's "My daddy's familiar with 17 USC sec. 107, as articulated by
Sandra Day O'Connor. Is yours?"
Alistair Davidson
> On 25 Nov 2001 19:44:18 -0500, Alistair Davidson
> <lord...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Music is a public good. I can copy your music, and you have lost nothing.
>>
>>The natural counter is that the musicians *has* lost something- royalties. But
>>the concept of royalties is something created by law, not by morality.
>>
>
> "Who steals my purse steals trash . . ."
Huh?
> I think it is more than *just* royalties. An artist should have some
> control over how his or her works are put to use. They should at
> least be notified of its use in an advertisement (such as in this
> case) or in a political or social cause (such as in this case) so that
> they may deny there involvement in that commercial enterprise or
> social cause, even if you don't believe they should have to right to
> prevent its use.
Yes, this is an issue that occasionally trouble me also. I've not yet entirely
resolved it for myself. However, to my mind copyright still isn't worth the cost.
I would be prepared to consider a scaled-back copyright regime whereby an
artist must give permission for their art or a derivative work to be used to
promote and ideological position, but that could cause practical difficulties
of various kinds.
> If I have something with no commercial value
> whatsoever, isn't it still stealing if you take it from me without
> permission?
Yes. But that's my point, nothing has been *taken*. As an analogy, it's not
like having someone steal your bike, but more like having someone make a
carbon copy of your bike and taking that.
newbie
June <junego...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1f3g06r.1dewltxu7am82N%junego...@earthlink.net...
> newbie <she...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> [major 'large-scale' spnippery (does *not* violate 2LoT)]
> > >
> > > >On a more serious note... Are you sure that using music in an educational
> > > >atmosphere is dishonest?
> > >
> > > If it's used without due consideration of the holder of the rights to it.
> >
> > I'll play your game. Due consideration means paying to see the movie once?
> > >
> > > >Perhaps you should visit some museums. I have. Modern exhibits do try to
> > > >create
> > > >an "atmosphere"
> > > >using music and other means.
> > >
> > > Which, hopefully, were obtained with due consideration of the composer's
> > > rights.
> >
> > You mean write the producer, tell him you represent a museum and ask if it
is
> > alright to play the music?
> > So it is up to the producer to use the music in any case? Non-profit,
> > educational or other?
>
> In fact, yes, that is the law. If the museum is playing Mozart, that's
> past copyright infringement and does not require permission of the
> composer (snicker) or his heirs. But I believe they have to get
> permission from whoever recorded the music they actually do play.
This is somewhat of a different problem, as Hovind is allegedly distributing a
video.
I would ask what you think would happen if a museum were playing the radio for
people to hear.
Would they be required to give credits? It is illegal as far as I know to
rebroadcast a radio trans
without permission. How about discos?(yes, I know disco is out) When my hair was
long and mortality was not on the horizon, the
places I frequented did not give credits to songs they played. At least, I did
not ever hear them. Was I cheated?
>
> It's not quite the same issue, but the Birthday song almost everyone
> grew up hearing ('Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy
> birthday dear...') is still under copyright.
NO!
>A few years ago, the
> copyright owner objected to restaurants, singing telegrams, etc. using
> the song without paying for each use. That's why *now* when they bring
> you your birthday cake in Ruby's, Claimjumper, etc., they sing their own
> made up song!
>
All laws are not just, and copyright laws are perhaps among the most whacky.
Would it hurt anyone if they sang the Birthday song? I don't think so.
Unless they got caught, then the holder of the copyright could benifit.
Mike Dunford
>> display the copyright notice Š and copyright ownership information if
>> this is shown in the original source, for all works incorporated as
>> part of the educational multimedia projects prepared by educators and
>> students, including those prepared under fair use. Crediting the
>> source must adequately identify the source of the work, giving a full
>> bibliographic description where available (including author, title,
>> publisher, and place and date of publication). The copyright ownership
>> information includes the copyright notice (Š, year of first
>> publication and name of the copyright holder)
>>
>So what, should Hovind dub a piece after the Jurassic Park theme, singing
>"Copyright by..."?
IF Hovind's use of the material falls under fair use, which is
debatable, he must include somewhere on the website acknowledging the
copyrights for all copyrighted material he used. He should include it
in the video, but he could probably place it somewhere else on the
site. He could sing it, chant it, or place a written credit at the end
of the video (novel concept, that last one). Failure to seek
apropriate permissions and failure to identify copyrighted material is
at best intellectually dishonest. At worst, it is actionable copyright
infringement.
What I don't understand is why you and McCoy seem to feel obliged to
defend him on points like this.
--Mike Dunford
newbie
Mike Dunford <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3c01bcd1.17813156@news-server...
use is correct?
> What I don't understand is why you and McCoy seem to feel obliged to
> defend him on points like this.
>
You only determine that I am defending him as an individual, or as a member of
"creationists".
What I do understand is why the thread was started in the first place. Do you?
Was it to discuss copyright, or protect the rights of MGM?
Gyudon Z
>Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20011125210428...@mb-fu.aol.com...
>> From newbie:
>>
<snip>
>> >> >> >So anytime a picture of a dinosaur or early man is used in a science
>> >> >> >classroom,
>> >> >> >it is dishonest.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Only if due attention is not paid to the owner of the rights of the
>> >> >picture.
>> >> >> Then it's stealing.
>> >>
>> >> >You are intelligent and adequately versed in reading comprehension
>> >> >skills(often
>> >> >accusing others of the lack of) so there is no excuse for your above
>> >> >response.
>> >>
>> >> I might venture that there was no excuse for the above comment, as it
>seems
>> >> somdel irrelevant to the comment that it was in response to, but let's
>see
>> >> where this is going...
>> >
>> >If so, then what excuse do you have for doing the same thing? Judge
>yourself
>> >before you judge others.
>> What excuse do you have for not doing the same. Judge yourself for not
>judging
>> yourself before me before you judge me for not judging myself before you.
>How do you know I haven't and don't.
I've seen no indication of it.
>> And chronologically, you made an only-tenuously-relevant comment before I
>did
>> in this thread.
>Find distinction, using "in this thread",
I found it already, thank you.
>but if this comment of yours has
>anything to do with reality, its in response to judging eachother's comments.
>And since you invoked my name in a post to another poster and talked about
>accusations of lying, you started it. Nya nya.
Actually, I only invoked your name in passing. He was talking about accusations
of lying. Double nya nya, with nuts on top.
>> >> >Ownership rights and infringement is not the focus of the above
>exchange,
>> >and
>> >> >you should know it.
>> >> Perhaps you missed the phrase in the above exchange which reads
>"provisions
>> >in
>> >> copyright laws", and also the first post of the thread which deals with
>the
>> >> possibility that "Dr." Hovind might have committed unlawful copyright
>> >> infringement.
>> >No, I don't think "I love Lucy" will be on tonight. But it is an
>> >anti-feminist
>> >show, and should be banned.
>> >Did I address what you just wrote? Think about it.
>> I think we ascribe to different definitions of the words "the above
>exchange".
>> To me, it means the exchange that is above. I'm not sure what it means to
>you
>> yet.
>The same thing, unless you are being tricky and mean what is immediately
>above,
>like the goblin on your monitor.
Actually, I think I mean "above" to encompass what's further above than you,
but I'm not quite sure.
>> >> That commentary may have been snipped some time ago, but it still
>exists.
>> >I am aware of that. Fortunately, posts in threads are not restricted to
>> >staying
>> >absolutely in line with the subject the thread may have started with.
>> Then why did you berate me for not sticking to the focus? Isn't this
>hypocrisy
>> on your part?
>I have been! Perhaps I will use the word berate in the future. It will be a
>key
>word between you and I so you will know.
>> >You do like to waste bandwidth.
>>
>> Isn't that the only reason to have bandwidth?
>Um, I don't think so.
I have DSL, and I do.
There isn't a text file too large, but I suppose I have to read them too.
<snip>
>> >> Remember that reading comprehension thing you were talking about? The
>> >defense
>> >> proferred was that the use of the music in this case had some
>educational
>> >value
>> >> (i.e. "pictures and videos to substantiate their view-point") that
>> >justified
>> >> its misappropriation. Carl M was skeptical that in this case the
>> >> misappropriation had any legitimate educational value.
>>
>> >Yes, you are somewhat right about the events in the thread. Tell me
>though,
>> >what
>> >"educational benifit" could be had from playing the music, if the
>> >"educational"
>> >focus is not musical?
>>
>> None that is so intrinsic to the educational message that leaving it out
>would
>> make the message useless.
>And you think that's the case?
In this situation, yes.
>> >Music is used for dramatic effect, Gyudon. Carl M may
>> >be
>> >skeptical about many things, I don't know. But you are assuming
>> >"misappropriation",
>> Copyrighted material that is taken and reused with neither permission nor
>> attribution is misappropriated.
>Nah. Only sometimes.
No, all the time. Even under fair use attribution must be given.
>> >and that playing the music needs to be connected to
>> >"educational value".
>> It's part of the coda of fair use that McCoy was invoking.
>Yea, I read that. So? You think I'm McCoy?
I think you know how to evaluate the arguments of McCoy and the rest of us,
taking the law into account.
>Horn thinks I'm Josiah(the young
>mans
>name if memory serves). By the way, is coda like codex or spandex?
A less-common and poetic plural of "code," I believe. The plural of codex is
codices, and spandex hasn't been given a plural yet.
>> >Carl M accuses Hovind in this case of being dishonest
>> >because he plays music that has no educational value?
>> No; Hovind is accused of being dishonest because he used copyrighted
>material
>> with neither permission nor attribution.
>"How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's "education"
>project?
It doesn't. That's the point. Its use furthers no educational end, and hence
arguing fair use in order to defend its use is a waste.
>Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or music. In
>short,
>even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from being stewed in the
>juices of his own dishonesty yet again." This Carl M? Compare the two, his
>and
>yours above. Do they match?
When I quoted Carl, I removed a section and acknowledged the removal with
ellipses because I didn't feel that it was relevant to my argument.
But I think I quoted him below, not above. I could be wrong, though.
>>McCoy's defense was that this was a
>> "fair use," but "fair use" requires that there be some value, typically
>> educational, that justifies the use. It also requires attribution, but
>that's
>a
>> separate issue for now.
>Mm, yes.
>> >Why don't you respond
>> >to
>> >what I write, instead of going on about copyright?
>> Why don't you respond to what I write, instead of going on about the use of
>> media in education? What I write is more germane to the topic of discussion
>> before you hijacked it.
>I hijacked nothing, Oh impotent one.
You misspelled "impecunious." But you did hijack our discussion by mistakenly
conflating our conversation about whether Hovind committed copyright
infringement with a conversation about the use of media in general. We want our
conversation back.
>What I write is what I feel like
>writing,
>and needs not be "germane" to what you think the topic of discussion is or
>should be.
Buut if it's not relevant, it should have a thread of its own. I've seen you
start threads before; you should know how.
>If you respond, you should respond to what I write, as I should to
>you,
And as you should have to Carl.
>else we will be talking past each other. In this case, you replied to my
>question about the use of music in education. For some reason you do not want
>that concept introduced into the discussion.
It's not a bad topic, but the one dealing with copyright infringement and
academic honesty is more the issue. Even John McCoy agreed when he attempted a
defense of Hovind.
>> >> What you have perpetrated then, in equating this particular misuse of
>media
>> >in
>> >> education to any possible application of media in education, is to
>misapply
>> >a
>> >> specific instance to a general situation, which leads to a groundless
>> >> conclusion.
>> >I am not agreeing with or defending what was proferred by "the defense"
>> >here,
>> >other than to agree with McCoy that it is mean spirited to talk of
>reporting
>> >Hovind for copyright violation.
>> What is so mean spirited about protecting the property rights of others?
>Put some spandex on and go thus into the world, superhero fighter of crime
>and
>injustice. Crap. Do you know if Hovind has permission?
The apparent lack of attribution suggests not.
>Do you know there is a
>violation of law?
Yes. Copyright has been infringed upon, and fair use does not apply.
>Or will you just call the powlice station every time you
>see
>the neighbor acting "funny".
If the neighbor's funny acting is in conflict with 17 USC sec. 107, sure.
Although enforcing that is really the job of a federal agency.
>> >And I do not happen to agree(at least not at
>> >the
>> >present) with your equaing this as a particular misuse of media in
>> >*education*.
>> Hovind is apparantly attempt to educate people who visit, isn't he?
>I don't know. (Don't you just hate it when I say that?)
Either way, McCoy says he is, and we find that his attempt to defend Hovind by
invoking this concept bankrupt.
>> >And as far as equating a specific instance to situations in general, there
>> >most
>> >certainly can be a comparison and correct conclusion.
>> But you are comparing part of it while ignoring the rest. There is nothing
>> wrong with using media in education, so long as the media used were
>obtained
>> without violating the rights of those who created it.
>Oh, media. And mood creating music is media. Thanks for telling me! Guess I
>have
>my answer. Bye.
Bye.
>> In response to the comment: "How does using the music from Jurassic Park
>aid
>in
>> Kent Hovind's "education" project?...even your twisted definitions can not
>save
>> Hovind from own dishonesty yet again." You asked: "So anytime a picture of
>a
>> dinosaur or early man is used in a science
>> classroom, it is dishonest". Clearly the issue was not whether the use of
>media
>> itself is dishonest, but whether Hovind's use of this particular medium is
>> dishonest on the principles of fair use.
>Where in my quotes is "fair use"?
I thought you were leaving...
The "fair use" is what McCoy invoked to defend Hovind's use of this media
without permission.
>Fair use schmair use. Copyright laws
>sometimes
>don't seem logical.
They seem fine to me.
>I'm not that interested in whether copyright laws were
>broken, I haven't seen any evidence yet to comment anyway. What is
>comparative
>is the use of the music, and why the music is allegedly used.
And as I've told you, the problem we have here is not with using music in
general, but with using other people's music without excuse or permission.
>Not even at
>issue
>is whether Hovind's spiel is considered "educational", or what that means.
That is the issue, actually. It allows us to determine whether the use of this
can be excused or not.
>You
>and others are pissed that the theme from Jurassic Park, which you view as
>pro-evolutionary,
How do you know how any of us view Jurassic Park?
>is being used as a tool to indoctrinate people to Hovind's
>beliefs. Yea? And I say, what is the difference between that and some science
>documentary that plays dramatic music(the second time I have used the word
>dramatic, Gyudon).
Because Hovind may be using this music unfairly, which would make him a thief.
> Is it because one educational topic happens to be in your
>opinion valid, and the other invalid, and you object to the use of music?
Whatever gave you the impression that I object to the use of music? What I
object to is the theft of intellectual property.
>> From this example, the only draw a general comparison and conclusion that
>we
>> can draw is that yes, generally it is dishonest to disobey copyright law.
>Downright illegal. You have gone beyond that in another post, though, to
>whether
>an act that is not unlawful, but unethical.
You haven't finished that sentence. To whether an act that is not unlawful but
unethical is what?
>You'll excuse me if I hold
>reservations about what you consider unethical and "dishonest".
I might possibly excuse you, but if Hovind committed theft there is no excuse
for him.
>> >And that is what you
>> >should have responded to, Lucy.
>> >> >You may have reservations about the validity of this
>> >> >"education" but that is not the subject.
>> >> Yes it is. Remember again Carl M's comments: "How does using the music
>from
>> >> Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's "education" project? Afterall the
>> >subject
>> >> is not movies, film scores or music."
>> >And you think that because he put scare marks around education, that false
>> >education is the subject?
>> No, it is because before Carl raised that point, McCoy raised the fair use
>> statutes which allow for the use of portions of copyrighted material for
>> educational purposes. Carl found that to be a false defense.
>Then it is false education that was the subject.
No, it's still copyright infringement. Educational purpose was raised as a
defense to copyright infringement, but Carl found that it was no defense to
copyright infringement and Hovind was in fact guilty of copyright infringement,
if he had not obtained license from the composer (which we somewhat doubt).
>Statutues do allow for the
>use
>of portions of copyright material to be used without permission for
>educational
>purposes. That is well known. Nothing in Carl M's paragraph above is
>directed
>to or addresses that issue,
All of Carl M's paragraph addressed that issue. He said that the educational
piece itself was not to educate about music, movie scores, composition, etc.,
and hence borrowing that music served no educational purpose so great as to
justify its use.
>unless you infer it from the scare marks. I did
>not
>infer anything, I responded to his question "How does using music...aid...in
>"education"?"
No, his question was "How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent
Hovind's "education" project?" Clearly he was speaking of this specific case,
not the use of music in general.
>> >Sorry, I don't care to stretch that far without
>> >verification. And if so, then Carl M needs to be more clear how he writes.
>> >"Aid"
>> >is the subject. How does music or any dramatic effect aid in education?
>> In a number of ways, but unless the subject of the education is music or
>> dramatic, the piece used cannot a priori be assumed to be of such
>importance
>> that leaving it out would destroy the educational value.
>So?
So Hovind's infringement on this copyright cannot be justified under fair use.
<snip>
>> >> Actually, it is it whether it is dishonest to use this music, without
>the
>> >> approval of its rights-holders, without proper accreditation, and
>> >apparently
>> >> for no legitimate educational purpose.
>> >You are responding to someone else's questions, not mine.
>> You never asked a question in that little chunk I was responding to. I have
>> answered that it is perfectly legitimate to use media as long as the rights
>of
>> the owners of that media are protected.
>And you claim that is your only interest in this, protection of other people
>property?
I believe that people's property should be protected. The involvement of Hovind
in this affair is just icing.
>I know you think me stupid and ignorant, but I din't just fall off
>the
>turnip truck yesterday.
Alright, smart guy, what do you think my other interests are and why?
>> >Respond to them,
>> >not
>> >me with your comments. Do you even know or tried to find out whether
>Hovind
>> >has
>> >done this or not?
>> Use media in education? I think it's pretty obvious he has.
>Have you seen the video?
Videos are media; the very existence of the video indicates that he is using
media in education.
Apart from which, I see no reason that Steven Pirie cannot be considered a
secondary source on the matter.
>> >> >Turn on an
>> >> >educational program on TV sometime. I watched a program recently about
>> >> >RamsesII
>> >> >son's burial tomb. *Dramatic* music played often. Just gets me right in
>> >the
>> >> >mood
>> >> >to believe what is said, and to take an interest in the subject. Honest
>or
>> >> >dishonest practice?
>> >> Depends. Did you happen to watch the credits long enough to see where
>they
>> >got
>> >> the music from?
>> >No. Wouldn't matter to me.
>> It matters to this debate. The use of media itself is neither honest nor
>> dishonest. The use of media without consideration or attribution to its
>owners
>> is dishonest.
>The use of the media without consideration by *Hovind* is what the "debate"
>is
>about, and whether *Hovind* is dishonest. "Dr. Dino.." is the header, Gyudon,
>not "Copyright Law".
But *Hovind* seems to illegal use of *copyrighted* material, and hence
*copyright law* will shed some light whether what *Dr. Dino* has done is theft.
>> >The question I am posing is is it right to play
>> >music
>> >or use dramatic effects in educational activities.
>> Yes, if their use violates no one's rights.
>Spandex might look good on you. Maybe "Science Man" on the cape would be a
>nice
>touch.
Why did you ask the question if you were going to pay so little attention to
the respone?
cats...@yahoo.com
<lord...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>cats...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On 25 Nov 2001 19:44:18 -0500, Alistair Davidson
>> <lord...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Music is a public good. I can copy your music, and you have lost nothing.
>>>
>>>The natural counter is that the musicians *has* lost something- royalties. But
>>>the concept of royalties is something created by law, not by morality.
>>>
>>
>> "Who steals my purse steals trash . . ."
>
>
>Huh?
Oh, just being high-falootin'. Shakespeare, you know:
"Who steals my purse steals trash . . .
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him'
And makes me poor indeed.
Othello Act III, scene iii
>
>
>> I think it is more than *just* royalties. An artist should have some
>> control over how his or her works are put to use. They should at
>> least be notified of its use in an advertisement (such as in this
>> case) or in a political or social cause (such as in this case) so that
>> they may deny there involvement in that commercial enterprise or
>> social cause, even if you don't believe they should have to right to
>> prevent its use.
>
>
>Yes, this is an issue that occasionally trouble me also. I've not yet entirely
>resolved it for myself. However, to my mind copyright still isn't worth the cost.
>
>I would be prepared to consider a scaled-back copyright regime whereby an
>artist must give permission for their art or a derivative work to be used to
>promote and ideological position, but that could cause practical difficulties
>of various kinds.
>
>> If I have something with no commercial value
>> whatsoever, isn't it still stealing if you take it from me without
>> permission?
>
>Yes. But that's my point, nothing has been *taken*. As an analogy, it's not
>like having someone steal your bike, but more like having someone make a
>carbon copy of your bike and taking that.
I was just making the point that even if you think there is no *real*
thing stolen when a copyright is infringed and that it is only a crime
because of an (unjust) law, still, taking that whatever without
permission is *morally* stealing, IMHO. In any case, in this instance
(where the music Hovind used sounds like it is from either a recording
of of the original soundtrack or from a copy of the movie itself), it
is more like a situation where someone, knowing that I sell
photocopies of my bike for profit, photocopies one of my photocopies
(which have value simply because I made it) and sells it *without*
mentioning that it isn't one of *my* photocopies. It may be closer to
fraud than stealing, but I cannot discern the moral difference.
>
>--
Gyudon Z
>Has he not?
It wasn't on the site or in the video. Stteven Pirie gave us the link.
>Is the music copyrighted?
All music is considered copyrighted as soon as it is composed, unless the
composer has been dead for fifty years.
>Are you sure your understanding of fair
>use is correct?
I checked my textbook on Mass Media Law; it is.
Mike Dunford's statements on academic integrity are equally correct.
>> What I don't understand is why you and McCoy seem to feel obliged to
>> defend him on points like this.
>You only determine that I am defending him as an individual, or as a member
>of
>"creationists".
But still, why?
>What I do understand is why the thread was started in the first place. Do
>you?
>Was it to discuss copyright, or protect the rights of MGM?
Maybe both, maybe neither. This issue of academic integrity probably plays into
it too.
RepackRider
How many copyrights do you hold? As the holder of dozens of copyrights, I take
all theft of my intellectual property, as defined by Federal Law, seriously.
If you don't like the way intellectual property is defined in this country,
write your congressperson.
Just because you like the guy, you defend his theft. Kind of like the question
asked of a woman, "Would you sleep with a strange man for a million dollars?"
(Answer: yes.) "How about for fifty cents? (Answer: "What do you think I am?)
"We have established what you are. Now we're working on your price."
It does not matter whether the guy steals a candy bar or an armored car. He is
a thief. Can we agree on that?
~~ Repack Rider ~~
|| Due to overwhelming spam, the address at the ||
|| top of this post is one I only use for newsgroups. ||
|| No e-mail sent to this address is opened. ||
RepackRider
*snip*
>[Hovind] mails out a disclaimer with his very
>reasonably priced videos, that anyone is free to copy them. This sure
>beats the tactics used by money grubbing, control oriented
>evolutionists.
Isn't that special? Not only does he steal intellectual property, he gives it
away to others to distribute as THEY see fit.
Why don't you violate the copyright of a creationist, let him know you did it,
and see how "money grubbing [and] control oriented" he turns out to be?
RepackRider
*snip*
>I would ask what you think would happen if a museum were playing the radio
>for
>people to hear.
>Would they be required to give credits? It is illegal as far as I know to
>rebroadcast a radio trans
>without permission. How about discos?(yes, I know disco is out) When my hair
>was
>long and mortality was not on the horizon, the
>places I frequented did not give credits to songs they played. At least, I
>did
>not ever hear them. Was I cheated?
You are obviously unfamiliar with the law in this area. If you play a radio in
a commercial establishement for the patrons to hear, yes, you are required to
pay a fee to one or both of the two major music licensing houses, ASCAP or BMI.
The same goes for bars where bands play "cover tunes".
>> It's not quite the same issue, but the Birthday song almost everyone
>> grew up hearing ('Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy
>> birthday dear...') is still under copyright.
>
>NO!
Yes. This is one that gets renewed by the heirs of the coposer every time
renewal comes up ( I believe it's 30 years).
>>A few years ago, the
>> copyright owner objected to restaurants, singing telegrams, etc. using
>> the song without paying for each use. That's why *now* when they bring
>> you your birthday cake in Ruby's, Claimjumper, etc., they sing their own
>> made up song!
>>
>All laws are not just, and copyright laws are perhaps among the most whacky.
I guess you don't hold any.
>Would it hurt anyone if they sang the Birthday song? I don't think so.
>Unless they got caught, then the holder of the copyright could benifit.
It depends on whether you do it in a commercial establishment (pay the man) or
at home (don't pay the man). The law allows for private, noncommercial use.
Gyudon Z
>Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20011125183025...@mb-fu.aol.com...
>> From newbie:
>>
>> >Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:20011125151535...@mb-mv.aol.com...
>> >> From newbie:
>> >>
>> >> >Carl M <NO_SPAM_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3C012676...@hotmail.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John McCoy wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message
>> >> >news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > > Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't
>> >notice
>> >> >> > > it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
>> >> >> > consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas,
>do
>> >> >> > not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and
>videos
>> >> >> > to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
>> >> >> > promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's
>> >> >> "education" project? Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores
>or
>> >> >> music. In short, even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind
>from
>> >> >> being stewed in the juices of his own dishonesty yet again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >So anytime a picture of a dinosaur or early man is used in a science
>> >> >classroom,
>> >> >it is dishonest.
>>
>> >> Only if due attention is not paid to the owner of the rights of the
>> >picture.
>> >> Then it's stealing.
>>
>> >Yea, yea. You might as well be pissing in the wind, than to write "due
>> >attention" without elaborating.
>> I am operating with the guidelines of copyright law and the dicta of
>academic
>> integrity. The elaboration is to be found there.
>Can you see your reflection in the monitor when you flap your lips like that?
>The elaboration is to be found there, I just don't know if you have the
>slightest idea of either.
Copyright law is available online, and I have a textbook that eludicates
it.Anyone who pays attention in college knows what academic integrity is.. If
you have any questions about either, feel free to ask.
>Besides, that has not been discussed, nor is
>copyright
>law the subject of the thread.
Although the law has come up several times.
>It is turning Hovind in for using the music,
>without deciding whether it violates copyright.
But some of us have been trying to probe whether it violates copyright. We
believe it has.
>But you responded to what I
>said, and the topic of that was not directly connected with either.
You asked whether any time an image was used in education, if its use was
dishonest. If its use offends either copyright law or academic integrity, then
it is.
>I think
>you
>are avoiding it, and continuing in a mean spirited attitude.
Where do you get the notion of mean-spiritedness from? I'm being quite pleasant
and equinamous.
>> >> >No one knows what dinos or early man looked like. Only what the artist
>> >thinks
>> >> >they looked like.
>> >> >But the subject of science is not guessing, or art. In short, stewed in
>> >your
>> >> >own
>> >> >juices again!
>> >> But those artistic guesses tend to be based on empirical evidence.
>Hardly
>> >> stewing in our own juices to be doing what science does.
>> >It most surely is. Guesses based on "empirical evidence" is not science.
>> No; conclusions based on empirical evidence is science in its purest form.
>Science in its purest form is looking up to see where the rock came from that
>hit you in the head. This event is observable and repeatable.
No it isn't. That rock will never fall in that precise way again.
>There is no
>room
>for guesses,
Yes there is. Did the rock come from ten meters? Fifty? Outer space? What
forces may have influenced the motion of the rock? Was it dropped by some other
individual and therefore a matter for the courts? Was its trajectory parabolic,
or had it reached terminal velocity and taken a linear trajectory.
More to the point, to what extent did the massive object that attracted the
rock warp time and space? Is there a quantum aspect to the rock's motion?
All things worthy of investigation, to varying degrees.
>and your concept of "conclusions" are guesses.
All conclusions are guesses. They are merely guesses with different degrees of
certainty.
>> >Neither
>> >is guesses of what constitutes empirical evidence.
>> I suppose guesses is [sic] not, but what is that comment in reference to?
>You mean you don't know what you are responding to.
No, I mean I don't know what your comment is referencing. I'm not convinced
that it has anything to do with what I was responding to.
>"Early man", "dinos"
>above.
Nope, still not convinced.
However, fossils do count as empirical evidence.
>> >> >On a more serious note... Are you sure that using music in an
>educational
>> >> >atmosphere is dishonest?
>> >> If it's used without due consideration of the holder of the rights to
>it.
>> >I'll play your game. Due consideration means paying to see the movie once?
>> Means contacting the rights holder and making an arrangement such that
>> permission is obtained to use it (which is customary for mass media matters
>> such as this), or at the very least a proper accreditation to the original
>> source.
>Elaborate on "mass media" as a characterization of Hovind's "Adventure Land",
It's on the Internet and is therefore available for viewing worldwide. Massive
enough for you?
>and cite the relavent copyright statutes.
17 USC Sec. 106.
>> >> >Perhaps you should visit some museums. I have. Modern exhibits do try
>to
>> >> >create
>> >> >an "atmosphere"
>> >> >using music and other means.
>> >> Which, hopefully, were obtained with due consideration of the composer's
>> >> rights.
>> >You mean write the producer, tell him you represent a museum and ask if it
>is
>> >alright to play the music?
>> Professional courtesy, and generally the safest legal course as well.
>Sure you are familiar with copyright laws?
17 USC, sec. 106.
Academic integrity, though, especially insists on the acknowledgement of source
material, which Hovind has not done either in the video or on the website. He
has demonstrated no academic integrity, even if he may not have broken any
laws.
>> >So it is up to the producer to use the music in any case? Non-profit,
>> >educational or other?
>> Barring the fair-use statutes in 17 USC Sec. 107. But even for cases of
>fair
>> use, academic integrity requires giving credit to the originator.
>Ah. Now you reduce this to "academic integrity", and place it inside of
>lawful
>action, yourself.
Copyright law and academic integrity are both ways of looking at this use of
the music that deserve attention.
>So to address the main focus of this thread, the Jurassic
>Park
>people should be alerted that Hovind is playing one of their sound tracks,
>and
>isn't excercising academic integrity.
No, they should be alerted that he is violating their rights. Everyone should
be alerted that he is showing a lack of academic integrity.
>The only thing left is your concept of academic integrity as it relates here,
>and whether you are right.
Academic integrity is not my concept. It is a concept with centuries of
scholarly tradition behind it.
>> >> >They also charge money, you know.
>> >> What's wrong with that? Knowledge is beyond price; you get more than you
>> >pay
>> >> for.
>> >Yea, I have certainly got more than what I thought I was paying for more
>than
>> >once. Sometimes it comes home on my shoes.
>> What a low opinion of knowledge this comment suggests. How sad.
>Sad, huh. Are you sad that the knowledge that Hovind shares is thought of by
>you
>in similar fashion?
How do you know that the knowledge that Hovind shares is thought of by me in
that fashion? I find Hovind an interesting example of human nature.
newbie
Why would you? Is it normal to write "Now I am judging myself. Wait and then I
will type the next line"?
>
> >> And chronologically, you made an only-tenuously-relevant comment before I
> >did
> >> in this thread.
>
> >Find distinction, using "in this thread",
> I found it already, thank you.
The "e" key is close to the "d" key, Gyudon.
>
> >but if this comment of yours has
> >anything to do with reality, its in response to judging eachother's comments.
> >And since you invoked my name in a post to another poster and talked about
> >accusations of lying, you started it. Nya nya.
>
> Actually, I only invoked your name in passing.
In passing what???
>He was talking about accusations
> of lying. Double nya nya, with nuts on top.
Good for him. That led you to invoke me "in passing"? How many others on this
group have made accusations of lying?
Wouldn't you like to give them equal time? Horn is a good one. I bet over 90% of
his posts have this little tid bit.
OH, that's right. You believe your buds. I'm a creationist, and you think I am a
liar.
You think I am above your monitor? Mass quantities of laxitives may be good
therapy for you in that case. Clean out all that nasty poision.
>
> >> >> That commentary may have been snipped some time ago, but it still
> >exists.
>
> >> >I am aware of that. Fortunately, posts in threads are not restricted to
> >> >staying
> >> >absolutely in line with the subject the thread may have started with.
>
> >> Then why did you berate me for not sticking to the focus? Isn't this
> >hypocrisy
> >> on your part?
>
> >I have been! Perhaps I will use the word berate in the future. It will be a
> >key
> >word between you and I so you will know.
>
> >> >You do like to waste bandwidth.
> >>
> >> Isn't that the only reason to have bandwidth?
>
> >Um, I don't think so.
>
> I have DSL, and I do.
Isn't that special.
>
> There isn't a text file too large, but I suppose I have to read them too.
Of course you do.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >> Remember that reading comprehension thing you were talking about? The
> >> >defense
> >> >> proferred was that the use of the music in this case had some
> >educational
> >> >value
> >> >> (i.e. "pictures and videos to substantiate their view-point") that
> >> >justified
> >> >> its misappropriation. Carl M was skeptical that in this case the
> >> >> misappropriation had any legitimate educational value.
> >>
> >> >Yes, you are somewhat right about the events in the thread. Tell me
> >though,
> >> >what
> >> >"educational benifit" could be had from playing the music, if the
> >> >"educational"
> >> >focus is not musical?
> >>
> >> None that is so intrinsic to the educational message that leaving it out
> >would
> >> make the message useless.
>
> >And you think that's the case?
>
> In this situation, yes.
But you think the message useless anyway.(although I don't think you have seen
the video)
So you think that Hovind will sell these videos because people want to hear the
sound track to
Jurassic Park. Interesting thought. Much improved over the "Nothing void" thing.
>
> >> >Music is used for dramatic effect, Gyudon. Carl M may
> >> >be
> >> >skeptical about many things, I don't know. But you are assuming
> >> >"misappropriation",
>
> >> Copyrighted material that is taken and reused with neither permission nor
> >> attribution is misappropriated.
>
> >Nah. Only sometimes.
>
> No, all the time. Even under fair use attribution must be given.
Nah. Only sometimes.
>
> >> >and that playing the music needs to be connected to
> >> >"educational value".
>
> >> It's part of the coda of fair use that McCoy was invoking.
>
> >Yea, I read that. So? You think I'm McCoy?
>
> I think you know how to evaluate the arguments of McCoy and the rest of us,
> taking the law into account.
Mommy, he's threatening me again!
>
> >Horn thinks I'm Josiah(the young
> >mans
> >name if memory serves). By the way, is coda like codex or spandex?
>
> A less-common and poetic plural of "code," I believe. The plural of codex is
> codices, and spandex hasn't been given a plural yet.
So what does spandex have to do with fair use, Gyudon?
>
> >> >Carl M accuses Hovind in this case of being dishonest
> >> >because he plays music that has no educational value?
>
> >> No; Hovind is accused of being dishonest because he used copyrighted
> >material
> >> with neither permission nor attribution.
>
> >"How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's "education"
> >project?
>
> It doesn't. That's the point. Its use furthers no educational end, and hence
> arguing fair use in order to defend its use is a waste.
Sure you don't think I'm McCoy? What about that spandex thing you brought up?
>
> >Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or music. In
> >short,
> >even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from being stewed in the
> >juices of his own dishonesty yet again." This Carl M? Compare the two, his
> >and
> >yours above. Do they match?
>
> When I quoted Carl, I removed a section and acknowledged the removal with
> ellipses because I didn't feel that it was relevant to my argument.
>
> But I think I quoted him below, not above. I could be wrong, though.
You might be in violation! You better check.
>
> >>McCoy's defense was that this was a
> >> "fair use," but "fair use" requires that there be some value, typically
> >> educational, that justifies the use. It also requires attribution, but
> >that's
> >a
> >> separate issue for now.
>
> >Mm, yes.
>
> >> >Why don't you respond
> >> >to
> >> >what I write, instead of going on about copyright?
>
> >> Why don't you respond to what I write, instead of going on about the use of
> >> media in education? What I write is more germane to the topic of discussion
> >> before you hijacked it.
>
> >I hijacked nothing, Oh impotent one.
> You misspelled "impecunious." But you did hijack our discussion by mistakenly
> conflating our conversation about whether Hovind committed copyright
> infringement with a conversation about the use of media in general. We want
our
> conversation back.
I'm surprised you think so highly of my participation and influence.
>
> >What I write is what I feel like
> >writing,
> >and needs not be "germane" to what you think the topic of discussion is or
> >should be.
>
> Buut if it's not relevant, it should have a thread of its own. I've seen you
> start threads before; you should know how.
No kidding, spandex would look good on you. Help you fly to scenes of copyright
infringement too - low drag.
>
> >If you respond, you should respond to what I write, as I should to
> >you,
>
> And as you should have to Carl.
Why? Did I dispute him?
>
> >else we will be talking past each other. In this case, you replied to my
> >question about the use of music in education. For some reason you do not want
> >that concept introduced into the discussion.
>
> It's not a bad topic, but the one dealing with copyright infringement and
> academic honesty is more the issue. Even John McCoy agreed when he attempted a
> defense of Hovind.
I would rather direct the thread toward the reason why the thread originated,
and the intent of
the participants. Since you seem to feel I am able to, then here we are.
>
> >> >> What you have perpetrated then, in equating this particular misuse of
> >media
> >> >in
> >> >> education to any possible application of media in education, is to
> >misapply
> >> >a
> >> >> specific instance to a general situation, which leads to a groundless
> >> >> conclusion.
>
> >> >I am not agreeing with or defending what was proferred by "the defense"
> >> >here,
> >> >other than to agree with McCoy that it is mean spirited to talk of
> >reporting
> >> >Hovind for copyright violation.
>
> >> What is so mean spirited about protecting the property rights of others?
>
> >Put some spandex on and go thus into the world, superhero fighter of crime
> >and
> >injustice. Crap. Do you know if Hovind has permission?
>
> The apparent lack of attribution suggests not.
You like appearances? Spandex would help, lad. I asked you a clear
question(among hundreds before)
When some requirement of evidence suits you, you demand it. When not, you avoid
it.
>
> >Do you know there is a
> >violation of law?
>
> Yes. Copyright has been infringed upon, and fair use does not apply.
That's better. Now I have knowledge that you made a statement of conviction that
copyright has been infringed
by Hovind. Thank you. I just wanted to know. You will understand though, that
without the hard empirical
evidence available to me, I will not assume you are correct.
>
> >Or will you just call the powlice station every time you
> >see
> >the neighbor acting "funny".
>
> If the neighbor's funny acting is in conflict with 17 USC sec. 107, sure.
They often do that, the bastards.
>
> Although enforcing that is really the job of a federal agency.
And it is your duty as a law abiding citizen to alert them.
>
> >> >And I do not happen to agree(at least not at
> >> >the
> >> >present) with your equaing this as a particular misuse of media in
> >> >*education*.
>
> >> Hovind is apparantly attempt to educate people who visit, isn't he?
>
> >I don't know. (Don't you just hate it when I say that?)
>
> Either way, McCoy says he is, and we find that his attempt to defend Hovind by
> invoking this concept bankrupt.
It would not be a stretch for me to imagine that Hovind is attempting to educate
people in his "creation" science. Would it be for you?
I did. Still having that constipation problem?
>
> The "fair use" is what McCoy invoked to defend Hovind's use of this media
> without permission.
If you say that about 10 more times maybe I will see it. Think?
>
> >Fair use schmair use. Copyright laws
> >sometimes
> >don't seem logical.
>
> They seem fine to me.
I'm not surprised.
>
> >I'm not that interested in whether copyright laws were
> >broken, I haven't seen any evidence yet to comment anyway. What is
> >comparative
> >is the use of the music, and why the music is allegedly used.
>
> And as I've told you, the problem we have here is not with using music in
> general, but with using other people's music without excuse or permission.
No, it is with Hovind using Jurassic Park audio. You could give a shit less
about
the copyright.
>
> >Not even at
> >issue
> >is whether Hovind's spiel is considered "educational", or what that means.
>
> That is the issue, actually. It allows us to determine whether the use of this
> can be excused or not.
You would not excuse use of anything by Hovind. It is clear what you think of
him.
If you are wrong about one thing, and by claiming so in the public domain he is
financially damaged, you are liable to prove your charges. Yes, it seems that he
has no
doctorate, at least a recognized one. I did some web research some time ago, and
that
is how it appears. You like that word appears. But would I make a public
statement
based on that research? nuh uh. I may state that it is my opinion based on the
research
that I did. But make an unequivical statement? nuh uh.
>
> >You
> >and others are pissed that the theme from Jurassic Park, which you view as
> >pro-evolutionary,
>
> How do you know how any of us view Jurassic Park?
Since I am one of "us", in part, yes!
>
> >is being used as a tool to indoctrinate people to Hovind's
> >beliefs. Yea? And I say, what is the difference between that and some science
> >documentary that plays dramatic music(the second time I have used the word
> >dramatic, Gyudon).
>
> Because Hovind may be using this music unfairly, which would make him a thief.
Wait wait wait. MAY? You stated above that he did infringe on copyright!
Whats the story, Guido?
>
> > Is it because one educational topic happens to be in your
> >opinion valid, and the other invalid, and you object to the use of music?
>
> Whatever gave you the impression that I object to the use of music? What I
> object to is the theft of intellectual property.
What you object to is Hovind spreading crap around.
>
> >> From this example, the only draw a general comparison and conclusion that
> >we
> >> can draw is that yes, generally it is dishonest to disobey copyright law.
>
> >Downright illegal. You have gone beyond that in another post, though, to
> >whether
> >an act that is not unlawful, but unethical.
> You haven't finished that sentence. To whether an act that is not unlawful but
> unethical is what?
The sentence did have an end. See the little dot? You went beyond unlawful to
unethical.
You're not going to start replying to your own posts are you?
>
> >You'll excuse me if I hold
> >reservations about what you consider unethical and "dishonest".
>
> I might possibly excuse you, but if Hovind committed theft there is no excuse
> for him.
That "if" again! There is no excuse for him in your mind already. It is just one
more
conclusion based on "if"s, right? So you think he doesn't have an adequate
education,
yet there is no possible excuse for him not making an attribution(which you
don't know he didnt, right?)?
>
> >> >And that is what you
> >> >should have responded to, Lucy.
>
> >> >> >You may have reservations about the validity of this
> >> >> >"education" but that is not the subject.
>
> >> >> Yes it is. Remember again Carl M's comments: "How does using the music
> >from
> >> >> Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's "education" project? Afterall the
> >> >subject
> >> >> is not movies, film scores or music."
>
> >> >And you think that because he put scare marks around education, that false
> >> >education is the subject?
>
> >> No, it is because before Carl raised that point, McCoy raised the fair use
> >> statutes which allow for the use of portions of copyrighted material for
> >> educational purposes. Carl found that to be a false defense.
>
> >Then it is false education that was the subject.
>
> No, it's still copyright infringement. Educational purpose was raised as a
> defense to copyright infringement, but Carl found that it was no defense to
> copyright infringement and Hovind was in fact guilty of copyright
infringement,
> if he had not obtained license from the composer (which we somewhat doubt).
Hell, do you even know if the sound track is copyright?
>
> >Statutues do allow for the
> >use
> >of portions of copyright material to be used without permission for
> >educational
> >purposes. That is well known. Nothing in Carl M's paragraph above is
> >directed
> >to or addresses that issue,
>
> All of Carl M's paragraph addressed that issue. He said that the educational
> piece itself was not to educate about music, movie scores, composition, etc.,
> and hence borrowing that music served no educational purpose so great as to
> justify its use.
You are definitely stuck on this fair use thing.
>
> >unless you infer it from the scare marks. I did
> >not
> >infer anything, I responded to his question "How does using music...aid...in
> >"education"?"
>
> No, his question was "How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent
> Hovind's "education" project?" Clearly he was speaking of this specific case,
> not the use of music in general.
Yes, I believe he was speaking of this specific case. It was I who suggested the
question of
the use of music in general in education. What reason does a museum have for
playing the
theme in their dino exhibit?
>
> >> >Sorry, I don't care to stretch that far without
> >> >verification. And if so, then Carl M needs to be more clear how he writes.
> >> >"Aid"
> >> >is the subject. How does music or any dramatic effect aid in education?
>
> >> In a number of ways, but unless the subject of the education is music or
> >> dramatic, the piece used cannot a priori be assumed to be of such
> >importance
> >> that leaving it out would destroy the educational value.
>
> >So?
>
> So Hovind's infringement on this copyright cannot be justified under fair use.
You go from "if" to making assertive statements.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >> Actually, it is it whether it is dishonest to use this music, without
> >the
> >> >> approval of its rights-holders, without proper accreditation, and
> >> >apparently
> >> >> for no legitimate educational purpose.
>
> >> >You are responding to someone else's questions, not mine.
>
> >> You never asked a question in that little chunk I was responding to. I have
> >> answered that it is perfectly legitimate to use media as long as the rights
> >of
> >> the owners of that media are protected.
>
> >And you claim that is your only interest in this, protection of other people
> >property?
>
> I believe that people's property should be protected. The involvement of
Hovind
> in this affair is just icing.
And what "property" is that? You think music is intellectual property? Can I get
a cite for this?
>
> >I know you think me stupid and ignorant, but I din't just fall off
> >the
> >turnip truck yesterday.
>
> Alright, smart guy, what do you think my other interests are and why?
I've told you more than once tonight. You and the others are after Hovind. The
issue of
whether you are interested in protecting peoples property is at best secondary.
>
> >> >Respond to them,
> >> >not
> >> >me with your comments. Do you even know or tried to find out whether
> >Hovind
> >> >has
> >> >done this or not?
>
> >> Use media in education? I think it's pretty obvious he has.
>
> >Have you seen the video?
>
> Videos are media; the very existence of the video indicates that he is using
> media in education.
The Big Bad Wolf makes a mighty scrumptuous pig stew.
Have you seen the video?
>
> Apart from which, I see no reason that Steven Pirie cannot be considered a
> secondary source on the matter.
That's real scientific of you.
He did, he may have, he did, he may have. You are consistent.
>
> >> >The question I am posing is is it right to play
> >> >music
> >> >or use dramatic effects in educational activities.
>
> >> Yes, if their use violates no one's rights.
>
> >Spandex might look good on you. Maybe "Science Man" on the cape would be a
> >nice
> >touch.
>
> Why did you ask the question if you were going to pay so little attention to
> the respone?
>
You must be joking.
Alistair Davidson
> On 25 Nov 2001 23:01:14 -0500, Alistair Davidson
> <lord...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I was just making the point that even if you think there is no *real*
> thing stolen when a copyright is infringed and that it is only a crime
> because of an (unjust) law, still, taking that whatever without
> permission is *morally* stealing, IMHO.
I don't see how the law can determine morality. Actually, I find the
implications of that idea truly horrific.
> In any case, in this instance
> (where the music Hovind used sounds like it is from either a recording
> of of the original soundtrack or from a copy of the movie itself), it
> is more like a situation where someone, knowing that I sell
> photocopies of my bike for profit, photocopies one of my photocopies
> (which have value simply because I made it) and sells it *without*
> mentioning that it isn't one of *my* photocopies. It may be closer to
> fraud than stealing, but I cannot discern the moral difference.
I never said that what he's done is right. He failed to give credit, and
morally some form of "the composer of this piece does not necessarily agree
with this advert" or something might be appropriate. He has done something
morally equivalent to plagiarism and slander (or libel? The difference
confuses me).
My contention is only that copyright 'theft' is not the same as physical
theft, nor is it morally equivalent. Plagiarism and slander are arguably just
as wrong or worse, but they're notthe saem thing.
newbie
RepackRider <repac...@cs.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20011126002241...@mb-dd.news.cs.com...
> newbie" she...@uswest.net writes:
>
> *snip*
>
> >I would ask what you think would happen if a museum were playing the radio
> >for
> >people to hear.
> >Would they be required to give credits? It is illegal as far as I know to
> >rebroadcast a radio trans
> >without permission. How about discos?(yes, I know disco is out) When my hair
> >was
> >long and mortality was not on the horizon, the
> >places I frequented did not give credits to songs they played. At least, I
> >did
> >not ever hear them. Was I cheated?
>
> You are obviously unfamiliar with the law in this area. If you play a radio
in
> a commercial establishement for the patrons to hear, yes, you are required to
> pay a fee to one or both of the two major music licensing houses, ASCAP or
BMI.
> The same goes for bars where bands play "cover tunes".
Yes, but not always required to broadcast their license of the copyright use to
the patrons.
It is within the prerogative of the holder how credits are to be given, if any.
>
> >> It's not quite the same issue, but the Birthday song almost everyone
> >> grew up hearing ('Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy
> >> birthday dear...') is still under copyright.
> >
> >NO!
>
> Yes. This is one that gets renewed by the heirs of the coposer every time
> renewal comes up ( I believe it's 30 years).
>
> >>A few years ago, the
> >> copyright owner objected to restaurants, singing telegrams, etc. using
> >> the song without paying for each use. That's why *now* when they bring
> >> you your birthday cake in Ruby's, Claimjumper, etc., they sing their own
> >> made up song!
> >>
> >All laws are not just, and copyright laws are perhaps among the most whacky.
>
> I guess you don't hold any.
Uh oh. So because you claim to, I should take this statement to heart?
>
> >Would it hurt anyone if they sang the Birthday song? I don't think so.
> >Unless they got caught, then the holder of the copyright could benifit.
>
> It depends on whether you do it in a commercial establishment (pay the man) or
> at home (don't pay the man). The law allows for private, noncommercial use.
>
Yea everyone knows that.
You have made some strong statements of conviction regarding Hovind's guilt. I
have
made none excepting what I think the participants of this thread's intentions
are.
The reason that I have not is that I do not have evidence of guilt. If I did, I
would certainly not
defend Hovind. I am not defending Hovind regardless.
Apparently you have evidence. Has Hovind not asked MGM(?) permission to use the
sound track?
John McCoy
You've seemed to forgotten already. It is NOT the law. It is
permissible to use a reasonable amount of footage for educational
purposes, if you are a non-profit organization. So once again, you
dote about trivialities, and you've slandered Kent Hovind. So
apologize. You've asked him to keep the Commandments so I really think
you ought to do so likewise.
John McCoy
newbie
And you may well be right. Yet the word believe throws me off the "empirical
evidence" trail so to speak. What posts have I missed that discuss what
possible options Hovind could have that would legitimize use of the material,
and
the steps taken to eliminate those possibilities one by one.
>
> >But you responded to what I
> >said, and the topic of that was not directly connected with either.
>
> You asked whether any time an image was used in education, if its use was
> dishonest. If its use offends either copyright law or academic integrity, then
> it is.
If, if. Why don't you commit consistently? You already have.
>
> >I think
> >you
> >are avoiding it, and continuing in a mean spirited attitude.
>
> Where do you get the notion of mean-spiritedness from? I'm being quite
pleasant
> and equinamous.
You have accused an individual of a serious infraction of law. Its one thing to
burn an
illegal copy of a cd and give it to your Mom, but another to distribute it
nationally.
If the evidence is there, thats the end of it. You evolutionists claim to be the
thorough
bunch, objectively gathering all the bits of things and making conclusions based
on all
available evidence. You've made an accusation, so you've already completed the
task.
If you had this knowledge in the beginning of the thread, I apologize. If not,
you continue
in a mean spirited fashion with these "if's".
>
> >> >> >No one knows what dinos or early man looked like. Only what the artist
> >> >thinks
> >> >> >they looked like.
> >> >> >But the subject of science is not guessing, or art. In short, stewed in
> >> >your
> >> >> >own
> >> >> >juices again!
>
> >> >> But those artistic guesses tend to be based on empirical evidence.
> >Hardly
> >> >> stewing in our own juices to be doing what science does.
>
> >> >It most surely is. Guesses based on "empirical evidence" is not science.
>
> >> No; conclusions based on empirical evidence is science in its purest form.
>
> >Science in its purest form is looking up to see where the rock came from that
> >hit you in the head. This event is observable and repeatable.
>
> No it isn't. That rock will never fall in that precise way again.
And that aspect of the event is repeatable and observable.
>
> >There is no
> >room
> >for guesses,
>
> Yes there is. Did the rock come from ten meters? Fifty? Outer space? What
> forces may have influenced the motion of the rock? Was it dropped by some
other
> individual and therefore a matter for the courts? Was its trajectory
parabolic,
> or had it reached terminal velocity and taken a linear trajectory.
So you would make guesses at these factors. I would not.
>
> More to the point, to what extent did the massive object that attracted the
> rock warp time and space? Is there a quantum aspect to the rock's motion?
>
I'm sure you think you would know. OOps! Star Trek's on!
[snip]
John McCoy
> From John McCoy:
>
> >Interesting that these evolutionist would attack Kent Hovind.
>
> Why? He's a liar, a fraud, not even a doctor, and now we can add a copyright
> infringer to that, it seems.
>
> >tionist would attack Kent Hovind. If only
> >if they would be so kind as to mention that, along with Hovind being a
> >very kind individual, he mails out a disclaimer with his very
> >reasonably priced videos, that anyone is free to copy them.
>
> Good for him, but it doesn't really negate his infringement on the copyrights
> of others.
>
> This sure
> >beats the tactics used by money grubbing, control oriented
> >evolutionists.
>
> Like who?
First of all, like I said, you're mean-spirited. Please keep the Ten
Commandments. Secondly, the control oriented evolutionists are people
like you who wish for a strict evolutionists curriculum in the public
class rooms at our expense. Why should Christian taxpayers pay for
your garbage?
Garbage such as:
1. None existing "gillslits" on human embryos.
2. An arthritic Neanderthal portrayed as a stooping precursor of
modern man (not told that about the arthritis).
3. Homologous organs said to be evidence of evolution, while it's
quite evident that no such conclusion is necessary and demanded by the
evidence.
4. Told that the earth is so many billions of years old (the date
changes every so many years). Neither do these textbooks tell us how
many times the dates were changed and how much.
5. The Fox amino acid experiments are foisted upon us without
scrutiny. How about telling us about the problem with left handed
amino acids and right handed amino acids? Perhaps that would create
doubt in evolution, oh my. What about discussion on the artificial
traps in the experiments that are not seen in nature? Let's not bring
doubt, right? Let's accentuate the positive, right? Let's lie to the
American people.
That's where the evolutionist tax-grabben, exclusivist greed factor
comes into play.
John McCoy
Carl M
And once again Mr McCoy, I have to tell you that Hovind is not using any
of that material in an educational format. The video in question is
ADVERTISING material distributed on the internet for the purpose of
gaining attendance to Hovind's backyard sand pit.
http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
--
** Remove obvious spam block from the email address
Mike Dunford
>
>Mike Dunford <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:3c01bcd1.17813156@news-server...
[snip]
>> IF Hovind's use of the material falls under fair use, which is
>> debatable, he must include somewhere on the website acknowledging the
>> copyrights for all copyrighted material he used. He should include it
>> in the video, but he could probably place it somewhere else on the
>> site. He could sing it, chant it, or place a written credit at the end
>> of the video (novel concept, that last one). Failure to seek
>> apropriate permissions and failure to identify copyrighted material is
>> at best intellectually dishonest. At worst, it is actionable copyright
>> infringement.
>>
>Has he not?
As far as I can tell, no. I have checked his site manually and with a
site-restricted google search. I also ran his video to the end. There
are no credits anywhere on the site or in the video.
>Is the music copyrighted?
Anything that anyone creates -- music, writing, video, etc is
considered to be automatically copyrighted whether or not you register
the copyright with the government. In the case of the theme from
Jurassic Park, the copyright was certainly registered, since it was
distributed on a cd.
>Are you sure your understanding of fair
>use is correct?
In all regards all of the time, no. In this case, yes.
>> What I don't understand is why you and McCoy seem to feel obliged to
>> defend him on points like this.
>>
>You only determine that I am defending him as an individual, or as a member of
>"creationists".
I do not see how whether you are defending him as an individual or as
a creationist makes a difference. Wrong is wrong.
>What I do understand is why the thread was started in the first place. Do you?
>Was it to discuss copyright, or protect the rights of MGM?
I think that this thread was started primarily to discuss Hovind's
credibility. This, IMO, is a legitimate purpose for a thread on this
group. (And, yes, I would think so even if it were the credibility of
an evolutionist being discussed.) Although dishonesty in a side issue
like the video does not have any direct relevance to the truth or
falsehood of Hovind's statements on evolution, it does reflect on his
credibility in general. This can provide a valuable indicator on how
much to check for your self. In the case of Hovind, I would not accept
anything he says without carefully checking it for myself. If he were
to tell me that the sky was blue, I'd look up. I decided on that
policy after reading about his tax evasion.
I have no respect for the integrity of someone who insists that
Genesis 1 must be accepted literally, but who freely interprets
Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17, etc. for their own financial gain.
--Mike Dunford
Gyudon Z
Permitted by whom, may we ask?
>to use a reasonable amount of footage for educational
>purposes, if you are a non-profit organization.
Yes; there's a note that says that hanging over the photocopier in the library.
It cites 17 USC sec. 107
>So once again, you
>dote about trivialities, and you've slandered Kent Hovind.
No, the requirement of slander is that my statement are untrue. It is true that
Hovind is using without attribution a section of music whose copyright he does
not hold. It is also true that so doing is academically dishonest. It is
further true that he may also be guilty of actionable copyright infringement
under 17 USC.
>So
>apologize.
Very well; I'm sorry I pointed out that Hovind has no academic integrity.
>You've asked him to keep the Commandments so I really think
>you ought to do so likewise.
What part of the 10 Commandments reads: 'Thou shalt not tell the truth about
evangelists'?
Gyudon Z
>gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote in message
>news:<20011125225028...@mb-md.aol.com>...
>> From John McCoy:
>>
>> >Interesting that these evolutionist would attack Kent Hovind.
>>
>> Why? He's a liar, a fraud, not even a doctor, and now we can add a
>copyright
>> infringer to that, it seems.
>>
>> >tionist would attack Kent Hovind. If only
>> >if they would be so kind as to mention that, along with Hovind being a
>> >very kind individual, he mails out a disclaimer with his very
>> >reasonably priced videos, that anyone is free to copy them.
>>
>> Good for him, but it doesn't really negate his infringement on the
>copyrights
>> of others.
>>
>> This sure
>> >beats the tactics used by money grubbing, control oriented
>> >evolutionists.
>>
>> Like who?
>
>First of all, like I said, you're mean-spirited. Please keep the Ten
>Commandments.
Which of the Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt be nice to people even though
they've given no indication of deserving it"?
>Secondly, the control oriented evolutionists are people
>like you who wish for a strict evolutionists curriculum in the public
>class rooms at our expense.
Because evolution is valid science. No other theory relating to biodiversity
is.
>Why should Christian taxpayers pay for
>your garbage?
For the same reason they pay for everything else the government does that they
disagree with.
>Garbage such as:
>
>1. None existing "gillslits" on human embryos.
I'm glad we agree on that.
>2. An arthritic Neanderthal portrayed as a stooping precursor of
>modern man (not told that about the arthritis).
What about the hundreds of other neandertal fossils that did not have
arthritis? And what about the hundreds of other hominid fossils that match the
arthritic neandertal's perfectly?
>3. Homologous organs said to be evidence of evolution, while it's
>quite evident that no such conclusion is necessary and demanded by the
>evidence.
The alternate explanation being?
>4. Told that the earth is so many billions of years old (the date
>changes every so many years).
When new evidence dictates that it should.
Neither do these textbooks tell us how
>many times the dates were changed and how much.
Why would that matter?
>5. The Fox amino acid experiments are foisted upon us without
>scrutiny. How about telling us about the problem with left handed
>amino acids and right handed amino acids?
Which problem is that?
>Perhaps that would create
>doubt in evolution, oh my. What about discussion on the artificial
>traps in the experiments that are not seen in nature?
What traps?
>Let's not bring
>doubt, right? Let's accentuate the positive, right? Let's lie to the
>American people.
Let's explain what it is we're talking about. Do you have a citation or
anything that describes these amino acid experiments?
>That's where the evolutionist tax-grabben, exclusivist greed factor
>comes into play.
I'm sorry; you haven't connected any of the above six whines to money in any
way. Please try again.
cats...@yahoo.com
<lord...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>cats...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On 25 Nov 2001 23:01:14 -0500, Alistair Davidson
>> <lord...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I was just making the point that even if you think there is no *real*
>> thing stolen when a copyright is infringed and that it is only a crime
>> because of an (unjust) law, still, taking that whatever without
>> permission is *morally* stealing, IMHO.
>
>
>I don't see how the law can determine morality. Actually, I find the
>implications of that idea truly horrific.
Actually, that was my point. It is the "taking" without permission
that I find morally wrong, not that the taking happened to be illegal.
On the other hand, there are situations where rules are made to ensue
an orderly society, that are objectively neutral morally, in and of
themselves, the violation of which are, IMHO, morally wrong. Speed
limits and traffic lights, for instance. Is it objectively immoral to
tool around in a car at 90 mph or to run a red light? But, under the
need to keep social interreaction safe and harmonious, such rules are
necessary on public streets. Even if the driver is "careful",
restricting himself to rural areas late at nite, I think it is immoral
to flout such laws. But, hey, I'm getting far afield here.
>
>> In any case, in this instance
>> (where the music Hovind used sounds like it is from either a recording
>> of of the original soundtrack or from a copy of the movie itself), it
>> is more like a situation where someone, knowing that I sell
>> photocopies of my bike for profit, photocopies one of my photocopies
>> (which have value simply because I made it) and sells it *without*
>> mentioning that it isn't one of *my* photocopies. It may be closer to
>> fraud than stealing, but I cannot discern the moral difference.
>
>I never said that what he's done is right. He failed to give credit, and
>morally some form of "the composer of this piece does not necessarily agree
>with this advert" or something might be appropriate. He has done something
>morally equivalent to plagiarism and slander (or libel? The difference
>confuses me).
>
>My contention is only that copyright 'theft' is not the same as physical
>theft, nor is it morally equivalent. Plagiarism and slander are arguably just
>as wrong or worse, but they're notthe saem thing.
>
While I recognise that your criticisms have definite weight and that
the copyright laws are and should be open to revision, let's agree to
disagree (amicably) that they should be scrapped entirely.
>--
>Alistair Davidson
>Read my comic, Bizmatch! http://www.altgeek.org/lord_inh/comic/index.html
>"Disloyalty in a democracy is to stop asking questions."
>
---------------
Bonz
>> Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
>> it?
>
>I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
>consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
>not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
>to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
>promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
I didn't see the courses in cinematography, musical scoring, or any
other topic that may be relevant, educationally, on Hovind's site.
Where is it?
If, for instance, in a film making class, the instructor wanted to
present the theme songs from the top grossing films, then brief
snippets, along with full bibliographic credits, would be appropriate.
What is the educational purpose of using someone elses' theme music to
advertise your business?
い Bonz a.a 1497
BAAWA knight
Bonz
>>
>> Actually, it's "My daddy's familiar with 17 USC sec. 107, as articulated by
>> Sandra Day O'Connor. Is yours?"
>
>You've seemed to forgotten already. It is NOT the law. It is
>permissible to use a reasonable amount of footage for educational
>purposes, if you are a non-profit organization.
Since when is "advertising my business, not paying for my own theme,
and 'borrowing' the legitimacy of a major motion picture studio, the
same thing as "education".
What lesson is the opening theme supposed to teach?
> So once again, you
>dote about trivialities, and you've slandered Kent Hovind. So
>apologize. You've asked him to keep the Commandments so I really think
>you ought to do so likewise.
>
>John McCoy
>
>
>
>>
>> "Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
>> Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
い Bonz a.a 1497
BAAWA knight
Bonz
>Interesting that these evolutionist would attack Kent Hovind. If only
>if they would be so kind as to mention that, along with Hovind being a
>very kind individual, he mails out a disclaimer with his very
>reasonably priced videos, that anyone is free to copy them. This sure
>beats the tactics used by money grubbing, control oriented
>evolutionists.
>
Cool. Tell you what. I'll order one, make a few hundred thousand
dupes, and sell them in competition with Hovind. You pay any legal
fees and judgments that arise. How's that?
John McCoy
> From John McCoy:
>
> >gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote in message
> >news:<20011125225028...@mb-md.aol.com>...
> >> From John McCoy:
> >>
> >> >Interesting that these evolutionist would attack Kent Hovind.
> >>
> >> Why? He's a liar, a fraud, not even a doctor, and now we can add a
> copyright
> >> infringer to that, it seems.
> >>
> >> >tionist would attack Kent Hovind. If only
> >> >if they would be so kind as to mention that, along with Hovind being a
> >> >very kind individual, he mails out a disclaimer with his very
> >> >reasonably priced videos, that anyone is free to copy them.
> >>
> >> Good for him, but it doesn't really negate his infringement on the
> copyrights
> >> of others.
> >>
> >> This sure
> >> >beats the tactics used by money grubbing, control oriented
> >> >evolutionists.
> >>
> >> Like who?
> >
> >First of all, like I said, you're mean-spirited. Please keep the Ten
> >Commandments.
>
> Which of the Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt be nice to people even though
> they've given no indication of deserving it"?
Admission of mean-spiritedness. Kent Hovind IS deserving of your
respect.
>
> >Secondly, the control oriented evolutionists are people
> >like you who wish for a strict evolutionists curriculum in the public
> >class rooms at our expense.
>
> Because evolution is valid science.
What kind of valid science comes up with gill slits? Maybe the
National Enquirer sort of science. That's it.
No other theory relating to biodiversity
> is.
>
> >Why should Christian taxpayers pay for
> >your garbage?
>
> For the same reason they pay for everything else the government does that they
> disagree with.
Which is why you deny Christian taxpayers equal representation? No.
>
> >Garbage such as:
> >
> >1. None existing "gillslits" on human embryos.
>
> I'm glad we agree on that.
Your science came up with it.
>
> >2. An arthritic Neanderthal portrayed as a stooping precursor of
> >modern man (not told that about the arthritis).
>
> What about the hundreds of other neandertal fossils that did not have
> arthritis? And what about the hundreds of other hominid fossils that match the
> arthritic neandertal's perfectly?
Yea. But not all neandertal fossils were stooped over. Trying to pull
a David Copperfield on us?
>
> >3. Homologous organs said to be evidence of evolution, while it's
> >quite evident that no such conclusion is necessary and demanded by the
> >evidence.
>
> The alternate explanation being?
Function.
>
> >4. Told that the earth is so many billions of years old (the date
> >changes every so many years).
>
> When new evidence dictates that it should.
It proves that the evolutionists were sloppy and dishonest in the
first place. They really haven't a clue as to how old the earth is.
>
> Neither do these textbooks tell us how
> >many times the dates were changed and how much.
>
> Why would that matter?
It shows that your methodology and assumptions are way off course.
>
> >5. The Fox amino acid experiments are foisted upon us without
> >scrutiny. How about telling us about the problem with left handed
> >amino acids and right handed amino acids?
>
> Which problem is that?
Both l and r are found in test tubes, but not in nature. Only l is
found in nature. So much for probability.
>
> >Perhaps that would create
> >doubt in evolution, oh my. What about discussion on the artificial
> >traps in the experiments that are not seen in nature?
>
> What traps?
Heat traps in the experiment that isolate aminos before they
disintegrate.
>
> >Let's not bring
> >doubt, right? Let's accentuate the positive, right? Let's lie to the
> >American people.
>
> Let's explain what it is we're talking about. Do you have a citation or
> anything that describes these amino acid experiments?
>
> >That's where the evolutionist tax-grabben, exclusivist greed factor
> >comes into play.
>
> I'm sorry; you haven't connected any of the above six whines to money in any
> way. Please try again.
We pay for it and you greedy evolutionists demand it free.
Mark VandeWettering
> First of all, like I said, you're mean-spirited. Please keep the Ten
> Commandments.
Remind me again, which of the Ten Commandments tells us to cease being
"mean-spirited"?
> Secondly, the control oriented evolutionists are people
> like you who wish for a strict evolutionists curriculum in the public
> class rooms at our expense.
Sorry, the Constitution dictates what can or cannot be taught in public
schools. Religion can't. Science can. Creationism is one. Evolution
is the other.
> Why should Christian taxpayers pay for
> your garbage?
Because it makes your children better educated.
Oh, wait, that's not part of your "Christian" values. Frankly then,
I have no idea why you should.
> Garbage such as:
>
> 1. None existing "gillslits" on human embryos.
> 2. An arthritic Neanderthal portrayed as a stooping precursor of
> modern man (not told that about the arthritis).
> 3. Homologous organs said to be evidence of evolution, while it's
> quite evident that no such conclusion is necessary and demanded by the
> evidence.
> 4. Told that the earth is so many billions of years old (the date
> changes every so many years). Neither do these textbooks tell us how
> many times the dates were changed and how much.
Perhaps you should tell us.
People who understand science understand that as data and understanding
is increased, we cannot persist in clinging to our old conclusions and
pretend that they are real. Science can do that, because science in some
sense is _always_ tentative, always subject to future revision. The fact
that the conclusion of creationism is invariant is one of the principal
reasons that it is not a science.
> 5. The Fox amino acid experiments are foisted upon us without
> scrutiny. How about telling us about the problem with left handed
> amino acids and right handed amino acids? Perhaps that would create
> doubt in evolution, oh my. What about discussion on the artificial
> traps in the experiments that are not seen in nature? Let's not bring
> doubt, right? Let's accentuate the positive, right? Let's lie to the
> American people.
I can see why you are upset. Wouldn't want better educated people horning
in on the territory that creationists have carved out for themselves.
Especially when these interlopers can provide treatments for diseases
for which prayer has proven an ineffective cure.
> That's where the evolutionist tax-grabben, exclusivist greed factor
> comes into play.
I score him a 6.5 on the Schlafly scale.
Mark
> John McCoy
--
main(){char*p="vandewettering.net";printf("\33[?38h\33\14\35\35(z)O\"oO!kHa(F "
"yFy,D!aDj+D\"j*](q])q+Dz,D*bDb)J\"\177&G*b\"_b F)zFq!I(qQ\"{Q!mIa E yEy#O!aOn"
"\"M\"{D(pD y%%Uy\\(z)O\35*b6Ib3M)zMt4GgN(fE#a2C'y/_(|P)kMy0AzN*bNb,W)zWq-P(k."
"F t1Ut\\(p5@)rRz6I*bI\35+w!@\37mark@%s\35*~@\37http://%s\33\3",p,p);}
Richard Clayton
> >> display the copyright notice © and copyright ownership information if
> >> this is shown in the original source, for all works incorporated as
> >> part of the educational multimedia projects prepared by educators and
> >> students, including those prepared under fair use. Crediting the
> >> source must adequately identify the source of the work, giving a full
> >> bibliographic description where available (including author, title,
> >> publisher, and place and date of publication). The copyright ownership
> >> information includes the copyright notice (©, year of first
> >> publication and name of the copyright holder)
> >>
> >So what, should Hovind dub a piece after the Jurassic Park theme, singing
> >"Copyright by..."?
>
> IF Hovind's use of the material falls under fair use, which is
> debatable, he must include somewhere on the website acknowledging the
> copyrights for all copyrighted material he used. He should include it
> in the video, but he could probably place it somewhere else on the
> site. He could sing it, chant it, or place a written credit at the end
> of the video (novel concept, that last one). Failure to seek
> apropriate permissions and failure to identify copyrighted material is
> at best intellectually dishonest. At worst, it is actionable copyright
> infringement.
>
> What I don't understand is why you and McCoy seem to feel obliged to
> defend him on points like this.
Creationist solidarity. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
--
Richard Clayton (for...@earthlink.net)
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley
Henry Barwood
John McCoy wrote:
(With bunches of stuff snipped for clarity)
> Which is why you deny Christian taxpayers equal representation? No.
"Christian taxpayers" have been getting a free ride from the government
for a long time. It is about time we started taxing churches as
"political action committees".
Barwood
Richard Clayton
No. "Doctor" Kent Hovind is a liar, a fraud, a tax-evader, and a thief. He deserves no respect at
all.
The only reason creationists defend him is out of a misplaced sense of group solidarity. If he
were a vocal advocate of evolution, creationists would be pointing to Kent Hovind as an archetypal
example of how EEEEEE-vil evolutionists are. (On the other hand, if Hovind weren't a creationist, he
wouldn't have to lie to make his point.)
> > >Secondly, the control oriented evolutionists are people
> > >like you who wish for a strict evolutionists curriculum in the public
> > >class rooms at our expense.
> >
> > Because evolution is valid science.
>
> What kind of valid science comes up with gill slits? Maybe the
> National Enquirer sort of science. That's it.
Yes, the "gill slits" were exaggerated. Yes, that was an example of bad science. (Scientists,
like all humans, can and do make mistakes.) Still, gills and pharyngeal clefts are homologous- and
what of the exceedingly numerous other homologous structures?
If a single fraud invalidates all of evolution, why aren't Hovind and Gish enough to disprove all
of creationism- twice over?
> No other theory relating to biodiversity
> > is.
> >
> > >Why should Christian taxpayers pay for
> > >your garbage?
> >
> > For the same reason they pay for everything else the government does that they
> > disagree with.
>
> Which is why you deny Christian taxpayers equal representation? No.
Please note that the freedom to practice your religion is not equal to state sponsorship of your
religion. We are not a Christian country, and as such Christian theology (in the guise of "creation
science") has no place in our public schools.
Thank you for playing, please exit to your left.
> > >Garbage such as:
> > >
> > >1. None existing "gillslits" on human embryos.
> >
> > I'm glad we agree on that.
>
> Your science came up with it.
Fortunately science is self-correcting. Fortunately, the hunger for truth and knowledge possessed
by most scientists enables us to expose frauds as fast as they can be proposed.
BTW, I'm getting really tired of these lame strawman arguments. Been taking cues from Chick
tracts lately, have you?
> > >2. An arthritic Neanderthal portrayed as a stooping precursor of
> > >modern man (not told that about the arthritis).
> >
> > What about the hundreds of other neandertal fossils that did not have
> > arthritis? And what about the hundreds of other hominid fossils that match the
> > arthritic neandertal's perfectly?
>
> Yea. But not all neandertal fossils were stooped over. Trying to pull
> a David Copperfield on us?
What does being stooped over have to do with anything? Neandertals are pretty well established in
the fossil record. If you don't think they're cousins to man, what do you suggest they are?
> > >3. Homologous organs said to be evidence of evolution, while it's
> > >quite evident that no such conclusion is necessary and demanded by the
> > >evidence.
> >
> > The alternate explanation being?
>
> Function.
Not very "functional." The jury-rigged engineering of biological structures cause no end of
problems for living creatures. For example, the weakness in the inguinal canal caused by the
migration of my testicles to their present position.
> > >4. Told that the earth is so many billions of years old (the date
> > >changes every so many years).
> >
> > When new evidence dictates that it should.
>
> It proves that the evolutionists were sloppy and dishonest in the
> first place. They really haven't a clue as to how old the earth is.
We have a very good idea of how old the Earth is- but we refine it as more evidence comes in. All
science is subject to revision in the face of new evidence. (This is odd since creationists
simultaneously accuse scientists of being rigidly dogmatic, **and** point to changes in scientific
theory as proof of the fallibility of science.)
> > Neither do these textbooks tell us how
> > >many times the dates were changed and how much.
> >
> > Why would that matter?
>
> It shows that your methodology and assumptions are way off course.
See above. Are you saying that in order to be valid, science must NEVER be subject to review or
questioning? Gee, that would almost make it a religion.
> > >5. The Fox amino acid experiments are foisted upon us without
> > >scrutiny. How about telling us about the problem with left handed
> > >amino acids and right handed amino acids?
> >
> > Which problem is that?
>
> Both l and r are found in test tubes, but not in nature. Only l is
> found in nature. So much for probability.
Actually, this follows quite naturally from the idea of a common ancestry. L and D isomers are
incompatible. When an organism using L isomers reproduces, the offspring will also use L isomers.
Since all known terrestrial life uses L isomers, this supports the idea of a common progenitor. On
the other hand, if every species were created separately, why shouldn't half of them use D isomers?
Or even one tenth? Or a thousandth?
> > >Perhaps that would create
> > >doubt in evolution, oh my. What about discussion on the artificial
> > >traps in the experiments that are not seen in nature?
> >
> > What traps?
>
> Heat traps in the experiment that isolate aminos before they
> disintegrate.
I'd love to hear more about this one.
Most amino acids are relatively stable, BTW, and AFAIK they don't spontaneously "disintegrate."
Heck, we've found amino acids on the remnants of carbonaceous meteors. They appear to be pretty
common stuff, made of some of the most abundant elements in the universe.
> > >Let's not bring
> > >doubt, right? Let's accentuate the positive, right? Let's lie to the
> > >American people.
> >
> > Let's explain what it is we're talking about. Do you have a citation or
> > anything that describes these amino acid experiments?
> >
> > >That's where the evolutionist tax-grabben, exclusivist greed factor
> > >comes into play.
> >
> > I'm sorry; you haven't connected any of the above six whines to money in any
> > way. Please try again.
>
> We pay for it and you greedy evolutionists demand it free.
You pay for what? Science education for children? Why, how horrible that us greedy evolutionists
demand a free education for all children! Perhaps you think we should eliminate the public school
system and go back to the days when education and literacy were only for the elite?
Victor Eijkhout
> <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bffc31e...@news-server.optonline.net...
> > I checked the video again and the music is still there but not at the
> > beginning and a lot of it seems mangled, as if there was a
> > half-hearted attempt to downplay it.
I believe the law rather disapproves of attempts to hide the fact that
you are plagiarising.
> find out later that what they were taught was wrong, they might resent that
> trust being betrayed, and reject Christianity altogether. Most people in
> here would probably say that's a good thing though. *sigh*
I don't think so. People who are honest in their religion seem to meet
with respect here.
V.
Gyudon Z
<snip>
>> >It is turning Hovind in for using the music,
>> >without deciding whether it violates copyright.
>>
>> But some of us have been trying to probe whether it violates copyright. We
>> believe it has.
>And you may well be right. Yet the word believe throws me off the "empirical
>evidence" trail so to speak. What posts have I missed that discuss what
>possible options Hovind could have that would legitimize use of the material,
>and
>the steps taken to eliminate those possibilities one by one.
Most of them; you must not have been reading carefully.
As I've said, under the law he can use portions of copyrighted material under
17 USC sec. 107, if there is some educational value to it. However, we are of
the opinion that using it in the way that Hovind did serves no educational
value so great that it justifies the use of this.
The circumstances would be somewhat mitigated if Hovind had displayed academic
integrity by at least giving attribution to the original copyright holder. No
such attribution appears either on the site or in the video itself.
>> >But you responded to what I
>> >said, and the topic of that was not directly connected with either.
>> You asked whether any time an image was used in education, if its use was
>> dishonest. If its use offends either copyright law or academic integrity,
>then
>> it is.
>If, if. Why don't you commit consistently? You already have.
I have committed consistently. Violations of copyright law and of academic
integrity are dishonest.
>> >I think
>> >you
>> >are avoiding it, and continuing in a mean spirited attitude.
>> Where do you get the notion of mean-spiritedness from? I'm being quite
>pleasant
>> and equinamous.
>You have accused an individual of a serious infraction of law. Its one thing
>to
>burn an
>illegal copy of a cd and give it to your Mom, but another to distribute it
>nationally.
>If the evidence is there, thats the end of it.
But the evidence is there. He lifted a track from a CD, overlaid it on his
video, and published it over the Internet.
>You evolutionists claim to be
>the
>thorough
>bunch, objectively gathering all the bits of things and making conclusions
>based
>on all
>available evidence. You've made an accusation, so you've already completed
>the
>task.
>If you had this knowledge in the beginning of the thread, I apologize. If
>not,
>you continue
>in a mean spirited fashion with these "if's".
Do you think I am so eager to catch Hovind that I didn't bother checking up on
the facts behind Steven Pirie's statements? Of course I watched the video and
checked the site.
<snip>
>> >Science in its purest form is looking up to see where the rock came from
>that
>> >hit you in the head. This event is observable and repeatable.
>> No it isn't. That rock will never fall in that precise way again.
>And that aspect of the event is repeatable and observable.
The aspect of never happening again is repeatable? Okay...
>> >There is no
>> >room
>> >for guesses,
>> Yes there is. Did the rock come from ten meters? Fifty? Outer space? What
>> forces may have influenced the motion of the rock? Was it dropped by some
>other
>> individual and therefore a matter for the courts? Was its trajectory
>parabolic,
>> or had it reached terminal velocity and taken a linear trajectory.
>So you would make guesses at these factors. I would not.
Then you do not possess a scientific mindset. You can learn a lot about a
planet from how objects fall on it.
>> More to the point, to what extent did the massive object that attracted the
>> rock warp time and space? Is there a quantum aspect to the rock's motion?
>I'm sure you think you would know. OOps! Star Trek's on!
Everthing warps time and space, and everything has a quantum aspect, it seems.
Gyudon Z
He's a liar, a fraud, a tax evader, and apparently a thief now.
>> >Secondly, the control oriented evolutionists are people
>> >like you who wish for a strict evolutionists curriculum in the public
>> >class rooms at our expense.
>>
>> Because evolution is valid science.
>What kind of valid science comes up with gill slits?
The same kind of valid science that rejects them as soon as better evidence is
made available.
>Maybe the
>National Enquirer sort of science. That's it.
>No other theory relating to biodiversity
>> is.
>> >Why should Christian taxpayers pay for
>> >your garbage?
>> For the same reason they pay for everything else the government does that
>they
>> disagree with.
>Which is why you deny Christian taxpayers equal representation? No.
Do you have any evidence of me personally denying a Christian taxpayer
anything? Under the law, I can't, and unlike Hovind, I have some respect for
the law.
>> >Garbage such as:
>> >
>> >1. None existing "gillslits" on human embryos.
>>
>> I'm glad we agree on that.
>
>Your science came up with it.
My science also rejected it based on better evidence.
What has your science ever come up with?
>> >2. An arthritic Neanderthal portrayed as a stooping precursor of
>> >modern man (not told that about the arthritis).
>> What about the hundreds of other neandertal fossils that did not have
>> arthritis? And what about the hundreds of other hominid fossils that match
>the
>> arthritic neandertal's perfectly?
>Yea. But not all neandertal fossils were stooped over. Trying to pull
>a David Copperfield on us?
You are focusing on one little pebble of controversial evidence whle ignoring
the mountain of reliable evidence. For shame.
>> >3. Homologous organs said to be evidence of evolution, while it's
>> >quite evident that no such conclusion is necessary and demanded by the
>> >evidence.
>> The alternate explanation being?
>Function.
There are infinitely many functional combinations. The presence of homology is
a deductively valid consequence of common descent, not of mere utilitarianism.
>> >4. Told that the earth is so many billions of years old (the date
>> >changes every so many years).
>> When new evidence dictates that it should.
>It proves that the evolutionists were sloppy and dishonest in the
>first place. They really haven't a clue as to how old the earth is.
Yes they have; 4.55 billion years, plus or minus. All the evidence we have
points to that conclusion.
>> Neither do these textbooks tell us how
>> >many times the dates were changed and how much.
>> Why would that matter?
>It shows that your methodology and assumptions are way off course.
No it doesn't. Every time science revises something, it gets more and more
correct.
>> >5. The Fox amino acid experiments are foisted upon us without
>> >scrutiny. How about telling us about the problem with left handed
>> >amino acids and right handed amino acids?
>> Which problem is that?
>Both l and r are found in test tubes, but not in nature. Only l is
>found in nature. So much for probability.
The first organism was left-handed, and every other organism descended from
that. Moreover, there is evidence that l acids have slightly lower energies
than r acids, which makes them much more suitable.
>> >Perhaps that would create
>> >doubt in evolution, oh my. What about discussion on the artificial
>> >traps in the experiments that are not seen in nature?
>> What traps?
>Heat traps in the experiment that isolate aminos before they
>disintegrate.
How do you know they would disintegrate?
>> >Let's not bring
>> >doubt, right? Let's accentuate the positive, right? Let's lie to the
>> >American people.
>> Let's explain what it is we're talking about. Do you have a citation or
>> anything that describes these amino acid experiments?
Guess you were just making them up, then.
>> >That's where the evolutionist tax-grabben, exclusivist greed factor
>> >comes into play.
>> I'm sorry; you haven't connected any of the above six whines to money in
>any
>> way. Please try again.
>We pay for it and you greedy evolutionists demand it free.
No, evolutionists pay taxes for schools too.
Steven J.
> gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote in message news:<20011125225028...@mb-md.aol.com>...
> > From John McCoy:
>
>
> First of all, like I said, you're mean-spirited. Please keep the Ten
> Commandments. Secondly, the control oriented evolutionists are people
> like you who wish for a strict evolutionists curriculum in the public
> class rooms at our expense. Why should Christian taxpayers pay for
> your garbage?
>
they in no way prohibit *true* witness against him.
>
> Garbage such as:
>
> 1. None existing "gillslits" on human embryos.
>
>
> 2. An arthritic Neanderthal portrayed as a stooping precursor of
> modern man (not told that about the arthritis).
>
Neandertals are now regarded as a separate race or species sharing a
common ancestor with modern humans. I don't think any recent text
depicts them as an ancestor. That role is held by fossils of _Homo
erectus_, or _H. habilis_, or the various other early hominine
australopithecine species. All of these species walked fully upright,
and none of their apelike features can be explained by arthritis.
>
> 3. Homologous organs said to be evidence of evolution, while it's
> quite evident that no such conclusion is necessary and demanded by the
> evidence.
>
chimps, or by (yet again) the skeleton of the Turkana boy?
>
> 4. Told that the earth is so many billions of years old (the date
> changes every so many years). Neither do these textbooks tell us how
> many times the dates were changed and how much.
>
Scripture_, published in 1954. Ramm was an Old-Earth creationist, and
gives (based on, I'd assume, research published more than half a
century ago) an age for the solar system of five billion years
(unchanged today) and for the Cambrian period of about 500 million
years ago (today's estimates are slightly older). His figures for the
age of the Earth are only about half of todays 4.55 billion years;
older rocks have been discovered since then. But the point holds --
since radioactive dating was worked out, the actual dates assigned to
rocks (and the strata in which they're found) have altered very
little. For that matter, the four and a half billion year age of
Earth has not, IIRC, changed in the last forty years or so. It's not
as if twenty years ago we were being told that the Cretaceous ended 5
million years ago, and ten years ago it was 100 million, and today
it's 50 million. The end of the Cretaceous has been put between 60
and 70 million years ago for at least half a century, and it's
sticking there.
>
> 5. The Fox amino acid experiments are foisted upon us without
> scrutiny. How about telling us about the problem with left handed
> amino acids and right handed amino acids? Perhaps that would create
> doubt in evolution, oh my. What about discussion on the artificial
> traps in the experiments that are not seen in nature? Let's not bring
> doubt, right? Let's accentuate the positive, right? Let's lie to the
> American people.
>
not exist in nature, but that does not mean that mechanisms for
concentrating amino acids and separating different isomers cannot
exist in nature. The point was that biological molecules can, indeed,
originate without living organisms to make them.
>
> That's where the evolutionist tax-grabben, exclusivist greed factor
> comes into play.
>
on keeping geocentric and flat-earth astronomy out of science classes.
Just as the tax-grabbing, greedy, exclusivist chemists keep students
from being exposed to phlogiston theory. Just as the tax-grabbing,
exclusivist greedy physicists keep the students from hearing arguments
for Aristotelian physics, or arguments against relativity or quantum
theory.
>
> John McCoy
>
-- Steven J.
Mike Dunford
>cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
>> On 24 Nov 2001 20:47:39 -0500, jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>>
>> >steven...@yahoo.com (steven) wrote in message news:<13036f84.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> Hi,
>> >> I was watching my copy of Walking with Dinosaurs last night with some
>> >> friends and their kids (aftermath of Thanksgiving etc), and noticed
>> >> something interesting. The opening credits of the show have a montage
>> >> of images, one of which is a long tail with spines on, passing through
>> >> undergrowth. I though that this looked very familiar, and I checked
>> >> around until I remembered that the same image appears in the opening
>> >> few seconds of Kent Hovind's video promoting his ludicrous back-yard
>> >> theme park
>> >>
>> >> http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
>> >>
>> >> This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
>> >> (uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
>> >> from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
>> >> that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
>> >> the BBC and Universal be told?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Steven
>> >
>> >I beg to differ with you. For starters, this group is about the
>> >discussion of origins, and here you try to pick on a Creationist for
>> >his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
>> >going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
>>
>> Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
>> it?
>
>I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
>consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
>not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
>to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
>promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
No. Educators have the right to use copyrighted material, "for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research." According to the law, one of the factors that is used to
determine whether a given case constitutes fair use is, " (1) the
purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." (quotes
from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)
In this case, Hovind is not using the material for educational
purposes. He is using the copyrighted material in a commercial for a
playground in his backyard for which he is charging admission. That is
not a use that appears to fall under fair use to me, even if he
operates a nonprofit organization. I am unable to find any indication
on his website or elsewhere that he is registered as a 501(c)(3)
not-for-profit organization.
[snip]
>> >There's something about the tone of your vindictive arguments, which
>> >includes asking the question if "BBC and Universal be told?" which
>> >suggest to me that you're nothing but propagandists who see yourselves
>> >as fighting creationists and creationism.
>>
>> And people who deliberately lie to kids, and hypocrites who think its
>> ok to lie and steal "for Christ", yea, there is a bit of that.
>
>Call it stealing and I call you liar.
Plagerism is stealing and stealing is a sin.
I had to write that 1000 times one bad weekend in sixth grade after
Sr. Michael Marie noticed some striking similarities between my
homework assignemt on Mark Twain and an encyclopedia entry for the
same.
[snip]
--Mike Dunford
R. Tang
John McCoy <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
>>
>> This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
>> (uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
>> from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
>> that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
>> the BBC and Universal be told?
>discussion of origins, and here you try to pick on a Creationist for
>his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
>going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
>
>laws, some rights that including using a reasonable amount of footage
>for various reasons.
This is incorrect.
But that's on par with your understanding of evolution.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
R. Tang
>> it?
>
>I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
>consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
>not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
>to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
>promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
This is a mangled perspective on copyright. You are totally
incorrect.
For the purposes of this particular video, using the theme from
Jurassic Park was stealing, plain and simple, as the video did not discuss
the film itself or comment on it.
R. Tang
<cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Secondly, non-profit, low-budget organizations have, under copyright
>>laws, some rights that including using a reasonable amount of footage
>>for various reasons.
>
>law too? BTW, according to Hovind's narration of the virtual tour,
>"every year, thousands of kids of all ages come from all accross
>America to visit Dinosaur Adventure Land". At $7 a pop, are you sure
>it is "low-budget"?
"Low budget" doesn't matter. It's either fair use or it isn't;
being a non-profit has little to do with it.
R. Tang
newbie <she...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:7l230u8e9ks982bur...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote in message
>> >> >news:<13036f84.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> I was watching my copy of Walking with Dinosaurs last night with some
>> >> >> friends and their kids (aftermath of Thanksgiving etc), and noticed
>> >> >> something interesting. The opening credits of the show have a montage
>> >> >> of images, one of which is a long tail with spines on, passing through
>> >> >> undergrowth. I though that this looked very familiar, and I checked
>> >> >> around until I remembered that the same image appears in the opening
>> >> >> few seconds of Kent Hovind's video promoting his ludicrous back-yard
>> >> >> theme park
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
>> >> >> (uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
>> >> >> from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
>> >> >> that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
>> >> >> the BBC and Universal be told?
>> >>
>> >> >I beg to differ with you. For starters, this group is about the
>> >> >discussion of origins,
>> >>
>is a
>> >> major one.
>> >
>> >Note "we're better than thou" attitude. Note: using copyrighted
>> >material (even if used for educational purposes) is "dishonesty" even
>> >if permitted by law.
>>
>> Using copyrighted material (even if used for educational purposes)
>> without attribution is not permitted by law. For example, see
>> <http://www3.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/ccmcguid.htm>:
>>
>> "Educators and students are reminded to credit the sources and
>> display the copyright notice © and copyright ownership information if
>> this is shown in the original source, for all works incorporated as
>> part of the educational multimedia projects prepared by educators and
>> students, including those prepared under fair use. Crediting the
>> source must adequately identify the source of the work, giving a full
>> bibliographic description where available (including author, title,
>> publisher, and place and date of publication). The copyright ownership
>> information includes the copyright notice (©, year of first
>> publication and name of the copyright holder)
>>
>So what, should Hovind dub a piece after the Jurassic Park theme, singing
>"Copyright by..."?
Yes.
There are things called "credits" in movies.
Idiot.
R. Tang
newbie <she...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>
>> How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's
>> "education" project? Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or
>> music. In short, even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from
>> being stewed in the juices of his own dishonesty yet again.
>>
>it is dishonest.
No. Don't create a straw man.
>No one knows what dinos or early man looked like. Only what the artist thinks
>they looked like.
And if you use a particular artists' rendition, you better pay.
>But the subject of science is not guessing, or art. In short, stewed in your own
>juices again!
>
>On a more serious note... Are you sure that using music in an educational
>atmosphere is dishonest?
If it's someone else's, yes.
>Perhaps you should visit some museums.
Perhaps you should work for a museum and LEARN WHAT THE HELL
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Idiot.
I have. Modern exhibits do try to create
>an "atmosphere"
>using music and other means. They also charge money, you know.
R. Tang
newbie <she...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>June <junego...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:1f3g06r.1dewltxu7am82N%junego...@earthlink.net...
>> newbie <she...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>
>> [major 'large-scale' spnippery (does *not* violate 2LoT)]
>> > >
>> > > >On a more serious note... Are you sure that using music in an educational
>> > > >atmosphere is dishonest?
>> > >
>> >
>> > I'll play your game. Due consideration means paying to see the movie once?
>> > >
>> > > >Perhaps you should visit some museums. I have. Modern exhibits do try to
>> > > >create
>> > > >an "atmosphere"
>> > > >using music and other means.
>> > >
>> > > rights.
>> >
>> > You mean write the producer, tell him you represent a museum and ask if it
>is
>> > alright to play the music?
>> > So it is up to the producer to use the music in any case? Non-profit,
>> > educational or other?
>>
>> In fact, yes, that is the law. If the museum is playing Mozart, that's
>> past copyright infringement and does not require permission of the
>> composer (snicker) or his heirs. But I believe they have to get
>> permission from whoever recorded the music they actually do play.
>
>This is somewhat of a different problem, as Hovind is allegedly distributing a
>video.
No, it isn't.
Some people are familiar with this. You are not.
>I would ask what you think would happen if a museum were playing the radio for
>people to hear.
>Would they be required to give credits? It is illegal as far as I know to
>rebroadcast a radio trans
>without permission.
You know very little.
>How about discos?(yes, I know disco is out)
As I said, you know very little. Get out of the house; plenty of
dance places; they play disco as well as a lot of other genres.
When my hair was
>long and mortality was not on the horizon, the
>places I frequented did not give credits to songs they played. At least, I did
>not ever hear them. Was I cheated?
No, you don't read, and credit does not have to be audio only.
>>A few years ago, the
>> copyright owner objected to restaurants, singing telegrams, etc. using
>> the song without paying for each use. That's why *now* when they bring
>> you your birthday cake in Ruby's, Claimjumper, etc., they sing their own
>> made up song!
>>
>All laws are not just, and copyright laws are perhaps among the most whacky.
Too bad. Your opinions mean little in a court of law; ignorance,
just like in science, is no excuse.
R. Tang
newbie <she...@uswest.net> wrote:
>> You are obviously unfamiliar with the law in this area. If you play a radio
>in
>> a commercial establishement for the patrons to hear, yes, you are required to
>> pay a fee to one or both of the two major music licensing houses, ASCAP or
>BMI.
>> The same goes for bars where bands play "cover tunes".
>
>Yes, but not always required to broadcast their license of the copyright use to
>the patrons.
>It is within the prerogative of the holder how credits are to be given, if any.
No, it isn't.
Why are you arguing such a stupid point?
steven
> John McCoy wrote:
>
> > I'll tell you one thing, if the who's nicest factor came into play,
> > I'll stack a really great man like Kent Hovind against you and your
> > cohorts anyday.
>
> A "really great man"? If there were a "Liars for Jesus" club, "doctor" Kent Hovind would be the poster
> boy.
Also, for an example of Kents' greatness and kindness, see his
description of how he quieted his son at the dentists. What a kind and
great man.
http://home1.gte.net/dmadh/hovind3.htm
text excised from above URL for clarity
=======================================================
I took one of my kids to the dentist one time when he was about six or
seven years old.
The dentist said, "Mr. Hovind, this kid has a cavity."
I said, "Yes sir, I know about that. Are you talking about the big one
in his head or the one in his tooth?"
He said, "Well, just the one in his tooth. That's the one we are going
to fix today."
I said, "Okay, let's fix it Doc." Then I said, "Now son, you've got to
sit still. The dentist has to give you a shot."
He says, "A SHOT! A SHOT!"
I said, "Yes, he's going to give you a shot. Calm down; I've had one
before." I showed him where I had mine. I said, "It's no problem. When
he gives you the shot, your mouth will go numb so he can drill out the
bad part and fill the hole with silver."
He says, "Daddy, he's going to give me a SHOT!"
I said, "Yes son, he's going to give you a shot. Now, listen
carefully. SIT STILL! If you wiggle, I'm going to have to take you
outside and spank you, so, don't -- wiggle!"
He did his best. He tried to sit still, but when the doctor pulled out
that giant needle about twelve feet long, and poured in about eighteen
gallons of Novocain, and said, "Okay kid, open up," he freaked.
[.....] We tried to hold him still, but we couldn't hold him still
enough for that kind of operation.
[.....]
Finally, after a few minutes the doctor gave up and said, "I can't
work on this kid. I'm sorry, I just can't do it."
I said, "Doc, let me take him outside and talk to him for a few
minutes."
We went out to the parking lot, got in the old Chevy van and sat in
the back seat.
I said, "Son, listen carefully. You know that I love you."
He said, "I know daddy."
I said, "Now son, I told you to sit still. You did not sit still. What
happens when you disobey daddy?"
He said, "Sniff, sniff... I get a spanking?"
I said, "Correct, bend over." Boy, did I give him a spanking, and it
was a doozy. A few minutes later, smoke was rising off his hind end,
tears were coming out of his eyes, and pearls were coming out of his
nostrils -- the whole thing.
I said, "Okay son, listen carefully. We are going to go back into the
dentist office, and you are going to sit in that chair. If you wiggle
one time, I'm not going to yell at you and I'm not going to scream at
you. I'm going to calmly take you back out here to the van, and I'm
going to give you two spankings just like the one you just received.
Then, we are going to go back into the dentist office, and you are
going to sit in the chair. If you wiggle, we are going to come back
out to the van, and you are going to get three spankings just like the
one you just got. Son, we are going to go back and forth all day long
until I get tired, and I have played tennis for years. I have a
wonderful forehand smash. I don't believe I'll get tired for a long
time, son."
I believe that he knew that, and I knew that.
We went back into the dentist office. That kid sat in the chair. The
dentist said, "Open your mouth."
He opened his mouth.
The dentist said, "Open it wider."
He held it open real wide, and I said, "Son, sit still."
He looked over at me, then he looked at that dentist with that giant
needle. He started to shake; then he looked at me again. As he gripped
the chair, he did not move a muscle. I don't think the kid even
breathed for twenty minutes. The doctor gave him the shot; drilled it
out; filled the tooth full of silver; and we were on our way out the
door in fifteen or twenty minutes. It wasn't long at all.
The doctor then said, "Mr. Hovind, come here."
I said, "Yes sir?"
He said, "Look, I don't know what you said to that kid while you were
outside, but I would like for you to work for me."
I said, "No sir, you don't want me to work for you, the Child Welfare
would have me in jail in a flash."
=====================================================
This is obviously a loving individual?
Steven
steven
> his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
> going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
> includes asking the question if "BBC and Universal be told?" which
> suggest to me that you're nothing but propagandists who see yourselves
> as fighting creationists and creationism.
I am certainly opposed to creationism and its teaching as science. I
am not vindictive.
>
> I'll tell you one thing, if the who's nicest factor came into play,
> I'll stack a really great man like Kent Hovind against you and your
> cohorts anyday.
Hovind is not a great man, I have no cohorts.
>
> You stink. And the more I think about Kent Hovind and his gentle
> approach, and his kindness, the more I think you stink. Where did you
> come from, a dumpster?
I believe this shows so much of the kindness we expect from
fundamental Xtians. I came not from a dumpster, but from Scotland.
>
> Let me tell you something. You are arrogant, militant, and obviously
> some sort of activist.
Good of you to judge me. I have been accused of arrogance, but not
militancy. I am no activist, unless listening to PBS qualifies me?
>
> And that tells me that you're not capable of considering anything from
> an objective approach.
On the contrary, as a working biologist, I have to consider everything
objectively.
>
> John McCoy
The real McCoy?
Sanjay
Rubystars wrote:
> <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bffc31e...@news-server.optonline.net...
> > On 24 Nov 2001 10:34:41 -0500, steven...@yahoo.com (steven) wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >I was watching my copy of Walking with Dinosaurs last night with some
> > >friends and their kids (aftermath of Thanksgiving etc), and noticed
> > >something interesting. The opening credits of the show have a montage
> > >of images, one of which is a long tail with spines on, passing through
> > >undergrowth. I though that this looked very familiar, and I checked
> > >around until I remembered that the same image appears in the opening
> > >few seconds of Kent Hovind's video promoting his ludicrous back-yard
> > >theme park
> > >
> > >http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
> > >
> > >This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
> > >(uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
> > >from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
> > >that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
> > >the BBC and Universal be told?
> > >
> > Of course. And I believe some regular here already did.
> >
> > I checked the video again and the music is still there but not at the
> > beginning and a lot of it seems mangled, as if there was a
> > half-hearted attempt to downplay it. I wonder if those fine folks at
> > the studio legal department have had a nice theological discussion
> > with Kent already (something about the 10 Commandments?). If so, it
> > certainly wouldn't hurt to give 'em a reminder to continue the
> > 'dialogue'.
> >
> > ---------------
> > J. Pieret
> > ---------------
> >
> > Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
> > chewing through the leather straps.
> >
>
> I think what upsets me about that the most is that those kids are going to
> the park and getting taught by people they trust the wrong things. When they
> find out later that what they were taught was wrong, they might resent that
> trust being betrayed, and reject Christianity altogether. Most people in
> here would probably say that's a good thing though. *sigh*
>
> I really hold a grudge of sorts against YECs because when I was young like
> those kids on the video I had no way to know they were lying, and I know
> they are indoctrinating people and if those people are really interested in
> science they're going to find out differently one day, and some people like
> me are then going to get angry..
>
> -Rubystars
What how I almost lost my faith, but I was the lucky one; however, I was vary
angry with them.
Rubystars
"Sanjay" <San...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C02AB06...@mindspring.com...
There are people from all backgrounds that tell lies and deceive people.
It's sad that some do this while claiming to be "Christian".
-Rubystars
Andy Groves
<snip>
> Why should Christian taxpayers pay for
> your garbage?
>
> Garbage such as:
>
> 1. None existing "gillslits" on human embryos.
Human embryos have gill slits. They are a defining feature of all
chordates. They are now more commonly called pharyngeal slits,
pharyngeal arches or branchial arches.
Here is a nice interactive web site describing them in mice:
http://www.med.unc.edu/embryo_images/unit-hednk/hednk_htms/hednktoc.htm
For human embryos, go to:
http://anatomy.med.unsw.edu.au/cbl/embryo/wwwhuman/Stages/CStages.htm
Clicking on the appropriate photographs will easily revela the
presence of pharyngeal arches to you.
Andy
Jon Fleming
>gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote in message news:<20011125225206...@mb-md.aol.com>...
>> From John McCoy:
>>
>> >Carl M <NO_SPAM_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<3C012676...@hotmail.com>...
>> >> John McCoy wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message
>> news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> > > Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
>> >> > > it?
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
>> >> > consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
>> >> > not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
>> >> > to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
>> >> > promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
>> >>
>> >> How does using the music from Jurassic Park aid in Kent Hovind's
>> >> "education" project? Afterall the subject is not movies, film scores or
>> >> music. In short, even your twisted definitions can not save Hovind from
>> >> being stewed in the juices of his own dishonesty yet again.
>>
>> >I have a better question. Why dote about trivialities?
>>
>> Because it's the law.
>>
>> .This is along
>> >the lines of baby pre-school argumentation. What next, "can my daddy
>> >beat up your daddy?"
>>
>> Actually, it's "My daddy's familiar with 17 USC sec. 107, as articulated by
>> Sandra Day O'Connor. Is yours?"
>
>You've seemed to forgotten already. It is NOT the law. It is
>permissible to use a reasonable amount of footage for educational
>purposes, if you are a non-profit organization.
AND if you attribute the copyright holder.
>So once again, you
>dote about trivialities, and you've slandered Kent Hovind. So
>apologize. You've asked him to keep the Commandments so I really think
>you ought to do so likewise.
Hovind has broken copyright law. How serious that infraction is, and
what (if anything) private citizens should do about it, are matters of
opinion. The existence of the transgression is not.
>
>John McCoy
Jon Fleming
>
>Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:j2330uschhb55ek7b...@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Nov 2001 11:06:35 -0500, jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>>
>> >cats...@yahoo.com wrote in message
>news:<3c0053bb...@news-server.optonline.net>...
>> >> On 24 Nov 2001 20:47:39 -0500, jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >steven...@yahoo.com (steven) wrote in message
>news:<13036f84.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> I was watching my copy of Walking with Dinosaurs last night with some
>> >> >> friends and their kids (aftermath of Thanksgiving etc), and noticed
>> >> >> something interesting. The opening credits of the show have a montage
>> >> >> of images, one of which is a long tail with spines on, passing through
>> >> >> undergrowth. I though that this looked very familiar, and I checked
>> >> >> around until I remembered that the same image appears in the opening
>> >> >> few seconds of Kent Hovind's video promoting his ludicrous back-yard
>> >> >> theme park
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/dal.asp?pg=video
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is the same video that uses the theme from Jurassic Park
>> >> >> (uncredited I suspect), so basically Kent is lifting images and sounds
>> >> >> from the left wing liberal media, and particularly from programs/films
>> >> >> that espouse evolutionary thinking, to promote his back garden. Should
>> >> >> the BBC and Universal be told?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Steven
>> >> >
>> >> >I beg to differ with you. For starters, this group is about the
>> >> >discussion of origins, and here you try to pick on a Creationist for
>> >> >his usage of some footage of some television show, as if that were
>> >> >going to cause Universal or BBC some financial hardship.
>> >>
>> >> Oh? So stealing is ok as long as it is from somebody who won't notice
>> >> it?
>> >
>> >I guess you don't understand. The provisions in copyright laws
>> >consider the fact that educators who wish to put forth their ideas, do
>> >not have the multi-million dollar funds to obtain pictures and videos
>> >to substantiate their view-point. And for this reason, so as to
>> >promote public discourse and knowledge, educators have this right.
>>
>> Not without attribution they don't.
>> <http://www3.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/ccmcguid.htm>.
>>
>> And you think Hovind's stuff isn't for-profit?
>>
>What stuff is non-profit?
John McCoy is reiterating that fair use for educational (non-profit)
is permitted. Although non-profit educational status does not relieve
the user of copyrighted material from the requirement to attribute the
copyright holder, if Hovind's use is not educational and
not-for-profit the point is moot. I haven't seen any indication that
Hovind's use is not-for-profit, and my perusal of his site indicates
to me that it is for-profit.
R. Tang
Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
>>What stuff is non-profit?
>
>John McCoy is reiterating that fair use for educational (non-profit)
>is permitted.
Fair use is not restricted to non-profit or educational
institutions or purposes. It CAN be an element in determining fair use,
but in this particular case, the use is clearly not fair use.
>Although non-profit educational status does not relieve
>the user of copyrighted material from the requirement to attribute the
>copyright holder, if Hovind's use is not educational and
>not-for-profit the point is moot. I haven't seen any indication that
>Hovind's use is not-for-profit, and my perusal of his site indicates
>to me that it is for-profit.
No statement of 501(c)3 notice, is there? Generally, groups are
pretty above board about their holding of such status; in fact, they're
eager to do so....
R. Tang
McCoy...READ the law. It is not sufficient for there to be an
educational purpose. You are dead wrong on this. There has to be analysis,
critical comment, etc., which is clearly missing here.
>AND if you attribute the copyright holder.
That, too.
>>So once again, you
>>dote about trivialities, and you've slandered Kent Hovind. So
>>apologize. You've asked him to keep the Commandments so I really think
>>you ought to do so likewise.
>
>Hovind has broken copyright law. How serious that infraction is, and
>what (if anything) private citizens should do about it, are matters of
>opinion. The existence of the transgression is not.
The really stupid thing is that it's pretty easy to get your own
stuff and avoid the mess. Either you purchase some "buy-out" music which
is especially made for this purpose (costing all of $59 dollars at some
places), or you buy some software that helps you create music (all of
$229).
Only con-men try to rip off copyrighted music, because
they're too stupid and too lazy to do it the right way.
Alistair Davidson
> On 26 Nov 2001 01:13:05 -0500, Alistair Davidson
> <lord...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>cats...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 25 Nov 2001 23:01:14 -0500, Alistair Davidson
>>><lord...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>I was just making the point that even if you think there is no *real*
>>>thing stolen when a copyright is infringed and that it is only a crime
>>>because of an (unjust) law, still, taking that whatever without
>>>permission is *morally* stealing, IMHO.
>>>
>>
>>I don't see how the law can determine morality. Actually, I find the
>>implications of that idea truly horrific.
>>
>
> Actually, that was my point. It is the "taking" without permission
> that I find morally wrong, not that the taking happened to be illegal.
> On the other hand, there are situations where rules are made to ensue
> an orderly society, that are objectively neutral morally, in and of
> themselves, the violation of which are, IMHO, morally wrong. Speed
> limits and traffic lights, for instance. Is it objectively immoral to
> tool around in a car at 90 mph or to run a red light? But, under the
> need to keep social interreaction safe and harmonious, such rules are
> necessary on public streets. Even if the driver is "careful",
> restricting himself to rural areas late at nite, I think it is immoral
> to flout such laws. But, hey, I'm getting far afield here.
The difference there is that by breaking the law, the driver endangers lives.
The law has a definite purpose.
Copyright presents moral difficulties for me. If I enjoy a piece of music and
a friend who can't afford to buy the CD (and I have many such friends) would
like a copy, I believe the moral thing to do is to share that music with him.
It's also illegal. That doesn't really make sense to me.
>>My contention is only that copyright 'theft' is not the same as physical
>>theft, nor is it morally equivalent. Plagiarism and slander are arguably just
>>as wrong or worse, but they're notthe saem thing.
>>
>>
> While I recognise that your criticisms have definite weight and that
> the copyright laws are and should be open to revision, let's agree to
> disagree (amicably) that they should be scrapped entirely.
I'm not really in favour of total scrapping, just extremely liberal revision...
--
Alistair Davidson
Read my comic, Bizmatch! http://www.altgeek.org/lord_inh/comic/index.html
"Disloyalty in a democracy is to stop asking questions."