151. Comment #163046 by Santi Tafarella on April 17, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Christopher Davis,

Thanks for the bit of support--I felt pretty put upon, trying to express my opinion on this site today. I usually don't post comments, but I've followed the website since its inception--i think it is one of the best on the web.

But man, there are a lot of smug, impatient, intolerant people posting here, quick to flame you with scatological vindictiveness if you don't tow the party line. I'm pretty shocked. Perhaps I'm naive, thinking a site devoted to free thinking attracts, well, free thinkers.

I feel like I've had to establish my "street cred" at every turn--that yes, a free thinking agnostic of 25 years can also think that it's ok to quote Imagine in a film, that maybe people should see the film, that maybe, just maybe, it might make an important point or two. The vitriol these very suggestions aroused is stupifying to me. People started imagining that I must be a troll--and detected all sorts of subtle evidence of unorthodoxy toward the atheist cause.

Two other things I noticed: People are obsessed with metaphors of elimination--everything is "BS" and crap that need to be eliminated, pushed down, cleansed from the system. IDers are repugnant. I would say that there is a lot of soft bigotry going on here, except that it doesn't seem all that soft.

The glee that maybe Yoko Ono would sue and stop the film from getting into theaters struck me as creepy. And calls for seeing shades of gray invariably led people to make analogies with the KKK, Nazism, and Hitler: "You wouldn't support a Nazi movie, would you?" etc.

Scatalogical obsession and fascist analogies accompanied by no-nonsense resolve. Is this the kind of person attracted to Dawkins' ideas? Isn't it ironic that people with strong black and white world views are attracted to a writer who, I think it is fair to say, spends a great deal of time opposing fundamentalism?

I think that it's time to turn the tables on those posting at this website who are intolerant of diverse points of view. I, myself, am going to start pushing back. I think it's very unhealthy for the skeptical movement to function in an atmosphere of disrespect and intolerance, and scatological smugness.

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

152. Comment #163062 by Russell Blackford on April 17, 2008 at 11:50 pm

Well, I really hope my credentials and bona fides aren't doubted. But I actually think we should be defending free speech on this point. I hope Yoko Ono doesn't sue. I always want to defend my enemies' free speech if I can. It's more credible when I come to defend my friends' free speech ... and besides, it's simply the right thing to do.

I have a lot to say, so I blogged about it over here.

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-defended-on-one-point.html

And, bonzai, if you read this, I've also written a long response to the points being made by you, Athena Andreadis, and others on my post about religion and poetry, etc.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

153. Comment #163071 by AllanW on April 18, 2008 at 12:23 am

Oh grow up, Santi Tafarella. This is the internet not kindergarten. And get your accusations correct before both spraying them around like a dog at a post and aiming in all directions at once.

'You've made a malicious insinuation about me--suggesting that I'm a troll, and "arse-gravy."'

'Malicious insinuation; if this is the worst comment aimed in your direction in your life you will have a very comfortable existence. Grow up. I began to argue whether you were trolling but backed-off that to speculating whether you were just a shill for the film. Have you addressed that point anywhere? And you make the same mistakes of conflation that many fundamentalist posters on here do; read my post again, the 'arse-gravy' comment was clearly addressed at the film not you as a person. See how people might get the impression you identify yourself with it?

Your next paragraph attempts to establish some kind of credentials.

'I'd appreciate an apology.' When you feel wronged most people would appreciate it. When I'm wrong I offer one.

Nothing in your subsequent posts demonstrates to me any evidence that you are not a shill for the film. In fact many of your utterances have the whiff of 'teach the controversy'. And the final bleat in your post #163046 is heart-rending. Or it would be if I were such a bleeding-heart as you appear to be.

I'm genuinely sorry if you feel that the tone of posts here has left you 'pretty shocked.'. I'm equally curious to see for myself whether the site as a whole (yes you generalise that much) is clearly a case of 'there are a lot of smug, impatient, intolerant people posting here, quick to flame you with scatological vindictiveness if you don't tow the party line.' No, I just checked; it's not like that.

But mainly I feel sad that such a cringing, easily-bruised whiner represents themselves as a robust free-thinker.

Nobody here has a problem with free speech issues; nobody here has a problem with scepticism, inquiry or reason. I think the post-modern relativistic bullshit that appears to inform your outlook is as corrosive as religion if it leads self-proclaimed agnostics and rationalists to accept and even promote the specious propaganda contained in this film. And no, I don't think that qualifies as 'forcing you to tow the party-line'; it's an opinion!

There is a trite phrase that might be appropriate here and I make no apology for repeating it; it's possible to be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

Other Comments by AllanW

154. Comment #163076 by Quine on April 18, 2008 at 12:49 am

Santi, if the truth about nature leads to Nazi atrocities, then yes, we need to talk about that and see what we can do as a society. However, pretending that the truth is not the truth is no long term solution.

Many of us followed the Dover trial closely in which we saw the unmasking of the duplicitous and mendacious actions of the ID proponents. This has made us sensitive to trickery. The tricks used by the Expelled producers have been right in line with these forebodings. It looks like more "wedge" tactics to win political battles in a culture war where their side simply does not have the truth to fall back upon.

Please excuse any 'rough' treatment you may have received here. If you have not done so, please read one of the books chronicling the Dover trial (or watch the excellent NOVA program). Look into the false front at the Discovery Institute. And in the case of Expelled, listen to the Mathis interview at Scientific American. There is deep deception going on, political agendas, and some second rate (i.e. not willing to get proper IP releases) film makers looking to get a few fast bucks out of the sheeple.

Other Comments by Quine

155. Comment #163154 by MorituriMax on April 18, 2008 at 3:11 am

Why are we, as atheists, so wedded to an implicit orthodoxy, and narrow range of opinion on these posts here at the Dawkins site? Can't we have a little less predictable, and less polemical, discussion?

If you are referring to Evolution, that narrow range of opinions covers a HUGE segment of many sciences, all of which collectively, overwhelmingly support Evolution.

It's like arguing that gravity isn't necessarily as absolute as different people "argue."

In my opinion, this video sums it up beuatifully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg

Gotta go to work, will check out the remaining posts here then.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

156. Comment #163279 by Christopher Davis on April 18, 2008 at 6:08 am

Santi T.,

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a lot of the people here are "smug, impatient," and "intolerant", it's just that most of the people here have heard this all before (okay so maybe some of them are a bit impatient).

Now I don't know if you are shilling for the movie (I like to think not) or are just one of those people who have a very strong drive toward reconciliation and like to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt. However, if you are going to this movie in the hopes that it might make "an important point or two" I think you are going to be dissapointed.

The ID movement is dishonest, pure and simple. Yes, good, productive, thoughtful discussions can be had regarding the influence of Darwin's hypotheses on eugenics, social engineering, and even Nazism...unfortunately, that is not the goal of Ben Stein and his ilk.

IDers want to make evolutionary theory out to be some half-assed, crackpot idea, that is not only wrong but inherently evil. Even worse, they would have people believe that the only thing keeping evolution alive is a massive conspiracy.

No matter how many times their challenges are met, no many how many times their arguments are refuted, they keep rolling them out. There is only so much patience even a rational minded person can show.

IDers have a political agenda and they don't mind lying to further it. Choosing not to see this movie is not a sign of being close-minded, it's a sign of being fed-up.

Like I said before, I'm going to see the movie, but I'm not going to pay to see it. Right now I'm reading a book called "Darwinism Under the Microscope". Every few pages I have to put it down and take a deep breath. The book is a joke, and can be picked apart by anyone who has even a halfway decent understanding of evolutionary theory. The reason I'm reading it is the same reason I intend to watch "Expelled"...it's important to know what the other side is saying. Even if it is the same old snake-oil they've been peddling for years, I want to see the new label.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

157. Comment #163370 by Santi Tafarella on April 18, 2008 at 8:46 am

AllanW,
I assume that you're not Allan Watts--he's been dead for quite a few years, yes? Perhaps you are his reincarnation (that's a compliment, by the way)?

In any event, I'm okay with being sassed, but I would ask you to check and see how many people yesterday, in a hostile fashion, threatened to get my account blocked for trolling, or said they wouldn't listen to me, or told me to shut up, or addressed me with scatalogical language. I understand--it's the internet, and this is how they behave on the fundamentalist sites, and the far right and left political sites, so why should I be surprised that the Dawkins site should be different?

Of course, the reason I might expect something different is because I assume that there is actually something special about thoughtful nonbelievers. Maybe I'm wrong about this. Every movement, I suppose, attracts "enthusiasts" of the dogmatic persuasion. As Christopher Hitchens says, you can't always choose your allies.

But I think it's rather small of you to not simply admit that you were wrong to treat a fellow skeptic to such an obnoxious display of contempt. It really is not in accord with our movement to be impatient with nuance. Also, scatalogical dismissal is not an argument. All that I tried to do yesterday is introduce a bit of doubt and nuance into a discussion that seemed, at least to me, a bit hyterical and one-sided.

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

158. Comment #163379 by Santi Tafarella on April 18, 2008 at 9:05 am

AllenW,
Oh, and I'm not a shill for the film. I can respect people's thought that they don't want to pay to see it (out of principle), and my guess, based on the reviews I've seen at Panda's Thumb etc, is that the film is pretty bad. But I tend to make up my own mind about films and books, and I tend to buy them without much compunction about whether I'm putting money into enemy hands. I just don't have that degree of Manichean worry about intellectual argument, and even propaganda. People who are sucked in by propaganda deserve to be sucked in by propaganda, but I find propaganda study fascinating in itself. That, for me, is the reason to see the film--as an exercise in seeing how the film manipulates an audience.

As for the NOVA video, I've watched it a couple of times, and am showing it at a Darwin celebration event at my college next year (in honor of Darwin's 200th birthday). So yes, I like the NOVA video a great deal, and of course understand that ID and the Discovery Institute are propaganda purveyors.

I often think that William Dembsky would make a good Othello in a Shakespeare production.

Having said that, I read the other side's books, and see their propaganda films, because they do actually stimulate thought, and function as a foil to my own ideas. And some of them, however irritating or however bad you might think their motives are, sometimes say interesting things, and occasionally--and I stress the word occasionally--make a worthwhile observation.

I just think that the skeptic community should take, as a role model, people like Michael Shermer, who actually listens carefully and respectfully to his opponents, and works with nuance, as when he blurbed for D'nesh D'susa's book on Christianity. I personally can't stand D'susa, but I like to see Shermer's openness and willingness to talk without demonizing or dismissing people out of hand.

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

159. Comment #163381 by ZekeCDN on April 18, 2008 at 9:11 am

The commercial nature of the film does not preclude a Fair Use defense, as that is only one of four factors that gets weighed--the others being the nature of the work, the proportion taken and the effect on the work's market value. Please note however that it's important not to rush to judgement based on how you think a given use (such as Expelled's) lines up with these factors, as each of them has a long (and frequently convoluted) history of interpretation by the courts. All things considered I do believe Yoko would succeed in an infringement action, although I agree that the question of whether she ought to is open for debate.

XVIVO on the other hand have an excellent claim--and one that ought to be pursued in my view. The fact that some versions of their animation were tagged with a copyright notice crediting Harvard is unlikely to be a problem, as more than one copyright claim can subsist in the same work (I'm pretty certain for example that Harvard added oral commentary to XVIVO's animation, for which Harvard would own the copyright). If XVIVO had assigned all of their rights to Harvard (as Premise seems to think), I seriously doubt that they'd be asserting their rights in the manner in which they have.

I would respectfully disagree with the lawyer who told 24fps (the Canadian documentary maker) that Fair Use "is a myth." He may have been thinking of the Canadian "equivalent"--Fair Dealing--which does not offer protection in as many circumstances as Fair Use (despite that Fair Dealing's enumerated permissible uses actually negate infringement as opposed to providing an affirmative defense as Fair Use does). Or perhaps he was referring to the many misconceptions about these exceptions that persist among the public (WikiPedia has a good section on common misunderstandings on its Fair Use page).

In fact, XVIVO would have another potential protection under Canadian (or European) copyright law--one that seems appropriate to these circumstances--that they do not have in the United States. I refer to the concept of the moral rights of a creator to have the integrity of his or her work upheld. In the past this has been invoked for the purpose of not having a work associated with a cause that the creator did not wish to appear to be endorsing. Under our system, moral rights always remain with the creator; they do not pass when the copyright is sold to another (although they can be waived).

Disclaimer: I am not licensed to practice IP law (although I will be soon, FSM willing) and the above is not intended as legal advice.

Other Comments by ZekeCDN

160. Comment #163382 by Podaar on April 18, 2008 at 9:13 am

Comment #163379 by Santi Tafarella

People who are sucked in by propaganda deserve to be sucked in by propaganda

Even if they are legislators for your city, county, state or country?

Other Comments by Podaar

161. Comment #163401 by Geoff on April 18, 2008 at 9:51 am

161. Comment #163379 by Santi Tafarella

But I tend to make up my own mind about films and books...

Well, yes, but on what basis do you decide which to see or read? That's all most of us are doing; reading reviews, and the background of the subject, to see if it's a film worth paying to see. And, in the main, deciding not to.


The same argument has been used for reading all the "flea" books. I've read a few, found that they all say much the same thing, and decided not to bother with any more. Other peoples' reviews have reinforced my decision.

Other Comments by Geoff

162. Comment #163408 by Santi Tafarella on April 18, 2008 at 10:08 am

Geoff,
I applaud your openness to read the flea books. I've read McGrath's material. He is, afterall, an academic at Oxford, and a mostly sincere fellow. I think that most of his arguments are disengenuous, but I think I make a decision about reading based on how serious the writer is, and where he or she teaches. I dilike Dembsky, for example, but he is smart. And if you're going to get a good counterargument, you'll probably get it from him.
In my experience with reading intellectual defenders of religion, I think the two most high-powered people on the other side are Alvin Plantinga and NT Wright. I've read both of them, found them wanting, but if you really want to hear the other side with its best possible arguments out there, those are the two writers you'll want to read.
As for the film, again I think that it is interesting for the study of propaganda, not because it is a place to encounter in-depth argumentation. It's like watching FOX news and noticing how the techniques being used to cast doubt and insinuation on Obama--it's an interesting exercise in media evaluation.

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

163. Comment #163423 by Santi Tafarella on April 18, 2008 at 10:36 am

podaar,
I'm not talking about mayors and state legislators, I'm talking about those on the skeptical side of things--going to see things and reading the books on the other side. If a skeptic becomes a non-skeptical religious believer by stepping over, and looking in a vulnerable way, at opposing arguments, then from my perspective they aren't all that skeptical to start with--if they can be conned by a film or religious book that easily.

But I'm just suggesting that people who call themselves devoted skeptics or atheists may try to insulate themselves in the skeptical community in the same way that Christians insulate themselves in religious communities. Based on the postings I see on this site, there are more than a few people commenting about things in a way that suggests to me that they simply have no tolerance for nuance, or really looking at things calmly and without scatalogical offhand dismissiveness.

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

164. Comment #163426 by Podaar on April 18, 2008 at 10:41 am

Santi

Oh, my mistake then. I thought you were making a separate point about the general audience for Expelled.

I agree that we could all be more open to new ideas--I don't think ID qualifies though[edit], as a new idea[/edit].

Other Comments by Podaar

165. Comment #163499 by mesomodel on April 18, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Comment #163043 by Christopher Davis

mesomodel, I think you should give a pass for saying that "skeptics" should see the movie. I don't think ST meant 'people who are undecided' should see the movie. Skeptic is a common term used to describe people who use reason. logic, and evidence to guide their worldview.

Christopher,

Your definition of skeptic was what I had also originally assumed. I am indeed a skeptic under that definition, and I don't think skeptics (as defined above) need to see the movie.

I have evaluated the claims of ID and the claims of evolution, with skepticism/reason. I have found ID to lack credibility. I have found evolution to be supported by its claims via evidence.

Skeptics need not remain neutral or skeptical about everything once their skepticism has been satisfied with evidence and rational consideration. I'm not skeptical of gravity. I'm not skeptical of evolution. I'm pro-gravity. I'm pro-evolution. I'm anti-invsibile-rubberband-instead-of-gravity. And I'm anti-ID. That is not to say that I can't or won't change my mind about either should new evidence come to light.

If new evidence were to come to the forefront that supported ID and discredited evolution, I would reconsider my position. "Expelled" doesn't provide new evidence, it just rehashes the same old dribble. As such, I see no reason to see the movie and to contribute to the success and coffers of the propaganda machine.

I agree with Santi about free speech; I said this upfront in my first post on this topic. I also agree that there are topics in the movie that ought to be discussed. Indeed, the topics in the movie such as Darwinism leads to Holocaust are and have been discussed, ad nauseum. I, as a skeptic, don't need to see the movie to have any of these discussions. Or, stated differently, it's not like I won't or can't discuss these things just because I didn't see the movie. So, really, I agree with Santi's position on most things, except for the part that skeptics should see the movie.

Truce and peace.

Other Comments by mesomodel

166. Comment #163507 by phil rimmer on April 18, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Santi

And some of them, however irritating or however bad you might think their motives are, sometimes say interesting things, and occasionally--and I stress the word occasionally--make a worthwhile observation.

Now THAT threw me. I'm all for openness to evidence. I have a ton of flea books. I regularly read, the postings on a number of religious sites and find a lot of interest in them, but THIS really threw me.


Please, WHAT worthwhile observation??

EDIT You are talking about IDers, right?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

167. Comment #163539 by MorituriMax on April 18, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Santi wrote

But man, there are a lot of smug, impatient, intolerant people posting here, quick to flame you with scatological vindictiveness if you don't tow the party line. I'm pretty shocked. Perhaps I'm naive, thinking a site devoted to free thinking attracts, well, free thinkers.

One slight correction, the party line only applies if we all belong to a party, but if we are free thinkers, as most atheists are, that is by definition not possible. One reason atheists are so easily overruled by politicians pushing religious agendas is that we only share the term "atheist," we don't actually all belong to a monolithic group who coordinate with each other on what is the "approved" view.

Perhaps you are on the receiving end of your own argument, you seem to be asking everyone to toe the politically correct line of accepting lies and propoganda from creationists who want us all living under the pope and king. Anybody researched lately how well that worked for the peasants who couldn't leave their own village and weren't legally entitled to even read and write?

We, as freethinkers, are very resistant to someone who basically says to support the very people who want to tear down science and free thought, and so unintelligently as well.

Finally, I don't know if you're an American or not, but I'll tell you what I tell them, you don't have to constitutional right to not be offended. In England this discussion would be considered tame. Watch the Hitchens versus Hitchens debate if you want to see some really "shocking" exchanges...

Have a good one!

Other Comments by MorituriMax

168. Comment #163543 by Santi Tafarella on April 18, 2008 at 1:44 pm

phil rimmer,
First, let me say that I respect professor mesomodel, and see nothing in his most recent post that I would quarrel with, and I can only speak for myself: a year from now I'll probably get the movie on DVD. I'm fascinated by propaganda, and I think it will be interesting on that level.

As for an example of something an IDer might say that I would find interesting, I may end up showing my ignorance here (I teach English not Science), but the fine tuning of the laws of the universe do seem to be a lucky coincidence indeed for us, and I think that the most reasonable way to account for this good luck is to postulate a multiple universe hypothesis. The physicist who postulates this (if I recall correctly, his name is Lee Strobel) suggests that if the universe spawns other universes with different physical laws, then our existence was inevitable at some point because all possible variable would have been tried sooner or later. But it is at this point that the religious believer can say, "Where's your experimental evidence for this?" And I think there is none--it is just a very good suggestion for explaining something that we don't understand well at this point.

A second example is the origin of life itself. Creationists have long laid down a heavy critique upon the primodial soup theory of life's origins, and if current research is any indication, scientists are now looking ever more intently at the possibility that life first evolved, not in a warm, watery environment, but in an icy environment (where ice crystals function as proto-cellular walls). This ice theory has been gaining ground for precisely the reason that creationists have always critiqued--warm liquid environments don't seem to generate sufficiently complex amino acids. Again, I'm not a scientist, but I would ask you to google the ice origin of life hypothesis and see if you can read about it.

Notice that creationists (in my two examples) are only half right--their hypotheses are not (in my view) the correct one, but in the part where they are right, it might do well to at least think about what they are saying.

I've always liked this quote (from, I believe, Tillich): "Why is there something when there might have been nothing?"

It is stupifying to think about, and a little humility on this score might suit us better. As Dennett has said in one of his books (and I'm just summarizing here): If we are alone in the universe, that is stupifying to contemplate, and if we are not alone, that is stupifying to contemplate.

I would say the same thing about the existence (or non-existence) of God.

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

169. Comment #163569 by RainDear on April 18, 2008 at 2:26 pm

A little remark on the strange ideas about the copyrights some of the people post here:

Copyrights exist because some people earn their living by selling their "intellectual property". How can this go too far? Why do so many of you have something against copyrights?

I'm no fan of Yoko Ono, but of course she should sue. John Lennon earned his living by selling his intellectual property. And now some semi-criminal producers are using his art, his work, his ideas and his life principals clearly against his wishes, certainly without his or his posterity's consent --- all just to further their own evil cause.

Why don't these creationist producers write their own music? Or is stealing from the rich Lennon family somehow more acceptable than stealing from a struggling artist?

Other Comments by RainDear

170. Comment #163573 by Santi Tafarella on April 18, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Morituri Max,

I do think that you're being naive about how a "party line" can be reinforced in a group without there being any explicit "party rules."

Threatening people with being blocked as trolls, using scatalogical words to dismiss the opinions of others, declaring an unwillingness to listen to another, and blatently telling others to shut up--all of these are ways of badgering participants around to an informal consensus. And if you were to go back and look at what was said to me yesterday, numerous people engaged in precisely these gestures toward me.

There is a "culture" evolving around the posts at the Dawkins website, and I think that culture is often veering to the smug, the scatalogical, and the dismissive.

As for the articles that feature at this website, Dawkins and Josh are always the perfect gentlemen--and the articles posted are always interesting and thoughtful. I'm not referring to the website as a whole. I'm referring to the tone of some of the people who post beneath the articles.

I'm an American, and I'm married to a Brit (who took her PhD from the University of Warwick), and I'm not at all quesy about vigorous intellectual give and take. When my wife and I go to England each year we tend to be stupified by the degree of cave-in in England with regard to political correctness (closing plays that offend Muslims or Christians etc.).

I'm not asking people to be unusually polite on this site. I'm asking some of the posters to respond more thoughtfully and with less of a knee-jerk ideological reaction to anyone who veers from the point of view that they surmise to be the "right" one for atheists to take.

And I'm not trying myself to police the scatalogical on this site, but I'm exercising my turn in talking here to point it out as being a display of ignorance and to express my opinion that it is crass and unbefitting of a movement whose culture is presumably dedicated to understanding and reason.

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

171. Comment #163585 by mesomodel on April 18, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Santi,

I agree with you that IDers can play an important role in advancing science and our understanding. By questioning science, or even trying to prove hypotheses, propositions, and theories wrong, things can be learned.

Having said that, it seems to be the case that when IDers raise an objection, perhaps even a valid one, it has been refuted. Multiple times. But, instead of moving on, the same old arguments (e.g., irreducible complexity) are forwarded over and over again. So, rather than advancing science and understanding, ID becomes a distraction and net drag on the scientific process. If IDers would like to raise new objections (such as water vs. ice as you mentioned above) backed by evidence that's just great. I support that. Once debunked by credible and overwhelming evidence, however, the ID claims need to be dropped. But no. They keep pushing. And, if they can no longer get the attention of scientists, they take it to the masses via propaganda and try to do an end run around science in the arena of public opinion.

Other Comments by mesomodel

172. Comment #163595 by phil rimmer on April 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Santi,

Much as I like the various questions you raise (and they have been raised and debated on this site often enough)I am still flummoxed by any possible association they have with with ID proponents.

Ideas of multiverses and abiogenesis have quite proper formulations and respectable pedigrees prior to the ID debate and have gained nothing from it. The ID charge that Darwin does not answer the question of abiogenesis is fatuous in the extreme as evolution is a description of aspects of the reproductive nature of living things. Its use as a charge against the credibility of Evolution I feel verges on the wicked.

ID is NOT a source of these interesting ideas. Had they a single shred of an interesting idea of their own to bring to the table my attitude to them would be different. The closest they came was the idea of irreducible complexity. Sadly for them, this has failed all tests so far and, at root, is a God-of-the-Gaps type argument depending on the failure of all conceivable "reduction to process" explanations first.

They have borrowed my copy of News Scientist and failed to read it carefully. They have offered me nothing. They certainly do not deserve any respect that I can see for being considered useful purveyors of ideas.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

173. Comment #163617 by MorituriMax on April 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Santi wrote,

And I'm not trying myself to police the scatalogical on this site, but I'm exercising my turn in talking here to point it out as being a display of ignorance and to express my opinion that it is crass and unbefitting of a movement whose culture is presumably dedicated to understanding and reason.

Taking the people who post here as representative of the 80 million or so atheists worldwide is not going to give you an accurate baseline for the behavior of said atheists.

I skimmed through most of the responses and didn't really see anything that made me want to report them. Again, you don't have the right to not be offended. Some people here just have buttons that are fine tuned to the drivel that ID-ten-tees and creationists regurgitate.

The very concept of Expelled is offensive to me and I guess when you keep sticking your neck out to recommend, for whatever reason, that we give them the benefit of the doubt, well you're probably going to get clotheslined.. heh heh.. is it right? Maybe not... is it free speech? Yep.. is it sometimes rude and offensive? Probably.. but I overwhelmingly give the people here high marks for their commentary.. and I put any negative remarks toward ID propoganda right up there with moms apple pie, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I don't think it's personal, you're just the closest thing in this thread to an apologist for the ID movement.. you win some, you lose some.

Reminds me of a movie, I think it was called The Big Hit, where it was a bunch of yuppie hitmen, and one of them, mark wahlberg, always did all the work while the other hitmen laid around chatting how they were going to spend their paychecks.. at one point Wahlberg admitted to Lou Diamond Phillips that he didn't want his victims to dislike him. Phillips took him aside and said, "Those people you killed? All their relatives DON'T LIKE YOU!"

8 )

Other Comments by MorituriMax

174. Comment #163653 by Santi Tafarella on April 18, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Mesomodel:

I agree with everything in your last post: IDers and creationists are mendacious. It can feel like arguing with flat earthers.

I can respect your impatience with stupidity, and maybe that's the function of these posts--to safely let off steam and say, "Well, isn't this cultural phenomenon BS! And isn't it refreshing to clear the air and say so!"

But I do think that however cathartic such gestures are, there is a danger of impatience lapsing into demonization of the "other."

I do notice quite a few Hitler analogies floating around the posts, and metaphors of elimination.

I also think there is a totalitarian temptation that accompanies all such rhetoric: "If religion is bad, then the world would be better off without it, and so we should set ourselves the task of eliminating it."

Perhaps we should carry our discussion over to a more recent article--the one on child preachers--since this is bound to generate posts calling for the state to intervene in parenting.

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

175. Comment #163655 by ZekeCDN on April 18, 2008 at 5:56 pm

RainDear wrote:

Copyrights exist because some people earn their living by selling their "intellectual property". How can this go too far? Why do so many of you have something against copyrights?

The fact that I'm probably going to spend most of the next few decades defending people's copyrights should lend extra credibility to the following explanation :-)

First of all, the term "intellectual property" itself is a misnomer. The fruits of one's imagination are not property .. at least in the traditional sense. As Thomas Jefferson famously said: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

Despite that sentiment, Jefferson was also the dude who wrote the following into the U.S. Constitution: The Congress shall have the power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries ... "

The key phrase is "for limited times". See Jefferson understood the power of incentive and he believed that allowing creators to profit from their work would encourage more creation. But the purpose of incentivizing more creation was not just to enrich creators, rather to enrich the welfare of the general public. Undeserved monopolies were the experience in the Old World, but from the very beginning in the New World, intellectual property laws like patent and copyright were conceived as quid pro quos. The creator gets a temporary monopoly on their creation, in exchange for allowing the work or invention to pass into the public domain when that monopoly expires.

This is particularly vital in the case of patents, because technical innovation builds on previous technical innovation. There would be no world wide web without the internet, no internet without computers, no computers without microprocessors and so on. But by the same token artistic works too are frequently inspired by previous works ... or even directly dependent upon them, as in the case of parody. Over the centuries countless novelists, playwrights and screenwriters have taken basic plots developed by Shakespeare and plunked them into contemporary settings to create new works.

The reason you might have concluded that posters such as myself are anti-copyright is not because we are against the concept itself, but because we are opposed to the steady expansion of the scope and duration of the monopoly rights it confers. In the beginning U.S. copyrights lasted for only 14 years and could be renewed for an additional 14 years if the author was still alive when they expired. The term was extended in 1909, again in 1976 and again in 1998, so that today copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years ... or for corporate-authored works up to 120 years from the date of creation!

The practical effect of these extensions is that the vast majority of our culture from the past century--books, music, movies and so on--has yet to pass into the public domain, even though more than 90% of what was made is no longer being exploited commercially (i.e. it can't even be purchased). Nor can it be licensed, because most of the original copyright holders can't be identified or found (remember registering is no longer required). Why would we do this, you might ask. Well, the last term extension was accomplished by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 ... commonly referred to in IP circles as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. In other words we have locked up our entire culture to benefit only a handful of rights holders like Disney, who are still profiting from old copyrights.

Another reason to question what has happened to the balance between the rights of creators and inventors and the welfare of the general public has to do with the increasing scope of IP law. In recent decades patents have been extended to apply to things like software, business methods and more recently even legal methods. That's correct ... there are now tax lawyers in the U.S. who have patented methods of sheltering income from taxation, such that even if you were to figure them out on your own and then use them on your own tax return, you would be guilty of infringing their patent. On the copyright side we have things like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which provides for criminal sanctions for someone who figures out how to strip the DRM from a song they legally purchased from an online music store to make it play on an incompatible portable music player. Does that seem fair ... or balanced?

This is not the situation that was envisioned by Jefferson when he wrote America's original IP laws. As for me, I believe very strongly in a person's right to profit from the inventions or creations of his or her mind. I wouldn't have studied IP law if I didn't. But I also believe that balance is important, if we don't want to starve future innovation and creativity.

Sorry for the long rant!

Other Comments by ZekeCDN

176. Comment #163657 by Santi Tafarella on April 18, 2008 at 6:06 pm

phil rimmer and morituri max:

first, there's nothing i would quarrel with in regard to phil rimmmer's last post.

But I'm also curious about phil's name: Is that your real name, or are you a porn star?

As for morituri max: I'm not asking that you give the movie the benefit of any doubt--I don't think you should go easy on it. Maybe you shouldn't even see it. I'll just say that I will when it comes out on DVD, but strictly because I'm interested in propaganda and rhetorical studies.

Should we carry this conversation over to another more current article? I was thinking of commenting on the child preacher--or is there another topic you would rather go to?

I'm happy to keep talking if anyone still wants to talk to me.

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

177. Comment #163667 by Russell Blackford on April 18, 2008 at 6:26 pm

ZekeCDN, that wasn't a long rant; it was a well-structured argument for the case that IP law has been taking on a life of its own that goes far beyond the original policy concerns that justified it in the fist place. The balance has gone too far in the direction of supporting major corporate holders of intellectual property.

Since I make some of my living as a freelance writer, I need IP law - more specifically, copyright law - to exist; however, there has to be a balance.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

178. Comment #163683 by ZekeCDN on April 18, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Thanks Russell. I heard a talk recently by Prof. James Boyle of the Duke University Law School's Center for the Public Domain, in which he said he'd gladly pay a direct tax to Disney if it would mean freeing up the rest of our locked-down culture :-)

It's a shame, but the latest empirical data shows that what was once an incentive to create has (in many cases) become a tax on innovation. IP laws are still working well for the Disneys and the Pfizers, but not too many others.

Other Comments by ZekeCDN

179. Comment #163693 by Christopher Davis on April 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Mesomodel,

I not neutral regarding ID either, nor do I feel anyone should feel compelled to see the movie...except maybe people like me.

Although I hope to one day make my living in acadamia, right now I work with quite a few people(some educated, some not much)who are opposed to the theory of evolution. This opposition doesn't come from reading Behe or Dembski, it comes from preachers and clowns like Ben Stein.

If I'm going to be persuasive to this crowd, I got to see this crap.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

180. Comment #163780 by phil rimmer on April 19, 2008 at 2:55 am

Is that your real name, or are you a porn star?

Well I've never had any complaints ;-)

Other Comments by phil rimmer

181. Comment #163908 by Edouard Pernod on April 19, 2008 at 9:11 am

I also work in film as Maureen does, and there is no possible way they could have seriously thought they could get away with using "Imagine" without licensing it. You have to get clearance from lawyers for using ANYTHING you did not create or purchase for the film. Any sane copyright lawyer would have told them not to use Imagine, as it is instantly recognizable, very expensive to license, and Yoko is legendary for suing people and demanding exorbitant prices for Lennon's songs. In the Scorsese film, The Departed, in the scene when Nicholson smashes Leo's cast, the John Lennon song "well well well" was playing in the background for 20 seconds and that cost several hundred thousand dollars to license that song. Imagine is an iconic song and any use of it without permission would be begging for a lawsuit. No producer would ever allow a filmmaker to use that song without license. Not even 5 seconds of it.

The only explanation I can think of for them putting the song in is sheer ineptitude. The director and producers apparently have almost no film-making experience, at least based on their credits on IMDB.com. If they get sued over the use of Imagine (I am certain they will be), then I'd be surprised if anyone would hire the director or producer in the future, as they would be viewed as a huge financial liability.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

182. Comment #163917 by MorituriMax on April 19, 2008 at 9:24 am

Santi

Not paticulary interested in joining a thread about child abuse. That child-preacher stuff sickens me almost as much as the Priests molesting children.

One final comment here, you mentioned the number of Hitler references here as if that is something you find offensive to some degree, yet you're willing to buy a DVD with clips and video references of the Nazi Death Camps and which makes a direct connection to Evolution and those camps purpose?

Have a good one! Good luck in the child preacher thread.. heh.. {kidding}.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

183. Comment #163936 by Jayday on April 19, 2008 at 10:06 am

There seems to be a thread of ideas here that some of the blog contributors think that the film producers were simply exercising their right of free speech to use John Lennon's "Imagine." And that Yoko Ono shouldn't sue for the use without permission because it will underline the perceptions of John or Yoko as being "against" religion. That speaking out against the film producers in this manner will reinforce the public's negative perception of Lennon and Ono, as well as atheists by association to the other controversies involving Shermer, Dawkins, Eugenie Scott and P.Z. Myers participation in the film.

Free speech in the USA doesn't mean anything goes. There are limitations whether you agree with them or not. Defamation is not free speech, it is illegal.

Those of us who support the work of Richard Dawkins get irritated when anyone takes his words and ideas and twist them to mean something totally false. Sure, there are plenty of people out there with opposing opinions. That's fine. But when they report Dawkins has said or done something that is completely untrue. It is total fabrication. Some is done out of pure ignorance and some is done with the intention of malice.

As a public figure, Dawkins has a large group of vocal opponents. Have any crossed the line of disagreement and personal opinion and waded into something illegal? Some probably. Should he realistically go after every one legally? That is up to him to determine the "intent" and "damage" done, and weigh the costs of energy, time, and money to put into the effort. Most public figures are targets who must realistically "pick their battles."

As for Yoko Ono. It is clear that several people on this blog do not like her personally and have a pre-conceived opinion about her that don't have anything to do with the issue at hand. There is nothing that she could do that would be correct in the eyes of some here. So, let's get past those notions and take a look at what THE ISSUES ARE. Forget for a moment that Yoko Ono is the executor of John Lennon's artistic legacy and estate. What if it was his son Sean Lennon who was suing? Would you feel differently?

The ISSUES are, copyright infringement and defamation.

Ms. Ono will ultimately have to consult a lawyer to determine if anything was done illegally. If there is a viable case, then she has the right to sue should she choose to.

On a business level, it is possible that someone has used a copyrighted piece of work without permission. Copyright infringement is "Theft." On another level, John Lennon's song "Imagine" was written as a peace anthem. What would John do if he were alive today? No one knows for sure. However, John Lennon was continually outspoken about his ideas about peace and social issues. Given his past pattern of behavior, it is "probable" that he wouldn't like his work associated with this film's message. Will the use of his music in this film cause damage to him? Not literally of course. However, it could to his legacy. Will a new generation of young people who see the film now associate John Lennon's "Imagine" with the message in this film? Will they erroneously be led to believe that John Lennon supported the perspective and ideas laid out in the film thereby hijacking, distorting, and potentially destroying Lennon's legacy in the process?

Professor Dawkins doesn't mince words when talking about religious belief. He is very direct and says what he means without apology. You either love or hate his approach, but there it is. Some people criticize his approach, saying that his style of presentation just underlines the perception by theists, that he is dogmatic, adversarial, and that he is a "fundamental atheist." Richard Dawkins doesn't back off from saying what he thinks because of other people's perceptions. He is saying what he thinks to be true, based on evidence. He doesn't pander to theists.

For those of you who think that Yoko Ono shouldn't sue, because it would stir up negativity around her, John Lennon, and atheists in the film, you are essentially saying that she should back away from the truth because of the potential fallout created by what other people believe or think.

As I see it…it is a no win situation for Yoko Ono in the eyes of the public. Those who think the film producers should be held accountable will applaud her actions to sue, but she will disappoint those who fear possible public backlash as mentioned above. If Ono does nothing, those who think she should sue the producers will be frustrated by her inaction. This may be viewed by some that she approves the film's message, or doesn't care to protect John Lennon's legacy. There is no pleasing everybody.

If Yoko Ono does have a legal case and should choose to sue the film producers on grounds of copyright infringement and/or defamation it is likely to be based on what SHE thinks and feels is the right thing to do to protect John Lennon's work and legacy. Not because she will be concerned about pleasing any particular group any more than Dawkins would on his respective topic.

Freedom of speech has its costs.

Jayday

Other Comments by Jayday

184. Comment #163954 by huzonfurst on April 19, 2008 at 11:02 am

I couldn't agree with you more, Jayday. I'm of the opinion that Yoko should sue the pants off these malicious liars, and if some people are "shocked and appalled," so be it!

I've always thought it's way past the time when the gloves need to come off and atheists should go on the offensive against the endless slander we suffer at the hands of all these religious creeps. And when they cry "Boo hoo, you hurted our widdle feelings," we should respond with a great big "F**K YOU!!"

Other Comments by huzonfurst

185. Comment #164085 by Edouard Pernod on April 19, 2008 at 1:50 pm

It is no surprise that people who are intellectually dishonest would resort to dishonest methods in getting their dishonest movie made. The mind that rejects evidence in favor of fantasy is obviously going to have a difficult time distinguishing fact from fiction, so it is not surprising that they would think it was ok to deceive Dawkins and Schermer and PZ Meyers and lie to the Killers and use Lennon's song without permission.

These kind of people inhabit an alternate reality and discard the rules as soon as the rules disagree with their dogma. How ironic that these imbeciles say that Darwin's theory is immoral, all the while it is them behaving immorally in how they made their movie. Nevermind that biology is amoral (it only describes how things are, and doesn't ever touch on the issues of right and wrong). It is the evolutionists here who are behaving in a moral manner, and these lying stealing creationists would do well to take a moral lesson or two from the evolutionists.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

186. Comment #164100 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Comment #163954 by huzonfurst

I couldn't agree with you more, Jayday. I'm of the opinion that Yoko should sue the pants off these malicious liars, and if some people are "shocked and appalled," so be it!

I am going to disagree with you on this, because I think they would just use it to show how maligned they are.

Sue by all means. But as a remedy ask for nothing more than a very public apology. Prime time TV would be ideal. And the text of the apology to be approved by Yoko Ono and her lawyers first.

Other Comments by epeeist

187. Comment #164123 by huzonfurst on April 19, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Look, so far nothing has stopped these religious fascists from continuing their assault on the Enlightenment, and I don't think anything will until they are hit *hard* by punitive damages again and again! So what if they use it as propaganda - how much more slandering and lying can they do that they haven't already?

It's time not only to stand up to them but to fight back proactively. Take the battle to the steps of their supernatural playhouses and force them to defend the brainwashing of children that goes on in them, or else force them to close down!

The USA is so cowed by religious nutjobs that it even allows child abuse to go unpunished if it's done "in the name of religion." Ever hear of Christian "Scientists" who don't believe in medicine and pray who knows how many of their own children to death every year? This is OUTRAGEOUS, and until we put a stop to it we have no right to call ourselves civilized.

I just listened to one of our local Neandertal radio stations praising "Expelled" and urging everyone to go and see it, swallowing whole the bullshit about "teaching the controversy" and making fun of Darwinists who "can't explain how life started," reinforcing the misconception that that is part of evolutionary theory. It's crazier than you think out there, folks, and far more dangerous.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

188. Comment #164147 by huzonfurst on April 19, 2008 at 4:03 pm

PS: Please name any moment in history when appeasement has succeeded. I'm waiting...

Other Comments by huzonfurst

189. Comment #164173 by Russell Blackford on April 19, 2008 at 4:59 pm

I understand your argument, Jayday, though I disagree with it (and I think that your comments about copyright law rely on a superficial understanding of the policy basis that underlies intellectual property). I believe I've addressed most of your points previously - in the long post over on my blog (and my follow-up comments there) if not here.

On one point you make, I for one have nothing against Yoko Ono. Quite the opposite: I admire her immensely.

My essential point is that, strategically, we are better off being principled about issues such as freedom of speech than we are being blown about by every wind of expediency in particular cases. I won't elaborate on that here, since I've done so at length elsewhere and will doubtless do so again. However, for me at least, it includes taking a position on the current overreaching of IP law, which ZekeCDN described well.

But let me just emphasise for the benefit of huzonfurst, who says a lot of things that I agree with, that I am not at all interested in appeasement. I am interested in advancing the cause of freedom and reason, which includes (but is not limited to) promulgating scepticism about religion. To hell with "framing" strategies that involve appeasement of the faithful.

With my pal Udo Schuklenk, I'm even editing a book designed to promulgate scepticism, to the small extent that I can without having the fame and clout of a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens (working title "Voices of Disbelief", to be published by Wiley-Blackwell in 2009).

I yield to no one in my concern to fight againt unreason, rather than appeasing it. But, strategically, it's always going to be better to go about the fight in an intellectually principled way than to judge every day-to-day issue by whether taking a particular stance that day will put you on the side of the "good guys" or the "bad guys".

My plea is that we try to think like strategists, rather than responding to every issue on the basis that the bad guys must be in the wrong every time. It just doesn't work like that.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

190. Comment #164183 by AllanW on April 19, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Re; comment #164173 Russell Blackford

'My plea is that we try to think like strategists, rather than responding to every issue on the basis that the bad guys must be in the wrong every time. It just doesn't work like that.'

I'm on record as admiring RB's input on many threads here and I agree with much he has to say (I don't fully understand the rest of it :)) but I have to disagree here.

Strategy suggests a mindset that sees too narrowly. It is rooted in a view that looks to (and believes it can) control the variables within a system. It suggests to me a mental model based in academic studies or corporate thinking. As such I believe it is completely inapplicable to the issue of religion versus science and reason.

The scale of the battle is vast; everyone on the planet. We might think we can comprehend that scale but we truly cannot. It affects the daily lives directly of a huge percentage of that world population (through issues like condom use and AIDS, homophobic stereotyping, the school-life of a free-thinking teenager etc etc). It also affects the lives of everyone to some lesser extent (legislation about stem-cell research, abortion rights and issues etc). To believe we can be strategic about this scale of effects is a colossal mistake; it underestimates the magnitude of the work and reactions we need to make by magnitudes.

I think that a better strategy is to hit back, hit hard, hit below the belt, hit anything you damn-well can and do it as frequently as possible in as many ways as possible and with as many people contributing as possible because what you need to achieve is a vast range of reactions and results not just one. A vast distribution of effects not just one. And if we wait to try to get the 'tone' right, the tactics right, the organisation right and the feelings of everyone concerned all on the same page then we will never achieve a damn thing.

Does anyone here think we're a majority yet? I thought not; we have to fight better and harder to make society shift in our direction.

Other Comments by AllanW

191. Comment #164262 by Jayday on April 19, 2008 at 10:11 pm

Response to: Comment #164173 by Russell Blackford

I am not a legal expert, and perhaps you are. The point I wanted to make is that IF Lennon’s song was used illegally, that Ono shouldn’t make a decision based on fear of what others think. As I said before, she is in a no win situation no matter what she does. She will offend or disappoint one side or the other. In the end, it becomes all about protecting Lennon’s work and his legacy.

We fight the fights we must and can. There are so few opportunities to be able to publicly stand up and expose the theist deceit and propaganda for what it is. If Ono does sue, she should of course be smart and strategic about it. IF there are grounds for legal action, I feel strongly that retreat isn’t in the best interest of John Lennon’s legacy. (personal opinion). What would a retreat accomplish? Theists who are advancing their views and causes aren’t retreating. Should we just let them continue to advance without meeting any resistance? We have done that for along time now here in the USA, and look were we are. Such a mess.


Response to: Comment #164183 by AllanW

Allan, I am inspired by Richard Dawkins when he says that he thinks we are fast approaching a tipping point in the movement of atheists coming out. I like his optimism. I hope he is right. He certainly meets many more atheists on his book tour than I ever do in my day-to-day life. I know very few professed atheists. However, I live in a hotbed of religious fundamentalists, which is quite oppressive. For the time being, I have not personally experienced the wave of change Dawkins talks about, and I agree with you that we should take any opportunity we can to raise awareness and be proactive. When appropriate, legal action should be used.

Jayday

Other Comments by Jayday

192. Comment #164378 by Edouard Pernod on April 20, 2008 at 6:49 am

It doesn't matter what we think is the correct "strategy" in this instance. Our work has already been done for us by he boneheads who made this puny and insignificant film. It doesn't matter if they feel persecuted or not. These foolish people feel persecuted anytime anyone disagrees with them.

I hope Yoko sues them for everything they are worth, and I hope Dawkins, Schermer, PZ Meyers and The Killers sue them for misrepresentation too (that would be well within their legal rights and there is legal precedent for it). Then the sole purpose of their bungled and unethical movie will be to serve as
a warning sign to others, and that trying to shove Creationist propaganda onto the big screen is destined for failure (except of course for The Passion, which was successful but only because Mel Gibson didn't out himself as a Nazi until after the film's release).

These nutters are their own worst enemy. We shouldn't underestimate them, but they do help us out by ignoring the law and behaving like idiots.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

193. Comment #164384 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 7:05 am

Comment #164183 by AllanW

Strategy suggests a mindset that sees too narrowly. It is rooted in a view that looks to (and believes it can) control the variables within a system.

It seems to be my weekend to use fencing metaphors.

The ideal strategy is to use an action which promotes a foreseen response. This is rarely possible, but what you don't want is something that has a completely unforeseen response. Actions which generate a limited set of partially foreseen are about the best that is normally possible. A Pareto principle if you like.

I think that a better strategy is to hit back, hit hard, hit below the belt, hit anything you damn-well can and do it as frequently as possible in as many ways as possible and with as many people contributing as possible because what you need to achieve is a vast range of reactions and results not just one.

A little more forthright that I put it, but I am largely with you.

The only thing I would add is that it has to be appropriate. The likes of remnant is a lost cause, I have no problem with utter and complete ruthlessness with him. However, someone like thisisme may eventually switch to our side of things in terms of acceptance of rationality and the theories of science though I doubt whether he will lose his faith. Him I would treat somewhat differently.

Other Comments by epeeist

194. Comment #164514 by ZekeCDN on April 20, 2008 at 10:57 am

epeeist wrote:

The ideal strategy is to use an action which promotes a foreseen response.

That's almost identical to an important rule of thumb in litigation: Never ask a question unless you already know what the answer will be! :-)

I have nothing against Yoko Ono either and I hope my earlier comment that whether she ought to sue is open for debate wasn't interpreted that way. As I said, she could very well succeed. My hesitation is rooted in my distaste for long copyright terms and a "choose your battles" mentality that has been drilled into my head in law school.

Now if Lennon was still alive, and especially if he could sue in a jurisdiction that recognized the moral right of an artist to control the integrity of his work, I'd be much more comfortable with it. I'm as positive as the next guy that he wouldn't want his music associated with a film like this. However I'm not keen on the notion of heirs suing on that basis (and totally opposed to permitting assignees to do the same).

Following the pick your battles strategy, none of those issues are a concern with respect to XVIVO's claim against Premise Media. Here, all of the elements are in place for a textbook suit. First, the "optics": (a) The creators are alive. (b) They are not wealthy or famous. (c) They are trying to make a living practicing the animation techniques copied by the Expelled producers. (d) One of the Expelled producer's pals had already received a cease and desist notice with respect to the IP in question. (e) That pal bragged on his blog that the producers walked the line intentionally for the publicity. [That is very significant by the way--if Dembski was telling the truth, Premise could be subject to triple damages for willful infringement!]

Next, regarding the merits of the case: (a) It was a substantial taking (as near as I can tell they copied almost the whole thing). (b) They did it for a commercial purpose. (c) The nature of the work is such that it would have cost them a lot more to create their own from scratch (that they had a reasonable apprehension the creators would not license the work because of the nature of the use also weighs against them). The only point on which there could be any debate is (d) the affect of the copying on the commercial viability of the original work. But with all of the other elements stacked so completely against them, this will not a problem in my view (in any event, as a startup in the field of scientific animation, XVIVO has a good argument that the market for their work could be affected by having it associated with an anti-scientific cause).

In addition to having the moon and stars aligned for a successful prosecution, XVIVO has played their hand perfectly thus far. They haven't demanded money, merely that the infringing segment be removed from the movie. If Premise complies it will gut the film and probably delay its release. It's my understanding that there's not a lot of science in Expelled to start with and comments I've heard from creationists who have already seen the movie suggest that the animation sequence was integral to their impression that the filmmakers had done their scientific homework. If Premise doesn't comply, I think XVIVO has a good shot at obtaining an injunction that would keep the film out of the theaters until the case is adjudicated.

Again with the disclaimer: I've got the "book learning" but no experience yet in IP litigation. The above is not legal advice yadda yadda.

Other Comments by ZekeCDN

195. Comment #164539 by Circumspect on April 20, 2008 at 11:50 am

Modern religious zealots are the absolute worst kind of liars.

Other Comments by Circumspect

196. Comment #164722 by Edouard Pernod on April 20, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Does it strike anyone else as slightly ironic that the song they used without permission encourages people to "Imagine a world without heaven" and to "Imagine no religion"?

As if expelling PZ from the Expelled screening wasn't already the pinnacle of stupidity, they have also risked losing a tremendous amount of money by insisting on stealing a song which says the world would be a better place without the ideologies these jackasses hold dear. I'm surprised these people know how to tie their own shoelaces.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

197. Comment #165956 by RainDear on April 22, 2008 at 4:10 pm

ZekeCDN --

Thanks for the "rant", interesting and informative. I see your point.

However, the sentiment behind my post was actually less about Yoko Ono exploiting the "Imagine" rights financially, and more about the moral rights of an artist. As far as I understand, the concept of "moral rights" doesn't legally apply in the US, but in most of the EU countries it's very strong and even inalienable.

Although this concept does create problems too, it does protect an artist's work against certain abuse, such as this case. An artist should have a right to refuse the use of his work in furthering an unacceptable, even evil cause.

Other Comments by RainDear

198. Comment #166099 by ZekeCDN on April 22, 2008 at 6:31 pm

I agree completely. As the saying goes, I'm sure John Lennon would be rolling in his grave if he knew what they were doing with his song.

Other Comments by ZekeCDN

199. Comment #167400 by DamnDirtyApe on April 24, 2008 at 2:09 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7364333.stm

I was hoping she'd turn it round. Same with the Killers too, and hopefully the Harvard folk. The expelled suckers are going to get Royally Owned.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

200. Comment #167865 by salemslot9 on April 24, 2008 at 11:43 am

nobody should be able to use Lennon's music any damn time they please!

Other Comments by salemslot9