Yoko Ono and others have now filed lawsuits challenging the film's use and critique of John Lennon's song Imagine. One of the suits seeks to ban free speech through preliminary injunctive relief which essentially means that they are trying to expel EXPELLED as it is now being shown in theaters.

"If you really listen to the lyrics of Imagine then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want. 'Imagine there's no Heaven...No hell below us...Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too...' That's exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion. And that's what we point out when we play less than 15 seconds of the song and show some of the lyrics on screen," said Walt Ruloff Executive Producer and CEO of Premise Media.

'Imagine no possessions' -- Now hand over yours.

If Chapman had aimed about a foot to the right he would be an international hero.

Mornin' Bevets.

Isn't it funny how a "Christian" documentary keeps getting caught in lies and sleazy business dealings?

jake_lex: Isn't it funny how a "Christian" documentary keeps getting caught in lies and sleazy business dealings?

Not really. Have you not been paying atttention to the religion throughout history?

By the way, what the hell is Yoko blathering about? I thought Micheal Jackson owned the rights to this.

/i am the lolrus.....coo coo ka choo

Coronach: By the way, what the hell is Yoko blathering about? I thought Micheal Jackson owned the rights to this.

I thought he just owned the Beatles' stuff, not the individuals' music.

SleepyMcGee: Coronach: By the way, what the hell is Yoko blathering about? I thought Micheal Jackson owned the rights to this.

I thought he just owned the Beatles' stuff, not the individuals' music.

I thought it was sold to the Chinese?

Bevets

You won't listen to rational people on the subject of this movie, but you listen to Yoko Ono?

SleepyMcGee: Coronach: By the way, what the hell is Yoko blathering about? I thought Micheal Jackson owned the rights to this.

I thought he just owned the Beatles' stuff, not the individuals' music.

I haven't really been paying attention. Also, I'd rather not detract from the flame war potential of this thread, so I'll not bring it again.

"If you really listen to the lyrics of Imagine then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want. 'Imagine there's no Heaven...No hell below us...Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too...' That's exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion.

Lawsuit aside, I think what John meant with those lyrics was how much different the world would be if we didn't waste so much energy comparing our Gods. "Imagine" what we could have accomplished if we didn't have to waste our time on the Crusades, Inqusition, 911, etc.

Lying to promote a religion the forbids lying. So cute.

Wait, did Bevets just troll Yoko Ono by way of evolution?

Neo-Darwinists?

I'd like a list of names, please.

/what a crock

GAT_00: Wait, did Bevets just troll Yoko Ono by way of evolution?

that's what i was thinking. it's actually pretty damn funny in a pathetic sort of way

Bevets: That's exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion

No, we want to understand the development of species through the ages.

It's not our fault that you can't reconcile your religion with science. Plenty can.

Has anybody actually seen the movie?

So, idiocy aside, does she have a case?

PC LOAD LETTER: Bevets: That's exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion

No, we want to understand the development of species through the ages.

It's not our fault that you can't reconcile your religion with science. Plenty can.

No one is a "Darwinist" in the same way one is a Christian. In fact, much of what Darwin wrote has been superceded and, yes, disproven by later work. And if a theory that explained biodiversity and the way species develop better than evolutionary theory does came along, scientists would go to that.

That's what pisses me off most about "intelligent design". It plays by different rules than science does, and muddies our understanding of what science really is. Science education is farked up enough in this country to make the problem worse with this bullshiat.

netweavr: So, idiocy aside, does she have a case?

Probably. The clip they used is too long and too recognizable.

Under normal circumstances, the producers would just pay up, but it sounds like Ono really wants to shut this thing down. And she might be able to do it.

jake_lex: It plays by different rules than science does,

I disagree: it does not know the rules in the first place, and then claims that it is following the rules and whines that they are being censored when science says "Play by the server rules or GTFO".

Would it be possible just to cut the scene from the movie? Or would the injunction prevent that action?

'Imagine no possessions' -- Now hand over yours.

netweavr

So, idiocy aside, does she have a case?

jake_lex

Probably. The clip they used is too long and too recognizable.

What is the line that was crossed? Under what circumstances could it be 'fair use'?

BigEd

Lawsuit aside, I think what John meant with those lyrics was how much different the world would be if we didn't waste so much energy comparing our Gods. "Imagine" what we could have accomplished if we didn't have to waste our time on the Crusades, Inqusition, 911, etc.

Imagine no atheism.

A new front has been opened in the culture wars. Ben Stein's EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed stunned detractors by opening as the nation's #10 movie last weekend. Out for less than one week, it has already become one of the top 25 documentaries of all time.

The f*ck? It did not stun any detractors. Detractors of the movie realize that a lot of people in this country want to pay for that kind of stuff. The only people it possibly stunned are the people promoting the movie who estimated it would earn like $12 million on opening weekend, and barely made $3 million.

One of the top 25 documentaries of all time? I'd like a source for that. What are they using to judge that, the money grossed? Oh well then by that logic, they're losing to Michael Moore movies. They're in the top 25 on a list that includes multiple Michael Moore films.

Bevets: What is the line that was crossed? Under what circumstances could it be 'fair use'?

The "Fair use" defense doesn't always apply when you're making money off of the work you're using. In that case, you need to seek permission.

jake_lex: Probably. The clip they used is too long and too recognizable.

As one who has studied mass media copyright law, I can tell you probably not if indeed the purpose of using the clip was to comment/criticize the work.

Broadcastdave: jake_lex: Probably. The clip they used is too long and too recognizable.

As one who has studied mass media copyright law, I can tell you probably not if indeed the purpose of using the clip was to comment/criticize the work.

Negativland would beg to differ.

Bevets: Yoko Ono and others have now filed lawsuits challenging the film's use and critique of John Lennon's song Imagine. One of the suits seeks to ban free speech through preliminary injunctive relief which essentially means that they are trying to expel EXPELLED as it is now being shown in theaters.

"If you really listen to the lyrics of Imagine then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want. 'Imagine there's no Heaven...No hell below us...Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too...' That's exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion. And that's what we point out when we play less than 15 seconds of the song and show some of the lyrics on screen," said Walt Ruloff Executive Producer and CEO of Premise Media.

'Imagine no possessions' -- Now hand over yours.

I have been busy and was unable to reply to your request from a copy of threads ago that I provide examples of you breaking one of the Ten Commandants by using out of context quotes to create a deliberate falsehood

Well here it is.

This a copy of the Ten Commandants

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.·The Bible
·Exodus 20:2-17
·King James Version

And the link Link (new window)

Here is a copy of a Charles Darwin quote from your web site.


To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Origin of Species (1859) p.186

And the link
Link (new window)

Here is the quote in the correct context.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition

And the link Link (new window)

So by deliberately omitting part of this quote you are misleading people as to Darwins intent, and that is bearing false witness.

To the Christian, a lie is a deliberate falsehood yet you deliberately use out of context quotes on your web site.

This certainly looks like sin according to your own rules.

That is unless the rules to do apply to you.

And as a side note you and all these other IDiots have caused me to question my faith even more by your blatant unchristian behavior

I was always taught that you should always strive to be "Christ like" in your everyday life.

Your lies and misrepresentations are far from being "Christ like" in any way.

jake_lex: Negativland would beg to differ.

I am not totally familiar with that case, but I don't believe that Negativland was commenting or criticizing U2s work. Furthermore, their U2 album cover would have created confusion in the marketplace. I haven't heard the songs so I don't know if they would fall under parody or not.

Bevets:

Imagine no atheism.

Funny. I always thought Stalin, Mao, Hitler were evil not because they didn't believe in god, but because they thought they WERE god. Fortunately throughout history the christians have never persecuted, killed, or sexually abused anyone. That would be a story.

Anxiously awaiting "Religulous" to blow away "Expelled". Hope Maher got the rights to any music he may have used in the film.

Bevets: Imagine no atheism.

So Religion fares no better at preventing mankind from being murdering psychos? Good job.

Sigh, must we got through this again?
Hitler was a Christian, or at least used Christianity to persuade the masses. Why do you think they handed out iron CROSSES. How could he foment so much hatred of the Jews without using the old "Christ-killer" meme?

And another thing, the line "nothing to kill or die for" doesn't really fit the evolutionary model. Nature is pretty damned red in tooth and claw.

Oh, and last I checked, Ben Stein was a Jew, which is a big part of the reason he is anti-evolution, because of the Social Darwinist aspect of the Christian Nazi doctrine.

netweavr: So, idiocy aside, does she have a case?

She has a case- they are charging admission for the movie and turning a profit, up to and including popcorn sales while the movie is running. "Fair Use" isn't "inclusion to support profitable return". "Fair Use" has a defined scholarly intent- this is just xians being their usual sanctified sphincter-based selves who think they are above the law of the land because they suck up to "a higher authority".

Yoko is right on this and I support her.

John Lennon wasn't an atheist. He didn't believe much in organized religion. I guess I would say he was sort of a "Jesus save me from your followers" kind of guy.

il Dottore: netweavr: So, idiocy aside, does she have a case?

She has a case- they are charging admission for the movie and turning a profit, up to and including popcorn sales while the movie is running. "Fair Use" isn't "inclusion to support profitable return". "Fair Use" has a defined scholarly intent- this is just xians being their usual sanctified sphincter-based selves who think they are above the law of the land because they suck up to "a higher authority".

Actually fair use still can apply even if you turn a profit. For example, I can write a book for profit comparing Luke Skywalker to Harry Potter without having to worry about copyright infringement from either party. It really depends on the nature of the work and the intent. I haven't seen the film, but scholarly intent doesn't mean it has to be accurate.

il Dottore: She has a case- they are charging admission for the movie and turning a profit, up to and including popcorn sales while the movie is running. "Fair Use" isn't "inclusion to support profitable return". "Fair Use" has a defined scholarly intent- this is just xians being their usual sanctified sphincter-based selves who think they are above the law of the land because they suck up to "a higher authority".

She has no case. Fair use does not shield a copyrighted work from criticism. That's exactly what this movie was doing -- criticizing lyrics. And the fact that the movie is making money does not mean that there can be no fair use. That's what Supreme Court ruled in 2 Live Crew case.

jake_lex: Isn't it funny how a "Christian" documentary keeps getting caught in lies and sleazy business dealings?

Since Ben Stein is the driving force behind this movie, and since he is NOT a Christian, how is this a "Christian" documentary?

Broadcastdave: jake_lex: Negativland would beg to differ.

I am not totally familiar with that case, but I don't believe that Negativland was commenting or criticizing U2s work. Furthermore, their U2 album cover would have created confusion in the marketplace. I haven't heard the songs so I don't know if they would fall under parody or not.

It's Negativland's contention that anything short of the entire song should constitute Fair Use. So they'd probably be on Ben Stein's side on this. And I kinda agree with them.

And their case was a top-down travesty. Island never bothered to ask them to cease and desist, and their label SST screwed them over big time, too.

Bevets: Imagine no atheism.

Bevets: "If you really listen to the lyrics of Imagine then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want.

I was going to state that Walt Ruloff's theory of what "Neo-Darwinists" want do not correspond with anything. But then I realized that "Neo-Darwinist" is a term made up by people like you and Walt Ruloff, so I guess you can define it however you want.

Bastards.

Bevets- we're criticizing Expelled not because we're trying to push some agenda, but because it uses downright BULLSHIAT.
/Bible is literal? Galatians 4:24 begs to differ

Unright: But then I realized that "Neo-Darwinist" is a term made up by people like you and Walt Ruloff, so I guess you can define it however you want.

You sure about that?

SkinnyHead: il Dottore: She has a case- they are charging admission for the movie and turning a profit, up to and including popcorn sales while the movie is running. "Fair Use" isn't "inclusion to support profitable return". "Fair Use" has a defined scholarly intent- this is just xians being their usual sanctified sphincter-based selves who think they are above the law of the land because they suck up to "a higher authority".

She has no case. Fair use does not shield a copyrighted work from criticism. That's exactly what this movie was doing -- criticizing lyrics. And the fact that the movie is making money does not mean that there can be no fair use. That's what Supreme Court ruled in 2 Live Crew case.

The 2 Live Crew case was a case of parody. Like Weird Al. I say we meet halfway on this. I'm willing to grant official parody status to the intelligent design community if you are.

SkinnyHead: Unright: But then I realized that "Neo-Darwinist" is a term made up by people like you and Walt Ruloff, so I guess you can define it however you want.

You sure about that?

Fine. I stand corrected.

Bevets

I finally got curious enough to click on one of your links, and...basically that's the worst, most transparent pandering argument I've ever seen. So Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, et. al were Darwinists; therefore, everyone who is a Darwinist wants to kill zillions of peopleand therefore, everyone should be a creationist/IDer?? Do I even need to point out the ten thousand problems with that line of reasoning??

Selector: Bevets

I finally got curious enough to click on one of your links, and...basically that's the worst, most transparent pandering argument I've ever seen. So Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, et. al were Darwinists; therefore, everyone who is a Darwinist wants to kill zillions of peopleand therefore, everyone should be a creationist/IDer?? Do I even need to point out the ten thousand problems with that line of reasoning??

Dude, it's Bevets, resident crazyman. You're yelling into the wind here.

SkinnyHead: il Dottore: She has a case- they are charging admission for the movie and turning a profit, up to and including popcorn sales while the movie is running. "Fair Use" isn't "inclusion to support profitable return". "Fair Use" has a defined scholarly intent- this is just xians being their usual sanctified sphincter-based selves who think they are above the law of the land because they suck up to "a higher authority".

She has no case. Fair use does not shield a copyrighted work from criticism. That's exactly what this movie was doing -- criticizing lyrics. And the fact that the movie is making money does not mean that there can be no fair use. That's what Supreme Court ruled in 2 Live Crew case.

Happy to see that GED in law is working out for you.

Also you never responded to my question in the previous thread about teaching

The Navajo Changing Woman creation myth along with the ID creation myth and the scientific theory of evolution

Ya know that whole Teach the controversy and let the students decide thing.

I wanted to say something witty and clever about the need to stop using theory when we mean hypothesis and how this abuse of language has brought on all the trouble by leaving a hole for idiots to use.

Instead I just decided to throw out a comic.

The irony is that ID'ers want parity, not parody

CDP: Happy to see that GED in law is working out for you.

Thanks. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Also you never responded to my question in the previous thread about teaching

The Navajo Changing Woman creation myth along with the ID creation myth and the scientific theory of evolution

Ya know that whole Teach the controversy and let the students decide thing.

ID is not a creation myth. The scientific controversy is about whether or not there is design in nature. The presence or absence of design in life is a question of science.

The Navajos believe they were created by a creator god. The scientific theory of intelligent design is consistent with (i.e., it does not contradict) that belief. Materialist Evolutionism, on the other hand, teaches that humans came into being as the result purely natural processes, without input from a designer. That view is inconsistent with Navajo belief.

Teaching the controversy means that Navajo children can learn that there is a scientific theory that is consistent with their beliefs, in addition to one that is not. Beyond that, they can think and decide for themselves.