Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + + + +
you could be wrong, but are certainly missing the point
It may be part of a "stellar marketing strategy!" by Premise Media, but it's still copyright infringement. Especially "Imagine," which I know was without Ono's permission. Sometimes the truth is ugly, Ed, but lo! it will set you free.-[[User:Chimera1|Chimera1]] 14:56, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
It may be part of a "stellar marketing strategy!" by Premise Media, but it's still copyright infringement. Especially "Imagine," which I know was without Ono's permission. Sometimes the truth is ugly, Ed, but lo! it will set you free.-[[User:Chimera1|Chimera1]] 14:56, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:The legal issue involved is how many seconds can be used in a documentary; I don't think the law is clear on that.
:The moral issue is academic freedom. The motivation of these "infringement" reports is not so much to ensure that copyright owners get all the money they deserve, but to suppress the message of the film - which, ironically, is that Darwinsts suppress all criticism of their ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:59, 23 April 2008 (EDT)