[Re: the Hovind/Youtube dustup]
EDITOR’S NOTE: Folks, there were a few groups of desperate skeptics who had chopped up parts of Dr. Hovind’s seminars in hopes of trying to convince others to hide from our Creator too. They then posted those edited portions on-line. They’ve been there on-line, deceiving folks for some time. CSE recently asserted its rights and asked major video hosting sites that the chopped up seminar parts be taken down.
A win for the good guys! Now we with CSE are getting even more hate Email than usual this week. The bad guys are mad and they are getting loud about how their mental hiding place is absolutely necessary. They don’t want to face the truth. They demand to hide behind evolutionary pseudo-science and to dishonestly deceive others too. It is their “right” they contend. Belief in unscientific evolution is such a great way to deny our place in the universe. How can CSE want to expose them with real science, they contend.
30 comments
Wait, I don't get it. Posting Kent Hovind's lectures are bad, and taking them down is good?
I might actually agree with the fundies!
I'm missing something. Did someone selectively edit Hovind's videos to make him look stupid(er), and then CSE insisted the edited versions be taken down? Assuming CSE holds the rights, I'm not sure I see much wrong with that. Unless the edited versions were clearly parodies a la Colbert, they'd be violating copyright.
cse= gay
Hovind verbally waives his copyright to his videos at the beginning of everyone ive seen.
Also, the rebuttals would just contain a clip of hovind making an ass of himself, followed by a rebuttal, usually in text...
so, CSE waives its copyright, and then submits DMCA's for copyright infringements.
seems like the hovind family is trying to protect their flock at all costs...
Okay how come you haven't published any papers in peer-reviewed journals, or done any research on creation? How come evolutionary sciences continue to make strides ahead of you while you sit back complaining? Face it, you're not science.
Who are these "groups of desperate skeptics?" What IS a "desperate skeptic," anyway?
Just because you have made some people mad, that doesn't mean that you are finally right about something.
CSE has a problem. They want to leave their videos public to be shown by church groups and right-wingers who agree with them and give them glowing comments and praise, in short fundies with little scientific knowledge. But they do not want their videos critiqued or satirized by people with scientific training or none fundie religious leanings, so they are trying to claim control of them. They cannot have it both ways unless they want to fight lawsuits on each individual case. Plus, let's be honest, would you want to be in court defending the honesty of science videos made by a tax-cheat convicted in federal court of lying with a degree from a mail-order colllege in a trailer? Good guys, yeah right!
Small problem with CSE asserting its "rights." They declared all the material public domain. They've already waived any rights they had, and you can't get those rights back after the fact. After realizing that, they took down the notice that the material was public domain, but that won't change anything. CSE is just reminding us once again that creationists are immoral and prone to deception. But when you're supporting a lie, you can't do so with truth.
Youtube, unfortunately, more or less just reacts to DMCA takedown notices, but you can't blame them. There's recourse, I think, and I also seem to recall there's legal reprecussions to falsely claiming a copyright, such as CSE has done. Here's hoping they get their asses handed to them legally. You'd think after Hovind went to jail they'd be a little wary about crossing the law. Apparently, they think their sky fairy excludes them from such responsibilities.
Also... project much, editor?
If the videos were edited for hilarity, it's protected as parody. If it was edited with a lot of commentary, it's still protected, as it's essentially "quoting" a source, even if in large quantities, so that it's understood what the commentary is even about. As long as the person isn't claiming the original bits of film to be there, I do not see how any law would have been broken.
Oh, so it was made public domain? (I haven't bothered watching the things, I have better things to waste my time on.) In that case, you can't get anyone on copyright infringement; you gave up that right.
Apparently Hovind and CSE have launched a revolutionary new legal tactic: retroactive copyright! So they disclaimed copyright on the videos, but now they don't like what people are doing with them? No problem! Thanks to our pro-copyright traditions, they can retroactively take back the decision and start demanding C&D! Never mind that this is a felony -- if anyone bothers them, they'll just scream Christian persecution.
Censorship of opposing viewpoints proves yours beyond question.
Oh wait, no it doesn't. It just makes you look like a cowardly tool who can't take criticism.
Hovind released his videos to the public domain. He cannot then assert copyright for material already done. He may be able to assert copyright from that time forward but that does not affect existing material.
The lesson here is do not make a blanket statement for copyright if you want to control what people do with it.
There is also the aspect of "fair use" which covers any video analysing or commenting on Hovinds speeches.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
