Expelled

Yoko Ono sues in NY over song in movie challenging evolution

Associated Press




NEW YORK — Yoko Ono is suing the producers of a movie that challenges the concept of Darwinian evolution, saying they used the song "Imagine" without her permission and led the blogosphere to accuse her of "selling out."
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, Ono accuses the producers of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" of suggesting to viewers that those who guard John Lennon's legacy somehow authorized or sponsored the film.
The producers of the film, which features Ben Stein challenging Darwinian theories that prevail in academic circles and suggesting that life could have emerged through intelligent design, said they used only "a very small portion of the song."
"Based on the fair use doctrine, news commentators and film documentarians regularly use material in the same way we do," Premise Media said in a statement. "Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the 'Imagine' clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry."
Ono's lawsuit claims the producers did not ask for permission either because they knew they couldn't get it or because they did not want to pay for the rights. It objects to the way "Imagine" is listed in the film's credits, saying it suggested to members of the news media and others that the song's use had been approved.
"Internet 'bloggers' immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of 'selling out' by licensing the song to defendants," says the complaint, filed this week.
The lawsuit calls "Imagine" Lennon's signature song, saying it "has become closely associated with and is synonymous with John Lennon."
The complaint, which also names other firms involved with the movie, asks the court to stop the filmmakers from distributing, selling and promoting the movie, and it seeks financial damages. It was filed on behalf of Ono, Lennon's sons Sean and Julian, and EMI Blackwood Music Inc.
"Expelled" earned the No. 10 spot at the box office this weekend, bringing in nearly $3 million in its first weekend in wide release. Stein, an actor, quiz show host and former speech writer for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, has been visiting some state capitals to screen the movie for lawmakers.
 
Screw her. She's nothing but a has-been groupie anyway. This lawsuit will go nowhere because the law says they can use portions of any song.
 
A movie about intelligent design uses a song that asks people to imagine a world without no heaven above us and no religion too.
 
04SCTLS said:
A movie about intelligent design uses a song that asks people to imagine a world without no heaven above us and no religion too.
Click to expand...
Either you're really tired and you're repeating yourself, or you think we are so stupid as to not understand the wall o' text article you already posted, thus creating the necessity of your clarification here.
 
fossten said:
Screw her. She's nothing but a has-been groupie anyway. This lawsuit will go nowhere because the law says they can use portions of any song.
Click to expand...

fossten's for piracy? tell the riaa that.
 
hrmwrm said:
fossten's for piracy? tell the riaa that.
Click to expand...
You know, you're absolutely amazing. Keep up the good work, surely you'll end up being correct one of these times.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied;
Click to expand...
 
hrmwrm said:
fossten's for piracy? tell the riaa that.
Click to expand...

It's not in any way piracy. Fossten is right, portions of the song can be used (like it is in this film) without permission, whole songs cannot. I am not sure exactly where that line between the song being considered a "portion" and the "whole song" or majority of the song is (after a certian point you are required to get permission), but Stien is a lawyer and they doubtless had lawyers advising them in this matter for the film. I am sure they had forseen the likelyhood of someone trying to legally challenge them over this and made sure to stay within the law.

Still....any excuse to trash Yoko is fine by me.
 
shagdrum said:
A lot of uninformed fools there...
Hard to keep up with all the ignorance on the thread alone.
Next to impossible to respond to it all.
Click to expand...
At the time, it was fairly fast moving, and I was able to keep up with it and mostly ignore the jerkoffs. It was fun to be a part of. Hotair has never had a thread go over 2,000 posts before.
 
fossten said:
At the time, it was fairly fast moving, and I was able to keep up with it and mostly ignore the jerkoffs. It was fun to be a part of. Hotair has never had a thread go over 2,000 posts before.
Click to expand...

yeah, I would get caught up in the worthless comments by the "jerkoffs" who don't wanna see reason.

1st over 2000...seems the Athiests are out in force on this one.

I was wondering why you seemed to have less of a presence here the past few days. :)

That would be something to be a part of...
 
shagdrum said:
Eugenics is basically darwinian views and assumptions mixed with a political/ideological/social agenda. Eugenics (especially through the Holocaust) show the potential social costs of those darwinian views and assumptions.

ID (as does any scientific theory) is reactonary and starts out by questioning the current reigning paradigm (in this case darwinian evolution). Part of that process is looking at eugenics, and thus the Holocaust, and how it relates to darwinism.
Click to expand...

How can you say that, yet still be adamant that nothing of the sort was implied? Sure Eugenics is "evil" and it was [arguably] spawned from "Darwinian views", that isn't the fault of Darwin or Evolution theory though. If someone is murdered by gunshot, do you blame the gun or the person who pulled the trigger?

One of my biggest complaints about ID/ID pushers, they don't try to prove ID for the sake of ID. They try to poke as many holes in Evolution and then say "ha, it's wrong, so ID must be right!” When in reality, disproving one thing doesn't intrinsically make another true. Just prove ID, don't worry about Evolution theory.
 
95DevilleNS said:
How can you say that, yet still be adamant that nothing of the sort was implied? Sure Eugenics is "evil" and it was [arguably] spawned from "Darwinian views", that isn't the fault of Darwin or Evolution theory though. If someone is murdered by gunshot, do you blame the gun or the person who pulled the trigger?
Click to expand...

I have only ever said that an ad Nazium argument (which I have specifically defined more then once in this thread) was never said or implied in the film, which is true.

Your analogy is a flawed, false analogy. All you have to do is look at it from a causation standpoint to see why.

A gun is simply a tool to enact an evil deed which is enacted by person firing it. The evil nature of the gun in this case comes from (and is caused by) the person using it. If you are saying that the "gun" is eugenics, and the "person" is the Nazi, then you are making an ad Nazium argument. the evil nature of eugenics (the gun) is caused by the Nazi (the person) in your argument. That is twisting the argument I am making and the film is making, because the evil nature of the Nazi is caused by (in part) practicing eugenics, in my argument and the films argument. A subtle distinction, but an important one, as it is the difference between a relvant critique and an ad Nazium argument.

Eugenics is a social agenda based in darwinist thinking and is nothing like a "gun".

I never said, and the film never said (or implied) that darwinism in and of itself is evil. It only becomes evil when taken to its logical conclusion and combined with a social agenda. You need to understand that distinction.

One of my biggest complaints about ID/ID pushers, they don't try to prove ID for the sake of ID. They try to poke as many holes in Evolution and then say "ha, it's wrong, so ID must be right!” When in reality, disproving one thing doesn't intrinsically make another true. Just prove ID, don't worry about Evolution theory.
Click to expand...

ID (like darwinian evolution) isn't a political ideology, it is a scientific theory; don't confuse the two. Without fail, all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning scientific theory in that area.

No one is saying ID must be right because evolution is wrong. If fact, Ben Stein said the exact opposite on The O'Reilly Factor, "Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong."

Have you seen the film yet?
 
id scientific? it is only claimed to be scientific. it doesn't meet any criteria of scientific theory.
 
hrmwrm said:
id scientific? it is only claimed to be scientific. it doesn't meet any criteria of scientific theory.
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah...what are you doing, trying to stir the pot that we've already discussed ad nauseum?

Since you haven't seen the movie, and since this thread is about the movie, I respectfully request that you stay on topic. Thanks.
 
hrmwrm said:
id scientific? it is only claimed to be scientific. it doesn't meet any criteria of scientific theory.
Click to expand...

When you exibit some intellectual integrety (instead of the fallacious red herring [Ignoratio elenchi] argument you make here), I will take what you say seriously.
 
shagdrum said:
When you exibit some intellectual integrety (instead of the fallacious red herring [Ignoratio elenchi] argument you make here), I will take what you say seriously.
Click to expand...

i'll take you seriously when you show it's an accepted scientific theory. until then, it's nothing.
 
hrmwrm said:
i'll take you seriously when you show it's an accepted scientific theory. until then, it's nothing.
Click to expand...

A further demonstration of a severe lack of intellectual integrity.Now it has to be an "accepted" scientific theory, not just a scientific theory. We will ignore the fact that every currently accepted scientific theory started out as being on the fringes and rejected by the establishment.

There are at leat two logical fallacies in play here that suggest you are being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous:

  • Red Herring [Ignoratio elenchi] Fallacy: you initially responded to the point that:
    ID (like darwinian evolution) it is a scientific theory...all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning scientific theory in that area.​
    Weather or not ID is a proven scientific theory is irrelevant to the point being made [that all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning theory]. The questioning of darwinian evolution by ID is in line with being a scientific theory.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(fallacy)
You also ignore the fact that ID meets the criteria of what constitutes a scientific theory at least as well as darwinism, if not better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

  • The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.
    darwinian evolution has not and cannot be tested or in anyway verified to be true or false. ID trumps darwinism in this critieria​
  • It is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense
    The testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID​

  • It is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
    Again, the testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID​

Hrmwrm, you keep sticking your foot in your mouth and hurting your credibility. :D
 
Just saw Expelled today. It's not exactly what I was expecting. The premise of the documentary is NOT to argue that Intelligent Design is better than Darwinism, even though Ben Stein I'm sure believes in ID and there is a bias towards that. If there wasn't a bias towards ID, this documentary would not even exist. But the premise of the documentary is to show the vast discrimination of ID in the scientific community. The point is that free-thinking in science should be allowed so that science may in turn have a better understanding.

If scientifically valid questions are being raised, they should be explored and researched. And this is not happening in regards to Intelligent Design like it should. As the entire documentary clearly showed, there is discrimination against those who believe in ID. And to deny that discrimination is happening, well, I can't even describe my feelings towards that. Richard Dawkins and everyone else who is complaining would not be so objectionable if there were no discrimination.

Regarding the John Lennon song "Imagine" in Expelled: only two lines of the song are used, TWO (2) LINES, that's it. I was thinking it was a large part of it, not a few seconds. Bringing up that point, to me, is ridiculously frivolous.

Regarding the "world view" that someone else mentioned: only 3 times was that term mentioned by 2 scientists in the span of a couple of minutes. Again, it's not a focal point of the documentary, just a small piece. I was expecting something more. The argument about this "world view" needing to be defined, to me, is more ridiculous frivolity.

Regarding the Holocaust in the documentary: I didn't time how much was focused on this, but I think it was 15 minutes or so. The documentary also did not end on this note. There was a lot more of the documentary after that. Ignoring the fact that the Holocaust had it's roots in Darwinism is ignoring reality. It is the inconvenient truth for evolutionists. Leaving the holocaust out of this documentary would have been an injustice. However, as stated by others, Stein did say something to the effect that of course not all Darwinists are Nazis. The implication was that the vast majority did not condone this Nazi policy. My take: it showed that this theory should not be taken to an extreme in society, much the same as fundamental religion should not be taken to an extreme.

In conclusion, this documentary fulfilled it's intent. It showed the discrimination against ID and against ID proponents. It showed that Intelligent Design raises some good questions, and that Darwinism has some serious holes and should be questioned. Go see it.

Edit: I forgot to mention my "slap on the forehead" moment regarding this film. Richard Dawkins stated that one theory of life on earth could be that an alien planted life here. Excuse me, but that is Intelligent Design.
 
shagdrum said:
A further demonstration of a severe lack of intellectual integrity.Now it has to be an "accepted" scientific theory, not just a scientific theory. We will ignore the fact that every currently accepted scientific theory started out as being on the fringes and rejected by the establishment.

There are at leat two logical fallacies in play here that suggest you are being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous:

  • Red Herring [Ignoratio elenchi] Fallacy: you initially responded to the point that:
    ID (like darwinian evolution) it is a scientific theory...all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning scientific theory in that area.​
    Weather or not ID is a proven scientific theory is irrelevant to the point being made [that all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning theory]. The questioning of darwinian evolution by ID is in line with being a scientific theory.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(fallacy)
You also ignore the fact that ID meets the criteria of what constitutes a scientific theory at least as well as darwinism, if not better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

  • The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.
    darwinian evolution has not and cannot be tested or in anyway verified to be true or false. ID trumps darwinism in this critieria​
  • It is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense
    The testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID​

  • It is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
    Again, the testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID​

Hrmwrm, you keep sticking your foot in your mouth and hurting your credibility. :D
Click to expand...
*owned*
 
shagdrum said:
A further demonstration of a severe lack of intellectual integrity.Now it has to be an "accepted" scientific theory, not just a scientific theory. We will ignore the fact that every currently accepted scientific theory started out as being on the fringes and rejected by the establishment.

There are at leat two logical fallacies in play here that suggest you are being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous:

  • Red Herring [Ignoratio elenchi] Fallacy: you initially responded to the point that:
    ID (like darwinian evolution) it is a scientific theory...all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning scientific theory in that area.​
    Weather or not ID is a proven scientific theory is irrelevant to the point being made [that all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning theory]. The questioning of darwinian evolution by ID is in line with being a scientific theory.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(fallacy)
You also ignore the fact that ID meets the criteria of what constitutes a scientific theory at least as well as darwinism, if not better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

  • The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.
    darwinian evolution has not and cannot be tested or in anyway verified to be true or false. ID trumps darwinism in this critieria​
  • It is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense
    The testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID​

  • It is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
    Again, the testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID​

Hrmwrm, you keep sticking your foot in your mouth and hurting your credibility. :D
Click to expand...

stick your foot in your own mouth. science has never relied on superstition or omnipotence or otherworldly explanations. this makes id not scientific except in the believers and promoters of id. until the scientific standard is changed( will never happen) id is not science. it is still best described as pseudo science. how is id a testable theory? that is one of the parameters.
 
hrmwrm said:
stick your foot in your own mouth. science has never relied on superstition or omnipotence or otherworldly explanations. this makes id not scientific except in the believers and promoters of id. until the scientific standard is changed( will never happen) id is not science. it is still best described as pseudo science. how is id a testable theory? that is one of the parameters.
Click to expand...
Look at you. You're reduced to stuttering bluster.

Pseudo science? How about the Big Bang, which you place your fervent "faith and trust" in? Talk about a non-testable theory. Projecting much? :bowrofl:
 
hrmwrm said:
stick your foot in your own mouth. science has never relied on superstition or omnipotence or otherworldly explanations. this makes id not scientific except in the believers and promoters of id. until the scientific standard is changed( will never happen) id is not science. it is still best described as pseudo science. how is id a testable theory? that is one of the parameters.
Click to expand...

You are still ignoring a huge inconvenient truth for your argument in the fact that the darwinian evolution process can not be tested or verified, in any way, shape or form. That simple omission shows that you are incapable of being honest here.

If you consider Darwinian evolution a scientific theory, then (assuming intellectual honesty, which you have demonstrated you don't have on this issue) you have to consider ID a scientific theory. ID is testable in every way that darwinism is, and doesn't make a claim needing to be tested for the theory to be true that can't be tested, like Darwinism does (evolution).

Your line about "superstition or omnipotence or otherworldly explanations" is nothing more then sophistry used to further obfuscate the issue. Basically a quick straw-man argument you set up to knock down. What you are refering to is the assumption of methodological naturalism by darwinian evolution and the rejection of methodological naturalism by ID. This is an area of both theories that isn't testable (and isn't ment to be), so your claim that it discredits ID is extremely one-sided, and disingenuous. You are applying a certian standard to an area of one of the two theories where it doesn't really apply, and ignoring the same issue in the other theory; again, demonstrating a huge lack of intellectual integrety.

Methodological naturalism says that because you can't test (or in any way verifiy) if the supernatural does or doesn't exist, it is assumed (effectively as a matter of faith) that it doesn't. Basically, it rejects the supernatural. This, in turn, applies another assumption that everything in nature came about through random, undirected means.

The problem is, if you can't test to see if the supenatural exists or not, you can't logically rule it out, either. ID doesn't rule out the supernatural or otherwise directed means of creation of spieces or of like in general.

That part of either Darwinism or ID is not testable. It is a metaphysical assumption (or lack thereof, on the part of ID) which dictates the worldview of the two theories and ultimately how the data is interpreted.

ID doesn't assume that the supernatural does or doesn't exist, it simple doesn't start from the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist; it is open to the possibility it might, and/or that natural phenomenon might have some intellegence directing them. When looking at the data without the assumed absense of the supernatural, the evidence supports the idea of ID at least as strongly (if not more strongly) then it does darwinism.

When you start getting into the testable portion of the theories, darwinism claims that spieces are created from other spieces through random mutation; darwinian evolution. This has never been tested because it cannot be tested. By the very nature of the assertion made, it cannot be tested and thus verified. darwinian evolution is assumed to happen purely as a matter of faith.

Of the two theories; ID and Darwinism, only Darwinism takes anything as a matter of faith. Specifically; that the supernatural doesn't exist, that natural phenominon happen randomly, and that darwinian evolution occurs.

You are claiming that ID assumes God and the supernatural do exist, which is a blatant and intentional distortion on your part. I have spelled all this out to you in other threads and you know it. You still want to dishontestly distort what ID is, and it's views. More egg on your fact, it seems.

The problem for athiests, like yourself is; if ID is true, naturalistic evolution is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. Thus, advocacy for atheism is a huge motive to distort and demonize ID, which is all you are doing in this thread...

Allen Roebuck argues:

... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against Darwinism. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that natural forces are incapable of either originating life or changing it from single-celled organisms to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of divine action as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility​

So far, you have based your argument, demonstratably, on at least three logical fallacies:
  • "Moving the goalpost"
  • Red Herring [Ignoratio elenchi], and
  • Straw-man argument
There are other fallacies implied in your argument as well...

At this point, it is a demonstratable truth that you don't have any intellectual honesty in this area given the info in this thread alone. You have yet to make a valid criticism of ID, and are only serving to distract from the debate of the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 305 (members: 2, guests: 303)
Back
Top