Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Regnad Kcin said:
???No it isn't
Learn to get rejected buddy!
Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux
- Thread starter Gravy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gravy loose change
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
You're very kind to cite me, however I'm not the first here to use the phrase. Can't remember who it was, unfortunately.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
delphi_ote's post #99 is spot on!
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
Are you charging people to look at your essay and the frames from the Naudet film?
If not, that is a major difference between how you used footage and how Avery used the footage.
If not, that is a major difference between how you used footage and how Avery used the footage.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Plus, using a still frame or 2 may well constitute "fair use", while showing video segments does not.
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
Yup. At least around here. If I remember correctly, in Denmark you can show 45 seconds, or the equivelant of it in frames, of any given movie (AFAIK: This may vary depending on the length of the production otherwise commercials were screwed) under the fair use cover.
ETA: This probably different in the US.
ETA: Wordsquabble. I need to reboot my brain.....
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
Either way, I think this was a case of "post and run."
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
Def Leppard said:
or...
Third Eye Blind said:
Hey! Look! I'm doing what they call "research."
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
or...
Hey! Look! I'm doing what they call "research."
Ahhh, so that's how they found out about the Spanish Bombs in the WTC... Wait, maybe this doesn't work so well.
The Clash, BTW
Depends mostly on the length and purpose of the segment. the documentary Outfoxed had no permission to use any of the video clips they showed from Fox News, but I think Fox (no matter what their public posturing is) learned from suing Al Franken that they can be laughed out of court too.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002023.shtml
(I haven't seen outfoxed yet so I'm not commenting on the contents, just the fact that you can use video segments under fair use, but be careful about it...)
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I would think that the Naudets would have a much stronger case against fair use because of the unique and historic nature of their footage. It seems to me that the potential value of their footage is far greater than the potential value of any footage of FOX talking heads.
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
And then there's the fact that Avery is butchering the contents beyond recognition including twisting things people are saying completely out of context. Yaknow, the Cherrypicking? It's a no-no when doing a documentary. And could cause several civil lawsuits........*Sadistic grin* I wonder......
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Well, I'm back to the garage with my bulls**t detector, trying to get those jail guitar doors to go clang, clang on a certain lonely mother's son.
Happy Birthday, bob_kark! I hope you get that underscorectomy you asked for!
Last edited:
XXX
Thinker
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 151
Of that, I have no doubt.
Seems more like data mining to me. Similar to the Gambler's fallacy, like if a roulette wheel came up red 10 times in a row you could look back and say that only has a 1-1024 chance of happining, so therefore the wheel must be rigged. Given that the first plane was caught on film, there will be a set of circumstances leading up to it that seem unlikely, but that doesn't mean that it was a conspiracy. Your same argument could be made against ANYONE who had caught the first plane on film.
I have read it. Still not convinced.
We're not talking about all conspiracy theories, just this one. Why is it that the Warren Commission always seems to come up with these people? I don't remember anyone here saying that the official version is "gospel truth" either.
I haven't read anyone here say that all politicians tell the truth. More straw man arguments. Along with the "gospel truth" comment from above, this is a common tactic amoung theorists. They make statements about how if you believe the official version you must also believe that the government never lies to us and that politicians always tell the truth, which is total BS of course.
Another line that's meant to divide people rather than address the facts, similar to the lines above about "gospel truth" and politicians. Implying that if you agree with the official version then you are somehow alligned with Bush/Blair.
I think people here has spelled out what they believe and why pretty damn well. I do appreciate that you have actually done that yourself. I have been working on a few 9/11 projects, maybe I will have to tackle your piece in a bit more depth.
I'm merely pointing out it is possible to use video clips under fair use. I'm not trying to claim the Loose Change people did so.
I haven't seen the loose change video with the bits in it (got way better things to do than that) but my understanding is they clipped entire segments (minutes at a time?) that still isn't under fair use.
Additionally the video clips of Fox that Outfox used were what they were commenting on. The Loose Change usage (again my understanding from not having seen it) was to support their own opinion, not criticize the film they took them from (there is also a clause in fair use for new reporting but I don't believe that would cover this either.)
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
Ah, I think I've figured out why they think WTC1, 2, & 7 didn't collapse due to fire. How can there be an inferno with no disco? Its just not possible people.
BTW, unfortunately there is no known cure for the underscore. Please donate now to the Hanson Underscore Home. With your help, we can make a difference.
les raphael
New Blood
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 8
From : les raphael
Monday 12 June 2006
To Gravy, The Fire, kookbreaker, WildCat, chipmunk, Delphi Ote - Like I said, no arguments, just abuse, and I'm not going to dignify that kind of crap with a longer response. There was abuse in my reply only in response to yours.
I am well aware of the difference between my borrowing from the Naudets and Avery's : I wrote to their lawyers to invite them to sue me. They haven't
done it, so it seems I'm not this fiendish libel artist, so offensive I have to have my essay removed from the web. Orphia - it would be me who got sued, not the essay. For which, by the way, refer to
spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm
All previous versions are outdated - and, in some minor ways, inaccurate.
WildCat says I was accusing 911 operators and managers and the entire
FDNY of complicity - fairly typical : I did no such thing. SOME employees of
the FDNY are in on it, but not the whole department. And yes, I did contact FDNY spokesmen to confirm standard gas leak protocols - like the guy I named in my essay. As for the FOIA, that too is mentioned in the essay - I can't use it, as far as I know, because I'm not a New York resident - but the essay invites anyone who is to do it. As for research, yes I have done it - and my entire essay was written without reference to one conspiracy site - I don't recycle other people's ideas, and a lot of the sites are the rubbish you take them for. I've written hundreds of letters and e-mails over the last four years, including to the FDNY and Duane Street - as stated in the essay - which you have obviously not bothered reading.
Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ? Give me a contemporary quote, from someone speaking on the day,
or withdraw the claim.
XXX, "Scholar" - no, I would not be making the same accusation against
ANYONE who filmed the first plane, and the circumstances wouldn't necessarily be unlikely. I'ld have bought someone out on the street, with a camcorder - but not with firemen, not getting the impact in the middle of the picture, not carrying on and filming inside the tower, etc etc. It's pure Hollywood - they just couldn't stop themselves overdoing it. You say you're going to have another read at my piece " in more depth" - thank you - please do. You're the only sensible person in the discussion - I don't buy your arguments, but you do seem to have some. Incidentally, there's no analogy with gambling : I list 69 circumstances in the film that are both
unusual and convenient - that combination, so many times, is what makes it suspect. I mentioned JFK and other conspiracy theories because none of the
contributors have mentioned that they buy some theories but not mine -
the presumption being they don't buy any. Am I wrong ? It would be nice
to hear one of you saying you think Bush and Blair are a pair of lying war
criminals. Haven't seen it yet.
Monday 12 June 2006
To Gravy, The Fire, kookbreaker, WildCat, chipmunk, Delphi Ote - Like I said, no arguments, just abuse, and I'm not going to dignify that kind of crap with a longer response. There was abuse in my reply only in response to yours.
I am well aware of the difference between my borrowing from the Naudets and Avery's : I wrote to their lawyers to invite them to sue me. They haven't
done it, so it seems I'm not this fiendish libel artist, so offensive I have to have my essay removed from the web. Orphia - it would be me who got sued, not the essay. For which, by the way, refer to
spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm
All previous versions are outdated - and, in some minor ways, inaccurate.
WildCat says I was accusing 911 operators and managers and the entire
FDNY of complicity - fairly typical : I did no such thing. SOME employees of
the FDNY are in on it, but not the whole department. And yes, I did contact FDNY spokesmen to confirm standard gas leak protocols - like the guy I named in my essay. As for the FOIA, that too is mentioned in the essay - I can't use it, as far as I know, because I'm not a New York resident - but the essay invites anyone who is to do it. As for research, yes I have done it - and my entire essay was written without reference to one conspiracy site - I don't recycle other people's ideas, and a lot of the sites are the rubbish you take them for. I've written hundreds of letters and e-mails over the last four years, including to the FDNY and Duane Street - as stated in the essay - which you have obviously not bothered reading.
Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ? Give me a contemporary quote, from someone speaking on the day,
or withdraw the claim.
XXX, "Scholar" - no, I would not be making the same accusation against
ANYONE who filmed the first plane, and the circumstances wouldn't necessarily be unlikely. I'ld have bought someone out on the street, with a camcorder - but not with firemen, not getting the impact in the middle of the picture, not carrying on and filming inside the tower, etc etc. It's pure Hollywood - they just couldn't stop themselves overdoing it. You say you're going to have another read at my piece " in more depth" - thank you - please do. You're the only sensible person in the discussion - I don't buy your arguments, but you do seem to have some. Incidentally, there's no analogy with gambling : I list 69 circumstances in the film that are both
unusual and convenient - that combination, so many times, is what makes it suspect. I mentioned JFK and other conspiracy theories because none of the
contributors have mentioned that they buy some theories but not mine -
the presumption being they don't buy any. Am I wrong ? It would be nice
to hear one of you saying you think Bush and Blair are a pair of lying war
criminals. Haven't seen it yet.
Does that matter? I've made FOIA applications to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defence & the Air Force, & I'm in the UK...
If that's all you want, just go to the politics forum. For example:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56909&highlight=bush+lies
There are actually a number of people here on the forum who believe the rest of the JREF forum members are ultra-liberal Bush haters! Only a few of us go so far as to accuse George Bush of being a war criminal, but many here feel he is breaking the law in other areas (security leaks, wiretapping). Can you tell us why so many people who dislike George Bush are so disgusted by you 9/11 conspiracy theorists? I think it's because we skeptics, conservative or liberal, don't like anyone who tries to fool us, but I'd like to hear your opinion.
Last edited: