Ben Stein responds to Yoko Ono

[pokerfan]

"So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine' no possessions?"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=62489

What.
An.
Ass.

[Mz Pip]

1. I doubt that's a legal argument

IT's not about the contents of the song, idiot. It's about who owns the rights to it and getting permission to use it.

[evlbstrd]

2. He's confusing copyright law with the Constitution.

And he's wrong on both counts.

[MrModerate]

6. He's Ben Stein: he's confusing everything with everything . . .

That's his schtick.

[patrice]

3. What Would John Do? nt

[poppysgal]

4. that right

wwjd :rofl:

[patrice]

12. He'd give it to them for free. nt

[MrModerate]

5. Luckily, I'll never know if "Expelled" crosses the line when it comes to fair use . . .

Because there's not a snowball's chance in (entirely mythical) hell that I'll watch even a frame of the damn thing. Even if intelligent design didn't give me the pip, just being exposed to electrons configured in the rough shape of Ben Stein can be fatal to sentient beings, and I ain't gonna risk it.

[pokerfan]

13. There does not seem to be one single honest aspect to this film

- The five so-called 'expelled' weren't.
- Quote mining to make Darwin appear to support eugenics.
- Use of copyrighted material material without permission.
- Plagiarism (the Harvard cell video).
- Dishonest editing of interviews.

http://www.expelledexposed.com

[ColbertWatcher]

16. Well, technically...

...it is honest to say it is a film and that its name is "Expelled".

[pokerfan]

18. And apparently "No Intelligence Allowed'

is some sort of criteria for viewing.

[ColbertWatcher]

20. Yes, bet they didn't see that one coming! Touche! n/t

[pokerfan]

24. It's like one of those signs at an thrill ride

"You must be this tall to ride this ride."

"You must be this ignorant to view this film."

[ColbertWatcher]

25. "If'n yew kin reed...

...this here sign, yew cain't git in. Now git."

[AlCzervik]

7. he didn't get permission to use copyrighted material--of course he knows that

but he enjoys being a dick and hey guess, more free publicity for his movie.

[vanlassie]

8. The RULES don't apply to Republicans. nt

[stevebreeze]

9. What a bunch of Wack jobs!!!

Here is another link from the same site, that purports a link between the theory of evolution and Nazism. The logic seems to be that Hitler believed in evolution....so there you are belief in evolution leads to death camps.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62376

[pokerfan]

17. Debunking the Hitler was an evolutionist claim

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

[stevebreeze]

22. nice link! thanks

[Richard Steele]

10. Ben Stein has lost his goddamn mind.

He was always an asshole, but he used to be an INTELLIGENT one.

Apparently, not so much anymore.

Crystal meth? Mad cow disease? WTF has happened to his brain? :shrug:

[pokerfan]

21. He's accumulated a lifetime of feces

If they gave him an enema they could bury him in a matchbox.

[Richard Steele]

23. LOLZ! I'm gonna hafta remember that one! nm

[musette_sf]

40. "If they gave him an enema

they could bury him in a matchbox."

seems i remember Hitchens saying this about Falwell upon the occasion of his shuffling off the mortal coil.

i think Hitchens is a rude, ill-tempered sot these days, but that WAS a good one.

[pokerfan]

43. That's probably where I heard it

I didn't think it could be Dawkins.

[Ian David]

34. Mercury poisoning from Alaskan salmon. n/t

[onenote]

11. he's right and he's wrong

There is a strong case to be made that the fair use doctrine is, in essence, constitutionally mandated in order to ensure that the protections afforded by the law of copyright do not impinge unnecessarily on free speech.

Having said that, under the standard fair use analysis, I see no way that the use of even a short clip from Imagine could qualify as fair use. In particular, taking a copyrighted work, or even a portion of it, for a commercial film, is a big strike against the use being treated as fair use.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. It could only be considered fair use, I believe, if the project was

purely informational or educational, and not meant to make him a shitload of money off the gullible. Being a 'for profit' venture negates fair use.

[Romulox]

38. Nope. Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music

2 Live Crew's "parody" version of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman" was held to be a non-infringing fair use notwithstanding the commercial nature of the work.

Held: 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of §107. Pp. 4-25.

(a) Section 107, which provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism comment . . . is not an infringement . . . ," continues the common law tradition of fair use adjudication and requires case by case analysis rather than bright line rules. The statutory examples of permissible uses provide only general guidance. The four statutory factors are to be explored and weighed together in light of copyright's purpose of promoting science and the arts. Pp. 4-8.

(b) Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair use. Under the first of the four §107 factors, "the purpose andcharacter of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . . . ," the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work. But that tells courts little about where to draw the line. Thus, like other uses, parody has to work its way through the relevant factors. Pp. 8-12.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Well, that would make it dependent on if the use can be considered parody.

I haven't (and will not) seen it, but my impression is he used it straight, not as parody. If I'm wrong on that, I would have to withdraw my objection.

Doesn't make him any less an ass, however.

[Robb]

42. Also, the focus of the work was *not* the song

...If the intent was to focus on the song itself throughout the work, I would think the fair use argument would also gain traction.

However, as background music, even to drive a point home, it's not going to go Stein's way.

Steinway. The piano. Get it? :D



...OK, so it's not so funny. Sue me. It's the weekend.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. So, Ben Stein...

...is not only a creationist tool, but a failed lawyer?

I guess this is the legal maneuver called "delay".

[BeatleBoot]

15. Richard Nixon's Speechwriter.

Enough said.

[RB TexLa]

26. Talk about two people that don't matter.

[notesdev]

27. every time I hear "Yoko Ono"

I think, boy, that's the shrieking bitch who did her damn best to ruin John's finest live performance, and didn't even manage to have the talent to succeed at that.

There's something about these people who aggressively enforce copyright on their dead spouses' work that discomforts me. It's like that person lived to share their music and in death his own spouse works to silence it.

[pokerfan]

28. Isn't it bad enough

that her husband was murdered by a fundy nutter? Now she's supposed to surrender the copyright so that other fundy nutters can make a buck off of his corpse?

[ColbertWatcher]

29. Would you rather...

"...people who aggressively enforce copyright on their dead spouses' work that discomforts me."

Would you rather living people who don't give a shit one way or the other about the performer capitalize on their work?

There are laws, which the GOP keep strengthening, BTW, that Ben Stein and the producers of his propaganda film are not following. If they want to make a movie, they have to pay people for their work. And that includes recorded works.

This is really not an issue, just free publicity for this failing movie.

[H2O Man]

30. clown

[tkmorris]

32. You're an idiot

John loved her, and that's good enough for me.

[notesdev]

41. collective response to the four above

You guys must not be very familiar with Yoko Ono's history. She has been a spectacular failure in every artistic endeavor she's every attempted; the only thing of note that she's ever succeeded in was in seducing John Lennon.

Listen to some of her 'music', then get back to me on this one. I'm positive you'll have another perspective on her after that.

Copyrights were originally intended to be in effect only for a limited time; we the people don't benefit from strengthening of copyright domestically.

The actual line in the Constitution that gives us copyright is this, from Article I Section 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Note the 'limited Times' phrase, and that it is "Authors and Inventors" - not their posterity - who gain the rights to their works.

In the case of Lennon, we're talking about material which is well over 25 years old and should be past any reasonable copyright date. It should be public domain by this point.

The origin of my disdain for such people as Ono stems from the behavior of the Zappa Family Trust with respect to Zappa's work. Thanks to their aggressive enforcement of copyright, a lot of people who would really have loved his music never get a chance to be introduced to it. As a music lover I find this to be counter to the purpose of music in the first place, which is the expression of ideas that mere words aren't good enough to convey.

[Snarkturian Clone]

31. As I said before, one self-important overrated celebutard deserves another. NT

[Ian David]

33. Yes, Ben Stein is an ass. But that was a very funny response, too.

I don't think Ben Stein is stupid enough to believe his own Creationist bullshit.

Just like I don't think he's stupid enough to really believe that worldwide fisheries aren't in crisis.

I think the only thing Ben Stein believes in is Ben Stein.

[high density]

35. It's funny, but I don't think the law cares about the lyric contained in the work

Maybe Ben would like to work for nothing?

[Marr]

36. So Stein is incapable of competing in the market without resorting the theft?

[Romulox]

37. If the "Imagine" clip is only 10 seconds, Ben may very well have a Fair Use defense

Which makes me wonder: why is Yoko Ono giving Ben Stein free publicity?