Expelled gone missing...

Wow! 62.8% gave "Expelled" an A.

Err... the data seems to be right there. It's #30 and barely made $100k. Think it'll have to struggle to reach $8m total for its run.

The funny thing is that 68 millennia is still ten times the age of the Earth.

Rank 30 Gross $102,690 hange -68.8%Avg$489 Total $7,499,617

Expelled seems to have a half-life of about a week.

The funny thing is that 68 millennia is still ten times the age of the Earth.

— Thomas

Greg Esres said: Wow! 62.8% gave "Expelled" an A.

I had an email exchange with Mike Fair ( about the South Carolina anti-science bill ) and I've included the text below. I hope I didn't make a bad showing, but I attempted to put forth my thoughts clearly.

-------------------------------------------
My first email:
[quote]
"A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION
59-29-240 SO AS TO ALLOW TEACHERS TO HELP STUDENTS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE,
CRITIQUE, AND REVIEW THE *HISTORICAL* STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF *THE
HOLOCAUST* AND *HOLOCAUST DENIAL* IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER."

This is the idiocy you encourage in any context. Science is the actual
method for which we analyze, critique, and review a field of scientific
research/theory/hypothesis/finding etc. There is no more need to 'allow'
teachers to teach scientific methodology, then there is need to 'allow'
teachers to teach history. As of yet, intelligent design both as a claimed
field of scientific inquiry and the proponents of, have never produced any
scientific research/findings/information/hypothesis/theories. They have
never published any peer review publications, they have never provided a
defined hypothesis for which to be tested within the scope of the scientific
method, they have never produced any viable theory from a hypothesis, they
have never produced any research, and they have never produced any new
information in any regard in any scientific field of inquiry. The plea for
'critical thinking' is made without the understanding of the lack of merit
of what intelligent design actually is, an anti-scientific religion.

The only thing they have done is lied to the general public about science
and education. They have emotionally attacked anyone they percieve as in
conflict with their claims with what is essentially hate speech. They also
have attempted to push a specific christian religious interpretation/agenda
upon non-christians and other christians alike by attempting to slip their
anti-scientific information into public schools.

Chad
--------------------------------------

Here is the first response from Mr. Fair

Not intended to offend. Dr. Rchard Sternmberg would disagree with soome of your thoughts. Earned PHD in Biological Evolution, Harvard I think, fired from the Smithsonian because he challenged the flaws Darwin's theory. He is one of many. This , he ,is related to South Carolina.
I am not a scientist as you know. But I can read. I can think (I know you believe I am limited in that regard) I can criticize as well and can be criticized. Why not allow and protect sceince profs, who are your intellectual and edcucationally prepared peers to do the same?
Mike
------------------------------------
Here is my response to the above:
Dear Sir,

Richard Sternberg was never fired from any position he held. You have been lied too, Sternberg resigned from the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 6 months prior. While at that publication he failed to comply with normal peer review standards when attempting to publish a paper. Namely, the paper itself had nothing to do with the actual topic of the publication but it also contained no new information/research. It was simply a plagiarized paper from a fellow creationist that Sternberg helped 'slip in'. Sternberg also was not 'fired' from the Smithsonian, infact his status was extended in 2006 to 3 more years. He never lost his access to the specimens he requires for his research and he never was 'unemployed' from a position that was unpaid in the first place ( that he still holds anyway ). His title changed, but it was neither a demotion nor a promotion. In the greatest leap of dishonesty yet, he turned what was trivial office rearrangements into 'persecution'. Needless to say, any cursory search would have revealed the lie for what it is.

Again, what exactly happened to Sternberg again if he wasn't fired and nothing bad happened to him?

Your question:

Why not allow and protect sceince profs, who are your intellectual and edcucationally prepared peers to do the same?

I find it hard to translate your question, if you mean that professors need to be protected - I'm going to ask protected from what? What you are doing is creating a red herring to avoid addressing the real issue here. Namely, what exactly is science and objective research. Also, you cannot cite an honest case were someone was 'persecuted' as a professor or educator. The third issue, is to what extent we allow a non-subject to be repeated in a class that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

A. Science is literally an objective methodological system of analysis. It is composed of several steps meant to draw out any objective bias for the purpose of determining the best answer with the best information. In the lack of information, it is all to possible to say,"I don't know" or concentrate on hypothesis to explain the unexplained. Another important part is the falsifiability of the claim being made and whether or not it can be tested. A hypothesis is essentially a theory that isn't a theory, as it hasn't yet gone through the rigors of repeatability, experimentation, prediction, and etc. Once it has done so it becomes a 'scientific theory' On a side note, no creationist ( ID is same thing ) have ever produced any research/hypothesis/theories. Not a single one.

B. No actual cases of persecution really exist, all the ones cited in "Expelled" omit important facts or ( like in the case of Sternberg ) are blatantly dishonest. Creationist and ID'ers are often made fun of, but if thats the best you can actually come up with then thats not actually 'persecution'.

C. Creationist are made fun of because they are ignoring science, scientific methodology, and bringing mythology into the science lab. Just like a Holocaust denier ignores historical standards of research, constructs logical fallacies, and simply lies. The same can be said for individuals that claim 'flat earth','UFO','Ghost', etc. I must also point out that if a teacher is hired to teach 'geology', then why shouldn't they be fired for teaching 'flat earth'. "Flat Earth" isn't in the subject, and it is NOT scientifically supported. The analogy is EXACTLY the same as creationist/ID to the biological sciences.

A bill like the one suggested is simply an ambiguous attempt to get their anti-science specific religious nonsense into the classroom. Creationism is not science and should not be taught in the science classroom. The bill also allows other nonsense material into the classroom, that relies upon the same ambiguous misinformation.

Chad
----------------------------------

Here is mike's response to that:
Chad,
Your motivations are....., I do not know what motivates you. But you speak with certainty about what I really am trying to do.
Your obvious intolerance is interesting.Why cna't I have an opinion that is not tied to theology. You are certain that I and other 'narrow minded relgious fanatics' must have it our way are we will do what?? I don't get it. Being critical of Darwinism, a theory, is the end game. Where the science leads is up to you and other scientist.
Why be afraid? You are the one being being lied to if you actually beleive what you wrote to me. BTW is Ben Stein a liar and a religoius fanatic as well?
I have not spoken about religious freedoms and anti-Christian bias in academia. That may come but it is not connected to this unless atheistic Darwinists see academic freedom as a risk to their theology. They then would be the ones trying to make a connection not me.
Thanks for the dialogue. I am continuing to learn.
Mike

-------------------------------

My response to the above:
Dear sir,

Honesty and intellectual integrity motivates me. It is the same thing that motivates Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University. Did I also mention he's a christian? A roman catholic to be specific, but some christians are so intolerant of anything besides their own specific religious denomination that might not consider him to be one. Kenneth Miller is an avid and an outspoken scientist in his field, he often also addresses 'creationism' and 'intelligent design'. He of course is not a 'supporter' of ID or creationism, as ID nor creationism are actually science in any regard. The importance of mentioning Professor Miller has two intentions.

1. Namely, evolutionary science has nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of a god. There is no logical means for which to apply the theory of natural selection as an argument against a supernatural agent of a specific religious belief.

2. I also would like to point out the obvious strawman that both you and the 'expelled' movie creators wish to create. A strawman, is a tactic used in an argument where a fraudulent misrepresentation is used in order to 'strike it down'. The misrepresentation doesn't accurately reflect whatever is being argued against. The strawman is that 'evolution' is 'atheism'. There is also some more misinformation in that 'Darwinism' is used loosely without definition or explanation, then associated to 'atheism' ( without explanation ) and more so the 'biological sciences' with evolution being specific. It is as if the past 150 years of scientific research had never occured. Expelled attempts to do this by selectively interviewing biology scientist that happen to be atheist. They carefully omit interviewing any scientist that is also a religious believer who is not an anti-scientific creationist.

I must also draw out the excellent work of Francis S Collins, an evangelical christian, who worked on the genome project. He of course, as a scientist, fully accepts the biological sciences including what you term,"atheistic-darwinism". He has an excellent book titled,"The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." I have read it and although I disagree with his conclusions, I did think it was an excellent if emotive read. He infact began as an atheist from a graduate student and talks about his journey to christian belief. Another example would be Van Til, who used to be a christian presuppositionalist ( which accepts evolution but thats besides the point ) and has since become a 'moderate' christian. He is a fascinating and excellent writer with a fine grasp on logic. ( Did I mention he was a scientist? ) To be honest, Sir, we could go on all day with this. Tens of thousands of biology scientist are infact theist, evolution or 'atheistic darwinism' ( whatever that is ) plays no role and simply does not exist to them.

To illustrate the strawman being constructed:

Mark Mathis, a movie producer and media associate, is also an associate producer for the movie 'Expelled'. When asked why expelled omitted interviewing people like Miller, Collins, Til, or thousands of scientist ( that happen to be theist ) he stated the following:

Mathis: But I would tell you from a, my personal standpoint as somebody who's worked on this project, that Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily. I don't agree with Ken Miller. I think that you, I think that when you look at this issue and this debate, that really there's, there's one side of the line or the other, and you, it's, it's hard to stay, I don't think you can intellectually, honestly, honestly intellectually stand on a line that I don't think exists

You have to ask yourself,"Why would miller confuse the film unnecessarily?" The answer sir, is that it would unnecessarily confuse the strawman being constructed. That is, that 'darwinism leads to atheism' ( which goes undefined in the film and by most creationist ). The interview took place between associates of,"Scientific American" and Mathis himself. The audio and transcripts can be found here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis

I must also speak to you as an atheist and a former christian. There is something I still hold as relevant to reality both from when I would have called myself a christian and now that I call myself an atheist. That is,"Thou Shalt Not Bare False Witness." As a christian, it was believed only be the fear or rebuke of a supernatural agent that could torment me for an eternity. It was also assumed that magically I would suffer simply by lying to my fellow man. As an atheist, a lie is not simply a lie against someone else but a lie against myself. It inevitably damages the relationships I build around me, which in turn damage me. It is also a principle that by its act alone, denies reality which in turn in my mind brings us back to 'faith'. Thats not a very nice thing to say about religious belief, but the point is to make an appeal to you on the integrity of information being claimed. In your first reply to me, you cited the Sternberg case - yet not a single thing actually happened to Sternberg. The peer review publication he was with has his resignation letter and he still does what he does at the Smithsonian. Both can be verified as easy as checking yourself:

sternberg.richard@nmnh.si.edu This is Sternberg's email at the smithsonian.

http://www.biolsocwash.org/ This is the publication that Sternberg resigned from in October 2003, which 6 months later he dishonestly bypassed normal peer review standards in order to publish a paper that had nothing to do with the topic of the journal nor contained any actual research. There is a contact list where you can verify this information with them if you like. He resigned 6 months prior, keep that in note. As far as the smithsonian is concerned, he was never fired and never held a paid position. His area and unpaid placement is as of yet, unchanged and has never changed beyond simple administration duties. He was made fun of for his involvement with the peer review scandal, but that was the extent of it. He was never fired and you have infact been suckered ( lied too ).

Moving on:
You cited my 'obvious intolerance', but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Would it be intolerant to keep non-algebra out of an algebra class? How about keeping someone claiming the earth is flat from trying to tell his geology students the same in a public school? Thats definately critical of geology, physics, chemistry, and possibly dozens upon dozens of theories I cannot name by memory alone. Is this the type of 'critical' analysis you want to bring into the public school? Do you realize that in the same ambiguous tones that you defend 'criticism of darwinism' you could equally apply it to any quack-based ideology? How about 'criticism of relativity'? Are we going to start teaching the 'Ether' in the classroom? ( Luminiferous Aether ) as an opposing theory to relativity?

You keep avoiding what I've already pointed out for you, that is what exactly constitutes 'science' and valid 'criticism' of science. In that, you entirely ignore that we already have the establishment that takes a scientific hypothesis and applies the critical analysis to it BEFORE it becomes a theory. Even at that point, the criticism doesn't stop because in science information never stops. We are always learning and with the input of new information we can learn new things. Infact, biology as a field of science, has lots of contention between all kinds of scientist/researchers at virtually all times. They submit publications for peer review, they address the mistakes of experimentation made by others, they research to find new answers for the unexplained/explained, and they constantly apply the scientific method to everything they do. Thats what science is, and without it - its not science.

Unfortunately, we have a problem.

Creationist do not do the 'above', they do not publish peer review publications, they do not do new research, they do not form hypothesis, and they do not take an active role in the scientific community in order to actually bring that 'criticism' to fruition. Thats why I keep pointing this out over and over, because they are not actually doing the one thing that makes science science. That is, objective methodological analysis. So when you ask,"Why be afraid?" I have to point out that within scientific academia, I'm not afraid at all. Creationist never bring anything to the table in that regard. Unfortunately, what I am afraid of is in the public sphere. Where creationist ( who only represent evangelical christians and thats it ) attempt to force their anti-science religious agenda ( and mythology ) into public schools upon non-christians and other christians alike.

We can however point out exactly what they do:

They lie: Richard Sternberg
They misinform: Expelled the movie/Discovery Institute/AiG etc. etc.
They dismiss anyone that disagrees with their unscientific and religious views: Mathis

I'm getting the feeling that by the numerous red herrings and strawman you use against me, that you're not really paying attention to anything I say or do. It is likely, that you percieve me as some 'enemy' of your religion that must be attacked/opposed. My appeal to you is probably falling upon deaf ears. I provided you with the statement that I am infact an atheist, so that you could continue any personal tirade you have against people you can dehumanize and dismiss. Feel free to just take that next step against me or anyone who just happens to not be an evangelical christian creationist in your state.

Thank You,
Chad

This was the last exchange.

Chad, you did great. My hat's off to you. If you were local I'd buy you a beer.

Chad said: I had an email exchange with Mike Fair ( about the South Carolina anti-science bill ) and I've included the text below. I hope I didn't make a bad showing, but I attempted to put forth my thoughts clearly. This was the last exchange.

Any further news on XVIVO's threatened action or Expelled's counter action?

As of this last weekend expelled was still hanging on in three theaters (one theater chain) in the Seattle area. I'll bet the DI is paying them on the side to keep it running.

Expelled seems well on its way to DVD and late night Xian Trinity Broadcasting TV. Where it will join its inspiration, From Darwin to Hitler in endless reruns.

If anything could boomerang on the creos, it would be Expelled. The scientists killed the Jews lie is just too lame to be anything other than ridiculous on a good day, and trivializes and exploits an atrocity on a bad one.

Bad strategy for so called Xians. "We lie a lot and blood libel the foundation of our civilization (science), so god exists." More likely "we just lie a lot for murky political reasons and no one buys it but a few uneducated fanatics."

Hi All,

What a relief! "Expelled" is well on its way towards cinematic oblivion. Approximately three weeks ago it stopped screening here in New York City, and now, finally, the rest of the country seems to have grown tired of this pathetic example of cinematic mendacious intellectual pornography.

Regards,

John

P. S. Speaking of mendacious intellectual pornography, I just posted this rebuttal (slightly edited here) to favorite Panda's Thumb IDiot William Wallace, who has been posting too at the new location of Abbie Smith's ERV blog (www.scienceblogs.com/erv):

Dear William Wallace:

Why don't you crawl back from whence you came (Uncommon Dissent) and hang out with your fellow intellectually-challenged IDiots posting there? If you are a descendant of the great William Wallace, then I must say that yours is a family that has literally sunk to the nadir of human intellectual capacity, judging from your frequently bizarre, always inane, posts at Uncommon Dissent and Panda's Thumb.

You have the chutzpah to call me a liar? Why don't you take a real, hard look at yourself in the mirror?

As for someone who is indeed a genuine liar, thief and con artist extraordinaire, I must nominate my "pal" Bill Dembski; an assessment which many would agree with, including not only Abbie Smith, but also my friend Ken Miller, noted Brown University cell biologist and Jerry Coyne, eminent University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist
(whom I had the pleasure of meeting here in New York City at the Rockefeller University evolution symposium on May 1st.). Why?

Here's why:

1) Bill committed the legal equivalent of grand theft larceny against the Dover (PA) school board, by charging them $20,000 for "services rendered" as a potential defense witness, then declining to serve as such when he could not have his private attorney represent him during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.

2) Bill had a clip of someone farting associated with his online essay critical of Judge John E. Jones after Jones' historic ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.

3)Bill contacted the U. S. Department of Homeland Security two years ago, requesting that they investigate eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka as a "potential bioterrorist".

4) Bill orchestrated a "death threat" campaign against eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences.

5) Almost exactly one year ago, Bill, along with his fellow intellectually-challenged Uncommon Dissent pals (including Mike Behe) held an online "roasting" of Johns Hopkins biochemist David Levin, simply because Levin had spotted some errors in Behe's "research".

6) Bill made a rather crude, quite despicable, comparison of notable University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne with Herman Munster at Uncommon Dissent last year (Jerry thought that Bill's act was truly a very "low blow".)

7) Bill followed up this bizarre display of infantile behavior with another Uncommon Dissent comparison of distinguished University of California, Berkeley paleobiologist Kevin Padian with Archie Bunker, "rhetorically" asking whether Padian was the "Archie Bunker of evolutionary biology".

8) Bill has admitted at Uncommon Dissent - with ample malicious intent - that he stole a Harvard University cell animation video made by the Connecticut-based video production company XVIVO (This has been noted by others, including Abbie Smith, and David Bolinsky, XVIVO's president, elsewhere online.).

9) Last December, Bill tried to exercise a crude form of censorship against yours truly by asking Amazon.com to delete my harsh, but accurate, review of Bill's latest published example of mendacious intellectual pornography, otherwise known as "The Design of Life" (which I did read, but won't admit how I obtained a copy). He also organized an online smear campaign against me, which IDiot William Wallace has noted in his latest post here.

10) Almost two weeks ago, at Uncommon Dissent, Bill had the gall to whine and to moan about "rich Darwinists" like Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller for "making money" off of evolution. He also made the inane observation that we ought to support Intelligent Design since it is a "middle class" idea, whereas evolution is an "upper class" idea. Bill also made the absurd claim that he is a member of the middle class, when the real truth is that he is a graduate of a prestigious Catholic boarding school (Portsmouth Abbey), and had, growing up, a childhood that was far more "upper class" than either mine or Ken Miller's.

William Wallace contends that I have no right to "brag" about my high school alma mater, Stuyvesant High School, but I most certainly do for the following reasons:

1) Stuyvesant is regarded by many as the premier American high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics and technology.

2) Stuyvesant has had many distinguished alumni, not only its four Nobel Prize-winning laureates in the sciences, medicine and economics, but also distinguished scientists like physicists Brian Greene and Lisa Randall, molecular biologist Eric Lander (who lead one of the teams that sequenced successfully the human genome a few years ago), noted historians and economists like Lewis Mumford, Samuel Huntington and Thomas Sowell, political pundit Dick Morris, and famous actors such as James Cagney, Ron Silver, Tim Robbins and Lucy Liu (Best-selling memoirist Frank McCourt isn't a fellow alumnus, but instead, a former, still popular, member of Stuyvesant's faculty.).

3) Stuyvesant's current principal has pledged that Intelligent Design will never be taught there as long as he continues to serve as principal (I made this observation to Bill Dembski in private e-mail correspondence, and his reply was that he knew many Texas high school principals who wanted ID only, not evolution, to be taught in their science classes. Bill couldn't answer at all, when I observed that Stuyvesant's principal also teaches an advanced introductory physics course to one class of entering freshmen, and then, I asked whether any of these principals teach a similar course too.).

Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, Eugenie Scott, and I are frankly fed up with Bill Dembski's "frat boy antics". If he wishes to be taken seriously, then he'd better start submitting his "research" to peer-reviewed journals, AND act like a responsible adult online.

So, in conclusion, my dear delusional William Wallace, if anyone should be regarded as a liar and hypocrite, it isn't me, but instead, my "pal" Bill Dembski.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

What a relief! “Expelled” is well on its way towards cinematic oblivion.

— John Kwok

here in sunny Minneapolis, "Expelled" was down from an initial 15 screens to 5 screens last weekend. Only one of these was an urban theater; the others were outlying exurbs.

Frank J said: If fans make bootleg copies, would anyone bother to prosecute?

Note that the Missouri "academic freedom" bill was introduced on April Fools' Day.

Well, what did you expect?

Okay, a small overview. What I find most interesting is the amount PER theatre: Here are the numbers:

Apr 18–20: 23, $2,824 per theatre

Apr 25–27: 53, $1,340 per theatre

May 2–4: 58, $1,034 per theatre

May 9–11: 84, $818 per theatre

May 16–18: 101, $423 per theatre

Kim said: Okay, a small overview. What I find most interesting is the amount PER theatre: Here are the numbers:

Ravilyn Sanders said: Wish we could drive a wedge between the rubes who swallow the lies of DI and the con artists who benefit by peddling the lies.

Perhaps we need our own "Argument from authority", opening their eyes to walk the path of knowledge.

Can we use the Pope's infallibility superpower to influence the Catholics? What about the UMC and Francis collins for the Protestants? Another debate with Dawkins would be nice, it would show the viewers that there is no controversy in evolution.

Ravilyn Sanders said: Are we playing into their hand somehow? I get this nagging feeling that we are making it a no-lose proposition for the creo-cons. If the film makes tons of money they win money. If it fails, we are providing them with "see how much these evil atheist Darwinists are gloating" fodder for the grist mill. They win some PR points. It is not a scientific battle, it is PR battle, political battle. Wish we could drive a wedge between the rubes who swallow the lies of DI and the con artists who benefit by peddling the lies.

Are anti-evolution bills always introduced just before a session of the legislature ends? It seems like an awful convenient way to wave the flag of ignorance for the home crowd, safe in the knowledge that it will never have time to pass.

I agree that a per-theater analysis is better than total grosses or rank orderings in a given week. Some on the ID side tried to compare Expelled to An Inconvenient Truth without adjusting for number of theaters, which drops Expelled to about 84th in the all time opening week rankings for documentaries.

The death of the anti-evolution bill in the Alabama legislature had less to do with its idiocy and more to do with an utterly dysfunctional governing body. I am certain they will be back, because this state has so many intractable problems that the fundamentalists have given up trying to solve them and just play around with creationism instead.

I am glad to hear about the UMC resolution. Although I rarely go to church, when asked I will claim Methodism. They're still not where they should be on homosexuality, but this gives me some hope.

ellazimm said: Expelled seems to have a half-life of about a week.

As for someone who is indeed a genuine liar, thief and con artist extraordinaire, I must nominate my "pal" Bill Dembski; an assessment which many would agree with, including not only Abbie Smith, but also my friend Ken Miller, noted Brown University cell biologist and Jerry Coyne, eminent University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist (whom I had the pleasure of meeting here in New York City at the Rockefeller University evolution symposium on May 1st.). Why?

Here's why:

1) Bill committed the legal equivalent of grand theft larceny against the Dover (PA) school board, by charging them $20,000 for "services rendered" as a potential defense witness, then declining to serve as such when he could not have his private attorney represent him during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.

2) Bill had a clip of someone farting associated with his online essay critical of Judge John E. Jones after Jones' historic ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.

3)Bill contacted the U. S. Department of Homeland Security two years ago, requesting that they investigate eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka as a "potential bioterrorist".

4) Bill orchestrated a "death threat" campaign against eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences.

5) Almost exactly one year ago, Bill, along with his fellow intellectually-challenged Uncommon Dissent pals (including Mike Behe) held an online "roasting" of Johns Hopkins biochemist David Levin, simply because Levin had spotted some errors in Behe's "research".

6) Bill made a rather crude, quite despicable, comparison of notable University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne with Herman Munster at Uncommon Dissent last year (Jerry thought that Bill's act was truly a very "low blow".)

7) Bill followed up this bizarre display of infantile behavior with another Uncommon Dissent comparison of distinguished University of California, Berkeley paleobiologist Kevin Padian with Archie Bunker, "rhetorically" asking whether Padian was the "Archie Bunker of evolutionary biology".

8) Bill has admitted at Uncommon Dissent - with ample malicious intent - that he stole a Harvard University cell animation video made by the Connecticut-based video production company XVIVO (This has been noted by others, including Abbie Smith, and David Bolinsky, XVIVO's president, elsewhere online.).

9) Last December, Bill tried to exercise a crude form of censorship against yours truly by asking Amazon.com to delete my harsh, but accurate, review of Bill's latest published example of mendacious intellectual pornography, otherwise known as "The Design of Life" (which I did read, but won't admit how I obtained a copy). He also organized an online smear campaign against me, which IDiot William Wallace has noted in his latest post at Abbie Smith's blog (www.scienceblogs.com/erv).

10) Almost two weeks ago, at Uncommon Dissent, Bill had the gall to whine and to moan about "rich Darwinists" like Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller for "making money" off of evolution. He also made the inane observation that we ought to support Intelligent Design since it is a "middle class" idea, whereas evolution is an "upper class" idea. Bill also made the absurd claim that he is a member of the middle class, when the real truth is that he is a graduate of a prestigious Catholic boarding school (Portsmouth Abbey), and had, growing up, a childhood that was far more "upper class" than either mine or Ken Miller's.

So much for honest, decent, "Christian" behavior from devout "Christian" Bill Dembski, right? These aren't the acts of someone who truly abides by Christ's teachings, but rather, Lucifer's.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

10) Almost two weeks ago, at Uncommon Dissent, Bill had the gall to whine and to moan about “rich Darwinists” like Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller for “making money” off of evolution. He also made the inane observation that we ought to support Intelligent Design since it is a “middle class” idea, whereas evolution is an “upper class” idea. Bill also made the absurd claim that he is a member of the middle class, when the real truth is that he is a graduate of a prestigious Catholic boarding school (Portsmouth Abbey), and had, growing up, a childhood that was far more “upper class” than either mine or Ken Miller’s.

— John Kwok

Good riddance to "Expelled", at least until they get past any legal issues (Lennon lyrics, lamely copied animation, etc). Then they'll flood the DVD market. Yay. The evo/creo discussion forums were infested with fundies when "Expelled" firt came out; when the DVD hits the market it'll get even worse... lol

Kim said: Okay, a small overview. What I find most interesting is the amount PER theatre: Here are the numbers: Apr 18–20: 23, $2,824 per theatre Apr 25–27: 53, $1,340 per theatre May 2–4: 58, $1,034 per theatre May 9–11: 84, $818 per theatre May 16–18: 101, $423 per theatre

John:

don't forget Dembski's "Vise Strategy" (before Dover but after Kansas) where he showed a Darwin Doll with its head being crushed in a vise, and suggested it would be a good thing to put all scientists utilizing evolutionary theory through essentially an inquisition.

I'm sure the original thread about it is still in the archives around here somewhere...

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/the-vise-strate.html

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.11.Vise_Strategy.pdf

don't know if those links have the memorable image utilized by Dembski on his blog anymore.

Ding Dong the witch is dead?
Perhaps now I can sleep at night.
It was clear to any intelligent thinking human being that this movie was a charade. Even, it seems, the United Methodist Church.
They know that when you roll in a pile of dung, you come out smelling like shit.

It may be showing on fewer screens in the US, but a similar film is having some marvelous effects on the people of the Central African Republic. They've defeated witchcraft by watching a movie about Jesus!

I'm sure this is just priming the market for Expelled. It'll do much better in markets where the majority of viewers are likely to believe in black magic.

Ichthyic:

Yes, I vaguely recall that, and I forgot how I was alerted to it.

Incidentally, it's been approximately two weeks since Bill's last posting at Uncommon Dissent, and though I won't claim credit for it, I wonder if that has to do with my creation of an Amazon.com science forum entitled "Dembski Rants Against 'Rich Darwinists'" and reminding him that he owes me as compensation for his crude effort at Amazon.com censorship last December (as well as his online smear campaign against me) a near mint to mint Leica M7 rangefinder camera and a Zeiss 25mm Biogon lens, or else I might arrange for him to be "greeted" by Klingons - who will explain why Klingon Cosmology makes more sense than the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design - at each of his future public appearances. I also "encouraged" him to think seriously of returning the $20,000 which he stole from the Dover Area School District board back in 2005, prior to the trial, or else run the risk of being the subject of a new book written by a friend, a journalist who is a New York Times bestselling author.

Regards,

John

KevinS notes... Plus, if they ask real nice, the preliminary injunction might be lifted and give them a chance to sell a few DVDs before everyone forgets the movie even existed.

This is from the Wall Street Journal law blog ...

"Lawyers from both sides have declined to comment, but Columbia copyright guru Tim Wu told us this: “I don’t think this is a hard case; nor a close case. Playing 15 seconds of a song to criticize it is as fair as fair use gets. With respect to Yoko Ono: if this case isn’t fair use, then copyright law has become censorship law.”

But in the state court PI hearing this morning, Judge Richard Lowe wasn’t nearly as convinced as Professor Wu. Judge Lowe asked Falzone why it was necessary to use Lennon’s actual performance of the song, rather than, say, having Stein say the lyrics himself or flashing the lyrics on the screen. To this, Falzone gave what we thought was a compelling and novel reply. Lennon’s performance, said Falzone, triggers a specific emotional response in the viewer’s mind — i.e. “Maybe Lennon’s right; maybe the world would be better off without religion” — and it’s that response that the film, and its use of “Imagine,” seeks to criticize.

Judge Lowe seemed skeptical, and decided to stay the original TRO pending his ruling, which means that “Expelled,” currently playing in theaters around the country, cannot be reproduced or otherwise distributed."

Dear stevaroni,

It's my understanding that the injunction is against screenings of "Expelled" at those cinemas and other venues which were not the original ones on the date of its nationwide release (April 18th).

Regards,

John

kevin stafford said: It was clear to any intelligent thinking human being that this movie was a charade.

Tim Wu: Playing 15 seconds of a song to criticize it is as fair as fair use gets.

See here the weekly per theatre income for the top 12 political documentaries.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/2511777858_60ce6b348b.jpg?v=0

See the lonely line at the bottom, that is expelled.

-------------------

The documentaries:

Fahrenheit 9/11

Sicko

An Inconvenient Truth

Bowling for Columbine

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Roger and Me

The Fog of War

The Corporation

Control Room

Why We Fight

No End in Sight

The U.S. Vs. John Lennon

Kim, that's a very interesting plot. It'd be more striking on a linear scale, though. The gap between the top 11 and Expelled at 12 would be huge. Plots of cumulative gross would be striking, too.

For those wanting a quick summary, here's my description of Expelled's box office performance:

1. It got a decent open, doing 3 million its first weekend, and 4 million its first full week.

2. For the next three weeks, it decayed exponentially, losing just over half its weekly audience, so it made 4 + 2 + 1 + 1/2 = 7.5 million dollars. If it maintained that exponential loss, it would never break 8 million no matter how long it ran.

3. This last week has been different-it's dropping even faster---screens down by half, and weekend take down more than 2/3 over the previous weekend. It's losing per-screen take and thus screens even faster than before. (They can't stay ahead of the dropping per-screen take by dumping a third of the screens per week anymore. There just aren't enough profitable screens.) It appears to be going from having a half-life of a week to an even faster terminal plummet, so that it won't get most of the rest of the way from 7.5 to 8 million.

I don't see how one could even call it a documentary - it's so full of lies.
It's simply a piece of propaganda.

"Legislatures in three states—Louisiana, Michigan and Missouri—are considering academic freedom bills that would give teachers greater protection and freedom in teaching the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution."

Paul W. said: Kim, that's a very interesting plot. It'd be more striking on a linear scale, though. The gap between the top 11 and Expelled at 12 would be huge. Plots of cumulative gross would be striking, too.

"To this, Falzone gave what we thought was a compelling and novel reply. Lennon’s performance, said Falzone, triggers a specific emotional response in the viewer’s mind — i.e. 'Maybe Lennon’s right; maybe the world would be better off without religion' — and it’s that response that the film, and its use of 'Imagine,' seeks to criticize."

Novel? Sure. Compelling? Not even. Seems more like "last ditch effort to come up with something to justify the use of the actual music".

Really, think about it. The same emotional response wouldn't have been evoked if, say, Clay Aiken, Josh Brogan, or Garth Brooks were singing the exact same thing?

And speaking of "emotional responses", I though this was a documentary and that documentarians were supposed to present facts rather than emotionally steer people towards a certain conclusion with non-factual things like music.

Discuss.

Looks like the Monty Python sheep sketch:

"Notice how they do not so much fly as plummet".

:-)

For those interested, Newsday has reporting of the Yoko Ono Imagine plagiarism case. Ive tried posting the full link here, but unfortunately things hang when I hit preview ... so here's just the highlights

According to lawyer Anthony T. Falzone, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," was set to open in Canada on June 6 and DVD rights needed to be finalized by the end of May for distribution in October. He said an adverse ruling by Stein would mean "you have muzzled the speech of my clients" because they would have to replace the song with other images, losing the chance to make the issue important enough that it could even influence the U.S. presidential campaign.

"If you issue that injunction, you trample on these free speech rights and you put a muzzle on them and you do it in a way that stops them from speaking on this political issue leading up to the election," Falzone said.

If the ruling does not occur fast enough, "it truly jeopardizes the whole Canadian release and DVD date," the lawyer said. (shame!)

Ono has accused the movie's producers of infringing the song's copyrights by using portions of it without her permission, giving the impression that the Lennon family had authorized it.

Dorothy M. Weber, a lawyer for Ono, Sean Lennon, Julian Lennon and EMI Blackwood Music Inc., said the makers of the movie "took away their right to stay no."

She said the defendants _ Premise Media Corp. of Dallas, Rampant Films of Sherman Oaks, Calif., and Rocky Mountain Pictures Inc. of Salt Lake City _ had obtained authorization for the other songs used in the movie, a point the judge noted himself.

"We are not saying the film should stop being shown," she said. "We are talking about a small segment of the film we are asking be removed because it violates our clients' rights."

Falzone said the portion of the song _ "nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too" _ was central to the movie because "it has the most cultural force ... it represents the most popular and persuasive embodiment of this viewpoint that the world is better off without religion."

He added: "What they are criticizing here, your honor, is they're saying that happy, naive feeling you get when you hear the song and think about peace and children and play is dangerous, dangerously naive."

Falzone said the movie suggests "that this absence of religion paves the way for fascism, totalitarianism, Nazism."

"Really, what the film is doing is, it's asking if John Lennon was right and it's concluding he was wrong," the lawyer said.

He said the movie makers did not believe they needed to ask Ono's permission to use a portion of the song because it was not the entire song or enough of it to infringe on the copyright.

"Why would you ask somebody for permission to criticize their work?" he asked. "It's not likely it's going to be granted."

Weber acknowledged that there are instances when portions of songs protected by copyrights can be used without the copyright owner's permission, a legal right known as "fair use."

But, she said, "fair use is not about destroying the other person's market. It's about carving very, very limited exceptions to a copyright proprietor's monopoly."

Source: Newsday www.newsday.com

Greg du Pillw said: ... Ive tried posting the full link here, but unfortunately things hang when I hit preview ... so here's just the highlights

Did everyone see John West's little tantrum about the Washington Post piece? They are not good losers. I give it my two cents.

What amazes me is that when you get caught in a scam, you're supposed to distance yourself from it, not stand in the middle of it and scream "I am not a crook!" Do they really think anyone outside the sycophantic circle is going to buy that baloney any more?

Science Avenger said: Do they really think anyone outside the sycophantic circle is going to buy that baloney any more?

Thanks, Stacy S for posting the link. Now I really must brush up my HTML skills and the correct spelling of my own name!

Here's how I do the math.

Mathis has given the production budget as $3.5M and promotional costs as "multiples" of that. If you take "multiples" to mean "at the very least, twice," that gives total production and promotion investment of a bare minimum of $10.5M.

Now, I'll buy the half-life bit, and let's assume that US box office tops out under $8M. Let's assume that all of that went back to the distributors (almost certainly not true, but maybe true to the first order of magnitude). That still leaves them millions in the hole.

Haha ha HAAA ha ha. Sorry, that just slipped out.

Then there's that pesky legal issue about "Imagine."

Canadian release, planned for June 6? If Judge Stein calls for de-Lennon-ization, then the "Expelled" crew forfeit their long-planned Canadian release date and have to try, after the fact and as the newly edited version becomes available, to find a way to shoehorn their opus in among the very very lucrative blockbusters on the very very full summer screens of the multiplexes despite its demonstrated stinker status. (How much good money, I wonder, are they throwing after bad by publicizing the movie in Canada right now?)

The producers say it would take a month to edit a new, Lennon-less version of the film, by the way.

Worst of all, that month-long re-editing process would, the "Expelled" crew argue, mean that the scheduled October DVD release would also be out of the question, which means that they'll be deprived of their opportunity to speak to the 2008 electorate about this burning issue. (This need seems to come mostly from Michael Moore envy; just as they wanted -- but failed -- to duplicate Michael Moore's box-office success with "Fahrenheit 9/11", they also want to duplicate Moore's October DVD release date, and they may easily fail there too.)

Worse, it renders their multi-million dollar publicity campaign that much more irrelevant as time passes and the very tiny impression that campaign made on the public fades even further.

There's just no two ways about it: sucks to be them. As it says in Ecclesiastes, he who digs a pit shall fall into it, and did these guys ever dig a hole for themselves.

Canadian release, planned for June 6? If Judge Stein calls for de-Lennon-ization, then the “Expelled” crew forfeit their long-planned Canadian release date and have to try, after the fact and as the newly edited version becomes available...

deprived of their opportunity to speak to the 2008 electorate about this burning issue.

hmm, an image of a flaming bag on a doorstep comes to mind...

Stacy S. said: This is from the Wall Street Journal law blog ... "Lawyers from both sides have declined to comment, but Columbia copyright guru Tim Wu told us this: “I don’t think this is a hard case; nor a close case. Playing 15 seconds of a song to criticize it is as fair as fair use gets. With respect to Yoko Ono: if this case isn’t fair use, then copyright law has become censorship law.” But in the state court PI hearing this morning, Judge Richard Lowe wasn’t nearly as convinced as Professor Wu. Judge Lowe asked Falzone why it was necessary to use Lennon’s actual performance of the song, rather than, say, having Stein say the lyrics himself or flashing the lyrics on the screen. To this, Falzone gave what we thought was a compelling and novel reply. Lennon’s performance, said Falzone, triggers a specific emotional response in the viewer’s mind — i.e. “Maybe Lennon’s right; maybe the world would be better off without religion” — and it’s that response that the film, and its use of “Imagine,” seeks to criticize. Judge Lowe seemed skeptical, and decided to stay the original TRO pending his ruling, which means that “Expelled,” currently playing in theaters around the country, cannot be reproduced or otherwise distributed."

raven said:

Tim Wu: Playing 15 seconds of a song to criticize it is as fair as fair use gets.

They aren't criticizing the song in the movie. They are blood libeling science in general and evolution in particular. The movie is called Expelled, not John Lennon was an atheist. They will most likely just take it out if they don't get a quick ruling. Expelled is so bad, such a dismal pile of trash that it isn't going to miss 15 seconds of a stolen song. DVD release is supposed to be in October. I "imagine" that they will end up giving them away like free napkins at Starbucks.

Paul W. said: ... 2. For the next three weeks, it decayed exponentially, losing just over half its weekly audience, so it made 4 + 2 + 1 + 1/2 = 7.5 million dollars. If it maintained that exponential loss, it would never break 8 million no matter how long it ran. ...

fnxtr said: Looks like the Monty Python sheep sketch: "Notice how they do not so much fly as plummet". :-)

Nigel D,

How is taking "infinite time" different from "never"?

Also, I take "break" to mean "exceed"; you can't exceed what you're asymptotically approaching from below.

So it's, like, never ever.

I have to agree with the Expelled folks that their use of Imagine should be considered fair use.

I take Lennon to be one of the targets of their criticism and satire, and I think it's legit to play the actual performance---exactly what Lennon said, exactly the way he said it.

I certainly want the right to use 15-second clips of Ben Stein himself talking, video and all, to criticize Expelled. I'm willing to grant the former to get the latter.

I wouldn't want to have to quote Ben Stein and simply say that he said those things verbatim; I'd want to show him actually saying them himself. More impact that way.

Even if I'm mainly criticizing the ideas, and all the people who share them, I also want to single their heroes out for special, visceral ridicule.

Iconoclasm can be good, and Lennon performing Imagine is an icon that they want to clast. That's fair, even if their heads are entirely up their asses in every other way.

Paul W. said: Nigel D, How is taking "infinite time" different from "never"? Also, I take "break" to mean "exceed"; you can't exceed what you're asymptotically approaching from below. So it's, like, never ever.

Paul W. said: I have to agree with the Expelled folks that their use of Imagine should be considered fair use. I take Lennon to be one of the targets of their criticism and satire, and I think it's legit to play the actual performance---exactly what Lennon said, exactly the way he said it. I certainly want the right to use 15-second clips of Ben Stein himself talking, video and all, to criticize Expelled. I'm willing to grant the former to get the latter. I wouldn't want to have to quote Ben Stein and simply say that he said those things verbatim; I'd want to show him actually saying them himself. More impact that way. Even if I'm mainly criticizing the ideas, and all the people who share them, I also want to single their heroes out for special, visceral ridicule. Iconoclasm can be good, and Lennon performing Imagine is an icon that they want to clast. That's fair, even if their heads are entirely up their asses in every other way.

Paul W. said: So it's, like, never ever.

Nigel D said: cinema tickets are quantised

Sorry, the previous comment wasn't answering anyone specific, obviously.

And of course I meant to say Nigel time. D'oh!

Nigel D said: So, their defence rests in "fair use", and they are claiming that they are critiquing the response that Lennon's performance of Imagine evokes. They are not critiquing the actual song itself. Neither are they critiquing Lennon's performance of the song. They are critiquing the response that is evolked in listeners by Lennon's performance. I hope the judge throws them all in jail for taking the mickey (er, I mean, contempt of court).

Nigel D: I disagree with your conclusion to point 2. It would reach 8 million if it maintained the same exponential decay rate and if it ran for an infinite length of time. You essentially have an arithmetic progression…

stevaroni said:

Nigel D: I disagree with your conclusion to point 2. It would reach 8 million if it maintained the same exponential decay rate and if it ran for an infinite length of time. You essentially have an arithmetic progression…

Ah, but Nigel, given the curve, at some point N(viewers) falls to less than one, forcing us to make a decision. Do we round down to zero, pulling the plug in the name of a justified mercy killing? Do we round up, allowing them one viewer, forced to watch the same drivel day after day till he gets above 1.0 viewings (I vote we use Behe and Dembski at the tail end)? Or do we simply start slicing up IDiots into pieces and stay on the curve? (OK, it's mean, but somehow appealing. Again, I vote we use Behe and Dembski)

...you did specify “no matter how long it ran for”.

Perhaps you can define unbounded time as “never” even though the process is well defined. But that seems cheating IMHO.

And of course I meant to say Nigel time.

MartinM said: Which is entirely correct; the interval between any two points in time is finite, by definition.

Paul W. said: I'm happy saying Zeno's wrong about the arrow. But the arrow only works because of infinitesimal time.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I'm not sure where an interval was assumed except by construction, but one can push the bounds on intervals indefinitely.

Except that they don’t critique Lennon’s song.

The film is aimed at the “scientific establishment” (whatever that is). John Lennon is not, and has never been, a scientist. If Ben were to stand there and say “John Lennon’s song was rubbish for reasons X and Y and Z” that would be fair use of the song. Does he do this?

Again, that would give problems with limits at infinity as I understand it. And I find them very useful at times. :-P

To conservatives, Imagine is the atheist version of Kumbayah.

Bill Gascoyne said:

To conservatives, Imagine is the atheist version of Kumbayah.

Except that Kumbayah is in the public domain. You seem to be implying that what conservatives think of a song determines whether or not Yoko Ono gets to exercise her rights. The fact that conservatives think a certain song represents a given set of ideas does not give them the right to declare "fair use" when they use that copyrighted song to represent and criticize those ideas. The criticism is of the ideas, not the song, so I don't see how fair use applies.

Except that Kumbayah is in the public domain.

You seem to be implying that what conservatives think of a song determines whether or not Yoko Ono gets to exercise her rights.

The fact that conservatives think a certain song represents a given set of ideas does not give them the right to declare “fair use” when they use that copyrighted song to represent and criticize those ideas. The criticism is of the ideas, not the song, so I don’t see how fair use applies.

Anyone who describes people who accept the theory of evolution as "Darwinists" is a creotard. Mike Fair is a creotard, trying to not look like one.

Shebardigan said: Approaching the Y axis from the left in the manner of Zeno (time intervals of 1/2, 1/4, 1/8...) one eventually arrives at an interval equal to the Planck time, and tunnels across

Paul W. said: I think there's an issue of how to translate the vernacular "never." For most people, not happening at any finite time, no matter how large, is indistingishible from never. What would a mere physicist know about that, anyway? :P

Paul W wrote: "I think that the Expelled people recontextualized and transformed that snippet of Imagine in a way that should count as fair use."

Paul, they used, as they admit, a completely unaltered sound recording of the song. How the bleepin' %^&#@ did they "recontexualized and transformed" that (as you say) "snippet".?

Not at all. It wsa not altered in any way. Leans towards not fair use.

OOH! You say the meaning of the words was altered by their magical juxtoposition of images ... OK fine, but that only covers the lyrics, how do you account for fair use of the music?

Anyone?

Ay-yi-yi! This is all getting too involved for a poor biochemist to follow.

Paul - OK, they'll never make $8M, even if Excreted - uh, sorry, I mean Expelled - were to run for an unbounded length of time.

Stacy - thanks for the compliment. I'm not sure how deserved it is.

Paul (again) - I can see that you might have a point, although I'm not sure I can agree with it. I think the key thing is how one defines exactly what it is that the relevant segment of the film is critiquing. Not living less than 3,000 miles from a theatre that is showing the film, I cannot go and see it (and I wouldn't want to, in fact). If it is clear that the critique is of Lennon's thoughts pertaining specifically to Imagine, then it could be fair use. However, my understanding is that the critique is sufficiently general that it cannot genuinely be claimed to be a critique of Imagine. Since (if this is correct) the film does not specifically critique the song, then it is not fair use.

Bear in mind also that the producers sought and obtained permission to use all of the other music that is in the film - how is Imagine treated differently?

Andy G said: Paul, they used, as they admit, a completely unaltered sound recording of the song. How the bleepin' %^&#@ did they "recontexualized and transformed" that (as you say) "snippet".?

OOH! You say the meaning of the words was altered by their magical juxtoposition of images ... OK fine, but that only covers the lyrics, how do you account for fair use of the music?

Paul, your point is more than clear, apart from one component - how exactly is Expelled a critique of Imagine?

I agree that playing 20 seconds (or whatever) of Lennon's song for the purpose of critiquing the song is fair use. However, you have not explained how Expelled does this. Are they critiquing the song, or ar they critiquing a set of ideas? Does the song represent those ideas to the extent that it and no other song is clearly, only and always identified with those ideas?

I think the key thing is how one defines exactly what it is that the relevant segment of the film is critiquing. [...] I cannot go and see it [...] If it is clear that the critique is of Lennon’s thoughts pertaining specifically to Imagine, then it could be fair use. However, my understanding is that the critique is sufficiently general that it cannot genuinely be claimed to be a critique of Imagine. Since (if this is correct) the film does not specifically critique the song, then it is not fair use.

Bear in mind also that the producers sought and obtained permission to use all of the other music that is in the film - how is Imagine treated differently?

The whole movie is now missing in action. Box Office Mojo now does not include it at all on its screen count list; looks like that dashing archaeologist whipped Stein out of general release.

Here's a clue of how over it is:

http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/showtimes.html?z=orem%2C+ut&r=sim

Yes, in Family City USA -- Orem, Utah -- there are no screens showing "Expelled" and one screen showing "Ferris Buehler's Day Off."

That's gotta sting.

So Paul, or any one else who wants to answer, if Ben Stein had gone over to a piano and they had used his piano version along with the images, would you call that Fair Use? If so (or not), why?

So Paul, or any one else who wants to answer, if Ben Stein had gone over to a piano and they had used his piano version along with the images, would you call that Fair Use? If so (or not), why?

Here's a new article on the lawsuit!

To conservatives, Imagine is the atheist version of Kumbayah.

try proving that in a court of law.

Ichthyic said: try proving that in a court of law.

Paul W. said:

Ichthyic said: try proving that in a court of law.

The burden of proof is on Yoko. I think the Expelled folks should win on that count. (Which is not the same thing as predicting that they will.) On the other hand, I think they should lose on the XVIVO count. That was just a ripoff.

Stacy S. said:

Paul W. said:

Ichthyic said: try proving that in a court of law.

The burden of proof is on Yoko. I think the Expelled folks should win on that count. (Which is not the same thing as predicting that they will.) On the other hand, I think they should lose on the XVIVO count. That was just a ripoff.

Why should Yoko Ono have to prove that 'Imagine' is the atheists version of Kumbayah? She doesn't have to prove anything like that - just that they used the song illegally. No problem there - they have admitted they didn't ask permission. Premise Media has to prove their claim that it should be fair use.

Stacy, it looks as though Premise Media will have a hard time defending itself, either in the XVIVO or Ono law suits (Though there are those over at Uncommon Dissent who claim that the Stanford Law School’s “Fair Use Project” will save Premise Media from the legal wrath of Ono and the brothers Lennon.)

Elsewhere, Michael Shermer noted recently that he had tried to quote from a Lennon song - I believe it was also “Imagine” - had asked Ono, and she refused. So why would any thoughtful person honestly believe that Premise Media’s usage of “Imagine” in “Expelled” constitutes fair use?

Careful Paul: "Fair Use isn’t about whether you would have gotten permission if you’d asked. It’s set up so that you can use stuff it limited ways for critical and satirical purposes even if the copyright holder explicitly refuses permission."

Fair Use for satirical purposes is NOT written into the law:

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

Dear Paul W.:

Only a delusional IDiot like yourself would think that Ono will lose. Having read numerous opinions about this issue already, I am inclined to agree that her law suit will be a "slam dunk" against Premise Media, simply because, as Andy G has just noted, "Fair Use" does not cover satirical usage; which, exactly, is how "Imagine" is used in "Expelled".

John

Only a delusional IDiot like yourself would think that Ono will lose.

The problem is that Expelled licensed most of the other songs, except for John Lennon's song. It will be hard to argue that their actions represented a valid criticism of the song. We shall see how things evolve here but copyright is there for a reason.

The problem is that Expelled licensed most of the other songs, except for John Lennon’s song.

It will be hard to argue that their actions represented a valid criticism of the song.

We shall see how things evolve here but copyright is there for a reason.

Paul W. said:

The problem is that Expelled licensed most of the other songs, except for John Lennon’s song.

I've explained already why I don't think that's a problem. Premise Media is not claiming that all uses of all songs in movies are fair use. That would be silly. They are criticizing Lennon's song, and just using the others in the usual movie soundtrack way. The fact that they respect copyright for normal purposes but assert Fair Use for Imagine makes perfect sense to me.

They are criticizing Lennon’s song

But why were they so careful in getting licenses for all the other songs except this one?

I think this is going to be a very big free speech case so no matter what the verdict expelled with be forever associated with the issue which is a great PR score on the producers part.

Stacy S. said: @ Paul W. - At what point do they do this? ...

They are criticizing Lennon’s song

RotundIOne said:

Stacy S. said: @ Paul W. - At what point do they do this? ...

They are criticizing Lennon’s song

Imagine is the theme song for atheism. The movie is anti-atheism.

RotundOne said: But why were they so careful in getting licenses for all the other songs except this one?

They are criticizing Lennon’s song

At what point do they do this?

You think it is completely illogical to defend the use of the song as fair use?

Worse of course is that the movie is not about atheism as much as it is about science expelling people...

RotundIOne said: You think it is completely illogical to defend the use of the song as fair use?

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

RotundIOne said: You think it is completely illogical to defend the use of the song as fair use?

No, your logic as to why it should be considered fair use is faulty. Fair use says you can satirize or criticize the song; you're claiming that the song is associated with something else that is being criticized: criticism through indirect association. Doesn't wash.

Stacy S. said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

RotundIOne said: You think it is completely illogical to defend the use of the song as fair use?

No, your logic as to why it should be considered fair use is faulty. Fair use says you can satirize or criticize the song; you're claiming that the song is associated with something else that is being criticized: criticism through indirect association. Doesn't wash.

Exactly! "That was a bad note ... they shouldn't have used that note" - would be a criticism of the song. - They simply are not criticizing the song. They are trying to USE the song in it's present form as an argument for the movie.

But they are critizing the lyrics. I think the beatles songs should be public domain. They have been around long enough and enough money was made on them.

RotundOne said: But they are criticizing the lyrics. I think the beatles songs should be public domain. They have been around long enough and enough money was made on them.

" Lennon’s performance, said Falzone, triggers a specific emotional response in the viewer’s mind — i.e. “Maybe Lennon’s right; maybe the world would be better off without religion” — and it’s that response that the film, and its use of “Imagine,” seeks to criticize."

John Kwok says to Paul: “Only a delusional IDiot like yourself would think that Ono will lose.”

.

And Paul responded: “If you assume I’m an IDiot because I disagree with you on subtleties of a point of fair use law, you’re just a regular all-lower-case idiot.”

.

I tend to agree with Paul assessment regarding Kwok. But in Kwok’s defense, many here seem to be of a similar neo-Darwinian and somewhat paranoid mindset and groupthink; and perhaps Kwok’s behavior here will help others see their own lack of objectivity, discernment, rigor. BTW, in the contest between Yoko and Stein, I’d bet my left testicle that Yoko loses.

bigbang said: John Kwok says to Paul: “Only a delusional IDiot like yourself would think that Ono will lose.” . And Paul responded: “If you assume I’m an IDiot because I disagree with you on subtleties of a point of fair use law, you’re just a regular all-lower-case idiot.” . I tend to agree with Paul assessment regarding Kwok. But in Kwok’s defense, many here seem to be of a similar neo-Darwinian and somewhat paranoid mindset and groupthink; and perhaps Kwok’s behavior here will help others see their own lack of objectivity, discernment, rigor. BTW, in the contest between Yoko and Stein, I’d bet my left testicle that Yoko loses.

And quite frankly, the various delusional, closed-minded, and ignorant folks here are almost invariably creationists. Odd, that.

bigbang said: BTW, in the contest between Yoko and Stein, I’d bet my left testicle that Yoko loses.

"But they are critizing the lyrics."

That's as may be, but it's no excuse for denying the composer his or her rights to the music s/he wrote, which are also protected by law. A fair use ruling in this case MUST address, by the letter of the law, a valid Fair Use of the music. So far y'all have made some good arguments for use of the lyrics as being criticism, but as far as the music? I'm not convinced.

The defending lawyer said “Lennon’s performance ... triggers a specific emotional response in the viewer’s mind ... it’s that response that the film, and its use of “Imagine,” seeks to criticize.” Pretty scary for this guy to dare to suggest that every single person is going to have the same exact emotional response, but that's beside my point here. My point is that criticism of the emotional response to a song is not criticism of the song. Paul W. (somewhere above) posited "The music in Lennon’s song is “wrong”—it has the wrong “feel”. Aside from the fact that music can neither be "right" nor "wrong" except in one's opinion (and judges tend to rule based on facts, not opinions), any criticism that the "feel" is wrong is also not criticism of the song itself.

In order to be Fair Use for purposes of criticism or commentary (what the filmmakers are claiming in this case), they must prove that they commented on or criticized the music itself which they clearly did not (If perhaps the filmmaker's had actually gone into an analysis of why the musical elements combined to make the feel "wrong" in relationship to the lyrics, I might actually buy the argument. But they did not.) They did not, in any way shape or form, criticise or comment on the music. Hence, no Fair Use for use of the MUSIC.

Really people, if the judge rules in favor of Yoko Ono in this case, in what way will it affect YOUR Freedom of Speech rights? It won't at all. This case will not overturn anything existing in Fair Use law - it will still be there to protect you and your rights.

they must prove that they commented on or criticized the music itself.

bigbang said: Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can; No need for greed or hunger; A brotherhood of man; Imagine all the people; Sharing all the world. . Imagine Yoko suing Ben Stein; I'm certain that you can; Unfair use of her possessions; She doesn’t care to share; The irony escapes her; Yoko doesn't like to share.

Paul W. said: OK, I'll grant the point about satire per se. However, this is clearly criticism---the satire is making a critical point closely related to and supportive of the theme of the movie. I am not a lawyer, and am not up on the detailed precedents, etc., and I'm not predicting which way the decision will actually go.

Only a delusional IDiot like yourself would think that Ono will lose.

Hyeesh. I'm a scientist and a hardcore atheist who has made pro-science and antireligious videos. My main interest in this is in what I can get away with in criticizing religion and antiscience crap like ID. Being able to use clips of their stuff against them without getting sued within an inch of my life would be very helpful. It would also be very helpful if an atheist organization that I helped found many years ago could financially support such things without incurring a lot of legal liability. We can spend thousands of dollars to produce some videos, but not millions to defend ourselves in court. That's why I'd prefer that fair use provisions be broad and clear---so that we know when we're within our legal rights, and can expect a judge to throw out a suit against us without our having to pay a fortune in legal fees. If you assume I'm an IDiot because I disagree with you on subtleties of a point of fair use law, you're just a regular all-lower-case idiot. I might be wrong, but I'm not religious, not an IDer, and I'm not dumb---at least not so dumb as to make an assumption like that.

Boy-the trolls sure do come out "all fired up" after a good sermon on Sunday morning, don't they?

RotundOne replyed to my : “they must prove that they commented on or criticized the music itself.”

with

“I do not think that is true. Is there a source where the law says this?. They are using the song as an example of an popular atheist world view.”

The latter first: My contention is that they are not using THE SONG as an example, they are using THE LYRICS OF THE SONG as some sort of example. They have provided no good evidence that the use of the MUSIC is a Fair Use under law.

So, as to the former: It’s a fair question. Here’s the Fair Use law

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

“… the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”

The defending lawyers have already said that they are claiming this is fair use for the purposes of criticism and comment (quite rightly, because the other reasons clearly cannot apply).

What they “used” was a recording of the song “Imagine”, which contained both the words and the music. Anytime a song is copyrighted, there is always a copyright for the writer of the lyrics and one for the composer, the person who wrote the music. In this case, John Lennon happens to have written both.

If the producers of Expelled had used “My Favorite Things” from “The Sound of Music”, they’d have the film company suing them for copyright infringement for use the the exact recording they used without permission, Oscar Hammerstein III’s heirs suing for copyright infringement for the use of the lyrics without permission, and the heirs of Richard Rodgers suing for copyright infringement for use of the music without permission.

See how that works?

So, if the lawyers are saying that the use of the song is fair but are only saying it’s fair because of the use of the lyrics, in my hypothetical case above, Richard Rodger’s rights have been well and royally screwed. So if the use of the MUSIC is to be considered fair use on the basis of comment and criticism, then, yes, I am correct – they need to prove they commented on and/or criticized the music.

And of course, as confused as people are already about what is and what is not Fair Use, we don’t need judges making rulings one way if the songwriter wrote both words and music but a different way if the lyrics were by one person and the music by a another person.

See even when make a point favorable to the ID side based on your unbiased interpretation of law you are called an IDiot. If you are not complete in lockstep you are an ‘IDiot’. This is what is scary about the anti-ID movement. I think this is why Stein brings up the Nazi’s: this constant use of the word IDiot is so reminiscent of some sort of SS goon.

Cleanup cycle initiated.

Expelled lost more than half its remaining theaters going into this weekend, down to 83, but is still losing per-screen revenues and it's estimated to do about $30K for the whole weekend, across the country.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=expelled.htm

Cumulative gross is still under $7.6 M. If it the gross keeps dropping by two thirds or more... well, somebody else can do the math if they want, but it's not going to get to $7.7M and is pretty well dead in the water.

He is bringing the culture wars to a central battleground. And having your opposition represented by Yoko is just a best case scenario.

RotundOne said: The buzz about the expelled movie will far out last the movie itself.

"Expelled is a flop of monumental proportions, beyond even my wildest dreams. It will be gone and forgotten before the next president is sworn in."

We can only hope, Avenger. While I personally do not like the message of the film, and I do not find their tactics honest, I still do believe they have the right to air, show, give away for free, whatever, their movie. But the version without "Imagine" in it.

What I really detest though was one line of reasoning the defending attorney Falzone was using to try to convince the judge that to issue a full injunction on the film until the offending use was removed would be unfair: One claim he made was that an injunction would cause his client to miss their planned October 2008 DVD release which they needed to do in order to correspond with the Presidential election cycle. Yes, they actually all but came out and said "Hey judge, you HAVE TO call this Fair Use or my clients lose their rights to influence American elections". Pretty astounding.

Oh heck, I can't find the link to the web site where I read this. I'm not at my regular computer. I shall post link when I find it.

Happy Memorial Day everyone!

Link for the above:

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-34/1211330049252130.xml&storylist=simetro

Stacy S. said: @ Paul W. - At what point do they do this? ...

They are criticizing Lennon’s song

Hey y'all,

You might get a kick out of this one:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2008/05/27/5681551-ap.html

I don't think that's going to help Premise Media with the trademark case...

Paul W. said: Expelled lost more than half its remaining theaters going into this weekend, down to 83, but is still losing per-screen revenues and it's estimated to do about $30K for the whole weekend, across the country. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=expelled.htm Cumulative gross is still under $7.6 M. If it the gross keeps dropping by two thirds or more... well, somebody else can do the math if they want, but it's not going to get to $7.7M and is pretty well dead in the water.

Paul W. said:

I think the key thing is how one defines exactly what it is that the relevant segment of the film is critiquing. [...] I cannot go and see it [...] If it is clear that the critique is of Lennon’s thoughts pertaining specifically to Imagine, then it could be fair use. However, my understanding is that the critique is sufficiently general that it cannot genuinely be claimed to be a critique of Imagine. Since (if this is correct) the film does not specifically critique the song, then it is not fair use.

I think it's pretty clear in context.

They interview PZ and say that he's not very original, he's just "taking a page from John Lennon's songbook" or something like that. Then they play the clip of Imagine juxtaposed with video of Communist stuff. They're saying pretty clearly that

1. John Lennon is wrong, and PZ is wrong, and they are wrong in the same way.

2. The stuff in Lennon's song and the interview with PZ about how life would be better without much religion is wrong. 3. The music in Lennon's song is "wrong"---it has the wrong "feel"; showing scary commie stuff while playing it shows the "real" consequences of PZ's and Lennon's ideas.

I'd say that's clearly social & artistic criticism with that specific song and Lennon among the targets.

Of course, it's shameless dishonest propaganda for the side that's wrong, but that doesn't make it not fair use. (In fact, that makes it even clearer that it is fair use; this is very clearly not just ripping off a song and using it for free.)

Bear in mind also that the producers sought and obtained permission to use all of the other music that is in the film - how is Imagine treated differently?

AFAIK, they were just using the other songs, not criticizing them. They should pay for those songs for the usual reasons. They also had reason to think that Yoko wouldn't license Imagine, because the movie was attacking that song. (Or that if they duped her into licensing it, she'd sue about being duped.) Better to just use it and defend it as fair use. By the way, I do think Yoko has a legitimate complaint that some viewers would think she approved the use of the song. It would be reasonable to require the movie to show a notice saying "Imagine by John Lennon used without permission under fair use" or something like that. But that's it.

dpr wrote: "The only downside is that their studio will doubtless go “bankrupt” and “disappear” after the they lose the suits and XVIVO and Ono won’t get any monitary compensation. Personally, I’ll settle for them getting the control of the film itself and Expelled never seeing the light of day again."

I'm not sure where the XVIVO suit went - anyone know? But I know and am grateful that Yoko Ono has enough money not to worry about not getting the exact $ damages she seeks. I have no doubt she sued on principal, not for money (but, you have to hit 'em in the pocketbook or they - and others - will pull the same tricks again).

I'm pretty sure Expelled will see the light of day again, but that's OK - that will prove the point that, while admittedly some people do not like the message, the filmmakers do have the right to spread that message - they just need to use legal means to do so.

Tangent Alert!

Just as a "moral dilemna" aside; WWJD if He ordered a DVD of Expelled after an injunction had been ordered and He received a copy that still had "Imagine" in it. Not supposed to distribute that copy? Hmmmm ...

That's why it's better the Plaintiffs get their hands on all the current copies that aren't supposed to be sold. It would be a shame if some innocent church pastor accidently showed a copy of something the production company was not supposed to sell in the first place.

I do not believe that relying on the juxtaposition of the song to a generic criticism of some of the ideas it contains constitutes a criticism of the song. And therefore it is not fair use.

It appears that the judge went beyond denying an injunction and issued a finding of fact that the use of Imagine is fair use. She might appeal, but Yoko lost.

Here's the judge's decision, which says the same kinds of things I said above, citing precedents etc. See especially the discussion of "transformative use" starting around page 15.

http://acandidworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/08-02066.pdf

Paul W. said: It appears that the judge went beyond denying an injunction and issued a finding of fact that the use of Imagine is fair use. She might appeal, but Yoko lost. Here's the judge's decision, which says the same kinds of things I said above, citing precedents etc. See especially the discussion of "transformative use" starting around page 15. http://acandidworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/08-02066.pdf

Just a quick comment about some biologists "making money off evolution".

Francisco Ayala certainly does not need that. He was married to Sheraton heiress Mitzi Henderson for years (she went on to re-marry chicken magnate Frank Perdue). How anyone can think that selling books on evolution can buy acres and acres of vinyards is beyond me...