Fair use covers a number of things. For instance,

Incidental (ie by accident). If you had interviewed someone in a public area, and a nearby radio belonging to a third party had ACCIDENTALLY been recorded, then you could claim that the inclusion of the music was not on purpose. This goes for capturing trademarked or copyrighted items in the background- e.g. a product advert on a bus.

Where you are maintaining use of material that you have already paid a fee to use. eg. A library finds that a book has had a page torn out. The Librarian photocopies that page (and that page only) from another copy to stick in.

Making minor changes does NOT make it a new work, under your copyright (for instance no one can release a song to which the lyrics are “Think that there are no countries”)

The claim that it is being used for commentary is playing with syntax. Use for commentary and review means on the work it’s self. A reviewer could criticise a movie, then play a clip without permission to demonstrate his point. A teacher may reproduce a short(ish) poem as a teaching aid- you can’t teach iambic pentameter without good examples, nor discuss the social commentary the writer is trying to make.

HOWEVER the review can NOT say ‘this film is crap- watch this’ and play the entire movie. Teachers have to use commercially available books for novels, even where the author has been dead more than 70 years, for to photocopy an entire book would be breaching the IP of the published medium (ie the book and its pages), if not the work. This is where the limit of 5% on works over a certain length kicks in.

Crediting the IP/Copyright/TM does NOT exempt you in any way, shape or form.

Even a small amount of research, looking at the copyright sites for the US and UK would have made this all abundantly clear. (Note not Wiki- the actual government sites, ‘talk to the Organ Grinder, not the monkey’). These site gave the examples (or close to) the examples I gave.

It is made VERY clear that the best thing to do is approach the IP holder for permission. This song is NOT integeral to the film- there is NO fair Use Defence. Start saving guys.

Thankyou for clarifying chance vs. natural selection. You are correct. It is understood that natural selection is not a “willy-nilly” matter. The origins of it, however, the initial impetus to start the climb up mount improbable, the intitial push to start the slope for natural selection to ensue, is not explained in any terms labeled other than chance. The great unknown beginnings of life are always explained in chance terms, as are the beginnings of the cosmos entire. So even though natural selection is ordered and seems to have a mind of its own sometimes (forgive the unintended alusion), I used the term Chance in an over-arching description of the whole process from its inception, referring to my earlier post. I hope this clarifies.

N

To your question about God being Omnipotent (all powerful). No - actually that is not a contradiction, because we find out later in the Bible that it was for an example for man to rest 1 day out of the week. Besides 1 day for an eternal God is probably like us stopping to wipe our brow while we work.

To your second statement — I don’t care if people are trying to say that ID is different from Creationism - like I’ve said before - I don’t know what all ID is trying to put forth - but, yes, it sounds like Creationism to me. And I don’t know why we need to hide it. My point is there is nothing wrong with mentioning or teaching it in the schools. As far as I am concerned - Evolution is a religious belief also - it is based on faith not facts. It’s fine to teach it as a theory - I have no problem with that either. The real point is - none of this violates the true intent of Separation of Church and State and Judges shouldn’t be deciding what one school district decides to teach - as long as it does not violate the laws of the land or is deemed harmful to the children.

You say you are a scientist — then put all of your evidence out there and I’ll put mine out there - and let the people decide for themselves. Remember this is a free country - I can’t force your kids to believe in God and you can’t force mine to believe in Evolution.

When my kids were in Social Studies, around the 6th grade, they came home with their books and there were a few chapters on the different religions of the world, - their beliefs and their practices. I didn’t have any problem with that - it gave me the chance to talk to them about those things. I’m saying the same thing here - there are some very interesting theories even in the ID/Creation side that maybe you’ve never even heard of — like the Canopy Theory. But, when you don’t give kids the option - they come home saying - why doesn’t my teacher believe in God? Why do they only teach evolution? - I thought God created everything. See - it’s OK for you guys to put doubts in my kids minds - but, not OK for us.

Why are you guys so afraid of this? Why do you guys fight it so much — because a God may be involved? Just as the guy says on the film (which I haven’t seen yet - but going to) - if I said aliens were involved - you would be OK with that.

I just want to quote you for a second.

You said:
“…it is not a matter of a wave or two of a magic wand millions of years ago. Intelligent motive force is ongoing and constant. Medical science will never advance until we get research funding to people who understand ID and the implications of the immaterial nature of life.”

You are 100% correct on saying this and it was much better said than I could have mustered up. I want to thank you for managing to say what I wanted to but never quite found the way. I’m a molecular biologist in the medical research area. It is so true, whether anyone on here wants to admit it or not, that in order to get funding, grants, etc. you better not be against evolution. It really is career suicide. I’m not as mentally strong as some in the field yet, so I hold my tongue and stay pretty quiet about my feelings. My boss does the same. I also know of a whole lot of others that do it as well. It’s not just a few scientists that don’t believe in evolution. I personally know quite a few. It’s too bad and will change in the future, I guarantee. Also, in reference to drugs and medical science not advancing, you’re dead on. Every time we think we advance, we don’t because if the research is flawed at the bottom of a theory (by this I mean that you don’t question a theory by upper scientists, even if you know it’s wrong or your funding has a great chance of being pulled) then everthing developed from it is as well. I’m not just talking evolution though, I’m talking science in general. If you find results that mean it’s hard to get published or will disagree with an upper scientists’ theories, just forget about it. That’s science now; a whole lot of sheep (and this is exactly what they say about Christians but it’s everywhere). A whole lot of pride running things.

Anyway, thanks for what you said. It was well done.

Are YOU not offended by what Monkey Tales is writing, or this just ANOTHER example of your double standards?

If standing up and being counted separates me from the bigotry and racism you spew… I gladly stand up and be counted.

I was going to ask you why you had a problem with Obama, but not Hillary, but that answer has become pretty obvious.

Your white hoodie is showing.

Splendid. I love it when I can come to the chaos of a blog site, see a bunch of people (not all, but most) acting like a bunch of pauncy hair-dressers, throwing attitude, and then I ask a calm ordered question of someone else who seems calm, and presto! - a calm sane ordered discussion emerges! Is this design or evolution? lol

Your comment about that last paragraph of mine was well said; I should probably have qualified the statement. Science is God neutral. Or at least should be all the time. I was referring to some slights I have experienced within the classroom as someone who is partial to ID (which MUST be a philisophical theory, simply because it lacks the one thing scientific theories have: possible implausibility - no matter what mechanism one finds in the universe, a God Who wants to test faith and personal mettle instead of minds will not be findable, and thus, not judgable by science), however I am not a college prof, so the possible dangers labeled in the film never touched me. I do not know any of the people in the film, nor many profs for that matter, so I can make no judgements about the backlash some of these profs seem to have had. In any event, belief, whether atheist or theist or other, should be neutered, as in neither condemned nor encouraged, but also neither endorsed nor surpressed. Which means, if a scientist wished to postulate a philisophical theory of ID, that should be fine. Atheist scientists postulate all the time, rather loudly and boldly - this I know from college. I have distinct memories. This may be splitting hairs, as atheism is not an organized religion, nevertheless is still a belief system. Anyway I digress…

As far as the eyes go of the phyla Mollusc and phyla Chordata, even though the evolutionary pathways were not identical, as Dawkins has said (paraphrase) “the odds of the exact same evolutionary pathway being traveled twice by unrelated specimens is vanishingly small”, the results are strikingly similair. I am not sure which is more odd via evolution, that the same pathway would be taken, or the near same result was made in unrelated specimens, not just with the eyes of these two, but repeatedly with many different structures in many different unrelated specimens.

Regardless, this has been swell.

N