Saturday, May 27, 2006

In The Sewer

Guess who got a Cease & Desist letter?

Copyright infringement is such a beeeayatch!

Hat Tip: JREF Forums

52 Comments:

At 27 May, 2006 16:11, Blogger nesNYC said...

Sometimes you just have to break the rules and let the chips fall where they may. Being the Loose Change producers have no money and the video is already in the public domain the letter is too little too late. However, I fully expect it to get pulled from google any day now. However, the video is still available in its entirety on P2P networks so..

I know you guys wet your pants with this one but it really don't mean squat. In fact, it may bring even more publicity to the video if it is blacklisted.

 
At 27 May, 2006 16:20, Blogger Pat said...

NESNYC, that's life. Lots of stuff out there that people download, like you say this might result in more folks seeing it because of the story.

I'm glad that Dylan and his buddies are going to be in court for the next decade.

 
At 27 May, 2006 16:55, Blogger Chad said...

DUDE!!! The comments over at the LC forum are PRICELESS.

i'm sorry but how can you copyright footage of a natural disaster such as this

This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - donĀ“t you think?

These guys [the Naudets] are part of the system and they served some sort of purpose on 911. And this may be part of it.

So now the FRENCH are in on it? Sorry nesnyc. You guys just lost that tiny miniscule thread of pseudo-credibility you had going for ya'.

HAHAHA!!

(..... the effing French. Priceless.....)

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:29, Blogger nesNYC said...

I'm glad that Dylan and his buddies are going to be in court for the next decade.

It may be true that he'll be in court for the next decade but it doesn't necessarily need to be so. This is a clear case of infringement, what can they argue? The fines will be so excessive they really won't even get the chance to pay not even a percentage of it. I'm sure they'll have to pay something but being first time offenders the judge and jury might be lenient if the government doesn't tamper with the process. If they end up in jail for a long time, then the movie did indeed touch on some truths because the criminals will then have made them political prisoners.

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

Sorry nesnyc. You guys just lost that tiny miniscule thread of pseudo-credibility you had going for ya'.

No need to apologize. Loose Change is but one small part of the movement that is spreading so fast its spurring action like this to squelch dissenting viewpoints. Just because you loose one finger doesn't mean you can't write anymore. The movement will go on with or without Loose Change and that is what is really frightening the neo-fascist establishment of which you guys are part of.

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:35, Blogger roger_sq said...

It's not a lawsuit or an indictment, kids. It's a cease and desist order. It's what you get when you use someone's work without authorization. The creator of the content can ignore it, or demand you stop. If you don't stop, they can sue you. If you do stop, they can still sue you but is generally not worth the effort unless huge money is involved. LC ain't huge money.

It happens all the time. Hell, James just committed copyright infringement on Ann Coulter two posts ago, the rights to which are owned by Hearst Media, thus James is now a candidate for a lawsuit. But he's nowhere near as important as Dylan Avery, so he won't get any mention.

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:46, Blogger nesNYC said...

It's not a lawsuit or an indictment, kids. It's a cease and desist order. It's what you get when you use someone's work without authorization. The creator of the content can ignore it, or demand you stop. If you don't stop, they can sue you. If you do stop, they can still sue you but is generally not worth the effort unless huge money is involved. LC ain't huge money.

It happens all the time. Hell, James just committed copyright infringement on Ann Coulter two posts ago, the rights to which are owned by Hearst Media, thus James is now a candidate for a lawsuit. But he's nowhere near as important as Dylan Avery, so he won't get any mention.


Very true! The cease and desist is needed in any planned action however, it IS the first step and unfortunately for Loose Change, there is no way to retract what's already out there so I'm sure a suite will commence shortly. Copyright infringement happens all the time but it's only enforced when the "powers that be" want to prove a point or copyright holders think they're missing part of the action somehow. We'll see how this turns out.

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:53, Blogger Pat said...

Uh, NESNYC, unless the courts dramatically expand the DMCA, I cannot imagine them serving any time. The issue in the lawsuit is money.

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:53, Blogger Chad said...

I actually agree with nesnyc that this'll probably only make the film more popular. And I have a feeling that nothing substantial will result out of any of this.

What's telling though is the mentality of the people that follow this crowd religiously. As soon as their prophet of truth comes under fire, "it's the French!"

You CTers can sit their and say those of us in the real world have a blind-faith mentality when it comes to the government.

But only after a long, hard look in the mirror.

 
At 27 May, 2006 18:25, Blogger James B. said...

I am no lawyer, but it has always been my understanding that you are allowed to use small excerpts, such as my Ann Coulter snippet, for academic purposes. If I were charging people $17.95 each to view this blog, then I would pay more attention.

 
At 27 May, 2006 19:38, Blogger Chad said...

CTers Update:

The Naudet brothers are now suspected Freemasons.

 
At 27 May, 2006 20:33, Blogger T-Bone said...

I just can't wait for Dylan's response: "We are not going to recognize this letter because it is a fake. My driveway is not wide enough to accomodate mail truck. Despite several eyewitness accounts that the mailman delivered this letter, one man thought he saw the mailman carrying a net. The letter is dated on the day before Memorial Day weekend (mail doesn't run on that day). My neighbor got a call from Condi Rice warning him that official letters were being served that day. Based on all that, there is only on conclusion. The letter faked by an angry dog-catcher."

 
At 27 May, 2006 20:40, Blogger nesNYC said...

Uh, NESNYC, unless the courts dramatically expand the DMCA, I cannot imagine them serving any time. The issue in the lawsuit is money.

I'm pretty certain the DMCRA has provisions for fines and jail time but not sure of the extent. What I think will happen is they might have a judgment levied and when they can't pay it, they will be cited with contempt. That's usually how things can go no? I have to dig through the DMCRA and check it out again.

 
At 27 May, 2006 20:43, Blogger nesNYC said...

The Naudet brothers are now suspected Freemasons.

There were always questions about these two documentary producers as they coincidentally were the only ones to film the first strike. I never took it seriously but hey, you never know...

 
At 27 May, 2006 21:09, Blogger Pat said...

Yeah, and Zapruder was there for a reason, right? ;)

 
At 27 May, 2006 22:01, Blogger roger_sq said...

I am no lawyer, but it has always been my understanding that you are allowed to use small excerpts, such as my Ann Coulter snippet, for academic purposes. If I were charging people $17.95 each to view this blog, then I would pay more attention.

I've paid exactly $0 for the pleasure of watching (rewatching, and referring dozens of others). Worthe every penny I might add. They have sold some copies apparently. The cease and desist specifically cites the removal of free editions of LC2 from the web, a curious overstepping of the "education clause" to which your defense of excerpts is indicated for.

But no, you could esaily be sued for the breach as posted. It's just unlikely anyone cares. Time Warner sues people routinely for violating their copyright on "Happy Birthday" which they own.

 
At 27 May, 2006 22:08, Blogger shawn said...

I've paid exactly $0 for the pleasure of watching (rewatching, and referring dozens of others).

Ah, the spread of disinformation. Much like a virus, no?

Back and to the left, roger! Back and to the left!

 
At 28 May, 2006 01:13, Blogger roger_sq said...

Ah, the spread of disinformation. Much like a virus, no?

Back and to the left, roger! Back and to the left!


I found it to be extremely educational. Clearly the rest of you have learned all kinds of things you'd never have known without it. My point is, I paid $0 to Dylan and it was worth every penny.

And yes, you've cought me. I'm part of a vast consiracy to plant leftist disinformation on right leaning bulletin boards. The IWW has me on salary, with funds they acquired through Jimmy Hoffa's mob ties and the extortion of protection money from the 700 club. And the Jews. They're always in on it.

 
At 28 May, 2006 01:14, Blogger nesNYC said...

Here's another for the copyright police :D

 
At 28 May, 2006 06:15, Blogger shawn said...

I found it to be extremely educational.

Are you honestly that stupid? As has been said before, practically the only thing they got right was the date.

The factual and logical errors the film makes are legion.

 
At 28 May, 2006 06:17, Blogger shawn said...

And yes, you've cought me. I'm part of a vast consiracy to plant leftist disinformation on right leaning bulletin boards. The IWW has me on salary, with funds they acquired through Jimmy Hoffa's mob ties and the extortion of protection money from the 700 club. And the Jews. They're always in on it.

Strawman, I never said it was some conspiracy (I don't think like you nutjobs, my worldview is painted by logic). I don't think Dylan and Co. believe in the movie they made (much like I doubt Dan Brown believes the historically incorrect background of the Da Vinci Code), but they knew most Americans (including yourself) are ignorant enough in the facts and the basics of logic and logical fallacies that you'd buy their movie hook, line, and sinker.

 
At 28 May, 2006 06:29, Blogger shawn said...

I'm sure you thought JFK was educational, too.

Back and to the left, Roger! Back and to the left!

(I wish you knew why I mocked you with that line. Sadly, I highly doubt it.)

 
At 28 May, 2006 06:37, Blogger shawn said...

If they end up in jail for a long time, then the movie did indeed touch on some truths because the criminals will then have made them political prisoners.

Do you ever get sick of using logical fallacies?

 
At 28 May, 2006 07:29, Blogger MarkyX said...


The factual and logical errors the film makes are legion.


Yeah, and I'm done with my videos debunking loose change :D

Just waiting for a reply :(

 
At 28 May, 2006 07:32, Blogger BG said...

I commented pretty far down on this post.

It's intesting to see the evidence, based on this this post, and Pat's comment ("in court for the next decade"), to see how clearly the purpose of this blog is a grudge match against the filmmakers of Loose Change rather than this being about a reasoned debate of the obvious cover up of what happened on 9/11.

 
At 28 May, 2006 09:59, Blogger nesNYC said...

but they knew most Americans (including yourself) are ignorant enough in the facts and the basics of logic and logical fallacies that you'd buy their movie hook, line, and sinker.

Same mechanism is at work for the Bin Laden lie.

 
At 28 May, 2006 10:31, Blogger shawn said...

Yeah, and I'm done with my videos debunking loose change :D

You've made you own videos? I'd like to see them. I'd sure Pat or James would link to them as well.

Same mechanism is at work for the Bin Laden lie.

As I'm not ignorant...

Prisonplanet isn't a valid source, either.

 
At 28 May, 2006 10:46, Blogger Realist06 said...

Glad to see them "in court for the next decade"?

Well I'm glad to see you finally come clean and show that this is a personal vendetta against the filmmakers, instead of a serious rebuttal to the movie's presentation.

The court case has nothing to do with 9/11 Truth and has everything to do with money. The Naudet brothers clearly saw LC's amazing success and want a chunk of it.

Whether they are "in court for the next decade" or not, has no bearing on LC3E. The lawsuit cannot stop this movie from being made. They don't NEED the Naudet clips to make LC3E turn America upside down.

 
At 28 May, 2006 11:00, Blogger shawn said...

Whether they are "in court for the next decade" or not, has no bearing on LC3E. The lawsuit cannot stop this movie from being made. They don't NEED the Naudet clips to make LC3E turn America upside down.

I love how the Truthers have no problem with the Big Lie turning America "upside down".

'His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.' - OSS report on Hitler's Big lie technique

Sounds exactly like Dylan and Co. and their film.

 
At 28 May, 2006 11:01, Blogger shawn said...

Well I'm glad to see you finally come clean and show that this is a personal vendetta against the filmmakers, instead of a serious rebuttal to the movie's presentation.

I'd rather not see them in prison, just ridiculed for myriad logical fallacies and factual inmaccuracies.

 
At 28 May, 2006 12:20, Blogger MarkyX said...


Well I'm glad to see you finally come clean and show that this is a personal vendetta against the filmmakers, instead of a serious rebuttal to the movie's presentation.


Want to see my movie? I do both, using their own footage against them.

 
At 28 May, 2006 13:19, Blogger shawn said...

Want to see my movie? I do both, using their own footage against them.

I'd like to.

 
At 28 May, 2006 13:27, Blogger MarkyX said...

Waiting for a response from the Screw Loose Change and the author of Loose Change Viewer Guide.

 
At 28 May, 2006 15:59, Blogger Pat said...

Markyx, sure!

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:17, Blogger Scott said...

I was wondering when this would happen. Of course, I was hoping it would be left alone from copyright holders, as LC pushes people to look at it from another view. It's how a lot of people got into the movement, it's the first 9/11 theory movie I saw. The only difference is that some stuck with LC, just as ignorantly as a Bush supporter, and others began questioning LC as well, wondering if it does more harm than good for those who seek alternate theories. I can understand that besides copyright violations, there are many other things wrong and speculated as the only possibility in LC, but I see no reason to completely discount them or hope they spend the next ten years in jail.

I have to side with copyright holders on this. They have a right to believe what they want, and have their work used as they wish. Violating that to achieve a goal is no better than warrantless wiretapping and phone record collecting for another unprovable agenda. I like this quote, "Fighting for Peace is like F*ck*ng for Virginity". It makes sense, are you really the good guys if you "force" peace on someone?

I hope the LC crew work on a 3rd edition, answering all the inaccuracies and getting their message across without copyright infringment. As another post pointed out, they are slick with their "factoids" and music. Can you blame them for doing what works? I hope they continue doing what works, but with the corrections. We are supposed to be on the same side, not wishing bad things on each other. Help each other out instead of calling people idiots and claiming "fallacy" and "sequitur" without any explanation.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:25, Blogger shawn said...

better than warrantless wiretapping

Not illegal.

and phone record collecting

Next you'll tell me the Constitution isn't consitutional.

claiming "fallacy" and "sequitur" without any explanation.

You don't know what a non sequitur is (it's a logical fallacy itself)? And why should we have to explain every logical fallacy we point out? The first time I've pointed out each separate logical fallacy on the blog, I explained it then. If someone continues using the fallacy I explain it again. Everyone should know the basics of logical thinking and logical fallacies.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:42, Blogger Scott said...

I feel that using fancy terminology and insults are just as bad as the tactics you claim LC uses. I'm sorry if I missed your previous posts where you explained why you or whoever thinks this or that is a fallacy, which is why you or whoever feel that you can continue using the word without re-explaining. They obviously didn't understand, so wouldn't putting it in other, easier to undestand, words be the correct plan of action?

I just don't believe you will ever get someone to side with you if you call them an idiot, brainless moron, or get on their case for not understanding a fancy word, and base their intelligence on everything because of that word. You could be completely right in everything you say, but who wants to listen to someone too lazy to explain and would rather take an ego trip?

When I say "you", I'm not pointing out any particular person or discussion on a particular blog post, as I'm new here and have no preference towards any author. Just combining some of the things I've noticed so far...

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:49, Blogger shawn said...

Scott, the problem is i explain why something is logical fallacy over and over and over again and people continue using those fallacies. At that point the frustration mounts till you can only insult the person, because even the most basic precepts of logical and critical thinking have been thrown out the door.

You can't argue fallacies, and you can't argue against them. You can only point them out.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:56, Blogger shawn said...

Hell, I've explained the post hoc logical fallacy to at least four different posters on this blog, yet they (nesnyc chief among them) continue to use it as 'evidence' for a conspiracy by the government.

It goes a little something like this.

The government has done terrible things.

9/11 was a terrible thing.

Ergo, the government committed 9/11.

 
At 28 May, 2006 19:19, Blogger shawn said...

Oh, thought so. Nesnyc and roger are now pretending logical fallacies don't exist (under the guise of my supposed misuse of them, which has yet to occur).

 
At 29 May, 2006 17:37, Blogger Chad said...

Scott, I have to agree with Shawn. There really is no arguing.

I've been commenting here for the past couple weeks and at times, the frustration level is overwhelming. I think what the CTers fail to realize is that speculation and happenstance don't make for solid facts.

And it's virtually impossible to debate people like that, regardless of how pleasant you come across.

PS - Happy Memorial Day

 
At 29 May, 2006 18:03, Blogger nesNYC said...

Prisonplanet isn't a valid source, either.

See, this proves my point and why you guys will NEVER get the correct story and always want some "official" source to keep you in hypnosis. Didn't anyone tell you not to judge a book by its cover?

The Prisonplanet link I posted refers to a series that aired on BBC and if you took the time to look at it, you'll conclude that "Al Qaeda" and Bin Laden are nothing but global bogeymen pushed by the US government. The devils in the details... THAT YOU ALWAYS MISS!

 
At 29 May, 2006 18:54, Blogger undense said...

See, this proves my point and why you guys will NEVER get the correct story and always want some "official" source to keep you in hypnosis. Didn't anyone tell you not to judge a book by its cover?

The Prisonplanet link I posted refers to a series that aired on BBC and if you took the time to look at it, you'll conclude that "Al Qaeda" and Bin Laden are nothing but global bogeymen pushed by the US government. The devils in the details... THAT YOU ALWAYS MISS!


You mean details like this:

In particular the third film makes a shocking revelation. The terrorist group al-Qaeda in fact does not exist. It was made up in January of 2001 in order to prosecute Osama bin Laden in his absence. In order to prosecute bin Laden there had to be an organization like the Mafia for which he was a part of. Under the law if such an organization exists then the head of the organization can be prosecuted under the law. So in order to bring the prosecution they made up the organization and called it al-Qaeda.

Mention of al Qaeda goes all the way back to the mid-90s. Curis is full of **** and even rabid anti-war liberals have lambasted his documentaries as speculative and unproven.

btw, welcome to 2003. Curtis's theories were tossed out as specious garbage long ago.

 
At 29 May, 2006 19:39, Blogger shawn said...

Wow, nesnyc. Looks like I was right not to follow you to that ridiculous website.

 
At 29 May, 2006 22:16, Blogger The Watcher said...

It's a little embarrassing that the lawyers letter has a typo and makes reference to the "Untied (sic) States of America"...

 
At 30 May, 2006 10:59, Blogger Realist06 said...

You guys can stop the circle jerk.
Dylan has already settled up with the Naudet brothers and the Truth Movement is rolling right along!

 
At 30 May, 2006 17:28, Blogger Chad said...

He settled up with two of the co-conspirators!?!?!

... shocking.

 
At 30 May, 2006 18:06, Blogger Pat said...

Chad, you have to remember that Dylan is part of the second-level conspiracy.

 
At 30 May, 2006 19:09, Blogger shawn said...

the Truth Movement is rolling right along!

So if that movement can label itself the Truth Movement, can we now call anyone wanting war a peace supporter?

 
At 30 May, 2006 19:09, Blogger shawn said...

Orwell is spinning in his grave thanks to you guys, realist (what a misnomer you got there, pal).

 
At 04 June, 2006 13:21, Blogger Falco98 said...

I'm kinda surprised they pussied out instead of letting themselve be dragged to court and sued -- they would have gotten alot of attention for their cause, and it would only have cost them a few hundred thousand in litigative costs (how are those t-shirt sales going, guys?)

i would have figured that the money would have been nothing to them but for a chance to get their word out there. heh.

 
At 10 June, 2006 10:26, Blogger dylan avery said...

this is my first and only post on this absolutely assinine website.

we did not get a "cease and desist" letter. anyone with half a brain would realize that there is absolutely no legal merit to their claims, or their letter. it's a four page threat.

we didn't "pussy out" and we're not going "to be in court for the next decade", much to your chagrin, I'm sure.

we are clearly covered under "fair use" and even the lawyers suing us know it.

you guys really need to focus your lives on something more positive. i could care less about this site.

we know we're right, and the 9/11 family members are on our side. except for maybe debra burlingame.

the best part is, if we weren't on to something, sites and people like this wouldn't exist.

why fight something, unless you're afraid of it?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home