Michael Moore being sued for illegally used footage

[kogase]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Edit: I guess I do care about some things... truth, honor, strength, courage...

Good for you. I'm sure you'd make a wonderful Klingon. :roll:

What?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Edit: I guess I do care about some things... truth, honor, strength, courage...

Good for you. I'm sure you'd make a wonderful Klingon. :roll:

What?

It's a commentary on the idealism of principles. The only place I ever see these principles consistently applied is by fantasy characters.

In real life people claim these ideals and rarely live up to them. I'm sure Michael Moore would claim to care about truth, honor, etc as well. What he really means is he cares abotu HIS idea of truth, honor, strength, courage because he sure doesn't demonstrate any such principles to me or a lot of other people. Either that or he applies them to everyone else and gives himself a "get out of principles free" card.

If you do live both those principles and apply them equally and fairly, well good for you. You are a rarity. Please run for president some day because we haven't had such a principled president in decades, if ever.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Harvey
If Moore and his staff did due dilligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

Anybody but me see the parallel here? 😛

If you mean a parallel between using film footage and starting a war, there's a considerable difference in the levels of moral responsiblity. Assuming the worst case, that Moore did not have authorization from by the person who owned the rights, using the footage in a movie didn't cause the deaths of over 1,400 U.S. troops and thousands of other people, and it didn't spend us into trillions of dollars of debt for generations to come.

Any parallel you think you see is a pathetically small minded view of the planet.

 

[kogase]

This is a placeholder comment, to let you know I haven't "forgotten" about this thread. I'll edit it and deliver some fantastic insight into whatever we're talking about when I have the time.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kogase
This is a placeholder comment, to let you know I haven't "forgotten" about this thread. I'll edit it and deliver some fantastic insight into whatever we're talking about when I have the time.

I'll be looking forward to it, future Mr. President. 😉

::salute::

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


None of your comments on any of those issues come to mind, because you spend most of your time on war related threads. But in any case, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are equivalent to the names of football teams, in my mind. Differences in policy are generally trivial, and the defining aspect of either of these two sides is: whatever they support at the moment. Your insistent support for the war, regardless of facts, makes you a "conservative" in my mind. Your continued support of the president despite his incompetence and lack of honor makes you a "conservative" in my mind. And your lack of respect for people on either side of the fence, so long as they disagree with you, makes you an extremist on whatever side you are actually on... in my mind.

Support for the war does not make one conservative nor does opposition to the war make on a liberal. There are liberals who can see past all the doom and gloom rhetoric, knee-jerk-slogna-filled-hyperbole, and revisionist history of their brethren and support the war for reasons that go beyond WMDs.

Nor do I "support" Bush. I support truth and attempt to illuminate that truth when the liberals begin their spinning and bending of it with their loonie new liberal math that so often shakily atempts to equate correlation with causation in ways that common fruitcakes and nutcases wouldn't even attempt.

If you want to believe I'm a consrvative and a Bush supporter in your mind, help yourself. To me it's merely yet another example of a liberal deluding themself and basing their opinions on beliefs instead of facts.[/quote]

Your opinion is fair enough, although you fail to acknowledge the more concrete liberal arguments in opposition to the war. Surely, a liberal with a mind critical enough to disagree with his own self-avowed bretheren should be able to acknowledge the weaknesses in his own argument.

Also, I have never seen you argue anything w/r/t taxation, redistribution, inequality, corporatism, class mobility, class conflict, class identity, women's rights, minority rights, immigrant's rights, aboriginal rights, education, health care, pension rights, labour rights, Keynesian economics, neo-classical economics, Austrian economics, prisioner rights, Marxism, Existentialism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, European relations, foreign aid, foreign policy (outside the ME), Aids in Africa, the environment, conservation, economic imperialism, marketing imperialism, urban decay, urban sprawl, the commercialization of urban public spaces, the commercialization of academic research, the commercialization of medical research, corporate influence in politics, labour influence in politics, NGO influence in politics or the dumbing-down of mass culture.

C'mon, man, give us something!

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kogase
This is a placeholder comment, to let you know I haven't "forgotten" about this thread. I'll edit it and deliver some fantastic insight into whatever we're talking about when I have the time.

I'll be looking forward to it, future Mr. President. 😉

::salute::

Well, I don't know about insight... but upon further analysis of your most recent posts (the ones which I, as a PN newcomer, have seen and contributed to), your behavior fits in with the positions you stated in this thread. Although I disagree with just about everything you have said about the war, you clearly believe yourself to be right, and therefore you adhere to at least one of the values I regard as important: honesty. I don't think I'd want to be president, actually. This country is made up of people who don't deserve the democracy they have. I'd rather subjugate the vile masses and rule them until my death or willing resignment with an iron fist.

Also, I am relatively new here, as I already stated. So please excuse me if I have missed anything, and if, therefore, TLC is in fact a lying scumbag.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


None of your comments on any of those issues come to mind, because you spend most of your time on war related threads. But in any case, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are equivalent to the names of football teams, in my mind. Differences in policy are generally trivial, and the defining aspect of either of these two sides is: whatever they support at the moment. Your insistent support for the war, regardless of facts, makes you a "conservative" in my mind. Your continued support of the president despite his incompetence and lack of honor makes you a "conservative" in my mind. And your lack of respect for people on either side of the fence, so long as they disagree with you, makes you an extremist on whatever side you are actually on... in my mind.

Support for the war does not make one conservative nor does opposition to the war make on a liberal. There are liberals who can see past all the doom and gloom rhetoric, knee-jerk-slogna-filled-hyperbole, and revisionist history of their brethren and support the war for reasons that go beyond WMDs.

Nor do I "support" Bush. I support truth and attempt to illuminate that truth when the liberals begin their spinning and bending of it with their loonie new liberal math that so often shakily atempts to equate correlation with causation in ways that common fruitcakes and nutcases wouldn't even attempt.

If you want to believe I'm a consrvative and a Bush supporter in your mind, help yourself. To me it's merely yet another example of a liberal deluding themself and basing their opinions on beliefs instead of facts.

Your opinion is fair enough, although you fail to acknowledge the more concrete liberal arguments in opposition to the war. Surely, a liberal with a mind critical enough to disagree with his own self-avowed bretheren should be able to acknowledge the weaknesses in his own argument.

Also, I have never seen you argue anything w/r/t taxation, redistribution, inequality, corporatism, class mobility, class conflict, class identity, women's rights, minority rights, immigrant's rights, aboriginal rights, education, health care, pension rights, labour rights, Keynesian economics, neo-classical economics, Austrian economics, prisioner rights, Marxism, Existentialism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, European relations, foreign aid, foreign policy (outside the ME), Aids in Africa, the environment, conservation, economic imperialism, marketing imperialism, urban decay, urban sprawl, the commercialization of urban public spaces, the commercialization of academic research, the commercialization of medical research, corporate influence in politics, labour influence in politics, NGO influence in politics or the dumbing-down of mass culture.

C'mon, man, give us something!

I participate lightly in threads that deal with some or many of those subjects. However, they are not my current primary interest so they are not my focus as well. I do make my opinion known on many of those subjects. But quite possibly, because those comments most often echo the liberal mindset, they are lost in the wilderness?

You probably don't take much notice when I agree with you on a subject.

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kogase
This is a placeholder comment, to let you know I haven't "forgotten" about this thread. I'll edit it and deliver some fantastic insight into whatever we're talking about when I have the time.

I'll be looking forward to it, future Mr. President. 😉

::salute::

Well, I don't know about insight... but upon further analysis of your most recent posts (the ones which I, as a PN newcomer, have seen and contributed to), your behavior fits in with the positions you stated in this thread. Although I disagree with just about everything you have said about the war, you clearly believe yourself to be right, and therefore you adhere to at least one of the values I regard as important: honesty. I don't think I'd want to be president, actually. This country is made up of people who don't deserve the democracy they have. I'd rather subjugate the vile masses and rule them until my death or willing resignment with an iron fist.

Also, I am relatively new here, as I already stated. So please excuse me if I have missed anything, and if, therefore, TLC is in fact a lying scumbag.

I may have more posts than you, but you registered 4 days before I did. I'm more of a n00b than you are. 🙂

 

[imported_Condor]

Certainly a man well respected among his peers!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due diligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

Lets see! How does this two faced stuff go? Bush lied, thousands died when he got inaccurate information. M. Moore gets bad information and publishes someone elses artwork and it isn't any big ethical hit? Good work! Building respect for mindless libs one OOPS at a time!

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due diligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

Lets see! How does this two faced stuff go? Bush lied, thousands died when he got inaccurate information. M. Moore gets bad information and publishes someone elses artwork and it isn't any big ethical hit? Good work! Building respect for mindless libs one OOPS at a time!

The problem with your attempt at exposing liberal hypocrisy is that the first scenario is not interpreted as you put it by liberals for the most part. They don't think he got inaccurate information and acted on it. They think he was planning to act by hook or by crook, and just touted the information to appease the public. But then you probably already knew that. Interpreted that way, comparing those two is as comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due diligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

Lets see! How does this two faced stuff go? Bush lied, thousands died when he got inaccurate information. M. Moore gets bad information and publishes someone elses artwork and it isn't any big ethical hit? Good work! Building respect for mindless libs one OOPS at a time!

Did you just compare bad information that got a ton of people killed and bad information that cheated someone out of the copyrights?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due diligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

Lets see! How does this two faced stuff go? Bush lied, thousands died when he got inaccurate information. M. Moore gets bad information and publishes someone elses artwork and it isn't any big ethical hit? Good work! Building respect for mindless libs one OOPS at a time!

Did you just compare bad information that got a ton of people killed and bad information that cheated someone out of the copyrights?

Although the two differ in the severity of the ends, the means deal with the same moral quandary. At least as interpreted by Condor.

 

[imported_Condor]

And you are saying M. Moore didn't? It has been published that even Saddam's own ministers and generals didn't know the truth so how could our President have had more knowledge than they?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due diligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

Lets see! How does this two faced stuff go? Bush lied, thousands died when he got inaccurate information. M. Moore gets bad information and publishes someone elses artwork and it isn't any big ethical hit? Good work! Building respect for mindless libs one OOPS at a time!

Did you just compare bad information that got a ton of people killed and bad information that cheated someone out of the copyrights?

Bad information is bad information. I compared someone accused of lying because they had bad information and biased enemies to someone excused from lying because they had bad information but biased champions. Inputs are inputs! Outputs are outputs! The magnitude was not the question and thousands were going to get killed regardless. We had been attacked. If Bush hadn't responded, it would have stayed on our streets, not in Iraq. The fact that one was cursed as a liar with bad information and the other was blessed as a victim is the quandary.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Condor
And you are saying M. Moore didn't?

I'll have to assume you were talking to me... I didn't reinterpret your assessment of Michael Moore's situation. So no, I'm not saying anything about Michael Moore.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due dilligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

I remember some discussion awhile back, about the time of F9/11's release, that Moore did in fact do just that in using footage of soldiers or families or something like that. I never looked any deeper because my opinions of Moore match what I flushed down the toilet a little while ago.

Then perhaps you should not say anything at all, rather than try to discredit someone you don't like with your unsubstantiated hearsay?

The discussion was on here, dimwit -- sorry if I didn't spell that out for you. This ENTIRE BOARD is unsubstantiated hearsay.

Gosh, oh gee willikers, Andy. Thanks for your informed opinion. I'm sure Michael Moore is crushed by it. He always speaks well of you... Well, at least, he's never said anything negative about you to me.

Rednecks and idiots call me Andy, Harv -- which are you? 😉

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: kogase

Then perhaps you should not say anything at all, rather than try to discredit someone you don't like with your unsubstantiated hearsay?

The discussion was on here, dimwit -- sorry if I didn't spell that out for you. This ENTIRE BOARD is unsubstantiated hearsay.

Pronunciation: 'hir-"sA
Function: noun
: RUMOR

Okay, now that we have that straightened out... let's examine the 4 posts before yours. First the OP. He linked to a news article. Not hearsay. The second post:

" I'm sure he canafford to pay the man royalties "

Sounds like an assumption based on sound evidence, not a rumor. I'm going to go ahead and say that this isn't hearsay.

The third post:

" The article you link says 'Plans to sue'. "

Simply a fact. Not hearsay.

The fourth post:

" If Moore and his staff did due diligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it. "

First we have Harvey's assessment of the situation based on his knowledge of the legal system. Then we have his take on the ethics of the situation. Not hearsay.

You say that the discussion was on this board? Okay, post a link to that discussion, and only if that discussion contains proof of what you were talking about. Until then, what you said is hearsay.