- Texas Rep. Gohmert on Aurora shooting: We’ve told God ‘we don’t want him around’
- Muslim cleric’s letter to the Sun about preventing sex assault
- Argentine Rx: Take 70 Beetles And Call Me in the Morning
- Fox News not pleased with St. Paul Saints’ Atheist Night, calls for ‘All good Christians to pray for rain’
- Egypt sentences “swingers” couple to 7 years in jail
- The horror! The horror! A TV channel for faceless women.
- Boy Scouts: Our ‘anti-gay’ policy stands
- 10-year-old gives birth to baby boy
- Parents: Neighborhood watch death not God’s plan
- Global outrage over QLD’s ‘gay panic defence’
- APPARENTLY IF YOU ENJOY ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES ‘THEY ARE DOORWAYS TO DEMONIC POSSESSION’
Clips https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4, BBC newswipe episode, allahu akbar, Quack PSA, Fox and Friends, Jesus Camp, Michelle Bachman on Gays, A Few Good Men.
4 comments on Episode 57: Do Not Take Part in Skull and Bones
It’s true that certain fair uses are permitted, at least in theory, without permission of the copyright holder. As you mentioned, one such permissable use is parody; however, fair use is almost always somewhat of a legal gray area, requiring court intervention whenever there is a dispute. The rightsholder may disagree that the amount of the work used qualifies actually qualifies as fair use, for example. Considering that those seeking to exercise their fair use rights are often up against wealthy content owners with armies of lawyers, and there are many factors which will influence a court decision on this matter, reliance on fair use can have quite a chilling effect on people thinking about actually exercising the fair use rights that they, again in theory, possess. There is just too much uncertainty.
Also, there are some common uses which are NOT permissible under fair use doctrine. For example, using content for the purpose of parody can be permissable, using it for satire may not be. The American Bar Association published an excellent distinction in this matter. This is not the only exception.
There is a difference between a copyright and a licence. The copyright shows that you claim ownership of the content, but it doesn’t say anything about what permissions you are granting to others–that’s what the licence does. You don’t have to remove or modify the copyright notice at the bottom of your blog in order to offer your content under a Creative Commons license. Offering content under a Creative Commons licence simply clarifies the permissions that you are granting to others. You still retain ownership of the content–it is still copyright–and thus the current notice is still appropriate. The problem is that we know that you claim ownership of the content, but the absence of a license leaves it unclear what permissions you have granted and what we are permitted to do with your content, without relying on fair use. Satire?
Offering your content under a Creative Commons licence could make Cognitive Dissonance part of the Free Culture Movement, which would be cool in and of itself; however, if that’s not enough of an incentive, consider the following: Works licensed under Creative Commons are listed on the official website, and people often use their search engine to find content with these types of licenses, so it could drive a good deal of additional listeners to the podcast. Think about it as just another type of marketing.
Now, it may be that you guys simply aren’t interested in clarifying what you explicitly allow to be done with your content; and if so, that’s cool–it’s your right as a content owner; but if you ARE interested, you will be happy to know that it is extremely easy to add a Creative Commons mark, without even removing the copyright notice at the bottom. WordPress even has a support article showing how to do it.
I love the comment calling for rain during the Aint’s baseball game. It’s a known fact (as true as the literal truth contained in the Bible) that Atheist’s ARE ruining this great country that God himself ordained as a Christian nation (cue patriotic music (Lee Greenwoon please), fireworks and flag waving). It;s unfortunate the original inhabitants did not agree with this concept. Unfortunately, Mr. Bolling does not let facts get in his way of spewing damnation on non-believers. Mr. Bolling, Atheism is not a religion…it is anti-reliigion ala anti-matter. I hope he does not read this as he will be lost trying to understand the scientific term anti-matter. Perhaps he should visit the Creation Museum (aka freak show circus) to confirm his bronze age beliefs. CAP51160
I think you should take Tom’s reading of the Skeptic’s Creed, and feed it into Google translate. Then next show, feed the translation into Google translate, and so on, and so forth, for a few episodes, just to see how crazy things get.
many of the clips used in this show are satire