It's difficult to cry "foul" or "conspiracy" in this case, because the Naudet brothers have a legal right to that footage. I was actually more surprised that the networks (CNN, Fox, NBC, etc.) didn't pursue use of their footage. Maybe use of the network footage is legal? I don't know.

There are more visible instances of copyright infringement in other 9/11 Truth films. Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime has excerpts from Hollywood movies like Star Wars III and V for Vendetta, doesn't it?

Wouldn't it be tragic if the momentum of the movement were stalled by copyright infringement? After all, the most compelling evidence that the government was complicit with 9/11 is in the footage of the towers collapsing, and in the eyewitness reports of explosions.

"This is a serious and credible charge.

Let's see if you all here are willing to uphold the law in your comments about this."

So is murdering 3000 people. How come you're never willing to uphold the law in your comments about that?

If the Naudet Brothers own that footage, and people require permission to use it, then they probably have a case.

However, suing someone over the only existent footage of the first plane hitting the towers is a dick move.

Someone tell Dylan that if he can find a lawyer to make that argument, we'll do a fund drive to raise the money to pay for him.

I'm getting the impression from the wording of that case that you CAN use the footage as long as you're not making money. Thats what the wording seems to imply, but who know.

My sense is that the Naudet Brothers don't like being associated with the point of view shown in Loose Change 2. And, I suspect THAT is what this is really all about, otherwise they'd probably not be making some of the comments shown in that letter, including the charge that Dylan Avery is capitalizing on 9/11. I think the Naudet Brothers are the ones trying to make money off the tragedy -- it's a typical tactic to blame someone else for the very thing you're guilty of yourself.

That said, laws are laws and Loose Change will have to be reworked without ANY copyright infringement. That'll probably mean its death, since there's no viable way to make as strong as case without all the video footage from the networks, etc.

I do think we were lucky to have access to the film for this long. Now I hope people will help Dylan and friends out if they're hit with a huge lawsuit.

I just posted that Mssr. Jouet...

He's used it for SIbel Edmonds, Khaled al-Masri, The CIA Rendition Program, and a few others that Partridge knows.

That is a good point. And probably an amazing argument to use in a court of law. To bring attention to 9/11...

I don't know much about the American legal system, but is this an opportunity to bring 911 to a friggin courtroom for a change? I've never heard of LC2E dvd sales, but if this film is non profitable, and more important - serves an issue of national importance, could the Naudet brothers ever make a case? I mean, isn't this journalism? Can the owner of this particular footage of the 9/11 attacks prevent others to research the footage? And does this eventually empower the owner of Bush's pet goat video (some local station I guess) to pull Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 from the stores?

Off topic:

Has anyone ever heard someone say that they could have invaded Iraq without 9/11?

I remember talking to Keith Phucas about that, and he made the argument that they were bad people during the 90's, etc... and that would have been a good enough reason to invade.

However, what reasons did they use to sell the Iraq War?

Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Ties to Al-Qaeda.
Ties to 9/11.

If they had a good enough reason other than those things, than why didn't they use it? Why did they depend on fabrications and the tragedy of 9/11?

Because that's what it was designed for.

".. your use of their footage falsely suggests that our clients... endorse or support the controversial views expressed in your film. Not only is this confusing... but it is demeaning to the Naudet brothers and Mr. Hanlon, who have been extremely sensitive to the families of firefighters and other 9/11 victims."

What BS.

I guess there must be no NY firefighters or victims families that share LC's controversial views huh?

If it was about money, they could merely stipulate that DVDs not be sold.

I've got free T-shirt & bumper sticker messages on my site:
Bush is a HIT & a LURE

plus one by Stephen Colbert

feel free to use them (as is)

The big problem for those who would crush the truth movement with copyright lawsuits is this:

Their litigation would lead to increased public awareness.

However, even if they scheme up a way to use this strategy, they will still lose. Clearly, an argument can be made that the first amendment outweighs copyright issues when it comes to discussing the definitive political issue of our time.

It may not be the Naudet brothers who are pushing this... It may well be Paramount who are the distributours of the Naudet doc.

I wonder whether the Naudet's got consent of all the NY public who appeared in their doc also... As there were quite a few folks around the streets that day. Are they not entitled to a fee also ?

I agree with JG... A serious stink needs to be made over any attempt to conceal evidence etc, especially if this is taken further.

Dylan and crew may need to go to a complete non-profit model, if they want to continue to include footage from the Naudet doc. Or offer them a couple of dollars per copy sold, they might accept.

I wish all at Louder Than Words the very best and hope that there are some honest lawyers that can give them sound advice.

Good luck to all

My sense is that even if this case goes to court, it would NOT create more 9/11 awareness. Reason? It wouldn't be high profile enough. If ABC or CNN had gone after Dylan, then perhaps there would be more coverage, but my point is that the MSM dictates what makes the news. It would be totally inconsistent of the MSM to make a spectacle out of the Naudet vs. Dylan case.

That doesn't mean Dylan shouldn't fight this if he can find a lawyer who can see an angle (i.e. the first amendment trumping copyright when it comes to the crime of the century -- although this would seem to be a huge gamble given the court system nowadays).

Perhaps Philip Berg?

14 Year Old Children Were Being Held At Guantanamo

It's enough to make you cry.

"And I don't care for your treason."

There is no treason pursuing the truth.

"The Naudet brothers have simply shown that they are anti-American profiteers who wish to stifle expression."

Is that why everyone wants to use their footage?

I wonder whether the Naudet's got consent of all the NY public who appeared in their doc also... As there were quite a few folks around the streets that day. Are they not entitled to a fee also ?

Good point. My understanding is that filmmakers are supposed to get "releases" (or similar terminology) from anyone shown in a video/film -- including passersby.

It would be great to push a countersuit on Naudets and/or Paramount -- and settle out of court without either side receiving anything.

Even if the mainstream media doesn't cover it (which is quite likely), it would still create a PUBLIC RECORD. Official documents containing truth arguments are dangerous for the official fairy tale.

The Professional, let me guess which other blog.... on second thought, nevermind. LOL ;-)

Hey The Professional... I'm not trying to be funny, but is your name Leon by chance?

Yes, I'm French.

"So is murdering 3000 people. How come you're never willing to uphold the law in your comments about that?"

I don't care for your flippant attitude, Gold.

A complete non-profit model? You mean Louder Than Words is for-profit? You don't say . . .

Maybe the Naudets could argue that if a film is released at theaters around the US, as they are hoping to do with this, it will probably be for-profit, unless all money is diverted someplace else.

But I'm not surprised by this. It's win-win -- no big media gets involved, so there's no big coverage, and Naudets get what they want, which is to not be associated, for whatever reason. Some have speculated on the coincidence of their presence at the time and location . . . seems a little too good to be true.

"Yes, I'm French."

Seriously?

"I just don't understand. A lot of people in the movement give away footage for nothing. Some people ask that you at least mention their name, but who cares? They deserve it. Why do the Naudet Brothers care if people within the 9/11 Truth Movement use their footage? Did they want to make money off of the tragedy?"

You can't be serious.

I love you 911Poller.

"Dearest Jon Gold, what do I dare surmise to be your agenda? Why do you loathe the U.S. court system? How, why, when & where?

Thank you."

My agenda? Same thing we do every day Pinky. Try to take over the world.

Jon, that's every "night" !

Dubba dubba doubleyoubee !

"To you? Not really. You just insulted me."

Hypocrite. You called me a traitor for no reason at all. Several times.

I called you on it and you don't like it.

911Poller I agree with Jon, that you are a traitor. You keep reinforcing that fact too with your incessant babble. You didn't call Jon on anything really.

"Hypocrite. You called me a traitor for no reason at all. Several times.

I called you on it and you don't like it."

You just insulted me again, how dare you. What is your name sir?

911poller care to explain to me HOW LC2 isn't a case of fair use?

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

^According to this it is.

"911Poller I agree with Jon, that you are a traitor. You keep reinforcing that fact too with your incessant babble. You didn't call Jon on anything really."

Sure I did. Witness the fact that nothing I have written has shown to be wrong. But I get a lot of insults for actually pursuing the truth.

Interesting, isn't it?

Incidentally traitor, can you not read traitor? My name is listed several times traitor. I'm allowed to insult you all I want traitor. Silly traitor.

btw I recommend that all 9/11 truthers should download a copy of LC2 if you haven't done so already.

My guess is that the "Naudet Bros/government" will try to pull it off of Google and You Tube to.

" 911poller care to explain to me HOW LC2 isn't a case of fair use?"

Care to explain the basis of the legal letter from the Naudet Bros. attornies?

Hey, what happened to Terrence, did he retire?

Also, anybody know what is located in Reston, VA?

" Incidentally traitor, can you not read traitor? My name is listed several times traitor. I'm allowed to insult you all I want traitor. Silly traitor."

Silly you are indeed.

sbg... who is this guy's provider, and what is his IP address? He's not giving me his name, I'm going to report him.

"Also, anybody know what is located in Reston, VA?"

People.

"My guess is that the "Naudet Bros/government" will try to pull it off of Google and You Tube to."

It would require a court order. Ooops sorry, courts of law are frowned upon here apparently.

911 Poller I think you are the Naudet Brother's "attorney"

:+:

"Care to explain the basis of the legal letter from the Naudet Bros. attornies?
911Poller | 05.27.06 - 10:15 pm |"

Care to explain how wireless eavesdropping is considered legal, and people like you just let it happen. They are questioning it because they can, just like the government illegally wiretapping us.

It really does not mean much at the moment.

"Ooops sorry, courts of law are frowned upon here apparently."

I plan on seeing you in one as soon as possible Mr. NoName.

Any implication that copyright laws govern cases such as these is absurd on its face.

Copyright serves many important purposes, but it is limited. Copyright is a narrow exception carved out of the first amendment. Cases such as these do not fall within that exception. Got that? I'm willing to wager any jury in the nation will get it.

Thus, 911Pollsmoker, pretty much everything you have said is a bald-faced lie.

"I plan on seeing you in one as soon as possible Mr. NoName."

Must mean I'm getting closer to the truth.

"Thus, 911Pollsmoker, pretty much everything you have said is a bald-faced lie."

Too bad you're unwilling to prove it. Why is that?

"Must mean I'm getting closer to the truth."

What's in Reston Virginia?

"It would require a court order. Ooops sorry, courts of law are frowned upon here apparently."

Actually it wouldn't, ass. Google and You Tube have copyright dispute resolution teams that proactively investegate issues like this.

If the Naudet Bros. claim had merit both companies would volunteer to remove the media in question themselves.

Alex, great posting above -- hopefully Barry Zwicker will talk with Dylan Avery, although Canada's laws are likely different from ours.

But, ksu_s13's quotation of Section 107 "fair use" is another angle as well. Hopefully Dylan will find a really good lawyer. I'm still wondering if Phil Berg might be worth contacting -- he may know somebody if he's not able to take this on.

You are attempting to blur the picture of what is legal and illegal. Political speach, especially non-profit political speach, is ten-feet tall and bulletproof my friend.

You ask me to prove your ignorance, okay. Let's debate the issue.

I'm thinking, this might be a pre-emptive strike to keep Loose Change 3 out of the theaters this September. They had several lined up I believe.

Plus they were planning on airing it in the U.K...

Oh well, you guys didn't think they wouldn't fight back did you?

Raytheon is in Reston, VA. Just thought that was interesting.

At least they have an office there. Don't they make remote control equipment for airplanes?

"Political speach, especially non-profit political speach, is ten-feet tall and bulletproof my friend."

Amen to that.

LOL

RC 911troller ;)

"Actually it wouldn't, ass. Google and You Tube have copyright dispute resolution teams that proactively investegate issues like this."

Apparently you are upset by copyright issues.

As I said at the beginning of this thread:

"Let's see if you all here are willing to uphold the law in your comments about this."

Are any of you?

911poller,

Instead of wasting your time online, why don't you enlist to get yourself into the middle east to join the troop for a quest to capture osama. If you can prove us wrong by catching him to show that he is still alive and he was responsible for planning 9/11, then we'll shut up, cuz that'll be the only way to get us to shut up. Now put up or shut up.

"What makes you sure it's doing well in representing the truth given the several highly publizied and scathing debunkings it's getting?"

Which ones are you refering to? And how does a scathing debunking make anything more or less true?

"Political speach, especially non-profit political speach, is ten-feet tall and bulletproof my friend."

If that were only the issue, my friend.

"Which ones are you refering to? And how does a scathing debunking make anything more or less true?"

If you are trying to answer my question please read it.

Recently, Michael Ruppert moved his daily news roundup to the paid subscriber pages. Here's his rationale for using Section 107 without breaking the law. Makes sense to me, and could be an angle for Dylan to pursue.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/090506_editors_note.shtml

I have received many emails thanking FTW for research and reprints. (We call the stories T17s, after Title 17, Section 107 of the US Code which provides for this expression of free speech sharing other peopleÂ’s published works.)

-snip-

Title 17 also stipulates that it is legal to reprint another entityÂ’s copyrighted material only if it is done for free.

In moving this service to our paid subscriber’s only section, FTW is not charging for the right to read another person’s copyrighted material. What we are charging for is the enormous expense that providing this service has become. We are charging for our expertise and our time. Each day, four members of the FTW staff spend in excess of ten man hours in the process of reading/scanning hundreds of stories, selecting the ones to post and – in most cases – writing our own special analyses of them.

Does this mean NO-GO at Parliament 6/14/06?

The Burial of the 9/11 Story that Got Away:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/36651/

dsm, interesting to read the comments after the article -- some 9/11 truthers there for sure, even though the writers at Alternet will never voice any suspicions about all the unanswered questions.....

PARAMOUNT: Creator of: "Sum of All Fears"
A story of a nuclear event which is blamed on Iran, so we can go in there and save the world from terrorist...November's congressional election is Paramount (please don't sue me!)...2 years of this Administration and a subdued legislative branch...a lot of bad can happen

DEGREES OF SEPERATION:
Brad Grey was executive producer of several Sopranos episodes...he is now CEO OF PARAMOUNT (wasn't "Tony Soprano" a influence for Loose Change?); makes me go "Hmmmmmm"

any comments from the Naudet Brothers?

ACTION ALERT:
call the law offices and give them a big ole "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO", be careful they may sue you:
(212) 980-0120

ACTION ALERT ADENDUM:
Ask for Lisa Davis before you giving the "BOOOOOO"

Hey, does anybody know what ever happened to that Ghost Troop guy, captain May something or another?
He was a false flag operation watchdog in Texas. His site was down for a couple months, now it's back and it's not quite the same, wtf happened?
I tried to email him to find out what the deal was, never got a response.

copyrights-favorite word of third world people hooked on bootleg AIDS medicine. Right. You do what you can. Not like those brothers spent millions trying to create what they shot. they just pointed the camera.

time for some air support

"Very truly yours"

Kind of tacky and stupid for a lawyer to sign off like that.

Lets turn this unfortunate situation into a positive thing. If they are stupid enough to take Dylan to court imagine the publicity it would generate. Also I am sure there are plenty of attorneys in the truth movement who would defend Dylan pro bono. This could be a blessing in disguise.

An interesting comment was mad above: that like the McLibel trial, to get Loose Change into the courts MIGHT be a good move! Because there would be an avenue to expose 9-11 Truth to a new audience.

Fair Use would have applied to L2CE. In fact, I think they include a disclaimer at the end that the documentary is for educational purposes. But then they go ahead and sell it for the full commercial price for DVDs: $17.95, and sell T-Shirts and market both heavily.

There are 3 problems with L2CE:

1. They copied too many clips from Naudet. If it was just the first plane hitting, it may not have been a problem.

2. They sold the DVD and marketed it heavily. This disqualifies them from the status of "educational use".

3. They used the Naudet name without asking permission.

Free video producers, and those that only use small clips from different sources, have far less to worry about. If you're going to make a large production like L2CE, it would be wise to consult an attorney.

Oh yeah I forgot what may be the most important one:

4. Their movie became more popular than the Naudet documentary.

This also means that they'll need to take down and redo their Google video that has been in the top 10 for months, often #1 or #2:

http://video.google.com/videoranking

Does anyone have a link to the Loose Change forums? It looks like they closed down their site: http://www.loosechange911.com

Are the forums still active?

Ahh, nevermind, found it:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum

Weird story about NYC suing a filmmaker for refusing to give them 30,000 aerial photos and videos of Ground Zero after paying him $300,000 to fly in an NYPD helicopter:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/392122p-332578c.html

He instead copyrighted the images and produced a video with them and topless women and naked men, performing a "sweat lodge ceremony."

Those 30,000 photos would be quite valuable to us and many others.

Loose Change forum thread on this topic:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091

Fair Use:
http://www.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

(Sorry for posting so much. It's really early in the morning here and I can't sleep.)

The court case will be like that Boston Legal speech lol! This is a bit of a bitch but it could turn out to be a positive in the end. Just look at the recent copyright case with the “Da Vinci Code” and "Holy Blood Holy Grail", both books sales shot through the roof. And their is a case for the loose change guys, their trying to expose a criminal act that dwarfs and holds precedent over any copyright infringement.

I'm quite split with this one. On the one hand this seems more like the Naudet brothers on behalf of the US goverment, my first instinct was I very much doubt they, Hanlon or Paramount actually care about copyrights, it's in what the message of Loose Change is, which they repeatedly mention and knowingly the letter falsely says the Naudets are made to look like they agree with the message of the film.

In that sense this seems more about looking for an angle to attack 9/11 truth itself and the letter is very long and tedious and waffling. It would be much simpler to just to write something 1/4 of the size which says the same thing.

Some weeks ago I noticed hit a from a Google search for Dylan+Avery+Income and it originated from one of your goverment/military computer institutions in the US. I think I posted it on letsroll911 at the time as it potentially could be finding some way of buying Dylan off.

Dylan has said on radio interviews he has resisted offers to be 'bought off' and this may be trying to find a way to bog down Dylan in a spurious lawsuit to get him to relinquish LC in it's entirety.

There's also the timing of a couple of truth conferences coming up, and of course Meacher was going to show Loose Change to Parliament, which he isn't now, but overall LC has been very much in the public eye.

On the other hand it could be genuine and shameful greed and opportunism on behalf of the Naudets, Paramount and Hanlon. You do see a great deal of this and no one is really interested in schmaltzy 911 DVDs anymore, 9/11 truth is where the interest is at. That said the majority of distribution for LC has always been for free on the net so that makes me doubt this motivation alone.

I would certainly fight this and carry on regardless. What it's doing though is having exactly the effect intended on some Americans here already, that is getting them running round talking about a pet obsession of copyright laws, but I'm quite confident that isn't the real motivation behind this letter.

Also Loose Change in different forms has been out for ages, why write this now ?

For starters:

Charge the Naudet Brother & their attorneys as accessories-after-the-fact in trying to thwart an investigation into mass murder and aiding in its cover-up.

Investigate the Naudet brothers for foreknowledge, regarding official & unofficial accounts of 9/11.

Compel them to provide the additional video they've withheld from the day.

Investigate whether they've been in the U.S. legally and had permission to work here, ever since their arrival in 1989.

>
>3. They used the Naudet name without >asking permission.
>

In their lawsuit, they especially mention they are not supporting the "controversial" views of Loose Change.

I guess HAD Dylan asked for permission they would have DENIED it!

Just like the govt. denies us all evidence that might expose a cover-up and then suddenly presents some stuff in the Moussaoui trial to promote their cover-story.

Why are these people being such schumks?Alot of 9-11 DVD's shows their footage, has others asked permission? This is pure bullshit and should not be allowed to stop the momentum of 9-11 truth movement! the public has the right to see that footage!

So far we have assertions that the Secret Service "should have been considered a possible target, and yet they let him sit in a classroom, as if this poster knows exactly what should have been done; assertions that Fair Use law definitely applies; a lot of nervous name-calling of "traitor", "troll", the rule of law be damned, and other signs of knowing you are on weak ground.

And you all think you are devoted to the "truth?"

Account for domain 911truth.org has been suspended

They have a problem with the footage precisely because it's used to break the cover-story. Had Loose Change been a pro-NeoCon movie, you bet nobody would have cared.

It's always amazing how things like Loose Change are wiedely pretended not to exist (MSM blackout) but behind the scenes everybody has noticed... Just like Silverstein's WTC7 "pull it" comments.

Argue that since LC2E is 10000x more popular than the Naudet brothers' DVD, numerous more people subsequently heard of and purchased the Naudet DVD.

Top Story at TimesHerald.com:
Opinion split over 9/11 report

http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16703919&BRD=1672&PAG=46...

Something seriously needs to be done as far as moderation on this blog.

911Poller: You pick out 3 points from different posters and then generalize it to "you all". If you don't like the community here, then LEAVE. It's that simple.

The lawsuit is just a civil suit, remember. Dylan and us can be lucky that there's no criminal law against 9/11 denial yet.
He just has to make sure he's not lo(o)sing to much money (or "change") with a big and long nerve-wrecking trial.

911Poller, you're appalled at some grey-area copyright infringement, but you don't give a damn about the muderous bullshit that took place before & after 9/11. Get lost.

Letter-to-Editor at UAE news site:

http://www.7days.ae/2006/05/19/911-images-prove-the-us-was-behind-the-at...

Dem Bruce Lee Styles

Just wanted to say that the latest version of your "What's the Truth?" Documentary is EXCELLENT and I'm so glad you covered the WTC 36hr powerdown on the weekend before 9/11 when all those engineers were seen in the building with spools of cables and tool boxes etc.

TOP JOB that man !!!

Good Luck and Thanks :)

"911Poller: You pick out 3 points from different posters and then generalize it to "you all". If you don't like the community here, then LEAVE. It's that simple."

Let's stick to the facts, ok?

I'm sure you can read, benthere, since you are one who has brought up the potential copyright problem too. And you can read that I brought up nothing that isn't true.

By I was called a traitor for doing so.

If you are bothered by that you neither have to read nor respond to my posts. Neither does anyone else.

"911Poller, you're appalled at some grey-area copyright infringement, but you don't give a damn about the muderous bullshit that took place before & after 9/11."

You should take a moment to read the title of this thread, anonymous.

"Something seriously needs to be done as far as moderation on this blog."

Just what do you wish moderated? Facts?

"Let's really turn up the heat."

Couldn't agree more!! Its a beautiful day, and I LOVE leaving 911 Truth flyers on the front seat of cars that leave their windows open!! I've delivered a ton of flyers today without even thinking about it, while I was out doing other stuff...

I just re-watched 911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage on Google (it's down to #11).

That is such an amazing job those young guys did on a shoestring budget!!! Those fellows are great!!!

All the Naudet brothers did was catch some video & misinterpret it (deliberately?) for the "office story." Screw them.

We need to make "Everybody's gotta learn sometime" No.1 to replace Loose Change,2nd edition! That would REALLY piss off lying,murdering, mass murderer,facsists! Email that video to ALL! We need to keep it up! Keep sending ALL free video's on Google! Screw the fascist estabishment and their minions and snitches too!

It's getting more and more where we have to form a resistance movement like in Nazi,Germany right here in America!

Have 9/11 conspiracy theories gone mainstream?

I have a solution:

Just let Nico Haupt prove that the videos are fakes and then BAM! case closed.

;-)

Have 9/11 conspiracy theories gone mainstream?
911Poller | 05.28.06 - 3:34 pm | #
wow. a bunch of conservatives spewing typical left vs. right rah rah bullshit.they make it sound like 9/11 truth is only something liberals talk about.somebody needs to inform them of the various ex Bush/Reagan officials that are on board.your gonna have to do better than posting the rantings of a few partisan, bootlicking, conservative sheep 911polesmoker, its not gonna work.

and have your handlers choose a better name next time. so obvious.

"Have 9/11 conspiracy theories gone mainstream?
911Poller | 05.28.06 - 3:34 pm |"

911Troller, give it up!

I already had a very lengthy email conversation with this bozo and he is a shill.

I presented many scientific reasons and posted links to this person in dispute of what they were pushing. All I got in return was that I did not know what I was talking about and that I needed to go back and re-read his paper.

This BOZO could not even carry on a reasonable debate. I argued the JFK point, since he brought it up in his arguement, and then he tried to make it out that I was just bringing it up to avoid the issue. I pointed out several scientific facts with JFK, which he ignored, but he did not want to hear it or debate it.

I explained that science has proven that a bullet will enter the body in a small whole and exit with a larger whole. I pointed out that the evidence was clear and undisputed that there was a small whole in the front of JFK's head and half of his head was blown away. This meant that there HAD to be another shooter.

His arguement was pure BS from there on out.

I have blown away most of his so called debunking in just one email. Go find some place else to play and let the grownups talk!

"I already had a very lengthy email conversation with this bozo and he is a shill."

Sorry, never with me.

"I argued the JFK point, since he brought it up in his arguement,..."

Sorry, I have never mentioned or discussed JFK. You've got the wrong person.

The use of the Naudet Brothers' material is simply an act of war! The war against terror. I think that makes it legal. The fact that the real enemy uses weapens to kill people its only fair the use every information you have!

If yo want media attention on this one, maby it's the best to go for an attack (to get more attention)

"your gonna have to do better than posting the rantings of a few partisan, bootlicking, conservative sheep 911polesmoker, its not gonna work."

I posted an article without comment. Articles are meant to inform. You didn't know about it until I posted it. The article gave you credit. You are now informed what others are thinking and saying about you.

911Troller, don't go away mad, just go away!

All of the posts by jerkoffs like 911Poller & truthout are very tedious to skip through. All these frauds do is provoke endless controversy & arguments by relentlessly playing devil's advocate.

Let them post their piss on redneck blogs where they belong.

You are now informed what others are thinking and saying about you.
911Poller | 05.28.06 - 4:24 pm | #
yes, i now know what i already knew about partisan douchebags that cant see past the D or R next to a name. thanks for that jackass.

Below is the "fair use" section of the U.S. copyright law, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----0... ):

""
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
""

Dylan Avery's Loose Change would certainly properly qualify for "fair use" under U.S. law.

But the very concept of "intellectual property" is fallacious and unjust. The entire point of valid property rights is to resolve disputes in scarce resources. Thus, if John takes someone's lawnmower then that person no longer has that lawnmower. Yet if Mary copies some output of someone's intellect, it subtracts no physical holding from that person.

So-called "intellectual property" cannot rise to the level of valid property for the reason that it is not a scarce resource: and hence everyone, in principle, can have their own copy of an intellectual creation without subtracting any physical holding from its creator. Enforcing fallacious "rights" in "intellectual property" actually violates genuine property rights, for then actual physical force is used against the physical property of people (including the property in their own bodies) who had not physically harmed, altered, or appropriated another person's physical holdings.

For more on the fallaciousness and unjustness of so-called "intellectual property," see the below article:

"Against Intellectual Property," N. Stephan Kinsella, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 1–53:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

(For the above article Stephan Kinsella was awarded the Ludwig von Mises Institute's O.P. Alford III Prize for scholarly article published during 2001-2002 that best advances libertarian scholarship, at the eighth Austrian Scholars Conference, March 16, 2002.)

See also:

http://www.stephankinsella.com/ip/

Can we all tone it down a little? I know its hard with 911Poller here, but let's try to be civil.

what about for educational purpsoses only? can loosechange use it for that?

Good points James Redford. But fighting intellectual property rights would be a tough battle, and one we wouldn't be likely to win.

L2CE is in a gray area of Fair Use. They sell the DVD, yet they give it away. They didn't wholly copy the Naudet documentary, but they copied more than one clip. They serve to inform others about a significant event and the (sick) politics involved with it, yet they market T-Shirts to go with it.

They might stand a chance in court, but the expense and risk involved in fighting it may be too great.

Yizzo, good suggestion that legal strategy focus on educational, media type fair use , and perhaps some kind of necessity use relating to citizens obligation to report serious wrongdoing is something counsel may consider. This isn't just making movies--this type of live footage use is acting in the true interest of national security.

"Can we all tone it down a little? I know its hard with 911Poller here, but let's try to be civil."

There is no reason for anyone to be uncivil, including you, just because you don't like ideas you don't agree with.

As far as "Fair Use" goes, I guarantee that none here can speak authoratatively about whether it does or does not apply.

"You are now informed what others are thinking and saying about you."

Yes, I am aware that some are upset by ideas they disagree with.

copyright law, like the laws of physics, are suspended in wartime. the Naudet brothers (if that's their real name)are nothing more, nothing less than profiteers from tragedy. moreover they are guilty of suppressing evidence of crimes. when the war crimes tribunal is convened, they will have to fork over ALL their footage, period. we will then examine it for any evidence they may have left out of their documentary. if they refuse to cooperate, we will have them extradited. if france refuses to hand them over, we will invade france. think we haven't learned anything in the last 5 years? ALL bets are off. you can't rip up the constitution then hide behind copyright law. we're going to have the real 911 perps for breakfast by hook or by crook--that is a promise.

As far as "Fair Use" goes, I guarantee that none here can speak authoratatively about whether it does or does not apply.
911Polesmoker | 05.28.06 - 10:17 pm | #

If you mean no one here has written a treatise on copyright law, then you are correct. However, looking at the analysis given by some posts here, including yours, and rating them somewhere on the spectrum from complete ignorance of the law to authoritative analysis of the law, your posts are far towards the bottom of the spectrum compared to most. You have posted one court opinion that actually supports the argument that the 'fair use' exception does apply to Loose Change, and have offered nothing more than conclusory statements otherwise with no analytical support. Others here that have quoted the law and tried to apply it to these facts come across as far more persuasive and authoritative than you could dream of being.

Also, 911polesmoker, if your intent is to distract everyone here from discussing the issues, then you have succeeded to some extent. Congratulations. But if your intent is to try and make people reading this thread think everyone else that posts here is not intelligent or doesn't know what they are talking about, you are doing your cause a huge disservice because you and your questions look really really stupid, and I think independent person that reads these threads would agree with me. As a matter of fact, you may want to re-evaluate the cost/benefit of trying to distract the people here because you actually make everyone else here look much much smarter than you. In the end, that may help our truth movement more than you can hurt it by constant attempts at distraction.

"You have posted one court opinion that actually supports the argument that the 'fair use' exception does apply to Loose Change,.."

Clearly not. Read the decison in that case carefully.

"copyright law, like the laws of physics, are suspended in wartime."

I havern't seen a notice that they have been suspended.

"In the end, that may help our truth movement more than you can hurt it by constant attempts at distraction."

Please support your assertions.

"You have posted one court opinion that actually supports the argument that the 'fair use' exception does apply to Loose Change,.."

Clearly not. Read the decison in that case carefully.
911Poller | 05.28.06 - 10:41 pm | #

________________________________________________________________________________

You posted the opinion, so the burden is on you to tell us how it applies to the facts surrounding Loose Change. But, I'm feeling generous, so why don't you explain to everyone how the "transformation" of the songs in that case is similar to the "transformation" of the Naudet footage in the case of Loose Change.

Or perhaps you can explain how the creativity involved in the songs in the case you posted is similar to the creativity involved in filming a newsworthy event?

Ok, maybe you can explain to everyone how Loose Change borrows a "substantial portion" of the Naudet brothers footage as that factor is analyzed by the court in the case you posted.

9/11pollsmoker SMOKED! LOL

copyright laws were suspended by the Chinese several years ago.

constitution was suspended by Bushco.

and jesus joined the airforce.

I have long openly disagreed with many poins of contention with Loose Change, but that's just a personal view...the overall message is to quesiton 9/11, and ther'es no doubt LC2E has opened up a lot of people's minds.

I have 3 quick comments:

1. I find it veryvery troubling the Naudet brothers would not want their incredible documentary as part of the public record. To me it's like how the King family copyrighted the Dream speach...it is just in poor taste I think.

2. It's obvious that the "lawsuit" is
mostly because they don't like the message of the film, and anyone with half a mind could tell the Naudet brothers dont support LC2E anymore than Fox does.

3. I see this as a positive development. I say due to the unique severity of the situation at hand, I say they should simply ignore the lawsuit. We have 3 and a have months til what I hope is the biggest 9/11 truth meets anti war demonstration,
and they should use this lawsuit as a way to get the line shined on more.

Oh, and btw 911poller seems to argue on semantics, instead of revealing how he is a Bush sympathizer. I respect people more if they openly state their position and then try to rationally argue, than hide behind bs arguments.

oh my god. the moron is talking to himself now. get a load of this:

"You are now informed what others are thinking and saying about you."

Yes, I am aware that some are upset by ideas they disagree with.
911Poller | 05.28.06 - 10:20 pm | #

You are now informed what others are thinking and saying about you.
911Poller | 05.28.06 - 4:24 pm | #

wow.not only is he a shill, but hes a fucking moron too.

"Oh, and btw 911poller seems to argue on semantics, instead of revealing how he is a Bush sympathizer."

Where has 911poller said anything about Bush?

"wow.not only is he a shill, but hes a fucking moron too."

How do you figure from what 911poller wrote?