>> He, hatten wir das nicht neulich hier auf der Liste? >> >> http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/25/0430235&from=rss >> >> Scheint ja weite Kreise zu ziehen, das Filmchen. :-)
Das Folgende entspricht ziemlich genau dem, wie ich es einsetze/einsetzte: ich verweise auf die Original-URL und halte die heruntergeladene Version, inkusive Quellenangabe, für Diejenigen bereit, die ein technisches Problem beim Betrachten des Originals haben. Und: falls das als Quelle in einer Ausarbeitung erscheint verlange ich die Offline-Version zu hinterlegen. Was nur im Web steht erkenne ich als Quelle nicht an. Weil es ja morgen schon vielleicht nicht mehr da ist und dann die Ausarbeitung entwertet. Gruß und tausend Dank für diesen Hinweis, Martin! Michael Bischof What's the problem? (Score:2) by DrKyle (818035) on Sunday November 25, @02:48AM (#21469233) I have used this video in my intro biology class, telling them it is an absolutely marvelous video and that by the time they graduate they will understand the complex processes depicted. I have spoken through it, thereby adding my own narration. Does this mean I am going to get sued too? In finding this video for my class I noticed many versions out there on youtube and other video sites, ones which had the copyright notice absent already, so does this mean I would get sued for showing those instead of the original? It's not like they posted the video on a site representing it as their own, it was part of a powerpoint presentation and I really doubt there is solid grounds to show they did anything wrong. Just because they are pushing their own agenda which the poster disagrees with does not mean they are any worse than other people making up a powerpoint presentation and not citing every graphic and video they find on the web. Und jetzt gibt man es den bigotten Frömmlern: Re:"We're Right But They're Bigots" Continues (Score:5, Insightful) by wickerprints (1094741) on Sunday November 25, @03:23AM (#21469401) Your post isn't going to be modded down because the rest of us are bigoted (or even merely biased) against your viewpoint, but because it fails to address the reality of the situation. (1) The Discovery Institute did not secure permission to use the video. (2) The video was shown with the copyright removed. (3) The substance of the video was changed by overdubbed narration that implied that the video depicted evidence of intelligent design in biochemical mechanisms. (4) Through the removal of copyright information and failure to refer to the actual source, the DI plagiarized the video by presenting it as its own original work rather than a derivative work. This action is not covered under fair use. I would also like to point out that complaining that your post will be modded down is not somehow a sort of magical incantation to prevent it from actually being modded down. That sort of reverse psychology does not work, especially when you fail to have any legitimate points. oh noes! (Score:1) by Meorah (308102) on Sunday November 25, @03:14AM (#21469367) This is a slippery slope my dear friends! If they get away with copyright infringment, they'll be just like the vast majority of slashdotters, and we can't have slashdotters and creationists sharing any similar traits! no wait, I have a better one... first copyright infringment, then TERRORISM! Lets nip this in the bud right now! Sick the RIAA on them! [ Reply to This ] their objective *is* to be attacked (Score:1) by Herve5 (879674) on Sunday November 25, @04:06AM (#21469593) up to now, they were in the bad role, the attacker, and the scientists the victims. Now if "Science" attacks them in law, they will posit as victims :( -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUG - Penguin User Group Wiesbaden - http://www.pug.org -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUG - Penguin User Group Wiesbaden - http://www.pug.org
