Thin-skinned creationists don’t like their lies dissected


Aww, Saturday’s video about the Ark Park got a copyright claim, from something called “Matter Entertainment” (maybe they’re a company hired to edit AiG’s videos? I have no idea). They objected to a random short segment where Chaffee was babbling about how they didn’t have to bring insects on the ark — I think they just arbitrarily typed in a time code.

I have disputed this, just on the general principle that we’re making critical commentary. All that’s happened is the video has been demonetized, but since I only make a tiny pittance off these videos, I’m not worried about it. It’s still silly that these people are worried about criticism of this nature.

Comments

  1. birgerjohansson says

    If they are going to try to block all criticism anyway, I might as well go out in a blaze of glory.
    .
    Look out for the Youtube video where I explain that Ken Ham “- that notorious libertine that got chased out of Australia because of his disgusting sexual habits”- is actually the Antichrist, as is obvious if you do a bit of numerology and astrology.

  2. gijoel says

    @2 He left Australia because he couldn’t explain why god invented the Platypus. Merely mentioning marsupials gives him PTSD flashbacks.
    Also he’d be mocked vigorously and loudly for his stupid theme park. I can’t even imagine him getting even a penny from an Australia LGA (city councils and shires).

  3. says

    Look out for the Youtube video where I explain that Ken Ham “- that notorious libertine that got chased out of Australia because of his disgusting sexual habits”- is actually the Antichrist, as is obvious if you do a bit of numerology and astrology.

    <TongueInCheek> But it would be improper for me to rely on astrology. I’m not Nancy Reagan (of course, that’s a good thing). </TongueInCheek>

  4. beholder says

    @1

    This $23 million YouTube music royalties heist is a huge reminder that online copyright is deeply flawed

    Copyright in general is a deeply flawed. America should have gotten rid of the institution entirely when we ratified the first amendment.

  5. Jim Balter says

    Copyright and patent law is deeply flawed, but the “institution” as it is laid out in the Constitution is not:

    “The Congress shall have Power To … promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”

  6. whheydt says

    Much of the problem with copyright law–mainly the ever extending term–can be laid at the feet of one specific corporation. Said corporation greatly desires to retain control over the original work of its founder, which was done in 1928. Much harm could be avoided by restricting corporations from owning copyrights.

  7. mcfrank0 says

    I suspected as much. I spent all yesterday trying to watch the video, and basically got nothing more than the circular wait icon after clicking on the thumbnail until late last night.

  8. khms says

    Much of the problem with copyright law–mainly the ever extending term–can be laid at the feet of one specific corporation.

    As far as I can tell, the runtime of corporate copyright in the US currently matches that of Germany, which is one of the founding members of the Berne convention. In other words, when the US joined the convention, they started with (I believe) the minimal runtime allowed by the convention, and have now reached what is (again, I believe) the usual amount.

    Now, should it expand again from there …

  9. says

    The final note on that message was “The video cannot be monetized. Ad revenue paid to copyright owner.”
    Does this mean despite all your work the grifting Hamster gets all the money?

  10. whheydt says

    Re: khms @ #11…
    Copyright in the US, long a go, was 28 years, renewable for an additional 28 years. Eventually, it was life of author + 70 years (which it still is for creators of copyrighted material…which means that the copyright on my late wife’s works runs out in 2092, unless the law changes). For corporations, it is now 95 years. Since the critical item for which endless copyright is sought was created in 1928, I expect a mad scramble to extend it next year.

    What I would like to see would be an alternative that would allow for permanent copyright, but it would have to be held by a third party (and make that third party a not for profit charitable organization) with licensing fees equal for anyone who wants one. That way, the corporation that wants exclusive rights would have to license the material for a high enough fee to scare everyone else off. Which would work until someone with even deeper pockets comes along and outbids them.

Leave a Reply