Amadan
Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007
|
Though I am a bit out of practice at that lawyer stuff, I enjoy excellent digestion, and therefore have expert insight into the biological issues covered in Excreted – No Feculence Allowed. I am moved by my sense of public service to suggest the following scientifically supported arguments in support of the film’s producers:
1. XVIVO’s claim rests - and fails - on the assumption that the similarity of the clips could not have arisen by chance – in other words, that a so-called “Indelible Refiner” must have adapted the XVIVO clip in a way that left his inky fingerprints all over the place. In rebuttal, the producers maintain that the Excreted clip is by no means “refined”, and could have arisen by combination of (a) chance arrangement of pixels and (b) selection for fitness to include in their film. Given the standard of fitness required, this is perfectly possible.
2. XVIVO’s claim is premised on the pseudo-legalistic notion of “Irrefutable Complicity”. This is a post hoc argument to the effect that, because the two video clips are so clearly similar, taking away even one element of that similarity would destroy the frame-for-frame symmetry, and so undermine the derivative nature of the one in Excreted. This is clearly false, as the Excreted clip retains its derivative nature even when (poorly) edited.
3. XVIVO seeks to make use of an “Exclamatory Guilter”, in other words, asserting that the producers must be in the wrong just because XVIVO says so. Basic justice, however, demands that the producers receive a fair hearing in a debate before a jury of their fellow believers.
4. The theory of Copyright is incomplete. Though it is supported unquestioningly by courts and followed slavishly in “peer-reviewed” articles by ivory-tower academics, it has never been observed in the laboratory, and has no identifiable source or agency in nature. What part of a cell does XVIVO suggest controls ‘fair use’? Are giraffes supposed to register the pattern of spots on their necks in order to assert their identities? Copyrightism is at best a hypothesis, certainly not a “theory”, let alone a “law”.
5. Copyrightism fails to account for a huge variety of widely observed legal phenomena, such as food-labeling regulations, Section 21 of the Miscellaneous Provisions of the Florida Constitution, pygmies, dwarves, or stuff like that.
6. Legal scholars and lawyers who present alternatives to “orthodox” Copyrightism are excluded from prestigious publications and are subjected to the humiliating experience of being “laughed out of court”. Further, those supporting Copyrightism openly base their arguments on textbooks and journals that all display the © Copyright symbol – a plain case of circular logic.
7. XVIVO claims that the producers are “bound” by the provisions of so-called “laws” (see # 4 above) of Copyright, and should be “punished”. However, the practices of “binding” and “punishing” are notoriously part of deviant sexual behavior that are not and should not be countenanced by the courts of a Christian nation. For the avoidance of any doubt, the producers unreservedly condemn such practices and have never, ever, ever been caught practising them.
Further advice available at reasonably competitive rates.
--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye 4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.
|
