Mkay. So I just got a copy of Premise Medias SLAPP lawsuit against XVIVO.
It is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read in my entire life. And I have read the Bible and Atlas Shrugged.
Its 16 pages.
The first 15 pages explain why they filed the suit in Texas instead of Canada (Premise) or Connecticut (XVIVO). 15 pages. Of this:
12. In addition, on information and belief based on the materials
displayed on the XVIVO Web Site, an Internet user in Texas and in this district can interact with XVIVO over the Internet in the following ways, among others:
a. view XVIVO promotions, offers for services, and solicitations;
b. hyperlink and download various items of sample work product including but not necessarily limited to the Inner Life Video;
c. provide information to, and otherwise communicate with XVIVO;
d. ask questions and receive answers about XVI VO's products and services, including ongoing projects
... etc etc etc etc etc...
Shorter first 15 pages:
YOU CAN GETZ TO XVIVO ON DEH INTRAWEBZ AND DEY HAS EMAILZ SO I CAN SUE THEM IN TIMBUCKTOO IF I WANTS BUT I DONT WANTS I WANTS TEXAZ!Yeah. Im sure it has *nothing* to do with the fact Texas has no anti-SLAPP laws. Premise is suing in Texas because "an Internet user in Texas and in this district can interact with XVIVO over the Internet".
So whats the last page about? Its a fucking ad for EXPELLED:
Premise Media's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a provocative documentary film that examines the scientific community's academic suppression of those who dissent from the belief of the adequacy of Darwinian evolution to explain the origin of life.It goes on and on and on like that. But eventually they get to the meat of their claims. And they make no sense whatsoever:
The Documentary Film Expelled is narrated by Ben Stein, a well known actor, who is also a lawyer, economist, writer, and former presidential speech writer. Mr. Stein and the Expelled producers feel that Neo-Darwinism inappropriately dominates the classroom and academia and are interested in promoting free speech and debate regarding a diversity of views.
In preparing the Documentary Film, Premise Media commissioned computer animation of some of the natural processes inside a living cell (ERV-- Please note, even in the lawsuit, they dont say who made their animation. I will be taking bets in the comments if you have guesses).So, they knew what they were doing was morally and legally wrong, and have been working on a replacement for theatrical release. The animation on the DVD is not in the movie. But the reason they changed it was NOT because it was obviously stolen from 'Inner Life' and other resources.
Some time ago, as part of the pre-release activity relating to the Documentary Film, Premise Media commissioned a DVD highlighting some parts of the Documentary Film as then planned. The DVD was designed as an educational resource highlighting the theme of the Documentary Film and was distributed free of charge in all cases. The resource DVD included a short clip of an animation of the inside of a cell. The short clip showing the cell interior was independently created early in the production process, and was used in the resource DVD. At the time the short resource DVD was made, the Documentary Film was not complete. The final version of the film does not contain the segment from the DVD on which XVIVO appears to base its claims in its April 9 letter.
Even so, Defendant evidently obtained access to the resource DVD or its contents, as indicated in Exhibit 1, because, on information and belief, at the time it sent that letter, XVIVO could not have seen the Documentary Film (it had not been released).
The specific segment from the educational resource DVD is not even in the final version of the Documentary Film to remove.
Makes sense to me.
But this part is funny shit and worth reading 15 pages of "I CAN EMAILZ DEM SO I CAN HAS LAWSUIT IN TEZAS?":
Even if the resource DVD or Documentary Film had relied on the Inner Life Video in part (which it did not), any such use would be protected by the doctrine of fair use.
In addition, the fact that XVIVO makes available the Inner Life Video on its website with the "lead in" that "A full length version of 'The Inner Life of a Cell' is now available online for educational use" (emphasis added) creates an implied nonexclusive license for Premise Media to precisely do what XVIVO now complains Premise Media is doing, arguendo, i.e., make "educational use" of that video, via a Documentary Film.
WULS EVAN IF WE DIDS STEALS IT.... BUT WE DIDNTZ... WERE USIN IT FOR EDUMACATION! WERE A FOR REALZIES LEARNIN DUKUMENTRY!
So, youve heard it here first, folks! All of you that saw previews of EXPELLED and saw a yellow 'Inner Life'-- you were hallucinating. All of you. Mass, country-wide, specific hallucinations. 'YELLOWZ INNER LIVES IS NUT IN EXPELLED! YELLOWZ INNER LIVES IS NUT IN EXPELLED! WHooooOOOO!'
Dont feel bad, hallucinating readers. Mark Mathis is even having trouble remembering what he has seen and which animation is in EXPELLED:
GW: I have compared the original Harvard footage with the promo DVD version that Myers has posted at Pharyngula, and though I’ve only seen the film once, as I recall, there are very, very substantial differences between the final cut of the animation and the version that appears on the promo DVD. Is that right?Poor poor Mark Mathis. All those lowly internet rats giving you trouble when all you want to do is steal other peoples hard work and make money. Must be so stressful. Explains you forgetting things.
MM: You know, I haven’t made— I believe that’s the case; but I haven’t actually watched what Myers has posted. I haven’t made my own comparison. I apologize; I should have done that, because I have the DVD version. I have the film on PC, too, so I can do that. My problem has been that I’m running so hard and fast doing twenty-seven other things that— I know that we’ve got Executive Producers who have dealt with this specifically, and this is kind of in the periphery of what I’ve been involved in. But I’m glad you brought that up, because I need to make that comparison myself, just for my own. But I know, because I’ve watched both, that certainly there are significant differences and improvements, and I believe that, because of those substantial differences, there isn’t any merit to the charge. (H/T Quidam)
This might be what is in the final version of EXPELLED:
So, EXPELLites knew after Dembski got caught they couldnt leave the real 'Inner Life' in, so they created the Frankenstein 'Inner Life' as a place-holder until they could find some 5 year olds to create a shitty Las-Vegas-Meets-TeleTubbies 'Inner Life' for the actual theatrical release because they knew their Frankenstein wouldnt hold water in court. Prescreenings were tightly regulated so 'no one' could attend but stupid rubes who wouldnt be familiar with 'Inner Life' to squeal on Premise.
I gotta say, this lead up and animation detective work has been a hell of a lot more entertaining than the actual movie will be. Now that the 'real' animation is up, I have no reason to waste $10 to go see it myself. Save my money for quality films.
And XVIVO, Harvard, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute are vindicated-- Their hard work, though pilfered by these shameless half-wit Creationists for the past year, will NOT be in the final version of EXPELLED. WHOO!