Controversial Christmas Video
Hey all,
I made this video about a year ago - recently it has been getting some press and hitcount has shot up.
In my experience, Apple users generally have a bit more sense than the average internet junkie. This video has sparked quite a bit of controversy here and there, so I thought I would fish for a bit of input from this more sane portion of the WWW.
Comments? Critiques? It doesn't necessarily matter if you agree with the song's position; you can still assess whether it was a good representation or whether it made sense based on its assumptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyR0lwO-nXc
For those of you who are interested - I made this using iMovie HD in about five hours. I downloaded all the video clips from YouTube manually.
-David
I made this video about a year ago - recently it has been getting some press and hitcount has shot up.
In my experience, Apple users generally have a bit more sense than the average internet junkie. This video has sparked quite a bit of controversy here and there, so I thought I would fish for a bit of input from this more sane portion of the WWW.
Comments? Critiques? It doesn't necessarily matter if you agree with the song's position; you can still assess whether it was a good representation or whether it made sense based on its assumptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyR0lwO-nXc
For those of you who are interested - I made this using iMovie HD in about five hours. I downloaded all the video clips from YouTube manually.
-David
Comments
Seems to me theBible is pretty clear on God's feelings on obeying man's laws.
Romans 13
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
But since Christ forgives all sins, you're good to go... so long as you genuinely repent of your copyright infringement.
Then it came... "nailed to a TREEE YEAH YEAAAAAAAH!"
Hilarious! A++! Will watch again!
Creating a false controversy to convince people to sit through four minutes of "Jesus loves you" is pathetic. I thought lying was wrong -- I must have missed the exception of when it's employed for the "greater good."
Castro would be proud.... "Within the revolution, everything; against the revolution, nothing."
Your post is only a thinly veiled attempt to evangelise us. Creating a false controversy to convince people to sit through four minutes of "Jesus loves you" is pathetic. I thought lying was wrong -- I must have missed the exception of when it's employed for the "greater good."
Actually, you're incorrect. I was hoping to get constructive criticism on both digital effects and the presentation of the message (regardless of whether you agreed with said message). You know, stuff like "You could stand to use slightly more obvious transitions that iMovie HD provides" or "I don't agree with the message, but most of it makes sense in its own except for this part...." Would that be too much to ask?
But since Christ forgives all sins, you're good to go... so long as you genuinely repent of your copyright infringement.
What copyright infringement? Like I said, all these videos had already been made publicly available when they were uploaded to YouTube. That's where I got them from. Couple this with legal standards of de minimis and there is no copyright infringement here.
It is a controversial video because some people generally get ticked over it and want to argue. I thought that people like us (i.e. Apple users) generally had enough rationality to be able to assess something without resorting to personal attacks. Can you do that?
But wait.....it IS controversial......
Take a look at that Wise Man. Look familiar?
It's the same actor they've been using to promote those other dodgy myths
Which one - Nadim Sawalha or Stefan Kalipha? Stefan is the only one who has played in a few religiously-themed films ... and remember, The Nativity Story was filmed through the decidedly non-religious New Line Cinema.
And what does that have to do with the presentation of the position given by the film/song?
http://video.google.com/googleplayer...3972&hl=en
I'd like to say its terribly contraversial, but controversy is just a point of view. It all seems natural to me.
here's my bit of propaganda to make a feeble attempt to bolster my world view...
http://video.google.com/googleplayer...3972&hl=en
I'd like to say its terribly contraversial, but controversy is just a point of view. It all seems natural to me.
Thank you for this: if I'm ever in a spiteful mood, I'll send it along to my family!
There is, perhaps, some bit of hope: at the end of the age of Pisces, maybe Jesus' reign will actually come to an end -- we can only hope...
What copyright infringement? Like I said, all these videos had already been made publicly available when they were uploaded to YouTube. That's where I got them from. Couple this with legal standards of de minimis and there is no copyright infringement here.
Unless you have the written permission of all the rights holders to all the clips you've used, you've committed copyright infringement. Just because something is publicly available, doesn't give you the rights to repurpose content. Getting something from YouTube that you don't have the rights to is no different than recording it off of your cable.
de minimus just means that the violation you've committed is not worth the time of pursuing for either our overworked court system or the actual rights holders. That just means you're not going to get in trouble with the US legal system. It doesn't mean that you haven't committed a crime. You've broken the laws of your government, which God specifically told you not to do in Romans 13. Why won't you repent of this simple mistake? God knows that we are flawed and will make mistakes like this. That's why He granted us Christ's salvation.
de minimus just means that the violation you've committed is not worth the time of pursuing for either our overworked court system or the actual rights holders. That just means you're not going to get in trouble with the US legal system. It doesn't mean that you haven't committed a crime. You've broken the laws of your government, which God specifically told you not to do in Romans 13. Why won't you repent of this simple mistake? God knows that we are flawed and will make mistakes like this. That's why He granted us Christ's salvation.
Actually, that's not what de minimis means in the context of copyright infringement. It's de minimis non curat lex (trivial matters are not the concern of law). In other words, laws (like those against copyright infringement) are not intended to deal with trivial matters, but rather to prevent damages to the copyright holder. The courts apply law on the basis of its intended purpose, not on the basis of whether there is any way to get a "violation" out of a given incident.
Since I haven't deprived anyone of anything (no stealing) and I didn't claim someone else's work as my own (no lying) and the sampling I did is so trivial that it is "not the concern of law" (not the intended object of the law), I haven't broken any laws (civil or moral).
Creative use of pseudochristian rhetoric, though.
Actually, that's not what de minimis means in the context of copyright infringement. It's de minimis non curat lex (trivial matters are not the concern of law). In other words, laws (like those against copyright infringement) are not intended to deal with trivial matters, but rather to prevent damages to the copyright holder. The courts apply law on the basis of its intended purpose, not on the basis of whether there is any way to get a "violation" out of a given incident.
De minimis in copyright law typically deals with the quantity of the copyrighted work used or its exposure in the new work. Feel free to look it up.
What's controversial about it? Is it the copyright infringement you've committed?
There is nothing controversial about that video. Your post is only a thinly veiled attempt to evangelise us. Creating a false controversy to convince people to sit through four minutes of "Jesus loves you" is pathetic. I thought lying was wrong -- I must have missed the exception of when it's employed for the "greater good."
Totally agree, boys. This thread is pathetic. I love this part:
recently it has been getting some press and hitcount has shot up.
WTF.