Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:23 am Post subject: Attempts To Ban Loose Change |
 |
|
http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/90896.asp
Hillsboro lawyer clears way for airing of movie about 9/11
| Quote: | A film that suggests the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government cannot be barred from being shown on Hillsboro's local access television channel.
Policy on the access channel was clarified at the July 11 meeting of the Hillsboro City Council.
City attorney Doug Jarman's legal opinion about the cable franchise agreement concerning PEG (Public access, Education, Government) Channel 99 cleared the way for the airing of the film, "Loose Change ."
The documentary did not air in May, as officials previously had promised Nick Pretnar of Taylor Springs.
Mayor Bill Baran made the decision to ban the program.
That prompted Pretnar, a college student, to seek an explanation at the council's June 27 meeting. The mayor then sought a legal opinion from the city attorney.
Jarman said the present use of Channel 99 for public access programs like church services, sporting events and community parades indicates the city should either abide by PEG rules in programming or air no public access programs at all.
"There is very little you can't show on public access TV," said Jarman. "We don't have the authority to censor."
There are exceptions for copyright infringement, commercial use and obscenity, he explained.
Noting that he had viewed "Loose Change" twice, the mayor said
the program is on a par with television programs that present other differing opinions.
"I don't have to agree with them to justify them being on TV," he said.
Baran said the film would be broadcast on Channel 99 for one week, as originally requested.
"Loose Change," among many other allegations, suggests that the World Trade Center towers were not demolished by two planes crashing into them, but by pre-planted explosives; that no plane hit the Pentagon at all; and that the fourth plane, rather than crashing in Pennsylvania, actually landed at an airport in Cleveland.
Independent critics of the film, however, say it is a piece of propaganda and contains hundreds of factual errors and omissions, many of them serious. For instance, according to critics cited at Wikipedia, the film never reports the fact that dozens of eyewitnesses saw an American Airlines jet strike the Pentagon, that tons of debris from that plane were found at the site, and that the remains of all but one passenger on the flight were later positively identified by forensic scientists.
Nancy Slepicka can be reached through the metro desk at 788-1519. |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/
9/11 conspiracy movie taken off the web
| Quote: | Two French filmmakers, who accompanied New York firefighters into the World Trade Centre on 9/11, are threatening to sue the makers of 9/11 conspiracy web documentary Loose Change, claiming the movie infringes their copyright.
Loose Change, one of the top downloads on Google Video and YouTube, is an 81 minute long documentary, crammed with TV news footage and still photographs, which alleges that the 9/11 attacks were not the result of terrorism, but a series of cleverly executed events carried out by the Bush administration. It suggests that American Airlines Flight 77 could not have crashed into the Pentagon, that the actual collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were triggered by explosions, and that United Airlines Flight 93 did not terminate in rural Pennsylvania, but landed safely at Cleveland Hopkins Airport.
Loose Change began as a fictional story about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but when film maker Dylan Avery, who is in his early twenties, started researching, he became a believer himself. Edited on a $1,500 Compaq laptop, using Adobe Premiere and After Effects, the movie was released on DVD first, then unleashed on the web. Since then, more than two million people have downloaded the movie. Until recently, it was still available on a DVD for $17.95. Avery says that over 50,000 copies have been sold. A heavily edited version is still intended for cinema screening at the fifth anniversary of 9/11 in September 2006.
Although praised by 9/11 conspiracists, the documentary has also been widely criticised. Mark Roberts, who compiled the Loose Change Viewer Guide, says he counted 81 "errors of fact and instances of conjecture not supported by evidence, logical fallacies, uses of images that do not support the conclusions being drawn, and other flubs".
It is a copyright dispute that is currently causing problems for the Loose Change makers right now though.
In a certified letter sent to Dylan Avery, lawyers for Jules and Gedeon Naudet, makers of the renowned documentary 9/11 - The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition, say they have never endorsed nor sponsored the controversial views in the film. The brothers captured what is thought to be the only footage of the first plane hitting the North tower
"It is clear that your intent is not to spread a controversial message but rather to profit," the lawyers conclude. They have identified at least 14 videofragments, including interviews with firemen. The Naudet Brothers, backed by distributor Paramount, are demanding $150,000 for each act of willful infringement.
Although Avery has removed the movie from his site, and says "he fully cooperates with the Naudet brothers", he still encourages viewing the movie on Google Video.
But maybe not for long. Google says it only accepts video uploads from persons who hold all necessary rights to the uploaded material.
"Our policy is to respond to any notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)," the company says. "If we receive a notice or otherwise have reason to believe that content you submitted infringes another party's copyright, your account may be terminated and the video removed from Google Video."
A spokesman for Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz confirmed the firm was handling a case for the Naudets, but refused to comment further. ®
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
