The comment is probably going to silently disappear at a later date– I believe DaveScot regularly alters posts/comments that are >year old.

hehehehe!

It must die as quietly as possible.

Who’s got the Magic?

“#3“copy_wrong” raise some interesting points. Most importantly is it ethical to use a ‘pirated’ version of the video?

Irrespective of who did the amateurish editing or voiceover, it’s very clear that the copy used was not Harvard and XVIVO’s intended final product.

Integrity is hard won and easily lost. For using Harvard/XVIVO’s work modified and without their knowledge or permission, Hasn’t Mr Dembski’s compromised his Integrity?”

“I’m sure we can all agree that when you use someone else’s work you need to take pains to ensure you are presenting it completely, accurately and properly attributed. Especially if monetary considerations are involved.”

We’ll see if this innocuous message gets posted or not.

Maybe I’ll get banned from UD!! :)

< By William A. Dembski | November 26, 2007

---

> By William A. Dembski | originally posted November 26, 2007 | updated November 27, 2007

9c9

< Back in September of 2006 I announced at my blog UncommonDescent that a breathtaking video titled The Inner Life of Cell had just come out (see http://www.uncommondescent.com//the-inner-life-of-a-cell). The video was so good that I wanted to use it in some of my public presentations, but when I tried to purchase a DVD of it (I sent several emails to relevant parties), I was informed it wasn’t ready. Moreover, at the time, the video did not have a voiceover explaining the biology of what was being shown.

—

> Back in September of 2006 I announced at my blog UncommonDescent that a breathtaking video titled The Inner Life of Cell had just come out (see http://www.uncommondescent.com//the-inner-life-of-a-cell). The video was so good that I wanted to use it in some of my public presentations, but when I tried to purchase a DVD of it (I sent several emails to relevant parties), I was informed it wasn’t ready (to my knowledge the video is still not available for sale in DVD or any other format if it were, I would gladly purchase it and encourage others to do so). Moreover, at the time, the video did not have a voiceover explaining the biology of what was being shown.

Not sure what the point there is. We’ve already established buying a DVD would not make a difference for authorization to use the video. Adding more sucking-up noises isn’t going to help. But at least it wasn’t an addition of fart noises.

12c12

< A few months later I found on the Internet a version of the video that did have a voiceover and was in a format that allowed me to incorporate it into my PowerPoint presentations. I used the video a handful of times, including at a talk in Oklahoma this September. In consequence, some biologist(s) in the audience contacted the makers of the video, falsely suggesting to them and on the web:

---

> Although the video was at the time and remains to this day widely available on the web (YouTube has many copies go, for instance, here), most simply have some background music that do not explain the relevant biology. A few months after announcing the video at UncommonDescent, I found on the Internet a version of the video that did add a voiceover, giving the relevant biology, and was in a format that allowed me to incorporate it into my PowerPoint presentations. I used the video a handful of times, including at a talk in Oklahoma this September. In consequence, some biologist(s) in the audience contacted the makers of the video, falsely suggesting to them and on the web:

Translation of change: ‘Other people violated the same copyright; why are you picking on me?’

Again, not sure why he bothered.

24c24

< Each of these allegations is false. Regarding (1), I took a version of the video that I found on the Internet, one with a voiceover that I thought would have the best educational value for my listeners. The version I used took the original soundtrack, which simply had some music, and added a voice. The voice, just to be clear, is not mine. I had nothing to do with modifying or recrafting the video. I received it, as it were, off the shelf.

---

> Each of these allegations is false. Regarding (1), I downloaded from the Internet a version of the video with a voiceover describing the relevant biology. It seemed to me accurate and to have the best educational value for my listeners. The version I used took the original soundtrack, which simply had music, and added a voice. I had nothing to do with modifying or recrafting or authorizing the production of the video (in particular, that is not my voice on the video). The video I showed is the one I downloaded.

Ah, now here’s an edit with a purpose. Dembski has keyed in on my criticism noting that he knew what the actual Harvard/XVIVO video looked like, and selected among alternatives a derivative work. He’s backing away from that admission and trying to substitute a version where he satisficed upon downloading the version he used in his lectures. And, of course, I get no credit for pointing out that there was a problem.

45c45
< Here is the screen capture of the final thing people saw when I presented the video:

---

> Here is the screen capture of the final thing people saw when I presented the video (note that it is dim, so it might be difficult to make out without a suitable projector and lighting):

OK, yes, here Dembski is editing to address what Abbie Smith noted, which is that few, if any, of the attendees at the OU lecture could actually state that they saw the credits at the end.

All in all, I’m not sure that Dembski materially improved on his original with these edits.

And Wes picks up on another typical Dembski trait – quietly revising history as he goes along, without attribute or comment.

The sad thing is, had Dembski allowed comments on the newest thread, most of the usual cast of sycophants would probably be lauding him for his integrity or bemoaning the fact he’s stopping use of the video even though he did nothing wrong.

Likewise my “reply” to him (which I rather doubt will make it past moderation) is:

“copy_wrong” raise some interesting points. Most importantly is it ethical to use a ‘pirated’ version of the video?

Irrespective of who did the amateurish editing or voiceover, it’s very clear that the copy used was not Harvard and XVIVO’s intended final product.

We could have a pool on how long that comment lasts…