Talk:The Power of Nightmares

Annex to photo request

I read some ebook on a PDF after a Google search to find out about that film, and it appears to have been produced by some private uber-conservative Christian group. Its copyright status may somehow have lapsed, but if someone tries to find it, please double-check. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Google video linkage safe

The thing is, isn't Google subject to DMCA Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, and as such, they have safe harbour unless they get a notification from the copyright holder, or their agent? And isn't the wikipedia being served from Florida, also in the same boat?

So it should be perfectly safe to link to it, provided google or the wikipedia don't get DMCA notices, and then we would just take it off.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Safe" isn't the point. The fact is that Wikipedia shouldn't be linking to blatent infringements of copyright, even if the rights holders haven't got round to addressing it. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was nervous about this as well, but it looks to me that the BBC have chosen not to enforce their full rights under copyright on this particular film right now. If they wish to market the film then they can issue the takedown notice and it will be gone in a day or two, but there's absolutely no legal issue at the moment, and I'm completely unclear that there's any moral one either. I wouldn't describe this as a 'blatant infringement of copyright'; I would reserve that phrase for cases where people have ripped off parts of the video and claimed it as their own, here the attribution and copyright ownership is completely clear.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's an infringement of copyright. It's been put on Google by someone who is clearly not connected with nor authorised by the BBC (nor any of the other various broadcasters whose material they've used) to thus upload their copyright material, and it's an infringement as soon as it gets uploaded. On Wikipedia we jump through hoops to avoid breaching copyright on the images we use here for very good reasons. Linking to illegally hosted material does the image of Wikipedia no good. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Google are perfectly entitled to host it until they get a takedown notice (similar laws in the EU also). Further there's the comments by Curtis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4202741.stm where he says that he's keen for it to be seen very widely in America, which is consistent with google hosting it. It's also been up online for quite a while, and in a variety of stable locations. If the BBC wanted this gone, it would be, they just haven't. I just don't see that this is bad in any way. Curtis himself could shut it down in minutes, but he just hasn't.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone contact Curtis himself or the IA? I tried emailing the Beeb a while ago, but I got no answer --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody did contact the IA, and they said it was fine IRC.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See the above comments on: 26 January 2006.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If the IA was told by the director, Adam Curtis, that it was OK for them to host the video, then there's simply no problem. While the BBC is not a monolithic entity, he must be highly influential within it, and he would receive royalties on sales. It's inconceivable that Adam Curtis would OK it without BBC authorisation. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the confirmation. The link doesn't work, and when I looked for the meta page myself it said nothing about this. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Google have a get-out that means they don't have to police their own site and are not liable for what other people put on it. It does not mean that it is not a breach of copyright until someone objects. Pretending that that's what the situation is is like saying that stealing something from someone's house isn't theft until they (the owner) notices it's gone. You are also mis-attributing Curtis, because he was talking about the series being more widely available within the context of the cut-down version shown at Cannes, it being picked up by a US broadcaster, or a DVD/video release. As was pointed out in January 2006, the copyright is owned by the BBC (and it clearly labeled as such in the end credits), not Curtis, and while he may personally have no objections to various online hostings, he is not in a legal position to authorise any of them. In fact, if Curtis owned the copyright, then clearly it would almost certainly have been released on DVD by now. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note of clarification; it has been released on DVD as part of the Wholphin DVD series (Wholphin is a DVD magazine). I'm curious why you are so invested in this, even to the point of calling the video "illegal." If you have specific evidence of illegal activity please let us know but you really don't seem to. csloat (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The series has indeed been included in Wholphin, but there is little evidence that it was authorised by the BBC. Looking at the first episode, there is no acknowledgement of the BBC copyright on either the packaging or the disc itself. The booklet does, in fact, include the statement that, "If there is not Power of Nightmares in your package, it means something went horribly wrong and the retailer was asked to remove the film." This suggests an anticipation that action may have been taken to prevent distribution. Bear in mind that in April 2005 Curtis stated:

"The problem is that the films are full of archive film and music from a multitude of sources. The reason my series are normally not released on DVD is that it is prohibitively costly and a nightmare - no pun intended - to clear the rights."

If WHolphin had been in a position to do the above - i.e. if their release was authorised - it is inconceivable that any of a number on small independent DVD companies in the UK could not have done the same (e.g. Network DVD - a logical choice in light of their release of three extensive volumes on John Pilger documentaries), yet no-one has. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I see - so the point of your edit warring is that you don't believe BBC owns the copyright to this material either, that the whole film is, as you say, "illegal"? If so, you will need more evidence than an ambiguous quotation from a DVD. Can you cite a WP:RS indicating that the BBC has been challenged for distributing this video illegally? Quite apart from the relatively trivial issue of whether to link the video here, that would seem to be a significant enough issue to discuss in the article. csloat (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that at all. You seem to have missed an important part of my comment at 12:47, 30 June 2008 below, i.e. "It is standard practice for the BBC to primarily make programmes for the UK market only, paying only for UK broadcast rights to use music or archive footage from other sources". The programme is copyrighted to the BBC as a whole, but - as acknowledged by Curtis himself - individual elements within it are owned by others, and would require additional rights clearance for any non-broadcast market (given that the series has been screened outside of the UK, we can assume the they paid for worldwide broadcasting rights for non-BBC footage/music, which they will do if they anticipate overseas sales). This is particularly true in the case of music, and is not in any way something new. Numerous BBC drama and comedy series have been released on VHS and DVD with music substitutions, because while it is relatively cheap to clear music for broadcast, video releases have to be cleared separately, and can be prohibitively expensive. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

By definition, the definition of 'violation of copyright' is whatever the law says it is, not what you naively think it ought to be. Google have not violated copyright by hosting this video. Whoever uploaded it may have done. Then again, for all we know, the person uploading it worked for the BBC or may actually be Curtis who may be allowed to make a limited number of copies due to his agreement with the BBC when he made the piece, so we don't even know that it is a violation at all. The bottom line is that neither Google, nor the Wikipedia is in any way liable. There also is, after this quite long time, a reasonable presumption that the BBC don't care about this. Curtis must know it's there, he certainly knew the transcripts were. He would be perfectly entitled as an agent of the BBC to send a takedown notice, as could a distributor for that matter.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What we clearly do know is that copyright to the series is owned by the BBC, although elements within it (music, archive film clips, etc.) are owned by others, as acknowledged by Curtis in April 2005. It is standard practice for the BBC to primarily make programmes for the UK market only, paying only for UK broadcast rights to use music or archive footage from other sources. In most cases, these rights have to be renegotiated for video/DVD release, and sometimes cannot be, leading to programmes being released in edited or re-dubbed form. Frankly, your suggestion that whoever uploaded the series to Google may have been in a position to do so is laughable. On the other hand, the BBC is a publicly-funded non-commercial broadcaster. It is not Viacom or Sony or Disney, and cannot employ an army of lawyers to hunt down and deal with everyone uploading their copyright material to Google or YouTube, or selling it on eBay or other online venues, for that matter. None of this, however, legitimises that unauthorised uploading, selling, etc. There are plenty of obscure feature films and television programmes that are not available officially, are available from non-authroised sources, yet we do not link to them, primarily because to do so would draw the attention of the copyright owners. The Power of Nightmares should be no exception, no matter how much we may personally feel it should be more widely available. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If this was part of a game of wack-a-mole where a video popped up, the wikipedia linked to it, and then it got taken down and the popped up elsewhere and then it got relinked, then you might have a case, but legally and morally, when something has been stably hosted for years in several reputable places, sorry, no you don't.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Adam Curtis works in the BBC News department (I can supply his email address privately if somebody wants to contact him). He has explicitly approved of file sharing before today. In one interview, he was pleased to discover that TPON was a top torrent download. ~ smb 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that - deep breath - Curtis does not own the copyright on the series. No doubt he does want to it to be widely seen, and on a personal level may well approve of its non-official distribution by various methods, but he is not in a position to sanction them in any legal sense. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's worse than that, nobody has the ability to release it. If it contains other copyright work, then it's a derived work, a blend of multiple copyrighted pieces. Not even the BBC can release it. And not one of the copyright owners have asked for it to be taken down. The people that the copyright owner would have to sue would be likely to be in a different jurisdiction and it's unlikely that they would be worth pursuing, they may not have any money anyway. The people that make the money off it, google and internet archive have a get-out-of-jail free card because it's user contributed material.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's more of a case that the BBC are in the best position to clear it for release, either in its original form, or edited to get round anything that either couldn't be cleared at all, or at too high a cost. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Really what we're seeing here is copyright law molding to the digital age where duplication of material takes seconds, and is essentially costless. Your attitudes are a bit behind the times really. The legality and morality is rapidly changing, and the wikipedia is lagging.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit like advocating that people should be allowed to jump red lights, just because it's easy for them to do so already. The simple fact is that Wikipedia does not generally link to non-official hostings of film and television material, for very good reason. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Where are the sources of Curtis's information?

I can't find any references. Under "Criticism" is just a poll of readership. Can someone please kill this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.42.120 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to check Curtis's sources - we're just reporting what happened. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He gives many of his sources in his documentary, go and watch it. Much of the rest is trivial biographical information (e.g. essentially everything about Qutb) and can be found via the article's interwikilinks (or ought to be). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is anti-Obama

Please consider this. Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it's mostly anti politicians that use fear to maintain power.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that it's anti-Obama to me. The film certainly wasn't - it's from 2004, while Obama wasn't made a senator until 2005 and had practically zero notability in the UK until the current presidential election campaign. I can't see any real bias evident in the article itself, while the subject matter is more critical of the Republicans than Democrats, in my view. Adacore (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

I want to congratulate everyone who helped bring this to FA status! Jeh (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't wait to see Conservapedia's version. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations editors! I have not edited this article at all, but I think the film series is a most outstanding work. My congratulations to all who worked to bring this article to featured status. Perhaps this will help more people to see a very eye-opening and important documentary. Calicocat (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Keep up the good work. After you have gotten McCain elected you can spend the next four years sitting around thinking up more conspiracy theories. If you let Obama win progressives might have to get up and do something constructive. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not use this talk page for a political argument. Mycroft7 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But let's do use the front page for political agenda... Gratz Jeh on politicizing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.118.157 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is using the term "progressive" in the article really NPOV? I think a lot of people right of center, particularly on economic issues, would consider themselves progressive on some things. I would have thought "left leaning" was more accurate and neutral... TastyCakes (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is referring to the accepted political movement Progressivism and is therefore correct. Adacore (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Formatting "Neo-Conservative"

In most publications -- and indeed in Wikipedia's own article on the subject -- the name of the Western political grouping that is one of the subjects of this documentary is treated as a common noun and closed up -- that is, written "neoconservative" or abbreviated "neocon". In this article, it's wince-inducingly written "Neo-Conservative", which formulation has made its way to the front page as this article has been featured. I feel strongly it should be changed to the more common punctuation, but wanted to make sure there were no objections here first... --Jfruh (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on the matter, but I'd say go for it - the Guardian manual of style, which I like to use alongside WP:MOS, is quite succinct on the matter: "Inventions, ideas and new concepts often begin life as two words, then become hyphenated, before finally becoming accepted as one word. Why wait? "Wire-less" and "down-stairs" were once hyphenated." Adacore (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow BBC usage. Jooler (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons to Farenheit 9/11

Are they really necessary? They seemed tacked on and out of place. Beam 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. — eon, 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Moonbat BBC propaganda

...doesn't belong on the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.118.157 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Go write a Conservapedia article if you feel that strongly about this neutral discussion of the subject matter. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This movie is Not anti-conservative. It is an example of conspiracy mongering, and fear mongering. It is a perfect example of what it purports to be against. Comparing Wolfowitz (usually pronounced with a German 'w' on the BBC), the bookish undersecretary of state with a liberal streak, to Ayman al Zawahiri is on the same level as the cartoon of Barak Obama on the July New Yorker cover, only that was a conscious joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it even possible to pronounce a name ending "-witz" without a german W (ie not as "-vitz")? I'd certainly never do it, and I've never heard it done - is it common practice in the US? Anyway, the bias of the movie is irrelevant to whether it should be featured or on the mainpage. Unless you feel any bias in the movie is not correctly explained in the article, in which case please provide relevant sources so this can be changed. Adacore (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in the US we tend to pronounce it with a flat "W" rather than the original German "v" sound. So "Wolf-o-wits" rather than "Wolf-o-vitz" or "Volf-o-vitz". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird - that sounds so strange to me. You learn something new every day. Adacore (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is technically indeed German, i.e. pronounced with a "vee" not a "dubya". But the origin is Anglicised Slavic "-vich", "son of". "-witz" is a common component of family names (and some toponyms even IIRC) originating in the area of eastern Germany and western Poland.

Thus it is actually the same word as Wolfensohn co-evolving through slightly different languages: "Son of the guy called 'Wolf'" (cf. "Wulf", "Ulf" and similar Germanic given names).

(As Witz means "joke" in German, these names have a somewhat hilarious air in German, more so in the FRG before reunification) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Internet archive link and copyright

I have just reverted the removal of the internet archive link to the film. I too was concerned that there might have been a copyright violation. Nevertheless, the permission is not at all clear so I have made two emails requesting clarification, one to the BBC via their webform and a second to the internet archive. Here is the second email:

Dear Internet Archive,

did the BBC or Adam Curtis give you permission to publish "The Power of Nightmares" for free download from your website?

If yes, please could you display the permission at the top of this page:

http://www.archive.org/details.php?identifier=ThePowerOfNightmares

There is some confusion among readers and other websites concerning whether permission was given, and if so what kind of permission. For example, is the permission "download for personal use only"?

Thank you for any clarification.

I would rather any response be made at the internet archive page rather than to my email address, so that other readers can also be informed.

Regards ...

Myself

84user (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been done to death before. The nature of most of Curtis's programmes precludes them from appearing in medium other than broadcasting. If they could be released on DVD officially, they would have been already; if they could be made available online, the BBC would be doing so itself via its own service (i.e. BBC iPlayer - it generally does not licence such content to other websites). The IA hosting is not "official," full stop. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you just reverted my re-instatement of the link to the internet archive. I will not put it back in. To help others, here are links to previous discussions on this:

• Talk:The Power of Nightmares/Archive 1#Legality of downloads, 4 July 2005 to 12 January 2006, continued at:
• Talk:The Power of Nightmares/Archive 2#PD?, 5 January 2006 to 28 January 2006 ending with Ben's opinion that "enough effort was made" to determine that archive.org is not violating the BBC's copyright. (my summary of Ben's opinion) (26 January 2006's meta.xml link is stale and is now at [1] and seems to identify the uploader and updaters)
• Talk:The Power of Nightmares#Google video linkage safe, 27 June 2008 to 30 June 2008, for example: "Curtis does not own the copyright on the series".

84user (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this has been revert warred to death, by Nick Cooper and others are repeatedly taking the law into their own hands and removing links to the material even though:

• it's probably not illegal to link to other sites where the material can be found anyway
• the wikipedia wouldn't be liable, provided they removed the link if requested by the copyright owner (DMCA takedown notice)
• no request to remove it has been received by the wikimedia foundation
• the BBC are extremely unlikely to request removal of the link anyway, they would perform a takedown notice on the host of the material.

On the whole, way to go guys!!! Pointless edit warring away of links that the users probably want, for absolutely no reason at all!Rememberway (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because people are getting away with illicit hosting, doesn't mean that Wikipedia should condone it. There are plenty of places where those inclined can find illicit copies of copyrighted material, but they don't get linked on WIkipedia. Why should this documentary series be any different? Nick Cooper (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)