I'm also surprised that an actor in a film was able to get any claim of ownership. An actor is expected to know that a movie can change due to rewrites, or editing, or any of the reasons that films normally change between the beginning and the end of the process. But if you can show that the producer was intentionally deceptive- that he planned the whole time to make an anti-Islam hit piece but told the actors something else, then that's a different story.

This is precedent setting here as well. Usually the creator of the medium owns the copyright, not a contributor. It would change everything if new rule stands.

One point though is that the producer didn't get a release from the actress at all, so any modern release should cover any effects of changes to the film. This might case might be a unique one because of that.

This really is dangerous, as religion should be contained and eliminated from society.

Religion serves no positive purpose, and only works to hinder the good that government itself does in socialization.

Eventually religion will die, due to the socialization that the world is currently experiencing due to communications technology. Can you imagine a middle eastern person in 23 AD learning about science and pornography and art and cultures?

Some of the shit we know & see these days must be completely insane to the mind of a primitive person that would actually thinks religion is real.

And of course, you'll notice that religion is strong in non-socialized rural environments, where people don't get to normally interact with other races & cultures. Once they actually start to interact with black or gay people they end up figuring out that they're not so bad, and that their religion was probably lying to them all along.

Living in suburban sprawl is not living. It is mere existence.

The suburbs are where humanity goes to die. You will notice that no culture comes from the suburbs either.

Suburbs should just be banned.

The houses/roads/buildings in the suburbs should be torn down, replaced with trees that were originally there.

Of course, it will be difficult for the lazy to get away from the suburbs, but with appropriate government force, they will have no choice but to comply, and will eventually get over it.

So there should be no private energy companies?
No there shouldn't.

Energy should be a socialized service.

Remember when California tried to privatize energy, and there were constant blackouts? HAHA

No private guards / security companies? No private education and no private health care?

Those aren't public services.

Public services should NEVER be run by private companies, since they are inefficient and wasteful.

There's no reason for private companies to profit off the basic requirements of a functioning society.

Communications is so critical that the US Constitution writes in the Postal service as part of it.

Internet communications should be treated as a basic service.

Once this happens, we can restructure more government services to be properly internet enabled.

Really, private companies do not serve the interests of the public. They never have. They never will.

Private companies are great at the luxuries of life, not the basics.

Remember, all the disclosures show that they're filtering communications data from American citizens.

Why would the NSA keep a top-secret program to filter out communications from Americans, if they weren't interested in privacy rights?

(And it's perfectly fine for the NSA to wiretap foreigners, because fuck-em.)

Really, the only people complaining about the NSA are whiny libertarians, such as all the 12-year olds that infest this site. They just whine all the time because they are not intelligent people.

No need to break them up. Just make sure they're following the laws, which as the disclosures indicate, they are.

OK. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for this systems infrastructure? People always want the service but, for some reason, they never want to pay for it.

The way socialism works is that rich people pay for the benefits of poor.

That is because the rich are more dependent on government than the poor.

The rich need public education so that their employees can read and follow instructions and do math. They need roads to drive their goods. They need a military to protect their resources. They need everything government provides.

The poor do not give a shit about any of this. It is the rich that need this the most.

That is why they get to pay for it.

You do know that's Google's business model - to turn you into a product for advertisers.

Ultimately we need a neutral, non-advertiser driven business to support this infrastructure. Actually, socialism works well here, since this is a systems infrastructure that government is better at handling than any private corporations. We need more government solutions to these sort of problems, not private industry

Private industry cannot produce an efficient systems-level product. They will always be overpriced compared to government. It is why it only costs 50 cents to deliver mail via USPS instead of $15 to deliver it via UPS/FedEx.

A bigger government is a better government. The less government we have, the more society fails. The US is the result of a huge federal government. Let's make sure to continue to grow it with more government services and eliminate the economically dangerous freedom-lovers from our society.

A freedom-loving libertarian society is always a poor society.

A structured, socialized statist society is always a rich society.

which is why Glass will never take off.

Consumer products are only successful if they're marketed to cool, sociable people, not loser nerds with no lives.

You mistake is assuming that class divisions exist because of tyranny. It actually exists because of choice.

We have a government that takes away from the rich and give to the poor because the rich and poor are both there by choice.

The rich desire to be rich, which is fine, and we create a government that allows them to be rich by taxing them more as they gain more wealth. We use the taxes to pay for the services they need to become rich, such as education (need to make sure their employees can speak english and follow math instructions), roads (need to make sure their company goods can be transported), the military (need to protect their resources), patents (need to allow them a monopoly on their ideas), and basically every single function of government.

It is government that allows one to be wealthy.

Don't believe me?

Take away a function of government, and see how much it damages the wealthy.

That includes things like all social services (unemployment, health care, retirement, etc..) that you mistakenly assume benefit the lazy, but actually exist because it benefits the wealthy.

Really, the precious snowflake libertarians exist because they are ignorant of the overall system. It is amusing when we liberal statists watch these precious snowflake libertarians talk about their rights and freedoms and other dumb retarded shit we feed them to work harder, when we know exactly why they are mistaken and laugh at them.

These idiots actually think the money they earned is because of their hard work. LOL.

They have no idea about the Matrix we liberal statists built for them.

You're welcome.

The tea-party libertarians don't exactly refute the narcissistic, psychopathic, sadistic stereotype.

Just this week, Republican tea-party libertarian precious snowflake Senator Ted Cruz single-handedly almost caused the US to default on its debt:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

An action like that would have caused great harm to many Americans, whom he has no empathy for.

That's exactly narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic.

Really libertarians, if you don't want to be considered narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic, you'll have to behave in socialized ways that would show empathy towards your fellow citizens. That means it will cost you. You will have to pay a personal price to maintain socialization, since socialization is a personal expense.

In political structured form, we call this "taxes".

This is why we statists call you libertarians "precious snowflakes", because your narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism causes you to desocialize and make the mistaken assumption that society values you. The rest of society, the people with power over you, hardly cares about people that do not show empathy towards others, since people are territorial, and we have no interest in allowing you to live in our territory for free.

You have to pay those in power to live. Life isn't free, and it isn't about you.

Decide how you will pay us statist to allow you to live in our state.

Apple at least doesn't try to give you the illusion of openness. They make it very clear you're dealing with Apple's overall direction, which makes the system simpler to deal with - you know exactly what's going on, and you know that Apple sells systems, not subtly advertisement-driven operating systems like Google.

It's far easier to deal with something you understand than with something that's trying to hide its motives.

Those with power get to do whatever they want to those with less power.

It is how life works.

In life, you actually CAN'T do what you want. You can only do what those in power allow you to do.

This is a basic fact-of-life that libertarians do not comprehend. They mistakenly assume life comes for free, because they were mistakenly taught that way. They do not know about the real power structure in society, that they are of limited power, and that those in power have no interest in giving away their powers.

The most useful takeaway from this for libertarians is to understand that, no, you are not a precious snowflake. There are powers greater than you. You are worthless scum, and your only hope in life is to attach yourself to those of greater power.

We big-government socialists understand that. We know that, hey, individuals are insignificant, that corporations are powerful, and that government is most powerful. We therefore use the powers of government to fight against corporations. That is why we get free shit like healthcare and other government stuff.

I would encourage you to think how this structure applies to your privacy rights. Corporations want to eliminate your privacy for the purposes of profit. Your only hope to fight against that is to consider how government can protect you.

You already saw how government protects you through the Snowden disclosures, where the NSA actually has filters to protect US citizens' privacy. (because fuck foreigners).

If the government wasn't interested in your privacy rights, why would they have a classified system designed to protect and filter your private data in the first place? "huuurrr durrr but NSA is scary hurrr!"

So, get over yourselves and your precious snowflakeness, and quickly figure out how you use government to your advantage, because you're worthless on your own.

There are people that think the two parties are equivalent.

They do not know that actual policy differences occur between parties. A good example of policy differences between parties is health care.

We call these people "idiots", because they do not understand the full system. They make equivalence based on one or two data points. They are incapable of analyzing large data sets, and mistakenly form conclusions based on limited data.

Now, are there anybody that still thinks Obama and Bush are the same, given their enormous differences in health-care and environmental and labor policy?

What OTHER data points would you like to point out that show the differences between the two parties?

Don't you freedom-loving libertarians love this kind of shit?

Who cares about socialization, right? It's all about "me! Me! Me!" and whatever I can get away with.

Remember, you are a precious snowflake, and should be allowed to do what you want, because you are a precious snowflake.

yah.. sooo..
and this is why you don't vote Republican-lite libertarianism kids.
Grown-ups with socialization skills know this already.
Nerdy unsocialized people like the ones that infest this site do not know this.