Rule of Reason Blog Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 By Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog So say Penn and Teller in this video of an episode of the comedic duo's provocatively-named Showtime series that is now propagating across the Internet. What is remarkable about this video is that Penn and Teller actually track down and confront the federal regulator that is responsible for much of the pro-recycling hype, a one Dr. J. Winston Porter, PhD who was the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the Environmental Protection Agency during the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Porter was responsible for an 1989 EPA report that claimed that the US would run out of landfill space if it did not recycle at least 25% of is garbage waste—ignoring the salient fact that landfill space is cheaper and ultimately less polluting than the recycling craze he started. The other refreshing angle is the unvarnished contempt Penn and Teller have for the irrational. They so utterly demolish the pro-recycling environmentalists, one almost feels sorry for the bastards—were they not behind wasteful and inefficient myth-making. Pretty compelling stuff for only a 30-minute program aimed at a mass audience. NB: The language in this clip may be inappropriate for some viewers—discretion is advised. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002141.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 Absolutely brilliant! And so fucking entertaining! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myself Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 I love Penn and Teller. I was cracking up the whole damn episode...Thanks for posting - this informatiom should be disseminated as widely as possible and hopefully people will start to listen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 (edited) Absolutely brilliant! And so fucking entertaining! That brings up my only criticism: they are Libertarians and it shows in Penn's gratuitous use of the F-word. He is undermining his own case; people will take them less seriously because they seem to be using the TV as their personal stage in which to smear as much obscenity as possible. I could go on... (he's not as bad with it in this episode as he in in some others) Still, this is a very good expose and I like the show despite its flaws. Clearly most people aren't aware of the truth about recycling and very much need to be made aware of it. Edited December 2, 2006 by Inspector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 I heard (I think they explain this in their first episode) that they swear a lot for legal reasons; if they call someting a "scam" or a "fraud" or someone a "liar," they can get sued. If they call something "bullsh**t," on the other hand, it's safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Has anybody on this forum ever heard of copyrights? Just wondering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myself Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Has anybody on this forum ever heard of copyrights? Just wondering... Yes. Your point being? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Has anybody on this forum ever heard of copyrights? Just wondering... Given that this is cross-posted from Rule of Reason (who I know are reputable) and that P&T are Libertarians, it's pretty safe to assume that they gave permission to put this episode up on the web. I heard (I think they explain this in their first episode) that they swear a lot for legal reasons; if they call someting a "scam" or a "fraud" or someone a "liar," they can get sued. If they call something "bullsh**t," on the other hand, it's safe. Yes, there is that, too. But sometimes they do it gratuitously (swearing, showing disgusting stuff, etc), just the same. This episode isn't too bad in that respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) Eric, I'm probably going to be known as the copyright guy on this forum. Actually, rule of reason also crossposted from google video. Click or the little arrow on the google video icon and you can see. I was going to say something, but decided I would just email penn and teller first. Now that the issue has already been raised by someone else ... Well, I'll just post again when I recieve a response. I did find out that these videos have been pulled from google video in the past for copyright violation. (according to the penn and teller forum members) On the lighter side, I'm a fan of this series. That's saying something considering I don't own a TV. JASKN, was that a reference to the frequent use of "F***" on the show? They did a show on that ("profanity") too. www.pennandteller.com Edited December 3, 2006 by Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Has anybody on this forum ever heard of copyrights?Oh no, it's spreading. Before you know it, everybody is gonna have memorized Title 17. Still, it raises an important question about morality and the distinction between evasion and innocent presumption. Suppose that the Google video has clearly been labeled "This clip is posted in violation of the owner's copyright", then ROR could not morally have posted a link to the clip, even though pointing to an illegally copied protected work is not a violation of the law: that would be evading the central moral issue, that the clip is not "public property" and permission has not been given by the owners to freely distribute. OTOH, suppose there is no such label, then is it reasonable to assume that the clip is posted with permission? Given the artists involved, it is reasonable (but certainly not guaranteed correct) to assume that there was permission. On the third hand, it is also far from guaranteed that P&T own the copyright. So all in all, I would not conclude that Provenzo was acting imorally, though he may have been acting cavalierly in not verifying that the clip was rightfully posted in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweiss Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) Well this show was certainly illuminating. I have always felt that I was wasting energy, washing my garbage before disposing of it. These guys really bring out the absurdity of the whole program, and kudos to them for tracking down the originator of this fascist law. The kind of recycling that I think makes sense is along the lines of how milk and certain goods were sold when I was a young boy�”in glass bottles that you returned to the milk company. For many years, our milk was delivered into an insulated aluminum box, which sat on our front porch. We’d use the milk, and return the bottles to the box. The milk man would regularly pickup the used bottles and back they would go for cleaning and refilling. A more efficient system, if you ask me. One thing that highly irritates me about packaging today is certain electronic items and printer cartriges. Now, a printer cartridge is only a couple inches square, but why does it have to come in a friggin plastic clamshell case that measures 12” wide by 18” tall, and 3” thick?? If security is an issue, just put the damned RFID tags inside the boxes and lets get rid of the #3 non-recyclable plastic clamshells for once and for all! Companies like H/P need to stop this kind of BS, because their trash takes up nearly my entire wastebasket with on item, it’s hard to compress, not to mention it’s downright dangerous to open! Have you ever sliced your hand open with a box cutter, just trying to get one of these packages open? Absurd! And time consuming as heck! Our town has been really big on recycling for a long time. Those people with the ten colored trash cans on the curb, I can just see the local HOA getting after them for ‘ruining the look of the neighborhood.” Edited December 4, 2006 by GreedyCapitalist Remove quoted text Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakarmaskannar Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Unfortunately for me, living as I do in the UK, my local Municipal Council (who I am forced to pay taxes to for my waste removal an other services, regardless of how much I need or use them) has decided to change their waste-collection service without consultation with those who are paying for it. Our bins have been getting collected weekly but now we residents have been provided with a green bin that is to be collected on alternate weeks from the black bin collection. We have also been given a green box (about 8 cubic feet capacity that gets collected weekly). The only items allowed into the large green bin are "Cardboard untouched by food" and "Green waste" (ie. grass and hedge cuttings) which is useful seeing as most of us living near the town centre have no lawns. The small box is for glass, paper, tins. That leaves me having to make sure that my black bin is able to last two weeks with plastics, food-contaminated products, waste-food leavings and all the other sundry items left over from a family of five. Just another fine example of Government-provided service that would be much more efficient and cost-effective if free enterprise was allowed to flourish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Given the artists involved, it is reasonable (but certainly not guaranteed correct) to assume that there was permission. I disagree. The video was recorded off of Showtime and posted to Google video by someone with username Msiadeli. The recording ends before the copyright notice appears (which is normally at the end of the show). Even if permission were granted, wouldn't the owner still insist that the copyright notice be present? In fact, the copyright owner is Showtime, not Penn & Teller. If Showtime wanted to make this video freely available, I would expect them to put it on their own site and not use Google video under some mysterious username. In glancing at their site, it appears that Showtime doesn't make any of their shows freely available. They do SELL some shows (but not Bullshit!) on iTunes. I don't see how anyone could reasonably assume that this video was posted to Google with permission from the copyright owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 In fact, the copyright owner is Showtime, not Penn & Teller.I am open to either possibility: I take it that you have direct knowledge of their copyright agreement. Without such direct knowledge (which I assume Provenzo lacked), either possibility is open, and in fact under the law, you would have to assume that copyright remains with the creators, unless you have direct knowledge of an assignment agreement. I should also point out that a copyright notice attached to a TV show does not mean that SHO actually has the copyright to the "basic content" of the show. They may license the production and wrap it up in a larger work that is protected, but what is protected is only the SHO contribution. So really it hinges on whether they have a contract that assigns the copyright. Which they might, and which is why I said that it is reasonable to assume that the copyright owners may have given permission (note that "reasonable" does not mean "guranteed"). It is entirely reasonable to assume that the original creators, who are big enough names to get to call the shots in negotiating a contract, retain copyright. And it is reasonable, knowing the general apparently anti-establishment anarchic beliefs of Penn Gillette, that he repudiates the notion of copyright. Neither of these propositions is guaranteed to be true, but there is as much evidence that they are true as that they are false, that the conclusion is reaonable. But possible false. If the big man wants to post the definitive answer here, that would really be the best way to answer the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Yes, ecomaniacal recycling is bs, as evidenced by the fact that nobody in their right mind does it, but that it is only government forcing us to do it that makes such an activity even possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 JASKN, was that a reference to the frequent use of "F***" on the show? They did a show on that ("profanity") too.Yes, it was a reference to Penn's profanity. Which I did not have a problem with, by the way, and I did not find it distracting, but very funny. I personally find profanity to be an unimportant issue, and it baffles me how much energy is put into suppressing the language on television. In that context, with Penn's particular style of narrating, and given the air-tight execution of this episode (was it really only a half-hour long?), the profanity was hilarious to me. I didn't know this show existed, as I don't really watch television (besides in DVD format occasionally); I also didn't know Penn was a Libertarian, I didn't think Libertarianism was blaring throughout, so the episode was great for me. Do most episodes wreak of Libertarian views, or are they similar to this one, where reason easily destroys a commonly-held, "bullshit" belief? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Do most episodes wreak of Libertarian views, or are they similar to this one, where reason easily destroys a commonly-held, "bullshit" belief?I've watched the show for most of its run, and focusing on the content rather than the delivery, I have found relatively little to disagree with. Three excellent shows that come to mind are the "You can find Jesus anywhere you look" show, the self-help guru show, and the diversity show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Has anybody on this forum ever heard of copyrights? I've noticed that only a few episodes from each season are posted on Google, and others ones get taken down quickly. I've also heard of other networks that allow their shows to be posted on YouTube by any user. I bought the first two seasons of Bullshit! and seeing the latest shows prompted me to look for the latest release, so I presume that Showtime actively or passively consented to the release. (IANAL, but I think that actively consenting to posting their shows online is more legally expensive for Showtime that passively allowing others to post a select few shows.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 "F***" As an aside, I don't object to people censoring themselves, but the FCC doesn't have any authority over this forum (yet), and I think it's pretty silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Greedy, that was partially out of habit. I avoid actions that will get me booted from many forums. It's a lot easier than finding each forum's policy on such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Vague reply from showtime ... "Thank you for alerting us to this occurrence." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 5, 2006 Report Share Posted December 5, 2006 I also didn't know Penn was a Libertarian, I didn't think Libertarianism was blaring throughout, so the episode was great for me. Do most episodes wreak of Libertarian views, or are they similar to this one, where reason easily destroys a commonly-held, "bullshit" belief? Some episodes more than others. This one was pretty tame in that regard. It's still worth watching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaseballGenius Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 Notice how P&T show that recycling aluminum is actually more beneficial than throwing it in the garbage because it has more value than the other products. Just in case you missed it and denounced all recycling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I really quite like the show! It is bloodly marvellous! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I have not seen many of the episodes of this show really. However I do like a lot of what they have to say and it can be quite entertaining and sometimes revealing as well. However I do wonder about possible mixed premises. One example is when they quite strongly suggest that they believe that they are good arguments for Socialism, and it is certaintly nothing I have yet seen them try to debunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.