Uploaded February 2011 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Update: Comment approval now removed. You are free to comment as you wish. This will be revisited if anyone else tries to circumvent a channel ban in future.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
I'm citing "Fair Use" under US Copyright Act, Title 17 512 (g)(f), specifically those clauses covering Comment and Criticism, as well as the DMCA.
aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/asset_upload_file939_6218.pdf
Also "Fair Dealing" under UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c.48, Part 1(Copyright) Section 79.4a
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4
Censorship is NOT a valid argument.
This is the fourth part of my critical analysis of "What The Bleep Do We Know?! Down The Rabbit Hole".
Note: Re-upload - Encoding errors and a problem with the tally count at the end required another re-render. As a consequence, I took the time to re-word a few of my responses here and there.
Update: Comment approval now removed. You are free to comment as you wish. This will be revisited if anyone else tries to circumvent a channel ban in future.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
I'm citing "Fair Use" under US Copyright Act, Title 17 512 (g)(f), specifically those clauses covering Comment and Criticism, as well as the DMCA.
aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/asset_upload_file939_6218.pdf
Also "Fair Dealing" under UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c.48, Part 1(Copyright) Section 79.4a
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4
Censorship is NOT a valid argument.
This is the fourth part of my critical analysis of "What The Bleep Do We Know?! Down The Rabbit Hole".
Note: Re-upload - Encoding errors and a problem with the tally count at the end required another re-render. As a consequence, I took the time to re-word a few of my responses here and there.










