By Derrick Brown (follow on Twitter @dbrowndbrown)
-001.jpg)
Dear Hannah,
There is sometimes folly in faith ... and there is sometimes faith in folly.
Love,
Daddy
Love,
Daddy
Support Our Work - Buy This Podcast (SEE BELOW)!
"LEarning (The "Real" Matrix - in 5 minutes)"
By Derrick Brown
3-5-2017
A long time ago, a movie called "The Matrix" captured our attention.
The movie conveyed that reality was not "real" - but simulated and imagined.
It made lots of "real" money, though.
A few years after, author Sophia Stewart sued the key players behind "The Matrix" for copyright infringement.
She also sued the key players behind "The Terminator".
She alleged that both movies were based on works she created in the early 1980s.
Court documents show that Stewart did not win her lawsuit.
They also suggest that she did not win because her case was legally difficult to prove - not necessarily because it was false.
Stewart had to show that the defendants viewed her works, and had to show how they were incorporated into both films.
I have studied many technical papers, musical compositions, song lyrics, and movie screenplays.
I know that is not hard to make a "new" idea by combining a couple of "old" ideas.
It happens more than you know.
Stewart admitted to being inspired by "Star Wars" to create her works.
"Star Wars" contains elements inspired by the Bible ("May The Force Be With You") and a popular Japanese film.
"Alien", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "The Lion King", "Toy Story" - all "appropriated" other movie plots to craft their stories.
Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" ... Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" ... Ray Parker, Jr.'s "Ghostbusters" - all "appropriated" other works.
There is a far more fascinating story here, though - one that makes it hard to draw conclusions.
See, many people want to believe Sophia Stewart's claim, and have for years circulated Internet stories claiming that she won her lawsuit - and was awarded billions in damages.
Just as many people do not want to believe her claims, and have portrayed her as "flaky".
They cite the court's decision without acknowledging that it was based on narrow technicalities set forth in copyright infringement laws.
Laws that are sometimes designed to protect the guilty more than the innocent.
We see and portray things as we would like for them to be - and do so often when we do not know one way or the other.
Sometimes this is an exercise of faith.
Sometimes this is an exercise of folly.
The real folly, though, is when you and I debate - with me in support of my faith and against your folly ...
... and claim that there can only be one winner.
There may be two losers ...
It might be closer to the truth to recognize that there is sometimes folly in faith ... and there is sometimes faith in folly.
I said that once, but please hear me twice.
Copyright © 2017 Derrick Brown. All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment