But, but, but, but, but Moore's film was a "documentary" so it couldn't have been filled with lies, misleading statements, falsehoods, etc, etc.

That would be impossible / sarc off

Sounds about right. A liberal (Michael Moore) speaks and lies fall out of his mouth.

Why did it take him so long afterwards to file a lawsuit...and after two "documentaries" to the contrary?

Because he tried to settle it out of court with Moore and of course Moore refused.

That's why.

Sounds like a frivolous lawsuit. Once his interview was broadcast over the public airwaves, the clip became part of the public domain. Moore was showing how our soldiers are receiving horrible wounds and are suffering. The soldiers personnel views on the war is not germane.

This patriotic Iraq war vet should have asked for more $$$.

Thank you! Sgt. Peter Damon for defending the United States of America and liberating those 25 million Iraqis! Salute!

"Sounds like a frivolous lawsuit. Once his interview was broadcast over the public airwaves, the clip became part of the public domain. Moore was showing how our soldiers are receiving horrible wounds and are suffering. The soldiers personnel views on the war is not germane."

Why is it that liberals have so little knowledge about copyright laws? They seem to think anything and everything is for public use and they don't need to ask permission for anything. Just because an interview is broadcast in NO WAY makes it public domain. That's like saying the superbowl is public domain and its recording and sale is perfectly ok. Then again laws dont apply to liberals.

"Why did it take him so long afterwards to file a lawsuit...and after two "documentaries" to the contrary?"

I dunno...maybe it was that whole "double amputee" thing? I'm just spitballing here, but maybe the guy had other things to worry about.

Geez....

jonathon, you are forgetting about the "fair use" provision of the US copyright laws, which will likely be used to show it was legal for him to use it

Sweet!

Smack it to im! I hope he gets every red cent, so it can actually go for a cause greater than michael Moores pocketbook! I have no doubt that this soldier will use the majority of the funds to help his fellow disabled vets! By the way blind eye, if you lost your legs, why would you defend a loser like Bush and go after a wiener.... I mean winner like Mikey Moore! Hmmmmmmmmm............ Maybe he believes in something greater than himself, something greater than pres. Bush, something greater than Mikey Moore!!! go figure!

-- You've spent too much time in bootcamp. They've bootwashed you good, believing you're in Iraq to serve america rather than to make Bush and Cheney millions and millions and millions.

Smack it to im! I hope he gets every red cent, so it can actually go for a cause greater than michael Moores pocketbook! I have no doubt that this soldier will use the majority of the funds to help his fellow disabled vets! By the way blind eye, if you lost your legs, why would you defend a loser like Bush and go after a wiener.... I mean winner like Mikey Moore! Hmmmmmmmmm............ Maybe he believes in something greater than himself, something greater than pres. Bush, something greater than Mikey Moore!!! go figure!

"jonathon, you are forgetting about the "fair use" provision of the US copyright laws, which will likely be used to show it was legal for him to use it"

That would be extremely unprecedented so i'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about.

No it isn't. Its actually rather clear. And its not unprecedented, theres existing case law on the books in regards to this.

----------------------

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
How Current is This?

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

2003 -- Sgt. Damon is wounded and, later, interviewed by NBC's Brian Williams.
Winter 2004 -- Michael Moore creates "Fahrenheit 9/11," includes video footage of Damon interview with NBC, with the network's permission.
Approx. April 2004 -- John Gonsalves founds "Homes for Our Troops" with intention of building a home for Damon.
June 2004 -- "Fahrenheit 9/11" is released.
July 2004 -- Gonsalves and Damon's wife quoted as objecting to his news clip being used in F911.
October 2004 -- Damon appears in "FahrenHype 911."
December 2004 -- Ground is broken for Damon's new home.

Notice how Sgt. Damon does not utter a complaint or suit until after he gets his free house.

I am not sure if it was or was not a violation of the law to reuse the interview. However, to me it’s the ethical (maybe legal) issue of using an interview and distorting the content of the interview by “clever” editing. Even you liberals must admit Moore walks a fine line with his editing techniques and in this situation he crossed the line.

Some of the liberals responding on this post don't have a clue. They babble on without any facts. Peter was upset because Michael used the footage out of context. The way the shots were spliced, it implied that Peter left he was left behind by the government. It doesn't have anything to do with Public Domain or anything like that. In an interview on Hannity and Colmes, Peter talked about when he was filmed. He was heavily medicated and getting ready to go into surgery. He reports very positive support from the government after his accident. And reported that other soldiers at the hospital wanted to go back to Iraq. Initially all Peter wanted was an apology from Michael. He tried for two years without any reply. Cowards rarely reply. Anyone can cut and past things out of context and idiots will believe anything they want. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

I'm sorry, but regardless of fault here, $85 million for a brief, misleading appearance in a movie is far too much. Damon is just feeding the system of overpriced frivilous lawsuits. Think about it. You could buy a bloody yacht several times over for "emotional damage"? Please. It was a 10-second clip.

I am not sure if it was or was not a violation of the law to reuse the interview. However, to me it’s the ethical (maybe legal) issue of using an interview and distorting the content of the interview by “clever” editing. Even you liberals must admit Moore walks a fine line with his editing techniques and in this situation he crossed the line.

-- Possibly, but news crews do it all the time, they edit and truncate interviews to make it fit into the viewpoint that they are reporting from.