# Has Michael Moore fallen off the edge? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 8, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700 "2004-11-08T19:31:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/81 "2004-11-09T18:28:16Z")
> [@El Cid Viscoso](#): > > Let’s see here. > > **Michael Moore** > History of ripping people off. CHECK Cite? > [@](#): > > History of omitting attribution to other people’s work. CHECK Cite? > [@](#): > > History of using deceptive tactics (including altered images) to further his agenda. CHECK Cite? I note that the second half of your post was cited. So OK, I’ll buy that. Please make the remainder of your argument compelling instead of innuendoish. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/82 "2004-11-09T18:30:09Z")
> [@](#): > > _El Cid Viscoso:_ > G Webb > History of web/graphic design. CHECK > History of designing cel-shaded cow that appears in link-proof “Jesus Map”. CHECK > > No known history of ripping people off, omitting attribution or using deceptive tactics to further his or her agenda. > It ain’t rocket science, folks. Statement from Webb alleging Moore stole image: NOT CHECKED Oh, how embarrassing. When it seemed so simple. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/83 "2004-11-09T18:39:58Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I know they are separate. That’s why I never linked them. For some reason, you’ve assumed I thought they were the same. I know that Moore himself said the film was made on December 12 by a freelance journalist. > Again, I didn’t say he filmed that footage himself. How you got off on that tangent is unclear. You posted it yourself in this very thread: > [@Liberal](#): > > Well, he didn’t ask permission when he duped the soldiers outside Abu Ghraib into being in Fahrenfart 9/11. It sounds like you are now admitting that Moore did _not_ dupe soldiers outside of Abu Ghraib. If that is not your position, please clarify. > [@](#): > > I think evil deed and bad behavior is a distinction without a difference. Moore himself did not say that it was insufficiently evil to report, but that he didn’t trust the sort of media to whom he was speaking at the time. Moore never really characterized it at all. The media did. > [@](#): > > Who said anything about criminal? You implied it yourself when you said that Moore should have “reported” the footage. If there was no criminality then why should he have reported it (and who should he have reported it to?) > [@](#): > > Moore himself said that it was a “really tough decision”. He said further, “we’re putting the film together and we’re trying to decide what should we do here?”. If there were no dilemma in his mind, why would he agonize over it? Why would it interrupt production for a decision to be made? I would have to see more of Moore’s comments in context. It seems to me like he was conflicted because while the footage did not show criminality it still might have been newsworthy. On the the other hand, it was not so shocking or newsworthy that it would have been received in good faith by the media. He would have been crucified. I think he came to the (correct) decision that the footage was not significant enough to warrant any urgent public release. I would also hazard a guess that if he _had_ done so, and you had actually seen this footage you’re getting so worked up about, you would have defended the soldiers in question and attacked Moore for scandalmongering and self-promotion (remember, nobody, including MM, knew about the AG torture photos yet. The behavior in the F9/11 footaghe only seems omnious in light of those photos. Without the knowledge of what went on inside Abu Ghraib, the footage seems like nothing. > [@](#): > > I already told you, the deceit is with the other event, the interviews he conducted with soldiers, wherein he admits that he infiltrated by some secret means and that not all of them knew that the producers who talked to them worked for him. Then why did you say that he duped soldiers outside of Abu Ghraib? Why does it matter if those soldiers in the hospital knew who they were talking to, btw? How does that undermine the validity of that footage? How were those soldiers injured? ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/84 "2004-11-09T18:44:17Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > El Cid, it is a shame that your compelling argument will fall on so many deaf ears. Argument for what, exactly? Is this supposed to prove that Moore deleted Webb’s credit and comments? Various posters on this thread, including myself, first saw this image without any credits on November 3; it showed up on blogs all over the net on that day in the same form. Judging by the report at [moorelies.com](http://moorelies.com), the image first appeared on Moore’s site four days later, on November 7. (Has anyone even seen a version of the image prior to that that _did_ include the credit?) **Liberal** reports that the image appeared in Spiegel Online; Webb’s own comments imply that it has appeared in newspapers. Yet somehow the circumstances are supposed to point to the evil Moore’s having been the one who intentionally removed the artist’s credit from the thing. It’s an already widely circulated internet joke, for Christ’s sake. You’re not going to see it credited when it appears any more often than you will the picture of the cat giving the finger or the list of wines sold at Wal-Mart. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/85 "2004-11-09T18:51:27Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Cite? _Bowling for Columbine_: the title. > [@](#): > > Cite? _Bowling for Columbine_: see above. > [@](#): > > Cite? _Bowling for Columbine_. And Matt Stone and Trey Parker are not very happy about it. > [@](#): > > I note that the second half of your post was cited. I really didn’t think I’d have to cite, especially since his M.O. extends all the way back to _Roger and Me_. But I’ll do just about anything for a fellow Coloradan… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/86 "2004-11-09T19:01:28Z")
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso] _Bowling for Columbine_: the title. How is the title “ripping people off?” You are aware that parody is protected free speech, are you not? You are aware that a title cannot be copyrighted, are you not? You’re flat out wrong on the law here. > [@](#): > > _Bowling for Columbine_: see above. Are you fucking serious? This is your fucking lame ass attempt to show that Moore has a history of using unattributed work? That he used a play on words in one of his titles? Have you been eating fucking paint chips? This does _not_ count a as a cite, fella. Try again. You have failed to support either of your first two statements. > [@](#): > > _Bowling for Columbine_. And Matt Stone and Trey Parker are not very happy about it.p You’ll have to be more specific. How did Moore “alter images” of Stone and/or Parker in BFC? > [@](#): > > I really didn’t think I’d have to cite, especially since his M.O. extends all the way back to _Roger and Me_. But I’ll do just about anything for a fellow Coloradan… 🙂 I’ll take that as a confession that you can’t cite shit. Big surprise. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/87 "2004-11-09T19:01:32Z")
> [@El Cid Viscoso](#): > > _Bowling for Columbine_: the title. I am shocked to hear that making a play on words on the title of the old show Bowling for Dollars is considered a rip off. You may be thinking of Fahrenheit 9/11. Titles are not copyrightable. If I chose to, I could write books titled The Sun Also Rises, Shane, or The Silence of the Lambs. There is no legal, or, more importantly, ethical reason I couldn’t. Sorry, I don’t think your argument is compelling yet. > [@](#): > > But I’ll do just about anything for a fellow Coloradan… 🙂 Well, let’s not turn this into another movie debate. 🙂 Oh, and the worst sunburn I ever got in my life, almost sun poisoning, was at Vega Reservoir. Can you fix it so it’s safe for me to go there again sometime? Turn down the sun or something? I liked it. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/88 "2004-11-09T19:02:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _Biffy the Elephant Shrew_ > > Argument for what, exactly? That Michael Moore continually commits one or more Straight Dope Cardinal Sins. If he were a member, he’d have been banned a dozen times by now. Yet when he says anything against the Bush Administration, he’s all but lionized. I’m pretty puzzled about that. And I couldn’t care less who drew the map, but how fecking hard is it to attribute it to someone? Even “unknown author” is better than what Moore has done. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/89 "2004-11-09T19:22:16Z")
> [@](#): > > _by This Year’s Model_ > > I am shocked to hear that making a play on words on the title of the old show Bowling for Dollars is considered a rip off. You may be thinking of Fahrenheit 9/11. Same, same. _Dude, Where’s My Country_ does it too. > [@](#): > > If I chose to, I could write books titled The Sun Also Rises, Shane, or The Silence of the Lambs. There is no legal, or, more importantly, ethical reason I couldn’t. Yep, you could write them, but you’d be considered a hack, just like Michael Moore. A political book about the 2004 election titled _The Silence of the Donkeys_ has a nice ring to it, sure, but the author would clearly be springboarding off of the original art. Unlike a true parody, this pays no proper attribution to _The Silence of the Lambs_, it just ganks the title. That’s not right, and as an author, I think it’s unethical. > [@](#): > > Oh, and the worst sunburn I ever got in my life, almost sun poisoning, was at Vega Reservoir. Can you fix it so it’s safe for me to go there again sometime? Turn down the sun or something? I liked it. I am wearing sunscreen right now. Inside the house. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/90 "2004-11-09T19:27:41Z")
There’s nothing unethical about it. Plays on other titles are as common as dirt for movies, books, songs, you name it. It’s only a “ripoff” if an individual is tryingto claim credit for someone else’s work. No one with an IQ over 50 would say that Moore was trying to claim credit for _Fahrenheit 451_ or for _Bowling for Dollars_ or for _Dude, Where’s my Country._ It is self-evident parody. You have still not been able to substantiate your assertions against Moore. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/91 "2004-11-09T19:28:52Z")
_Dude, Where’s My Car_. ---
**Author:** ![Roseworm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@Roseworm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roseworm)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/92 "2004-11-09T19:33:38Z")
To **Carnalk** : Michael Moore is _incapable_ of irony. That would require more than the particle of brain that is currently lost somewhere in the fatty mass between his ears. You do not have to spend more than five minutes at Michael’s website to spot the obvious: He really _is_ rooting for the bad guys. He _sincerely_ wants to see America suffer a bloody defeat in Iraq. He probably masturbates to the beheading videos (assuming he can find his dick under that massive gut of his). His wife actually shares a bed with him? \<_shudder_\> \<_shudder_\> \<_shudder_\> Kudos to **aldiboronti** and \*\*El Cid Viscoso \*\* for simply dismissing this slob for what he really is - a big, fat, hairy dingleberry on a hyena’s ass. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/93 "2004-11-09T19:48:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’ve admitted my mistakes on numerous occasions, including these: So you’ve got what, like a 5% success rate on admitting when you’re wrong? Certainly you’ve got too much time, and not enough compassion and decency, on your hands. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/94 "2004-11-09T20:01:59Z")
> [@El Cid Viscoso](#): > > … it just ganks the title. That’s not right, and as an author, I think it’s unethical. That’s a valid point of view, and one you share with Ray Bradbury. I will admit that I would be more comfortable with the naming if the art shared some points of reference with the original. That said, I disagree that it is unethical, and I suppose we’ll continue to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/95 "2004-11-09T20:14:38Z")
> [@Biffy the Elephant Shrew](#): > > Has Michael Moore fallen off the edge? I’ll take “Rhetorical Questions” for 200, Alex. > [@yosemite](#): > > Now, I don’t know either way. Perhaps the original designer did give permission and is delighted to see so many people distributing his work. If you go to the picture on Webb’s site that **Liberal** originally posted, you will note that it says, “Please copy, don’t link.” It sounds like Mr. Moore is using the picture responsibly, though he apparently has an older version that doesn’t have the text. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/96 "2004-11-09T20:22:18Z")
> [@](#): > > _This Year’s Model_ > > That said, I disagree that it is unethical, and I suppose we’ll continue to disagree. 🆒 It’s a rare turn, around here, when disagreement can be so terribly pleasant. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/97 "2004-11-09T20:29:55Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You posted it yourself in this very thread: > > It sounds like you are now admitting that Moore did _not_ dupe soldiers outside of Abu Ghraib. If that is not your position, please clarify. You’re right. I stand corrected. They are indeed separate incidences, and I knew better. > [@](#): > > Moore never really characterized it at all. The media did. Actually, the things I’m saying here are what Moore said himself to Matt Lauer in an interview that I saw on television. > [@](#): > > You implied it yourself when you said that Moore should have “reported” the footage. If there was no criminality then why should he have reported it (and who should he have reported it to?) As I said (and he says), he himself thought it sufficiently bad that he pondered reporting it and decided not to — not because it wasn’t bad enough, but because he didn’t trust the mainstream media. And again, that was ironic because he was making the rounds of the mainstream media to promote his movie. And he was speaking to a mainstream media guy, Matt Lauer. > [@](#): > > I would have to see more of Moore’s comments in context. It seems to me like he was conflicted because while the footage did not show criminality it still might have been newsworthy. On the the other hand, it was not so shocking or newsworthy that it would have been received in good faith by the media. He would have been crucified. I think he came to the (correct) decision that the footage was not significant enough to warrant any urgent public release. I would also hazard a guess that if he _had_ done so, and you had actually seen this footage you’re getting so worked up about, you would have defended the soldiers in question and attacked Moore for scandalmongering and self-promotion (remember, nobody, including MM, knew about the AG torture photos yet. The behavior in the F9/11 footaghe only seems omnious in light of those photos. Without the knowledge of what went on inside Abu Ghraib, the footage seems like nothing. Here is a transcript: [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5239322/](http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5239322/) > [@](#): > > Then why did you say that he duped soldiers outside of Abu Ghraib? I suppose because I was sloppy. Dealing with Moore’s dishonesty is like dealing with Marcia Brady’s petty problems — it’s just a thicket of things melding together, all sounding much the same. > [@](#): > > Why does it matter if those soldiers in the hospital knew who they were talking to, btw? How does that undermine the validity of that footage? How were those soldiers injured? I can’t believe I have to explain this to you. A man has a right to know who is asking him questions and how he intends to use the answers. Aren’t you the one with whom I was discussing levels of misrepresentation in debates? Shouldn’t a wounded soldier merit at least as much consideration as a debating Doper? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/98 "2004-11-09T20:34:04Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > So you’ve got what, like a 5% success rate on admitting when you’re wrong? Certainly you’ve got too much time, and not enough compassion and decency, on your hands. > > Daniel Just as I suspected, I was once again wrong — this time in thinking that you might muster sufficient self-respect to retract your wrongheaded implication despite proof that you were full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/99 "2004-11-09T21:07:27Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > This is a hijack that is more interesting than the OP. Current copyright laws are quite challenged by the internet, especially when it concerns works that are circulated entirely electronically. For most works created after 1978, they are copyrighted as soon as they are made in a “tangible medium”. Therein lies the problem. Is the internet a tangible medium? Common sense tells us that copyright laws should apply to works created for the internet; but enforcing that copyright is extremely difficult. Just because it is difficult to enforce doesn’t mean that the original artist doesn’t still own copyright. There are plentiful cites out there which indicate that yes, even if a lot of people swipe it from an artist on the Internet, it still _belongs_ to the artist. Of _course_ copyright applies to work distributed on the Internet. > [@](#): > > If the original artist was concerned about his copyright, then there are steps to take that make removal of the copyright notice more difficult. Are you trying to say that unless the artist _tries really hard_ to prevent theft or plagarism, that somehow it’s like they’re giving “permission” for people to steal or use the work? That doesn’t wash. Let me give a “for example.” Let’s say I have a cute little idea and I make a graphic and I put it on my website. Within a short amount of time, it takes off far more than I imagined, and everyone’s stealing it. Then I alter the graphic and add my signature to it, but that original one is floating out there, other people have done stuff to it, including claiming ownership of it, and so forth. Or, I make the little graphic, go back to hiding in my little hole for a week, and have no idea that other people have taken it, added their own signature to it, published it on their sites, claimed that they designed it (just adding your name to the bottom of a graphic and saying you designed it doesn’t _prove_ that you did). People are doing all of this, and I’m none the wiser. Does that mean that I’ve given permission for everyone to use it and that now it is essentially akin to being in the “public domain”? > [@](#): > > It is trivally easy to remove a notice such as the one G. Webb added. However, there are other means of embedding the copyright that are not so simple to remove and in such a case as this would be more than adequate. How so? If the graphic is watermarked, all one has to do is take a screen shot of the graphic and the watermark is gone. > [@](#): > > It is true that despite wide circulation of the image it is not technically public domain. Damn straight it’s not. Okay, maybe the original artist (and by original artist I mean someone who can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they’re the original artist—not just someone who put their name on the graphic or published a web page with their name on the credit as the artist), gave permission. But unless everyone who has re-published this graphic _knows_ this, they are (technically) risking violating copyright. > [@](#): > > I contend, however, that the apparent lack of effort by the artist to protect the work means there is no intention of enforcing copyright and a license to use is implied. We just don’t _know_. The artist could be offline and not be aware (yet) that the work is being copied hither and yon (unlikely, but possible). The artist could somehow missing the fact that the graphic is being used—could be only visiting eBay, not reading political sites, whatever. (Once again, unlikely, but possible). Hell, the artist could be in the _hospital_ all this week, for all we know. It is extremely foolish to just _assume_ that silence from the original artist means that everyone has license to use the graphic. If that were the logic, all the people who have swiped my graphics and photos (and who I don’t know about yet) have “permission” to use my work, because I haven’t discovered them yet and told them to stop. And that obviously makes no sense. > [@Punoqllads](#): > > It sounds like Mr. Moore is using the picture responsibly, though he apparently has an older version that doesn’t have the text. Probably, but since we don’t really know who the author of the graphic is, we don’t _know_ that he has permission. Yes, I know that a reader from buzzflash says that Dave Ruderman did the graphic, but they could be mistaken, Dave Ruderman could be a fake name or he could be lying, we just don’t know. Now, just so it’s clear again, I _suspect_ that the original artist (and we don’t know who he is, though sure, it might be this Ruderman guy) is delighted that Moore, etc., are distributing his work. I _suspect_ that he’s given permission in some form. It’s all probably quite all right. But as far as I can see, none of us really _know_ for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/100 "2004-11-09T21:13:34Z")
Admittedly, I am ignorant of the bandwidth aspects of web sites. Why is that Moore would be behaving responsibly by requesting the picture be copied rather than linked to. Is it to reduce bandwidth usage on the site Moore got it from? (And for that matter, if you link to a site are you using it’s bandwidth the entire time you’re linked to it, or just when you click on something or refresh the page?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700.md?page=6)