So they lyrics were not intended to educate? Have you even listened to the song? I suspect not...
You obviously have no idea what transformative means in this context. Every single word in the lyrics was changed bar one. The message of the lyrics is the polar opposite of the original lyrical message. Please explain how that's not transformative.
And then explain how exactly this affects the original work.
I accused you above of making no actual argument at all, just repeating "I'm right, you're wrong". I see you're sticking with this tactic. Can't you do any better?
You're right, just being a parody isn't enough. But you seem to be completely ignoring all the other factors that are considered in a fair use determination. You're fixating on the commercial aspect, despite court rulings (including from the Supreme Court) that concluded that commercial works can be fair use. Not only is the GoldieBlox song the textbook definition of parody, it was intended to be educational in nature, has completely different lyrics (transformative use) and has no negative effect on the Beastie Boys work (it can even be argued it's had a positive effect).
"Fair use can include commercial uses, but I don't think fair use is applicable here."
And you've done an extraordinarily piss-poor job of explaining why you think that's the case. You just keep claiming it's "obvious" or "an open and shut case", but haven't presented anything resembling a substantive argument. Instead of parroting your earlier claims, why don't you explain why all of the other factors in their favor shouldn't count?
"Of course, but why is the assumption, you had no intention of buying it? The opposite argument is that you had every intention of buying it because you now have it. If you didn't want it why do you have it? And expanding that thought, if you wanted it and now have then is it a lost sale?"
Pretty obviously, anyone who pirates a copy has no intention of buying it at that time. They may change their mind later on, as lots of people download to sample before making a purchase, or (for example) buy an artist's other albums because they liked the one they didn't pay for.
There's also the important issue of cost, which may not match up with someone's perceived value of an item of content. If I'm willing to pay $20 for something because that's what I believe it's worth to me, but you want to charge me $40, then I can only choose between paying twice what I think it's worth or getting it for free. Taking the latter option clearly doesn't mean I think it has no worth to me. If someone had 'every intention of buying it' but finds a free source instead, it's probably because they couldn't find it in the format they wanted and/or at the price that matched the value it has to them.
I can't believe you brought pizza into this discussion. Comparing scarce goods to infinitely copyable digital files is just stupid and ignorant. Any shred of an argument you might have is completely undermined by this apples and orangoutangs comparison.
Nobody have ever claimed there's no such thing as a lost sale, so you're pointlessly arguing against a strawman there. But the simple fact is that a pirated copy of something you had no intention of buying is not a lost sale. And a sale made directly because of a pirated copy is a gained sale. For some reason these two other possibilities are consistently absent from your thought processes despite how utterly common they are.
"The people interested in Global Jihad sees anyone that is not Muslim ENOUGH as an enemy."
Then they had a significant chunk of the globe from which to pick a target, and they picked the one they felt had done them the most wrong. And while their actions weren't justified by this, it was still very much a case of reaping what you sow.
Quite possibly, but multiple independent studies have also shown how increased exposure of movies and music from piracy has resulted in higher sales, i.e. REAL money has surely been gained. But this is just as hard to quantify as any actual losses, so now you have two massive variables that should be considered before damages can be 'calculated'. Can you be honest enough with yourself to admit this?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to fix Copyright plenty easily
Those people who will experience "�horrendous chaos� and �epic conniptions� will be massively outnumbered by those who will benefit from the suggested changes, namely the world's general public. Even those suffering so terribly will have the opportunity to benefit in the long run. So the point may be valid but sympathy will be in short supply.
Really? Would you be happy to invest in a company run by an admitted domestic abuser? Would you be happy to work for this person? Many people would seriously reconsider those decisions now. It's extraordinarily ignorant to think this has no connection to his job.
"When my mom, after living through seven years of hell-on-earth, finally had an opportunity to take the kids and run..."
You say you think suicide is cowardly. Some would say that sticky around that long is cowardly too. Perhaps we should not make blanket statements about situations we don't or can't fully understand.
On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You obviously have no idea what transformative means in this context. Every single word in the lyrics was changed bar one. The message of the lyrics is the polar opposite of the original lyrical message. Please explain how that's not transformative.
And then explain how exactly this affects the original work.
I accused you above of making no actual argument at all, just repeating "I'm right, you're wrong". I see you're sticking with this tactic. Can't you do any better?
On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls
Re: Re: Re:
Only if you haven't actually read what TD have written on this topic. Their reasoning has never been that simplistic or incomplete.
"What is the key part of this situation that makes you want to say fair use, the parody?"
Clear parody, educational message, transformative use, and no effect on the copyrighted work.
"is there something I am missing."
Clearly...
On the post: Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls
Re:
You're right, just being a parody isn't enough. But you seem to be completely ignoring all the other factors that are considered in a fair use determination. You're fixating on the commercial aspect, despite court rulings (including from the Supreme Court) that concluded that commercial works can be fair use. Not only is the GoldieBlox song the textbook definition of parody, it was intended to be educational in nature, has completely different lyrics (transformative use) and has no negative effect on the Beastie Boys work (it can even be argued it's had a positive effect).
"Fair use can include commercial uses, but I don't think fair use is applicable here."
And you've done an extraordinarily piss-poor job of explaining why you think that's the case. You just keep claiming it's "obvious" or "an open and shut case", but haven't presented anything resembling a substantive argument. Instead of parroting your earlier claims, why don't you explain why all of the other factors in their favor shouldn't count?
On the post: Vladimir Putin Restricting Naughty Language And 'Unregistered' Bloggers
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretty obviously, anyone who pirates a copy has no intention of buying it at that time. They may change their mind later on, as lots of people download to sample before making a purchase, or (for example) buy an artist's other albums because they liked the one they didn't pay for.
There's also the important issue of cost, which may not match up with someone's perceived value of an item of content. If I'm willing to pay $20 for something because that's what I believe it's worth to me, but you want to charge me $40, then I can only choose between paying twice what I think it's worth or getting it for free. Taking the latter option clearly doesn't mean I think it has no worth to me. If someone had 'every intention of buying it' but finds a free source instead, it's probably because they couldn't find it in the format they wanted and/or at the price that matched the value it has to them.
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody have ever claimed there's no such thing as a lost sale, so you're pointlessly arguing against a strawman there. But the simple fact is that a pirated copy of something you had no intention of buying is not a lost sale. And a sale made directly because of a pirated copy is a gained sale. For some reason these two other possibilities are consistently absent from your thought processes despite how utterly common they are.
On the post: How The US Gov't Destroyed The Lives Of A Muslim American Man's Entire Family After He Refused To Become An Informant
Re: Forget about 911. Remember 912.
Then they had a significant chunk of the globe from which to pick a target, and they picked the one they felt had done them the most wrong. And while their actions weren't justified by this, it was still very much a case of reaping what you sow.
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Every Person Does Not Owe The Movie & Music Industry $67 Million, But Copyright Is Still Broken
Re: Re: Re:
Quite possibly, but multiple independent studies have also shown how increased exposure of movies and music from piracy has resulted in higher sales, i.e. REAL money has surely been gained. But this is just as hard to quantify as any actual losses, so now you have two massive variables that should be considered before damages can be 'calculated'. Can you be honest enough with yourself to admit this?
On the post: Australia's Attorney General Ignores All Evidence And Experts: Decides To Obey Hollywood's Commands On Copyright
Re:
Then either you haven't been paying enough attention or your employer requires you to 'not see' how both have been happening.
On the post: California City Achieves New Lows In Anti-Bullying Laws, Makes Public Entirely Subject To Other People's 'Feelings'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Paper Says It's Time To Reasonably Decrease Copyright Term And Rethink Putting Copyright In Treaties
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to fix Copyright plenty easily
On the post: DOJ Morality Police May Be Behind Chase Closing Bank Accounts Of Adult Film Actors
Re: Re: Porn Funds Terrorism
On the post: Chase Bank Slutshames Their Adult Performer Customers
Re:
On the post: Censorious Parent Calls Cops On Teen Giving Away Books In A Local Park
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if you want people to mind their own business, don't post public comments!
On the post: DHS Fusion Center Admits Photographer Is Covered By 1st Amendment But Just Doesn't Like The Way He Treats Officers
Re:
On the post: Disgrace: RadiumOne Allowing CEO To Remain After Beating His Girlfriend
Re: No problem here
On the post: Disgrace: RadiumOne Allowing CEO To Remain After Beating His Girlfriend
Re: Re: Re:
...and because he plead guilty to domestic violence battery. You and a bunch of others seem to be forgetting that.
On the post: Disgrace: RadiumOne Allowing CEO To Remain After Beating His Girlfriend
Re:
On the post: Ex-Wife Allegedly Using Copyright To Take Down Husband's Suicide Note
Re:
You say you think suicide is cowardly. Some would say that sticky around that long is cowardly too. Perhaps we should not make blanket statements about situations we don't or can't fully understand.
Next >>