[QUOTE=TheDoc;17166241]You mean that "Canadian" tv show where they take a "full movie" and condense it down to 30 min's and replace character voices and such?
That's exactly what I said fair use was. It's a "sample" of the whole. It's NOT the entire movie, which would not be fair use.
Again, your examples are GREATLY different than Robbie's and you just got schooled in the subject you pretend to the be the master of.
Quote:
actually he only changed the dialog of one character leaving every other characters dialog exactly the same
and the one of the earlier episode did the entire movie steve smith was interviewed about why he changed it to 30 minutes (difficulty of finding a movie that could be changed completely, easier to cut out part that were not consistent with the changed)
googles your friend use it.
"In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use"
"If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use."
|
your misrepresenting the quote to say the exact opposite of what it says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Quote:
the quote under the title Common misunderstandings
Fair use is commonly misunderstood because of its deliberate ambiguity. Here are some of the more common misunderstandings with explanations of why they are wrong:
If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use. For instance, in the Betamax case, it was ruled that copying a complete television show for time-shifting purposes is fair use.
|
you added the personal use thing that was not there
and you eliminated the italics that defined the first statement as being wrong.