Quote:
None that has to do with what I said, at all. Again we're talking about fair use which has time shifting within it. I'm simply quoting what wiki says and you're twisting it to make a new argument for yourself. It's rather stupid.
The argument with Robbie wasn't about wrong or right.. however if you're trying to be correct, your example failed as it's not related to what Robbie was talking about.
|
there are three different fair uses being discussed each has a different reason for you being wrong.
robbie claimed that a parody wasn't a parody becuase it wasn't created from scratch he was wrong because the courts ruled downfall parodies were parodies
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
That's a sample, part, or whatever they call it... made for the purpose of a parody, which is why it's fair use. If you ripped the entire movie and did that it would be copyright infringement.
Which is why all the examples Robbie are different.
|
you claimed it was only a parody because it was built on a sample but your wrong because
- Sampling is it own fair use indpendent of parody
- cover/parody songs take the entire copyright protected score and layer new lyric on top of them
you then shifted into timeshifting and argued it was only valid for the entire copy because it for personal use, but it not what the wiki or the court case said it said "private viewing" which the cablevision case clearly established was different (although closely related) to "personal use".