Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
you do realize that no fair use is licienced.
by that stupid definition all fair use is a copyright infringement since it is not licienced
the very nature of fair use is that it is without any need to get permission from the copyright holder
|
If it's copyright infringement, it's not fair use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
which is why i said
your trying to argue that only parody is allowed to be released commercially because that all this ruling allowed, well that bullshit
this ruling states that commercial does not automagically make it infringing
|
I'm not arguing this at all... you pointed out a half quote and I provide the why, which if anything means it doesn't relate to the topic you tried to twist into meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
commentary has already been extended to this as well (ask micheal moore)
RK would be making the arguement sampling would also be so extended.
|
Under the definition of sampling, and what the courts have defined sampling as, they did not sample anything. It's not sampling simply because you think it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
really care to provide the links.
your making arguements that sampling is only fair use because the uploader didn't profit from it.
|
Lookup Sampling in the Wiki and Google. Sampling is not what you think it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
good thing we are talking about video and not music
|
Even better, they didn't grant the rights to use it on video, or "Digital Licensing" as it's called.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
you were the person trying to argue that hitler parodies were only valid because they were a sample and not the entire movie.
|
It's a parody that is a sample, that's why it's valid. Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
RK is not selling the entire song, just a small piece
they are not even selling the song they are selling the porn, which just happens to include just enough of the song to establish the premise of the porn video (sex in a club)
|
They don't have to sell the song... they don't even have to say it's in it, advertise it, talk it about it, or anything... they do have to tell them what it's going to be published on and provide a sample when they purchase the rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
wow i can't believe your trying to make the if it commercial it can't be fair use arguement again
sony made money from selling vcrs
2live crew mad money selling their song
micheal moore makes money selling his commentaries
profit doesn't automatically invalidate fair use
profit that cost copyright holder the profits from the direct liciencing of the work ...
which is why i said
|
I never said it did... I replied to the Video and her case going (which she hasn't actually won yet) which again isn't what RK is doing either way so it makes no difference.