Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
If it's copyright infringement, it's not fair use.
|
and if it fair use it not copyright infringement
that a circular proof
you argued that it was an infringement just because it wasn't licienced
the fact that fair use isn't licienced proves that statement to be false
you can't reverse the false condition by repeating a circular cycle of the arguement again.
Quote:
|
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.
|
i specified the context
this is not about the music industry trying to collect a fair fee, it not like they had an open licience that said give us 5% of the gross of every video featuring our song and then suing RK for not paying that licencing fee.
This is about using copyright to censor the story, to prevent the free expression. by
refusing to licience the music at any price.
Quote:
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.
Lookup Sampling in the Wiki and Google. Sampling is not what you think it is.
|
Quote:
|
A small portion, piece, or segment selected as a sample.
|
that why covers are fair use, because you take only a piece (the lyrics).
it not based on timing only (x seconds) but any piece
Quote:
|
Even better, they didn't grant the rights to use it on video, or "Digital Licensing" as it's called.
|
exactly censorship not income protection.
Quote:
|
It's a parody that is a sample, that's why it's valid. Correct.
|
wrong a parody was protected because it was a parody. if what you were saying there would be no need to have a seperate parody fair use.
if what you were saying parody songs that take the ENTIRE COPYRIGHTED SCORE would be illegal, they are not.
parody is a completely different fair use then sampling.
they are not dependent on each other for protection under the statute.
Quote:
|
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.
|
this is not an issue of RK choosing not to pay an open licience (5% of gross etc) but the music industry preventing the story from being told by refusing to licience their music.
Quote:
|
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.
|
actually she did, the court ruled what she did was fair use.
what is currently being argued is how much money universal owes her under the counter liability of the DMCA for sending the bogus take down request.
RK is doing exactly the same thing, the music is in the background, it only a small portion, and the story makes no sense without the music (sex in the "dance" club vs kid dancing to music)
censorship is not ok. If this was RK refusing to pay a fair and open liciencing fee, one that was not an attempt to attach a fee so high it was impossible to pay then i would agree with you
this however is an attempt to use copyright law to censor. which is wrong, and what fair use is designed to stop.