Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
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.
|
Simply put, it doesn't fall under the rules of fair use, at all or even a tiny bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
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.
|
They could have used legal music and still had free expression, it didn't limit them when the rest of the Industry is able to comply. Limiting the free expression/censorship of it, would be the entire Industry and unfortunately for RK and your argument, plenty of music studios do lic to our Industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
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
exactly censorship not income protection.
|
They don't have pieces, pieces would be seconds and in a loop and either way, sampling is not this as defined by the Courts and is not what RK is doing and that's the overall point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
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.
|
Whatever you want to think... Courts many times have said the Parody is a sampling of the work, otherwise it wouldn't be a parody, it would be Copyright theft due to stealing/publishing the original work. Again though, this argument means nothing - RK isn't creating any form of a Parody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
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.
|
Again, the music industry is not preventing this, some studios are which they're are legally allowed to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
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.
|
I tried to find the ruling and couldn't... however other rulings have been made based on the same situation. End of the day, she is not profiting from it, she is not damaging the brand/image of them, she is not duplicating it and selling it as an org, she is not using trademarked/copyrighted terms to promote it...
It's so not the same, any idiot can understand that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
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.
|
Again, nobody is censoring them. They have 10,000's of songs they could Lic, many for free but of course most cost money... nobody is limiting them, stopping them from expressing anything. I have personally Lic music for porn, so have many others - how do they know if they would deny them if they didn't even try?
What they are doing is violating basic copyrights that have been easily established in the Courts at every level.
Truly, it boggles my mind you're trying to argue this... for sure with the argument you're providing.