Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
Simply put, it doesn't fall under the rules of fair use, at all or even a tiny bit.
|
really how does RK use of the music cost the industry a single sale.
Quote:
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
|
i have already shown that fair use can be commercial (micheal moore, weird al, vcr, as long as it indirect) which this is since they are not selling the music only using it to tell a story.
the nature of the work is music which is irrelevent since music doesn't have any special copyright status when it comes to sampling
they only used a portion of the song
the last condition is the only one left
so how many people can you prove didn't buy the full song because a portion was used in an RK porn video.
vs how many who did because the song is now associated with getting a blow job in their mind.
Quote:
|
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.
|
bullshit, name one heavy played club song that liciences it for porn videos, playing something else CHANGES the story. Playing a custom created song CHANGES the story.
this is not using copyright material as generic background music to a fuck scene, this is using music in a contextual way to tell a story.
Quote:
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.
|
that is the legal definition of sampling, the ones you are using are the specific ones derived from that generic definition to fit a specific case, they don't apply to RK because the specifics of that case don't apply, not because the definition is "wrong".
Quote:
|
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.
|
produce just one such case, where a judge specifically said parody was only legal because it was a sample of the copyright material.
Quote:
|
Again, the music industry is not preventing this, some studios are which they're are legally allowed to do.
|
the exclusive right of the copyright act is to sell, to commercially profit from, not to prevent expressions that you disagree with.
so no they are not legally allowed to do this.
Quote:
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.
|
you keep trying to make the arguement that it only fair use if you don't profit even though i have presented countless examples where people profited from fair use.
fine produce just 1 that says it fair use because you didn't make money, if you made money it would be infringement
Quote:
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.
|
produce 1 top 40 dance song that licienced for porn video.
just because another porn story can be told with unrecognizable music doesn't mean this story can be.
if the story has to be changed when you licience the music then that censorship plain and simple.