Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
No it doesn't
section 106 of the act says
and section 107
you will notice that political agreement of principles/personal desire of the copyright holder is not one of the conditions.
fair use doesn't allow this type of exclusion, it is an abuse of the law that should be invalidated just like previous court established fair uses like timeshifting and format shifting.
|
You really are dumb aren't you? Your post actually proves my point. The first quote you makes shows exactly what I said, that copyright holders get the right to control their product. These RK videos are not parody, news, commentary or research of for that matter any of the things that fall under fair use. Secondly, you posted yourself this part: (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
What if a singer who is portraying themselves as a wholesome christian and is going after that market ends up with their song on a porn movie? That could greatly damage the potential market value of the work. The same can be said for a politician using a song. If a band like Rage Against The Machine which makes their money by being anti-establishment suddenly has their song being played by a politician they are odds with, it could harm their brand and damage their value. What you fail to see is that there is more value to something than just the cash value of selling a CD or a MP3 download.
Quote:
BTW
i find it interesting how you keep refusing to give me permission to exclude you from my work. As i pointed out in the previous thread (and here too) fair use would prevent me from invalidating your affiliate sales to any program that used my techniques(my copyright)
i asked you for permission to do that, to claim your money as my own. If you truly believe i as a copyright holder should have such a right, why do you refuse to give me such permission.
|
You are a fucking idiot. I knew I shouldn't have gotten myself into this thread.
Here is the reality of how the world works. If I am sending traffic to a company and suddenly they buy some magic formula from you that makes it so that the minute my visitor hits their website it becomes their visitor and I no longer get a commission, I'm going to move on to a different company. It isn't fair use that protects me from this happening, it is the free market. If a company did that sort of thing they would instantly lose all of their affiliates and those affiliates would go to their competitor.
Why would I ask you to exclude me from your work and give you permission to claim my money as your own? That is just an idiotic statement. Nobody would agree to that.
Since we are asking about unanswered questions. I am, assuming based on the posts in this thread, you have backed out of the deal with The Doc. All along he said he would give you anything you wanted and agree to just about any terms you wanted. All you had to do was send the traffic and supply 100 joins or more a day. At first you seemed like you were game. Hell, you even said you had gotten your lawyer to draw up papers and you had started building the sites to make this happen. Then suddenly when taken to task you started claiming you knew nothing about 100 joins a day and that you thought you were just going to show him how to do it and not have to do the grunt work yourself. All of a sudden you are backing out. Why? The reality is because your system doesn't work. You don't want to actually be involved because this way when it fails miserably you can simply say, "Well, he didn't do it correctly."
But I digress, we are, once again, spinning in circles which is exactly what you love to do.