Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
except that definition would cause the exact type of censorship that i am complaining about. tube sites would be considered publishers. which means downfall parody would never have been allowed on the tube site in the first place
|
You can still use your own host, not a public service, to post those of your parodies that push the boundaries of previously accepted fair use practices. That's still well balanced imo - you can post fair use materials that are within the commonly accepted boundaries at public service sites like youtube, and if you want to try something new that may or may not fly in court as a fair use, use your own paid webhost.
Quote:
|
if you wanted to something like that you would have to add some sort of serious penalty to prevent that.
|
I thought courts already reward defendands with the compensation of their legal fees at the expense of plaintiff, when they find fair use defence is valid. Isn't that enough of a counter-balance?