Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
Why woudn't they express themselves within the already accepted fair use boundaries, if they only do it for fun? I believe it is only fair that only those would be pushing the boundaries of the law who feel what they do is right and really necessary, and ready to stand up for that; not just every teenager making fun of xbox at public service site.
If those parodies are such a necessaty for the human kind, some one will make one and post it at his own site, and then battle in court it's fair use. If he wins, every teenager at public service site could do the same. If not, than not.
I understand we should ensure some progress in fair use practices, but it doesn't have to be a speedy one, and certainly not at the expense of the entire industries collapsing.
|
so you want to reverse the priority between fair use and the exclusive rights copyright holder
the original act said fair use should take priority, that was the agreement that every copyright holder makes to get their exclusive rights.
Quote:
|
That would be $450K? Too harsh imo. Especially if this particular kind of potential fair use case have not been tried in court yet - you can hardly claim those takedown requests a "bogus" ones, since the extension of fair use have not been set yet in court for this particular case.
|
of course i can
downfall producers knew that they had no proof that a single sale was being lost
they knew that the only way you could get the content necessary to make that parody was to either buy the movie or rent it (both of which paid the artist)
they new that request and sales for the underlying movie was increases because people would either want to make their own parody, or see what the movie was really about.
There was no economic loss
they knew the fair use right of parody was already explictly established
and there was no possible way that this could be extended outside the scope of that original granted right
But the made the bogus take down request to censor that free speach because they didn't like having their movie being made fun of.
watch the video every single on of those points is covered by the parody. They were supposed to watch the video and only send a take down request if it truely violated their copyright.
this was not about an unestablished fair use right that need established by the courts first
this was about a movie company take advantage of the loop hole that makes assuming that claim of infringement is true no matter how completely unsupported by a single case law.
parody was a right granted since the inception of the copyright act and they were taking it away using that loophole.
so fine 10 times that amount would not be unreasonable.