>> I know you've said you won't fight it, and were I in your position - I
>>know I
>> wouldn't have a clue what to do either, but consider one thing before
>> abandoning your search for those who might be able to help. Steev told me
>> once that what we're all waiting for is some kind of a legitimate legal
>> precedent and this would seem to have a lot of potential.
wouldn't any sort of court situation revolve around whether it truly fit
the supreme court's definition of parody? (parody needs to mimic an
original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of
its victim's (or collective victims') imagination, whereas satire can stand
on its two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing
- see Acuff-Rose case).
if a judge agrees that it does qualify as parody... then it would most
likely be fair use. does that really establish anything new? the supreme
court ruled years ago that parody is fair use. is it worth the pain of a
court battle just to remind everyone? maybe... maybe not. no matter what
legal precedents exist big corporations will still threaten with legal
action if they think they can out muscle us.
i think what a lot of us would like to see is for fair use to extend to
other types of sampling... besides parody.
philo
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.