Topic: Does anyone else here have issues with the content on "Encyclopedia Dramatica"?
Anonymous A started this discussion 3.5 years ago#7,802
The site "encyclopediadramatica.ch" has content on it which is slanderous to myself and my family, they have a page dedicated to myself which includes my real name, photograph, personal information, etc. I need this content removed. They use "cloudflare.com" to try and hide their webhost, but as I have shown it is pretty easy to extract information from that stupid company (picture related). Does anyone else need to get content removed from "the new ED"? It is proving quite difficult...
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#135,201
They're not doing anything else al day than defending themselves against the likes of you.
You won't beat them at their own game, I can assure you if that.
r04r joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 26 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^][v]#135,214
@OP
Hi to4str! Cloudflare isn't meant to hide anything, it's merely a caching proxy to speed things up! Happy to educate you.
They provide DDoS protection, which works on the assumption that the attacker will send packets to CloudFlare instead of the actual host, which relies on the assumption that no-one will find the true host. They provide a bunch of other "services" aside from caching and DDoS protection. There is zero evidence that I am "to4str" (I am not), you however, are a dumb cunt.
r04r replied with this 3.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#135,224
Also, if you'd like I could provide a picture of your profile to page to show that you are, in fact, to4str.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 3.5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#135,226
A guide to to4str threads
* titles are fairly comprehensive and will ask a pointed question
* the OP will include an image
* very few details will be revealed about himself, even if they're necessary to understand the question
* he'll rebuff any personal questions
* he throws terms like slander and libel around with reckless abandon
* he will fuck a shit up his ass
r04r replied with this 3.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#135,230
@previous > * the OP will include an image
Not all that often, really. Only usually when asking a question, I think
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 3.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#135,233
@135,226
he never fucks a shit up his ass, instead he keeps on making a fool of himself until everybody has had a good lol and then lets it die quitely
...
wow, this sentence makes him out to be even stupider than previously thought.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#135,239
Toaster you are and will always be a disgusting, petty weirdo. You constantly make inflammatory comments and then threaten people for talking about you. This makes no sense whatsoever. In spite of this, I'm actually always happy to see you post because I know that you can't be actively spreading diseases right at that moment. So, more Minichan = less anonymous gay sex.
Love swamplights
ltamake !3vZ7A06glM joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#135,250
Fortunately, new ED isn't as quick to remove your page as the old ED was. :)
ltamake !3vZ7A06glM double-posted this 3.5 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#135,251
@135,223
No they don't. They're a caching service. Derp.
@135,226
Add this:
* uses the words "iota" and "cretin" extensively.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#135,253
If you managed to get an article on ED about yourself, then you messed up pretty badly on the internet.
FreeCode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 3.5 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,258
@135,224
He hasn't replied since. I hope the boy is out getting some therapy, generally kids who throw temper tantrums during adolescence are emotionally stunted.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3.5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,263
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,276
@previous
Have somebody unknown to both of you murder them with a gun outside their homes.
Or, just fall back to your usual, impotent threats about the Mexicans that will burn their houses down.
Which is it going to be, today?
ltamake !3vZ7A06glM replied with this 3.5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,284
@135,272
"Quoting" "every" "word" in a "sentence" is "generally" a "bad" "idea" because the "person" who is "reading" the "sentence" will think you're "autistic" and "retarded".
FreeCode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 3.5 years ago, 29 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,290
@135,272
Nobody is afraid of him and even he knows that. That bullshit could land his ass in jail, but then he might just be just consigned to a mental ward and finally get the help he needs.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,293
> We're having a quality discussion here. > Trying to troll me by derailing the topic with dumb shit no-one cares about. > Generating more publicity for the topic, thus more genuine replies, making my penis even harder.
ltamake !3vZ7A06glM replied with this 3.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,311
@previous
Please join into our quality discussion or leave.
@135,302
I've been listening to his older songs for the past few hours or so.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,312
Is OP to4str?
ltamake !3vZ7A06glM replied with this 3.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,313
Fats !BBbudGf3kM joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,318
Here we have a fine example of a spotted sea-trout.
The spotted sea-trout also known as speckled trout,or spotted weakfish (Cynoscion nebulosus) is a common estuary fish found in the southern United States. While most of these fish are caught on shallow, grassy flats, spotted sea-trout reside in virtually any inshore waters, from the surf of outside islands to far up coastal rivers, where they often come for shelter during cold weather. Contrary to its name, the spotted sea-trout is not a member of the trout family (Salmonidae), but of the drum family (Sciaenidae).
These fish have large, prominent canine teeth; dark back with grey or silvery sides marked with scattered ocellated black spots of varying size. Plain black spots are also present on the dorsal and tail fins. Its shape and coloration is reminiscent of a brown trout (Salmo trutta), hence the name. In stained water, this fish's background may take on a golden hue.
The average size of these fish is 0.5-1.0 kg (1-2 lb), but in most areas fish up to 2.5 kg (5 lb) are fairly common. 3.5-4.5 kg (8-10 lb) fish are rare. World record is 7.9 kg (17 lb 7 oz). These fish are active most at dawn and dusk. A proven catching technique is at dark to throw out a glow stick into the water and cast around it as these fish are attracted to light (see Fishing light attractor). Live shrimp are an ideal bait, but speckled sea-trout will commonly go for dead shrimp. Other excellent baits are fingerling mullet and soft artificials, if "worked" correctly. It has been proven that the very large fish will attempt to swallow mullet up to 1/3 of their own size. The most common method for taking trout is by artificial jig with a soft plastic grub.
Like all members of the drum family, mature males produce a "drumming" sound to attract females during the spawning season (May through early September). This fish is often found in shallow tidal creeks near flooded salt marshes, where it feeds mainly on shrimp and small fish. Spotted seatrout are also known to congregate heavily over oyster reefs. It is fished both commercially and recreationally.
The spotted sea-trout makes for excellent table-fare with a firm, white meat.
This fish is more commonly referred to as "speckled trout" by coastal fisherman along the Gulf of Mexico. Residents of Florida and coastal Georgia commonly refer to it as simply "trout." The shorter alias, "specks," is also used.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 3.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,319
@previous
So a speck and a trout, where we live is the same! I did not know that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3.5 years ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,321
The common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) is a species of marine fish in the family Centropomidae of the order Perciformes. This species is native to the coastal waters of the western Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, from southern Florida and Texas[1] to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. The oo can be pronounced as in either room or good.
One of the largest snooks, Centropomus undecimalis grows to a maximum overall length of 140 centimetres (4.6 ft) and a maximum recorded weight of 24 kilograms (53 lb; 3.8 st). Of typical centropomid form, it possesses drab coloration except for a distinctive black lateral line. It can also possess bright yellow pelvic and caudal fins, especially during spawn.[citation needed]
Occurring in shallow coastal waters (up to 20 metres (66 ft) depth), estuaries, and lagoons, the fish often enters fresh water. It is carnivorous, with a diet dominated by smaller fishes, and crustaceans such as shrimps, and occasionally crabs.
Common snook are protandric hermaphrodites, changing from male to female after maturation. This transition is identified by the presence of both male and female sex cells in the gonads and takes place when they grow to between 9.4-2.4 inches (24.0-82.4 cm) fork length which corresponds to 1-7 years of age. A study conducted in 2000, indicated that the sex ratios for common snook ages 0 - 2 are significantly skewed between the east and west coasts of Florida (USA) due to protrandry and differences in growth and mortality rates. The majority of small common snook are male and most large snook are female. Males reach sexual maturity during their first year at 5.9-7.9 inches (15.0-20.0 cm) fork length. Research shows that female gonads mature directly from the mature male gonads shortly after spawning. The probability that a common snook of a particular size will be a female increases with length or age.
Considered an excellent food fish, the common snook is fished commercially and raised in aquaculture although it is not available for sale in the United States. It is also prized as a game fish, being known for their great fighting capabilities.
Three United States Navy submarines have been named for this species, USS Robalo (SS-273) and USS Snook (SS-279) in the Second World War and USS Snook (SSN-592) in the 1950s.
The common snook is also known as the sergeant fish or robalo. It was originally assigned to the sciaenid genus Sciaena; Sciaena undecimradiatus and Centropomus undecimradiatus are obsolete synonyms for the species.
FreeCode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 3.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,327
FreeCode !!4IKKtS9GG double-posted this 3.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,328
@135,326
In retrospect, the spotted sea-trout was subpar. With the snook, however, you have redeemed yourself with interest.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 3.5 years ago, 34 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,329
@135,321
Oh but baby the info is so informative. I still love the look you get in your eye when I tell you that. I know the fire still burns strong.
Fats !BBbudGf3kM replied with this 3.5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,334
@135,328
How about the tasty and fun to catch channel catfish?
Channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, is North America's most numerous catfish species. It is the official fish of Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Tennessee, and is informally referred to as a "channel cat". In the United States they are the most fished catfish species with approximately 8 million anglers targeting them per year. The popularity of channel catfish for food has contributed to the rapid growth of aquaculture of this species in the United States.
Channel catfish are native to the Nearctic, being well distributed in lower Canada and the eastern and northern United States, as well as parts of northern Mexico. They have also been introduced into some waters of landlocked Europe and parts of Malaysia. They thrive in small and large rivers, reservoirs, natural lakes, and ponds. Channel "cats" are cavity nesters, meaning they lay their eggs in crevices, hollows, or debris, in order to protect them from swift currents. In Canada, the species is largely, though not exclusively, limited to the Great Lakes watershed from Lake Nipigon southward.
Channel catfish possess very keen senses of smell and taste. At the pits of their nostrils (nares) are very sensitive odor sensing organs with a very high concentration of olfactory receptors. In channel catfish these organs are sensitive enough to detect several amino acids at about 1 part per 100 million in water. In addition, channel catfish have taste buds distributed over the surface of their entire body. These buds are especially concentrated on the channel catfish's four pair of barbels (whiskers) surrounding the mouth — about 25 buds per square millimeter. This combination of exceptional senses of taste and smell allows the channel catfish to find food in dark, stained, or muddy water with relative ease.
Channel catfish are omnivores and can be caught using a variety of natural and prepared baits, including crickets, nightcrawlers, minnows, shad, crawfish, frogs, bullheads, sunfish, and suckers. Catfish have even been known to take Ivory Soap as bait .[5] Another method of catching catfish is using stinkbaits, which are prepared with dead fish, crawfish, garlic, blood, liver, meat, cheese, dough, and even Kool-Aid powder. Sometimes these stinkbaits are prepared into a doughball and mashed onto a hook; other times they are smeared in special tubes meant to hold these baits, and fished slowly on the bottom. Grocery store baits such as chicken livers, shrimp, dog food, squid, and bubble gum will also catch plenty of channel cats.
Juglines, trotlines, limb lines and bank lines are popular methods of fishing for channel catfish in addition to traditional rod and reel fishing. Another method uses traps, either "slat traps" — long wooden traps with an angled entrance — and wire hoop traps. Typical bait for these traps include rotten cheese and dog food. Catches of as many as 100+ fish a day are common in catfish traps. When removing the hook from a catfish, anglers should be mindful of the sharp spines on the pectoral and dorsal fin.
A member of the Ictalurus genus of American catfishes, channel catfish have a top-end size of approximately 40-50 pounds (18–23 kg). The world record channel catfish weighed 58 pounds and was taken from the Santee-Cooper Reservoir in South Carolina, July 7, 1964. Realistically, a channel catfish over 20 pounds (9 kg) is a spectacular specimen, and most catfish anglers view a 10 pound (4.5 kg) fish as a very admirable catch. Furthermore the average size channel catfish an angler could expect to find in most waterways would be between 2 and 4 pounds.[1][2]
Channel catfish will often coexist in the same waterways with its close relatives, blue catfish, which are somewhat less common but tend to grow a lot larger (with several specimen confirmed to weight above the 100 lb. mark).
FreeCode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 3.5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,361
@previous
It kills me to say this, and it is a very close match, but I prefer the fascinating Redear sunfish.
The redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), also known as the shellcracker, Georgia bream, cherry gill, chinquapin, improved bream, rouge ear sunfish and sun perch, is native to the southeastern United States, but since it is a popular sport fish it has been introduced to bodies of water all over North America. It generally resembles the bluegill except for coloration and somewhat larger size. It is dark-colored dorsally and yellow-green ventrally. The male has a cherry-red edge on its operculum; females have orange coloration in this area. The adult fish is between 20 and 24 centimetres (7.9 and 9.4 in) in length. Max length is 43.2 centimetres (17.0 in), compared to a maximum of about 40 centimetres (16 in) for the bluegill.
The favorite food of this species is snails. These fish are bottomfeeders, meandering along lakebeds seeking and cracking open snails and other shelled creatures. The fish has thick pharyngeal teeth, hard, movable plates in its throat, which allow it to crunch exoskeletons. It is even capable of opening small clams. The specialization of this species for the deep-water, mollusk-feeding niche allows it to be introduced to lakes without the risk of competition with fish that prefer shallower water or surface-feeding.
In recent years, the stocking of redear has found new allies due to the fish's ability to eat quagga mussels, a prominent invasive species in many freshwater drainages.[1]
During spawning, males congregate and create nests close together in colonies, and females visit to lay eggs. The redear sometimes hybridizes with other sunfish species. The redear sunfish is also located in many marsh wetlands of freshwater.
The redear sunfish is the first-known species of Centrarchidae based on fossil records, as old as 16.3 million years, dating back to the Middle Miocene[1].
Fats !BBbudGf3kM replied with this 3.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,363
@previous
Please quit derailing the thread, asshole.
FreeCode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 3.5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,371
@previous
The only way to settle this is like men - with a chainsaw duel.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 42 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,374
FreeCode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 3.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,383
@previous
Don't worry, standard rules are just first blood at the torso. I'm sure one of us will get a scrape and come out fine.
Oh, wait, the referee says that the loser is then loaded into a running wood chipper by machete-wielding clowns. I guess fine still applies there.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Fats !BBbudGf3kM replied with this 3.5 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,472
> The only way to settle this is like men - with a chainsaw duel.
If we are to settle it like men, we both must agree to cut off one hand each (think Army of Darkness) and fight with our chainsaw hands. Do you agree to these terms, or are you a coward?
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 3 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,631
Syntax joined in and replied with this 3.5 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,764
Parody and Free Speech
When the United States Founding Fathers framed The Constitution, they made sure that Americans would always have the right to peacefully protest and criticize.
In America, one of the forms of criticism that's specifically protected is parody.
A parody is a work that imitates another work for the purpose of ridicule or ironic commentary. The US Supreme Court recognizes parody as a protected form of free speech, and parodies are even given special rights under copyright law.
As a result of hundreds of years of protecting parodies, the concept of parody has been firmly rooted in American culture. Parodies of celebrities and public figures are on popular television and radio shows. There are also parody magazines, parody songs, and entire parody movies. There are even parody websites.
Ironically, politicians themselves are among the most frequently parodied figures, as well as notorious internet trolls like to4str.
Parody and Copyright Law
Parodies, by their nature, typically make use of other works: music, art, corporate logos, advertisements, etc. Obviously, the creators and owners of copyrighted works are unlikely to grant permission for their works to be used in a parody.
However, American society recognizes the cultural value of parody as a form of criticism and commentary, so the use of such copyrighted works for purposes of parody is often considered "fair use", and is thus perfectly legal.
The section of US law that deals with fair use is Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.
Here's the exact text of the law:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Parody is recognized as a form of criticism and commentary. Here's how a parody might be considered, in light of the four factors above used to determine fair use:
Purpose and character; commercial or educational -- noncommercial, educational, or newsworthy parodies are generally given more protection as fair use under this first factor. However, many commercial parodies have also been deemed to be fair use, as the Supreme Court has held that "a work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character".
Nature of the work copyrighted - this factor has been said to carry little weight in parody situations, "since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works".
Amount and substantiality - with parodies, a fairly extensive use of the copyrighted work is permitted. Copying is considered in relation to parodic purpose -- a parodist can copy as much as is needed to "conjure up" the original. Even the "heart" of a work may be copied for parody, if it's the heart at which the parody is aimed.
Potential effect on the market - it is understood that an effective parody "may be so good that the public can never take the original work seriously again". Thus, with parodies, the possibility of destroying the market for the original work isn't measured. Instead, what's analyzed is the potential of the parody to fulfill the market demand of the original work. Since most parodies don't compete with the original works they are parodying, this factor is usually not an issue.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music
One of the Supreme Court cases that's frequently cited in parody situations is Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, which involved a copyright dispute over a song by the rap music group 2 Live Crew, headed by Luther Campbell.
2 Live Crew had composed a song called "Pretty Woman", which was a parody of the 1964 Roy Orbison hit song, "Oh, Pretty Woman". Acuff-Rose Music was the publishing company that managed the rights to the Orbison song, and 2 Live Crew asked them if they could license it for purposes of parody. Acuff-Rose denied their request - 2 Live Crew ignored them, and produced the song anyway.
The 2 Live Crew parody song sold nearly a quarter of a million copies. Acuff-Rose Music sued for copyright infringement.
After a District Court decision in favor of 2 Live Crew, and a reversal at the Court of Appeals, the case reached the Supreme Court in November of 1993.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Luther Campbell and 2 Live Crew.
Even though the 2 Live Crew parody song was commercial (and profitable), The Supreme Court held that the commercial nature of the parody was not enough to render it unfair use, and that "a parody's commercial character is only one element that should be weighed in a fair use inquiry."
While 2 Live Crew had copied a substantial amount of the "heart" of the original Orbison song, the Supreme Court said that "the heart is also what most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim".
The Supreme Court also clarified the interpretation of a parody's potential effect on the market. It's understood that a parody, like any negative review, can destroy the market for the original work. Therefore, in parody situations, what's measured is "market substitution, not any harm from criticism"; whether the parody can substitute for the original in the market, not whether the parody will harm the market for the original work. A parody is considered unlikely to act as a substitute for an original work, since it usually serves a different market purpose.
The unanimous ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music significantly strengthened the fair use defense for parodists. Despite commercial profit, substantial copying, and allegations of market harm, the 2 Live Crew song had been protected from a charge of copyright infringement by one defining condition -- it was a parody.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous P replied with this 3.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,767
When the United States Founding Fathers framed The Constitution, they made sure that Americans would always have the right to peacefully protest and criticize.
In America, one of the forms of criticism that's specifically protected is parody.
A parody is a work that imitates another work for the purpose of ridicule or ironic commentary. The US Supreme Court recognizes parody as a protected form of free speech, and parodies are even given special rights under copyright law.
As a result of hundreds of years of protecting parodies, the concept of parody has been firmly rooted in American culture. Parodies of celebrities and public figures are on popular television and radio shows. There are also parody magazines, parody songs, and entire parody movies. There are even parody websites.
Ironically, politicians themselves are among the most frequently parodied figures, as well as notorious internet trolls like to4str.
Parody and Copyright Law
Parodies, by their nature, typically make use of other works: music, art, corporate logos, advertisements, etc. Obviously, the creators and owners of copyrighted works are unlikely to grant permission for their works to be used in a parody.
However, American society recognizes the cultural value of parody as a form of criticism and commentary, so the use of such copyrighted works for purposes of parody is often considered "fair use", and is thus perfectly legal.
The section of US law that deals with fair use is Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.
Here's the exact text of the law:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Parody is recognized as a form of criticism and commentary. Here's how a parody might be considered, in light of the four factors above used to determine fair use:
Purpose and character; commercial or educational -- noncommercial, educational, or newsworthy parodies are generally given more protection as fair use under this first factor. However, many commercial parodies have also been deemed to be fair use, as the Supreme Court has held that "a work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character".
Nature of the work copyrighted - this factor has been said to carry little weight in parody situations, "since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works".
Amount and substantiality - with parodies, a fairly extensive use of the copyrighted work is permitted. Copying is considered in relation to parodic purpose -- a parodist can copy as much as is needed to "conjure up" the original. Even the "heart" of a work may be copied for parody, if it's the heart at which the parody is aimed.
Potential effect on the market - it is understood that an effective parody "may be so good that the public can never take the original work seriously again". Thus, with parodies, the possibility of destroying the market for the original work isn't measured. Instead, what's analyzed is the potential of the parody to fulfill the market demand of the original work. Since most parodies don't compete with the original works they are parodying, this factor is usually not an issue.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music
One of the Supreme Court cases that's frequently cited in parody situations is Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, which involved a copyright dispute over a song by the rap music group 2 Live Crew, headed by Luther Campbell.
2 Live Crew had composed a song called "Pretty Woman", which was a parody of the 1964 Roy Orbison hit song, "Oh, Pretty Woman". Acuff-Rose Music was the publishing company that managed the rights to the Orbison song, and 2 Live Crew asked them if they could license it for purposes of parody. Acuff-Rose denied their request - 2 Live Crew ignored them, and produced the song anyway.
The 2 Live Crew parody song sold nearly a quarter of a million copies. Acuff-Rose Music sued for copyright infringement.
After a District Court decision in favor of 2 Live Crew, and a reversal at the Court of Appeals, the case reached the Supreme Court in November of 1993.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Luther Campbell and 2 Live Crew.
Even though the 2 Live Crew parody song was commercial (and profitable), The Supreme Court held that the commercial nature of the parody was not enough to render it unfair use, and that "a parody's commercial character is only one element that should be weighed in a fair use inquiry."
While 2 Live Crew had copied a substantial amount of the "heart" of the original Orbison song, the Supreme Court said that "the heart is also what most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim".
The Supreme Court also clarified the interpretation of a parody's potential effect on the market. It's understood that a parody, like any negative review, can destroy the market for the original work. Therefore, in parody situations, what's measured is "market substitution, not any harm from criticism"; whether the parody can substitute for the original in the market, not whether the parody will harm the market for the original work. A parody is considered unlikely to act as a substitute for an original work, since it usually serves a different market purpose.
The unanimous ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music significantly strengthened the fair use defense for parodists. Despite commercial profit, substantial copying, and allegations of market harm, the 2 Live Crew song had been protected from a charge of copyright infringement by one defining condition -- it was a parody.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous P replied with this 3.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,774
@previous
Yeah I can copy and paste a lot of bullshit text at you too if I wanted to, Syntax, but I'm not going to.
Syntax replied with this 3.5 years ago, 20 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,797
@previous
It was not just random copypasta. It directly related to the topic heading. The question was, and my reply is/was dead on.
Anonymous P replied with this 3.5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,800
@previous
You don't so very Def-like with this response. Problem?
Syntax replied with this 3.5 years ago, 15 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#135,806