Comments on: Using Copyright to Censor Parody

By: Emery Wooten

Emery Wooten — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:41:38 +0000

http://adriananthonys.jimdo.com/

By: David

David — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:38:28 +0000

And, having said that, I have to admit that you have a case, too.

The text was silly, and that may be all that is necessary to qualify as parody today – you’re the experts on post-digital sensibilities.

I looked at the graphics, at the page source, and it smelled of phishing – or copyright violation.

I’ll be interested to see where this thing goes – this is David, signing out.

By: David

David — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:22:54 +0000

Did I fall for that? No, I used the term “clumsy lie” advisedly.

Do I really want the Federal judiciary drawing that line? Frankly, enforcing copyright is one of a handful of things that I’m in favor of them doing.

Had these kids spent a little time and creativity turning their stunt into a real “parody” complete with those subtle and clever twists on their planned victim’s intellectual property, I’d be lined up solidly with the forces of light and “free as in beer.” But they didn’t.

IMHO.

By: Harry Lewis

Harry Lewis — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:16:37 +0000

Let’s remember Lehman Brothers, a committed, solid member of this Chamber, who in the interest of short-term gain scuttled a century. They ate lamb, but were left without wool when the cold, hard winter set in.

We must learn from the past, so that we can manage the future.

Climatologists tell us that if we don’t enact dramatic reductions in carbon emissions today, within 5 years we could begin facing the propagating feedback loops of runaway climate change. That would mean a disruption of food and water supplies worldwide, with the result of mass migrations, famines, and death on a scale never witnessed before.

Needless to say, that would be bad for business.

Did you really fall for that, without any head-scratching?

Do you really want the federal judiciary drawing that line?

By: David

David — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:11:52 +0000

Wikipedia says ‘A parody (pronounced /Ààp?¶r…ôdiÀê/; also called send-up or spoof), in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation.’

While I’m no fan of DMCA, I must say that this “parody” suffers from looking too little like spoof and too much like simple misrepresentation.

Where’s the indication – subtle or not – that this is a send-up? In the footer, which claims that the page is copyrighted by the real Chamber at the real Chamber’s real address? In the meta text? In some clever misspelling? In a clever play on words in the “parody” domain name?

Sorry, I’m afraid I can’t agree with you, or the EFF, this time. This is just a clumsy lie.