3 ms·
You switched from "using something without someone's permission is morally wrong" to "using something without someone's permission is morally wrong, unless you
by mnutt 15y ago
You switched from "using something without someone's permission is morally wrong" to "using something without someone's permission is morally wrong, unless you add value to it". From the perspective of the person whose work was infringed via parody, they don't care that something was added, only that their work was used without their permission.
Which is why intellectual property isn't a moral right, but a tradeoff. And currently a lopsided one, at that.
- nailer 15y agoI changed the language to illustrate that whether the originally copy still existed makes no difference. > From the perspective of the person whose work was infringed via parody, they care only their work was used without their permission. No, they care that that are being made fun of. People who attack parodies aren't concerned that someone would buy the parody instead of the original work - very few people would.
- mnutt 15y agoTo Paul McCartney, it doesn't really matter whether I'm making a crappy metal cover of Hey Jude, or a parody of it. Why is one unethical, but not the other? One could argue that I'm profiting from the original song either way--people are more likely to buy a parody of a song they've heard than one they haven't.