4 ms·
What are you talking about? You can call it whatever you want, but it amounts to fair-use if you're allowed to use something for the purposes of critique and/o
by quantummagic 1y ago
What are you talking about? You can call it whatever you want, but it amounts to fair-use if you're allowed to use something for the purposes of critique and/or parody.
- Hamuko 1y agoThat's not how it works. Specific carveouts in copyright are not the same thing as fair use.
- quantummagic 1y agoYou're playing word games. The point is that any system that has no concept of fair-use, no allowance for reasonable usage of copyrighted works, except where explicitly granted by the copyright holder, is inherently unjust and stifling to free expression. How such allowances are specified in law, is irrelevant pedantry. What matters is that the allowances are afforded.
- Hamuko 1y agoI implore you to not use terms like "fair use" if you do not understand what they mean and don't care to find out. Because it is not a general concept like "free speech". It's a very specific legal doctrine.
- quantummagic 1y agoYou're pretending the concept is difficult to understand. You're pretending that there is some protected definition of "fair use" that is more complicated than people being granted the right to use a copyrighted work irrespective of the copyright holder's wishes. That's all i've been saying from the start, and your pedantry isn't helpful. It doesn't make you look smart. You haven't added any value or illumination to the conversation.
- Hamuko 1y agoOnce again: that is not what the term means and you should not use it if you do not understand what it means. There is a very established definition for it, and for some reason you keep pretending there isn’t without a shred of evidence. Fair dealing also grants people "the right to use a copyrighted work irrespective of the copyright holder's wishes" and it's separate of fair use.