Doesn’t matter how lousy the content is, nor how you judge it.

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE GAME, AND HOW YOU PLA—wait will anybody here even get that reference?

Defendants clearly have nothing without Plaintiff’s content, therefore it’s not parody or transformative, but some degree of theft.

Technically, it would be “copyright infringement”, and copying—even illicit copying—is not theft.

They didn’t assemble their own work (apparently it’s not a melange skewing several persons), just added insults.

Late night talk show hosts do this all the time; nobody sues them for copyright infringement over it.

This is literally adding insult to injury, then.

Technically, it would be adding insult to copyright infringement—the plaintiff still has to prove any actual injury that comes from the infringement, after all.

By the way, egregious insults is exactly why Masnick has problems now.

Nah, he has problems because some half-assed half-ass thinks he can use the legal system to shake down yet another journalistic outlet that called him out on his whole-assed lies.

This is clearly a trend: I call it Gawkering.

Better outlets than Gawker have been pissing off dumb rich motherfuckers for decades before that site was ever even an idea. This is not some new idea, no matter how much you think you came up with it before anyone else and think you deserve all the credit for it.

You should all take note that your notions about "free speech" law clearly aren’t holding up, either.

Several courts have ruled that the usage of an entire work within another work can, under certain circumstances, be considered Fair Use. The law is generally unclear on this (as a good chunk of Fair Use law often is), but do not act as if there is no precedent for the idea.

Many "pundits" on the internet make nothing of their own, but it’s easy to insult.

Note to self: Coming up with unique insults for individual situations is not creative, stick to the old “public domain” standbys such as “imbecile”, “half-wit”, and “the orange-skinned toupeé-wearing hobgoblin that hides underneath a child’s bed”.

Adds nothing to society that needs the protections due copyrighted content.

I am pretty sure that those late night talk show hosts I mentioned would disagree with you.

It riles targets immensely.

Yes, and? A person’s emotional response to something does not determine whether something deserves the protection of copyright. One of those awful Trump children wrote a book full of quotes and mishmashed axioms about generic “you go girl” nonsense aimed at rich white women, and she still gets the benefit of copyright.

It’s likely that Plaintiff here only tried to entertain other people, poured out what he/she has of soul, which may not be much, and that makes it sting all the more.

Hal P. Warren poured his soul into “Manos: The Hands of Fate”, and look how that film turned out.

Don’t insult people, kids. NO GOOD CAN COME OF IT.

“Unless you are really fuckin’ good at it, in which case you can probably become a somewhat successful stand-up comedian or some shit. But you gotta be really, really fuckin’ good at that shit, or else you’re gonna end up face-first in a toilet at a dive bar wondering what the hell happened to your life, your bank account, and your two front teeth that you vomited up ten minutes ago.”

If that’s all you’ve got, follow old advice and say nothing.

Second note to self: Never say anything if it could possibly hurt the feelings of anyone else in the world.

…shit, too late.

There’s no percentage in insults for you, and potential big down-side.

Well, Techdirt took the piss out of the Prenda jackasses for years, and that does not seem to have brought the site down. So, uh…maybe rethink that notion.

Oh, and I just repurposed your entire comment for the purposes of foul-mouthed commentary with a few insults thrown in for good measure, so I expect to be sued by you for copyright infringement any day now. I cannot wait to hear from your highly ethical and fair-minded atto—I mean, whatever dumbass lawyer you can dredge up to file the lawsuit.