Oh - I agree - but that is not my point. Consider another transformation that I certainly performed: copying vinyl albums to tape, so I could listen on my walkman in places I never could before. Today, I can watch movies on my phone while commuting, a wildly different context to a cinema (both things that get me called a thief by various protectionist bodies). Transformation does not need someone to call themselves an artist, to be called art, nor be put in a high end gallery. The works you discuss should be able to flourish, not by the kindness of strangers but by an enlightened copyright law - not the monster its been transformed into today. So yes Richard Prince should be free to do this, just as I am free to deride his work as minimally transformative and lacking in any other significant value. About the only commentary of note here is that you can do this to the work of little people - try that with Disney or Lucas and see what happens. Its just insulting. Its funny you look for an objective line in such a subjective area - but I think we agree that the line should err on the permissive side. As I said, that is my opinion.
Oh, I certainly did. His transformation is little different than me ripping a borrowed CD to my phone - its an album in a different context, really. There are degrees of transformation and context - I cant see how Prince achieves that - it's just copying.
It is my opinion that, if this is sufficiently transformative, then copyright gets gutted. What say I borrow a CD, rip the tracks to a different format, then copy it to a music player of some kind. This is every bit as transformative as this, for want of a better word, work.
I'm wondering here, how can RightsCorp possibly figure out who is an "egregious" downloader? While I don't know Cox's IP management strategy, I would be surprised if it was static. The only possible thing RightsCorp can be doing is counting up infringements per IP - which, given the accuracy of the detection method (appalling) and the movement of IP's among Cox' customers, can't tell you much... and that is before considering who in a household (or elsewhere) might be the infringer - that they cannot know.
Re: Re: Re: the first time they're found to infringe.
No need to bother the courts (some pirates might convince a judge they are truly innocent) Do you know how accurate these tracking companies are? If Google used the same standards in their automatic driving cars, there would be a trail of dead people in the wake of each one.
Uh - yeah... so what was the device doing on his car? It is a shame that this case fell in front of a judge with a demonstrated lack of critical thinking and a demonstrated will to find for any plaintiff.
Why not just quietly attach it to, say, a police car? As the FBI would be unlikely to know when it was swapped, all their data would become suspect. The FBI would have difficulty doing anything about it without revealing what they were doing.