While I do agree that there should be some limitations to freedom of speech when there is a logical basis, like instances of slander or of "screaming Fire in a crowded theater", I'm having difficulty grasping your logic here.
Taking someone's most effective method of expressing themselves away and saying that they should "find some other way to do that" because of some ill-defined concept of it "harming" the original author is simply absurd.
It's like coming into a boxing match and tying one of the fighter's dominant arm behind their back because it's "not fair" to the other fighter, then telling them they can still fight with their other. Oh, and the fighter's opponent can still use both hands, because he managed cover up the "infringement" of his right hook.
It's a handicap, and a damned arbitrary one too.
When exactly does parody become satire? If I tear apart a work at the seams in order to point out deeper social issues underlying the work itself, is that parody, or satire? I'm using the work to comment on society at that point, but the points are relevant to the work. What about using multiple works to comment on each other?
While you could say that this can be decided on a case-by-case basis, that's a luxury only reserved for the rich. Unless legal battles get cheaper, most people can't afford to fight back against accusations. As a result, trying to make a distinction between satire and parody invalidates both as protected speech.
Put simply, your argument has NO merit due to the simple fact that there is no adequate reason do restrict it beyond the supposed "lost profits" of the original artist. (which is already perversion of the purpose of copyright law to begin with)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Will.
Re: simple
While I do agree that there should be some limitations to freedom of speech when there is a logical basis, like instances of slander or of "screaming Fire in a crowded theater", I'm having difficulty grasping your logic here.
Taking someone's most effective method of expressing themselves away and saying that they should "find some other way to do that" because of some ill-defined concept of it "harming" the original author is simply absurd.
It's like coming into a boxing match and tying one of the fighter's dominant arm behind their back because it's "not fair" to the other fighter, then telling them they can still fight with their other. Oh, and the fighter's opponent can still use both hands, because he managed cover up the "infringement" of his right hook.
It's a handicap, and a damned arbitrary one too.
When exactly does parody become satire? If I tear apart a work at the seams in order to point out deeper social issues underlying the work itself, is that parody, or satire? I'm using the work to comment on society at that point, but the points are relevant to the work. What about using multiple works to comment on each other?
While you could say that this can be decided on a case-by-case basis, that's a luxury only reserved for the rich. Unless legal battles get cheaper, most people can't afford to fight back against accusations. As a result, trying to make a distinction between satire and parody invalidates both as protected speech.
Put simply, your argument has NO merit due to the simple fact that there is no adequate reason do restrict it beyond the supposed "lost profits" of the original artist. (which is already perversion of the purpose of copyright law to begin with)