If it’s not fair use at all then ripley’s right. The laws need to change. As I mention above, I do think we need a system that allows for payment of all the artists involved, but I don’t think that system should stifle creativity in the process.

Not exactly. I don’t think this use of music is a fair use, and certainly not because it’s a parody (which I don’t think it is).

The point I was *trying* to make about the laughter was a semi-serious point about how many people (especially non-lawyers) decide at a gut level whether a use is fair: If they watch it and laugh, they think it’s a fair use. That’s not the law, but I think it accurately describes how many people do their fair use “analysis.”

Best,

Ben Sheffner

and that’s a great observation about the music making people laugh and thus it’s protected. Sort of should make people think… how can a machine know if a song is making people laugh? therefore how can copyright enforcement be automated (because what program can understand parody)?

also even more deeply this is a great thing to think about because it gets at the value of music in a social context. IT might not be parody, but it makes people happy, creates a feeling that is so undeniably good that it’s hard to tell people they are in the wrong. Even that guy might have to face up to the reality that when a law destroys fellowship and good feeling, it might be time to change the law. I think it would be phony to say that the law as it stands will always support good feelings (as much as legal activists try to use the law this way) - I think the law is going to have to change, and we are going to have to decide how far we want the law to reach into our lives, since technology is bringing it in further than ever before.

whew. sorry about the rant. I will prolly turn this into a blog post soon!