6TP Very Butthurt

[Jasep]

He has no one to blame but himself for his behavior and the hilarious result from it.

Dear Jasep, aka John Sep, aka John Saks,

You have written that you plan to use my copyrighted material on your podcast Filthy Limper Radio Season 5 Premier 1/10/13.

I do not give you permission to use my voice or any of my copyrighted material.

I just recently learned of your intentions to violate my rights so my lawyer and I are in the process of obtaining your full legal name and address so that I may contact you formally.

Feel free to send me that information if you wish to expedite my correspondence to you concerning copyright infringement, internet defamation and on-line privacy.

Sincerely,

Charles R.

[mulva]

He has no one to blame but himself for his behavior and the hilarious result from it.

Dear Jasep, aka John Sep, aka John Saks,

You have written that you plan to use my copyrighted material on your podcast Filthy Limper Radio Season 5 Premier 1/10/13.

I do not give you permission to use my voice or any of my copyrighted material.

I just recently learned of your intentions to violate my rights so my lawyer and I are in the process of obtaining your full legal name and address so that I may contact you formally.

Feel free to send me that information if you wish to expedite my correspondence to you concerning copyright infringement, internet defamation and on-line privacy.

Sincerely,


Charles R.

[zealanddonk]

Not sure why he needs your legal address, thanks to Projekt: Sep he can find out which casino you'll be at during work hours.

[Jasep]

Fair Use homie....

Fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders.

In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc[20] the Supreme Court recognized parody as a potential fair use, even when done for profit. Roy Orbison's publisher, Acuff-Rose Music Inc, had sued 2 Live Crew in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than used for mere advertising, commercial sale did not bar the defense. The Campbell court also distinguished parodies from satire, which they described as a broader social critique not intrinsically tied to ridicule of a specific work, and so not deserving of the same use exceptions as parody because the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work.

Sue me all you want, lets hope you can get in on the 100 dollar level with LegalFeeGiftsforLife.com

[BCR]

He has no one to blame but himself for his behavior and the hilarious result from it.

Dear Jasep, aka John Sep, aka John Saks,

You have written that you plan to use my copyrighted material on your podcast Filthy Limper Radio Season 5 Premier 1/10/13.

I do not give you permission to use my voice or any of my copyrighted material.

I just recently learned of your intentions to violate my rights so my lawyer and I are in the process of obtaining your full legal name and address so that I may contact you formally.

Feel free to send me that information if you wish to expedite my correspondence to you concerning copyright infringement, internet defamation and on-line privacy.

Sincerely,

Charles R.

I didn't know Dutch Boyd was licensed to practice in Massachusetts.

[Muck Ficon]

[LLL]

Fair Use homie....

In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc[20] the Supreme Court recognized parody as a potential fair use, even when done for profit. Roy Orbison's publisher, Acuff-Rose Music Inc, had sued 2 Live Crew in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than used for mere advertising, commercial sale did not bar the defense. The Campbell court also distinguished parodies from satire, which they described as a broader social critique not intrinsically tied to ridicule of a specific work, and so not deserving of the same use exceptions as parody because the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work.

Sue me all you want, lets hope you can get in on the 100 dollar level with LegalFeeGiftsforLife.com

[vegas1369]

Just when you think 6Toe had set the douche bar so high it couldn't be topped, this happens...

[Crowe Diddly]

The fair use case is rather simple to make on this use. The re-use of the audio clips is in an entirely different context than the original video clips, and completely changes the meaning and intent of the original, a central tenet of fair use. The potential use of audio clips for comedy segments alters the structure and meaning of the original in substantial ways, will be used for both humor and social commentary, and recombines some of the original elements to create an entirely new work that has completely transformed the meaning and the intent of the original work.

The original works in question were vids used to get people to join a pyramid scheme. The disputed works are very short audio clips used in comedy skits for humorous purposes. Good luck making that case. Your lawyer will be happy to try, but that's because that's what he gets paid to do. However, this isn't even close. The media types are changed from the original, the intent is changed, the message is completely changed, the new work is clearly humorous, and at no point will any substantial part of the original be used for any purpose that could be confused as having anything to do with the original intent and use of the videos. That all equals up to being more than "transformative" enough for any court that was forced to waste their time with this.

Finally, I gotta thing the effect of the new use on the value and effectiveness of the original is NOTHING AT ALL. Obv make your case otherwise if you can, but the fact that you do not ebven do cash gifting anymore makes this claim extraordinarily dubious before even going any further.

As a man who blathers on about free speech whenever possible, I would have thought our man 6toe might have at least a basic understanding about fair use.

BTW pete, why exactly have you left the metacafe videos up for all this time? Seriously, its clearly your account, it would be a simple thing to make them go away, and yet.... There they still are. If this is an activity you aren't involved in anymore, why leave those lolreminders up there for everyone to laugh at?


Also, remember this: Should you send some sort of legal letter to jasep, I would strongly suggest jasep post it publicly for all to see, respond to, and comment upon, because that would be the most fun of all this. And legal, of course.

[DRK Star]

[Jasep]

Dear Jasep,

I just recently saw your post about your podcast so I gave you the courtesy of a PM. I had hoped you would want to avoid legal action. I do. However, if you violate the law concerning copyright infringement, internet defamation and/or on-line privacy concerning me, then you will leave me no option but to seek all legal remedies available.

What reason do you have to defame me?

I'm not trying to argue with you. I hope you have a good podcast.

Put yourself in my shoes. I'm not being unreasonable.

It's very easy to resolve this. There is no reason to go the costly, difficult route.

My lawyer will need your full name and address only if I decide to sue you. At that time you will have all our contact information should you wish to answer and counter sue.

I'm willing to be reasonable and I hope you will be reasonable too. I encourage you to seek legal advice if that will help you understand how serious I am.

Sincerely,

Charles R

Based on my latest PM I have decided not to air the Chuck The Cash Gifting Cabbie Prank Phone Call tonight....

 

Instead I will put together a 2 hour special that will air next week immediately following the show, This special will be entirely hosted by our new character, CTCGC... this could have been a 4 minute chuckle and we all moved on...

[zealanddonk]

As long as tonight's show has
"Also, Underground Railroad Raymond will call Foxwoods to ask about the Martin Luther King Poker Series they have coming up "
its all good.

[SixToedPete]

The fair use case is rather simple to make on this use. The re-use of the audio clips is in an entirely different context than the original video clips, and completely changes the meaning and intent of the original, a central tenet of fair use. The potential use of audio clips for comedy segments alters the structure and meaning of the original in substantial ways, will be used for both humor and social commentary, and recombines some of the original elements to create an entirely new work that has completely transformed the meaning and the intent of the original work.

The original works in question were vids used to get people to join a pyramid scheme. The disputed works are very short audio clips used in comedy skits for humorous purposes. Good luck making that case. Your lawyer will be happy to try, but that's because that's what he gets paid to do. However, this isn't even close. The media types are changed from the original, the intent is changed, the message is completely changed, the new work is clearly humorous, and at no point will any substantial part of the original be used for any purpose that could be confused as having anything to do with the original intent and use of the videos. That all equals up to being more than "transformative" enough for any court that was forced to waste their time with this.

Finally, I gotta thing the effect of the new use on the value and effectiveness of the original is NOTHING AT ALL. Obv make your case otherwise if you can, but the fact that you do not ebven do cash gifting anymore makes this claim extraordinarily dubious before even going any further.

As a man who blathers on about free speech whenever possible, I would have thought our man 6toe might have at least a basic understanding about fair use.

BTW pete, why exactly have you left the metacafe videos up for all this time? Seriously, its clearly your account, it would be a simple thing to make them go away, and yet.... There they still are. If this is an activity you aren't involved in anymore, why leave those lolreminders up there for everyone to laugh at?


Also, remember this: Should you send some sort of legal letter to jasep, I would strongly suggest jasep post it publicly for all to see, respond to, and comment upon, because that would be the most fun of all this. And legal, of course.

I just discovered Jasep's intentions after reading his podcast post. I sent him a polite pm. He chose to make my private message public.

I'm not going to discuss my potential case against Jasep because the show hasn't aired yet.

I'm been very reasonable with Jasep.

I will say that I am very familiar with the 'fair use' and 'parody' defense. Crowe's and others' contention that such defenses are always a 'slam dunk' is not supported by case law.

Please remember that Jasep decided to make this public. He started this thread.

Let's wait and see what happens.

[Crowe Diddly]

I will say that I am very familiar with the 'fair use' and 'parody' defense. Crowe's and others' contention that such defenses are always a 'slam dunk' is not supported by case law.

Don't think I ever said "such defenses are always a 'slam dunk'", just that this particular one is quite clear cut IMO, given the circumstances of the use and the confines of what does, indeed, win in fair use cases once they hit the courts. I am not a lawyer, obv, but until pete's lawyer does his thing, this is all hypothetical, I guess.

[superallah]

premium content.

[Jasep]

It must be a full moon tonight:

jsearles22: free jsearles22!

[Muck Ficon]

The fair use case is rather simple to make on this use. The re-use of the audio clips is in an entirely different context than the original video clips, and completely changes the meaning and intent of the original, a central tenet of fair use. The potential use of audio clips for comedy segments alters the structure and meaning of the original in substantial ways, will be used for both humor and social commentary, and recombines some of the original elements to create an entirely new work that has completely transformed the meaning and the intent of the original work.

The original works in question were vids used to get people to join a pyramid scheme. The disputed works are very short audio clips used in comedy skits for humorous purposes. Good luck making that case. Your lawyer will be happy to try, but that's because that's what he gets paid to do. However, this isn't even close. The media types are changed from the original, the intent is changed, the message is completely changed, the new work is clearly humorous, and at no point will any substantial part of the original be used for any purpose that could be confused as having anything to do with the original intent and use of the videos. That all equals up to being more than "transformative" enough for any court that was forced to waste their time with this.

Finally, I gotta thing the effect of the new use on the value and effectiveness of the original is NOTHING AT ALL. Obv make your case otherwise if you can, but the fact that you do not ebven do cash gifting anymore makes this claim extraordinarily dubious before even going any further.

As a man who blathers on about free speech whenever possible, I would have thought our man 6toe might have at least a basic understanding about fair use.

BTW pete, why exactly have you left the metacafe videos up for all this time? Seriously, its clearly your account, it would be a simple thing to make them go away, and yet.... There they still are. If this is an activity you aren't involved in anymore, why leave those lolreminders up there for everyone to laugh at?


Also, remember this: Should you send some sort of legal letter to jasep, I would strongly suggest jasep post it publicly for all to see, respond to, and comment upon, because that would be the most fun of all this. And legal, of course.

I just discovered Jasep's intentions after reading his podcast post. I sent him a polite pm. He chose to make my private message public.

I'm not going to discuss my potential case against Jasep because the show hasn't aired yet.

I'm been very reasonable with Jasep.

I will say that I am very familiar with the 'fair use' and 'parody' defense. Crowe's and others' contention that such defenses are always a 'slam dunk' is not supported by case law.

Please remember that Jasep decided to make this public. He started this thread.

Let's wait and see what happens.

We already know what will happen. Jasep will do his segment and you won't do a fucking thing.

[SixToedPete]

I just discovered Jasep's intentions after reading his podcast post. I sent him a polite pm. He chose to make my private message public.

I'm not going to discuss my potential case against Jasep because the show hasn't aired yet.

I'm been very reasonable with Jasep.

I will say that I am very familiar with the 'fair use' and 'parody' defense. Crowe's and others' contention that such defenses are always a 'slam dunk' is not supported by case law.

Please remember that Jasep decided to make this public. He started this thread.

Let's wait and see what happens.

We already know what will happen. Jasep will do his segment and you won't do a fucking thing.

Depends on the content of 'his segment'. Let's wait and see. That's fair enough isn't it?

[SixToedPete]

I will say that I am very familiar with the 'fair use' and 'parody' defense. Crowe's and others' contention that such defenses are always a 'slam dunk' is not supported by case law.

Don't think I ever said "such defenses are always a 'slam dunk'", just that this particular one is quite clear cut IMO, given the circumstances of the use and the confines of what does, indeed, win in fair use cases once they hit the courts. I am not a lawyer, obv, but until pete's lawyer does his thing, this is all hypothetical, I guess.

I understand your point Crowe but as you mentioned, it's hypothetical until I listen to the podcast.

I do know that 'fair use' is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is revealed after all court proceedings are complete.

I also addressed more than just copyright infringement in my polite pm to Jasep.

[LLL]

So the attention whoring is here to stay?

Thought you were adjusting to your new "fame". Here's hoping Adamantium decides to make you one of his projects.