go fuck yourself :thumbsup:winkwink:

The thread topic was answered all ready so we are just beating a dead horse really :)

If the thread starter wants it locked they can, if you want to be helpfull , start a thread entitled " here is where you send your dmca for tna flix "

Wow they even have some of my videos there!

Of course they do :) Seen lots of your vids there:

http://www.tnaflix.com/view_video.ph...0b7f90404c8e0f

You need to check every page at this site.

and what exactly about taking a statement out of context do you not understand

direct quote from wikipedia

Fair use is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status. Even repeating an identical act at a different point in time can make a difference due to changing social, technological, or other surrounding circumstances

See section Amount and substantiality ('sampling') and others above for cited examples of changing standards


those examples are

The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios for a case in which substantial copying?entire programs for private viewing?was upheld as fair use. Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use."

the way you read the summary could mean two things
your misrepresenting the context of the message.

to mean that fair use disappears and reappears willy nilly when you look at the referenced proof it clear that it is talking about scope change. Which is 100% consistant with what i am saying (the supported extension of old fair use right to the new technology so we can get the extra benefits of that technology)

wikipedia is not wrong, a moron who misrepresents what wiki is actually saying is wrong.

Sorry to bump an old thread but you can meet all of these guys at Webmaster Access Amsterdam.