There is no rule change whatsoever with the clarification that Chronos posted. From the FAQ:
[quote=“C_K_Dexter_Haven, post:11, topic:369395”]
Falsely attributing a quote to another user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, even if meant in jest, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges.
**
This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached. **
Text inside
[QUOTE]
tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may **not ** add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the
IANAL, but it seems to me that a group of people, each person posting one line of a work, are operating with a common purpose and that purpose, which seems to be to copy the work, is actually the group violating copyright law. Can one of the board’s legal beagles explain why that is not the case?
Just to reiterate, as people still claim there was a personal insult, the changed quote means “this thread is pointless and shit”, no personal insult unless you’re anthropomorphising the thread.
The basic idea was a hypothetical opinion giver that offers up the opinion “this thread is pointless”, pauses a little before saying “shit” and doesn’t get round to offering a third adjective. This was done to minimise actual change from the source, just an extra space and a comma. I did not, and still don’t, see how it would make sense as as a personal insult, (to HL or L13 or any other individual person.)
Dude, you set the record for the greatest number of infractions in the fewest words. I could go back and do the math, but it appears you were on a 3 words per infraction roll there.
I’d quietly let this drop.
You really don’t see how it’s an insult? Try this. Suppose someone wrote “Wow, a ridiculous thread, idiot .” This would be parsed as calling the OP an idiot. Obviously. So you used *shit *instead of idiot. It sure as hell looks like you’re calling the OP a shit.
The thing is, commas by themselves don’t mean “and”. For a comma separated list, you need an ending “and” or an ending “or” to define the case of the list. The commas are just demarcations of each item.
So when you said, “Wow, what a ridiculous thread, shit,” that would not regularly be interpreted by a formal reader to mean “what a ridiculous and shitty thread”. Rather, the comma separation at the end suggests you are addressing someone by calling that person “shit”. Who you are addressing is then further confusing as to whether you are addressing yourself that way, or addressing Lucky 13 that way.
An alternative interpretation might be that shit is merely serving as an interjection or intensifier, as in “This thread sucks, dammit.” That is a viable interpretation that does not violate the rules.
Then, at the appointed hour and at the appointed location ( the Wollman Rink’s south end in Central Park, NYC ) at the stroke of 7:45 PM EST, the M.I.T. ( Members In Toto™ ) shall issue their findings.
Then, hot chocolate shall ensue.
Penis shall not ensue- it’s the Holidays.
Each of those posts may have technically been copyright infringement in its own right.
Lyrics are generally short, so the ratio of the quantity used to the length of the original is pretty high, even just for a single line. On top of that, practically every word of the lyrics to a song is considered artistically expressive, meaning that the quality of each line is also significant to the original whole.
Since both amount and substantiality are likely above de minimis standards, we then have to turn to the four points of Fair Use. Purpose and character of the use (no money involved, just guys having some fun) would tilt toward Fair Use, but that’s offset by the aforementioned amount and substantiality. The effect of our use on the market value of the original is essentially nil, so that favors Fair Use as well, but the nature of the original song is a fully creative effort (as opposed to, say, a biographical sketch of a famous person), so that tips the scales back to infringement.
Every use is different, of course, but any publication (even on a messageboard) of copyrighted lyrics is more likely than not to technically be infringement.
That’s an academic distinction, really, since nobody’s going to take the matter to court over a few lines posted on a messageboard, even if it all eventually adds up to the whole song. Not unless there were some other shenanigans at play.
I wouldn’t put any of the individual lines on a tee shirt and sell it for profit, though.
Am the OP of the thread in question, here with my .02.
I started the thread thinking I was only perpetuating a harmless holiday SDMB tradition, completely clueless that each poster adding a line of the song = whole song, therefore copyright infringement. I stand corrected. And no, I don’t feel insulted - I thought he was calling the thread “shit,” not me or any other Doper.
(walks away, “I Started A Joke” playing in the background)
