Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by zzmp | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

zzmp·

"Owners of the copyrighted works will only be able to sue if the parody conveys a discriminatory message.

"It would then be down to a judge to decide if the parody is funny."

Can't wait to see that lawsuit...

View on HN

Note that in the US, protections are broad and being funny doesn't matter. Legal precedent clearly states that "First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed" [1]

We have 2 Live Crew to thank for firmly establishing this majority opinion in US Supreme Court 20 years ago.

[1] http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/campbell.h...

When I read the title, I though that the law was a parody, and somehow got into effect...

Now that I've read it, I know that my first interpretation was correct.

That first interpretation may have always been correct, at least with much of copyright law. When you google mickey mouse law and get the US copyright extension act, you gotta figure there is some high stakes satire going on somewhere.

As soon as I read that statement I felt like the whole thing is going to be ridiculous. Time to appeal for a better sense of humor.

I think it's a misunderstanding, it only has to "constitute an expression of humour or mockery". It seems to me that this means that it doesn't have to be actually funny as long as it was genuinely intended to be funny.

To be fair, many of our judges have excellent senses of humour. Unlike the US we don't have a constitution, at times I feel like our batty old judges are all we have to protect us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com