If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   What What (in the Court)   (arstechnica.com) divider line 20
    More: Interesting, statutory damages, oral arguments  
•       •       •

10954 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2012 at 12:44 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



20 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-25 12:47:59 PM
Boobies
 
2012-06-25 12:49:25 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-25 12:50:38 PM
You wanna do it in my court? In my court?
You wanna do it in my court, In my court?
You wanna do it in my court? No way.
 
2012-06-25 12:51:56 PM
Ha, I can just imagine SCOTUS dealing with this in the future.
 
2012-06-25 12:53:56 PM
FTFA: "federal trial judge tossed the case"

That's not all that got tossed.
 
2012-06-25 12:54:06 PM

Rockstone: Ha, I can just imagine SCOTUS dealing with this in the future.


Finally, a case that might actually interest Thomas!
 
2012-06-25 12:57:23 PM
South Park creators on the right side of censorship/fair use AGAIN.

\love those guys
 
2012-06-25 12:57:52 PM
Those dopes should look at it this way: if it wasn't for South Park, I probably never would have heard of their video.
 
2012-06-25 01:00:00 PM
The judges said their decision was not that hard
 
2012-06-25 01:02:08 PM
The fair use ruling is great, but I worry about the precedent set by having a panel of judges call out a party for trolling. It is not the government's role to regulate trolling, no matter how obvious and pathetic.

I would refer them to the case of US v. Harold Balsagna.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-06-25 01:03:15 PM
Ha, I can just imagine SCOTUS dealing with this in the future.

The decision cites Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., a 1993 Supreme Court case based on a rap parody of "Pretty Woman." Justice Thomas was on the court at that time.
 
2012-06-25 01:03:25 PM

germ78: Those dopes should look at it this way: if it wasn't for South Park, I probably never would have heard of their video.


Good publicity: Make viral video.
Better publicity: Have it parodied on TV show.
Shait-Tsunami Stiesand publicity: Sue TV show.

/You're doing it wrong.
 
2012-06-25 01:04:40 PM
Looks like Butters got himself out of another jam.
 
2012-06-25 01:05:29 PM
t0.gstatic.com



imontheinternet: The fair use ruling is great, but I worry about the precedent set by having a panel of judges call out a party for trolling. It is not the government's role to regulate trolling, no matter how obvious and pathetic.

I would refer them to the case of US v. Harold Balsagna.

 
2012-06-25 01:06:05 PM
Shouldv'e named their company Skidmark, not Brownmark.
 
2012-06-25 01:18:42 PM
Arse Technica?
 
2012-06-25 01:26:04 PM

wiredtolain:


Done in two
 
2012-06-25 03:01:00 PM

germ78: Those dopes should look at it this way: if it wasn't for South Park, I probably never would have heard of their video.


If it hadn't been for Fark, I never would have heard of their video. So they owe thanks to Fark and South Park both.
 
2012-06-25 08:12:16 PM
I noticed that SP didn't incorporate this part into their parody:

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-06-25 10:25:48 PM

que.guero: Boobies


You're a retard.
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report