I posted what I thought was a relevant bit in the Brony bashing thread made by somebody with the handle of ZONE and the discussion turned away from the central topic, so I decided to make this thread for ZONE (NSFW- what I posted not so much because it was a joke) and the issues related to ZONE (porn and how individual companies use the "parody as fair use" rule to legally justify making pornographic parodies of popular media.
I'm going to start off by saying that I don't have much of an opinion, but that ZONE is probably at legal fault for the use of audio clips, that only the images would be protected by "fair use as parody" claims even if one were to apply it, and that although ZONE is at fault, he/she/it/they probably don't/doesn't face any serious legal risk because ZONE isn't financially hurting the individual companies responsible for the animations he/she parodies and doesn't make an outstanding profit from it.

Note: This topic isn't limited to ZONE -- we can also discuss "fair use as parody" in adult media (porn), "fair use as parody" in general, or even the legal definition of "fair use".

To reiterate my earlier point in a somewhat different fashion, I do not consider ZONE's works to be "parody". I've looked up several different definitions of parody, and they all boil down to a parody being something that is either humorous or a commentary/satire of an original work. All ZONE does is take copyrighted characters and make pornography based on them. For example, take the screenshot I posted in the other thread. There is no humor, no satire, and no commentary on the original series (in this case Rozen Maiden). So what I'm basically saying is that it is, as far as parody is concerned, pretty much the more pornographic version of this:

Click to view attachment

EDIT: Hey, doesn't ZONE also claim copyright on his stuff, just like Chris-Chan does?

It's porn. Sex sells. ZONE is being paid. It is not satire. It's all copyright infringement. At least until royalties are paid for. End of discussion.

I see. The way I was introduced to ZONE was that some kids in the college dorm lobby were looking at his/her work and explained to me that it was "hilarious". Apparently, watching your favorite childhood characters turn triple X is actually funny, rather than sexually appealing as you might expect porn to be, for some people. I think I mentioned in the other thread, but this isn't just limited to ZONE either. Ever seen those websites where they point out all of the pop culture fads which have been turned into pornography? Those also identify their selves as "parodies". (Flintstones XXX parody, (insert fad here) XXX parody)
And the MORE pornographic version of Chris-Chan? Isn't Chris-Chan already all into the china? (That is, if you don't buy into the obvious fact unbased hypothesis that he's probably a closet homosexual, not that there's anything wrong with that.) I got the impression that if he actually knew how to draw, he'd probably be more graphic than ZONE... well, assuming he even knew how sex worked.
And one more thing differentiating CWC from ZONE... ZONE can actually draw. Also, CWC is completely delusional and believes he has millions of fans where he does not. And CWC is racist and sexist and homophobic and an overall horrible person. By contrast, I know nothing about ZONE personally. For all I know, he/she has joined the KKK and attends frequent meetings.

Also, yup. I'm not denying that what ZONE does is probably copyright infringement.

Whether it is really funny or not, the pony video especially could be considered satire. I am not about to delve through this thing's life work to determine if everything is, but, if it is mostly targeting creepy fandoms and their love of hentai then yeah, it could be argued as social satire. Provided most are in the vein of the pony thing.

Nope. That was just an April Fools "joke" and a display of ZONE's hypocrisy. I mean seriously, social satire?!

It isn't much far above Naylin Paylin. That aside it could count as satire. I imagine that is a big reason why the big suits don't just crush things like Zone.

Oh God,*Puts on the old tinfoil hat* what if they don't pursue Zone because Zone is backed by them? Nah, just kidding, they probably don't call Zone on it because it's not that important to them.

Yeah, I don't see how there could be a thinly veiled social commentary in that video outside of "I'm not filling this particular sick fetish," which isn't a social commentary at all. "Parody" has a greater holding in court than "satire" anyway (though as I understand it, a satire is usually a parody to begin with). You might be able to get away with claiming it's parody because it made somebody somewhere giggle a little bit, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't exempt ZONE.

And the big suits really don't care about ZONE. Regardless of how much money he/she makes, it's not huge. They've got bigger fish to fry than policing the Internet for suspected minor copyright infringement, though Turner could have easily pursued something with ZONE if they saw much of a cause for it. But he just got the same "cease and desist" given to other online parodies (Teamfourstar, Yu-Gi-Oh! Abridged). (<Note: I'm not putting those in the same vein, but instead stating that they also use a "fair use as parody" defense and have also been called on it.)

And something to consider: Teamfourstar and Littlekuriboh also profit from abridged series through merchandising. What's your perspective on that? (You meaning anybody in the thread, not that I'm directly targeting one specific person in any way, shape, or form.)

Hang on lemme spell this out for you. A major litigation is a pain in the ass. If they go to bore and someone uses the "Its satire" defense it has to be proven not to be satire. That is a stupidly long battle regardless of satire or no satire. Then it gets up to the decision of a judge which may or may not rule in favor of them. End result for peanuts isn't worth the hassle. Though I imagine the major problem is Free Use in these cases.

I am not arguing it is satire. I am arguing satire can be used for a defense reasonably and cause a litigation cluster fuck.

I guess the laws are too ambiguous to define pay-to-view pornography as not satire? After all, Zone's done more than just Hasbro products, apparently.

I found a very interesting article by a buddy of Brad Jones that deals with this very subject - namely the concept of the porn parody. This pretty much fits my point that what ZONE is doing isn't parody at all. I don't think there can be any even far-fetched case made for it being a "parody" and the only reason he is still doing what he is doing is simply that the legal owners couldn't give a shit.
I kinda wish they did though, just to see him legally crash and burn.

The problem is it is a gamble for them. It doesn't do their bottom line any justice. Odds are only angry internet people and those who want to see things like MLP porn are going to find it. The cost to have a bunch of angry lawyers fight in a court room against a dipshit is expensive. Not to mention if the dipshit can provide a defense. Plus, who knows if the porn industry itself wouldn't back him just to keep the precedent down. All and all its a numbers game.

I just love how we started a thread devoted solely to the legality of porn under the catagory of "parody"

Post_Count ++;

I hate to say this, because I definitely have at least a foot in the bandwagon now, but... You really gotta stop doing things that maintain that new kid smell.

True, it is a waste of money to try and shut-down a really minor guy but the problem is that if one person can infringe on copyright using his method, anyone can. There's something wrong with the law system when it's too expensive for even corporations to protect their property.

Just ignore him and he'll eventually figure it out.

You are a SOPA supporter aren't ya?

Oh no, we've uncovered the deadly loophole in copyright! Why buy video games or movies when we can watch porn of it for free?!

Hardly, my problem with this is that ZONE is being paid to plagiarize cartoons. I don't care about those who pirate because they're actively taking a risk, gambling not getting locked-up in a cell somewhere. In certain situations, I actually believe that pirating is ethical, such as was the case in the Spore game fiasco when all the legitimate copies of the game had SecuROM added to them, which made the product not actually belong to the customers. Pirating was the only way to get an actual copy owned by the customer. The pirating was also a form of punishment to the corporation for having bad business ethics. I do not like hackers that try and just get free stuff from even ethical corporations and small businesses but I still don't care since they are risking their own freedom just to save what is in essence, an amount of money only a greedy people would care about keeping to justify stealing.


My problem is that ZONE's being paid to do it, not that it's making the material.

Anyways, I don't like buisnesses ripping off other buisnesses but I'm fine with people doing it. You get what I'm saying?

Pirating is never ethical. It isn't moral. It is ripping off intellectual property. Yes, you can make a stand and good for you for doing that. You had all the makings of a boycott without actually giving up anything. At the end of the day though, you stole. If you don't like a product or the TOS that comes with a product, don't buy it. If you want to circumvent it, that's fine, but never claim the moral high ground or give it to someone to rip off a company. While I personally have been known to play the, "Fuck you I will unlock the data myself card", it isn't really a moral argument so much as that one is a "You can't stop me from modifying me from accessing content on disc. Thanks a lot Hot Coffee Scandal for setting a precedent!"




Not at all.

"Well, I have this subscription to Mobius Unleashed because I'm a fucking nitwit, I guess I don't have to buy anymore Sonic games!"

It does suck that people are paying for stupid shit like that, but they aren't actually depriving the original creators of anything in this case, so they aren't really getting ripped off.

How else are bad companies supposed to be punished, then? There's no real method for getting a corporation to regret a bad tact if there's no law or anything remote to that. Would you rather people get ripped-off? There are always those stupid enough to willingly get ripped-off but pirating at least helps to displace this and make a statistical statement if something is very unpopular. There's also the case where the product is simply not supplied in a location, such as India or Eastern Europe. That's the rare case where I tolerate bootleg businesses selling pirated copies of a game since the populace would not have access to it otherwise. Even if it is a crime, does that make those who otherwise cannot obtain a game bad people? Are those who pirate a game in order to avoid an unwanted feature and do not have the ability to code the game to be exempt from it bad people? I'd like to see your response. Also, before you try to label me as a pirate, I've never pirated in my life.


I can tell you that even corporations deserve to be able to enforce copyright laws when people are trying to make money off of something that isn't theirs. That is, unless it's the exception I posted earlier.

Don't buy their products then.

I wish it still worked like that but the complexity of the "online economy", global economics, and general stupidity caused by overpopulation makes it null. One less customer won't affect a corporation's bottom line since they're so massive. Bad publicity does. When the report for the amount of copies of Spore that were pirated came-out, EA stock took a hit.

If they were selling bootleg Sonic games or MLP DVDs or something, I'd agree 100%. But as I said earlier, the original creators lose absolutely nothing here, not even "potential sales" like on torrents. Really, the only actual bad thing they are doing here is being perverted and not very creative, which isn't worth suing someone over. Maybe if there was official My Little Pony porn, there would be a benefit to legal action, but we would have much bigger problems then.

I am not judging you. Sorry if my post read like that. Most of us pirate or have pirated at sometime. I am willing to bet you'll be hard pressed to find someone, anyone, who hasn't helped themselves to something that is IP. As for morally justifying any of the above, you don't don't have a right to IP. If you don't like Spore like DRM practices don't buy the game. You have no entitlement to IP. You vote with your wallet. Torrenting something doesn't give a message you'd think it gives. The suits look at it and instead of realizing their stupid ass DRM protection schemes are a terrible idea, instead assume that people just want free. So then they try to screw the consumer more. They still see their game and ideas are very very popular.



Honestly, corporations usually make enough retarded amounts of money it is hard for me to be phased one way or the other. The only reason they aren't protecting their IP is it doesn't justify their bottom line. It isn't that they can't afford it, they don't want to.

Meh, if they were producing something worthwhile to persecute I'd say they were in the wrong.

Zone makes a pretty spot on parody, but ultimitely it's not going to decrease ales of the official product so, meh?

There is space for the underground market to thrive if only it makes little to no sense to sue the poor. Look at the case of Disney vs the "Air Pirate Funnies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pirates

A little fuzzy on what constitutes a parody, are ya?

To be fair it is kinda open to interpretation.

See, this is your problem. You assume that just because you agree with something everyone else agrees with, you are joining a "bandwagon". It seems you have the urge to be the contrarian "voice of reason" all the time, but that doesn't work if the majority-opinion you oppose happens to be right.


My question is this: If you don't buy the game, in what way are you sending a message that you don't like DRM? All the companies can see is plummeting sales. If they are dense enough to implement DRM in the first place, do you really think they'll have a thought beyond "Well, guess this game/series is not popular anymore, we'll stop making it!"


At best this is a lame trolling attempt out of spite and hypocrisy, but not a parody.

Another good point that contributes to my argument. Pirating is, in essence, the only way to show there's a demand but at the same time, making a statement that there's something so wrong with the product, one doesn't want to buy it.

Well, copy then. Frankly the only problem I can see is that people are willing to buy Hentaikey accounts for... well anything. No matter how good the sex, it's the internet and if you can't find free porn you fail at the web forever.

Wrong. It isn't that I dislike to agree with the majority, it's that I don't care for how the mob behaves. The whole yell and be angry at someone/something where every little thing invokes shouts of mortal kombat and overblown cynicism is too much for me. Just pointing out his behavior is obnoxious I am more afraid of joining in the tribal dance where we beat him with sticks than the actual point being made. He's irksome, and he does try our patience, but, I don't feel he deserves the level of anger he receives yet (a keyword now, mind you). Plus all you do when you talk aggressively to a newbie trying to assimilate is make them more prone to be an aggressive asshat because they think that is the norm.

Normally my disagreements aren't with the general idea, but, the execution and level of dialog. Like bronies for example. Completely agree they are annoying, take a cartoon way too fucking seriously, and are somewhat of a nuisance. Labeling them as all people who masturbate to pony porn though... can't really go with that... Ya dig? I am all for lambasting the hell out of something that deserves it, just, not everything needs to be played up as the new forum Satan.



So it is better to steal?



Wha? Are we talking about Zone? or my post? If the former, defining an art is pretty difficult, making legal decisions on art gets more convoluted, and when rulings have been relatively inconsistent for over half a century I'd forgive Dean for being wrong. If the latter you totally got me bro. Good detective work.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just saying that your method will fail just as hard in making these morons aware that DRM is crap. In fact, I think almost nothing will be able to convince them to drop this ridiculous method.


Duh. Not everyone is out to get you, you know.

Only when the pirates outpace the customers several games in a row, they'll know that their DRM is a waste of money. Maybe then they would fix their reputation so that they get legitimate customers back.

Yes, Max, asking a question is words in your mouth. So if you don't think boycotting is the best answer, do you think stealing is better? Stealing in my opinion propagates an escalation of DRM. It is a positive feedback loop in that scenario. You really only have two choices in my exchange with AEM.



Sorry, perhaps you could speak with some clarity instead of a one liner that can be interpreted two ways while taking some kind of stand against me in the opening of the post. The "this" was really hard to figure out what you meant.



No all that will do is make the DRM get more sophisticated...

I'm just stating my opinion that both options are equally worthless in stopping DRM. So the question really becomes wether you think the game is worth the hassle of it's DRM. If it is, you buy it. If not, then not.


I don't see how. Since when do you do parodies? Not to mention I have already mentioned ZONE's hypocrisy, so obvioulsy I am referring to him.

They've already tried doing more sophisticated DRM. It doesn't work. The best form of DRM that isn't actually intrusive is Steam.

They keep adding more and making it more intrusive. They will continue because pirates keep beating them. Few developers are actually getting privy to the idea it is impossible...

Ubisoft did eventually back down on their intrusive always-on DRM after it blew up in their faces a few times.

I've always liked Ubisoft. They make quality games and actually seem to care about their customers.

That is why they did the Assassin's Creed DRM the way they did right?

No clue, never did any research on it and someone said that they learned from their DRM mistakes.