So I've Been Wrong on Fair Use Maybe

Believe it or not, Tuxxy who argued for his claims might be right. Including if a "parody" purpose article had little Satire in it.

So what now? Unnecessarily make fun of me just because I've made a mistake? Go ahead, go right ahead.
At least I do something very rare and actually admit that I've made a possibly longing mistake.

Even though that article may be "Fair Use" after all, that doesn't change the god damn fact that the beliefs while making that article can still be wrong. Nor does it make Tuxxy look "good". Even if he got popularity as popularity doesn't count. In fact, most of the fandom is closed minded, and seeing a popular brony site doing nothing but damaging others, and hurting others with there negativity just further proves my point.
If you want to argue, THEN TRY. Go ahead.

Also, that article isn't funny. The only ones who laugh are pretty much the sheep them selves.

He failed to argue his points directly at all. He just goes out and say "bullshit". Though, only one of them is right when it comes to Fair Use.

At least I'm not giving up on MLPcritic's article... Info (A little edited too) from a article currently in Draft:

There is another article on that horse news site that's even worse, and even more confusing but it's from a different person.  The person tried plagiarizing the images, by claiming them as there own. I'll list out the problems for that one... Yikes:

1. First picture was completely mostly edited and lacked the main point of the original picture. *Note - Image is removed thanks to a DMCA request through imgur I think.
2. Purpose is to make fun of the artist (or writer for that matter) than to make fun of the work it's self.
3. Article might be for "Parody" and "Criticism" but having both may no longer be consider Fair Use, since it's confusing and that I think you can only choose one.
4. I think someone claimed to be for "Criticism" but the person does nothing but act all bias rather than finding much of any real flaws. Critics are supposed to be less bias, and for finding real errors, not used it as an excuse for hate. There is a reason why people can actually argue critics and why there is a label for "bad criticism" and "good criticism".
5. Another picture was edited just a tiny bit but the person claimed that the picture is "there's now" or something. Which is plagiarism, even if that was a joke.
6. Did not give out ANY source links
7. Probably more

Though, I'm still unsure if you can really use more than one purpose.

The same person also did claim that I somehow am "violating" Freedom of Expression.. When honestly, I will claim I'm not because for example, Anti-Gay messages also counts as some form of expression, but since it promotes negativity to many others (Trigger for bullying too), then I think making "laws" "rules" or other regulations doesn't violate it because of the fact that the trigger promotes censorship, not allowing. The point of "Golden Rule" "laws" is to help protect each other, including Freedom of Expression. Though the US government isn't perfect at that. Then again, I'm more about "suggestion" rather than "force/just/laws" I think.

He also claim something like "Oh that's all your opinion, made up, etc"
Well sir, the Laws, we already had, is made up. If we had no enforcement by any opinion (Protecting rights is an opinion probably), then we wouldn't have any Government, Laws, Police, or anything. Everyone would be free to use any free will, including the "abusive types" that violate others free will.
The only "enforcement" would be using Free Will to fight back naturally.. Meaning no Law, or any Rules.. Just "hitting back with your fist" ways.

RIGHT AND WRONG is an opinion too. Yet, Golden Rule takes a big part in that belief and since many people have different views on it. I'm the guy who wants to help change the world, and it's not anything different from what people already did like regulating anti-gay messages for example.
*Note* Me suggesting Gold Rule being some law or something isn't anything different from the main laws we already have. Get it?



Anyway, happy now? Are you happy that you may be correct about the fair use part? Yes, I'm talking to Tuxxy, the same man who claimed bullshit over my other theories that he still failed to argue. The same guy who takes private info out and twist words. The same guy who recently claimed that "private chats" are "not" private.
*Note, I think he admitted his mistake on one not true statement, but I don't see him fixing that in the public. His comment that lies about me is still there.

Listen man, just because you proved one point about Copyright, doesn't make you right on the embarrassments you did in the past. Nor does it make you look good.

_____________

If I were to make up with you and never talk "bad about you", then it would be awesome to delete those two hateful articles about me, and never speak of this again somehow.

Copyright - wwwarea

If use, then it must somehow be Fair Use. >_>

Already allowed to spread this for the purpose of info spreading, like what I talked about of Right or Wrong.