You believe that the Supreme Court decided Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc incorrectly? Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_I.... :

> The members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew—Luke, Fresh Kid Ice, Mr. Mixx and Brother Marquis—composed a song called "Pretty Woman," a parody based on Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh, Pretty Woman." ... Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody. ... The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107.

You are free of course to suggest that the law is otherwise, and even that the law itself is immoral and unethical. But as it stands, it is sometimes legal to copy portions of another's work, without a license, sell it for a profit, and be within the law.

And I am free to continue to believe that commercial parody is ethically and legally fine.

If it's a legitimate parody of the original than that's a completely separate issue to the average run-of-the-mill sampling that usually goes on (whether sanctioned or not). So it really doesn't apply to the discussion.

Indeed. I see I parsed your previous posting too finely. You meant in the context of a mix tape, which would not be fair use. We'll continue this discussion in a thread elsewhere.

Well, I didn't necessarily mean 'mix tape' in the traditional sense (where someone just compiles a list of songs together). I meant cutting individual sounds from a song (or songs) and using them to create a new song (possibly combined with some original sounds as well). I don't consider that to be 'fair' use. It seems courts often don't find it to be legal 'fair use' either, based on the history recounted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music_....

But for something to be a parody of something else it needs to comment upon or mock the original. Most songs, whether they use someone else's samples or not, don't fall into that category.