Wy back in November 2010, I wrote:
>
> A rendition of Samwell's 2007 hit "What What..." by SP character
> Butters in a 2008 episode is now the subject of an infringement action
> by the original vid's producers... evidently, they thought the parody
> was going to result in income for them...
Who says it can't be both? (You're correct, of course. Spell check
didn't catch it because it's a homonym. Someone needs to invent
'context check' - they'd make a bloody fortune.)
On Nov 17, 6:30 am, Diner wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:37 pm, M-D November wrote:
>
> > The whole point of the original
On Nov 16, 9:37 pm, M-D November wrote:
> The whole point of the original South Park episode containing Butters'
> cover of "What What (in the Butt)" was that there's no profit to be
> had from becoming a 'viral hit'. So either the original vid's
> producers are totally oblivious to irony, or they
More like they changed lawyers?
--
BOB
--
TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
t
The whole point of the original South Park episode containing Butters'
cover of "What What (in the Butt)" was that there's no profit to be
had from becoming a 'viral hit'. So either the original vid's
producers are totally oblivious to irony, or they're genuinely
diluted. (Maybe both?)
On Nov 16,
