1. The court focused on the nature of the song and what it was trying to communicate. Why is this necessary? Why is the court interested in protecting parody as in this case?
2. What benefit does society get from the protection of parody and satire?
3. The court went on to find that the four factors listed in 107:
(1) The purpose and character of the use,
(2) The nature of the copyrighted work,
(3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the work as a whole,
(4) The effect on the market all weighed in favor of the parody thus constitutes fair use.
Once a court finds the infringing work to be a parody, under what circumstances would it be likely to find infringement that was not fair use?