Let's Go Crazy!!!!! Did anyone hear about this? Sorry if had been posted before but I can post a link to verify. Evidentally Prince doesn't allow children to dance to his music....calls it "Copyright Infringement". Well the mother turns around and countersues. Prince is friggin' nuts! I've heard it all now. That short little frigger has gone too far!

i think it was cuz they wuz rednecks - not a good image

DaVanity said:

Old news my friend.....

lottielooloo1968 said:

That is so hilarious!!

[Edited 7/19/08 5:34am]

I would love to hear more about this story, i never heard about this?

He didn't sue her. He had the video removed, she put it back, he sent her a C&D letter, and the woman went to the media.

Nobody ever went to court over this.

DaVanity said:

honey..this story has been bitched to death...Prince did not sue her.
you have to do more research before coming here smearing Prince's good name.

besides...Anyone in their right mind does not post videos of their children on the internet. if it was a home video...it should have stayed in her home.
[Edited 7/19/08 12:31pm]

metallicjigolo said:

You know you have no business telling a parent HOW to parent a/their child. Let the parents be parents and as for parents putting their kids on a site that is their business, not anyone elses. You dont pay their bills or anything so what business is it of yours. Dont like it click it off PERIOD!Seems to me like your doing some bitchin here yourself
[Edited 7/19/08 13:44pm]

I saw this story on my local news last night! I was busy with some friends,so I wasn't listening to the TV really closely.Has there been a new development in this case? It's an old story,right? Why is it being reported about again?

SoulAlive said:

Here's an article on it, courtesy of Wired Magazine.

Universal Says DMCA Takedown Notices Can Ignore 'Fair Use'

SAN JOSE, California -- Universal Music told a federal judge here Friday that takedown notices requiring online video-sharing sites to automatically remove content need not consider whether videos are protected by the "fair use" doctrine.

The doctrine permits limited use of copyright materials without the owner's permission.

The music company made the argument Friday as part of a lawsuit brought by a Pennsylvania woman whose 29-second video of her toddler dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" was removed last year after Universal sent YouTube a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The act requires the automatic removal of material a rights holder claims is infringing its copyrights. If it isn't removed, legal liability can be placed on YouTube or other video-sharing sites. But the act also allows the uploader -- in this case, the Pennsylvania mother of the dancing toddler -- to demand the video return online.

Universal did not challenge Stephanie Lenz's assertion that the video was a "fair use" of Prince's song. After being taken down for six weeks, the video went back online last year, having now generated about half a million hits.

The courthouse dispute on Friday centered on a rarely used clause in the DMCA -- originally approved by Congress in 1998 -- allowing victims of meritless takedown notices to seek damages in a bid to deter such notices and breaches of First Amendment speech.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the woman's law firm, asked U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel on Friday to award attorneys' fees and other unspecified monetary damages under Section 512 of the DMCA.

In what Fogel said was a "case of first impression," Universal attorney Kelly Klaus said Universal or other copyright holders are not liable for damages when somebody asserts fair use to reverse a takedown notice.

Klaus and the judge agreed that damages have been awarded when a sender of a takedown notice falsely represents copyright ownership. But in this case, Universal owns the rights to Prince's song.

"Are you saying there cannot be a misuse of a takedown notice if the material is copyrighted?" Fogel asked Klaus.

"I don't think 'fair use' qualifies," Klaus answered.

Corynne McSherry, an EFF staff attorney, countered. She said the DMCA's damages clause "intended to prevent misuse of takedown notices," even when there's a fair-use defense.

Fogel, who did not indicate when he would rule, said "It's a very important issue of statutory interpretation."

While there is no bright-line rule, the factors to consider whether a video that's uploaded to a file-sharing site is a fair use are: how much of the original work was used, whether the new use is commercial in nature, whether the market for the original work was harmed, and whether the new work is a parody.

For a clearer interpretation of the Wired article, check out the one by CNet

Mom continues to chase Prince over 'fair use'

SAN JOSE, Calif.--Stephanie Lenz is an angry Pennsylvania mother who refuses to back down from the music industry.

Lenz's attorneys were in federal district court on Friday morning, trying to thwart a motion to dismiss her lawsuit against Universal Music Group. A year ago, the music label ordered YouTube to pull down a 30-second video she shot of her infant son dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy."

Lenz, who resides in a rural Pennsylvania area, claims that her video is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Fair Use provision in copyright law. She fought the order, and eventually, Universal Music abandoned any claim that she violated Prince's copyright. YouTube has since reposted her clip.

Now Lenz is out to teach the music industry a lesson.

What Lenz and her attorneys at the Electronic Frontier Foundation want are for media companies to stop sending take-down notices in a "willy nilly" fashion and to make sure that they have a legitimate claim of copyright violation before acting. They failed do this with Lenz's video, according to Corynne McSherry, an EFF attorney.

"This video is so clearly noninfringing," McSherry said. "What we've seen is that Universal Music had the view that they could take down Prince content as a matter of principle. But what they were obligated to do was form a good-faith belief that the video was infringing...They may not have formed a good-faith belief at all."

The good news for her is that U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel said he would take the matter under consideration after hearing arguments from both sides.

In April, Fogel tossed out the lawsuit Lenz filed against Universal in October. Fogel said her argument that Universal was misusing its copyright was weak.

The judge did allow Lenz's EFF attorneys, however, to try their arguments a second time.

EFF promptly filed a second complaint, arguing that Universal Music should compensate Lenz for falsely accusing her of violating the law and getting her video removed from Google's video-sharing service. The music label has asked the judge to dismiss the case.

A lawyer for Universal Music argued that the label isn't liable for ordering Lenz's video to be removed because it doesn't have to think about Fair Use prior to sending take-down notices. There is no legal obligation to think about it in advance.

EFF, which advocates for the rights of Internet users, disagrees. The group has always said there is real harm caused when a media company issues take-down notices. For example, Lenz had to spend time learning why her video was taken down and convincing YouTube that she had not violated copyright law.

Even though Universal Music now says it no longer considers Lenz's baby video to be infringing on its copyright, Lenz says just receiving the take-down letter caused her harm.

Fogel gave no timetable on when he might make a decision. Should he decline to dismiss the case, Lenz's lawsuit would be allowed to move forward.

metallicjigolo said:

Hmm insulting another orger not nice And Im not that stupid either thanks.

a2grafix said:

Haha, Prince is fighting with EFF representing a truly pissed off mother.

Now he is the epitomy of the drowning music industry, thinking it can control individuals on the internet with laws and intimidation.

Congratulations Prince.

-
[Edited 7/20/08 6:44am]

If that's true, then this is only getting better.

I guess that was the point of sending those letters!

Tremolina said:

No, the woman and that baby of hers are doing some hard time baby !
got what they deseved, just try and mess with the Prince! (registered trademark of Paisly Park enterprises)

a2grafix said:

This woman is clearly looking for her 15-minutes.
Did I miss something; since when has Universal Music owned the copyright to any of Prince's music...?

Just curious. If Universal owns the rights to Prince's music, and they're the ones sending the C and D letters and threatening lawsuits, how much of this is Prince directed and how much of this is Universal acting on their own?
Is other copyrighted material owned by Universal also not permitted on Youtube and other sites?
I saw the story a couple of days ago on local Bay Area channels, and even though they mentioned the baby is dancing to Let's Go Crazy, the emphasis seemed to be on Universal demanding the video be removed from Youtube, not Prince.

I don't understand why parents in this day and age post videos of their little kids on the internet, available for anyone to see.

VenusBlingBling said:

Maybe because they want other family members to see the kids across from another country or state and they sometimes take it down after ward but that is their choice not yours or mine.I dont see any problem with it IF its used for that reason. But then again you/we all see these child stars dotn think a thing about it right? Like Star Search, American Funniest Videos, and such...just saying.

...bloody kids...i should think so, should be in bed with a cup of milk and a biscuit.

toots said:

Yeah but there are other ways to let your family and friends see what you're up to without letting the entire world know. But you're right, although I don't think it's entirely the same. And seeing little children on shows like Star Search isn't anything I'm very fond of either...

violetblues said:

She is in jail??!!

a2grafix said:

Ahh,San Jose,California,huh? No wonder it was on my local news

metallicjigolo said:

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but there are a lot of people who don't think Prince's name is all that good to begin with. Whether or not this situation is old news, that it happened at all shows what a dick the guy is.

Oh & incidentally, the point of youtube & other video SHARING sites is seen by many to be to SHARE videos made in the home, or elsewhere, with others who might be interested in seeing them. Who the hell are you to tell people what to do with their home videos?

People are snapping out because the video contained a baby, but I swear, that kids was not cute and the mom should have known the rules before she posted it. Youtube did, and they chose to break them.

I ain't sayin' I'm better, no better than u
But if u want 2 play with me, u better learn the rules
[Edited 7/21/08 5:20am]

"Fans" defending this utterly sad chapter in the horrific history of 'Prince and the Internet', really are his worst enemies. Cheering him for being the biggest dick in the music industry is just dumb. You know how much income in lost record sales that 's going to cost him? Ah yes you are right, he is a multi millionair already and you will sponsor him soon again, with 300 $ a ticket for a show in which he will cover Radiohead's "Creep" for ya..