New topic
Printableudo said: Tremolina said: Housequake for example was blatantly infringing on his copyrights with all the videos they put up there. He had every right to take that site down and sue the owner for massive copyright infringement.
Are you american? And/or brainwashed? Since when is posting a lowres video infringement? Are we forgetting about the fair use? Are we forgetting the promotional effects? Are we forgetting who hosts the videos? Puhlease don't act like the way things are now is the REAl way things should be. The (C) lobby has gone wayyyy tooo far. 
Think again before you post and prove yourself to be a knee jerk reacting silly person that pretends he knows more about copyright law than a copyright lawyer. Promotional effects don't matter one iota when complete videos are reproduced and made available to the public. Like I said, unless it were just 30 seconds snippets of videos, that is not fair use. Just because you as a layman may have a different opinion doesn't mean what Housequake did wasn't copyright infringement. - [Edited 4/10/10 18:42pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
ernestsewell said: Tremolina said: Sorry ernest, but I know copyright law very well. Unless it were just snippets of videos, they didn't have a right to use them. Without permission that is NOT fair use.
Oh lord.... Where oh where dear ernest do you see any room in that text for COMPLETELY REPRODUCING VIDEOS and making them available to THOUSANDS of people? You can read that it provides for "limited use" such as "citation" no? NO WHERE on this planet is a copy of an entire video seen as a citation or limited use. A snippet is. Moreover we are not talking about videos here that were posted for "commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship". They were posted for the sheer enjoyment of thousands fans. A right and market that is reserved for the copyright owner, no matter the intent of the fans. Sheesh the sheer arogance you fuckers have to think you know the law better. When all I am doing is just advise you guys to watch out when you are messing with Prince 
-- [Edited 4/10/10 15:54pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
One more thing. Just to make it clear, I am not saying Prince should have harrassed, closed Housequake, nor sue it. I am only explaining what went wrong.
Fair use is not something to take lightly. It can be very difficult to determine, but one thing I can assure you is that when you use more than a fair amount it will harldy ever be considered a fair use. All that talk about promotional effects and not having any commercial intent CAN indeed be relevant, but it goes out the window in court when the videos are completely copied and made available to a large public. Then you are messing with the market of the copyright owner by making entire videos available to the public without permission. Whether you are making any money of it or not, is not relevant anymore then. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
For example: if Housequake would have just posted a 20-30 second snippet of the MTV awards Gett Off video where you can see him turn around to show his buttless pants, with the purpose to report on and discuss that particular action, it would stand a good chance in court to be considered a fair use.
It would be a citation for the purpose of reporting, criticism and discussion and it wouldn't mess with the copyright owners market in any way. But when you post the entire video so the fans can have it and enjoy it too it without permission and without pay, it won't. - [Edited 4/10/10 16:00pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
with respect Tremolina, European websites are governed by European copyright law, and the "fair use" doctrine is subject to the interpretation of local precedent. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
andrewm7 said: with respect Tremolina, European websites are governed by European copyright law, and the "fair use" doctrine is subject to the interpretation of local precedent.
With all due respect in return andrewm7, if the Housequake case would be judged based on European copyright law, the fair use doctrine wouldn't even apply and they would have been in even deeper trouble. Fair use is US copyright law. European copyright law doesn't provide for it. So in a European court they wouldn't even have had a defense. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This thread is SO off topic. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: Sorry ernest, but I know copyright law very well.
You mean that you know the system they cooked up. There's more fair use than Fair Use. It's ridiculous that things are like they are proclaimed to be. By you? How long will the yout00b vids be protected? Death plus 70 years? Hmm? See how ridiculous? Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: Think again before you post and prove yourself to be a knee jerk reacting silly person that pretends he knows more about copyright law than a copyright lawyer.
'Law' is not the same as ethics. Please do understand that before you proceed. Current copyright is pure greed. [/quote] Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
andrewm7 said: with respect Tremolina, European websites are governed by European copyright law,
Prince doesn't think so. Else he would have sued, yet he didn't He didn't dare to make his point legally? Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: With all due respect in return andrewm7, if the Housequake case would be judged based on European copyright law, the fair use doctrine wouldn't even apply and they would have been in even deeper trouble. Fair use is US copyright law. European copyright law doesn't provide for it. So in a European court they wouldn't even have had a defense. so the Dutch have no applicable equivalent of "fair use" within local law that would cover posting a video in full for discussion. Thank you for letting me know something I didn`t know  [Edited 4/12/10 2:21am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
andrewm7 said: Tremolina said: With all due respect in return andrewm7, if the Housequake case would be judged based on European copyright law, the fair use doctrine wouldn't even apply and they would have been in even deeper trouble. Fair use is US copyright law. European copyright law doesn't provide for it. So in a European court they wouldn't even have had a defense. so the Dutch have no applicable equivalent of "fair use" within local law that would cover posting a video in full for discussion. Thank you for letting me know something I didn`t know
[Edited 4/12/10 2:21am] No, not just the Dutch. All of Europe. If Housquake was based in any European country uit wouldn't even have had any defense. IOW: under European law they would have been completely in the wrong. Pay attention. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
udo said: Tremolina said: Think again before you post and prove yourself to be a knee jerk reacting silly person that pretends he knows more about copyright law than a copyright lawyer.
'Law' is not the same as ethics. Please do understand that before you proceed. Current copyright is pure greed. Well your opinion is not the law, nor your ethics. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
udo said: Tremolina said: Sorry ernest, but I know copyright law very well.
You mean that you know the system they cooked up. There's more fair use than Fair Use. It's ridiculous that things are like they are proclaimed to be. By you? How long will the yout00b vids be protected? Death plus 70 years? Hmm? See how ridiculous? Yes, the duration of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years and no there isn't more fair use than Fair Use. Do I think that's a good rule? No, but it isn't relevant to a discussion about what is legal and wat is not. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: udo said: 'Law' is not the same as ethics. Please do understand that before you proceed. Current copyright is pure greed. Well your opinion is not the law, nor your ethics. That implies that law is wrong. Needs change. Is obsolete in it's current form. Law had too much influence from the wrong parties in the past few years. Especially in the USA. Yes, the duration of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 year and no there isn't more fair use than Fair Use. Do I think that's a good rule? No, but it isn't relevant to a discussion about what is legal and wat is not.
If you think that it's irrelevant you do not understand the principle of law at all. If you think that the 70 years after death is normal you should ask how e.g. descendants of a carpenter or factory worker would benefit from similar setups for their works. You neglect to understand that even artists can pay for retirement during their active life. You neglect to see that these (C) situatiosn are the result of the industry lobby, not the artists themselves (they do not get very much on average). You just say law is law. I say: law is wrong. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
udo said:[quote] Tremolina said: That implies that law is wrong. Needs change. Is obsolete in it's current form. Law had too much influence from the wrong parties in the past few years. Especially in the USA. Yes, the duration of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 year and no there isn't more fair use than Fair Use. Do I think that's a good rule? No, but it isn't relevant to a discussion about what is legal and wat is not.
If you think that it's irrelevant you do not understand the principle of law at all. If you think that the 70 years after death is normal you should ask how e.g. descendants of a carpenter or factory worker would benefit from similar setups for their works. You neglect to understand that even artists can pay for retirement during their active life. You neglect to see that these (C) situatiosn are the result of the industry lobby, not the artists themselves (they do not get very much on average). You just say law is law. I say: law is wrong. And you think that would do better in court. 
In court you will find that law is law and that the court will apply it. The arguments you give that the law is bad, may have merit, and personally I think some do (and some don't) but that's besides the point. Unless you want to take the risk to be held liable for statutory penalties up to 150k per infringement (in the US at least). You see, a court has to UPHOLD THE LAW, not ethics, nor your opinion on what's wrong with the music industry or copyright law. So a court wouldn't have much of a choice when it finds that fair use doesn't apply. Then it simply IS copyright infringment. - [Edited 4/12/10 4:40am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
udo said: If you think that the 70 years after death is normal you should ask how e.g. descendants of a carpenter or factory worker would benefit from similar setups for their works.
You neglect to understand that even artists can pay for retirement during their active life. You neglect to see that these (C) situatiosn are the result of the industry lobby, not the artists themselves (they do not get very much on average). To be clear. I do not think the life plus 70 years is normal and haven't said that, as you very well know. Further, descendants of a factory worker do not inherit any copyrights because they worked for hire. Then the law says that the employer is the author/owner of copyright. I indeed fail to see what paying for retirement has to do with fair use. But as for the duration of copyright, a long term copyright OF COURSE benefits the author's financial possibilities for retirement. I lastly do not fail to see that copyright law is mostly the result of industry lobby. That's just another knee jerk assumption you are making about me. On the other hand tho', it appears you fail to see that the duration of copyright CAN also benefit individual artists and their families, but that it of course wouldn't, if they would be so stupid to sign their rights away for a little bit of fame and change. There is always two sides to a story. - [Edited 4/12/10 4:42am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: And you think that would do better in court.
Court just follows law. Not ethics, per se. Unless you want to take the risk to be held liable for statutory penalties up to 150k per infringement (in the US at least).
I infringe on an almost daily basis, and I am proud of it. You see, a court has to UPHOLD THE LAW, not ethics, nor your opinion on what's wrong with the music industry or copyright law.
The problem therefore is that law does NOT align with ethics, especially in this area. I think I made that at least slightly clear. So a court wouldn't have much of a choice when it finds that fair use doesn't apply. Then it simply IS copyright infringment.
So why didn't Prince take them to court? It didn't get farther than bullying and threatening. If he has a point, then let him prove it in an applicable court. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: To be clear. I do not think the life plus 70 years is normal and haven't said that, as you very well know.
Thanks for asserting that. Then at least you understand some of the 'greed' I screamed. Further, descendants of a factory worker do not inherit any copyrights because they worked for hire. Then the law says that the employer is the author/owner of copyright.
Making a difference is exactly the key here. We do acknowledge that there is a need for some protection, but the current state of (c) law has grown in the wrong direction. I indeed fail to see what paying for retirement has to do with fair use.
It's just one of the things to show why it is so extreme, that piece of law that concerns (c). Fair use has to be fair. Both ways. Same for profiting off a work. And when an band is under a (outdated) record contract they essentially produce works for hire though of course the lawyers will say otherwise. But as for the duration of copyright, a long term copyright OF COURSE benefits the author's financial possibilities for retirement.
Yet stifles creativity, shows that retirement extends beyond death, etc. On the other hand tho', it appears you fail to see that the duration of copyright CAN also benefit individual artists and their families, but that it of course wouldn't, if they would be so stupid to sign their rights away for a little bit of fame and change.
If I want to provide money for family and children (and their children) I have to work and earn money while I live. I don't have to and can not earn money when I am dead. Nor is there reason for me to earn when I am dead because I did so when I was alive. So why create the different situation for artists' heirs? And taking away the (c) protection after some time does not mean they won't get anything. It just changes the game and requires people to actually work... Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
udo said: Tremolina said: And you think that would do better in court.
Court just follows law. Not ethics, per se. The problem therefore is that law does NOT align with ethics, especially in this area. I think I made that at least slightly clear. So a court wouldn't have much of a choice when it finds that fair use doesn't apply. Then it simply IS copyright infringment.
So why didn't Prince take them to court? It didn't get farther than bullying and threatening. If he has a point, then let him prove it in an applicable court. Perhabs Prince was smart enough to realise that, as for the relations with his fans, taking housequake to court would really take it too far. And in the end he didn't have to, because they deleted the videos and shut it down by themselves. As for the courts and the law. Lawmakers are concerned with the ethical conflicts of interest in copyright law. Like it or not, they democratically decided and agreed that the interests of copyright owners are worthy of a vigorous protection with draconical laws. Courts do follow ethics and commonly accepted principles of law and ethics, but only when the law leaves certain matters open for the courts to decide, when the law knows loopholes or when it is not clear or in conflict with consitutional rights. Copyright law however is not and is pretty clear. Then the law is the law and the court must apply it as it is. -- [Edited 4/12/10 8:02am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: Perhabs Prince was smart enough to realise that, as for the relations with his fans, taking housequake to court would really take it too far.
And in the end he didn't have to, because they deleted the videos and shut it down by themselves. That was after the continued bullying. (since it was a not-for-profit fan board) One cease and desist was enough. After not complying he could go to court. As for the courts and the law. Lawmakers are concerned with the ethical conflicts of interest in copyright law. Like it or not, they democratically decided and agreed that the interests of copyright owners are worthy of a vigorous protection with draconical laws.
If one thinks that life plus 70 years is the result of a perfectly functioning democracy I have a different opinion. It shows the impact of money on the process. Ethical considerations s are hard to find in this specific case. Instead it creates an unnecessary situation of inequality. Copyright law however is not and is pretty clear. Then the law is the law and the court must apply it as it is.
I think this is one of the reasons why Pirate Parties exist in several countries. It's time for a change. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
udo said: Tremolina said: Perhabs Prince was smart enough to realise that, as for the relations with his fans, taking housequake to court would really take it too far.
And in the end he didn't have to, because they deleted the videos and shut it down by themselves. That was after the continued bullying. (since it was a not-for-profit fan board) One cease and desist was enough. After not complying he could go to court. If one thinks that life plus 70 years is the result of a perfectly functioning democracy I have a different opinion. It shows the impact of money on the process. Ethical considerations s are hard to find in this specific case. Instead it creates an unnecessary situation of inequality. Copyright law however is not and is pretty clear. Then the law is the law and the court must apply it as it is.
I think this is one of the reasons why Pirate Parties exist in several countries. It's time for a change. Well, the internet HAS changed everything already. I would agree with you that copyright isn't an appropiate law for the internet. There hasn't been a feasable alternative offered tho' by these "pirate parties", rendering them to merely a sign of these times. They represent the consumers that are discontent with the far stretching implications of copyright on the internet, yet they offer solutions, like free downloads for all, that copyright industries would never even consider of adopting. And as for the duration. It's hard to imagine lawmakers reversing such rules. Once granted a term of 70 years plus the life of the author, it takes a lot to reverse it. Since lawmakers balance the interest of all parties involved we can expect how much their proposals will accomplish. Most likely nothing. -- [Edited 4/13/10 0:11am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: Yes, the duration of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years and no there isn't more fair use than Fair Use. Do I think that's a good rule? No, but it isn't relevant to a discussion about what is legal and wat is not.
Actually the conversation Militant and I were having had nothing to do about that. This thread is no longer about a Prince website, as Wildboy started. Now it's a pointless banter about copyright laws. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ernestsewell said: Tremolina said: Yes, the duration of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years and no there isn't more fair use than Fair Use. Do I think that's a good rule? No, but it isn't relevant to a discussion about what is legal and wat is not.
Actually the conversation Militant and I were having had nothing to do about that. This thread is no longer about a Prince website, as Wildboy started. Now it's a pointless banter about copyright laws. No, copyright reform is not pointless. Also a workable rights set-up for the new website (DRM?) would be very much related to that discussion. *And* to the new website ideas. So there is a really usable connection. Really. Because: What if P doesn't want to do the $77 or whatever membership anymore but just want to sell some media? (mp3, etc) Would you accept DRM? In what form? Would it work for P? ($$$-wise) Etc? Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
udo said: ernestsewell said: Actually the conversation Militant and I were having had nothing to do about that. This thread is no longer about a Prince website, as Wildboy started. Now it's a pointless banter about copyright laws. No, copyright reform is not pointless. Also a workable rights set-up for the new website (DRM?) would be very much related to that discussion. *And* to the new website ideas. So there is a really usable connection. Really. Because: What if P doesn't want to do the $77 or whatever membership anymore but just want to sell some media? (mp3, etc) Would you accept DRM? In what form? Would it work for P? ($$$-wise) Etc? DRM seems pointless these days, as you can burn music, and rip it to your computer to have a DRM-free copy. Perhaps with video it works well, but with audio, unless you can lock the file from even being burned to a CD, it seems worthless. I need to do that very thing to all the iTunes songs I bought years ago before iTunes went DRM-free. It's cheaper to waste a couple of CDs (or even a CD-RW being cheaper) than to pay the .30 upgrade-to-DRMFREE fee iTunes charges to free up one's songs. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Wildboy said: I know this isn't what most people will agree with, but I think that Prince should launch a new website very soon. However with the goal of the new site being to repair his relationship with his fan base.
In this day and age and with the Prince community being so plugged in online, Prince HAS TO have a serious online presence to properly promote his music to his hard core fans. Not a million dollar site with a bunch of flash stuff we can't figure out, but a FREE site with no extra frills. One with a forum not unlike here or Housequake, and videos and Jam of the Week stuff is put up often. Not necessarily crazy unreleased albums or anything, but an occasional track like the Love acoustic version is treasured by us fans. And I know this is going to sound Kooky, but I think that Prince should post stuff twitter style. Not enough to ruin the mystique, but imagine how awesome it would be if you got up in the morning and read that Prince had just posted "Recording today" or "Vegan pancakes and hot tub= the perfect weekend" or "I'm so Funky I had to hit the Showers Twice!" I think this would actually be a cheap, fun, quirky way for him to endear himself to his hardcore fans again. I feel like the problem with LotusFlow3r was that people payed for content that didn't end up materializing, and they payed for MP3s, when in this days and age people just rip what they want and don't necessarily pay for it. Right or wrong that's the way the music business works nowadays. I think that Prince should continue to sell his albums at the $10-$15 price mark. Just enough where you figure you might as well buy it as opposed to just find it on the Pirate bay. But on his website continue to sell $35-$50 expanded edition stuff (think in the vein of the 21 nights book with a disc, or the One Nite Alone Longbox). Things that you can't just get off Lime Wire, but special edition physical objects that compliment the album you're listening to. And, just for me Prince, sell some online B sides like you did with Musicology (Prince and the Band and Turn me Loose please )
I no multi-million dollar businessman, but a cheap website with some free content and semi consistent updates could be a good start to mending things. No? The way things are going now for P I would say he should just do a few talk shows, promote a new album and then tour the material (with a few hits and other album songs thrown in). I do not think another website would do well for him, hardcore fam/fans like myself would join, no doubt but no website. Peace ... & Stay Funky ...
~* The only love there is, is the love "we" make *~ www.facebook.com/purplefunklover |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderator
ernestsewell said: Tremolina said: Yes, the duration of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years and no there isn't more fair use than Fair Use. Do I think that's a good rule? No, but it isn't relevant to a discussion about what is legal and wat is not.
Actually the conversation Militant and I were having had nothing to do about that. This thread is no longer about a Prince website, as Wildboy started. Now it's a pointless banter about copyright laws. If you want to maintain a Prince site it's most definetely not pointless to debate copyright reform. You are gonnna need it! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: If you want to maintain a Prince site it's most definetely not pointless to debate copyright reform. You are gonnna need it!
Well, either P needs to adapt the current reality or we need to be forced into the realm of the lobbyists' ideas. I do think the first option is most feasible. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i got a few of my own
music samples lots and lots of pictures a prince store to buy tshirts music cups etc news bullitins updates "this just in" stuff a huge Prince forum and chat room where the fans can talk and chat occussion messages from Prince himself talking about news thanking the fans apologizes concerts etc an Ask Prince A Question box
promotion material of anything prince wants to promote merchendise proteges etc concert and tour dates from around the world and ticket purchase a subscribe to the fanlist thing to get exclusive prince deals and news in your email box a VIP section prince videos and music videos viewer DVD purchases Contests idk maybe a FanClub to get stuff sent to your mailing address?
Free Access at ANYTIME and ANYWHERE make it purple black and gold 
Prince Wallpapers and Desktops Biography Section a beautiful Home Page and thats it  im sure this would make everyone happy | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleDiamond2009 said: i got a few of my own
music samples lots and lots of pictures a prince store to buy t-shirts music cups etc news bulletins updates "this just in" stuff a huge Prince forum and chat room where the fans can talk and chat occasional messages from Prince himself talking about news thanking the fans apologizes concerts etc an Ask Prince A Question box
promotion material of anything prince wants to promote merchandise proteges etc concert and tour dates from around the world and ticket purchase a subscribe to the fan list thing to get exclusive prince deals and news in your email box a VIP section prince videos and music videos viewer DVD purchases Contests idk maybe a FanClub to get stuff sent to your mailing address?
Free Access at ANYTIME and ANYWHERE make it purple black and gold
Prince Wallpapers and Desktops Biography Section a beautiful Home Page and thats it im sure this would make everyone happy It's all been done, as you know. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |