My thoughts on some of this stuff...

The org doesn't encourage the posting of links to a/v material not being streamed by the rightful owners. At the same time, TV performances which there isn't an easy way to see again, I don't really have a problem with people putting up on other sites like youtube and linking to them... it's up to the copyright owners to get them removed from YouTube if they want that to happen. Again, I still don't encourage this.

There is a difference between posting links to audio of released songs and video of tv shows; the simplest way to explain it is in the value of that media--radio stations etc may play those same songs, not on-demand, and make advertising revenue off of you listening. They pay a licensing fee for this. Also, the audio may be (typically IS) sold later on CD, etc. TV is a bit different--if you were to "broadcast" the shows over the 'net, live, that would detract from the value the station can derive from it. But generally, these shows are NOT offered to the public for sale later, and so you're typically not degrading the value of the media by making it available online after it's been broadcast. Obviously, if the video is ever offered for sale, that's a different story.

But either way--we (the mods, the org, me, etc.) won't post up copyrighted material nor encourage other users to do so. Some images we use in the gallery, we know are copyrighted, but believe them to be reproduced within the realm of fair use. For example, Getty images are branded as such, served off our servers so as to not leech their bandwidth, properly attributed, and always provide a link to purchase the image. We have explicit permission, or sometimes implicit indication, that it's OK to use some copyrighted text/images. We may occasionally include text beyond "fair use" from online sources, for the purpose of providing an archive, but we try to keep this to a minimum.

If you guys link somewhere you probably shouldn't in a message, we may or may not remove it. If a copyright owner requests us to remove something, we will. And as always, moderators have final judgement, and I stand behind their decisions.

Ok, thank you for the explanation. Those vids were so fun that I really wanted to make sure everyone could see them, but I understand your possition. I won't post links like those again.

I don't understand why Housequake can show the Brit awards segment. I've reread Ben's post several times..and still dont get why they can do it, but not here..unless the Org has more ethics

PurpleRein said:

I appreciate why we can't post links to vids, but when does a link become inappropriate. There was a link up for a while to the HQ link (a link to a link) this was taken away. If you make a link so convoluted to not constitute a direct link would that get past the lawyers? Adding a clause to say that we at Prince org do not recommend or endorse the use of this link, you do so at your own risk. What if the link has the hyperlink removed (so that it is just text) is that still a link?

After all, this site is about providing information to fans and discussing it. As Ben mentions above the hosting site is at fault not us, as we do not host the material (with a caveat of course). However, we are allowed to discuss the material from the Brits (for example) when the majority of those that viewed it must have viewed an "illegal" copy. So only those who were based in UK were allowed to discuss the performance on the 16th or we must have been endorsing the use of illegal material.

I agree it's pedantic and that there has to be a line somewhere, a line that you cannot cross, but the law (even Princes law) has grey areas, so can we not exploit these areas to our advantage?

Apparently NBC is already getting frustrated with YouTube...interesting discussion on it at Metafilter http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/49422

Tom said:

just last week google was sued for posting of thumbnail-sized reproductions of porn pics from Perfect 10, The judge ruled that they cant have thumbnail-sized pics on thier website from these porn sites but they can legally post any link to otherwebsite.

I guess posting a link to youtube is perfectly legal

Therefore we should be allowed to post links to youtube. Since this has already been totally legal in court of law!!

It doesn't look like I'm going to be seeing 1970s Soul Train episodes compiled on DVD, or rebroadcast on TV, anytime soon.

I have to assume that it is safe to post youtube links that are uploaded by the copywriter owner however. For example this group of kids wish to showcase their talents in this way:

http://www.youtube.com/w/...=3&t=t&f=b

And thus, being that it doesn't break copy right/write agreements is should be safe to post.

Is this correct?

Finally we have a worldwide web where we can share stuff on forums among other "fans" . And what happens ?

I'ts a D@## pity that a lot of great filmed material will probably NEVER see the daylight of commercial-release , hence , will never EVER be able to be shown to other people who are interested in this vintage stuff !!!!
That just $##$ big time .

Instead , we all sit on our own collection of video and NOTHING further .
As an example , i've followed the whole process of the "eventual" release of RICK JAMES live in Germany-1982 , distributed by the Eagle Company .
Fans really had to BEG for it to get it finally released .

Now i've seen funkpills posting-thread about RICK @ The Midnight Show .
I highly doubt if that stuff will ever come out on commercial-dvd @ Amazon , eBay , etc .... then we probably have to wait for a few more decades and be dependent on "some" decision by a Company who is willing to take a risk of releasing some vintage stuff , while continously new artists release their dvd's too . The Company's have to make commercial choices , with the risk that some stuff that we yearn for might never come out .

And why do people put all these videos on "You-Tube" or "YouSendIt" in the first place ?.... right , to "share" it with other fans ..... it's obviously clear that they will know the risks that it might be copied by others . Otherwise they shouldn't take that risk .

Apart from the protection of copyrighted material on commercial dvd's , a forbid on sharing the remaining and often harder-to-find material just makes no sense to me at all .
.
.
.
[Edited 3/1/06 10:07am]

100MPH said:

Me either

and what about videos that have been released? I can understand boots, but what about the ones that have been out and played? why can't we post links to those?

It's not like there's a download option.

Interestingly, the Google Video player does have a download option.

so whats the final ruling on this?
I see some threads with youtube links on them then i see other being snipped by mods.

Whats that all about.
Why are some people allowed to post links and not others?

muirdo said:

I don't think YouTube links are getting snipped on the basis of who posted them. I can't speak for the other mods, but I make these judgment calls based upon the content of the linked file. For example, I've snipped certain YouTube links while leaving others in the very same post alone. I try to follow the reasoning set forth by Ben at the top of this thread.

With that said, perhaps we mods should revisit this issue and come up with some guidelines that are more clear about what's okay and what isn't. I'll bring it up for discussion.

BlaqueKnight said:

So, if you volunteer to be the one who gets the "we will sue your ass" letters from Prince's lawyers, can we go on with posting Youtube links?

Seriously, I don't see the point in posting them. The site is well known and has a search function. Why are links necessary? If that's a legal risk (and we know Prince's urgency to fight bootlegs by any means, just remember the Housequake letter), just don't do it, people!

BlaqueKnight said:

Does that shift of responsibility from the side-runners/-mods to the users really work (legally)?

And I agree that Youtube isn't a threat, but tell that Prince. I guess you know about the sudden disappearance of Prince bootleg footage from Youtube just after links have been posted on the .org and also about the Housequake incident, right?