PurpleCharm said:

it's not like i'm over here throwing purple darts at his ass-out shot from MTV a few years back.


(not a half bad idea)


it's just something to discuss on the internet.
believe me, when the computer's off i've got better things to do than to worry about how Prince continues to commit slow career suicide.

ButterscotchPimp said:

Thanks. Page 14 said something like YouTube used to be small and it made the world a better place (or something). In fact YouTube was originally about sharing and presenting user-generated content, but got big when people started uploading portions of Simpsons episodes and other copyrighted stuff.

The user-generated stuff basically amounts to hoax films of whining girls, people putting sweets in coke bottles, and babies falling over.

Napster too started small and became popular, but it too couldn't just ignore the law forever. There is a direct analogy between Napster and YouTube, except if anything YouTube is even more blatant in what it does.

In my opinion Prince has just turned into an OLD, UNINTERESTING FART!! Who can only stay in the media spotlight by trying to sue someone!! Lets face it people his music basically sucks ass now. Most of us really only listen to the old stuff(and that would be from the 80's and not the 90's) anyways. I think he should be glad that you tube brodcast his vids....its part of what keeps people interested. I guess the sour 50 yr old man is just trying to get his retirement money right tho'
As for me I am tired of hearing his whinning.....I am done being a fan. I wish the rest of you the best!!

Peace,
Cleopatra Jones

1p1p1i3 said:

I sort of disagree with that. MP3's are of much higher quality than the videos on YouTube. MP3's could easily take the place of purchasing an album. The videos on YouTube are nowhere near the quality of a DVD or any sellable product. People may pay for an MP3, but nobody would pay for the videos on YouTube. They're low quality streams for people to browse through on a whim.

By the letter of the law, yes, it is in violation of copyright laws. But in reality, what damage/harm is really being done here? Is a low quality copy of the "Partyman" video that someone uploaded really denying Prince any substantial royalties? Or damaging his name?

Other than some emotional distress, since Prince is a control freak, I can't see the point in being so heavy handed with these lawsuits. He's really crossing a line with fans and the industry, and honestly, people are getting tired of him wagging his finger at them.

He should really sit down and add up how much money he is wasting on all of this overzealous litigation, and compare it to a realistic estimate of what profits he's potentially lost from YouTube.

1p1p1i3 said:

wow. your reading skills are impressive.
okay, i'm being sarcastic.


No one said that YouTube made the world a "better place".

And your analogy between Napster and YouTube is WAY off.

people aren't downloading from YouTube.
people aren't downloading (for example) season 1 of the Sopranos from dvd on YouTube, which is a better analogy of what Napster was.

and for all the whatever about Napster getting "shut down", file sharing sure as hell hasn't been.


coughlimewirecough.

excuse me.

Tom said:

can i get an AMEN???!!!!

Okay, you kinda missed my point slightly, probably my fault for not spelling it out.

Napster circa 2000 - hey, it's not our fault, we just provide a service. We can't control the content.

Turns out the courts disagreed.

YouTube circa 2007 - hey, it's not our fault etc.

Except it clearly is more blatant since YouTube actually host the videos.

I don't think Prince is claiming he's losing any money, he's just pissed that people are making money from his work. The fact it's crappy low-res if anything makes it worse for a control freak like Prince.

Edit - PS it's a doddle to download videos from YouTube.
[Edited 9/16/07 9:16am]

If I missed it please ignore, but has anyone stated the fact that the lawyers will see a HUGE chunk of money for this litigation? Has anyone been to the websheriff website and seen what a used car salesman this person is?

This suit will be in the courts for years and nothing good will come of it except the increase in the lawyers pockets. There was a company called SCO Group who's business model was to sue other companies because they patented a UNIX code which everyone uses in open source. Well they are now filing chapter 11 because the case has gone on forever and they no longer have money. I would assume from all the legal fees. I would watch out Prince, they are just trying to get your money fighting a losing battle.

Look at it like this:

Let's say that each album, video and song that Prince has ever recorded represents a room in his mansion. When an album, song or video is sold, the buyer gets a key to the room to view or listen to what is in the room...the SOTT room, the 1999 room, ect. You can listen or view as many times as you want, but you can't "share" your key. The "vault" room contains songs and video footage that he supposedly never wanted seen or heard by the public.

Prince can't take away keys that were legally purchased, even if the keys are to rooms that contain things that he is no longer proud of. It's something he just has to live with. Now, what he doesn't want is people making duplicates of their keys and then pass them around to any and everybody.
As it relates to youtube, he is saying that they are getting access to keys that they did not pay for and are profiting from it(advertising). WE may see it as free advertisement, but obviously Prince doesn't see it that way.

It is common knowledge that Prince is a control freak that likes to micro-manage. He's not a straight forward thinker. He wouldn't be Prince if he followed everything by the book or did what everyone else did.

Lastly, eccentricities get worst the older a person gets.

PurpleCharm said:

Umm, if every album, song, video (whatever) represents a room in his mansion and I legally PURCHASED every album, song, video (whatever), then I've paid for the listening room itself not just a key to it, right? So how could Prince dictate who I share my key with?

If he didn't want folks all up in his house then he shouldn't have opened the door in the first place!
[Edited 9/16/07 10:25am]

ButterscotchPimp said:

Give you a break huh. And notice you aren't signing up to work for free.
But I digress...

I didn't say the number of people who "use" YouTube etc was miniscule. I said that the number of people who use the net to watch TV is miniscule by comparison.

You seem to think that because YouTube have been around for a couple of years that somehow makes it ok. I'm failing to see how it makes a difference if they've have been around a few decades, a few months, or a few weeks. The point is for whatever the reason is he donesn't want stuff he hasn't given them permission to use to be posted.

And I wasn't talking about re-broadcasting the entire Superbowl game and you know it. I was talking about the performance portion. I see no difference weather CBS/NFL doesn't allow it to be posted on YouTube or weather Prince does. The principle is the same.

And your talking a hypothetical situation with a SNL performance thing. But just so you know, he wouldn't have to ask YouTube to take it down because SNL would have the shit pulled un-less they sold the rights to P or something.

The old videos are being sold. Maybe not to the extent that you would like but they are for sale. D&P, and the Hits videos was re-issued on DVD not too long ago. As for the old concert footage it's bootlegged. It's illegal anyway. Again boots are fun... but they are still illegal.

The notion that because you are a fan you have the right to do anything you want in the name of your fandom is slightly twisted.
[Edited 9/16/07 11:04am]

Goldengirl said:

YES! This is the real issue. I agree totally. As fans (music, sports, etc.) we should be ranting about this. Ebay and Ticketmaster could give a A** about the customers as long as their getting their $$. Why are we not revolting about this?

sosgemini said:

LOL


and such a lovely Amen that is.....

Ifsixwuz9 said:

And neither is Prince. Again, he spends more on his clothes than he's "losing" from money from the When Doves Cry video being played on YouTube.



tomato, tomato. oops. that doesn't really work in written form, does it? ah well. i disagree. i think the majority of the people that use the internet to read the news, check gossip sites, do homework, etc and also check YouTube to see recent news footage they may have missed (Britney imploding on MTV) is quite large.




that's not the point i'm making. what that refers to is some people's views that because NOW YouTube, Myspace and Google have become large corporations that somehow makes them "evil" isn't exactly the way that these particular companies should be looked at. My point is when Myspace and YouTube were popular and BEFORE they became major corporations BUT STILL PERFORMED THE SAME SERVICES, PRINCE DIDN"T GIVE A PURPLE CRAP. Only NOW that these companies have become HUGE does he smell a payday.




is it hypothetical? that's my biggest problem with major networks, movie companies and now the purple Napoleon going after YouTube in particular. Take NBC/SNL and "Dick In A Box". After that aired, people that thought it was the funniest thing they'd ever seen put it up for friends who hadn't seen it to check it out. And it took off like a rocket. did NBC/SNL have it taken down the next day, when THEY KNEW it was on there????? NO. they waited like a week. after all the major news networks (including their own) reported how big of a hit it was on YouTube. Then they had it pulled and re-directed everyone to check it out on NBC.com. OR, take what just happened last week with Britney Spears. MTV/Viacom has been ALL OVER YouTube about their "content". BUT right after Britney's public meltdown, when AGAIN they KNEW it would be on YouTube did they have it pulled????? HELL NO. Because it was getting too many hits, and getting them a HUGE amount of publicity. It's HYPOCRITICAL. So i don't think it's a stretch that if something similar happened to Prince, that he'd conduct himself in a similar fashion. oh, and i think you meant "whether". the other thing involves clouds, rain, and you get the point.





and they're not being BOUGHT on YouTube. they're being watched. in most cases on little ass screens, with grainy resolutions, and depending on net speed, choppy as all get out. BIG FREAKING DEAL. i've got TONS of old concert footage that's not bootlegged. that's how they rolled back in the day before everything was packaged and sold.



didn't say i had the right to do "anything i want". but if i want to share some stuff that legally acquired over the years with some friends on my Myspace page, i don't need anyone, yes including the artist to tell me otherwise. because again, if it bothers the artist that much THEN STOP PERFORMING IN FRONT OF PEOPLE.
[Edited 9/16/07 11:26am]

I'm not going to attack one of the few people I'm in awe of but this is a bad move on Prince's part. He doesn't understand the intricacies of "the internets." If someone decides to share and upload a vid, should youtube really be held responsible? They don't pay or ask users to upload vids, they do it because they want to share them with others. Reconsider my young Padawan

I have been reading these posts and i think the so called fans are being pathectic, I mean those that think they have a right to illegally share Prince's Music or any other Artists Music.

1) When we purchase a CD/DVD or Video Etc it clearly states on the packaging NO Copying, Public Performance/Broadcasting in a nutshell your entitled to use it for personal use only.

2) It does not matter if Prince chooses to release these unreleased footage/Music Etc and my opinion is if he did the fans on here and on Housequack who are bitching about it would opt for the free ones instead of buying it so that excuse is not valid in my opinion.

Now thiers nothing wrong with letting your Mates/Relatives listening to your collection but it is Illegal to copy your collection and give it to them cause if they like the Music they can go and buy it like other peole do.

As for YouTube it might be Free to view the videos but whats to stop people downloading them and making a nice collection, then put them on DVD and sell them.

One last thing not too long ago when Housequack was having trouble with Prince some were saying he wouldnt have the guts to go after Ebay Etc now he is you lot are calling him.

My View is Fans know what Prince is like over is Image etc and they still Moan have the bitchers got nothing else to do but moan have you, haven't you heard of supporting your fave Artist and understand it from his point of view. jesus MJ gets support from his fans and hes been accused of Sex Abuse not once but Twice.

cream72 said:

No one's doing that. The main reason is because YouTube isn't DIGITAL. If you somehow ripped a video from YouTube and burned it to dvd, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE CRAP. You'd spend more money on software to clean it up than it would be worth. If people are going to bootleg videos, they sure as hell aren't going to do it from YouTube. They'll buy it direct and rip it.









to quote the Geico caveman, "what?"

cream72 said:

Sorry, I'm fresh out of 'doves' to release to poop over this mess!

ButterscotchPimp said:[quote]

Ifsixwuz9 said:

Well we'll just have to agree to disagee on this particular topic. Personally I don't give a flying ratspatoot if he pulls stuff from YouTube, etc. It's his stuff, he paid for it -- in one way or the other -- he has the right to not have it thrown up on the internet if he doesn't want it there.

BTW - have no idea what "Dick in a box" is but I'll hazzard a guess that I'm not missing anything important or mind blowing.

joseph8 said:

Yes, they should be responsible. It's their site. They even host the videos on their servers. Of course they are responsible.

And they do ask users to upload videos, that's the whole bloody point of the site.

And they even plan to split ad revenue with those who have uploaded vids.

This isn't file sharing, this is a commercial organisation making money from copyrighted material.

SexyBeautifulOne said:

The law gives Prince the right to tell you how you can share his work.

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

http://www.copyright.gov/...1.html#106

Ifsixwuz9 said:

Fair enough.





Really? Wow. Last season on SNL, Justin Timberlake hosted. (i know he's not the favorite guy here on the org, but actually he's VERY good on SNL). Anyhoo, the best thing about SNL the last few seasons have been the "digital shorts" which are videos. They had a lot of success with a rap about Chronicles Of Narnia, and another extremely hilarious one where Natalie Portman gangster raps (seriously you should see it). Long story short, they did a video that was kind of a spoof of old 90's videos where Justin and Andy Samberg are a "Color Me Badd" kind of duo singing a love song about giving their special someone a gift. Their "dick in a box". It's FREAKING HILARIOUS.


i don't think i can embed it in here. (against the rules?)

here's the link. admin's, if that's against the rules too, let me know i'll take it down.


http://www.youtube.com/wa...dmVU08zVpA


(and on two hilarious notes, A) it won an Emmy and might be performed live on tonight's Emmy's and B) strangely enough, after it was taken off of YouTube NBC has PUT IT BACK UP.)


interesting.
[Edited 9/16/07 13:17pm]

PurpleCharm said:

hee hee

nice try. i could go line by line, but NOWHERE does it talk about the part that we're all discussing which is what happens AFTER "sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease or lending".



it sure does sound important if you get dazzled by all the big words though!


Find me the part of the law that applies to this discussion.

ButterscotchPimp said:

Er, I think it's right there. The owner of copyright has exclusive rights to authorise reproduction of said copyright material.

ie unless YouTube - or indeed, you and I - have such authorisation, it's illegal.

PurpleCharm said:

You forgot a section! Same page, how'd you miss it?

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

In short it means that if I want to post a video of Prince's work on YouTube or anywhere else that I can discuss, criticize, or teach the younger generation what real music is, as long as I'm not selling it, thereby infringing upon the potential market for or value of said work...I CAN!!!

ButterscotchPimp said:

\
Dude, you really need to get a grip. Your little sarcastic remark was totally not necessary.

This shit can go all the way to the Supreme Court for all I care. If they law isn't on Prince's side, then he'll lose in court. If the law is on his side, then he'll win. Case closed.

1p1p1i3 said:

no, it's not. read it again.
that sentence precedes the part with it lists the subsets, none of which talk about what happens AFTER it's been legally purchased.

if it were THAT black and white, YouTube wouldn't exist AT ALL.

PurpleCharm said:

Oh, come on.
Can't i have a little fun?
I mean you go to some government website, cut and paste some text that barely applies to the conversation and then crow "see! Prince is right!".

I can be a little sarcastic at your laziness, can't i?

or maybe i can't.

i apologize.

i'm sorry.


friends?