Mach said:

Xactly what Prince is doin'..Gettin' crucified.

excessex said:

well, its still a PR disaster for Prince to be doing all this...

but anyhoo...my quote does not do Lynch's statement any justice...its a comment he makes on an interview added as an extra to Inland Empire...it's so out of nowhere...you expect him to touch on the war in iraq or some other catastrophy and instead he yells out (very angrily) about movies on cellphones with such passion and seriousness...i laughed so hard and kept rewinding it trying to figure out if he was serious or not....my conclusion he really hates the thought of watching movies on cellphones.

Dear Mr. Prince,

U know we love 2 c u....and 4 those who cannot....a little UTube...is nice...glad 2 c there is still some of it up on the UTube..

I understand....protect urself! PEACE

whendovescry2000 said:

Did I say he should hide it? Why do people online do that? I was simply poiting out something about Prince's character.

apparently Prince isnt the only one in a suing mood...check this out!!

"Nebraska State Senator Sues God"

http://www.comcast.net/ne...tn_suesgod


so random!!

I wonder if Prince would feel differently about YouTube if the artists featured on the site received royalty payments from the advertising?

I'll bet the revenue generated from the adverts on YouTube would amount to pennies if divided between each artist.

What's the difference between a DJ playing a song on a radio request show or somebody listening to the same song on YouTube?

Justin1972UK said:

I think that would be too complexed to do.

1. Who does youtube pay if the person watching the video say in Australia and and the copyright is in the USA, and how mush seeing that you are talking about diffeerent monies?

I think he just doesn't want the old material easily accessible-and my guess is that he is thinking about his legacy and how he wants to be remembered. Too bad he is alienating fan base in the process, but I guess there is no other way to acheive the objective.

ndigo said:

Most people nowadays don't really bother that much so they will remember him by how he was years ago anyway.....

Justin1972UK said:

This is what the major record co's have done (and that's why you can still see vids for "Fury" and "Black Sweat" since those are through Universal Records on YouTube).

The majors (and some indies, I think) have made licensing deals with YouTube and get paid.

Here's a link to an article about EMI Records' deal with YouTube:

http://www.macnn.com/arti....emi.deal/


I think Prince will have his stuff back on YouTube if they can work out some kind of deal.

I don't think what he's doing is contepmt for the fans (as some have said here), this is business. Remember those free Planet Earth CDs in England? They were free to the public, but he got paid to do that promotion. I'm thinking he wants some kind of payment from YouTube--even though it would still be free to watch.

ndigo said:

[That's not nice snip - luv4u]

DerekH said:

I tried to start a thread on this very subject yesterday,only about a new legal site that was announced and accessible yesterday.I never got response one way or another.Maybe someone else can check on and report. If it is legal why can't the fans of all artists talk about it? Or can they?

Mach said:

Film Himself playing air guitar to Stairway To Heaven
& then post it up on YouTube.

Illustrator said:

It would be nice if he played the airguitar to the cross.....

I don't think Prince or anyone else is going to sue to shut the legal sites down(those that are to pay for usage of artists materials),or the sites that ar not paying.They just don't want theirs being used.Maybe if exchange of money for use is established with all sites,allowing the artists to receive revenue,their won't be as much protest from the artists opposed to the sites,even Prince.If he is against that,than we know he just wants total control of his own. For what reasons we don't know and maybe will never know unless he announces some new idea he might have for his music.Or like others have said,just wants to wipe out the image of the old days.Whatever happens it will be business as usual for the sites,with exception of anyones music that is protesting.Even they can't stop usage if the co's that own the rights agree to sell to sites.This is not my oppinion .Look it up,it is being done.

Justin1972UK said:

Two main differences.

One is illegal, the other isn't.

One pays royalties to the artist, the other doesn't.

Justin1972UK said:

I bet he would if he were a new artist and wanted to get himself out there to the public. Dont you guys realize the man has double standards. He only cares about himself....besides he has made his money now, he doesnt need fans anymore.
[Edited 9/18/07 16:11pm]

Justin1972UK said:

I worked at the now defunct Jacor, the real secret with request to a DJ. They (the DJ) already has a set list of songs to play (primary) in addition there is an alternative list (secondary). When a person calls to request the song if it is on either list - they retain the voice via a digital recording. And play it at the time the song is to appear on the rotation. Thus giving the "illusion" that the song was actually requested. If you call to request a song not on either list they respond with "Hey! Great song - I'll try to get that one in for you." or "Listen for it. Thanks for calling." With no real intention of playing it but you the listener wait patiently for the song. Thus preventing the radio station from being sued by playing a song outside of the parameters of the set list and insuring royalties are covered.

Youtube no one is getting paid. You as a user do not pay to view/listen to any content accessed from youtube. The artist does not receive any royalties from you viewing said content. I associate it with buying a book, record or magazine. You go in glance at a few pages/photos and decide either I will buy it or not. The problem I think is when you decide to sit and read the entire book or magazine - which people have done - it sounds funny but at the Barnes & Nobel near me. People will take stacks of magazines and just read cover to cover without ever paying for the actual magazine(s).
[Edited 9/18/07 16:44pm]

christos7 said:

wow.

eyewishuheaven said:

AMEN! PRINCE WHERE IS THE LOVE?

Remember when we first heard this? Most of us blamed Universal. Now we know who to blame, eh? Has Prince gone too far??

From: http://www.eff.org/legal/...universal/

Stephanie Lenz's 29-second recording shows her son bouncing along to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy," which is heard playing in the background. Lenz uploaded the home video to YouTube in February to share it with her family and friends.

But last month, YouTube informed Lenz that it had removed the video from its website after Universal claimed that the recording infringed a copyright controlled by the music company. Under federal copyright law, a mere allegation of copyright infringement can result in the removal of content from the Internet.

"Copyright holders [e.g. Prince] should be held accountable when they undermine non-infringing, fair uses like this [YouTube] video."

Last May, UMPG's parent company, Universal Music Group, sent a baseless copyright takedown demand to YouTube for a video podcast by political blogger Michelle Malkin. That video was quickly reposted after Malkin fought back.

"Copyright abuse can shut down online artists [some artists WANT their music/videos on YouTube -- leave 'em alone!], political analysts, or -- as in this case -- ordinary families who simply want to share snippets of their day-to-day lives," said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "Universal [and Prince] must stop making groundless infringement claims that trample on fair use and free speech."

after he gets what he wants from youtube,
we're probably stuck with this : http://www.youtube.com/wa...jR1f6bAVkI
[Edited 9/19/07 13:01pm]

Snap said:

wow.
SURE that was Universal.

cuz they care about 29 seconds of a song on a Warner Bros record.

You got it.
Prince's evolving position has been pretty much as was that of the BBC who in relation to YouTube posting of their content firstly ignored it, then sent out cease and desists then did a deal.

Again, I don't think Prince is leading any bandwagons here. He's jumping 'em.
A publicity surge needs to be consolidated and the car kept warm for the next release. Make no mistake , Prince has his eye on higher ground. And that sez what?

DerekH said:

excessex said:

Well i hope its all of Princes output so the world can see him evolve into the person he is now

Another pathetic move on Prince's part. He lives in an isolated world, has lived in one for decades, and it shows in moves such as this.

Since it's apparent he can no longer make music worthwhile, it's too bad he can't put this sort of energy into something more fruitful such as remastering his back catalog, a move that would make him a mint in the process.

Unfortunately he won't do the above because of his bizarre religious beliefs and I wouldn't be surprised if the Youtube move is being fueled by whatever sort of out of touch zealotry he subscribes to. He likely believes he can cancel out the years of his life which are the only ones 95% of the world care about.

Go into the studio and try to write something that doesn't sound like it was composed by Shania Twain or a 13 year old writing an essay on Earth Day or remaster the only music you made that mattered but don't be so dense as to try and halt what is ultimately free promotion. Moron.

Next topic.

Wall said:

daaaaamn.
that was CLASSIC.

aaaaa to the men!

ButterscotchPimp said:

Normally, I dismiss all of Wall's posts as bitter, bulletheaded, and inappeasable. But this time...

King Canute - he was a feckin idiot as well
[Edited 9/21/07 1:41am]

Prince is goddamn jackass! There, I said it! Somebody wone uh piece'o'me? I thought so.....