New topic
PrintableProof that UMG controls P's publishing
http://new.umusic.com/New...NewsId=350 RENEW LONG-TERM, EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE PUBLISHING ADMINISTRATION DEAL LOS ANGELES, CA (December 13, 2005) - In a landmark agreement, Universal Music Publishing Group today announced the renewal of a long term worldwide publishing administration deal with one of music’s royal elite -- PRINCE. Commented David Renzer, Chairman & CEO, Universal Music Publishing Group: "Not only is Prince a legend, but he remains a world-class musician, considered by many to be the most prolific hit-maker of our generation as well as one of the best live artists. [b]The fact that he is re-signing to Universal Music Publishing Group speaks to the dedication and commitment we can show to a world-class high caliber artist like Prince. We are thrilled to have concluded this deal and consider it a privilege to continue our long-term relationship with him." The deal includes administration of Prince’s numerous future works and his complete, extensive back catalog of more than 35 albums and compilations including landmark, multi-platinum albums Musicology, 1999, Sign O’ The Times, Diamonds and Pearls, Parade, Around the World in a Day, Emancipation, Purple Rain, and Batman - The Motion Picture Soundtrack[/b]. In 2004, the incredible musical genius of Prince continued to reign with the success of what many consider the biggest comeback album of the year, Musicology (NPG/Columbia) and a sold-out tour named Billboard Top Earning Tour of the Year, grossing $90.2 million in ticket sales. Following his induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, Prince shined in the spotlight again when he opened the 46th annual Grammy awards with a show-stealing duet alongside Beyonce Knowles. In his 20-year lustrous career as a vocalist, songwriter, producer, and multi-instrumentalist, the Grammy and Oscar-winning artist has fourteen No.1 U.S. singles to his credit (including "1999," "I Wanna Be Your Lover" "Let’s Go Crazy," "When Doves Cry," "Raspberry Beret," "Kiss," "Sign O’ The Times," "Batdance," "Cream," "Gett Off," "Diamonds and Pearls," and more), and twenty-six No.1 single chart positions across the Pop and R&B charts, as well as four No. 1 albums (Purple Rain Soundtrack, Around the World in a Day, Batman, and Diamonds and Pearls) and over 36 Top 10 album positions, Prince is one of the few artists to simultaneously experience a No.1 single ("When Doves Cry"), album (Purple Rain Soundtrack), and movie (Purple Rain). Prince has also penned major hits recorded by Sinead O’Connor ("Nothing Compares To You"), and Chaka Khan ("I Feel For You") plus written and/or produced works for countless artists including some of the world’s most successful including Madonna, Celine Dion, Sheila E., Paula Abdul, The Bangles, Sheena Easton, Tevin Campbell and Kate Bush. About Universal Music Publishing Group With 47 offices in 41 countries worldwide, Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) is part of the Universal Music Group and one of the industry\'s largest global music publishing operations. Owning or administering more than 1 million copyrights, UMPG\'s writers and catalogs include: U2, Mariah Carey, Ludacris, Shania Twain, 50 Cent, Dave Grohl, Ciara, Prince, Diana Krall, Godsmack, Ice Cube, Vanessa Carlton, Mary J. Blige, The Corrs, Eve, Musiq, Jill Scott, Brian McKnight, No Doubt, Blink-182, 3 Doors Down, Beastie Boys, Anastacia, Fatboy Slim, DMX, Gloria and Emilio Estefan, Paul Simon, the catalog of Henry Mancini, among many others. For more information, visit: www.umusicpub.com. # # # | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
ButterscotchPimp said: ButterscotchPimp said: I stand corrected on the song being "Let's Go Crazy" and not "When Doves Cry", but you're WRONG. ALL of Prince's songs from the Warner days are STILL OWNED BY WARNER and published through Warner/Chappell. Wait a second. I just looked it up, and I STAND CORRECTED. Apparently, i was wrong. Looks like Prince switched publishing companies back in 2005 when Musicology was released through Universal. So all of his back catalog is now owned by Universal. His current deal is through Sony/BMG. Never say i'm not man enough to admit when i'm wrong. About the facts. The point remains, that it's not Universal that's sitting there and scouring the internet for background music on YouTube and sending cease and desist letters. Publishing companies don't have time for that. That's all Prince. Wasnt Musicology released through Sony and 3121 released through Universal 
Man, all these haters if they took more time studying the mans Music and less time hating the Org would be a cool Place  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ButterscotchPimp said: ButterscotchPimp said: Wait a second. I just looked it up, and I STAND CORRECTED. Apparently, i was wrong. Looks like Prince switched publishing companies back in 2005 when Musicology was released through Universal. So all of his back catalog is now owned by Universal. His current deal is through Sony/BMG. Never say i'm not man enough to admit when i'm wrong. About the facts. The point remains, that it's not Universal that's sitting there and scouring the internet for background music on YouTube and sending cease and desist letters. Publishing companies don't have time for that. That's all Prince. Which now makes me want to ask a really puzzling question. WHY THE HELL WON'T HE REMASTER AND RE-RELEASE HIS BACK CATALOG NOW THAT WARNER DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT ANYMORE? So i guess that answers the question whether if it had anything to do with not wanting to do it on Warner or whether it was that he didn't want to re-release his old "controversial" material. That sucks. Cause Warners still own the Masters in which if he did do that i guess they would get a bigger slice of the Profits, Thats a Guess though. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"
"The point remains, that it's not Universal that's sitting there and scouring the internet for background music on YouTube and sending cease and desist letters. Publishing companies don't have time for that." Yes, they do have time and this is how they make their money. UMG is suing YouTube for the all of the intelleutual property they own that is up on that site. They have had a lot of stuff pulled off. UMG makes their money by collecting rolayties on P's and other artist's work. They get a fee for doing this so, it would be worth their time to stop the videos and performances from being shown on YOUTUBE. No money no viewing. P and UMG are within their rights to ask that videos and music be removed from the site. ----- cream72 said: ButterscotchPimp said: Wait a second. I just looked it up, and I STAND CORRECTED. Apparently, i was wrong. Looks like Prince switched publishing companies back in 2005 when Musicology was released through Universal. So all of his back catalog is now owned by Universal. His current deal is through Sony/BMG. Never say i'm not man enough to admit when i'm wrong. About the facts. The point remains, that it's not Universal that's sitting there and scouring the internet for background music on YouTube and sending cease and desist letters. Publishing companies don't have time for that. That's all Prince. Wasnt Musicology released through Sony and 3121 released through Universal
Man, all these haters if they took more time studying the mans Music and less time hating the Org would be a cool Place | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Here's the deal:
Prince is the copyright author or co-author of all of his sngs unless he gifts those rights (which he is reported - at least occasionally - to have done). He also 'owns' the masters of all of his recordings. However, under his contract(s) with Warners, rights to use of the masters are assigned for a period of time to them, with the rights of use themselves reverting back to Prince after 35 years following release, unless Prince has negotiated a separate arrangement. Whilst the Warners recording contract itself expired when he moved from Warners, the terms regarding use of master recordings still prevail. Separately, Prince's publishing deal with Warners expired at a later date and a new deal was established with Universal in 2000. Prince announced this himself (somewhat cryptically) on his website at the time, as I recall. The renewal of the deal in 2005 was no secret either - Universal announced it and it was reported here. Universal have a vested interest in ensuring the publsihing rights assigned to them for administration purposes are respected. If someone publishes (e.g. broadcasts) a recording, they are potentially liable to pay a royalty. Universal will collect and pay over to Prince - subject to whatever deal they have struck. So, the more they cllect, potentially, the more they earn. If YouTube allow video recordings to be broadcast which feature Prince's music, but they do not pay royalties for each broadcast (that's each time someone views the video from the site), Universal (and Prince) are asserting their right to a payment. Hence the action by the publishing company. As has been reported here before, the same official that has sent letters from UMG regarding this has also acted in the same way and had removed other material which featured other artist's recordings. There will also be a potential copyright infringement, but the Universal action appears to be based primarily on non-payment of publishing royalties. Universal state that they act in accordance with the agreement of their artists whose publishing rights they administer. ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderator
langebleu said: Here's the deal:
Prince is the copyright author or co-author of all of his sngs unless he gifts those rights (which he is reported - at least occasionally - to have done). He also 'owns' the masters of all of his recordings. However, under his contract(s) with Warners, rights to use of the masters are assigned for a period of time to them, with the rights of use themselves reverting back to Prince after 35 years following release, unless Prince has negotiated a separate arrangement. Whilst the Warners recording contract itself expired when he moved from Warners, the terms regarding use of master recordings still prevail. Separately, Prince's publishing deal with Warners expired at a later date and a new deal was established with Universal in 2000. Prince announced this himself (somewhat cryptically) on his website at the time, as I recall. The renewal of the deal in 2005 was no secret either - Universal announced it and it was reported here. Universal have a vested interest in ensuring the publsihing rights assigned to them for administration purposes are respected. If someone publishes (e.g. broadcasts) a recording, they are potentially liable to pay a royalty. Universal will collect and pay over to Prince - subject to whatever deal they have struck. So, the more they cllect, potentially, the more they earn. If YouTube allow video recordings to be broadcast which feature Prince's music, but they do not pay royalties for each broadcast (that's each time someone views the video from the site), Universal (and Prince) are asserting their right to a payment. Hence the action by the publishing company. As has been reported here before, the same official that has sent letters from UMG regarding this has also acted in the same way and had removed other material which featured other artist's recordings. There will also be a potential copyright infringement, but the Universal action appears to be based primarily on non-payment of publishing royalties. Universal state that they act in accordance with the agreement of their artists whose publishing rights they administer. thank you "What kind of fuck ending is that?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thank You langeblue. I think all of this is related to the statement below.
"If someone publishes (e.g. broadcasts) a recording, they are potentially liable to pay a royalty. Universal will collect and pay over to Prince - subject to whatever deal they have struck. So, the more they cllect, potentially, the more they earn. " No one is making any money on the P cataloque. Prince and UMG have a finacial interest to protect. It is all about the benjamins. ----- langebleu said: Here's the deal:
Prince is the copyright author or co-author of all of his sngs unless he gifts those rights (which he is reported - at least occasionally - to have done). He also 'owns' the masters of all of his recordings. However, under his contract(s) with Warners, rights to use of the masters are assigned for a period of time to them, with the rights of use themselves reverting back to Prince after 35 years following release, unless Prince has negotiated a separate arrangement. Whilst the Warners recording contract itself expired when he moved from Warners, the terms regarding use of master recordings still prevail. Separately, Prince's publishing deal with Warners expired at a later date and a new deal was established with Universal in 2000. Prince announced this himself (somewhat cryptically) on his website at the time, as I recall. The renewal of the deal in 2005 was no secret either - Universal announced it and it was reported here. Universal have a vested interest in ensuring the publsihing rights assigned to them for administration purposes are respected. If someone publishes (e.g. broadcasts) a recording, they are potentially liable to pay a royalty. Universal will collect and pay over to Prince - subject to whatever deal they have struck. So, the more they cllect, potentially, the more they earn. If YouTube allow video recordings to be broadcast which feature Prince's music, but they do not pay royalties for each broadcast (that's each time someone views the video from the site), Universal (and Prince) are asserting their right to a payment. Hence the action by the publishing company. As has been reported here before, the same official that has sent letters from UMG regarding this has also acted in the same way and had removed other material which featured other artist's recordings. There will also be a potential copyright infringement, but the Universal action appears to be based primarily on non-payment of publishing royalties. Universal state that they act in accordance with the agreement of their artists whose publishing rights they administer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: Thank You langeblue. I think all of this is related to the statement below.
"If someone publishes (e.g. broadcasts) a recording, they are potentially liable to pay a royalty. Universal will collect and pay over to Prince - subject to whatever deal they have struck. So, the more they cllect, potentially, the more they earn. " No one is making any money on the P cataloque. Prince and UMG have a finacial interest to protect. It is all about the benjamins. ----- langebleu said: Here's the deal:
Prince is the copyright author or co-author of all of his sngs unless he gifts those rights (which he is reported - at least occasionally - to have done). He also 'owns' the masters of all of his recordings. However, under his contract(s) with Warners, rights to use of the masters are assigned for a period of time to them, with the rights of use themselves reverting back to Prince after 35 years following release, unless Prince has negotiated a separate arrangement. Whilst the Warners recording contract itself expired when he moved from Warners, the terms regarding use of master recordings still prevail. Separately, Prince's publishing deal with Warners expired at a later date and a new deal was established with Universal in 2000. Prince announced this himself (somewhat cryptically) on his website at the time, as I recall. The renewal of the deal in 2005 was no secret either - Universal announced it and it was reported here. Universal have a vested interest in ensuring the publsihing rights assigned to them for administration purposes are respected. If someone publishes (e.g. broadcasts) a recording, they are potentially liable to pay a royalty. Universal will collect and pay over to Prince - subject to whatever deal they have struck. So, the more they cllect, potentially, the more they earn. If YouTube allow video recordings to be broadcast which feature Prince's music, but they do not pay royalties for each broadcast (that's each time someone views the video from the site), Universal (and Prince) are asserting their right to a payment. Hence the action by the publishing company. As has been reported here before, the same official that has sent letters from UMG regarding this has also acted in the same way and had removed other material which featured other artist's recordings. There will also be a potential copyright infringement, but the Universal action appears to be based primarily on non-payment of publishing royalties. Universal state that they act in accordance with the agreement of their artists whose publishing rights they administer. By THREATENING SOMEONE THAT HAPPENED TO HAVE A PRINCE SONG IN THE BACKGROUND OF A DANCING BABY VIDEO. Good lord. Do you see ANYONE ELSE doing shit like this? With ALL the shit that people put up on YouTube, for laughs, for fame, for spoofs, do you see ANY other artists doing stuff like this? Wanna know WHY you don't? Because most other artists have the good sense to NOT GO AFTER THEIR FANS. There's a HUGE difference in someone re-mixing a Prince song and posting it to YouTube in an attempt to "gain fame for themselves" off of Prince's work. This poor woman, who was probably a Prince fan BEFORE all of this, happened to be videotaping her baby dancing along to a song, thought it was cute and put it on YouTube for others to see. What was her motivation? Do you think she thought that Prince would call and want to put her baby in his next video? Or maybe Jay Leno would call and want to book "the dancing baby"? It could've been the baby was dancing along to some crap like Beyonce, and no one would've EVER heard about it. Because Beyonce wouldn't HAVE SENT THIS WOMAN A CEASE AND DESIST OVER SOME CRAP LIKE THAT. Universal Music Group is the LARGEST RECORD COMPANY IN THE US. Home to THOUSANDS of artists. IF this was just a UNIVERSAL thing, then why isn't there some huge outcry from OTHER people that have gotten similar requests from them? Where's the outraged Nine Inch Nails fans? The outraged Jay-Z fans? PRINCE IS BEHIND THIS WHOLE THING, PERIOD. http://www.facebook.com/p...111?ref=ts
y'all gone keep messin' around wit me and turn me back to the old me...... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
UMG has had thousands of clips removed and they really are suing YOUTUBE. P and UMG don't give a rat's ass if some fan gets pissed off because they were told via a letter to take down a video.
It is a business and it is about money. I think it is a little heavy handed in that you could let this lady have a pass and go after someone putting up bootleg video footage or making their own remix but I guess they are taking a all or nothing approach. --- ButterscotchPimp said: laurarichardson said: Thank You langeblue. I think all of this is related to the statement below.
"If someone publishes (e.g. broadcasts) a recording, they are potentially liable to pay a royalty. Universal will collect and pay over to Prince - subject to whatever deal they have struck. So, the more they cllect, potentially, the more they earn. " No one is making any money on the P cataloque. Prince and UMG have a finacial interest to protect. It is all about the benjamins. ----- By THREATENING SOMEONE THAT HAPPENED TO HAVE A PRINCE SONG IN THE BACKGROUND OF A DANCING BABY VIDEO. Good lord. Do you see ANYONE ELSE doing shit like this? With ALL the shit that people put up on YouTube, for laughs, for fame, for spoofs, do you see ANY other artists doing stuff like this? Wanna know WHY you don't? Because most other artists have the good sense to NOT GO AFTER THEIR FANS. There's a HUGE difference in someone re-mixing a Prince song and posting it to YouTube in an attempt to "gain fame for themselves" off of Prince's work. This poor woman, who was probably a Prince fan BEFORE all of this, happened to be videotaping her baby dancing along to a song, thought it was cute and put it on YouTube for others to see. What was her motivation? Do you think she thought that Prince would call and want to put her baby in his next video? Or maybe Jay Leno would call and want to book "the dancing baby"? It could've been the baby was dancing along to some crap like Beyonce, and no one would've EVER heard about it. Because Beyonce wouldn't HAVE SENT THIS WOMAN A CEASE AND DESIST OVER SOME CRAP LIKE THAT. Universal Music Group is the LARGEST RECORD COMPANY IN THE US. Home to THOUSANDS of artists. IF this was just a UNIVERSAL thing, then why isn't there some huge outcry from OTHER people that have gotten similar requests from them? Where's the outraged Nine Inch Nails fans? The outraged Jay-Z fans? PRINCE IS BEHIND THIS WHOLE THING, PERIOD. [Edited 11/17/07 17:06pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: UMG has had thousands of clips removed and they really are suing YOUTUBE. P and UMG don't give a rat's ass if some fan gets pissed off because they were told via a letter to take down a video.
It is a business and it is about money. I think it is a little heavy handed in that you could let this lady have a pass and go after someone putting up bootleg video footage or making their own remix but I guess they are taking a all or nothing approach. --- ButterscotchPimp said: By THREATENING SOMEONE THAT HAPPENED TO HAVE A PRINCE SONG IN THE BACKGROUND OF A DANCING BABY VIDEO. Good lord. Do you see ANYONE ELSE doing shit like this? With ALL the shit that people put up on YouTube, for laughs, for fame, for spoofs, do you see ANY other artists doing stuff like this? Wanna know WHY you don't? Because most other artists have the good sense to NOT GO AFTER THEIR FANS. There's a HUGE difference in someone re-mixing a Prince song and posting it to YouTube in an attempt to "gain fame for themselves" off of Prince's work. This poor woman, who was probably a Prince fan BEFORE all of this, happened to be videotaping her baby dancing along to a song, thought it was cute and put it on YouTube for others to see. What was her motivation? Do you think she thought that Prince would call and want to put her baby in his next video? Or maybe Jay Leno would call and want to book "the dancing baby"? It could've been the baby was dancing along to some crap like Beyonce, and no one would've EVER heard about it. Because Beyonce wouldn't HAVE SENT THIS WOMAN A CEASE AND DESIST OVER SOME CRAP LIKE THAT. Universal Music Group is the LARGEST RECORD COMPANY IN THE US. Home to THOUSANDS of artists. IF this was just a UNIVERSAL thing, then why isn't there some huge outcry from OTHER people that have gotten similar requests from them? Where's the outraged Nine Inch Nails fans? The outraged Jay-Z fans? PRINCE IS BEHIND THIS WHOLE THING, PERIOD. [Edited 11/17/07 17:06pm] No "they" are not. UMG has sent hundreds of letter on PRINCE'S behalf. It's not just business. This is why. It's HARD to market music these days. I know, it's my JOB. So ANYWHERE you can get some free pub, is GREAT. So again, if the same dancing baby video is on YouTube with SOMEONE ELSE'S music? The record company is HAPPY. The bigger the publicity, THE BETTER FOR THE ARTIST. Hell, the record company is hosting the video on their website and sending out e-mail links letting OTHER people know about it. Why? Because they get that if a video like that gets a lot of publicity, it just might strike a chord in someone where they'd go "you know, i like that song!". They just might go to a store and buy it, or go to I-Tunes and download it. That's what the record company would like to do. That's why they KILL for exposure on I-Pod commercials. You think they SUE Apple when Apple picks a song for one of those ads???? It's FREE publicity. SO, that's the difference in someone re-mixing and posting for fame, and some viral video that happens to have some music in it. Again, if it weren't for Prince sicking his lawyers on this woman, would ANY OF YOU HAVE EVEN SEEN IT? He made it MORE POPULAR by sending the cease and desist! http://www.facebook.com/p...111?ref=ts
y'all gone keep messin' around wit me and turn me back to the old me...... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thx for the re-assertion of clarity. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This reminds me that there are folks who will put a song youtube and put it with a perfunctory video of something like their cat sitting on a couch, I assume to avoid detection (how I first heard the final version of 'guitar').
I'm positive that's not what happened with this particular case, but I can see the problems for innocent bystanders who lack any infringing intent. [Edited 11/17/07 20:09pm] "What kind of fuck ending is that?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ButterscotchPimp said: laurarichardson said: UMG has had thousands of clips removed and they really are suing YOUTUBE. P and UMG don't give a rat's ass if some fan gets pissed off because they were told via a letter to take down a video.
It is a business and it is about money. I think it is a little heavy handed in that you could let this lady have a pass and go after someone putting up bootleg video footage or making their own remix but I guess they are taking a all or nothing approach. --- [Edited 11/17/07 17:06pm] No "they" are not. UMG has sent hundreds of letter on PRINCE'S behalf. It's not just business. This is why. It's HARD to market music these days. I know, it's my JOB. So ANYWHERE you can get some free pub, is GREAT. So again, if the same dancing baby video is on YouTube with SOMEONE ELSE'S music? The record company is HAPPY. The bigger the publicity, THE BETTER FOR THE ARTIST. Hell, the record company is hosting the video on their website and sending out e-mail links letting OTHER people know about it. Why? Because they get that if a video like that gets a lot of publicity, it just might strike a chord in someone where they'd go "you know, i like that song!". They just might go to a store and buy it, or go to I-Tunes and download it. That's what the record company would like to do. That's why they KILL for exposure on I-Pod commercials. You think they SUE Apple when Apple picks a song for one of those ads???? It's FREE publicity. SO, that's the difference in someone re-mixing and posting for fame, and some viral video that happens to have some music in it. Again, if it weren't for Prince sicking his lawyers on this woman, would ANY OF YOU HAVE EVEN SEEN IT? He made it MORE POPULAR by sending the cease and desist! FYI, there's no point with this one. Some people have their lips forever attached to his ass. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
ButterscotchPimp said: Universal Music Group is the LARGEST RECORD COMPANY IN THE US. Home to THOUSANDS of artists. IF this was just a UNIVERSAL thing, then why isn't there some huge outcry from OTHER people that have gotten similar requests from them? Where's the outraged Nine Inch Nails fans? The outraged Jay-Z fans?
PRINCE IS BEHIND THIS WHOLE THING, PERIOD. Universal's litigous action against sites is well-documented regardless of whether the music involves prince, U2 or any ot their other artists, and it predates the current furore over the dancing baby video http://www.guardian.co.uk...news.music http://www.afterdawn.com/...e/8031.cfm http://www.techcrunch.com...s-myspace/ ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
viewaskew said: ButterscotchPimp said: No "they" are not. UMG has sent hundreds of letter on PRINCE'S behalf. It's not just business. This is why. It's HARD to market music these days. I know, it's my JOB. So ANYWHERE you can get some free pub, is GREAT. So again, if the same dancing baby video is on YouTube with SOMEONE ELSE'S music? The record company is HAPPY. The bigger the publicity, THE BETTER FOR THE ARTIST. Hell, the record company is hosting the video on their website and sending out e-mail links letting OTHER people know about it. Why? Because they get that if a video like that gets a lot of publicity, it just might strike a chord in someone where they'd go "you know, i like that song!". They just might go to a store and buy it, or go to I-Tunes and download it. That's what the record company would like to do. That's why they KILL for exposure on I-Pod commercials. You think they SUE Apple when Apple picks a song for one of those ads???? It's FREE publicity. SO, that's the difference in someone re-mixing and posting for fame, and some viral video that happens to have some music in it. Again, if it weren't for Prince sicking his lawyers on this woman, would ANY OF YOU HAVE EVEN SEEN IT? He made it MORE POPULAR by sending the cease and desist! FYI, there's no point with this one. Some people have their lips forever attached to his ass. No we just like to Know the facts before Condeming anyone. Fact: Universal are Paid to look After Prince's Publishing rights if they dont they dont get Paid. Fact: you wanna play one of his Videos for the world to see Pay for it. Fact: Break copyright Laws expect a Letter/E-Mail from Lawyers and dont cry about it. Fiction: Prince aint suing his Fans, theirs a difference between Cease and decist letters than Lawsuits. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
cream72 said: viewaskew said: FYI, there's no point with this one. Some people have their lips forever attached to his ass. No we just like to Know the facts before Condeming anyone. Fact: Universal are Paid to look After Prince's Publishing rights if they dont they dont get Paid. Fact: you wanna play one of his Videos for the world to see Pay for it. Fact: Break copyright Laws expect a Letter/E-Mail from Lawyers and dont cry about it. Fiction: Prince aint suing his Fans, theirs a difference between Cease and decist letters than Lawsuits. Silent Bob's right. i'm wasting my breath here. fams are going to be fams, period. What "facts" are in dispute? That the PFU sites got sent ceast and desist letters from P's representatives? That the woman with the "dancing baby" video got similar requests? That as a response, Prince made a "diss song" for the fans? What EXACTLY is "in dispute" here? [Edited 11/18/07 8:13am] http://www.facebook.com/p...111?ref=ts
y'all gone keep messin' around wit me and turn me back to the old me...... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ButterscotchPimp said: cream72 said: No we just like to Know the facts before Condeming anyone. Fact: Universal are Paid to look After Prince's Publishing rights if they dont they dont get Paid. Fact: you wanna play one of his Videos for the world to see Pay for it. Fact: Break copyright Laws expect a Letter/E-Mail from Lawyers and dont cry about it. Fiction: Prince aint suing his Fans, theirs a difference between Cease and decist letters than Lawsuits. Silent Bob's right. i'm wasting my breath here. fams are going to be fams, period. What "facts" are in dispute? That the PFU sites got sent ceast and desist letters from P's representatives? That the woman with the "dancing baby" video got similar requests? That as a response, Prince made a "diss song" for the fans? What EXACTLY is "in dispute" here? [Edited 11/18/07 8:13am] I'd say the only thing in dispute is any shred of evidence that suggests "fams" of this type still have even a remotely firm grasp on reality. Chasing after people with cameras in airports, bothering with miniscule "threats" to his copyrights posted on youtube & writing "dis" tracks at his age leaves only the impression that Prince is a bored has been. If he spent half as much time in the studio as he seems to being a prick, maybe we'd have an album still worth talking about? Planet Earth? Please.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
  "What kind of fuck ending is that?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said:[quote]I know some people don't know the difference between a lawsuit and a cease and desist letter.
Exactly | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Prince himself licked the stamps placed on the legal papers served to the sites in question, but he's obviously very much aware of the goings-on & the very idea he's busying himself with such nonsense is surprising enough to some. And to others, not surprising at all, considering what a tool he can be. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
viewaskew said: I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Prince himself licked the stamps placed on the legal papers served to the sites in question, but he's obviously very much aware of the goings-on & the very idea he's busying himself with such nonsense is surprising enough to some. And to others, not surprising at all, considering what a tool he can be.
A to the MEN, Silent Bob. http://www.facebook.com/p...111?ref=ts
y'all gone keep messin' around wit me and turn me back to the old me...... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
" If he spent half as much time in the studio as he seems to being a prick, maybe we'd have an album still worth talking about? Planet Earth? Please"
P is pretty busy putting out music more so than a lot of other artist. Maybe if you do not care for his music you might realize that you have an issue not P. Maybe it is time for you to move on. viewaskew said: ButterscotchPimp said: Silent Bob's right. i'm wasting my breath here. fams are going to be fams, period. What "facts" are in dispute? That the PFU sites got sent ceast and desist letters from P's representatives? That the woman with the "dancing baby" video got similar requests? That as a response, Prince made a "diss song" for the fans? What EXACTLY is "in dispute" here? [Edited 11/18/07 8:13am] I'd say the only thing in dispute is any shred of evidence that suggests "fams" of this type still have even a remotely firm grasp on reality. Chasing after people with cameras in airports, bothering with miniscule "threats" to his copyrights posted on youtube & writing "dis" tracks at his age leaves only the impression that Prince is a bored has been. If he spent half as much time in the studio as he seems to being a prick, maybe we'd have an album still worth talking about? Planet Earth? Please.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It does not matter if he is involved or not. UMG is supposed to collect the royalties. If they don't collect they do not get paid and P does not get a check either.
You don't have to like or agree with what P may or may not be doing or involved with but he and UMG are within their rights to do it. You really can't use anyone's music without permission and payment. ----- viewaskew said: I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Prince himself licked the stamps placed on the legal papers served to the sites in question, but he's obviously very much aware of the goings-on & the very idea he's busying himself with such nonsense is surprising enough to some. And to others, not surprising at all, considering what a tool he can be. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Efan said: So, it's not Prince, just a company using his name and image to conduct a lawsuit, right? And he has no problem with that, so it's okay? But it's not okay if fans use his name or image, right? yeah! great point. "Remember, one man's filler is another man's killer" -- Haystack | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: It does not matter if he is involved or not. UMG is supposed to collect the royalties. If they don't collect they do not get paid and P does not get a check either.
You don't have to like or agree with what P may or may not be doing or involved with but he and UMG are within their rights to do it. You really can't use anyone's music without permission and payment. ----- viewaskew said: I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Prince himself licked the stamps placed on the legal papers served to the sites in question, but he's obviously very much aware of the goings-on & the very idea he's busying himself with such nonsense is surprising enough to some. And to others, not surprising at all, considering what a tool he can be.
Yeah, yeah...we get it already. In your world, Prince's shit doesn't stink. In the REAL world, what's in the toilet belongs in the toilet. I know where I am. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
viewaskew said: laurarichardson said: It does not matter if he is involved or not. UMG is supposed to collect the royalties. If they don't collect they do not get paid and P does not get a check either.
You don't have to like or agree with what P may or may not be doing or involved with but he and UMG are within their rights to do it. You really can't use anyone's music without permission and payment. ----- Yeah, yeah...we get it already. In your world, Prince's shit doesn't stink. In the REAL world, what's in the toilet belongs in the toilet. I know where I am. ---- I guess in your world everything is free and laws do not matter. It must be nice to walk around in a fantasy world. In addition, I am sure P's shit stinks he is not perfect. I just know that legally with this baby thing, he is within his rights and if he were anyone else, you would not be spending your time worrying about this. Trust me many companies are going after YOUTUBE for copyright infringement. Nothing is free. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: viewaskew said: Yeah, yeah...we get it already. In your world, Prince's shit doesn't stink. In the REAL world, what's in the toilet belongs in the toilet. I know where I am. ---- I guess in your world everything is free and laws do not matter. It must be nice to walk around in a fantasy world. In addition, I am sure P's shit stinks he is not perfect. I just know that legally with this baby thing, he is within his rights and if he were anyone else, you would not be spending your time worrying about this. Trust me many companies are going after YOUTUBE for copyright infringement. Nothing is free. No, other companies that have a problem with YouTube are working WITH YouTube and resolving their differences without petty little legal threats. Again, and you seem to keep ignoring that part of the topic is how come you don't see ANY OTHER ARTISTS backing Prince up? Not ONE. Because he's WRONG and PETTY. http://www.facebook.com/p...111?ref=ts
y'all gone keep messin' around wit me and turn me back to the old me...... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Is there a reason you can't goggle and find this information.
http://arstechnica.com/ne...-7744.html Than they reached a settlement to show UMG legitmate videos. ----- http://news.zdnet.com/210...23914.html See another suit against MY Space. Honestly I don't know how these suits will turn out but, you really need to realize that what Prince is doing is not something new and shocking. http://www.afterdawn.com/...e/8145.cfm ----- ButterscotchPimp said: laurarichardson said: ---- I guess in your world everything is free and laws do not matter. It must be nice to walk around in a fantasy world. In addition, I am sure P's shit stinks he is not perfect. I just know that legally with this baby thing, he is within his rights and if he were anyone else, you would not be spending your time worrying about this. Trust me many companies are going after YOUTUBE for copyright infringement. Nothing is free. No, other companies that have a problem with YouTube are working WITH YouTube and resolving their differences without petty little legal threats. Again, and you seem to keep ignoring that part of the topic is how come you don't see ANY OTHER ARTISTS backing Prince up? Not ONE. Because he's WRONG and PETTY. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |