not used for gain? not necessarily so. this person (correct me if the mother has cleared this up) could very well have posted this because they were looking for some kind of way to show credibility or even ability to do file sharing. In the case, the song used in the video could very well have come from the plentiful collection of songs that are in the public domain.

Besides that, I think another point that deserves to be made is that so much of what we see in every facet of music and the media is nothing more than a watered-down/re-hashed version of something that came along. Granted, musicians learn to play by imitating what they hear, but there's a right way to "steal" a musical element, and there's a wrong way.

I think one of the points that people are not getting into their heads is this - yes, it may be impossible to stop copyright infringement from happening all the time, or even most of the time; and yes, it is wise to be gracious when someone uses a song or piece of art you created (after all, in this case, I'll bet flattery was intended), but the bottom line is this - it doesn't matter what was meant, if I create a piece of art, and I see someone using it in a way that I don't support or agree with, regardless of whether or not they like it, if I tell them to stop using it, then ethically they have an obligation to not use it. Cut it any way you want to, it's the truth.

anon said:

TANKAEFC said:

Aren't you tired of talking about this? I know, I am.
It's the ethic and legal lines that blur this one. People will see it the way they want and each will feel validated.

This is typical of the way the real issues are being fudged

What prince, via his representatives, asked for the removal of, was not just music or live clips of his performances

It was also the removal of photos and images that he has no claim of intellectual property rights over whatsoever

If you take a photo of someone, and it its use is not covered by a written contract, you can do what you like with it

These are the images over which he appears to be demanding control of

When will people get their head out of their asses and stick to the issues?

His representatives also demanded the taking down of the princefansunited website

Why?

Because his representatives think that free speech where he is the subject of criticism should not be allowed

Wake up and smell the coffee

The logical conclusion is if he gets away with this is any criticism of him and his work would then be sued out of existence

FFS WAKEUP

Markland said:

You're right. There are a lot of really important things at stake. Freedom of Speech and Constitution kinds of things...the things that people died fighting for, things that nations were built on...things that will determine our future freedoms...

But right now, I just wanna see SHOE.

Skillz4 said:

True to form. The very first case tried in the courts was over VHS tapes. Would have to check my citations, but I believe Sony was sued by bigwigs in Hollywood for allowing consumers to buy VHS tapes and record publicly aired shows. The courts rule in favor of Sony saying it was legal because the taping was for the sole purpose of "time shifting" the publicly broadcast show and not for violating copyright.

Markland said:

actually in the US use of your own photos are not considered fair use, they are your copyright to do with as you please. fair use applies when you use someone else's copyrights. i can legally use prince's copyrighted photos if it falls under the fair use of us copyright law. there are many elements that have to be met for it to be considered fair use. news reporting and educational items automatically qualify for fair use. all others have to go through the four prong test to determine eligibility so to speak.

ajra said:

wrong.

to answer the questions above about when i buy a book or a cd i own the book...nope. it doesn't work that way. the purchase of the book or the music is actually a purchase of what is considered an "implied license". you are in effect buying a license to use the particular item for your personal use. that is all you are granted under the purchase.

TANKAEFC said:

Wrong. If a museum or private collector buys your art and hangs it next to someone else's art you don't like or loans it for a show you think is bunk, I doubt you (as the artist) could do anything about it. I guess you could try to have the buyer sign a contract that gives you the right to approve any loans of the work, etc, but I seriously doubt anyone would do that. (You'd have to be the next Pollock or something...)

Now apply that to the Prince situation: If I buy a Prince cd I can play it pretty much wherever/whenever I want. For example, I could play Sexy Motherfucker while celebrating my birthday (which the JW Prince probably wouldn't be so keen on) and I have the legal right to do so.

If Prince wants to ensure his "art" is only used (played) when/where he sees fit, then he should probably just keep it collecting dust in The Vault because, as an artist, once you sell your 'art' you automatically relinquish some rights/control over it to the owner.

txladykat said:

Thanks for the clarification

So the bottom line is if you own the copyright to a picture you can do what you like with it, the same as in the UK

Whats all the argument about then?

Put the fans photos back up!

I also notice The Pirate Bay is still up and running

Quelle surprise!

I thought you all might find this interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/st...76,00.html

this sums up what I was talking about that what we buy isn't really ours to use and in this case not even for our personal use.

" You, too, could be sued for thousands of dollars by the major record companies — even if you've never once illegally downloaded music.

That's because at least one lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America, the Big Four record companies' lobbying arm and primary legal weapon, considers the copying of songs from your own CDs to your own computer, for your own personal use, to be just as illegal as posting them online for all to share, according to a federal lawsuit filed in Arizona.

Jeffrey Howell of Scottsdale stands accused of placing 54 music files in a specific "shared" directory on his personal computer that all users of KaZaA and other "peer-to-peer" software could access — pretty standard grounds for an RIAA lawsuit.

However, on page 15 of a supplemental brief responding to the judge's technical questions about the case, the RIAA's Phoenix lawyer, Ira M. Schwartz, states that the defendant is also liable simply for the act of creating "unauthorized copies" — by ripping songs from CDs.

Schwartz is a partner in DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, the family firm of former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, R-Ariz.

"It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings on his computer," the brief states. "Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the '.mp3' format. ... Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife's use. ... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs."

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," New York lawyer Ray Beckerman told the Washington Post. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

In other words, according to Schwartz's logic, every single person who's ever "ripped" a CD for portable listening on an iPod or other MP3 player could be liable for astronomical damages.

Apple itself estimated earlier this year that only 4 percent of music on iPods worldwide had been purchased through iTunes, implying that most of the rest had been ripped from CDs.

In October, Jammie Thomas, a Minnesota single mother, was ordered to pay the record companies $220,000, or $9,250 for each of 24 songs a jury found she'd shared online.

The RIAA's own Web site is more conciliatory, but implies that the organization reserves the right to go after music "rippers" should it change its mind.

"If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings ... you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages," it plainly states before adding that "transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player won't usually raise concerns so long as the copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own [or] the copy is just for your personal use."

However, Schwartz isn't the only RIAA bigwig who's recently implied that those concerns may be raised more often.

Copying a song you've paid for in CD form is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,'" Sony BMG top lawyer Jennifer Pariser testified during cross-examination in the Jammie Thomas case in early October."


So even if we make a copy of the CDs that we purchased to our own computers for personal use WITHOUT THE INTENT OF SHARING you can still be prosecuted.
[Edited 1/6/08 12:58pm]