I'm looking for the artwork of the Madhouse 12"s: "6", "10", and "13" on the internet.

Can you help me?
[Edited 12/28/07 10:56am]

Isn't asking for bootleg covers against the rules?
(the Madhouse singles were never issued on CD)

Publishing the 12" original covers as scans would be a potential breach of copyright.
[Edited 12/28/07 9:07am]

Have you tried googling for the images?

BorisFishpaw said:

These are not bootlegs. The 12" have been released:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...use_(band)

langebleu said:

But Amazon and whatnot publishes pictures of cd-covers all the time...

superspaceboy said:

I did, and I found them.
[Edited 12/28/07 10:53am]

Jochem said:

Firstly, you explicitly asked for CD covers, when no such CDs have ever been released.

The music you specified has been officially released on vinyl only.

Secondly, it's true that the likes of Amazon display artwork all of the time.

In the first instance, they are displaying artwork for the purposes of selling officially-released material as opposed to bootlegs or pirated copies of recordings.

Moreover, I described publishing of the artwork deliberately as a potential breach of copyright, as opposed to a definite breach. The likes of Amazon are likely to rely on parts of the law that allows for the publication of such artwork for specified purposes.

It's obvious that prince.org clearly has to make sure it works within the law, particularly given the current climate, rather than give room for a challenge that it is facilitating breach of the law.

Asking for, and then publishing, links to the artwork in the current situation is, in my view, simply asking for trouble for this site particularly when you have made it clear that you want it for the purposes of CDs which were never officially released.

But the Mods can decide what, if any, action needs to be taken.

.
[Edited 12/28/07 10:35am]

langebleu said:

Sorry langebleu, there has been a misunderstanding on my part. I meant artwork.

langebleu said:

Ok, I'll remove the links.
[Edited 12/28/07 10:58am]

Jochem said:

Better safe than sorry, for the sake of the site

langebleu said:

So the org cowers and Prince gets exactly what he wants.
Kinda sad really

Asking for and using artwork from official releases for use on bootlegged CDs
is a clear breach of copyright law. It's got nothing to do with "The Org cowering
and Prince getting what he wants". This kind of activity has ALWAYS been
against the rules and against the law regardless of Prince's current actions.

BorisFishpaw said:

Now you're getting me scared.
I never said what I needed them for.
[Edited 12/29/07 1:54am]

Maybe i came late to this thread, but i don't see anyone asking for artwork to use "on bootleg CDs" - and are we really expected to believe and pretend that nobody downloads jpgs to there computers? This is ridiculous - better close down the gallery then as there is artwork and scans to a shitload of albums and singles there. This really is getting completely ridiculous and childish.

FlamingRaindrop said:

You have come to the thread late, with comments above which reflect and respond to the original wording of the thread.

langebleu said:

The use of these pictures was never discussed in this thread, nor was it in the original wording of it.
Although I have mislead people thinking otherwise because of incorrect wording.
(hey, English is not my native language, I'm sorry).

We discussed the potential breach of copyright as a result of publishing the pictures (not linking to them).
To be on the safe side, I have removed the links to these pictures.
However, I believe they were from legal sources (for the purposes of selling officially-released material).

FlamingRaindrop said:

In addition:
Dutch copyright laws allow for making your own personal copies for personal use.
Downloading music. movies, and pictures is considered to be making personal copies in this respect.

So here in The Netherlands, the uploader is liable, not the downloader.
[Edited 12/29/07 5:23am]

Actually, you DID mention that they were for your CDs. And since they
were never officially released on CD, then they must be bootlegs.

The point being that yes, there is a certain amount of leeway in the law to
accommodate people "making personal copies for personal use". But this
ONLY applies if you already OWN the originals. This argument goes right
out the window if you're copying something that doesn't belong to you,
as it then clearly becomes PIRACY or BOOTLEGGING.

If you already owned the Madhouse 12"s, then you wouldn't be here
asking for the artwork would you? And since you have the tracks on CD.
but not 12", then they MUST be bootlegs. It's as clear as 1+2=3.

I'm just pointing out the legalities of it, that's all. And technically speaking,
what you were asking for was a breach of copyright. The fact that 'everybody
does it' or that the items in question are out of print doesn't actually come in
to it (unfortunately). I can think of several artists who really wouldn't care
about this kinda thing (since it's out of print and they ain't gonna lose any
sales anyway) but Prince isn't one of those people. And besides, it's still
true, regardless of whether an artist chooses to sue or not.

BorisFishpaw said:

Wait a minute here. This is getting way out of hand.
First of all. I changed the word 'cd-cover' into 'artwork'. I also did this in the thread title.

Second. I don't have cd's or vinyl of these songs.
I was looking for the artwork and accidentally asked for the cd-covers as I didn't know they were released on vinyl only.
Either way, I was looking for jpgs.

BorisFishpaw said:

Believe me, this is not the case in The Netherlands.
Downloading is considered to be 'making copies for personal use'.
As I said. The uploaders/publisheds are liable, not the downloaders.

Really, the only thing i did wrong here was a bad choice of words.

And:

See this website: http://www.iusmentis.com/.../mp3legal/
This is on music, but the same thing goes for pictures and movies etc.

Interesting, then Dutch law is a bit strange in that respect. Certainly in the
U.S. and the U.K., burning your own copy of a rented CD or DVD is a clear
case of copyright violation (not that you're likely to actually get prosecuted
for it though). And you can certainly get prosecuted for downloading songs
from file-sharing services on the internet (It's happened, though again, it's
not that common) as this is also a clear case of copyright violation as far as
U.S. and U.K. law goes.

wrong forum

PEJ said:

buy the vinyl version and you have all

BorisFishpaw said:

Ahhh, but although this may surprise many, there is actually a big wide world outside of the big ole US of A and UK

FlamingRaindrop said:

Very true, however I'm still not entirely convinced that it's true. Cuz that would
mean in Holland you could hire out the box set of 'Lost' season 3, take it home,
burn DVD copies of all 7 discs, scan the artwork and make your own sleeves.
All legally, and all for a tiny fraction of the cost of buying your own copy!
Seems highly dubious to me.

BorisFishpaw said:

I had planned to leave this thread as it is, but I want to make one last effort
to try and convince you.

The copyright law uses a definition of "making a Home Copy" for personal use
that does not distinguish between the owner and a third party. This law was
made before there was Internet.

When people started downloading from the Internet, this became a problem. Since
the law doesn't distinguish between the owner and a third party, judges have
ruled that downloading has to be regarded as making a Home Copy. This is
therefore still legal if it is for personal use only.

Trying to limit the downloading of copyright material, the Dutch government
decided to focus on the uploaders. Here's a link to a Dutch news site (in
Dutch) reporting on this issue. It states that this also goes for the entire
European Union.
http://www.nu.nl/news/101...le_EU.html

There is some logic to it though:

I believe the law makes a distinction between the product (music, movie, image,
etc.) and the carrier of this product (CD/DVD-discs, tapes, posters, etc.).

The loss of rightfully owned products as a result of degrading carriers is
considered to be unfair by this law. Therefore you are allowed to make the Home
Copy as long as it is for personal use. When you discover that the DVD/CD you
bought has degraded, the best way to get your product back is to download it.

In the same analogy, ripping CD's to mp3 as well as digitalizing your vinyl for
your winamp, and downloading the artwork/cd-covers from the Internet by lack of
a scanner, is allowed.

The only exception to this law is software which is illegal to make copies of,
even for personal use.

Perhaps it is not very nice to "hire out the box set of 'Lost' season 3, take
it home, burn DVD copies of all 7 discs, scan the artwork and make your own
sleeves". But it certainly is legal.

Edit: added last paragraph.
[Edited 12/30/07 0:02am]

Awesome

BorisFishpaw said:

Or you can use your DVD-recorder and record them from your cable-television.

By the way:
Are these machines legal in the US and UK? I think so.
So what are they used for?

Their mere purpose is making Home Copies of copyrighted television shows or broadcasted movies.

Does that mean that burning DVD copies of all 7 hired 'Lost' discs is illegal, but burning DVD copies of the recorder 'Lost' season from the TV is legal?

Now that doesn't make sense to me...

Have you found them yet?

Is this like a Zelaria thread for music law nerds?

NouveauDance said:

Now you've tempted me to join again!!!

Jochem

In the UK, there is an exemption in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (introduced as part of an EU Directive to achieve greater legal harmonisation.

This permits time shifting of video recordings for private and domestic use. The provision for 'time-shifting' allows a viewer to record a programme and watch it at a more convenient time provided that it is for private and domestic use and that no permanent copy is kept.

Burning copies of any copyrighted material would be a potential infringement.

So why buy a DVD recorder? Well, obviously, I can legally record as many copies of work to which I have copyright, works where the author has given me permission to copy, and works which are copyright free. If I act outside of this, then I am potentially committing an offence under UK law. Do I own equipment capable of recording information to DVD? Yes - I have 4 recorders.

langebleu said:

Ok, I guess get it now (and from the expert ).
Thanks L'ange Bleu

AndGodCreatedMe said:

Yes, see post #4.

PEJ said:

You are right, I'm sorry.
But where should it go?

"Associated artists & people"
"General Discussion"
"Politics & Religion"

NouveauDance said:

Isn't that great!

I love the way this thread has turned out, it must go down as one of the most confusing informative threads of recent times, maybe it is truly time for the Prince: music and Law forum