babynoz said:

People are reading your posts very selectively. They continue to ignore the fact that no one, NO ONE is disputing Prince's rights to protect his intellectual property.

I respect Markland also
My point is that it is not about the yutube baby or the cabdriver, do you guys seriously think that's what going on? to snub out youtube baby and the cab driver? thats crazier than prince.
people get carried away and dramatic trying to convince people thats what this is about.

Its about protecting his work plain and simple.

And that is why admire his stubborn stance amid all the negative publicity and bs about Prince hating youtube babies!lol
[Edited 1/26/08 17:47pm]

violetblues said:

OK you stated that the cab driver and the mom were not in the bullseye

They were, thats why they were threatened with legal action, and the only reason noone has been sued is everyone to date has caved in to the legal threats

I take it you will also note that all of the threats of legal action have been tthreats under the US legal system where, frankly, justice is based on money and who can last the longest, not in the Uk where legal aid may be a possibility to fund a defence

Prince made a rod for his own back by allowing his reps to legally threaten a mom and a cabbie, its severely detracted from his right to protect his work from being ripped off by others for monetary gain

As for The Pirate Bay, what they are doing in Sweden is legal, absolutely legal, under their judicial system

So what does knob sheriff do?

Threatens them with legal action not only in a different country but on a different continent

Regardless of whether you think what they are doing is right or wrong, its legal where they are doing it

And to try and export US law into another sovereign nation is patently ridiculous

The Swedish government couldn't close The Pirate Bay down despite some pretty underhand tactics

They are, at the moment, trying to change the law to make TPB illegal

So if The Pirate Bay does get shut down, it will be nothing to do with the rhetoric spouted by the purple ones representatives although I daresay they will try and claim it as their "victory"

As Babynoz pointed out, noone here is arguing that he doesn't have the right to protect his work, people are, justifiably in my opinion, kicking up about him trying to claim other peoples intellectual property as his own!

As for people smirking about him and the net, I haven't seen anyone do that

As for his legal teams successes to date, what exactly are they?

Is The Pirate Bay closed down or have bit torrents to his music been removed?

No

Is Youtube free of princes' intellectual property?

No

Has the illegal trade in pirated copies of his work on the net been stopped to any extent?

No

From a public relations perspective, the whole matter has been handled disastrously and achieved little or nothing

Thats the bottom line

Markland said:

[Edited 1/26/08 19:06pm]

violetblues said:

Ordinarily when someone feels they have a good case in a legal dispute they file a lawsuit...it isn't a question of looking for something to admire or condemn, it would be a more logical and professional way to proceed, plain and simple. That way the boundaries get clarified for everyone. As I've stated before, conflict doesn't have to be a bad thing if it helps to move things toward a fair and balanced resolution.

Violetblues, you state I am hiding behind the dancing baby clip to distract from the main point

The point is this, noone is arguing that prince doesn't have the right to protect his work ok?

Nor is anyone else

Thats the 5th time in this to and fro that I have clearly and unequivocably made that point

The MAIN point is prince via knob sheriff trying to tell people what they can do with their intellectual property and what they can say on here!

Those points are irrefutable as the emails from knob sheriff are available in other threads on this site

You are throwing the same red herring in over and over again

Try addressing what I regard as the main issue

What right does prince have to make demands over what a person does with photos that they own the rights to and what people can and can't say on here

That is exactly what he is allegedly complaining is happening to him!

So isn't that tantamount to hypocrisy?

As for The Pirate Bay, my opinion is the law in Sweden may be outdated, but that doesn't alter the fact that what they are doing in their country is LEGAL at this moment in time

As for US law being forced onto other sovereign nations, god help us all the day that happens, its attitudes like that that have gotten US foreign policy in the mess its in at the moment

Sovereign nations are exactly that, sovereign, and thank heavens the view that the US has some form of divine right to dictate what laws should apply where in the world is a minority view

Do you think prince has the right to tell others what they can say or what they can do with their intellectual property?

That is what his reps have tried to do

Its a simple yes or no question, do you think he has that right?
[Edited 1/26/08 19:44pm]

toots said:

Yep,

I know a non pay site that plays his concert.

Next Star headline: "Prince hates dancing babies"

squirrelgrease said:

Wont come as a surprise though.

khoskhal said:

ROFL so do I do you think Im that dumb to post it NOPE!
(I agree with you as well)

toots said:

If you want to know about the PFU stuff, I recommend reading any of the various threads here or at Housequake. As Markland has been repeating, the PFU issue really has very little to do with Prince's music.

PFU Homepage

PFU Org thread #1

PFU Org thread #2

PFU HQ thread

November update

Reuter's article

Watch this video interview with Aaron, the founder of Housequake. He has been threatened with up to 3 years of jailtime and fines in the hundreds of thousands of Euros/dollars just for running a not-for-profit, unofficial, online community for fans of Prince. (Transcript of video is on page 2.)

The threads are long, but if you carefully read the official statements from Org & HQ you'll quickly see it's about way more than Prince's right to protect his music (which, again, as Markland has been pointing out, most PFU supporters respect). Personally I'm with PFU because of the photography issue. Prince cannot demand ownership, removal, or compensation for photos *just* because they are photos of him...the photographer is the copyright holder, not Prince.


.
[Edited 1/27/08 16:00pm]

khoskhal said:

[Snip luv4u]

DevotedPuppy said:

I see now, thanks for the input, and I agree as well. I think if you took pictures at a concert(or whereever) they are the picture takers property, and NOT Prince's.
[Edited 1/27/08 16:34pm]

toots said:

[Snip luv4u]

khoskhal said:

[Orgnote discussion snip luv4u]

toots said:

[Snip luv4u]


[You two need to stop with the fighting and the discussion of your private orgnote convos. Both of you are ruining this thread. I will shut this down if I see continual bickering between both of you. Now grow up! - luv4u]

Welcome back thread!

We missed you!

khoskhal said:

To The Mod of this thread:

THIS needed to be orgnoted to the people involved and just snipped. NOONE needed to know what was said by you to us.And we ,or at least I, was warned in PM when you told me.THIS was UNCALLED FOR!Even for a mod.This was posted after you orgnoted me and told me what to do as well and prior to the thread being revived.
[Edited 1/28/08 23:53pm]

Well thanks Mod for sniping the nonsense.

Time for more adult talk

Markland said:

this is just SO damn ridiculous it is laughable

Next thing the car maker who made the taxi will be claiming they didn;t have permission to show their car in his video and the company who made the taxi driver's shirt will be claiming the same. The company who made the digital video camera he actually recorded this video will be claiming he didn't get permission from them to use video recorded with THEIR camera..

Does Prince really see how stupid this looks ?

Oh Prince.. you idiot.
[Edited 1/31/08 13:52pm]

Hi all, I am the Taxi driver in question! The music playing on the reported video was Let's Go Crazy, it was on my stereo, a CD I had bought, an original so it's fair to say that Prince got his cut! (The Hits CD) I didn't think I was in breach of copyright because it was background music.

My other videos can be seen here http://au.youtube.com/pro...nLancs&p=r

One or two still have Prince music playing in the background.

This is the video that was pulled and reported about http://video.google.co.uk...2&hl=en-GB

31staug88 said:

It doesn't appear you are making these for profit, is that the case?

Profit, hell no. Some of my videos of my town have other artists music in the stereo. All CD's are original & bought new, so all the artists' have been weighed in with their share of my parted hard earned.

As you can imagine, news papers like to sensationalise stories and they did this with me and it worked.

Email from Ytube.



I then posted a thread about this incident on my website (non profit, non money making) and the Press picked up on it and the rest is history.

http://www.prestonlancs.c...topic=1366

I'm yet to learn if I was indeed in breach of Copyright, can anyone clarify?

I'm sorry to hear what's happened with you and this incident 31staug88. I hope something can be worked out for you in all of this mess.

31staug88 said:

They would have had less of a case if you hadn't put "soundtrack by prince" at the start

That automatically credits him with the music so his claim on copyright is then a slam dunk

Personally I think his representatives should be targetting people illicitly making a profit from his work, not people like yourself just having some fun

The music is a breach of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, you can view the entire legislation on www.statutelaw.gov.uk

How long before "P" and his group will pull Lady Cab Driver from You-Tube, titled, 0307 CABNYC

lol, cabdriver guy writes on the heading "soundtrack by prince" gets it removed by youtube, sends the retraction notice to a copyright forum, freely admits the press sensationalized it....15 mins of fame.

youtube clearly states that if he believes they are in error to notify them.

again, this is all so stupid, nobody is out to stop him from his goofy youtube video posts, but rather with the "soundtract by prince" heading sounds like someone is having a good laugh at the likes of the bored news press and you Markland, and you dont even get it.

Support artist rights for the work they do.most are not as fortunate as Prince.
period, end of story.
[Edited 2/3/08 19:51pm]

violetblues said:

I sent it to my own forum, not a copyright forum! And fame, 15 mins or more was not my intention. The press asked me if I'd do an interview for a story.

I support artists rights' hence owning the original CD (the Hits).

My video was flagged up because I tagged it with 'Prince'.


I'm still a fan of the mad nutter, here's me at the London gigs of 2007 holding a a banner I made for the LoveSexy concert at Wembley in 1988 (hence my username here, first time I saw Prince)

violetblues said:

He asked a question, I answered it, what exactly don't I get?

If his guy was selling copies for profit I'd be the first to condemn it, he isn't

Why does anyone put stuff on youtube?

For 15 minutes of fame of course, its what the whole youtube was designed for, to show the whole world your video clips

As for copyright law, I work with it all the time and even I have moments of confusion with it

Its constantly changed by legal challenges and new precedents

I am just incredulous that any competant legal team would bother with cab drivers and dancing babies and yet leave the hundreds of other sites on the internet, including those charging for illegal downloads, alone

I'd be more than interested to hear how exactly this guy has damaged princes intellectual property rights other than give him even more exposure!

My point is, its petty

31staug88 said:

very cool!

yes he is a mad nutter, but i think you will agree that you were not mugged and beaten by Prince's lawers like Marland continually portrays you guys, like some kind of faux glitter martyrs or something.

Prince like most recording artists makes his money on residuals, and the company that collects the residuals for him gets a cut, and they want to make sure nobody takes advantage of them or their client Prince, plain and simple.

Im sure you agree that nobody was out to "get" you,... and that because of your heading in your video, the video was tagged for removal.
But seriously Do you feel like a victim? lol or do you feel people were doing their job in a free market economy?

[Edited 2/4/08 8:38am]