This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.
New topic 
Printable BlaqueKnight said: violetblues said: Bullshit, the Star etc, are taking pictures of celebrities in public, not possting their performances on youtube. lol, and those homemade camcorder shot recent release dvd's at the swap-meet must be legit too. 
check up on that will you 
I see you're strong on strawman arguments and weak on facts. Let me say this AGAIN so that you can understand it. If you tape someone's performance, in order TO MAKE MONEY FROM IT, YOU NEED A RELEASE FORM. Professionally shot performances are usually the property of the label. Hand-cam/Hi8/camera phone/mini-cam shot stuff is USUALLY the property of some amateur videographer who's just a fan of an artist. Its illegal to sell bootlegs. The artist didn't sign off on them and in the case of movies, you are copying video and audio that has already been created and SELLING IT AT A SWAP MEET. See those capital letters? THAT is where the law is broken. Incidently, filming a film is considered duplication. That's different from filming live performances. It is NOT illegal to film something and give it away because...read it slowly so that you can understand it...IF YOU ARE THE VIDEOGRAPHER, ITS YOURS UNLESS ITS A WORK FOR HIRE. Why? Because video, like a drawing or a photograph, is considered ART. The author of the art is the owner, NOT THE DAMN SUBJECT OF THE ART. Its obvious you don't know jack shit about copyright laws. Please don't bother responding without facts and please READ and don't respond to things I didn't say, like you just did earlier. [Edited 6/5/08 23:59pm] 1) The videographer is the copyright owner of the videotape. 2) Radiohead are the copyright owners of the song. 3) Isn't Prince the copyright owner of the music track, i.e. the music the way it was played on that particular occasion? The reason I'm asking is this: if you make photos of a copyrighted book, page by page, and make that available online, I'm sure that it is a copyright violation, even though you used a method (photography) which can be considered art to make it available. That means, your (somehow copyrighted) "artistic creation" contains material which is copyrighted by someone else, and unless you have permission of all parties involved copyright-wise to distribute the material, you are not allowed to do it (is that correct?). It was a different story when Prince wanted the concert photos to be taken down. He can't copyright his image, but one could argue that he holds copyright to the stage show (costumes, lights, etc.) which is displayed on the photos as well. Otherwise, normal old-school bootleg recordings should be legal as well, because you use a method which can be considered art (recording) to tape something. Should be perfectly legal, according to what you write, and Prince should not have any legal means to prevent us from distributing bootlegs. Just asking a question...  | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: Imago said: OMG
The comments by folks about Prince on the youtube vids
oh lawd, all the critical acclaim of 2004/2005 has gone right out the door this year  That's only true in the context of the internet community. He's not exactly being booed off stage at live performances. No one else cares. More specifically, it's only true of that part of the internet community that's hacked off by his YouTube shenanigans. The vids of the Creep cover that were posted straight after Coachella got far more views than this latest vid, and most of the comments were raving about the performance. It's only after this latest controversy that everyone decided they hated it. Goes to show how stupid he is for all this takedown business - transforming good publicity into bad! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmancipationLover said: 1) The videographer is the copyright owner of the videotape. 2) Radiohead are the copyright owners of the song. 3) Isn't Prince the copyright owner of the music track, i.e. the music the way it was played on that particular occasion? The reason I'm asking is this: if you make photos of a copyrighted book, page by page, and make that available online, I'm sure that it is a copyright violation, even though you used a method (photography) which can be considered art to make it available. That means, your (somehow copyrighted) "artistic creation" contains material which is copyrighted by someone else, and unless you have permission of all parties involved copyright-wise to distribute the material, you are not allowed to do it (is that correct?). It was a different story when Prince wanted the concert photos to be taken down. He can't copyright his image, but one could argue that he holds copyright to the stage show (costumes, lights, etc.) which is displayed on the photos as well. Otherwise, normal old-school bootleg recordings should be legal as well, because you use a method which can be considered art (recording) to tape something. Should be perfectly legal, according to what you write, and Prince should not have any legal means to prevent us from distributing bootlegs. Just asking a question... ooohh whole can o worms there hun!! Prince must have obtained a performing rights license (or such like) to cover creep, radiohead would not have necessarily known this unless someone told them. As I understand it they own the songwriting and musical rights and he would have to pay to cover it live and televised. He does not own the copyright to footage taken by bystanders, however if a request was made to not film, those individuals could be in breach of the terms under which the ticket was sold. Most tickets have small print. The o2 ones for prince said no filming, photos etc so if you go ahead - you are open to action, to post on the net or distribute in any way is also in breach of those terms and therefore illegal as the material is illegal. No bootlegs should not be distributed they are copyright breach copies, they are stolen from studios etc and distributed by people who dont own them. If you record from the radio or web etc you are in breach of copyright, you are distributing illegally if you give them to friends or post on the net. This is basic copyright law as i understand it, im not a lawyer. In my opinion it is under the ticket sale terms that prince has the right to ask this footage to be removed, however i did not go. Perhaps another orger can tell us if the tix had terms like these on them. I am guessing they did as its quite normal and also coachella were already intent on filming the gig for their own use, so it stands to reason they would not want the crowd filming too (although in practical terms its nearly impossible to police a large crowd with their phones, which is why so many acts allow this and dont pursue costly legislation but Prince has decided to try and stop it, apparently by his action with the net which must be costing a bomb!). Prince also had his act filmed and photos taken for his own use as was the o2 gigs. Im not saying its right or wrong, Im undecided but I would like to know his reasons although I suspect its to do with illegal distribution via youtube etc and hes making a point. Younger bands like radiohead dont understand this and i think many young people think what the hell, lets make it all free, which is probably how its going. For radiohead its fine to promote in this way as it doesnt directly affect their sales, ... yet. Music will always be around, but STARS created by the industry and its wealth wont. I think Prince is one of the last mega stars. [b][Edited 6/6/08 4:38am] walk with crooked shoes www.myspace/syblepurplelishous | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
syble said: EmancipationLover said: 1) The videographer is the copyright owner of the videotape. 2) Radiohead are the copyright owners of the song. 3) Isn't Prince the copyright owner of the music track, i.e. the music the way it was played on that particular occasion? The reason I'm asking is this: if you make photos of a copyrighted book, page by page, and make that available online, I'm sure that it is a copyright violation, even though you used a method (photography) which can be considered art to make it available. That means, your (somehow copyrighted) "artistic creation" contains material which is copyrighted by someone else, and unless you have permission of all parties involved copyright-wise to distribute the material, you are not allowed to do it (is that correct?). It was a different story when Prince wanted the concert photos to be taken down. He can't copyright his image, but one could argue that he holds copyright to the stage show (costumes, lights, etc.) which is displayed on the photos as well. Otherwise, normal old-school bootleg recordings should be legal as well, because you use a method which can be considered art (recording) to tape something. Should be perfectly legal, according to what you write, and Prince should not have any legal means to prevent us from distributing bootlegs. Just asking a question... ooohh whole can o worms there hun!! Prince must have obtained a performing rights license (or such like) to cover creep, radiohead would not have necessarily known this unless someone told them. As I understand it they own the songwriting and musical rights and he would have to pay to cover it live and televised. He does not own the copyright to footage taken by bystanders, however if a request was made to not film, those individuals could be in breach of the terms under which the ticket was sold. Most tickets have small print. The o2 ones for prince said no filming, photos etc so if you go ahead - you are open to action, to post on the net or distribute in any way is also in breach of those terms and therefore illegal as the material is illegal. No bootlegs should not be distributed they are copyright breach copies, they are stolen from studios etc and distributed by people who dont own them. If you record from the radio or web etc you are in breach of copyright, you are distributing illegally if you give them to friends or post on the net. This is basic copyright law as i understand it, im not a lawyer. In my opinion it is under the ticket sale terms that prince has the right to ask this footage to be removed, however i did not go. Perhaps another orger can tell us if the tix had terms like these on them. I am guessing they did as its quite normal and also coachella were already intent on filming the gig for their own use, so it stands to reason they would not want the crowd filming too. Prince also had his act filmed and photos taken for his won use as was the o2 gigs. Im not saying its right or wrong, Im undecided but I would like to know his reasons although I suspect its to do with illegal distribution via youtube etc and hes making a point. Younger bands like radiohead dont understand this and i think many young people think what the hell, lets make it all free, which is probably how its going. For radiohead its fine to promote in this way as it doesnt directly affect their sales, ... yet. Music will always be around, but STARS created by the industry and its wealth wont. I think Prince is one of the last mega stars.  Exactly how I see it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmancipationLover said: 1) The videographer is the copyright owner of the videotape. 2) Radiohead are the copyright owners of the song. 3) Isn't Prince the copyright owner of the music track, i.e. the music the way it was played on that particular occasion? The reason I'm asking is this: if you make photos of a copyrighted book, page by page, and make that available online, I'm sure that it is a copyright violation, even though you used a method (photography) which can be considered art to make it available. That means, your (somehow copyrighted) "artistic creation" contains material which is copyrighted by someone else, and unless you have permission of all parties involved copyright-wise to distribute the material, you are not allowed to do it (is that correct?). It was a different story when Prince wanted the concert photos to be taken down. He can't copyright his image, but one could argue that he holds copyright to the stage show (costumes, lights, etc.) which is displayed on the photos as well. Otherwise, normal old-school bootleg recordings should be legal as well, because you use a method which can be considered art (recording) to tape something. Should be perfectly legal, according to what you write, and Prince should not have any legal means to prevent us from distributing bootlegs. Just asking a question... You are right - vids like these will have multiple copyright holders, and any one of the copyright holders could object to the distribution of the vid. I think your analysis of the copyright holders in this case is right too - the taper has copyright in their film of the performance; Radiohead have the copyright to the song; and Prince changed the song enough to mean that he holds copyright in hs version of the song (the guitar solo is his, for example). So any of the taper, Radiohead or Prince could legitimately object to distribution of the vid (eg it being broadcast on YouTube). In answer to Syble's question about the terms of the Coachella tickets, I remember seeing on the Coachella website that recording equipment was not allowed at the festival. I don't know if this would include a cameraphone or handheld digital camera though! [Edited 6/6/08 4:38am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yes any recording device would be included.
again its not practical for them to police this and test evry phone to see if it has camera/video acpabilites. I think the assumption would be that the quality of phones is not good enough to resell as a bootleg. I dont agree with your idea that the videographer has any copyright. As a freelance specialist you are usualy hired to do a job and that job is paid for with full knowledge of the usage of the end product. If it was your film and you are the cinematographer etc then of course its yours, but when a film is made the various components are paid for ie the sound man, the lighting experts etc but the copyright remains with the producer/owner of the actual title. Many photographers now are out of pocket because you used to have to declare intended use in order to get a license to use photography you commission, however with the advent of the net anyone can copy and re-use anything - not legally but in reality its rife. The same applies to the show as a whole, princes set would have been comissioned and the light riggers etc paid to handle that, probably as part of the whole coachella thing. I doubt he brought his own lighting people, even if he did they would have been in his employ and would not own the rights to anything. walk with crooked shoes www.myspace/syblepurplelishous | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: violetblues said: Bullshit, the Star etc, are taking pictures of celebrities in public, not possting their performances on youtube. lol, and those homemade camcorder shot recent release dvd's at the swap-meet must be legit too.
check up on that will you
I see you're strong on strawman arguments and weak on facts. Let me say this AGAIN so that you can understand it. If you tape someone's performance, in order TO MAKE MONEY FROM IT, YOU NEED A RELEASE FORM. Professionally shot performances are usually the property of the label. Hand-cam/Hi8/camera phone/mini-cam shot stuff is USUALLY the property of some amateur videographer who's just a fan of an artist. Its illegal to sell bootlegs. The artist didn't sign off on them and in the case of movies, you are copying video and audio that has already been created and SELLING IT AT A SWAP MEET. See those capital letters? THAT is where the law is broken. Incidently, filming a film is considered duplication. That's different from filming live performances. It is NOT illegal to film something and give it away because...read it slowly so that you can understand it...IF YOU ARE THE VIDEOGRAPHER, ITS YOURS UNLESS ITS A WORK FOR HIRE. Why? Because video, like a drawing or a photograph, is considered ART. The author of the art is the owner, NOT THE DAMN SUBJECT OF THE ART. Its obvious you don't know jack shit about copyright laws. Please don't bother responding without facts and please READ and don't respond to things I didn't say, like you just did earlier. [Edited 6/5/08 23:59pm] Lay off your crazy rants dude, take your meds, YOU responded to ME.
lol, the issue of copyright is not as simple as you make it with your intellectually superior argument of "If the National Inquirer can take some ones pic or draw someone's picture, then it MUST be legal" It has nada to do with whether you "MAKE MONEY FROM IT" It's if you copy or reproduce it without permission. The "performance" issue, and the act of copying and reproducing someone else's material has been discussed on far headier forums than this by people who understand the law a whole lot better than me and you, and there is no clear cut black and white about this. This will all only be sorted out by another Supreme Court decision for us here in the US. This is only the start, and I applaud the likes of Prince, Metalica , MGM, Viacom and any one else who will step up and start discussions on these maters. By the way, performances are part of the scope of copyright. 17 USC 106(4). Performance rights for other parties must be negotiated and licensed, and the derivative work then falls under the control of the licensee per the terms of their agreement. Recording rights will be included in that, as using the performance to fix the work to a different medium and sharing that publicly is not a right a person will have. 17 USC 106(2,5). To say a performance cannot be copyrighted is to ignore the issue entirely. [Edited 6/6/08 9:02am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: Lay off your crazy rants dude, take your meds, YOU responded to ME.
lol, the issue of copyright is not as simple as you make it with your intellectually superior argument of "If the National Inquirer can take some ones pic or draw someone's picture, then it MUST be legal" It has nada to do with whether you "MAKE MONEY FROM IT" It's if you copy or reproduce it without permission. The "performance" issue, and the act of copying and reproducing someone else's material has been discussed on far headier forums than this by people who understand the law a whole lot better than me and you, and there is no clear cut black and white about this. This will all only be sorted out by another Supreme Court decision for us here in the US. This is only the start, and I applaud the likes of Prince, Metalica , MGM, Viacom and any one else who will step up and start discussions on these maters. By the way, performances are part of the scope of copyright. 17 USC 106(4). Performance rights for other parties must be negotiated and licensed, and the derivative work then falls under the control of the licensee per the terms of their agreement. Recording rights will be included in that, as using the performance to fix the work to a different medium and sharing that publicly is not a right a person will have. 17 USC 106(2,5). To say a performance cannot be copyrighted is to ignore the issue entirely. [Edited 6/6/08 9:02am] I never said it was "simple" and I never said a performance can't be copyrighted, you liar I have talked in-depth with people on here before about mechanical licenses, so you are full of it with yet another strawman argument. Again, you try to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Of course its not SIMPLE, I was presenting the other side of the coin. BOTH sides have been argued in court to death and there's not going to be a solution anytime soon. "I applaud Viacom" says a mouthful about where you stand, considering that ViaCON has done more to damage and steal from artists than practically any other orginazition around, aside from Vivendi and WEA. The mere fact that you are applauding the very crooks that have wrecked the music industry makes it very clear where you stand. Not to worry, you and your corporate cronies, and Metallica, and Prince are LOSING. The motivation isn't protecting artists, its trying to gain control, therefore its dishonest in nature. Artists all around are proving that the internet is a viable source of income for them without all of that lawyer waving and web sheriff bullshit. The key is what it is - GOOD PRODUCT. When you have to wave a law in order to try to control product, then your shit ain't selling. When artists like Prince start treating their work like the lawyers do, it loses its value. That's what fossils like Prince and Metallica have forgotten. The old ones always freak out when they start to realize they aren't worth what they used to be and its a huge blow to the ego. The internet is bigger than Prince, Metallica and Viacom put together. Youtube is bigger than Prince's fanbase 10 times over. When Youtube falls, there will be (actually there already are) many more to take its place. The U.S. does not own the internet and many countries will not be controlled by U.S. laws, so regardless of what our courts come up with, there's always a country willing to say "fuck your laws". So, you can call it a rant all you want but in the end, artists like Radiohead have the right idea over madmen like Prince who are losing. He better get his ass back out there and tour like everybody else if he wants to keep his lifestyle up. What'd Billy tell him? "You ain't too far gone to see that!"  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Listen Blaque, I have nothing against Google, they are at the forefront of everything internet, worth billions! I respect and admire them, especially the two young founders.
And I use too many of their products. What I admire about Prince and his stance on copyright is that he stands up for what he believes is unfair and fights the fight, even if it's unpopular, like a politician saying "vote for me and I will raise your taxes because we got to pay our bills" Nobody wants to hear that. The internet is a relatively new media, and laws need to be put in place to try and make everything as fair for all involved, or at least as fair as we can. I think we all agree that it cannot and will not be a place of chaos, and anarchy. This is just the time in the internets’ life when people like you, like prince, like MGM did like Google like ViaCon and me to air our views and protect our interests. Be cool, these are just opinions, on a music forum. Lets keep it fun and not take things too personal or ofensive, and that is a promise i will make to you my friend  [Edited 6/6/08 13:33pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: Listen Blaque, I have nothing against Google, they are at the forefront of everything internet, worth billions! I respect and admire them, especially the two young founders.
And I use too many of their products. What I admire about Prince and his stance on copyright is that he stands up for what he believes is unfair and fights the fight, even if it's unpopular, like a politician saying "vote for me and I will raise your taxes because we got to pay our bills" Nobody wants to hear that. The internet is a relatively new media, and laws need to be put in place to try and make everything as fair for all involved, or at least as fair as we can. I think we all agree that it cannot and will not be a place of chaos, and anarchy. This is just the time in the internets’ life when people like you, like prince, like MGM did like Google like ViaCon and me to air our views and protect our interests. Be cool, these are just opinions, on a music forum. Lets keep it fun and not take things too personal or ofensive, and that is a promise i will make to you my friend
[Edited 6/6/08 13:33pm] i think having laws are irrelevant. The Internet is too vast, not even Youtube has enough manpower to control the thousands, millions people uploading videos. A lot of this is still confusing to me, but I gather artists have to accept change with the new technology. If you do a live performance and someone records it without your permission and post it on the Internet, there's nothing anyone can do about it.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wonder505 said: violetblues said: Listen Blaque, I have nothing against Google, they are at the forefront of everything internet, worth billions! I respect and admire them, especially the two young founders.
And I use too many of their products. What I admire about Prince and his stance on copyright is that he stands up for what he believes is unfair and fights the fight, even if it's unpopular, like a politician saying "vote for me and I will raise your taxes because we got to pay our bills" Nobody wants to hear that. The internet is a relatively new media, and laws need to be put in place to try and make everything as fair for all involved, or at least as fair as we can. I think we all agree that it cannot and will not be a place of chaos, and anarchy. This is just the time in the internets’ life when people like you, like prince, like MGM did like Google like ViaCon and me to air our views and protect our interests. Be cool, these are just opinions, on a music forum. Lets keep it fun and not take things too personal or ofensive, and that is a promise i will make to you my friend
[Edited 6/6/08 13:33pm] i think having laws are irrelevant. The Internet is too vast, not even Youtube has enough manpower to control the thousands, millions people uploading videos. A lot of this is still confusing to me, but I gather artists have to accept change with the new technology. If you do a live performance and someone records it without your permission and post it on the Internet, there's nothing anyone can do about it. I honestly don't understand why any artist even cares in the first place. Leaving it up or taking it down, they're (the artist) not gonna make money off it either way. It's simply exposure. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: wonder505 said: i think having laws are irrelevant. The Internet is too vast, not even Youtube has enough manpower to control the thousands, millions people uploading videos. A lot of this is still confusing to me, but I gather artists have to accept change with the new technology. If you do a live performance and someone records it without your permission and post it on the Internet, there's nothing anyone can do about it. I honestly don't understand why any artist even cares in the first place. Leaving it up or taking it down, they're (the artist) not gonna make money off it either way. It's simply exposure. Exactly! As I've said before in other threads what I do like about all this is how much Prince fans become interested in music, its future etc... he gets us all fired up and caring about it. Doubt you get that on many other music forums... well maybe more now as album sales dropping but discussions of that nature have been happening with Prince fans for ages now. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: Listen Blaque, I have nothing against Google, they are at the forefront of everything internet, worth billions! I respect and admire them, especially the two young founders.
And I use too many of their products. What I admire about Prince and his stance on copyright is that he stands up for what he believes is unfair and fights the fight, even if it's unpopular, like a politician saying "vote for me and I will raise your taxes because we got to pay our bills" Nobody wants to hear that. The internet is a relatively new media, and laws need to be put in place to try and make everything as fair for all involved, or at least as fair as we can. I think we all agree that it cannot and will not be a place of chaos, and anarchy. This is just the time in the internets’ life when people like you, like prince, like MGM did like Google like ViaCon and me to air our views and protect our interests. Be cool, these are just opinions, on a music forum. Lets keep it fun and not take things too personal or ofensive, and that is a promise i will make to you my friend
[Edited 6/6/08 13:33pm] And just who would enstate and enforce these proposed "laws"? The internet is not bound to the U.S. Hell, Youtube isn't even bound to the U.S. Countries can't sit in a room and agree to be civil towards each other. What on earth makes you think that's going to happen for internet usage? Its not. If I'm in Russia and I upload a cameraphone video of a live performance I shot in the U.S. of an artist from a concert online to a Youtube-type site, there is NOTHING ANYONE IN THE U.S. CAN DO ABOUT IT. Do YOU understand why? U.S. laws don't govern Russia. You are suggesting more "laws" but realistically, what you are suggesting is that governments control the flow of content online. I wholeheartedly disagree with you and Prince, and Viacom, and Web Sheriff. Corporations want control of access and they use the government and lawyers to try to get it. You pretend not to see what's really the truth. Youtube poses no danger to artists. If the servers were free and there were no ads, the complaint about them making money would be null and void and Prince and the lawyers wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I don't disagree that Youtube shouldn't be making money off artists' performances if the artists themselves aren't, HOWEVER I don't believe the video uploaded to Youtube is nearly as big a threat as a lot of people try to claim and I don't believe that artist content alone drives Youtube. Youtube flourished because PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS had a piece of real estate on the web for expression. Online freedom. You people aren't going to "beat" the internet. Sooner or later, you're gonna have to learn to play nice with the web. The problem with control freaks is that they somehow believe they are going to conquer the web. Its not happening any time soon. You yourself in one of our previous debates actually claimed to believe that artists make significant profits from MUSIC VIDEOS. They DON'T. This is a WELL KNOWN INDUSTRY FACT. Don't believe me. PLEASE don't. Check the sales of live performance DVDs and you'll see for yourself. Then check the music video compilation DVD sales numbers. You'll then find out what everyone else already knows - ain't nobody buying that shit outside of a small percentage of an artist's fanbase. A SMALL PERCENTAGE. That holds true for Prince, too. You are fishing for EXCUSES for Prince because you are a FAN. Youtube ain't the problem. A Russian or Japanese based "Youtube" would pop up the day a law was passed in the U.S. to shut down Youtube and it would start all over again without the luxury of "Web Sheriff" type organizations that the U.S. has. The solution is simpler than people want to believe. Stop feuding with the fanbase Put a site back up and sell songs at $1 each or whatever the going rate is these days TOUR Stop trying to control what you can't control The good old days of artists being bitchy, whiny, spoiled brats are OVER and no team of lawyers can get them back. Artists HAVE to treat their fanbase with respect if they want to make money in the music business. That's just the way it is. And if you believe Prince is crusading for artists' rights, you're a fool. Prince is crusading for Prince. He could give a fuck less about what other artists want because not every artist wants what he does. New artists are embracing the internet. The reason he and people like him are losing is because they are fighting change. Change is gonna happen, like it or not. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
you know, i might agree with some of you all and i might disagree with others of you all, but the one thing i feel about EVERYBODY is they need to start acting like they have some damn manners. i have real problems believing some of you people hug your moms with the same hands you use to type out all this nastiness.
ALL TOGETHER NOW: IT'S ONLY THE INTERNET. IT'S ONLY PRINCE. IT'S ONLY YOUTUBE. IT'S ONLY MOUNTAINS. AND THE SEA. (sing that last part)  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: you know, i might agree with some of you all and i might disagree with others of you all, but the one thing i feel about EVERYBODY is they need to start acting like they have some damn manners. i have real problems believing some of you people hug your moms with the same hands you use to type out all this nastiness.
ALL TOGETHER NOW: IT'S ONLY THE INTERNET. IT'S ONLY PRINCE. IT'S ONLY YOUTUBE. IT'S ONLY MOUNTAINS. AND THE SEA. (sing that last part) But this is the internet... not reality and Prince is not watching so 
Over here everyone  everyone else. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i didn't say anything about banana sex being a problem, now did i?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: i didn't say anything about banana sex being a problem, now did i?
It's not?? Oh come on!   [Edited 6/6/08 15:57pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
.
BlaqueKnight said: And just who would enstate and enforce these proposed "laws"? The internet is not bound to the U.S. Hell, Youtube isn't even bound to the U.S. Countries can't sit in a room and agree to be civil towards each other. What on earth makes you think that's going to happen for internet usage? Its not. If I'm in Russia and I upload a cameraphone video of a live performance I shot in the U.S. of an artist from a concert online to a Youtube-type site, there is NOTHING ANYONE IN THE U.S. CAN DO ABOUT IT. Do YOU understand why? U.S. laws don't govern Russia. You are suggesting more "laws" but realistically, what you are suggesting is that governments control the flow of content online. I wholeheartedly disagree with you and Prince, and Viacom, and Web Sheriff. Corporations want control of access and they use the government and lawyers to try to get it. You pretend not to see what's really the truth. Youtube poses no danger to artists. If the servers were free and there were no ads, the complaint about them making money would be null and void and Prince and the lawyers wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I don't disagree that Youtube shouldn't be making money off artists' performances if the artists themselves aren't, HOWEVER I don't believe the video uploaded to Youtube is nearly as big a threat as a lot of people try to claim and I don't believe that artist content alone drives Youtube. Youtube flourished because PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS had a piece of real estate on the web for expression. Online freedom. You people aren't going to "beat" the internet. Sooner or later, you're gonna have to learn to play nice with the web. The problem with control freaks is that they somehow believe they are going to conquer the web. Its not happening any time soon. b]You yourself in one of our previous debates actually claimed to believe that artists make significant profits from MUSIC VIDEOS[/b]. They DON'T. This is a WELL KNOWN INDUSTRY FACT. Don't believe me. PLEASE don't. Check the sales of live performance DVDs and you'll see for yourself. Then check the music video compilation DVD sales numbers. You'll then find out what everyone else already knows - ain't nobody buying that shit outside of a small percentage of an artist's fanbase. A SMALL PERCENTAGE. That holds true for Prince, too. You are fishing for EXCUSES for Prince because you are a FAN. Youtube ain't the problem. A Russian or Japanese based "Youtube" would pop up the day a law was passed in the U.S. to shut down Youtube and it would start all over again without the luxury of "Web Sheriff" type organizations that the U.S. has. The solution is simpler than people want to believe. Stop feuding with the fanbase Put a site back up and sell songs at $1 each or whatever the going rate is these days TOUR Stop trying to control what you can't control The good old days of artists being bitchy, whiny, spoiled brats are OVER and no team of lawyers can get them back. Artists HAVE to treat their fanbase with respect if they want to make money in the music business. That's just the way it is. And if you believe Prince is crusading for artists' rights, you're a fool. Prince is crusading for Prince. He could give a fuck less about what other artists want because not every artist wants what he does. New artists are embracing the internet. The reason he and people like him are losing is because they are fighting change. Change is gonna happen, like it or not. lol,I never said the part in red above, And yes you can control the internet, The internet was created in the US and the US still governs pretty much how it runs worldwide right now. The governing body is right here in california i believe. Supposedly our government is very hands off and is involved mostly for so-called national security issues. [Edited 6/6/08 16:32pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| [Edited 6/6/08 16:41pm] "A united state of mind will never be divided
The real definition of unity is 1 People can slam their door, disagree and fight it But how U gonna love the Father but not love the Son? United States of Division"     | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Okay. Let me try to understand the rules here. So, if Prince wants to pull Jill Jones' live video performance of Mia Bocca, he can because dspite the fact that she performed it, he owns the song...BUT
if Radiohead wants the clip put back up because they own the song that he performed, he has the right to say no to them because????? Sounds to me like with some of you, its "whatever Prince says, goes" regardless. Have a nice day. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: lol,I never said the part in red above, And yes you can control the internet, The internet was created in the US and the US still governs pretty much how it runs worldwide right now. The governing body is right here in california i believe. Supposedly our government is very hands off and is involved mostly for so-called national security issues. 
And you have my apologies. That may have been someone else who said that about the music videos being viable product. If it wasn't you, I apologize for being mistaken. As to the other stuff...HA! That's too funny to even address. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: Okay. Let me try to understand the rules here. So, if Prince wants to pull Jill Jones' live video performance of Mia Bocca, he can because dspite the fact that she performed it, he owns the song...BUT
if Radiohead wants the clip put back up because they own the song that he performed, he has the right to say no to them because????? Sounds to me like with some of you, its "whatever Prince says, goes" regardless. Have a nice day. Therein lies the disconnect. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: violetblues said: lol,I never said the part in red above, And yes you can control the internet, The internet was created in the US and the US still governs pretty much how it runs worldwide right now. The governing body is right here in california i believe. Supposedly our government is very hands off and is involved mostly for so-called national security issues.
And you have my apologies. That may have been someone else who said that about the music videos being viable product. If it wasn't you, I apologize for being mistaken. As to the other stuff...HA! That's too funny to even address.
look it up, lol | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ThreadBare said: BlaqueKnight said: Okay. Let me try to understand the rules here. So, if Prince wants to pull Jill Jones' live video performance of Mia Bocca, he can because dspite the fact that she performed it, he owns the song...BUT
if Radiohead wants the clip put back up because they own the song that he performed, he has the right to say no to them because????? Sounds to me like with some of you, its "whatever Prince says, goes" regardless. Have a nice day. Therein lies the disconnect.For real. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Blaque, ok, someone orged me that the US ceded control of the internet on july 2006, ok so im 2 years behind the times lol, ...it happens.
here is part of what they sent me. In a meeting that will go down in internet history, the United States government last night conceded that it can no longer expect to maintain its position as the ultimate authority over the internet. Having been the internet's instigator and, since 1998, its voluntary taskmaster, the US government finally agreed to transition its control over not-for-profit internet overseeing organisation ICANN, making the organisation a more international body. However, assistant commerce secretary John Kneuer, the US official in charge of such matters, also made clear that the US was still determined to keep control of the net's root zone file - at least in the medium-term. "The historic role that we announced that we were going to preserve is fairly clearly articulated: the technical verification and authorisation of changes to the authoritative root," Kneuer explained following an afternoon of explicit statements from US-friendly organisations and individuals that it was no longer viable for one government to retain such power over the future of a global resource. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
^ see?
saying 'so what' really does work  I LOVE MYSELF | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: Okay. Let me try to understand the rules here. So, if Prince wants to pull Jill Jones' live video performance of Mia Bocca, he can because dspite the fact that she performed it, he owns the song...BUT
if Radiohead wants the clip put back up because they own the song that he performed, he has the right to say no to them because????? Sounds to me like with some of you, its "whatever Prince says, goes" regardless. Have a nice day. That's beautiful!!The one and only Technagirl | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think this has become the biggest overreaction to the biggest non story, maybe EVER!!!
If the video gets put back on youtube, fine. If it stays removed, who cares??? This has exactly NO effect on how I listen to Prince's music!!! This has NO effect on the way I see Prince live!!! Both sides have points, though. Prince can overreact when it comes to his image and music sometimes. But it's not like he committed mass murder or rape by removing some videos from a website!!! Bottom line is shit like this happens when Prince isn't putting out an album or announcing a tour. People here have completely run out of things to talk about!!! JERKIN' EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!!!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Paris9748430 said: I think this has become the biggest overreaction to the biggest non story, maybe EVER!!!
If the video gets put back on youtube, fine. If it stays removed, who cares??? This has exactly NO effect on how I listen to Prince's music!!! This has NO effect on the way I see Prince live!!! Both sides have points, though. Prince can overreact when it comes to his image and music sometimes. But it's not like he committed mass murder or rape by removing some videos from a website!!! Bottom line is shit like this happens when Prince isn't putting out an album or announcing a tour. People here have completely run out of things to talk about!!! Put it where it feels good!!!! surviving on the thought of loving you, it's just like the water
I ain't felt this way in years... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator
|
Anxiety said: you know, i might agree with some of you all and i might disagree with others of you all, but the one thing i feel about EVERYBODY is they need to start acting like they have some damn manners. i have real problems believing some of you people hug your moms with the same hands you use to type out all this nastiness.
ALL TOGETHER NOW: IT'S ONLY THE INTERNET. IT'S ONLY PRINCE. IT'S ONLY YOUTUBE. IT'S ONLY MOUNTAINS. AND THE SEA. (sing that last part) Exactly  
Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture! REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince "I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderatorNew topic Printable This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.