Anxiety said:

Good plan!

viewaskew said:

Would truly be the best response I agree with Sammij, THIS. NEEDS. TO. HAPPEN!

viewaskew said:

By the looks of it you ain't too right either.

KidaDynamite said:

look. we're all posting on the org so i wouldn't plan on any stone casting tournaments anytime soon.

Anxiety said:

FAIR.

Anxiety said:

I'm cool!

KidaDynamite said:

Anxiety said:

Exactly... as I would be the author Marvel... could not simply take something I created..even if they owned the copyrights the subject and use it as they wished. I would maintain rights of authorship.

The only way they could do as they wished is if I submitted a work to them and they state that they will use the work any way they choose and via my submission I accept that term.

And the answer would be no. They couldn't do it. Prince still maintains rights to the performance (right of authorship).

But in both cases the copyright owner could prevent distribution of their property. The exception, however, in music which I didn't touch on is that part of the licensing which allows people to perform covers in the first place at concerts and such...usually supersedes most rights that the songs copyright holder has... and places them in the hands of the performer OR the location where the performance was done. The copyright owner gets his royalties of course.

I totally agree that it is Radioheads song,they should be able to 'unblock' it if they choose too.

LoL..Prince seems to want to do everything opposite. in the beginning he(Prince) was digital...now that so many are...he's NOT. That's the only part of sense I can make of it. But why..?..2 be different or...?????

Anxiety said:

totally

Tamera1 said:

U know its all soo funking crazy..you'd think its about the music and they could come 2 some agreement...


ahh well... n

Like I was just saying in the chat room to Tamera1:

radiohead: It's OUR song man we wrote it.

Prince: It may be your song but thats pics of me sanging it.

Radiohead: buddy it's our song put it back up.

Prince: it's my likeness I'm taking it down

Someone posted a link here of a radio Interview (over the telephone) of Thom Yorke responding to this the day after it went down.

He said something about being honored by this. He also said something self deprecating about returning the favor, but probably not being able to do any of his songs justice (don’t believe it for a second).

I disagree with Prince's digital stance in many ways, but I'm sure that his legal argument is about controlling his image, his performance, his audio.

But despite him being a total miss in my opinion on this issue, "Creep" is one of my favorite live musical moments ever, from any artist.

He did what the greatest do with covers, he made it entirely his own. He can't sing from my perspective or from Thom Yorke's teenage angst. But he can sing passionately about those things which bring him passion.

And artists should be able to that with anything, not just with songs that happen to jive with their current feelings. If that’s offensive to some, so be it. But every time you put something out in the ether you introduce this strong possibility.

Great cover songs to me manage to both honor the original creator and cast a totally new light on the matter.

If you want sound-alike covers, he released at least 2 of them on "Emancipation". While it’s amazing that one man can almost sound like The Stylistics and The Delfonics, I would much rather have a reason to listen to more than just the original.

And this and many other of Prince’s stances of the last 10 or 15 years no doubt separates him from some who fell in love with him partly because -- besides the incredible music -- his message/beliefs were more closely aligned to their own universe of cool.

Prince is a whole lot different than me in countless ways, but I want to hear someone else's view; something that is capable of moving them. I already know what my soul sounds like.

And everyone that doesn’t agree with me I don’t consider a complete asshole.

Now hum that to some public domain melody.

*** screw my editor 7 ways ***
[Edited 5/30/08 17:53pm]

Ifsixwuz9 said:

Jesus what a fulltime rimmer...
How do you ever manage to get the taste of princes asshole off of your tongue, sycophant! You must have to wipe the brown from your paisley-tinted glasses

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next few years.
When Prince first started his war with Warner Bros. in particular and record companies in general, he was taking an unpopular stance and he was pretty much alone in his fight. He was eventually proven right about the changing way music was distributed and was one of the front runners of distributing his own music his way. Although he made mistakes along the way, he was definitely one of the early few who paved the way for artists to distribute their music directly to the fans without big corporations.
Now, he's battling for control of his image and it seems to be hurting him in the short run. But Prince is a long run type of guy. All the name calling and put downs didn't deter him through the whole symbol era, or basically thoughout his career, so it's doubtful it's gonna do much now. I guess being bussed to an all white school and being called some of the most horrible names in the book when you're a kid toughens up the skin a bit.
But it will be interesting to see, in the coming years, if he was right to put up such a fight for control of his image or all wrong.
Personally, I was hoping to see Prince's performance of Creep on the Coachella DVD since most of the clips I saw on Youtube and elsewhere were subpar at best. A clear, crisp view and sound of an awesome performance would be phenomenal.

luv4u said:

That sounds about right.

I dont understand everyone making a large issue of this.

Many artists have covered Prince songs, without anyone owning the copyright. But had it played, not 'ceased'.

Sam 8)

SilverlakePhil said:

Take cover...The Fans r revolting..... again!!
[Edited 5/30/08 18:22pm]

BigDaddyHQ said:

This is all well and good but I have to agree with Riverpoet, (there's a first)

More and more I'm appreciating those artists who can deliver great AND hassle free entertainment experiences. Maybe I'm just getting old but I'm less inclined these days to patronize an artist if I feel I have to have a law degree or carry a miranda card around with me just to do so.

Legal standing aside, it's a bit of a turnoff for those of us hoping to hear news of fresh music or, (gasp!), a tour maybe?

It gets to the point where it ain't worth the bother.

babynoz said:

i'm not sure if BigDaddyHQ was saying that what prince is doing is "right" (morally, asthetically, logically, etc.), but i think what he's trying to get at is that what prince is doing is perfectly legal and permissible, whether we like it or not.

i agree about the no/low hassle approach to making art. look at shakespeare. you can't get more public domain than him, and he still seems to be doing okay for himself, hundreds of years after he croaked!

Anxiety said:

yep yep

Just because he has rights... doesn't make him right. It is very frustrating to have to wade through legal hassles just to enjoy the muzik.

Prince is the new Bush.

Every year he fucks up BIG-TIME with 3 or 4 INSANE decisions -- Yet he still has supporters that choose not to see him for the clueless egoist he seems to be.

Ifsixwuz9 said:

There are 2 copyright owners as far as I can see and neither of them are Prince.
1 - The individual who shot the footage, owns their film.
2 - Radiohead owns the song.

You can't copyright a public performance, it doesn't even make sense.
It would be different if the footage being posted on youtube was commissioned by Prince ie. it was shot by his film crew which he paid for. Prince would own that footage and people would need his permission before distributing it.
Filming at the concert may have been prohibited, but that doesn't mean that the performing artist has rights over someone elses footage out of the clear blue sky! (unless they wrote the song )
[Edited 5/30/08 20:22pm]

BigDaddyHQ said:

I get exactly what you were saying my Saggitarian friend, and I see that you get what I'm saying too...enough already with the legalities.

Anxiety said:

I understand perfectly sugar, It's just that I'm not willing to put an attorney on retainer just to enjoy some music.

babynoz said:

oh, i agree. i think a lot of people in this thread think prince has no LEGAL right to do what he's doing, and the "inconvenient truth" that's being offered is that he has every right to be as much of a schmuck as he wants in this case.

oh well.

i listen to "in rainbows" all the time.

i've listened to "planet earth" maybe 3 or 4 times all the way through.

i don't know what this has to do with anything, but prince!

I'd love to be his lawyer, he wouldnt have to pay me,

I'd just say

Hey

So what?

Anxiety said:

same, only i've never listened to Planet Earth once all the way through...
it just kinda sits there, it's a nice coaster... all shiny n shit

Orange123 said:

man he'd kill you
c.o.d. would be a cuban boot heel puncture wound to the jugular.

sammij said:

Ah, yes...we did get Planet Earth didn't we,