udo said:

You are to logical as a person to miss this point.
It doesn't matter if the number is 1 or 5000 or 100000. If he let this one slip it will be a precedent for others. I agree : It certainly can not be about the money. It must be the principle (not a surprise)

Just the fact that most people that have bought this "unauthorized" version(s) of Prince's music feel they have to justify their actions by pointing a finger at Prince says a lot.
Has anyone thought that Prince may be thinking of more than himself in these legal proceedings? Other musicians, writers.... will surely benefit from his hard work. Give the man a break!!!

metallicjigolo said:

YOU need to go read Norways laws as well, countries differ from country to country and state by state. That ASCAP rule sprolly dont comply with the ones in Norway, their rules/laws maybe different then the one here in the USA ever think about that?

As for "Prince's good name" Your still thinking Prince is a angel you are wrong. Read up a bit more there.He isnt the angel you thought he is.
[Edited 7/19/08 13:11pm]

toots said:

how old r u anyway?...13?...cause your age really shows in your posts.

Toots why does it please you so to find fault with Prince??? You aren't proving anything to anyone but yourself. This place is for the sharing of knowledge and feelings. Negative feelings can ruin everything that we all signed up for on here. Please try to express yourself in a less aggressive manner.

Madison88 said:

I hate to say this but I didnt know expressing my feelings either negative or positive was aggressive?

Im not trying to prove a thing WHO said I was??? Please get over yourself, NOONE is perfect not even Prince!
[Edited 7/20/08 1:24am]

metallicjigolo said:

No sorry but Im 34 and KNOW for a fact different countries HAVE different laws like I said read up. Prince isnt a angel PERIOD! Think about that one.

Anxiety said:

That's why he doesn't like it. He just don't wanna be loved and admired spontaneously. Even if they had involved him, he would have only given his permission under the condition that he can control the project completely, edit it, take out all the love and spontanity and then burry it in his "vault" without paying the artists a dime.

-
[Edited 7/20/08 6:58am]

spaceboy said:

What principle, what precedent?

If Norwegian law allows for this he doesn't have a leg to stand on and this is nothing but more intimidation and abuse of his "rights".

Tremolina said:

Lets face it, no matter what you think of Prince, if his lawyers believed there was no-way-in-hell you are going to enforce this, it would be dropped right now. Maybe it has been dropped.
If they thought they had some wiggle room in the laws to make their case, this is what you may get.

The money and the "obvious sincere love" is beside the point. It’s about laws, and how a person believes them to be on "his side" whichever party.
It’s up to courts to sort it all out. I think that’s part of something called civilized society governed by laws and regulations to protect its citizenry and their rights as best it knows how.There is no shame in that.

I had a cousin, who hit a 7-11 and thought it was no big deal because it was just a couple a hundred dollars, and they obviously had too much stuff anyway; I also think he said something about "obvious sincere love" of money too.
Everybody has a point of view I guess.

The courts sorted my cousin out.

[Edited 7/20/08 7:37am]

toots said:

I'll alert the media...

toots said:[quote]

metallicjigolo said:

YOU need to go read Norways laws as well, countries differ from country to country and state by state. That ASCAP rule sprolly dont comply with the ones in Norway, their rules/laws maybe different then the one here in the USA ever think about that?






here is some more info on copyright laws as they do pertain to norway.
i hope it does not confuse u 2 much honey.

U.S. Code collectionmain page faq index search





TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1101§ 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videosHow Current is This? (a) Unauthorized Acts.— Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved—
(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,
(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or
(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States, shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.
(b) Definition.— In this section, the term “traffic” has the same meaning as in section 2320 (e) of title 18.
(c) Applicability.— This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
(d) State Law Not Preempted.— Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.





hmmmmm
[Edited 7/20/08 22:22pm]
[Edited 7/20/08 22:24pm]

Fortunately US law does not (yet) apply in Norway. (Bilderberg? new world order? etc)
So if somebody can quote the relevant Norwegian law we can see how much money was paid or should have been paid.
Then we can decide upon legality, precedents, etc.


PS: Do you notice the parallels between what went on before the US went into Iraq and what is going on with Iran at this time?

What you, or anyone else, can do with a copyrighted work depends on who controls the rights in a work.

Many creative efforts cannot be published or distributed because the copyrights are entangled and the owner or owners of the work can't be determined or can't be located.

-there is alot of information that nees to be deciphered before blurting out personal feelings & coming here making judgements.

udo said:

regardless if as u say..that us law does not apply in norway.
applies if the album was recorded and sold only in norway.
it was not.
i do believe it was distributed worldwide. and in the U.S.)
[Edited 7/20/08 22:55pm]
[Edited 7/20/08 23:00pm]

udo..i do believe that u are wrong!!!

The following nations are signatories to the Berne Convention (1971 Paris
text): Argentina, Australia, Austria, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium,
Benin (formerly Dahomey), Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso (formerly Upper
Volta), Cameroon, Canada, the Central African Republic, Chad, Chile,
Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Cyprus,
Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Holy See (Vatican City), Honduras,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Lesotho,
Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar (Malagasy
Republic), Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico,
Monaco, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Pakistan,
Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, South
Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), Suriname, Sweden,
Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, the
United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire,
and Zimbabwe. According to U.S. State Department Dispatches published
since January 1992, additional nations to sign Berne include Gambia (Dec.
12, 1992), China (July 10, 1992) and Kenya (March 11, 1993).

The following nations are signatories to the Universal Copyright
Convention (1971 Paris text): Algeria, Australia, Austria, the Bahamas,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Grenada, Guinea, Hungary, Italy,
Japan, Kenya, Korea, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway,
Panama, Poland, Portugal, St. Lucia, St, Vincent and the Grenadines,
Senegal, Seychelles, Spain, Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), Sweden, Trinidad
and Tobago, the United Kingdom, the United States, Vatican City, and
Yugoslavia.

The following nations are signatories to the Universal Copyright
Convention (1952 Geneva text): Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Australia,
Austria, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia,
Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa
Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece,
Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Hungary, Iceland,
India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Laos, Lebanon,
Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico,
Monaco, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria,
Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, St. Lucia,
St, Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Spain, Sri Lanka
(formerly Ceylon), Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, the Union of the Soviet
Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela,
Yugoslavia, and Zambia.

14 pages this is going on way to long I mean some of the same things are being said over and over

"the laws dont applie"

"you need to check this and that"

that was said 12 pages ago, ppl are trying to figure this out like they are going to represent prince if this goes to court

but carry on, I know, who am I to say hw long a topic should stretch no matter how pointless it starts to seem to me

metallicjigolo said:

I only saw: U.S. Code collectionmain

No Berne convention or texts coming from that document to explain fully the relevant details.

So wrong: perhaps (I am only human), but NOT based on the document quoted.

metallicjigolo said:

By the publishers themselves?
Then all is clear, depending on what the laws say.
If it was via 'grey' import (not authorised) then it's a different issue.

violetblues said:

When you have followed Prince's internet wars for a while you would know better than that.
Prince sues people for the most frivilous stuff, not because the law is "on his side".

He sues because he wants to show people that he will do everything to control his work 100%, even in a digital world, not because he is necessarily right.

There are many European copyright laws that allow for the publishing of musical covers, as long as so-called compulsory licenses are paid. Usually therefore a copyright owner doesn't have a leg to stand on in those cases (which is why there are so many bad covers done of old songs), unless certain "moral rights" are infringed (a.o. the right to be credited as author of the song, the right not to have your work mutilated) or when the covers defame him, or are damaging to him otherwise.

--
[Edited 7/21/08 3:14am]

metallicjigolo said:

Yeah and the Berne convention allows for exceptions in case of musical covers. So what's your point?

metallicjigolo said:

So you quote US law to make your point and then you do not even quote the section that deals with musical covers?

Please stop.

On the wired website it says that C&C (the record company distributing the project) did NOT pay the compulsory license fees.

If that's the case Prince is in the right to sue them, NOT because they didn't get his prior written permission, but because they didn't pay him the legally required fees.

-
[Edited 7/21/08 9:06am]

metallicjigolo said:[quote]

toots said:

That isnt NORWAY law that you quoted tha is USA DUH! Your attitude and maturity is really starting to show with your posts. I think you need to start thinking BEFORE you start to type For someone acting like or thinking they know it all you not doing a very good job right now BTW Im not your "honey" so the love names can stop now

Here are a few links of NORWAYS LAWS (NOT USA):

http://www.redmonk.com/jg...eets-clue/
http://www.theregister.co...e_sharing/
http://www.ludvig.no/blog...r_use.html

OR type "Norway law on copyrighting music" on you google search engine and see what it comes up with.
[Edited 7/21/08 15:59pm]

Tremolina said:

You're missing my point, and yes this subject has been beat to death.

My point is, it may be frivolous to you, but he finds he wants to protect rights he believes he has, likewise the person making the tribute album wants to defend the rights he believes he has.

That’s what courts are for, to settle these issues, and decisions can be contested also.
Such is life.

And nobody on this board is so knowledgeable on the subject to make blanket statement about what is or isn’t permissible, heck a good lawyer will always tell you there is no slam dunk case, if a lawyer tells you this, you got to get another lawyer, you never know how a judge is going to decide unless you bought him.
[Edited 7/21/08 16:08pm]