New topic
Printabletoots said: purplecam said: And that's every reason in the world why if you see something with Prince on it in youtube or anywhere else on the internet, sadly, it's so important that you DON'T post is here on the org. It WILL be gone almost as quickly as it's posted here. The Purple Police are here on the org, without a doubt.  your right purplecam it goes POOF in a matter of minutes that is why some need to  ( and yet some dont know HOW either)And it's sad too cause most people who are around these sites have to know something about what's been happening for nearly 2 years now. I wish that this wasn't happening and I'm still praying that this ban on youtube will stop but it isn't over yet. We must accept this. I'm not a fan of "old Prince". I'm not a fan of "new Prince". I'm just a fan of Prince. Simple as that | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
mehogeni said: Forgive me if I am late on this...but I'm kinda confused right now
I went on Youtube recently and I like seeing different musicians's covers of Prince songs during their live sets...well I went to see a Travis McCoy (from gym class heroes) acoustic cover of When Doves Cry...and it's muted...i thought it was that one song...but every song that mentions Prince even if another artist performed it has been muted...people are getting e-mails from Universal about their videos... everyone who has done a live performance cover of a Prince song...EVER...has basically been muted...pro and amateur i wouldn't be as pissed about this...but the only song I could find not muted from a live performance were covers of "when you were mine"...but a Prince girl cannot live on one song alone but my thing is....is he is allowed to do this, isn't this a huge double standard??..how can Prince perform covers at his concerts of various artists without their permission...oasis.....and yet he wants to mute anyone who performs covers of his songs??? 
oh well you guys...you might want to download the classic Cyndi Lauper Live "When You were Mine Cover" before it's muted FOREVER http://www.youtube.com/wa...re=related  ...why Prince...why???Maybe handy for some of you who insist on listening to a certain Prince cover: Youtube only mutes the songs referred to but if you save it on your pc you have the sound back  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: deepabove said: As much as we all like to find things on youtube, 99.9999 percent of what's up there is there illegally -- no permission from the artists, from the copyright holders, from the performers, tv series, whatever. If everyone posting videos on youtube actually followed youtube's own agreement (the one stating you can't post content unless YOU OWN THE RIGHTS TO IT), then youtube would be full of videos of people's cats. We don't really have the right to complain about or get mad at artists who remove something that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Come on. It's only a matter of time before youtube falls victim to their own greed and exploitive practices.
----- Co-sign YouTube is not going to be around too much longer if they do not cough up some cash for showing the copyright protected marterial. Since when do the laws change because of one website. deepabove, 99.9999 percent is there illegally? next time, take a look around. unsigned artists and indie acts use youtube for good reasons, and not illegally. laura, do you think YouTube should be sued for what its users do on the site? if that were the case, then i'd be surprised if anyone dared set up a community website for fear of what its users might do -- no matter they all "agreed" to its terms and services before registering on the site. how about we sue you for the illegal things people do around you because you never ran down each and every one of them to put a stop to their illegal behavior -- how dare you allow others in this world to go on sinning, you hypocrite you | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Snap said: laurarichardson said: ----- Co-sign YouTube is not going to be around too much longer if they do not cough up some cash for showing the copyright protected marterial. Since when do the laws change because of one website. deepabove, 99.9999 percent is there illegally? next time, take a look around. unsigned artists and indie acts use youtube for good reasons, and not illegally. laura, do you think YouTube should be sued for what its users do on the site? if that were the case, then i'd be surprised if anyone dared set up a community website for fear of what its users might do -- no matter they all "agreed" to its terms and services before registering on the site. how about we sue you for the illegal things people do around you because you never ran down each and every one of them to put a stop to their illegal behavior -- how dare you allow others in this world to go on sinning, you hypocrite you ----- I think YouTube should pay the appropriate fees for showing copyrighted material. All other forms of media have to pay so YOUTUBE should as well. In addtion, if I owned some copyrighted material and someone used it without my permission or payment your damm skippy I would sue them. As would many people. It is real easy to be against these copyright laws when you are not the one being ripped off. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
an interesting read 4 u....
Legislation Marilyn Bergman, President and Chairman of the Board An Urgent Message From Marilyn Bergman Copyright Royalty Board Begins Critical Mechanical Rate Hearing January 28, 2008 To All ASCAP Members, Over the years, ASCAP has worked tirelessly to convince Congress and the courts that all songwriters, composers and music publishers are entitled to fair compensation for their copyrighted musical works. As you know, ASCAP represents the performing right, a large and growing part of your compensation. But mechanical and synchronization rights are also a critical element of your livelihood. Today, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) begins a hearing that will determine mechanical rates for every songwriter and music publisher in America. It will be critical because, in addition to setting rates for physical products, rates will be set for the first time ever for digital products such as digital downloads, subscription services and ringtones. Our friends at The National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) will be representing the mechanical right interests of songwriters and music publishers in this hearing. They will be fighting vigorously to protect those mechanical right interests to ensure that musical compositions are compensated fairly. On the other side of this fight stands the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Digital Media Association (DiMA). Both the RIAA and DiMA have proposed significant reductions in mechanical royalty rates that would be disastrous for songwriters and music publishers. David Israelite, NMPA President and CEO tells us, "The current rate for physical phonorecords is 9.1 cents. The RIAA has proposed slashing the rate to approximately 6 cents a song - a cut of more than one-third the current rate! For permanent digital downloads, NMPA is proposing a rate of 15 cents per track because the costs involved are much less than for physical products. The RIAA has proposed the outrageous rate of approximately 5 to 5.5 cents per track, and DiMA is proposing even less. For interactive streaming services, which some analysts believe will be the future of the music industry, NMPA is proposing a rate of the greater of 12.5% of revenue, 27.5% of content costs, or a micro-penny calculation based on usage. The RIAA actually proposed that songwriters and music publishers should get the equivalent of .58% of revenue. And DiMA is taking the position that songwriters' and music publishers' mechanical rights should be zero, because DiMA does not believe we have any such rights!" Irwin Robinson, ASCAP Board member and Chairman of the NMPA added, "Our opponents in this hearing are proposing a rate structure which would have devastating consequences for songwriters, composers and music publishers trying to make a living, now or in the future." The initial hearing will last four weeks, followed by a rebuttal hearing in May, and a final decision expected on October 2. Among the ASCAP writer members testifying at the hearing are Rick Carnes, Phil Galdston, and Board member Stephen Paulus. And while all this is going on, ASCAP has been leading the fight for fair performance right compensation in Federal Court against DiMA members AOL, Yahoo! and RealNetworks. Our case has been heard and we expect an outcome this summer. This legislation has passed and so far...aol, yahoo and realnetworks have to pay a Minimum of $100,000,000 to artists. Youtube is next!!! 
Clearly these are perilous times for those of us that create the music that generates profit for those that use our music. But remember this, there would be no profit without our musical compositions that they are fighting to use so freely! Marilyn Bergman So 2 all u that r bitching that Prince has a personal vendetta against u for taking his works off utube and the internet, get over it... [Edited 7/16/08 20:46pm] Prince did an interview with a woman at Record World. They talked about whatever, then he asked her: "Does your pubic hair go up to your navel?" At that moment, we thought maybe we shouldn't encourage him to do interviews. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metallicjigolo said: an interesting read 4 u....
Legislation Marilyn Bergman, President and Chairman of the Board An Urgent Message From Marilyn Bergman Copyright Royalty Board Begins Critical Mechanical Rate Hearing January 28, 2008 To All ASCAP Members, Over the years, ASCAP has worked tirelessly to convince Congress and the courts that all songwriters, composers and music publishers are entitled to fair compensation for their copyrighted musical works. As you know, ASCAP represents the performing right, a large and growing part of your compensation. But mechanical and synchronization rights are also a critical element of your livelihood. Today, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) begins a hearing that will determine mechanical rates for every songwriter and music publisher in America. It will be critical because, in addition to setting rates for physical products, rates will be set for the first time ever for digital products such as digital downloads, subscription services and ringtones. Our friends at The National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) will be representing the mechanical right interests of songwriters and music publishers in this hearing. They will be fighting vigorously to protect those mechanical right interests to ensure that musical compositions are compensated fairly. On the other side of this fight stands the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Digital Media Association (DiMA). Both the RIAA and DiMA have proposed significant reductions in mechanical royalty rates that would be disastrous for songwriters and music publishers. David Israelite, NMPA President and CEO tells us, "The current rate for physical phonorecords is 9.1 cents. The RIAA has proposed slashing the rate to approximately 6 cents a song - a cut of more than one-third the current rate! For permanent digital downloads, NMPA is proposing a rate of 15 cents per track because the costs involved are much less than for physical products. The RIAA has proposed the outrageous rate of approximately 5 to 5.5 cents per track, and DiMA is proposing even less. For interactive streaming services, which some analysts believe will be the future of the music industry, NMPA is proposing a rate of the greater of 12.5% of revenue, 27.5% of content costs, or a micro-penny calculation based on usage. The RIAA actually proposed that songwriters and music publishers should get the equivalent of .58% of revenue. And DiMA is taking the position that songwriters' and music publishers' mechanical rights should be zero, because DiMA does not believe we have any such rights!" Irwin Robinson, ASCAP Board member and Chairman of the NMPA added, "Our opponents in this hearing are proposing a rate structure which would have devastating consequences for songwriters, composers and music publishers trying to make a living, now or in the future." The initial hearing will last four weeks, followed by a rebuttal hearing in May, and a final decision expected on October 2. Among the ASCAP writer members testifying at the hearing are Rick Carnes, Phil Galdston, and Board member Stephen Paulus. And while all this is going on, ASCAP has been leading the fight for fair performance right compensation in Federal Court against DiMA members AOL, Yahoo! and RealNetworks. Our case has been heard and we expect an outcome this summer. This legislation has passed and so far...aol, yahoo and realnetworks have to pay a Minimum of $100,000,000 to artists. Youtube is next!!!
Clearly these are perilous times for those of us that create the music that generates profit for those that use our music. But remember this, there would be no profit without our musical compositions that they are fighting to use so freely! Marilyn Bergman So 2 all u that r bitching that Prince has a personal vendetta against u for taking his works off utube and the internet, get over it... [Edited 7/16/08 20:46pm] ----- Thank you for posting this. I don't know how many times you can tell me it is not a attack against fans it really about fair use and compensation. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metallicjigolo said: an interesting read 4 u....
Legislation Marilyn Bergman, President and Chairman of the Board An Urgent Message From Marilyn Bergman Copyright Royalty Board Begins Critical Mechanical Rate Hearing January 28, 2008 To All ASCAP Members, Over the years, ASCAP has worked tirelessly to convince Congress and the courts that all songwriters, composers and music publishers are entitled to fair compensation for their copyrighted musical works. As you know, ASCAP represents the performing right, a large and growing part of your compensation. But mechanical and synchronization rights are also a critical element of your livelihood. Today, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) begins a hearing that will determine mechanical rates for every songwriter and music publisher in America. It will be critical because, in addition to setting rates for physical products, rates will be set for the first time ever for digital products such as digital downloads, subscription services and ringtones. Our friends at The National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) will be representing the mechanical right interests of songwriters and music publishers in this hearing. They will be fighting vigorously to protect those mechanical right interests to ensure that musical compositions are compensated fairly. On the other side of this fight stands the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Digital Media Association (DiMA). Both the RIAA and DiMA have proposed significant reductions in mechanical royalty rates that would be disastrous for songwriters and music publishers. David Israelite, NMPA President and CEO tells us, "The current rate for physical phonorecords is 9.1 cents. The RIAA has proposed slashing the rate to approximately 6 cents a song - a cut of more than one-third the current rate! For permanent digital downloads, NMPA is proposing a rate of 15 cents per track because the costs involved are much less than for physical products. The RIAA has proposed the outrageous rate of approximately 5 to 5.5 cents per track, and DiMA is proposing even less. For interactive streaming services, which some analysts believe will be the future of the music industry, NMPA is proposing a rate of the greater of 12.5% of revenue, 27.5% of content costs, or a micro-penny calculation based on usage. The RIAA actually proposed that songwriters and music publishers should get the equivalent of .58% of revenue. And DiMA is taking the position that songwriters' and music publishers' mechanical rights should be zero, because DiMA does not believe we have any such rights!" Irwin Robinson, ASCAP Board member and Chairman of the NMPA added, "Our opponents in this hearing are proposing a rate structure which would have devastating consequences for songwriters, composers and music publishers trying to make a living, now or in the future." The initial hearing will last four weeks, followed by a rebuttal hearing in May, and a final decision expected on October 2. Among the ASCAP writer members testifying at the hearing are Rick Carnes, Phil Galdston, and Board member Stephen Paulus. And while all this is going on, ASCAP has been leading the fight for fair performance right compensation in Federal Court against DiMA members AOL, Yahoo! and RealNetworks. Our case has been heard and we expect an outcome this summer. This legislation has passed and so far...aol, yahoo and realnetworks have to pay a Minimum of $100,000,000 to artists. Youtube is next!!!
Clearly these are perilous times for those of us that create the music that generates profit for those that use our music. But remember this, there would be no profit without our musical compositions that they are fighting to use so freely! Marilyn Bergman So 2 all u that r bitching that Prince has a personal vendetta against u for taking his works off utube and the internet, get over it... [Edited 7/16/08 20:46pm]  Like that article is going to make people stop bitching on the org ROFL Nice try though!  Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song 
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IGNORANCE IS BLISS Prince did an interview with a woman at Record World. They talked about whatever, then he asked her: "Does your pubic hair go up to your navel?" At that moment, we thought maybe we shouldn't encourage him to do interviews. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: Snap said: deepabove, 99.9999 percent is there illegally? next time, take a look around. unsigned artists and indie acts use youtube for good reasons, and not illegally. laura, do you think YouTube should be sued for what its users do on the site? if that were the case, then i'd be surprised if anyone dared set up a community website for fear of what its users might do -- no matter they all "agreed" to its terms and services before registering on the site. how about we sue you for the illegal things people do around you because you never ran down each and every one of them to put a stop to their illegal behavior -- how dare you allow others in this world to go on sinning, you hypocrite you ----- I think YouTube should pay the appropriate fees for showing copyrighted material. All other forms of media have to pay so YOUTUBE should as well. In addtion, if I owned some copyrighted material and someone used it without my permission or payment your damm skippy I would sue them. As would many people. It is real easy to be against these copyright laws when you are not the one being ripped off. Normally I would agree with you, however Prince covers all alot of artists live ALL THE TIME...and at that point it's not about "protecting yourself" but being an a**....He can play other people's music all the time and doesn't want to get sued/banned...yet if someone else covers his songs he mutes them and threatens them???? 
Either way...the classic Prince vs. RadioHead will show how ridiculous this guy is getting...it's like he thinks he's the music police now..but read below and this is not from some prince "hater" but a real Prince fan so no biasness going on http://stereogum.com/arch...10102.html Prince covered "Creep" at Coachella. Most folks know this. That said, it's been difficult finding reliable footage of the Purple One's take on the top of the Modern Rock 500, because Prince's NPG people are extremely thorough about removing the clips, including the one's we've tried linking. See, click on this for a real-life example. If Prince writes a song, and holds the copyright, he reserves the right to be as intense as we wants ... even if it's annoyingly draconian. Thing is, he didn't write "Creep." Radiohead did. Thom Yorke & Co. know this. Via AP: In a recent interview, Thom Yorke said he heard about Prince's performance from a text message and thought it was "hilarious." Yorke laughed when his bandmate, guitarist Ed O'Brien, said the blocking had prevented him from seeing Prince's version of their song. "Really? He's blocked it?" asked Yorke, who figured it was their song to block or not. "Surely we should block it. Hang on a moment." Yorke added: "Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song." YouTube prohibits the posting of copyrighted material. If the site receives a complaint from a copyright owner, it will in most cases remove the video(s). Whether the same could be done for a company not holding a copyright is less clear, but Yorke's argument would seem to bear some credence according to YouTube's policies. YouTube, which is owned by Google, declined to comment. Prince also did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday... When Prince performed at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in Indio, Calif., on April 26, he prohibited the standard arrangement of allowing photographers to shoot near the stage during the first three songs of his set. Instead, he had a camera crew filming his performance. You must also remember when Prince brought the "PFUnk." Adding a twist to the tale, Clapclap.org has an argument that the Purple One actually did write (or re-write) "Creep." Prince is not covering Radiohead here. He is, rather, making "Creep" a Prince song, which is to say he is bringing it within the Prince scheme of rhetoric. This is not merely an instrumental thing, nor even a stage gesture thing, though the gesturing offstage is pretty great. The particular moment it happens is at the end of the second verse. Recall: here, Thom Yorke usually says "You're so fucking special." That "fucking" is key, because it's supposed to sound snide. It's an insult. Prince, on the other hand, does not say "fucking." And not just because he doesn't swear anymore; he could have said what Thom goes with in the radio edit, which is "very." Instead, he changes the entire line, and in doing, he changes the entire meaning of the line. Prince says: "I think that you're special." ...So the fact that he changes that line then changes the line after it. When he yells "I'm a creep," it really seems like he meant to say "freak." He turns this chorus of self-loathing that even Thom Yorke was embarrassed about for a while into, well, a Prince song, a statement of sexual licentiousness. I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo, I get freaky baby, and you can get freaky with me. The weirdness that was a source of embarrassment for Yorke is, here, a source of pride. And when he changes "I don't belong here" into "we don't belong here," it turns self-consciousness into "this party is lame, let's go find something as fabulous as we are." Prince brings you in, includes you in this fantastic Prince world that he has constructed. What he's done here, then, is turn a song that regards an object of desire with debasement and disgust into a song that regards an object of desire as something to be connected with, included, freaked. It is, I think, an absolutely astounding bit of pop magic, a slight of hand so deft as to reveal itself only with a wink. Or maybe he forgot the words. Grad School is fun. Give it up for Borges. [Edited 7/17/08 19:12pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IAintTheOne said: The guy is a tool simple as that... a big whiny cry baby but yet he can cover someone else's song and those groups are touched that he did. but yet he claims the song as his.. what a twat,
the "performance" [flame snipped - June7]
A performance cannot be copyrighted.Unless the performance has creative elements which stand on their own, i.e. the arrangement, the guitar solo, the intonations chosen when singing the lyrics, etc. Of course, that would technically be a composer's copyright, but that sounds confusing, so most groups that deal with legal fan-made recordings (i.e. the Internet Archive's Live Music Archive [archive.org]) usually just refer to it as a performance copyright. Basically, what it boils down to is that Prince's performance constitutes a derivative work, and unless Radiohead is now releasing their music under a copyleft, they have no say in the matter. The most they could do is ask the fan to remove the creative elements from the derivative work that Prince owns and release whatever is left, but the result would probably be incomprehensible, assuming that such removal were even possible. (Alternatively, they could try to prove that Prince's additions to his arrangement were too minimal to justify copyright protection, but that's likely to be very difficult.) (If Radiohead's works were released under a copyleft, then Prince would have to choose between allowing fans to distribute his versions or not performing Radiohead compositions at all, but since they aren't, he doesn't.) [Edited 7/17/08 19:40pm] Prince did an interview with a woman at Record World. They talked about whatever, then he asked her: "Does your pubic hair go up to your navel?" At that moment, we thought maybe we shouldn't encourage him to do interviews. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The man really needs a new hobby. I think some of the greatest historical figures in the world are being forgotten or have been. His needs 2 take a reality test and put himself in his rightful place as a pop star. Hve no fear you will be forgotton soon enough. Jst a fly by night sentence on the internet in 20 years.he has yet 2 learn humility. live simply,love generously, care deeply,speak kindly, be loyal | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Some of mine still play!   |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
30peacessilver said: The man really needs a new hobby. I think some of the greatest historical figures in the world are being forgotten or have been. His needs 2 take a reality test and put himself in his rightful place as a pop star. Hve no fear you will be forgotton soon enough. Jst a fly by night sentence on the internet in 20 years.he has yet 2 learn humility.
Prince does not need a new hobby..it obvious that u do. Prince has paid his dues in the music industry. After 30 years in the industry having to listen to every tom dick and harry's opinion about him. i mean who made u his judge? as i recall only our maker has that right. Prince among many many others in the music, film, entertainment industry are leading the way for artist's rights. So if the little brains here can't understand or comprehend that fact..just leave it alone. Prince will never be forgotten. but your post will be as of right no..... Prince did an interview with a woman at Record World. They talked about whatever, then he asked her: "Does your pubic hair go up to your navel?" At that moment, we thought maybe we shouldn't encourage him to do interviews. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metallicjigolo said: 30peacessilver said: The man really needs a new hobby. I think some of the greatest historical figures in the world are being forgotten or have been. His needs 2 take a reality test and put himself in his rightful place as a pop star. Hve no fear you will be forgotton soon enough. Jst a fly by night sentence on the internet in 20 years.he has yet 2 learn humility.
Prince does not need a new hobby..it obvious that u do. Prince has paid his dues in the music industry. After 30 years in the industry having to listen to every tom dick and harry's opinion about him. i mean who made u his judge? as i recall only our maker has that right. Prince among many many others in the music, film, entertainment industry are leading the way for artist's rights. So if the little brains here can't understand or comprehend that fact..just leave it alone. Prince will never be forgotten. but your post will be as of right no..... we all pay our dues in life. i dont agree with you but point taken. differences of opinion lead 2 knowledge! take care live simply,love generously, care deeply,speak kindly, be loyal | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
toots said: Ever hear of being young and trying to remember exaclty what happened geesh. Lighten up will you that is why I put up the link for. try remember every little detail when your 9-12 years of age. I am saying if she bought it to put on her album then she has SOME rights to it. I'm just correcting you. That's all. I don't think that getting permission and paying for permission to do a cover of a song is the same as buying the song. She didn't buy the song. She bought a promise to not sue her for singing his song. Not defending Prince,here. I am just saying it is what it is. And we clearly see from his behavior that Prince does want to be that specific with this stuff. Prince has this misguided idea (and I truly believe this) that when he is covering someone's song he is doing them a favor and bolstering their career but when someone covers his stuff, they're taking something away from him. I don't get that. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metallicjigolo said: mehogeni said: Forgive me if I am late on this...but I'm kinda confused right now
I went on Youtube recently and I like seeing different musicians's covers of Prince songs during their live sets...well I went to see a Travis McCoy (from gym class heroes) acoustic cover of When Doves Cry...and it's muted...i thought it was that one song...but every song that mentions Prince even if another artist performed it has been muted...people are getting e-mails from Universal about their videos... everyone who has done a live performance cover of a Prince song...EVER...has basically been muted...pro and amateur i wouldn't be as pissed about this...but the only song I could find not muted from a live performance were covers of "when you were mine"...but a Prince girl cannot live on one song alone but my thing is....is he is allowed to do this, isn't this a huge double standard??..how can Prince perform covers at his concerts of various artists without their permission...oasis.....and yet he wants to mute anyone who performs covers of his songs???
oh well you guys...you might want to download the classic Cyndi Lauper Live "When You were Mine Cover" before it's muted FOREVER http://www.youtube.com/wa...re=related ...why Prince...why???Its ok honey..it seems like the Whole world lately is very confused. And thats ok considering in this life we are all "Little brains". One day you will understand why Prince has chosen to do what he has done. Until then it seems that it Is his right. Period. Like it or not, fair or not fair. i found this on the net, i dont remember where or who wrote it, but if it helps you...COOL A performance cannot be copyrighted.Unless the performance has creative elements which stand on their own, i.e. the arrangement, the guitar solo, the intonations chosen when singing the lyrics, etc. Of course, that would technically be a composer's copyright, but that sounds confusing, so most groups that deal with legal fan-made recordings (i.e. the Internet Archive's Live Music Archive [archive.org]) usually just refer to it as a performance copyright. Basically, what it boils down to is that Prince's performance constitutes a derivative work, and unless Radiohead is now releasing their music under a copyleft, they have no say in the matter. The most they could do is ask the fan to remove the creative elements from the derivative work that Prince owns and release whatever is left, but the result would probably be incomprehensible, assuming that such removal were even possible. (Alternatively, they could try to prove that Prince's additions to his arrangement were too minimal to justify copyright protection, but that's likely to be very difficult.) (If Radiohead's works were released under a copyleft, then Prince would have to choose between allowing fans to distribute his versions or not performing Radiohead compositions at all, but since they aren't, he doesn't.) 
[Edited 7/8/08 21:10pm] [Edited 7/8/08 21:14pm] OK that's all a load of shit. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: deepabove said: As much as we all like to find things on youtube, 99.9999 percent of what's up there is there illegally -- no permission from the artists, from the copyright holders, from the performers, tv series, whatever. If everyone posting videos on youtube actually followed youtube's own agreement (the one stating you can't post content unless YOU OWN THE RIGHTS TO IT), then youtube would be full of videos of people's cats. We don't really have the right to complain about or get mad at artists who remove something that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Come on. It's only a matter of time before youtube falls victim to their own greed and exploitive practices.
----- Co-sign YouTube is not going to be around too much longer if they do not cough up some cash for showing the copyright protected marterial. Since when do the laws change because of one website. Really? What aret hey waiting for then? And who is gonna get all that cash? Prince? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: Snap said: deepabove, 99.9999 percent is there illegally? next time, take a look around. unsigned artists and indie acts use youtube for good reasons, and not illegally. laura, do you think YouTube should be sued for what its users do on the site? if that were the case, then i'd be surprised if anyone dared set up a community website for fear of what its users might do -- no matter they all "agreed" to its terms and services before registering on the site. how about we sue you for the illegal things people do around you because you never ran down each and every one of them to put a stop to their illegal behavior -- how dare you allow others in this world to go on sinning, you hypocrite you ----- I think YouTube should pay the appropriate fees for showing copyrighted material. All other forms of media have to pay so YOUTUBE should as well. In addtion, if I owned some copyrighted material and someone used it without my permission or payment your damm skippy I would sue them. As would many people. It is real easy to be against these copyright laws when you are not the one being ripped off. What's the appropiate fee? What's the fee for a 30 sec video with let's go crazy on the background? I thought it was about the principle? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: metallicjigolo said: an interesting read 4 u....
Legislation Marilyn Bergman, President and Chairman of the Board An Urgent Message From Marilyn Bergman Copyright Royalty Board Begins Critical Mechanical Rate Hearing January 28, 2008 To All ASCAP Members, ----- Thank you for posting this. I don't know how many times you can tell me it is not a attack against fans it really about fair use and compensation. ASCAP is not sueing for Prince. Universal is. So that is an irrelavant message here. What about Prince using other artists songs ALL THE FUCKING TIME in his concerts? How about paying them a fee? He makes a lot of money with those concerts. The artists whose video's are posted by you tube USERS don't make a dime off it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: laurarichardson said: ----- Thank you for posting this. I don't know how many times you can tell me it is not a attack against fans it really about fair use and compensation. ASCAP is not sueing for Prince. Universal is. So that is an irrelavant message here. What about Prince using other artists songs ALL THE FUCKING TIME in his concerts? How about paying them a fee? He makes a lot of money with those concerts. The artists whose video's are posted by you tube USERS don't make a dime off it. omg..who are theese people and what planet are they from?!? its ok honey..i know you don't understand.everythings gonna be alright, it's all a bad dream  [Edited 7/20/08 9:59am] Prince did an interview with a woman at Record World. They talked about whatever, then he asked her: "Does your pubic hair go up to your navel?" At that moment, we thought maybe we shouldn't encourage him to do interviews. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alwayslate said: toots said: Ever hear of being young and trying to remember exaclty what happened geesh. Lighten up will you that is why I put up the link for. try remember every little detail when your 9-12 years of age. I am saying if she bought it to put on her album then she has SOME rights to it. I'm just correcting you. That's all. I don't think that getting permission and paying for permission to do a cover of a song is the same as buying the song. She didn't buy the song. She bought a promise to not sue her for singing his song. Not defending Prince,here. I am just saying it is what it is. And we clearly see from his behavior that Prince does want to be that specific with this stuff. Prince has this misguided idea (and I truly believe this) that when he is covering someone's song he is doing them a favor and bolstering their career but when someone covers his stuff, they're taking something away from him. I don't get that. We dont know for a fact IF she did or not that is my point, So there isnt no need for "correction" As for the second part of your post I agree 100% [Edited 7/20/08 14:13pm] Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metallicjigolo said: Tremolina said: ASCAP is not sueing for Prince. Universal is. So that is an irrelavant message here. What about Prince using other artists songs ALL THE FUCKING TIME in his concerts? How about paying them a fee? He makes a lot of money with those concerts. The artists whose video's are posted by you tube USERS don't make a dime off it. omg..who are theese people and what planet are they from?!? its ok honey..i know you don't understand.everythings gonna be alright, it's all a bad dream
 [Edited 7/20/08 14:14pm] Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metallicjigolo said: Tremolina said: ASCAP is not sueing for Prince. Universal is. So that is an irrelavant message here. What about Prince using other artists songs ALL THE FUCKING TIME in his concerts? How about paying them a fee? He makes a lot of money with those concerts. The artists whose video's are posted by you tube USERS don't make a dime off it. omg..who are theese people and what planet are they from?!? its ok honey..i know you don't understand.everythings gonna be alright, it's all a bad dream
[Edited 7/20/08 9:59am] Check my profile, I'm from "planet earth".
Now where are you from and why are you misinforming people with bullshit? "copyleft"? You don't even know what you are talking about. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: laurarichardson said: ----- Thank you for posting this. I don't know how many times you can tell me it is not a attack against fans it really about fair use and compensation. ASCAP is not sueing for Prince. Universal is. So that is an irrelavant message here. What about Prince using other artists songs ALL THE FUCKING TIME in his concerts? How about paying them a fee? He makes a lot of money with those concerts. The artists whose video's are posted by you tube USERS don't make a dime off it. ----- "What about Prince using other artists songs ALL THE FUCKING TIME in his concerts? " How about paying them a fee? " He does not have to pay them a fee for covering the song in concert. However, since the material is being broadcast on YOUTUBE fees need to be paid. It is all a legal issue. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
There are at least three separate rights at stake here, and that seems to cause some confusion.
There's the right to perform a song in a concert (where only the performer gets a financial compensation), the right to record a performance (where the compensation is negotiated with the concert promoter or a TV channel, or any other party involved), and the right to release the performance (where both the performer and composer are compensated). Nothing's stopping Prince (or anybody else) from performing a whole concert of cover songs, but once that performance gets released, all the copyright holders have the right to deny the publication of their material. This is probably the biggest reason why the recent Prince shows aren't being released... It would require a lot of negotiation and redistribution of the profits. The same principles should apply to YouTube as well. Prince (or Radiohead) has the right to block any song he has the copyright for and any illegal recordings of his performances, but if his performance at a festival has been legitimately recorded (and the copyright owner doesn't object to the song being released) there's nothing Prince can do about it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |