This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.
New topic 
Printable laurarichardson said: meow85 said:  ----- ...and I still can't figure out why she thinks she has a right to use the music in her video.  Um, if you'd read the article, you'd see that a federal judge just ruled that she could & why.  | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
doesnt it say universal sent the desist? not prince? where has it been said officially or unofficially that prince has been behind this? walk with crooked shoes www.myspace/syblepurplelishous | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wonder505 said: laurarichardson said: ----- "allowing the case to continue even though he has "considerable doubt" that Lenz can prove the company acted in bad faith." It appears that this ruling allows the case to move forward but I still think this chick is going to lose and I still can't figure out why she thinks she has a right to use the music in her video. i don't think its about her right to use his music, it was a short home video showcasing the cuteness of her baby dancing. it was innocent on her part. even though he is entitle to control his music, sending out some of the notices was overkill. some include amateur videos which are innocent and positive and nothing more than a fan's expression of his/her admiration for the song, yet those videos get silenced. I will always be a fan of his music, yall know i'm always for him on alot of these discussions, but its a little disheartening that Prince has to be the one caught up in this mess. i'm sure when he decides to finally speak publically on this, perhaps i can understand his true reasoning, but from an outsider trying to read his mind, i'm out of justification on some of the videos. anyway, that' my two cents on the matter.just wish we could revert back to the good times like during musicology where he had an official site, videos were up and running and everyone is having fun, instead talking about ceast and desist orders and youtube.. i'm sure it will be that way again, as we are all anxiously waiting for news on what's next.. 
[Edited 8/24/08 18:50pm] I couldn't have said it any better. I defend Prince quite often here but I honestly want something to happen that will FORCE Prince to stop silencing his music on youtube and anywhere on the web. I totally understand that it's his music but once it's released, its out there and will be out there forever. I understand that there will be times when he will need to tighten the reins on how his music is used IF it's used in a harmful manner but what's the harm in a fan, young or old, dancing or singing along to a song like Adore or Diamonds and Pearls? Like it's been said before, it's just showing appreciation Prince and his music. I'm sick and tired of always hearing about Prince fighting some company all the damn time. I just want him to be a musician and make good music. I pray to God that this is finally the beginning of the end of Prince's fight with youtube. It's got to come to an end ASAP.  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 |
Sue rage is man made..... regardless...
I dont know why he really plays with these things.... here play with this.... http://au.youtube.com/wat...ODjBjNoFNA and What ever happened to writing brand new laws..... ok... i got 30 seconds of Prince to play with.....  how sweet it will be.....
sooooo bored..... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
How does Universal own the rights 2 "Let's Go Crazy"? Did they buy the rights from Warner Brothers or something? Obviously I missed something....  Don't hate me 'cause I'm NOT beautiful | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Oh gawd...
please don't lett his turn into another... '10 pages later and they still ain't learned nuthim' threads This case has been spoken about in depth so many times, yet it amazes me to come and read a thread with so many people still mis-informed about who sued who... and what Prince's true involvement was from the start.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
viewaskew said: laurarichardson said: ----- ...and I still can't figure out why she thinks she has a right to use the music in her video. Um, if you'd read the article, you'd see that a federal judge just ruled that she could & why. ----- No, the judge ruled the case can go forward. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: viewaskew said: Um, if you'd read the article, you'd see that a federal judge just ruled that she could & why. ----- No, the judge ruled the case can go forward. "Fogel, who will next consider whether Universal's takedown order was legal, said he's allowing the case to continue even though he has "considerable doubt" that Lenz can prove the company acted in bad faith. Universal spokesman Peter Lofrumento told the Associated Press that the company remains "confident that we will prevail in this matter." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
meow85 said: 
I'm thrilled at this news. Much as a Prince fan as I am, I've been getting tired of some his behaviour lately. Good to see him knocked down a peg. It's not healthy to believe he can behave like a spoiled prince just because it's his name. ditto | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 HAAAA HAAAA Prince!! You cannot rule the world!
Everyone start posting mini clips with Prince music! Get on it!
. [Edited 8/26/08 12:02pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
viewaskew said: laurarichardson said: ----- ...and I still can't figure out why she thinks she has a right to use the music in her video. Um, if you'd read the article, you'd see that a federal judge just ruled that she could & why. Actually, that's not what the judge ruled. That isn't the question the judge was considering. Don't forget that this lawsuit was brought by Lenz: she is arguing that Universal acted in bad faith when they took her video down, because they should have known that it was fair use. Universal argued that they shouldn't be obliged to consider whether a clip is fair use before they ask for it to be taken down. The judge disagreed. This means that copyright holders will at least have to consider the issue of fair use before requesting takedowns. This could be an important precedent which will discourage copyright holders from taking down videos which are 'borderline'. But the judge still hasn't ruled on the main issue in this case, which was whether Universal did in fact act in bad faith when they took Lenz's video down (in other words, was it so obvious that the video was fair use that Universal were unjustified in requesting its removal?). He has however said that he thinks it unlikely that Lenz will win this particular argument. So the headline is rather misleading. The judge has ruled against Universal on one issue, which is possibly an important precedent. But they have not lost the case, and in fact it seems they are unlikely to do so. [Edited 8/26/08 13:15pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ZoPo5 said: That's really a shame. I hope his lawyers sharpen their claws and find a way to get at people playing with his material like this.
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
cathys said: viewaskew said: Um, if you'd read the article, you'd see that a federal judge just ruled that she could & why. Actually, that's not what the judge ruled. That isn't the question the judge was considering. Don't forget that this lawsuit was brought by Lenz: she is arguing that Universal acted in bad faith when they took her video down, because they should have known that it was fair use. Universal argued that they shouldn't be obliged to consider whether a clip is fair use before they ask for it to be taken down. The judge disagreed. This means that copyright holders will at least have to consider the issue of fair use before requesting takedowns. This could be an important precedent which will discourage copyright holders from taking down videos which are 'borderline'. But the judge still hasn't ruled on the main issue in this case, which was whether Universal did in fact act in bad faith when they took Lenz's video down (in other words, was it so obvious that the video was fair use that Universal were unjustified in requesting its removal?). He has however said that he thinks it unlikely that Lenz will win this particular argument. So the headline is rather misleading. The judge has ruled against Universal on one issue, which is possibly an important precedent. But they have not lost the case, and in fact it seems they are unlikely to do so. [Edited 8/26/08 13:15pm] Thanks for summarizing this in plain language rather than the round about legal language. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll play it first and tell you what it is later. -Miles Davis- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
cathys said: Actually, that's not what the judge ruled. That isn't the question the judge was considering.
Don't forget that this lawsuit was brought by Lenz: she is arguing that Universal acted in bad faith when they took her video down, because they should have known that it was fair use. Universal argued that they shouldn't be obliged to consider whether a clip is fair use before they ask for it to be taken down. The judge disagreed. This means that copyright holders will at least have to consider the issue of fair use before requesting takedowns. This could be an important precedent which will discourage copyright holders from taking down videos which are 'borderline'. But the judge still hasn't ruled on the main issue in this case, which was whether Universal did in fact act in bad faith when they took Lenz's video down (in other words, was it so obvious that the video was fair use that Universal were unjustified in requesting its removal?). He has however said that he thinks it unlikely that Lenz will win this particular argument. So the headline is rather misleading. The judge has ruled against Universal on one issue, which is possibly an important precedent. But they have not lost the case, and in fact it seems they are unlikely to do so. [Edited 8/26/08 13:15pm] Hmmm, based on your explanation I really can't see how Universal can win this case and I'm wondering why the judge made that comment. Lenz stated that Universal acted in bad faith, but then how can Universal argue that they didn't? if they stick with that argument that they don't have to consider fair use, i think that will end up being a weak defense. [Edited 8/26/08 14:32pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Well little big man knocked down! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Copyright holders should be held accountable when they undermine non-infringing, fair uses!!
Sheesh, everyone's afraid to do anything anymore for fear they're gonna get sued for doing what?? Anyway, here's another turn of events... Universal is now being sued by Bob Dylan and other artists for copying their (Sony) music and putting it on Universal music sites. http://prince.org/msg/8/280069 "Why can't we just dance?" STOP Prince's overzealous campaign to control all uses of any work attached to his name (even at the cost of preventing legitimate fair uses or removing the copyrighted work of other artists [Radiohead])... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
cathys said: viewaskew said: Um, if you'd read the article, you'd see that a federal judge just ruled that she could & why. Actually, that's not what the judge ruled. That isn't the question the judge was considering. Don't forget that this lawsuit was brought by Lenz: she is arguing that Universal acted in bad faith when they took her video down, because they should have known that it was fair use. Universal argued that they shouldn't be obliged to consider whether a clip is fair use before they ask for it to be taken down. The judge disagreed. This means that copyright holders will at least have to consider the issue of fair use before requesting takedowns. This could be an important precedent which will discourage copyright holders from taking down videos which are 'borderline'. But the judge still hasn't ruled on the main issue in this case, which was whether Universal did in fact act in bad faith when they took Lenz's video down (in other words, was it so obvious that the video was fair use that Universal were unjustified in requesting its removal?). He has however said that he thinks it unlikely that Lenz will win this particular argument. So the headline is rather misleading. The judge has ruled against Universal on one issue, which is possibly an important precedent. But they have not lost the case, and in fact it seems they are unlikely to do so. [Edited 8/26/08 13:15pm] You are correct....this woman is a "writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pa., and made a video of her 13-month-old son cavorting to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy" and posted the 29-second clip on YouTube" and she would have us believe she didn't know exactly what she was doing posting that on youTube. She's an editor for crap sake!! It's not like Prince or this take down issue has been under a rock, out of sight. I read a portion of her complaint talking about being fearful that someone was going to come after her....blah, blah, blah. I rather think she knew what she was doing all along.....and wagering a little publicity for herself in the bargain. I have my doubts this was all just an innocent action on her part. Just MHO mind you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieLee said: HAAAA HAAAA Prince!! You cannot rule the world!
Everyone start posting mini clips with Prince music! Get on it!
. [Edited 8/26/08 12:02pm] Good call, but some of this eejit fams would probably take it upon themselves to report us. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wonder505 said: cathys said: Actually, that's not what the judge ruled. That isn't the question the judge was considering.
Don't forget that this lawsuit was brought by Lenz: she is arguing that Universal acted in bad faith when they took her video down, because they should have known that it was fair use. Universal argued that they shouldn't be obliged to consider whether a clip is fair use before they ask for it to be taken down. The judge disagreed. This means that copyright holders will at least have to consider the issue of fair use before requesting takedowns. This could be an important precedent which will discourage copyright holders from taking down videos which are 'borderline'. But the judge still hasn't ruled on the main issue in this case, which was whether Universal did in fact act in bad faith when they took Lenz's video down (in other words, was it so obvious that the video was fair use that Universal were unjustified in requesting its removal?). He has however said that he thinks it unlikely that Lenz will win this particular argument. So the headline is rather misleading. The judge has ruled against Universal on one issue, which is possibly an important precedent. But they have not lost the case, and in fact it seems they are unlikely to do so. [Edited 8/26/08 13:15pm] Hmmm, based on your explanation I really can't see how Universal can win this case and I'm wondering why the judge made that comment. Lenz stated that Universal acted in bad faith, but then how can Universal argue that they didn't? if they stick with that argument that they don't have to consider fair use, i think that will end up being a weak defense. [Edited 8/26/08 14:32pm] Universal can argue that the takedown was not in bad faith because it was not 100% clear that the video was fair use. Fair use in copyright is a difficult thing to determine and is rarely clear-cut, so Universal have a good case here. The argument that they didn't even have to consider whether a clip was fair use was only introduced by Universal at a late stage in their appeal - it wasn't part of the arguments they used in the first round of the litigation (in which the judge found in their favour). It was, frankly, a rather bizarre argument and I don't think anyone is really surprised that it failed. I think the writer of the article has overstated the importance of the ruling to make it more newsworthy. It's a bit soon to be making such grand claims, before the final outcome is known. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Bugger all to do with me, really, but can anyone at the Org explain why an interim ruling in the appeal case is considered worthy of a headline spot when the final ruling in the first instance case was not? Wouldn't it be more sensible to wait for the final ruling before putting the case on the front page? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Gaelacha said: cathys said: Actually, that's not what the judge ruled. That isn't the question the judge was considering. Don't forget that this lawsuit was brought by Lenz: she is arguing that Universal acted in bad faith when they took her video down, because they should have known that it was fair use. Universal argued that they shouldn't be obliged to consider whether a clip is fair use before they ask for it to be taken down. The judge disagreed. This means that copyright holders will at least have to consider the issue of fair use before requesting takedowns. This could be an important precedent which will discourage copyright holders from taking down videos which are 'borderline'. But the judge still hasn't ruled on the main issue in this case, which was whether Universal did in fact act in bad faith when they took Lenz's video down (in other words, was it so obvious that the video was fair use that Universal were unjustified in requesting its removal?). He has however said that he thinks it unlikely that Lenz will win this particular argument. So the headline is rather misleading. The judge has ruled against Universal on one issue, which is possibly an important precedent. But they have not lost the case, and in fact it seems they are unlikely to do so. [Edited 8/26/08 13:15pm] You are correct....this woman is a "writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pa., and made a video of her 13-month-old son cavorting to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy" and posted the 29-second clip on YouTube" and she would have us believe she didn't know exactly what she was doing posting that on youTube. She's an editor for crap sake!! It's not like Prince or this take down issue has been under a rock, out of sight. I read a portion of her complaint talking about being fearful that someone was going to come after her....blah, blah, blah. I rather think she knew what she was doing all along.....and wagering a little publicity for herself in the bargain. I have my doubts this was all just an innocent action on her part. Just MHO mind you. You did see the video, right? Prince's music is poorly audible in the background -- it's nowhere near the focus of the video -- the kid dancing is. Who in the world would think someone would come after them for such a thing? No doubt the 29-second clip of a kid dancing to barely audible Prince music is FAIR USE. Why would she think it'd be anything but? Prince and his court need to calm their butts down. It was way out of line what they did. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
common sense always prevails!
i admire lenz 4 making her stand, but i'm wondering if her energy would be better off spent elsewhere, like on her kids? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
G0d said: ZoPo5 said: That's really a shame. I hope his lawyers sharpen their claws and find a way to get at people playing with his material like this.
Co-sign. Co-sign 4 me 2 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thank god!
Prince, are you LISTENING??? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
WELCOME TO THE DAWN | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"I knew this dude, he was very cool, he used to rule until he went to school..." (think about it)
Snap said: Just because Prince is behind it doesn't make it right. "Fair use" is part of our 1st Amendment rights, Americans. Some of you would rewrite the Constitution if ya had half a chance. Next you'll be throwing out the 10 Commandments. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
THANK GOD! Prince needs a lesson in knowing that just because you CAN do something or have the right to do it, doesn't mean you always SHOULD do it. I am convinced Beyonce's career would not be where it is, if she had dark skin. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wonder505 said: laurarichardson said: ----- "allowing the case to continue even though he has "considerable doubt" that Lenz can prove the company acted in bad faith." It appears that this ruling allows the case to move forward but I still think this chick is going to lose and I still can't figure out why she thinks she has a right to use the music in her video. i don't think its about her right to use his music, it was a short home video showcasing the cuteness of her baby dancing. it was innocent on her part. even though he is entitle to control his music, sending out some of the notices was overkill. some include amateur videos which are innocent and positive and nothing more than a fan's expression of his/her admiration for the song, yet those videos get silenced. I will always be a fan of his music, yall know i'm always for him on alot of these discussions, but its a little disheartening that Prince has to be the one caught up in this mess. i'm sure when he decides to finally speak publically on this, perhaps i can understand his true reasoning, but from an outsider trying to read his mind, i'm out of justification on some of the videos. anyway, that' my two cents on the matter...
[Edited 8/24/08 18:50pm] I'm tellin' y'all, it has to do with his ever-increasingly extreme religious beliefs... Larry Graham and his frickin' CULT has dude all fugged up. [Edited 8/27/08 12:36pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mydrawers said: carlcranshaw said: The case dates from February 2007, when Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pa., made a video of her 13-month-old son cavorting to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy" and posted the 29-second clip on YouTube. Another 'proud parent' trying to convince an uncaring online world their little "bids for immortality" are cute.  Those are the same kind of parents who buy kids from China and parade them around like the newest gadget lol.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
New topic Printable This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.