Why cant people just STOP suing each other. Some of this is petty stuff. MJ never sued his fans. He was very generous. People angry at Prince are getting back at him with this crap. There are TWO sides to EVERY tale and I can see the
fans side and Prince's side. There has to be a middle ground here and all this nonsense that really dont pertain to harmful action to the other should cease.

As for the topic at hand, I think the mom should get compensated [legal fees] for having to fight to get the video back on YouTube, esp since YouTube only took it down b/c it was big bad Universal/Prince saying to do it.
--- The radio was on, the kid was dancing, she taped it and posted for friends/family to see. Big whoop.. It's not like she was charging ppl to view the video or for downloads of the song.
Other than that, no.. I mean, it's not she went thru [real] pain and suffering b/c of it (I'm guessing... )

Positivity
johnart loves you honey, breathe.
Don't be lettin some dumb shit bother you.

that cartoon is fucking racist Prince is not that skin color, his lower lip is much thinner, his nose is not so negroid. Also Prince has a beautiful profile (look at the cover of The Hits/The B Sides 3-cd set) he has a good chin, that cartoon needs a chin implant. That cartoon looks like a 100% black dude not a multiracial man like Prince, i think they matched Michael Jackson's 1982 skin color.
[Edited 3/1/10 19:47pm]

I cannot even begin to imagine how shitty a song he's going to inflict on us as a result of this.

Go baby go....

I cannot even begin to imagine how shitty a song he's going to inflict on us as a result of this.

that cartoon is fucking racist Prince is not that skin color, his lower lip is much thinner, his nose is not so negroid. Also Prince has a beautiful profile (look at the cover of The Hits/The B Sides 3-cd set) he has a good chin, that cartoon needs a chin implant. That cartoon looks like a 100% black dude not a multiracial man like Prince, i think they matched Michael Jackson's 1982 skin color.
[Edited 3/1/10 19:47pm]

Why cant people just STOP suing each other. Some of this is petty stuff. MJ never sued his fans. He was very generous. People angry at Prince are getting back at him with this crap. There are TWO sides to EVERY tale and I can see the
fans side and Prince's side. There has to be a middle ground here and all this nonsense that really dont pertain to harmful action to the other should cease.

Gonzalo1979 said:

Funny - this post is more racist than the cartoon...

Gonzalo1979 said:

a) That animated gif - like Prince - hardly has any color, so, I don't see a problem here
Color (or lack thereof) and "race" are not the same thing. Not that any of that should matter in the 21st freakin' century... but, until all the azzholes die off, I guess we're still stuck with that mentality.
- As for Prince's skin color... the dude does tan. Ever see the cover of 1979's "Prince" ? Held an original in your hand; not viewing a lightened reissue or image of it on the 'net? My mom has the 8-Track tape of that album (she won't give it to me ), and he's darker on that cover than in the animated piece -!
Seen the Te Amo Corazon video/pix? Dude looked like he got a little color while shooting that one in Morocco (which is in Africa).

b) FYI: just b/c a person has a darker complexion, it doesn't mean that they're not mixed; there's no set color chart or fractions equation or whatever in the gene pool. And, MJ's heritage isn't 100% black; Choctaw on his father's side, and Cherokee on his mother's (and, from LaToya's lack of color, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody white was in their family tree, too)
- but low blow on the color thing with MJ anyway.. I don't suppose you know anybody suffering with the autoimmune disease of Vitiligo? (it is true he had Vitiligo-- and on top of that, he also had Lupus; both are listed in the autopsy report)

c) That animated gif is from a cartoon caricature. Faces/bodies are ALWAYS exaggerated in caricatures.
Noun: exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics.
http://lobaton.wordpress....20/sexy-mf Is he the wrong color here, too?
Careful how you answer now; don't wanna offend any Smurfs or Na'vi.

d) "his lower lip is much thinner, his nose is not so negroid." You know what you're implying here, right? The more negroid the features, the less [beautiful]... ?
Wait... Negroid? Really? What decade/century is this again?
- And when you speak about Asian folks, do you use 'Mongoloid' ?

e) What in the world is a "good chin" ... is that like having "good hair" -?

f) "that cartoon is fucking racist"
You obviously don't know what 'racist' is.... Or do you?

g) Thank you for reminding me why I hardly come here.

garganta said:

That gif has always made me laugh. I see you copied it from when I posted it on a different thread.

Please. He's black.

Prince is a black man. You guys need to get the fuck over it.

FYI, Prince is African American

On a side note this has nothing to do with Prince, WB pulls down everything associated with its acts depending on what is being done with the music. Case in point an a-ha fan made a tribute video for them and their 25th anniversary tour and used a track from their second album called "Soft Rains of April" and posted it on YouTUbe the video lasted about a month and is now been removed by WB music, the band had NOTHING to do with removing it , and PRINCE had nothing to do with this either, no control.

that cartoon is fucking racist Prince is not that skin color, his lower lip is much thinner, his nose is not so negroid. Also Prince has a beautiful profile (look at the cover of The Hits/The B Sides 3-cd set) he has a good chin, that cartoon needs a chin implant. That cartoon looks like a 100% black dude not a multiracial man like Prince, i think they matched Michael Jackson's 1982 skin color.
[Edited 3/1/10 19:47pm]

I think I'll post a video of my dog puking to "Elixir". I fear if I put that disc in, I may join him though.

this sets a bad precedent for all musicians. The problem the average person doesn't get is that every time a song is played is when the musician (supposedly) gets paid, BMI and ASCAP aren't exactly the best about keeping track though. That goes for any forum. Radio, television, internet radio, movies (depending upon the license deal), etc. This opens the door for a company to make whatever goofy ad using whatever song. Do it with really cheap quality, put it up as a personal video for some made up name, and ta-da: commercial use for free. The video can be subtle product placement. People all sitting around a beachside bonfire drinking Bud Light listening to whatever song, all wearing American Eagle, with a Jeep ever-present in the background. If somebody puts it up as a personal video and claims that it's just them hanging out with their friends and they just happen to work for any one of those three companies ... then that song could be deemed fair use and that song now is a promotional piece for all three.
All that's needed now is some self-righteous judge who wants to make a point or stick it to the "Over-paid celebrity" and anything can be deemed fair use now. It's a step away from claiming that Blaire listening to a song on her iPod in Gossip Girl is fair use because they aren't using the song to advertise or promote anything, she's just listening to it ... the slippery slope has begun.
It might seem trivial to the average man, but as a musician and producer it's a very bad precedent indeed.

Back to the topic at hand...

This is very unsettling to say the least. Prince losing this case sets a precedent now for absolute anarchy and the destruction of capitalism. I think I speak for everyone when I say that 99.9% of all illegal music downloads come from low-resolution, minimum bit-rate rips of background music while parents talk and babies giggle on an uploaded YouTube video.

squirrelgrease said:

You're absolutely right !!!!!

It seem that a person can only protect his music just by make none at all

That is a sad thing

this decision has far-reaching implications,
not only for prince but all musicians

on the 1 hand, we can perceive this as prince
the scrooge loosing a battle

yet on the other, the extent to which artists
control or have a say over the works has
been been infringed upon

according to this judgement, if i am not wrong,
from now any ole tom dick or harry can create
videos for what ever purpose "in the name of
fun"

and the original creator will not have much
say

*forgive my lack of legal knowledge

squirrelgrease said:

You're absolutely right !!!!!

It seem that a person can only protect his music just by make none at all

That is a sad thing