squirrelgrease said:

Should we tell them the video wasn't taken down by WB? I assumed the title would make that clear seeing as the company that removed it is named, but hey, sometimes you gotta go the extra mile.

Did you know Universal was repping Prince and his back catalog?

Mars23 said:

WB still owns the music, not the publishing which is now owned by Universal Publishing which is in partnership with WB publishing, what im saying is that Prince can take down NPG shit, but as far as anything old that he does not own the masters too, he has no overall say in the matter, whether it WB pulling down a-ha "made fan videos" or Madonna's stuff from WB, or all the way up to a Video Model CJ Gibson who danced on stage to a Ying Yang Twins song, so she posted the dance clip and it got removed by Universal, trust me the dudes in Ying Yang are too freaking high to know what gets posted, and Prince is way overstated on this forum as far as ownership to old material, my guess is that most of the forum still thinks Prince got that 125 million back in 1992 when he resigned with WB.

lastdecember said:

For crying out loud...

Universal does not "own" Prince's publishing rights. Prince owns his publishing rights, Universal administers them. This means they act in his name when they collect royalties and prohibit the use of his songs and lyrics, for example on youtube. AND THAT MEANS: Universal pulling the Let's go crazy baby = Prince pulling the Let's go crazy baby.

Warner Brothers records had NOTHING to do with this, nor did NPG records. WB only owns the recording of Let's go crazy, but did not request to have it pulled and therefore were not sued either. NPG records only owns Prince's recordings post WB and therefore is not involved either.

So MY guess is you don't know what you are talking about either.

--
[Edited 3/2/10 14:33pm]

lastdecember said:

For crying out loud...

Universal does not "own" Prince's publishing rights. Prince owns his publishing rights, Universal administers them. This means they act in his name when they collect royalties and prohibit the use of his songs and lyrics, for example on youtube. AND THAT MEANS: Universal pulling the Let's go crazy baby = Prince pulling the Let's go crazy baby.

Warner Brothers records had NOTHING to do with this, nor did NPG records. WB only owns the recording of Let's go crazy, but did not request to have it pulled and therefore were not sued either. NPG records only owns Prince's recordings post WB and therefore is not involved either.

So MY guess is you don't know what you are talking about either.

--
[Edited 3/2/10 14:33pm]

garganta said:

OMG where did u get that? R there any others?

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

squirrelgrease said:

I'm not surprised that you would see this as a loss for Prince. I guess you now think Prince owns and controls Universal Music? Now that is interesting. But again I'm not at all suprised considering previous posts left here by you. Maybe you just like to see yourself type "Prince" and "losing" in the same sentence...over...and over again. Prince didn't lose a thing, thank goodness. Very curious you would see it that way...very curious indeed.

Mars23 said:

WB still owns the music, not the publishing which is now owned by Universal Publishing which is in partnership with WB publishing

, what im saying is that Prince can take down NPG shit, but as far as anything old that he does not own the masters too, he has no overall say in the matter,

toy4him said:

Sweet fuckery, I seriously worry about some of you lot.

Tremolina said:

No one said NPG had anything to do with it, it was said that he owns his NPG stuff and has had that pulled, Prince is not the "brain" behind pulling these things down, U all make it seem that NO ONE GETS PULLED BUT PRINCE.

Prince owns his publsihing but also WB and Universal have interest in it plain and simple

For the record owning your publishing still aint shit, tons of artists do and it all does get you is pay for play, and say in when or where your music can be used but in most cases its just pay for play.

squirrelgrease said:

If you think that fair use is destructing capitalism you appear to be ignoring the effects that take place during the so called 'cri$i$' where the system really is destructed and milked by the olicharchs where they can.
Are you part of the sheeple that can't discern a bankster?
Are you unable to discern socialism when it hits you in the face and drives the country towards total failure?
Etc.

I'm actually crying, I'm laughing so hard. I say some absurd shit like "I think I speak for everyone..." and it gets taken seriously?

Note to self: Be more proactively obvious in my rudimentary attempts at supercilious cynicism - and use less of these 25-cent words.

squirrelgrease said:

I think I speak for everyone when I say that 99.9% of your posts are spot-on brilliant.



But P.S. Please work on those shitty .01% of posts. Thanks.

squirrelgrease said:

I think I speak for everyone when I say that 99.9% of your posts are spot-on brilliant.



But P.S. Please work on those shitty .01% of posts. Thanks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200QZ20100301?type=technologyNews

Cute baby video wins battle against music label
Eriq Gardner
Mon Mar 1, 2010 8:48am EST

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - How much should a copyright owner pay for improperly telling a website to remove content?

Stephanie Lenz got into trouble with Universal Music Group in 2007 after she posted a YouTube video of her toddler dancing to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy." The label fired off a letter demanding removal of the clip and YouTube complied.

Lenz then teamed with online free-speech advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation to get a judge to declare that her video was a "fair use" of the song. She then sought damages against Universal, the world's biggest record company, for sending a meritless takedown request.

Universal fought back by raising affirmative defenses that Lenz had bad faith and unclean hands in pursuing damages. Now a California district court judge has rejected those arguments, granting partial summary judgment to Lenz and paving the way for Lenz to collect attorneys fees.

The case is important because it raises the question of whether a media company can be held liable for pursuing a takedown without a full consideration of fair use. The decision by the court last Thursday is very technical and examines damage claims under a statutory code that deals with liability when misrepresentations are made about infringing works online.

A preliminary read on the decision indicates that Lenz can recover legal fees associated with fighting the takedown, but not necessarily fees connected with the cost of pursuing Universal for damages in follow-up litigation. To really sock it to Universal, Lenz would have to make a claim under a code that awards fees at the court's discretion. To do that, she will likely need to show that Universal knowingly misrepresented its initial claim.

Tremolina said:

No one said NPG had anything to do with it, it was said that he owns his NPG stuff and has had that pulled, Prince is not the "brain" behind pulling these things down, U all make it seem that NO ONE GETS PULLED BUT PRINCE. Are u fucking serious, would u look around, i can find 10 links without even trying that have been pulled and they have nothing to do with the artist. Prince owns his publsihing but also WB and Universal have interest in it plain and simple, WB owns the masters to all his stuff not on NPG or his side one album deals, and yes they do pull shit WMG is constantly pulling stuff. Just like when you check these sites for "downloads" and they are removed due to copyright, do you honestly think that is the artist doing that? Once again Prince's power is WAY WAY over estimated on this forum.

For the record owning your publishing still aint shit, tons of artists do and it all does get you is pay for play, and say in when or where your music can be used but in most cases its just pay for play.

Tremolina said:

Wasn't Web Sherriff in on this?

mitchturb said:

-----
Please see the actual headline.

Cute baby video wins battle against music label
No where is P listed as the person suing anyone !!!! but don't let the facts stop you !!!

lastdecember said:

For crying out loud...

Universal does not "own" Prince's publishing rights. Prince owns his publishing rights, Universal administers them. This means they act in his name when they collect royalties and prohibit the use of his songs and lyrics, for example on youtube. AND THAT MEANS: Universal pulling the Let's go crazy baby = Prince pulling the Let's go crazy baby.

Warner Brothers records had NOTHING to do with this, nor did NPG records. WB only owns the recording of Let's go crazy, but did not request to have it pulled and therefore were not sued either. NPG records only owns Prince's recordings post WB and therefore is not involved either.

So MY guess is you don't know what you are talking about either.

--
[Edited 3/2/10 14:33pm]