Tremolina said:

-----
They have his authorization because they handle the administration of his publishing. They Universal were doing their job when they asked that the video be pulled down. This is the reason they are the administrators and this is one of their duties under the contract that is between P and Universal.

Do you think P sits around watching YOUTUBE all day deciding who to sue or not to sue? Universal wanted to be the administators of P publishing to make money.
(collect a fee) You can't make money when no one is paying for anything

I know some of you think the USA is a socialist country but the last time I looked, we were a capitalist society

laurarichardson said:

Uhm... THEY LOST THE COURT CASE. Which means they were NOT within their rights.

But hey, don't let the facts stop you in defending your precious Princey.

Oh, and how come Universal ain't taking down other vids? Could that be because PRINCE is the one who told them to do whatever it takes?

laurarichardson said:

Yes, you are a capitalist country. Universal is a capitalist country and Prince a capitalist artist. So?

And yes, like I explained here above and therefore really not need you to explain me again, Universal administers Prince's publishing, meaning they act IN HIS NAME to protect his songs and lyrics from unauthorised reproduction and publication and to collect royalties.

Can you read laurarichardson? That means: PRINCE PULLED THE BABY. It doesn't matter one ioata whether Prince expressly told Universal to do that or not, they did it IN HIS NAME usings HIS copyrights.

Now read again please, or are you so mad that you read one line and then start replying with a defense already?

I bet your next reply will be another testimony of that.

laurarichardson said:

The judge disagrees.

laurarichardson said:

No, it seems to be a case of Prince ordering them to go the extra mile.

laurarichardson said:

Yeah, that's what we've been saying. The simple fact that you need to resort to saying such dumb shit, shows how weak your defense is.

laurarichardson said:

Answer me this: how much money did Princey lose while this video was online? How much after he took it down?

Not to mention the loss of goodwill thanks to the bad publicity.

laurarichardson said:

Good lord....

Go and read up before you open your loud mouth.

IT IS WAS ALEADY RULED TO BE FAIR USE.

BartVanHemelen said:

I don't know if that was the case, so I am not suggesting that. I do know they did this in his name and on his behalf, so it doesn't matter whether he explicitly told them to or not. It could be the result of Prince's wishes however, because they had a very agressive policy and that was probably agreed upon with Prince.

"Cause and Effect"

laurarichardson said:

Laura, Tremolina is a lawyer. What are your legal credentials so that we can adjust our notes?

squirrelgrease said:

I don't care whether she is a lawyer or not. And if she wants to defend Prince that's cool too.

Just don't talk nonsense defending him. It is very annoying and so makes Prince look even worse.

--
[Edited 3/3/10 9:51am]

Tremolina said:

-----
Hey, I know what the ruling was. You need to try a reading course. I am talking about Universal's reasons for asking to take it down in the first place.

In addition, I noticed you have no comment about Universal's role as the admin so just maybe you do not know what you are talking about. This is not unusual for this subject.

I think you and many people on this board think that P sits around staring at the internet all day to see who he can sue for kicks and grins.

It is a business, Universal is trying to make money, and my guess is doing what they are contractually obligated to do.

squirrelgrease said:

--
So I need to be a lawyer to understand business.

We know that Universal is not the administator for free. We know that they asked to take it down because no money is paid for publishing on YOUTUBE and this lady did not ask to anyone's permission to use the song.

None of us know how much input P has with Universal as far as their actions are concerned. Tremolina can be a lawyer all day but he or she has no more insight into the publishing contract between Universal and Prince then anyone else.

Tremolina said:

WTF are you babbling about now. Squirrelgrease is stating you are a lawyer not me.

laurarichardson said:

This response is frightening. That someone actually believes the pulling of this video for payment and infrignement is valid is just beyond the levels of comprehension. It's so in your face black and white wrong and yet people will stretch to ridiculous levels to carress P's behind

laurarichardson said:

My god.... Listen honey, I have worked for songwriters and musicians, singers and producers, writers and novelists, painters and sculptors, software programmers and web designers, journalists, film and TV directors, editors, screen writers, actors and god knows what else. I have worked for and against (international) record companies, film and TV companies, magazine and book publishers, the largest software companies and clothing companies, the most idiotic famous people, the nastiest tabloids, the finest news papers.

Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about when I know more than you will ever know. It makes you look so bad.

As for the rest of your ranting post: No, I don't think Prince controls the internet all the time. I never said and in fact have said I do not suggest that.

READ LAURARCIHARDSON

What I do think is that Prince tells the people who work on his behalf to be very tough on anyhting resembling copyright infringement.

BartVanHemelen said:

-----
They believed they were within their rights when the asked that the footage be taken down. Per the court that was not the case. Are you implying that they should have done nothing as the admins?

They are the admins it is their job to look out for this sort of thing.

squirrelgrease said:

Not answering the question when it is posted is a different thing.
You do things off as 'nothing' but you fail to see that the whole case was threatening to eat away our (not just american$) liberties sooner or later.
Coporatism like the case shows is a huge danger and you laugh about it.
The whole american society is based on it and you don't see it.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

-----
No you’re freighting because you don’t know shit.

Universal did not do anything that other record companies and movie studios are doing. Pulling down content from the net because no one asked permission or offered to pay for anything.

The only reason people have their panties in a bunch over this is because it involves Prince. Loads of video content is being pulled off the net all the time by copyright holders.

Now the court did not find in their favor but they certainly were within their rights to object.

I am sorry you feel that property owners (or guardians of property) should not complain at all when someone either steals something or just plain uses something without permission.

No go back to you tea honey and stay out of grown folks conversations.

udo said:

Sorry. My rose-colored glasses are fogged up from the tears.

laurarichardson said:

Why do you ignore that when the court ruled it was a fair use, it means they were NOT within their rights to object and take it down!

And that when they do that in Prince's name, it is the same as Prince doing it!

How hard is that for you to grasp?

Now the only remaining question appears to be whether they knew, or should have known, it was a fair use before demanding to pull it. If they should have, but that remains to be seen, it appears the woman can probably get more damages paid.

--
[Edited 3/3/10 10:26am]

laurarichardson said:

Yes. They should have done nothing as the admins. She was not making money and was just sharing a day in her life. Prince doesn't deserve to get paid for ever second of his existence. I'm so glad he got slapped down on this. Now maybe he'll knock his crap off for good.

Tremolina said:

-----
"What I do think is that Prince tells the people who work on his behalf to be very tough on anyhting resembling copyright infringement."

So what if he does it is his property?.

If you are a lawyer that works with artist all the time don't you think they should have a say. If you don't think they should have a say I would not want you to represent me that is for sure.

"No, I don't think Prince controls the internet all the time. I never said and in fact have said I do not suggest that."

I never said you said that your post make it seem as if he is some sort of nut for looking out for his property.

You come off as defending the idea that he and Universal were wrong for doing anything in the first place and that as the admin Universal should have just stuck their thumbs in their asses and not do anything.

As a lawyer can you answer one question? Was Universal possiblity holding up their end as the administators to agressivly go after this situation.

Remember you don't have anymore insight about what they are obligated to do then I do but give me your legal opinion.

laurarichardson said:

By your logic we should be paying every artist who's music hits our ears while we dance at the club

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

-----
Well your wrong !!! It is does not matter if the lady was not making money. You see those ads on YOUTUBE well YOUTUBE is making money so the movies, T.V. shows and other content should be paid for by somebody.

I don't think P should get paid for exsisting but he should get every dime of his money for his copyrighted material just like movie studios, authors, and other copyright owners.

I believe in the end YOUTUBE will give up some money in the form of a fee or they will just continue to pull stuff down when asked to avoid all of this.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

----
No but some nightclubs do have to pay a fee. For instance if you go to a Karoke Night the establishment has to pay a fee for using the songs.

Copyright holders receive a fee when material is played on the radio, used in T.V. shows or movies.

You got to realize that there is a tremendous amount of money involved.
So you see this is not my logic it is really based on copyrights laws.

We all have a right to not like the laws but they are the laws.

laurarichardson said:

Of course I think they should have a say! Where have I ever said that I don't? My god, you make so many assumptions. Stop doing that.

Here is the thing: somebody is in his rights to defend his property when he is actually acting within the boundaries of his property rights.

The intellectual property right called COPYRIGHT is BOUNDED/LIMITED/RESTRICTED BY FAIR USE.

Fair use is statutory law that makes certain limited, non commercial uses of copyrighted works possible without infringing on copyright.

So when a use is a fair use and the copyright owner still makes that use impossible with his copyright HE IS NOT ACTING WITHIN HIS RIGHTS.

Is that clear? If not, please just say so without going into another rant. If so, great and let's move on to the rest of your post!




Well, I am sure I come off like they were wrong for asking to pull this video, because it was an OBVIOUS FAIR USE. And hence, Universal, acting on behalf of Prince, were NOT within his rights.

The video was apparantly not wrong. The woman obviously just wanted to show off her baby dancing. It wasn't about the music but about her baby. She didnt have any commercial intent, nor the intent to spread Prince's music without his consent. The use of the music further was not much and it was playing on the background. Therefore the video does not constitute a perfect copy of (parts of) the song either.

All the elements of fair use were very obviously there.





Yes, I think it's possible that Universal was only holding up to their end to agressively go after this situation.

Like I said, I think Prince tells them to be really tough on anything resembling copyright infringement. Yes, Universal is then just doing what Prince tells them to do, but that only makes Prince even more responsible for this, doesn't it?

The problem is, when you are really tough on anything resembling copyright infringement, you take a huge risk to act outside the boundaries of your rights and face liability for it.

That is what happened in this case.

Surely you wouldn't expect me, as your lawyer, to advise you to take such risks, or applaud you and be happy to defend to you when you still did?

--
[Edited 3/3/10 11:14am]

The good news in this is for consumers. The court held up and protected an obvious fair use and because it seems to be a case of copyright abuse, the road is also open for damages.

The bad news is for Prince and Universal. Not so much because they were not acting within their rights, or that the video caused them any damages, because it didn't, but because this video COULD HAVE been GOOD publicity for Prince, yet because of his "agressive" copyright/internet policy it turned into BAD publicity and high legal costs that could have been avoided, had they not been so agressive.

Will they/he have learned from this? I still highly doubt it.


--
[Edited 3/3/10 11:25am]

squirrelgrease said:

I love watching people go up against him. it makes me all tingly.

Brofie said:

Tremolina said:

I wonder if the video is stil out there somewhere.

I guess this means we could post this shit all over Prince.org (if we're just factoring in the law and not org policy of course)

TheVoid said:

it is. I just looked it up and watched it on youtube. That little baby looks like he's having a lot of fun.

laurarichardson said:

No, you are wrong. It DOES matter whether SHE was making money or not for it to be fair use, or whether she had the INTENT to. That's a crucial element of fair use laurarichardson. If you would know what you are talking about, you would know that and not say shit.

Further, if Prince doesn't like YOUTUBE making money with ads, then he should go after YOUTUBE and NOT after somebody who was completely legitimately making use of the work.

Why do you think Universal lost and faces liability for damages now? BECAUSE THEY KNOWINGLY VIOLATED HER RIGHTS. That's why and not for any other reason.

You and others who defend Prince on this one got this case all twisted. Prince's rights weren't violated, the womans rights were!

You don't read on it before you talk, most of you do not even know what you are talking about.

What a disgrace for Prince to have his "fans", fams, crazy people, whatever defend him like that.

He should be policing you guys and knock off with the agressive copyright policy. THOSE are the only things causing him damage here.

Not some baby dancing to his music. He should be proud and happy when that happens. Not take it down and threaten the baby's mother with legal action for posting a 30 second snip of that on youtube.

Why do none of you look at it like that? Why all this bitterness, why all this careless action against whatever, whenever, wherever by whomever? Why so contentious?

"Cause and Effect". You reap what you sow, karma, justice, you get what you deserve. Whatever you want to call it.

That is what happened here.

Now I am out.

-
[Edited 3/3/10 12:09pm]