2 mini articles....

http://www.nerve.com/news...ome-videos

Notorious control freak/undeniable genius Prince just told George Lopez that he wishes copyright law would prevent other musicians from covering his songs. (This via The AV Club; we forgot to DVR yesterday's Lopez Tonight somehow.)

This, of course, is a guy who successfully sued a toddler to remove a YouTube video of the kid dancing to "Let's Go Crazy." And, as Sean O'Neal at The AV Club points out, Prince covers others people's stuff constantly, often in virtuosic medleys of several at a time. His 2007 Super Bowl performance, for example, included snippets of "Proud Mary," "All Along the Watchtower," and the Foo Fighters' "Best of You." (This last was supposedly a bizarre act of revenge against the Foo Fighters for themselves covering "Darling Nikki" without his permission; apparently Dave Grohl was for some r... delighted to have one of the greatest performers of all time cover his song in front of ninety-million viewers, so that dish may not have been served as cold as Chef Prince was hoping.)

Anyway, Prince often feels that rules should apply to everyone except Prince, but it's a good thing he's not really in charge on this one, because we'd lose some awesome covers, like these three:

http://www.digitalspy.co....lawed.html

Prince is way too much of a control freak.

Llanishenlad said:

Anyway, Prince often feels that rules should apply to everyone except Prince...

^

On the second link it says:

Prince has said that he wants the law changed so other musicians cannot cover his songs.

Yeah, ok.

[Edited 4/23/11 8:20am]

The same as always: do what I say, not what I do.

What a cheeky cunt!

April fools was 3 weeks ago...he must be joking, right?

The assertion is extremely bold if we take into account that he's always thrown in some covers but PRECISELY AS OF LATE, the fans are absolutely mad at the GREAT AMOUNT of covers he plays.

Hypocrisy comes for free...

Prince's Law

I cover Prince songs, He's never bothered me so he can't be that bad. The songs are there for all to see on my pages. Or maybe I'm just too insignificant.

[Edited 4/23/11 11:26am]

The title is wrong, he doesn't want covers outlawed, he wants them to require prior approval from the songwriter. His point is that you can't "cover" a book (i.e. make a movie out of it) or "cover" a movie (i.e. remake it) without permission. You do pay royalties when in all of these cases, so that part of it is irrelevant.

And I don't believe he's even talking about singing someone else's song in a concert, but rather about making a new studio version of it. The videos listed in this thread are only relevant towards his argument if he made those without first asking.

alandail said:

The title is wrong, he doesn't want covers outlawed, he wants them to require prior approval from the songwriter. His point is that you can't "cover" a book (i.e. make a movie out of it) or "cover" a movie (i.e. remake it) without permission. You do pay royalties when in all of these cases, so that part of it is irrelevant.

And I don't believe he's even talking about singing someone else's song in a concert, but rather about making a new studio version of it. The videos listed in this thread are only relevant towards his argument if he made those without first asking.

OMG. Logic!

Finally!

lol silly :B

also, some of you never learn, he says a lot of things for effect.

alandail said:

The title is wrong, he doesn't want covers outlawed, he wants them to require prior approval from the songwriter. His point is that you can't "cover" a book (i.e. make a movie out of it) or "cover" a movie (i.e. remake it) without permission. You do pay royalties when in all of these cases, so that part of it is irrelevant.

And I don't believe he's even talking about singing someone else's song in a concert, but rather about making a new studio version of it. The videos listed in this thread are only relevant towards his argument if he made those without first asking.

Exactly. It's funny how what the writer stated has been immediately misinterpreted in that article. Guess somebody needed a story to write or feed to those who live for gossip and others' misery. We live in a microwave society, where many people will fall for whatever is in print, and so it doesn't surprise me that many would not take the time to research what was actually stated in that interview but rather misinterpret it the way they want it to be read. What else is new?

[Edited 4/23/11 12:02pm]

alandail said:

The title is wrong, he doesn't want covers outlawed, he wants them to require prior approval from the songwriter. His point is that you can't "cover" a book (i.e. make a movie out of it) or "cover" a movie (i.e. remake it) without permission. You do pay royalties when in all of these cases, so that part of it is irrelevant.

And I don't believe he's even talking about singing someone else's song in a concert, but rather about making a new studio version of it. The videos listed in this thread are only relevant towards his argument if he made those without first asking.

Oh please!

1. There's the compulsory license provision in the Copyright law.

In order to take advantage of this compulsory license the recording artist must provide notice and pay a royalty. The notice must be sent to the copyright owner, or if unable to determine the copyright owner, to the Copyright Office, within thirty days of making the recording, but before distributing physical copies.

Failure to provide this notice would constitute copyright infringement. In addition to the notice to the copyright owner, the recording artist must pay a royalty to the copyright owner. This royalty is set by three copyright royalty judges.

2. Do you honestly think Mr. Sue Happy Prince would have let someone else record one of his songs, without his permission and he DID NOT SUE?

Yeah, that's not what he said at all.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

alandail said:

The title is wrong, he doesn't want covers outlawed, he wants them to require prior approval from the songwriter. His point is that you can't "cover" a book (i.e. make a movie out of it) or "cover" a movie (i.e. remake it) without permission. You do pay royalties when in all of these cases, so that part of it is irrelevant.

And I don't believe he's even talking about singing someone else's song in a concert, but rather about making a new studio version of it. The videos listed in this thread are only relevant towards his argument if he made those without first asking.

Oh please!

1. There's the compulsory license provision in the Copyright law.

In order to take advantage of this compulsory license the recording artist must provide notice and pay a royalty. The notice must be sent to the copyright owner, or if unable to determine the copyright owner, to the Copyright Office, within thirty days of making the recording, but before distributing physical copies.

Failure to provide this notice would constitute copyright infringement. In addition to the notice to the copyright owner, the recording artist must pay a royalty to the copyright owner. This royalty is set by three copyright royalty judges.

2. Do you honestly think Mr. Sue Happy Prince would have let someone else record one of his songs, without his permission and he DID NOT SUE?

you have to pay royalties and notify, but I don't see anywhere where the copyright owner can decline permission. The law you quoted says he can't say no and he can't sue.

Go listen to the many hideous covers of Purple Rain on iTunes. Do you think Prince gave the okay to those? As long as they give notice and pay the royalties, he doesn't have a choice. The law you quote is the very law he's complaining about.

Books don't work this way

Movies don't work this way

Television shows don't work this way

Comics don't work this way

Paintings don't work this way

Only in "nondramatic musical compositions" are you permitted to make a copy of someone else's art as long as you pay the pre-set royalties. Prince is saying that the artists should have more control than that. That Prince should be able to tell LeAnn Rimes he doesn't want a country version of Purple Rain if he wants to.

A random singer can't remake the movie Purple Rain because of copyright law, but they can remake the entire soundtrack album because of the exception you referenced that Prince complained about.

[Edited 4/23/11 13:25pm]

people love 2 half liseten 2 what prince says and then judge him

Nowhere in his statements did he even say that.

alandail said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

2. Do you honestly think Mr. Sue Happy Prince would have let someone else record one of his songs, without his permission and he DID NOT SUE?

you have to pay royalties and notify, but I don't see anywhere where the copyright owner can decline permission. The law you quoted says he can't say no and he can't sue.

Go listen to the many hideous covers of Purple Rain on iTunes. Do you think Prince gave the okay to those? As long as they give notice and pay the royalties, he doesn't have a choice. The law you quote is the very law he's complaining about.

Books don't work this way

Movies don't work this way

Television shows don't work this way

Comics don't work this way

Paintings don't work this way

Only in "nondramatic musical compositions" are you permitted to make a copy of someone else's art as long as you pay the pre-set royalties. Prince is saying that the artists should have more control than that. That Prince should be able to tell LeAnn Rimes he doesn't want a country version of Purple Rain if he wants to.

A random singer can't remake the movie Purple Rain because of copyright law, but they can remake the entire soundtrack album because of the exception you referenced that Prince complained about.

[Edited 4/23/11 13:25pm]

As far as I know, you do need permission from whoever owns the rights to cover in a recorded format but you do not need any permission whatsoever for performing live. Just the other day Lady Gaga told weird Al he couldn't do a cover. Prince did in the 80's also. Back in the old days, the 50's Little Richard was not only covered but not even paid for the covers of his music. It's not like that anymore.

mozfonky said:

alandail said:

you have to pay royalties and notify, but I don't see anywhere where the copyright owner can decline permission. The law you quoted says he can't say no and he can't sue.

Go listen to the many hideous covers of Purple Rain on iTunes. Do you think Prince gave the okay to those? As long as they give notice and pay the royalties, he doesn't have a choice. The law you quote is the very law he's complaining about.

Books don't work this way

Movies don't work this way

Television shows don't work this way

Comics don't work this way

Paintings don't work this way

Only in "nondramatic musical compositions" are you permitted to make a copy of someone else's art as long as you pay the pre-set royalties. Prince is saying that the artists should have more control than that. That Prince should be able to tell LeAnn Rimes he doesn't want a country version of Purple Rain if he wants to.

A random singer can't remake the movie Purple Rain because of copyright law, but they can remake the entire soundtrack album because of the exception you referenced that Prince complained about.

[Edited 4/23/11 13:25pm]

As far as I know, you do need permission from whoever owns the rights to cover in a recorded format but you do not need any permission whatsoever for performing live. Just the other day Lady Gaga told weird Al he couldn't do a cover. Prince did in the 80's also. Back in the old days, the 50's Little Richard was not only covered but not even paid for the covers of his music. It's not like that anymore.

As of now, Lady Gaga has allowed Weird Al to release his parody, since she "didn't hear it initially".

Timmy84 said:

mozfonky said:

As far as I know, you do need permission from whoever owns the rights to cover in a recorded format but you do not need any permission whatsoever for performing live. Just the other day Lady Gaga told weird Al he couldn't do a cover. Prince did in the 80's also. Back in the old days, the 50's Little Richard was not only covered but not even paid for the covers of his music. It's not like that anymore.

As of now, Lady Gaga has allowed Weird Al to release his parody, since she "didn't hear it initially".

Weird Al does not legally need any permission whatsoever to release parody versions of popular songs. As a parody, his recordings are protected.

However, he chooses to only release parodies with the original artists permission. He does it out of respect for the artists not because of any law.

That is why he respected Prince's wishes in the 80's.

djThunderfunk said:

Timmy84 said:

As of now, Lady Gaga has allowed Weird Al to release his parody, since she "didn't hear it initially".

Weird Al does not legally need any permission whatsoever to release parody versions of popular songs. As a parody, his recordings are protected.

However, he chooses to only release parodies with the original artists permission. He does it out of respect for the artists not because of any law.

That is why he respected Prince's wishes in the 80's.

Yeah that's common knowledge that his parodies are in fair use. His parodies don't rip off from artists' money anyways. I love the fact that he asks the artists before releasing them though. He earned my respect years ago because of that.

alandail said:

The title is wrong, he doesn't want covers outlawed, he wants them to require prior approval from the songwriter. His point is that you can't "cover" a book (i.e. make a movie out of it) or "cover" a movie (i.e. remake it) without permission. You do pay royalties when in all of these cases, so that part of it is irrelevant.

And I don't believe he's even talking about singing someone else's song in a concert, but rather about making a new studio version of it. The videos listed in this thread are only relevant towards his argument if he made those without first asking.

^ that

Timmy84 said:

Nowhere in his statements did he even say that.

And people wonder why he dislikes talking to the media. This interview is easily found online and yet people are twisting his words, taking shit out of context and whatnot. He didn't say anything like this at all.

alandail said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

2. Do you honestly think Mr. Sue Happy Prince would have let someone else record one of his songs, without his permission and he DID NOT SUE?

you have to pay royalties and notify, but I don't see anywhere where the copyright owner can decline permission. The law you quoted says he can't say no and he can't sue.

Go listen to the many hideous covers of Purple Rain on iTunes. Do you think Prince gave the okay to those? As long as they give notice and pay the royalties, he doesn't have a choice. The law you quote is the very law he's complaining about.

Books don't work this way

Movies don't work this way

Television shows don't work this way

Comics don't work this way

Paintings don't work this way

Only in "nondramatic musical compositions" are you permitted to make a copy of someone else's art as long as you pay the pre-set royalties. Prince is saying that the artists should have more control than that. That Prince should be able to tell LeAnn Rimes he doesn't want a country version of Purple Rain if he wants to.

A random singer can't remake the movie Purple Rain because of copyright law, but they can remake the entire soundtrack album because of the exception you referenced that Prince complained about.

[Edited 4/23/11 13:25pm]

Which means he wants covers (recorded ones) outlawed as the title of this thread suggests.

Not that he just wants people to ask his permission first...as you asserted in your first post.

The question is...did Prince himself get permission before he recorded the covers of the songs that I posted videos of or did he take advantage of the same law that he's complaining about and record them first, then notified the copyright holders and paid the royalties accordingly because that was all that he was required to do?

I haven't said whether I agree with his position or not. I just noticed the increasingly familiar scent of his hypocrisy.

When Trez Songz got up on stage at the BET Awards...where Prince was receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award and called himself "performing" Purple Rain!

I wanted Prince to go up there...snatch that mic out of his hand and crack him upside his head with it and finish HIS song the only way it was meant to be but Prince just sat there nodding and hasn't said a thing about it since.

Personally, I think that was more disrespectful to Prince as the legendary artist that he is...than anything that's been recorded.

.

[Edited 4/23/11 16:48pm]

^ I don't necessarily think he meant "outlawed". I think he meant PAY ME or ASK ME.

This goes to the professional acts it seems...

Timmy84 said:

^ I don't necessarily think he meant "outlawed". I think he meant PAY ME or ASK ME.

This goes to the professional acts it seems...

Even if they don't ASK him...they still have to PAY him...if they record his music. That's the LAW.

If what he wants is the ability to say, "No, you cannot record my music." and with that...it cannot be recorded.

Then what he wants...is to make something that is already legal to do...become illegal to do. Meaning he wants it "outlawed".