mask said:

Dave1992 said:

I understand the moral protection thing very well, even if it isn't about money. But, in this case, I didn't mess around with the original song much - my band simply played the livestudio mix of it and it was a regular live video cut, nothing too fancy and medium recording quality, but the music and singing was solid. I didn't change any lyrics and didn't throw in a deep house beat.

But it's his right and I will respect that, and, honestly, it was just one video... Of course I'm NOT gonna contact any lawyers or whatever -

"we Europeans don't have that much time on our hands!"

BUT...you do have the time to emulate and steal American music,right?

So funny...

[Edited 4/26/13 0:32am]

Javi said:

mask said:

"we Europeans don't have that much time on our hands!"

BUT...you do have the time to emulate and steal American music,right?

So funny...

Stealing is our businessmodel.

Also the anglosaxon culture has been quite dominant in the past half century or so.

Maybe that will change as the demise continues?

OP, stop whining. It's all within the law and you acted outside of it.

Mong said:

OP, stop whining. It's all within the law and you acted outside of it.

Start whining now before the law becomes even worse.

Your influence on the law is and was less than you imagine.

The fact that stuff is law does not make it ethically right.

And ethically right stuff is not all in the law.

Using another's music without permission being given in a visual context is not legal. End of.

[Edited 4/26/13 8:55am]

[Edited 4/26/13 8:56am]

Mong said:

Using another's music without permission being given in a visual context is not legal. End of.

That's en elaborate explanation of the level at which the average anglosaxon society functions.

Permission for what?

For putting letters, words in a certain order?

For putting musical notes in a certain order?

Is that order their posession?

Why?

Are we sure they were first?

Are we sure to give them monopoly on that order for so long because we allow them not to save for pensions and other normal stuff?

Are we sure they can't save like normal people if these were allowed to have decent jobs?

Are we sure this fake construct benefits the greater good?

Intellectual property is a construct. Not a fact.

Mong said:

OP, stop whining. It's all within the law and you acted outside of it.

When was I whining, Mong?

Most artists allow other people to cover their tunes and post them on Youtube. Prince is one of a few that makes a big deal about not allowing it. That's just the way he is.

As for what you can do...

You would have to file a complaint with Youtube asserting that you ARE the copyright holder and that the takedown notice is not valid. At that point they will put your video back up, but you are then subject to be sued in court by Controversy Music should they decide to settle this once and for all.

I would say, learn some other tunes.

http://www.huffingtonpost...86362.html

Here's an article that was written after some punk bands got really aggressive with DMCA takedowns that explains it a little better.

bobzilla77 said:

Most artists allow other people to cover their tunes and post them on Youtube. Prince is one of a few that makes a big deal about not allowing it. That's just the way he is.

As for what you can do...

You would have to file a complaint with Youtube asserting that you ARE the copyright holder and that the takedown notice is not valid. At that point they will put your video back up, but you are then subject to be sued in court by Controversy Music should they decide to settle this once and for all.

I would say, learn some other tunes.

I have absolutely no need or desire to do any kind of work to get that video up again. It was one of many old videos and I have plenty of my own songs to play. I am in no way dependent on Prince or any of his songs.

I was merely curious about the workings of the taking down of videos and thought I'd share it on here. That's it.

8up said:

Like all of you, I see Prince being weird when it comes to this stuff. But I think Prince does actually

consider his songs as his children and not as a commodity to be traded or abused. I really don't think it's about money, but about protecting his offspring. And maybe a little about respect. I don't know...he is strange when it comes to this stuff and it's his business. Why don't you try and reach him instead of getting a lawyer. If your stuff is good, he might let you slide. Or maybe your stuff was terrible and it embarassed him.

Good luck though and keep jamming the funk!

I hope the OP doesn't try to reach him or get his people's attention by posting on this site. If so, he better have thick skin.

Dave1992 said:

There was a rather old video on youtube of me covering Somebody's Somebody with my band live. It was titled "Dave Reismann & Soul Club - "Somebody's Somebody" (Prince)", so there was no implying that this was Prince, but it also made it quite clear that he wrote the song and not me.

So, why was it deleted? Can I get it back on youtube? Shall I sue Prince?

"Talk to ur lawyer, but u got no case. What you need to do is keep your place."

metallicjigolo said: