People make COPIES of Prince music and sell them on eBay BUT eBay and record labels do nothing. I've even reported loads to anti-piracy authorities BUT they do NOTHING.

.

So why the hell does someone give a crap about videos on YouTube.

.

Here is proof of ILLEGAL copies on eBay. If you follow the history of sales for each item, this mounts to thousands of dollars - BUT EBAY AND UNIVERSAL AND PRINCE'S ESTATE DO NOTHING!

.

.

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?????

.

THIS MAKES ME SICK!

.

Can you post the email address for David Benjamin as I'd like to have a word with him!!!

.

[Edited 3/4/17 11:37am]

[Edited 3/4/17 11:37am]

Wow, they're even taking down photos?!

*****

NOTE: ** attentionné **
I'm just sharing this post, it is not me, he is not me

*****

for copyright violations, while Facebook hides behind users and metes out punishment

https://theiconicprince.w...unishment/

By The Iconic Prince, March 2, 2017

By now everyone is aware that Universal Music Group (UMG) has won the rights to a multi-year agreement with the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and NPG Records Inc. that grants it exclusive licensing rights to the iconic artist’s Grammy-winning NPG recordings, as well as a library of 25 albums and his collection of unreleased works.

However, what I have realized is that UMG has now become a watchdog for all the artist’s music online which includes videos posted on YouTube and Facebook. My page, “The Iconic Prince,” has become a target of UMG and is undergoing scrutiny at this time. In response to complaints about copyright violations by UMG, Facebook pulled a few of my videos (bearing the name of a particular song) and imposed a three-day ban.

I understand that Prince fought hard to have his work protected during his entire professional life, as well he should have, but since I am not posting his official videos or offering them for sale, and do not benefit monetarily from maintaining this page, why should I be the focus of constant scrutiny, punishment and open threats?

I believe that those of us celebrating Prince’s life in a respectable manner are promoting his artistry (thereby working in tandem with UMG) and bringing him to the attention of millions of people who would otherwise have forgotten about him or never known the depth of his accomplishments.

The threat accompanying Facebook’s ban reads, “We strongly encourage you to review the content you have posted to Facebook to make sure you have not posted any other infringement content as it is our policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers when appropriate.”

Not only is that a threat to the page created by a page administrator, but also the administrator’s personal page, disabling his/her ability to post, like, comment or interact with everyone.

I have also noticed UMG has been deleting innumerable performance videos on YouTube bearing the message, “This video contains content from UMPG Publishing who has blocked it on copyright grounds.”

Communication With UMG

Needless to say, Facebook provided me with the email address of David Benjamin, Senior Vice President, Anti-Piracy, Universal Music Group, and I responded with a lengthy letter and received an eye-opening response, almost immediately, via email, a portion of which reads:

“Thank you for reaching out about the recent removal of content from Facebook. While this is an important and necessary action to assure that artists and music creators are fairly compensated for their hard work, we regret that this action, and the reasons why it happened, surprised you. We appreciate the opportunity to explain.

“Recording artists and songwriters earn their living from their music. Our role is to connect them with fans in ways that are entertaining and convenient and accessible, so that everyone can enjoy the music in a mutually beneficial way. For example, we have licensed more than 400 digital music services. As a result, last year music fans enjoyed more music than ever before in history.

“The issue here is that Facebook, Inc. – unlike our hundreds of other partners – has generally decided not to obtain licenses or pay for the use of our music on its platform, including cover versions of songs. This has become particularly problematic since Facebook launched its native video player, which increasingly makes our music content available in a manner that deprives artists and songwriters of fair compensation and unfairly competes with licensed services that pay for music consumption.

“If you have any questions, please let me know. I would be happy to do what I can to address your concerns.”

Human Shields

I have noticed that almost every video I post is fine with Facebook and never deleted, until someone complains, at which point they mete out the harshest punishment possible, which leads me to conclude that even Facebook cannot determine with any level of accuracy whether a video crosses the line.

An interesting comment I read further cements this belief: “They (Facebook) use their users as human shields to avoid paying licensing fees: “It’s our users doing this not us!” This is exactly what Napster did; Google and YouTube do the same; and now it’s Facebook’s turn. It’s getting really old. We’ve been hearing this crap since 1999!”

Looking Ahead

All I can do at this point is look at the various licensed platforms offered by UMG (one such being SoundCloud that I occasionally use to post songs) with a view to finding one to post videos that can be linked to my Facebook page, instead of posting there directly. Or, I can delete each of the videos that I have chosen with care, edited, and presented to demonstrate Prince’s incredible range of talent – an option I feel would be counter to the page’s intent to celebrate his life: A life that cannot be adequately showcased without his music.

In the meanwhile, I watch, wait, and refrain from posting any more videos at this time (or clips mere seconds long), knowing that at any moment another one of my videos [that has been allowed to be posted by Facebook] can be reported as a violation by UMG, pulled by Facebook with the resultant punishment and threat, or the ultimate act of cruelty and indifference: The termination of The Iconic Prince Page.

That would be a travesty!

[Edited 3/4/17 16:38pm]

https://www.change.org/p/...reason_msg

laurarichardson said:

The symbol is trademarked and owned by the estate.

Then how can SheilaE use it?

OldFriends4Sale said:

*****

NOTE: ** attentionné **
I'm just sharing this post, it is not me, he is not me

*****

for copyright violations, while Facebook hides behind users and metes out punishment

https://theiconicprince.w...unishment/

By The Iconic Prince, March 2, 2017

By now everyone is aware that Universal Music Group (UMG) has won the rights to a multi-year agreement with the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and NPG Records Inc. that grants it exclusive licensing rights to the iconic artist’s Grammy-winning NPG recordings, as well as a library of 25 albums and his collection of unreleased works.

However, what I have realized is that UMG has now become a watchdog for all the artist’s music online which includes videos posted on YouTube and Facebook. My page, “The Iconic Prince,” has become a target of UMG and is undergoing scrutiny at this time. In response to complaints about copyright violations by UMG, Facebook pulled a few of my videos (bearing the name of a particular song) and imposed a three-day ban.

I understand that Prince fought hard to have his work protected during his entire professional life, as well he should have, but since I am not posting his official videos or offering them for sale, and do not benefit monetarily from maintaining this page, why should I be the focus of constant scrutiny, punishment and open threats?

I believe that those of us celebrating Prince’s life in a respectable manner are promoting his artistry (thereby working in tandem with UMG) and bringing him to the attention of millions of people who would otherwise have forgotten about him or never known the depth of his accomplishments.

The threat accompanying Facebook’s ban reads, “We strongly encourage you to review the content you have posted to Facebook to make sure you have not posted any other infringement content as it is our policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers when appropriate.”

Not only is that a threat to the page created by a page administrator, but also the administrator’s personal page, disabling his/her ability to post, like, comment or interact with everyone.

I have also noticed UMG has been deleting innumerable performance videos on YouTube bearing the message, “This video contains content from UMPG Publishing who has blocked it on copyright grounds.”

Communication With UMG

Needless to say, Facebook provided me with the email address of David Benjamin, Senior Vice President, Anti-Piracy, Universal Music Group, and I responded with a lengthy letter and received an eye-opening response, almost immediately, via email, a portion of which reads:

“Thank you for reaching out about the recent removal of content from Facebook. While this is an important and necessary action to assure that artists and music creators are fairly compensated for their hard work, we regret that this action, and the reasons why it happened, surprised you. We appreciate the opportunity to explain.

“Recording artists and songwriters earn their living from their music. Our role is to connect them with fans in ways that are entertaining and convenient and accessible, so that everyone can enjoy the music in a mutually beneficial way. For example, we have licensed more than 400 digital music services. As a result, last year music fans enjoyed more music than ever before in history.

“The issue here is that Facebook, Inc. – unlike our hundreds of other partners – has generally decided not to obtain licenses or pay for the use of our music on its platform, including cover versions of songs. This has become particularly problematic since Facebook launched its native video player, which increasingly makes our music content available in a manner that deprives artists and songwriters of fair compensation and unfairly competes with licensed services that pay for music consumption.

“If you have any questions, please let me know. I would be happy to do what I can to address your concerns.”

Human Shields

I have noticed that almost every video I post is fine with Facebook and never deleted, until someone complains, at which point they mete out the harshest punishment possible, which leads me to conclude that even Facebook cannot determine with any level of accuracy whether a video crosses the line.

An interesting comment I read further cements this belief: “They (Facebook) use their users as human shields to avoid paying licensing fees: “It’s our users doing this not us!” This is exactly what Napster did; Google and YouTube do the same; and now it’s Facebook’s turn. It’s getting really old. We’ve been hearing this crap since 1999!”

Looking Ahead

All I can do at this point is look at the various licensed platforms offered by UMG (one such being SoundCloud that I occasionally use to post songs) with a view to finding one to post videos that can be linked to my Facebook page, instead of posting there directly. Or, I can delete each of the videos that I have chosen with care, edited, and presented to demonstrate Prince’s incredible range of talent – an option I feel would be counter to the page’s intent to celebrate his life: A life that cannot be adequately showcased without his music.

In the meanwhile, I watch, wait, and refrain from posting any more videos at this time (or clips mere seconds long), knowing that at any moment another one of my videos [that has been allowed to be posted by Facebook] can be reported as a violation by UMG, pulled by Facebook with the resultant punishment and threat, or the ultimate act of cruelty and indifference: The termination of The Iconic Prince Page.

That would be a travesty!

[Edited 3/4/17 16:38pm]

laurarichardson said:

PennyPurple said:

Of course she did.

Let me explain something to you. If she puts the butterfly over the Symbol it is not the same image that was copyrighted therefore she is not infringing on the copyrighted image.

Sheila appears to be friendly with the family so I doubt they are upset about it. If some of you took the time to read her book you would know that when she was dating Santana he called her his butterfly thus the butterfly image.

The copyright is one thing but the protected registered trademark is another as well as the dilution of that mark and his brand. The estate filed new trademarks for the symbol as well as other phrases for various goods and servics after April. I'm sure Sheila has permission to use the symbol because if not, then based on the trademark applications/registrations, she is infringing on those rights even if she is not profitting from the sell of the shirt or the usage on her drums. She is using the symbol as a form promotion and they are through the same channel of trade (same customer base).

[Edited 3/8/17 7:21am]