Vannormal said:

EnDoRpHn said:

Thank you so much for posting this link, and thanks to Mike Batt for posting the song:)

lustmealways said:

mods this is not a joke i have the lawyer on the phone they are coming for YOU unless you delete this thread just like the ILLEGALLY UPLOADED pinkcashmere snippet threads!!! please delete now this isn't funny anymore!!!!

Why is it illegal for the writer of the song to upload it on his own youtube channel?

EnglishGent2 said:

lustmealways said:

mods this is not a joke i have the lawyer on the phone they are coming for YOU unless you delete this thread just like the ILLEGALLY UPLOADED pinkcashmere snippet threads!!! please delete now this isn't funny anymore!!!!

Why is it illegal for the writer of the song to upload it on his own youtube channel?

Why is it illegal to discuss a recent couple of "Pink Cashmere" leaks on YouTube, without even linking them in their respective threads?

I was all ready to hate this - I can't stand Katie Melua and I associate Mike Batt primarily with the Wombles and the Tory party. It's lovely though.

bluegangsta said:

EnglishGent2 said:

Why is it illegal for the writer of the song to upload it on his own youtube channel?

Why is it illegal to discuss a recent couple of "Pink Cashmere" leaks on YouTube, without even linking them in their respective threads?

And then people wonder why people leave the Org en masse. This is sad, really. I know moderating a forum is hard, but this is just sad.

It has a bit of the melody resolution of Somewhere Here On Earth.

Mods are asleep. Even pathological trolling is ok now.

Not gonna lie I teared up a little. Miss him.

StrangeButTrue said:

StrangeButTrue said:

It was pulled for a copyright claim by SME

Anyway. We have it now.

Thanks A LOT Mike

[Edited 5/12/22 0:29am]

StrangeButTrue said:

It was pulled for a copyright claim by SME

I do not understand how that works. It's a song written by the guy, Prince is singing it and gave it back to him why would SME have a claim to it? it's not a Prince song. They don't own his voice?

Nice song, but Poor Little Bastard it is not.

johnnieb said:

StrangeButTrue said:

It was pulled for a copyright claim by SME

I do not understand how that works. It's a song written by the guy, Prince is singing it and gave it back to him why would SME have a claim to it? it's not a Prince song. They don't own his voice?

I bet it's one of those things where SME gets YT to take it down via legal action or whatever but it takes the Wombles guy to dispute it or appeal the decision to reinstate the clip.

I'm out of the loop here. SME? who are they? What do the initials SME even stand for? Whoever, not sure they have grounds to block this. It's Mike Batt's IP, words and music, not Prince's, not owned by PP. Seems petty.

Marrk said:

Marrk said:

Thank U Prince(r.i.p.).......

I guess your beautiful dancer friend was right about what U replied to her about her ? to your unreleased MUZIQ.

[Edited 5/13/22 8:15am]

LoveGalore said:

Marrk said:

I'm out of the loop here. SME? who are they? What do the initials SME even stand for? Whoever, not sure they have grounds to block this. It's Mike Batt's IP, words and music, not Prince's, not owned by PP. Seems petty.

Fortunately, you can't just make money off other people's likeness or performance without an agreement in place. This is why sometimes artists will work together under the condition there are no official credits stating so (think Lenny Kravitz on Prince records he won't tell us about). Like with Deliverance, the Prince Estate wants these chuckleheads to go through the proper channels to release music rather than make money off Prince in a way he never actually intended.

.

See in my opinion what Prince intended is unclear as he left no final instructions/wishes for his work.

LoveGalore said:

Marrk said:

I'm out of the loop here. SME? who are they? What do the initials SME even stand for? Whoever, not sure they have grounds to block this. It's Mike Batt's IP, words and music, not Prince's, not owned by PP. Seems petty.

Fortunately, you can't just make money off other people's likeness or performance without an agreement in place. This is why sometimes artists will work together under the condition there are no official credits stating so (think Lenny Kravitz on Prince records he won't tell us about). Like with Deliverance, the Prince Estate wants these chuckleheads to go through the proper channels to release music rather than make money off Prince in a way he never actually intended.

What you're saying is general accurate, but it doesn't necessarily apply in this situation.

1.) Generally speaking, once you give something to another person -- abscent an explicit agreement otherwise -- they become the legal owner and do with it as they please. In this case, we don't know what, if any, condidtions Prince placed on his providing vocals to the track.

It wouldn't surprise me if Prince agreed to provide them under the condition that the song never be released, but we just don't know. And if there was an agreement, it might have been verbal (knowing of Prince's supposed disdain for written contracts). Verbal agreements are legally binding, but harder to prove.

2.) In this case, no one was profiting off of prince's likeness or performance. Mike Batt shared the video for free. He didn't make a single penny off of it. Perhaps you could argue YouTube was making money if there were ads associated with it, in which case the cease-and-desist would be directed at them, not Mr. Batt.

3.) It's good to keep in mind that just because a corporation issues a cease-and-desist notice, that doesn't mean the law is actually on its side. In fact, frequently corporations mis-state and/or mis-apply the law in cease-and-desist notices.

Corporations are bullies. They count on the fact that recipients of ceases-and-desist notice will be ignorant of their rights and/or will not have the financial resources to fight back in court. Understandably, people usually do roll over and capituate because it's easier than fighting. But when they do fight back, it's not unsual for courts agree that a cease-and-desist order was baseless.

lurker316 said:

Thank you so much Mr. Mike Batt 4 sharing this with us... This is a beautiful song and so beautifully sung by Prince... Hearing Prince's beautiful voice on this new song 4 the first time is truly a blessing and it's so heartfelt at the same time... RIH Dear Prince

...

I quite enjoy this song as sung by Katie Melua--she hasn't been on my radar, but she is now. Nice to hear Prince's cover of the tune, too.

LoveGalore said:

EnDoRpHn said:

I read this as “Why are they talking to you and not with your meds?” LOL

Equally important question. [Edited 5/10/22 22:35pm]

StrangeButTrue said:

LoveGalore said:

Marrk said: Fortunately, you can't just make money off other people's likeness or performance without an agreement in place. This is why sometimes artists will work together under the condition there are no official credits stating so (think Lenny Kravitz on Prince records he won't tell us about). Like with Deliverance, the Prince Estate wants these chuckleheads to go through the proper channels to release music rather than make money off Prince in a way he never actually intended.

.

See in my opinion what Prince intended is unclear as he left no final instructions/wishes for his work.

lurker316 said:

LoveGalore said:

Marrk said: Fortunately, you can't just make money off other people's likeness or performance without an agreement in place. This is why sometimes artists will work together under the condition there are no official credits stating so (think Lenny Kravitz on Prince records he won't tell us about). Like with Deliverance, the Prince Estate wants these chuckleheads to go through the proper channels to release music rather than make money off Prince in a way he never actually intended.

What you're saying is general accurate, but it doesn't necessarily apply in this situation.

1.) Generally speaking, once you give something to another person -- abscent an explicit agreement otherwise -- they become the legal owner and do with it as they please. In this case, we don't know what, if any, condidtions Prince placed on his providing vocals to the track.

It wouldn't surprise me if Prince agreed to provide them under the condition that the song never be released, but we just don't know. And if there was an agreement, it might have been verbal (knowing of Prince's supposed disdain for written contracts). Verbal agreements are legally binding, but harder to prove.

2.) In this case, no one was profiting off of prince's likeness or performance. Mike Batt shared the video for free. He didn't make a single penny off of it. Perhaps you could argue YouTube was making money if there were ads associated with it, in which case the cease-and-desist would be directed at them, not Mr. Batt.

3.) It's good to keep in mind that just because a corporation issues a cease-and-desist notice, that doesn't mean the law is actually on its side. In fact, frequently corporations mis-state and/or mis-apply the law in cease-and-desist notices.

Corporations are bullies. They count on the fact that recipients of ceases-and-desist notice will be ignorant of their rights and/or will not have the financial resources to fight back in court. Understandably, people usually do roll over and capituate because it's easier than fighting. But when they do fight back, it's not unsual for courts agree that a cease-and-desist order was baseless.

This triggered memory of the org getting in trouble because of people posting pictures of P not looking too hot, as in pulling different faces. Prince issued cease and desist notices against the org a couple of times, the 'ugly face' thread being one of them. Anyone remember that?

I totally LOVE the song. Upon the first listen, I swear it felt like a

Nine million bicycles is also a tune, as good as this one. The one time P may have covered a song and not done the original justice, like too slow or something.