Members Will Chen Posted September 14, 2007 Members Share Posted September 14, 2007 And BTW, when have they played a NEW Prince song on the radio? Prince had 2 singles in rotation this year...but that's besides the point. I fully support Prince's suit and any suit by a specific artist concerning their ability to control their media. Who says this lawsuit is specifically regarding posting Prince's videos to the net? How about taking Prince's music and using it as a background bed for some politically motivated home video twisting the meaning to something contrasting Prince's personal views? There is much more than just money at stake when it comes to intellectual property ownership and distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted September 14, 2007 Members Share Posted September 14, 2007 Prince has been a non-entity, commercially speaking, for quite a while. Wow, we have the accountant of Prince with us, who hasn't realized that his client is on "The Earth Tour 2007" At the very moment he is playing a mind-boggling 21 concerts in London, in the Arena 02, what a nice looking building... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted September 14, 2007 Members Share Posted September 14, 2007 have a look at this fabulous non-entity... WOW!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jotown Posted September 14, 2007 Members Share Posted September 14, 2007 Nor Deep Purple Actually for Deep Purple that would be 30 years But I think Prince has a point, and I am suprised that more artists haven't put their foot down. If it is videos that are meant to promote the artist that is one thing; but concert footage from a cell phone is another. Should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HCarlH Posted September 14, 2007 Members Share Posted September 14, 2007 I fully support Prince's suit and any suit by a specific artist concerning their ability to control their media. Who says this lawsuit is specifically regarding posting Prince's videos to the net? How about taking Prince's music and using it as a background bed for some politically motivated home video twisting the meaning to something contrasting Prince's personal views? There is much more than just money at stake when it comes to intellectual property ownership and distribution. That is true. It is just comical that, of all the artists out there (most are not making a big stink about YouTube), he wants some attention. He got Soundscan to include CDs given to concert goers when they bought a ticket for one of his tours a few years ago. Most of those people never would have bought it otherwise given a choice. They wanted to hear his old hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HCarlH Posted September 14, 2007 Members Share Posted September 14, 2007 have a look at this fabulous non-entity... WOW!!! Too bad that rip off isn't as good as the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted September 14, 2007 Members Share Posted September 14, 2007 Too bad that rip off isn't as good as the original. Aha, not only that you sleep as accountant, but you are also stuck in the sixties, wouldn't wbe surprised if you also promise every other girlie a marriage to get her into bed, just as James did it every other gig . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted September 14, 2007 CMS Author Share Posted September 14, 2007 I am much more likely to buy music that I've been exposed to, and I don't listen to a lot of "new music" radio, but I sure DO spend a lot of time on the Internet. To reach a guy like me, YouTube is a great way to do it. Pulling your content is, IMHO, similar to not allowing your songs to be played on the radio because someone could record the signal. It's counterproductive to your goals, and short-sighted.I didn't read the original article. Does he want YouTube to remove anything with his music in it? I agree, that would be cutting off his marketing to spite his face. It would make more sense if they could send him a list of what of his material they got in every month and he'd send them a letter giving permission to stream it. That way he'd be asserting his right to control the works while still taking advantage of the publicity. But then I'm not his lawyer or business manager. Nor have I watched YouTube videos of Prince or his music. There may be some really dreadful performances by hacks that he'd rather not have people hear as representations of his music, or his music may have been used as background to something that he doesn't consider appropriate. I wonder how many files of his music or his performances there are on YouTube. Anyone count 'em? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted September 14, 2007 CMS Author Share Posted September 14, 2007 have a look at this fabulous non-entity... WOW!!! Wow indeed. He has taller hair than Little Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 14, 2007 Members Share Posted September 14, 2007 So....it's OK for franknputer to say attack, but not to reply? Originally Posted by franknputer Ignorant post of the day! It's pretty easy for the second largest metropolitan area in the country to sell 20,000 seats for somebody that had one hit record 24 years ago. Now, let's see that happen the next year with no hit album. And BTW, when have they played a NEW Prince song on the radio? Two rights don't make a wrong...at least, that's what my momma always told me (usually when I was in trouble)... He's been getting airplay and video play here with his new stuff...definitely video play. I was seeing that video quite a lot, and I don't even watch that much TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted September 14, 2007 Members Share Posted September 14, 2007 Wow indeed. He has taller hair than Little Richard. Okay, this Prince isn't the most innovative bloke with his hair. But we are living more and more in a global village, just wait till folks like the Nuba from Kau go on world tour in a few years, and monkeying Kenny Rogers for 32 shows in the London Arena . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted September 15, 2007 Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 I question the fairness of current copyright laws anyway. IMO, many provisions conflict with freedom of expression. Like always, there were no lobbyists for the general public when these laws were created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dk123123dk Posted September 15, 2007 Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 I think youtube is a great tool, I love the fact that you can watch videos all day long of stuff you prob never would have seen ever. I also understand why an artist would want his stuff off. But I think that if he does sue, he should upload a few vids that are of good quality of his popular songs. That way everyone can get an idea of who price is, and he can maintain the quality of his art. Maybe in six months take the vids down and put up new ones. This way he dosnt look like an ass for taking down everything, but at the sametime you arnt taking from his DVD/CD sales. The thing that pisses me off the most about YouTube is the people who leave ignorant comments! Wow imagine if a few of those guys got HC handles, TROLL city! They are allways arguing that SRV is better than hendrix/better than clapton/better than etc. Its not about better, its about preferance, and opening your mind to good tunes. Hell all those guitarist have prob all covered the same Howlin Wolf tune at one time in their careers! dk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphajerk Posted September 15, 2007 Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 isnt it copyright infringement just posting those pics here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted September 15, 2007 Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 Like always, there were no lobbyists for the general public when these laws were created General public does not own the rights of the artists. if you copyright your song and compositions or videos Prince cannot post them either on his website or youtube without YOUR permission. some artists enforce their rights and ownership. THEY have that right legally to stop what is really illegal. you have rights to your home, belongings. what would make it right for a thief to steal your car, guitar or amp? your personal property is yours. if you hand it over to the thief, you gave him permission to take it. not many would do that now would they? so obviously you would prosecute the thief for taking your gear. its the same matter. theft is theft. its a matter of law and principle. Prince gets a negative for exercising his right, something else is very wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted September 15, 2007 Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 isnt it copyright infringement just posting those pics here? Yes, it is! If it progresses in the direction as it does now, soon the only things which can be copyrighted are physical object one can not carried passed the cash register and the security posted there. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kenlacam Posted September 15, 2007 Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 It's funny how a simple discussion of Prince suing You tube turns into a childish "he's not relevant" argument. Obviously if he wasn't relevant this post would not even be here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Prog Posted September 15, 2007 Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 It's interesting that many artists haven't figured out that they should release the material on DVD because of viewership on Youtube. I would think 10,000 views in a certain time period would mean something. I've seen some great concert footage that I would buy on DVD immediately IF the artists would release it. But they haven't. Perhaps they should have released the material before Youtube existed (you snooze, you lose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pr3Va1L Posted September 15, 2007 Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 The ultimate end to that line of thinking is control of the consumer's listening environment at every level. It's never been done. "You can only buy my CD if you promise not to play it on a Goldstar whatchamathingy... and absolutely no 20-year-old Radio Shack speakers with blown tweeters. You are also prohibited from watching my videos on MTV and VH1 with a 13" portable TV with only one speaker." Youtube puts people like Prince on the radar of listeners that would otherwise have no idea who the hell he is. If the culture values music, youtube should inspire the audience to go out and buy hi-fi CDs and/or DVDs of what they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wide Posted September 15, 2007 Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 Prince says he plans to sue. It gets him more media attention for his tour. Conveniently decides not to sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Li10 Posted September 15, 2007 Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 prince can suck my balls. well not literally of course but I love that phrase. when you release a CD, you don't own it anymore!! But the thing is, everyone who sees a video of it on youtube or buys the CD will know who wrote it and give them credit for it. So pretty much the videos on youtube are free advertising... or something> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted September 15, 2007 Author Members Share Posted September 15, 2007 when you release a CD, you don't own it anymore!! Which law school taught you that gem of wisdom? :lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Spook Posted September 16, 2007 Members Share Posted September 16, 2007 Prince is one of the great mother{censored}ers. People who think he's washed up and irrelevant are people secretly dissatisfied with their trite and contrived "real" music. Haha just kidding. But really people, he really is still his royal badness, even if he is a bit looney. But he always has been and the loonies have always accompanied genius. However, I think this is stupid. Watching movies on youtube tides me over until I have money to buy nice DVDs of things so I can actually hear the nuances. Oh wait, half the stuff on there I only watch because there isn't any DVD to buy and I can't hear it any other way. Musicians are {censored}ing clueless, the lot of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Li10 Posted September 16, 2007 Members Share Posted September 16, 2007 Which law school taught you that gem of wisdom? :lol: :lol: lol that kinda came out wrong. I meant that.... once you release your music on a medium (eg CD mp3 whatever) to the public, they can listen to it, and figure out how to play it. In that respect, it does not really belong to the creator anymore, it's in the public domain... like... uh.... This still isn't coming off right.... Argh screw it. Maybe I should delete this and say I went to some crap law school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.