And so it begins.


I noticed a huger amount of clips that are just "audio" on YouTube and wondering when Youtube was going to get hit with the Napster treatment over that

But Universal attorneys insist the company had the legal right to send the letter in Lenz's case, and that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations.

Right. Let all of the little guys spend all of their money proving their innocence.

If the big companies actually had to put out some coin for due diligence, a lot of this nonsense would stop.

Nail. Head. Newsletter ..etc.

SpinStopper: But Universal attorneys insist the company had the legal right to send the letter in Lenz's case, and that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations.

Right. Let all of the little guys spend all of their money proving their innocence.

If the big companies actually had to put out some coin for due diligence, a lot of this nonsense would stop.

SpinStopper: But Universal attorneys insist the company had the legal right to send the letter in Lenz's case, and that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations.

Right. Let all of the little guys spend all of their money proving their innocence.

If the big companies actually had to put out some coin for due diligence, a lot of this nonsense would stop.

I came here with the intent of throwing out that same quote.

The arrogance is epic with these guys.

SpinStopper: Right. Let all of the little guys spend all of their money proving their innocence.

I believe that must be followed by a rousing chant of 'USA! USA! USA!' and a condmenation of 'file trading crooks and damn commies'.

Reasonable objections have no place in this discussion.

Electric word, toddler.

FTA:
Lenz and her legal team depict the video as a "fair use" of the Prince song. But Universal attorneys insist the company had the legal right to send the letter in Lenz's case, and that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations.

From LexisNexis (new window) (though this is regarding reprint permission of their materials):

"Fair Use"
The "fair use" provisions of the Copyright Act provide that several factors must be considered when determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a "fair use". These factors include whether the use is of a commercial or non-profit nature, the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the work as a whole, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the work.

Whether a particular use is permitted under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular use. An evaluation of these facts and circumstances, the factors referred to above and court cases interpreting applicable copyright laws may all be necessary to determine whether the reproduction or distribution of materials published in printed form (books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, etc.) is permissible.

After I watched that clip, I hooked up the tape recorder to my computer and stole the audio. I plan on making copies of the tape and sharing it with my friends. I'm going to make thousands of dollars from people rocking out to my bootleg, fuzzy, partial "Let's Go Crazy" cassettes. Thanks, lady!

Prince, despite being a genius, has been a bit of a jerk about the whole YouTube thing. He doesn't like it if you can even hear a radio station playing one of his songs in the background with a bunch of other noise in the scene. It's a bit unfair-- As if people are going to be able to remove background sounds from a home video.

Yes, the "music only" YouTube videos are causing problems, but this lady's case is entirely different.

Youtube used to be cool.

prince should sue google, as they are the only ones with the potential to profit off youtube and even they havent figured out how to do that yet.

ZeroCorpse: Prince, despite being a genius, has been a bit of a jerk about the whole YouTube thing. He doesn't like it if you can even hear a radio station playing one of his songs in the background with a bunch of other noise in the scene. It's a bit unfair-- As if people are going to be able to remove background sounds from a home video.

Yes, the "music only" YouTube videos are causing problems, but this lady's case is entirely different.

He's gone much further than that, sending out "takedown" letters to web sites that show his pic. It's absolutely ludicrous: those sites are basically doing free A&R work for him, and he's got his panties all in a wad about it.

I was sent a DMCA notice by YouTube today, actually... from the Discovery Channel (it was a clip from Dirty Jobs). The interesting part is it basically says "we don't mind that you posted our content, but we're going to monitor the viewer stats, and place ads on the page when people view the content."

Works for me...

Let's say you write a song and record it. You even get as far as selling it on an album or something. Someone posts a video on YouTube with a video they created. Supposed the video depicts something you disagree with, but is legal. Killing baby seals or something. Don't you think you have the right to stop your song from being associated with that? Now, I am not saying that a baby's first steps and clubbing seals are in any way related. But if it's your song, you should be able to control how it's used. If Prince doesn't want his music used this way, it's up to him. It's his song. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't call him a douche for it in this case. (he is)

xtex: Works for me...

that's cool of them actually and a nifty way of handling it too.

Lady deserves a Hero tag.

/Prince is no genius
//he is a douche though

0x1a4: Killing baby seals or something. Don't you think you have the right to stop your song from being associated with that?

I think "Party Like it's 1999," with a video of slaughtering baby seals, would be appropriate. I mean, isn't that what we did for Y2K?

Prince: slowly getting less cool with every boneheaded Youtube move he's made. First he doesn't let Radiohead see the video of the cover of their own song, and no he's suing parents.

Still, Around the World in a Day and Sign 'O' The Times are still awesome albums.

0x1a4: Let's say you write a song and record it. You even get as far as selling it on an album or something. Someone posts a video on YouTube with a video they created. Supposed the video depicts something you disagree with, but is legal. Killing baby seals or something. Don't you think you have the right to stop your song from being associated with that? Now, I am not saying that a baby's first steps and clubbing seals are in any way related. But if it's your song, you should be able to control how it's used. If Prince doesn't want his music used this way, it's up to him. It's his song. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't call him a douche for it in this case. (he is)

Is that person making money off the video?

If yes, then he/she has no right to use my work for his own profit (either financial profit, or using it as a means to push a product or something).

If no, then I have no right to block him.

A parent taping their kid with music in the background isn't grounds for a lawsuit.

Prince is a colossal douchebag anyways.

He and his songs aren't *that* great to be worth this much trouble.

Sorry to break that news.

Pave_the_Planet: Prince is a colossal douchebag anyways.

He and his songs aren't isn't *that* great to be worth this much trouble.

Sorry to break that news.

FTFY

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Youtube used to be cool.

Yep. Its gotten to where when I find a video I like I capture and save it on my HD. Cuz you know sure as hell its gonna be pulled within a week over some copyright crap.

0x1a4: Let's say you write a song and record it. You even get as far as selling it on an album or something. Someone posts a video on YouTube with a video they created. Supposed the video depicts something you disagree with, but is legal. Killing baby seals or something. Don't you think you have the right to stop your song from being associated with that? Now, I am not saying that a baby's first steps and clubbing seals are in any way related. But if it's your song, you should be able to control how it's used. If Prince doesn't want his music used this way, it's up to him. It's his song. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't call him a douche for it in this case. (he is)

Do you think if Prince's was getting paid of the song he would care what the content of this video. With your statement then an artist would have the right not to have their songs played at weddings if they object to the wedding or maybe at church if they object to that days sermon.

Assuming the person who posted the video is simply showing baby's first steps than Prince is so wrong. This person purchased his music because they like his music and wish to share their babies first steps set to one of his songs. Quite an honor. What do artist feel that the general public should pay for ever little use of their song.

I can hook up my stereo outside and put on purple rain and play it for the entire neighborhood and what harm does it do to prince.

the real issue is with the music labels ripping off the artist not the consumers.

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Youtube used to be cool.

YouTube comment sections are still one of the funniest things going on the planet.

Someone can post a vid of paint drying and the law of YouTube dictates the comments will devolve into a "THATZ WHY AMERIKKA SUKKS1S1!!1!" screamfest in ten minutes. It's great.

Still Itchy: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Youtube used to be cool.

YouTube comment sections are still one of the funniest things going on the planet.

Someone can post a vid of paint drying and the law of YouTube dictates the comments will devolve into a "THATZ WHY AMERIKKA SUKKS1S1!!1!" screamfest in ten minutes. It's great.

Fun little game: try to go on Youtube and post something so ridiculous that nobody would believe you actually meant it and would call you a troll. (Hint: This is impossible)

/Paraphrasing XKCD

HappyHarryHardOn: I noticed a huger amount of clips that are just "audio" on YouTube and wondering when Youtube was going to get hit with the Napster treatment over that

I too have noticed that and can see music companies complaining about that because people can rip those audio tracks. Don't understand complaining about about a family video, though. How does that infringe on sales?

Still Itchy: YouTube comment sections are still one of the funniest things going on the planet.

This is true. Funniest thing since Yahoo shut down their news boards that were linked right after the article.

I thought Prince would have settled this by challenging this woman to a game of basketball. Blouses vs. blouses or such.

ZeroCorpse: Prince, despite being a genius, has been a bit of a jerk about the whole YouTube thing. He doesn't like it if you can even hear a radio station playing one of his songs in the background with a bunch of other noise in the scene. It's a bit unfair-- As if people are going to be able to remove background sounds from a home video.


Radio stations still play Prince?