|
Radiohead and Prince in fight over copyright
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 1 June, 2008
Earlier this week, the musician Prince did a cover of the popular song "Creep" originally by Radiohead at a concert at the Coachella. After word spread, tens of thousands of curious fans went to YouTube looking to get at least a glimpse of the performance. There was a problem however, NPG Records, Prince's label had quickly advised the site to take everything down related to the song and ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Member
|
1. June 2008 @ 15:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Whats the problem with this people? Don't they know that more they hit the NO, more we want it! I don't even like prince or listen to Radiohead, but i had to see the video on the site that you guys found... Not my type of song, but i guess it is great to hear his version of it.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. June 2008 @ 15:31 |
Link to this message
|
The title of this makes it sound like prince and radio head are goign at it but it seems to be a pootube issue.
Speakign of pootube they hosed my account because of a anime clip thats not licensed in the US and then they told me to contact the UK deparment for JP DMCA coutner claims.... WTF?!!?
This is what happens when you become naziistic over CP, this is why 80% of the stuff on youtube should fal under fair use, just remove the 5minete or longer parts of eps that are shown, clips of ads or whole ads should never be removed tis an ad for christ sake.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. June 2008 @ 15:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by i1der:
Whats the problem with this people? Don't they know that more they hit the NO, more we want it! I don't even like prince or listen to Radiohead, but i had to see the video on the site that you guys found... Not my type of song, but i guess it is great to hear his version of it.
the problem being youtube is whacking something that has not been officially requested to be whacked.
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
1. June 2008 @ 19:12 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Yorke added: "Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song."
I think that says it all.
In fact, if i was Radiohead i might be a little pissed that Prince covered my song.
|
Junior Member
|
1. June 2008 @ 21:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
hahaha Prince covering Radiohead? I'm sure it's hilarious. This is the dumbest news i've heard in along time. I love Radiohead but musicians crying about youtube gives me a headache.
|
Junior Member
|
2. June 2008 @ 12:24 |
Link to this message
|
the only one with rigths to block or unblock should be radiohead, prince is mad cuz ppl uploaded his work, but guest what prince .. u were just singing!
|
Member
1 product review
|
2. June 2008 @ 15:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Nice one Prince. No amount of Web Sheriff will get you out of this one.
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
2. June 2008 @ 15:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah asshole formerly called something or other... surely radiohead own it?
|
|
goodswipe
Suspended permanently
|
2. June 2008 @ 15:34 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yorke added: "Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song."
I think that says it all.
In fact, if i was Radiohead i might be a little pissed that Prince covered my song.
LOL - exactly! I can't imagine how horrible that has to sound with that dude running around, dressed like Mozart. Prince sucks!
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
2. June 2008 @ 15:39 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
can't imagine how horrible that has to sound with that dude running around, dressed like Mozart.
Lmao!
What a description. Lol.
|
|
goodswipe
Suspended permanently
|
2. June 2008 @ 15:55 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by 7thsinger:
Quote:
can't imagine how horrible that has to sound with that dude running around, dressed like Mozart.
Lmao!
What a description. Lol.
Here ya go 7th...
|
|
frankacne
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
2. June 2008 @ 16:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
All I can say is, that if Prince ever did a song I wrote, I would want it taken down and wiped. In fact, I might never write any more songs just to be on the safe side,
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
2. June 2008 @ 17:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
@Swipe
If he only had the wig...
Lol.
|
|
DVDdoug
Junior Member
|
2. June 2008 @ 17:45 |
Link to this message
|
I'm sure this will get worked-out... Both parties have lawyers and they can "alert the media" to make sure YouTube takes care of it. The problem is, if this happens to a "little guy", YouTube is probably going to ignore your email...
Quote:
In fact, if i was Radiohead i might be a little pissed that Prince covered my song.
There is nothing Radiohead can do about Prince playing the song live. Any band can "cover" any song (live), as long as the venue has an ASCAP license. You don't need permission from the copyright holder... For example, local cover-bands and tribute-bands don't have to "buy" the rights to a song in order to perform it live.
Quote:
All I can say is, that if Prince ever did a song I wrote, I would want it taken down and wiped.
I think you do need specific permission to record (and distribute) a song, but I'm not 100% sure about that. So, Radiohead may be able to "take-down" the Prince recording... But, that's what Prince wants too...
|
Junior Member
|
2. June 2008 @ 20:48 |
Link to this message
|
ROFLMAO
yea, I don't listen to either but I clicked the video link into another tab (Always use Firefox) but it ain't there anymore
I don't need to see it but I have some questions for those who have
1)the way he mumbles, How do you know it was creep he was singing instead of what you were seeing?
2)was he reading the words from a cue card? How can he memorize the words if he don't even know if he is gay or not?
3)MOST IMPORTANTLY.... why are we wasting time in this thread about him?
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
3. June 2008 @ 08:32 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
There is nothing Radiohead can do about Prince playing the song live. Any band can "cover" any song (live), as long as the venue has an ASCAP license. You don't need permission from the copyright holder... For example, local cover-bands and tribute-bands don't have to "buy" the rights to a song in order to perform it live.
I'm very aware of the legalities of it...thanks. You obviously missed the intent of my prior statement, which you quoted.
|
|
BludRayne
Junior Member
|
3. June 2008 @ 12:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's the gayest song (Prince version) I've heard in a while, just horrible.
|
|
goodswipe
Suspended permanently
|
3. June 2008 @ 12:28 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
There is nothing Radiohead can do about Prince playing the song live. Any band can "cover" any song (live), as long as the venue has an ASCAP license. You don't need permission from the copyright holder... For example, local cover-bands and tribute-bands don't have to "buy" the rights to a song in order to perform it live.
Yea dude, you missed the point here.
SHHHHHHHHROOOOMMM...
Hear that? That's the sound of our discussion flying right over your head.
|
|
mnn2k
Newbie
|
3. June 2008 @ 17:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
This is what happens when you become naziistic over CP, this is why 80% of the stuff on youtube should fal under fair use, just remove the 5minete or longer parts of eps that are shown, clips of ads or whole ads should never be removed tis an ad for christ sake.
that's what you get when pootube is bought by Google.
|
Senior Member
11 product reviews
|
3. June 2008 @ 22:54 |
Link to this message
|
truth is, they are both wrong (Prince + Radiohead). The person that owns the copyrights to that video is the person who shot it with their camcorder.
They allowed "non professional" video recorders at the performance. So no law was broken.
EX: If I video you filling up your tank in your car at some gas station, you have no control over what I do with that video. I own the rights to it.
...same goes here
|
|
atomicxl
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. June 2008 @ 11:12 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ugc:
truth is, they are both wrong (Prince + Radiohead). The person that owns the copyrights to that video is the person who shot it with their camcorder.
They allowed "non professional" video recorders at the performance. So no law was broken.
EX: If I video you filling up your tank in your car at some gas station, you have no control over what I do with that video. I own the rights to it.
...same goes here
I don't think thats how it works. That would be legally enforced voyeurism.
|
Junior Member
|
7. June 2008 @ 02:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by atomicxl:
Originally posted by ugc:
truth is, they are both wrong (Prince + Radiohead). The person that owns the copyrights to that video is the person who shot it with their camcorder.
They allowed "non professional" video recorders at the performance. So no law was broken.
EX: If I video you filling up your tank in your car at some gas station, you have no control over what I do with that video. I own the rights to it.
...same goes here
I don't think thats how it works. That would be legally enforced voyeurism.
NO, thats the law concerning Public vs private performances... anything done in a public area has no consideration that it might be private... then you can record it legally, this certianly pertains to you filling your gas tank, and if camcorders were overtly allowed (IE, the guy didn't have to smuggle the camcorder into the performance and there wasn't any signs prohibition it and no one was checking for camcorders specificlly) then likely it is the property of the recorder but just as buying a CD doesn't allow the CD owner to play it on a public forum like radio, owning the video clip doesn't guarentee that he has the last word on if youtube can play it either... the song owner might have a say there, and a star performer might also have a say....
the problem here is the star performer has deleted the playing of a sng he doesn't own, no matter who sang the song, including every instance of the star recording artist performing his own song
this is a problem with the tagging system on youtube since they are all queued on song title because the writer gets a micro-payment but not on performer since that is so often the same person these days. forty years ago they would have had this squabble a long time ago since there were often a dozen versions of the same song out at the same time and none performed by the writer who only created, not performed his songs. (AND NO, THE TAG OF "PRINCE" on a song DOESN'T DO THE SAME THING)
although the system doesn't pay the performer, just the song owner, youtube cannot remove just the versions that prince gets paid for (he doesn't get paid atm) but they could have run a filter on the list of that song and just killed those that had the letters "prince" as a word... not perfect, would kill a comment that the performer was the posters "prince charming", but most likely would have removed every prince version at the time though as soon as posters got wise to the filter they could get around it by comments like "renamed no-name singer sings..." or "gay purple guy sings..."
the jist of the problem is, gay or not, a certian purple diva is a jackazz
qazwiz is qazwiz everywhere. If you see me say HI!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
7. June 2008 @ 02:15 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Boo Hoo, Someone posted me singing a song
that's the jist of the original complaint to youtube that started this discussion
qazwiz is qazwiz everywhere. If you see me say HI!
|
