He doesn’t.
Gaffa could remove the audio and repost the video (the portion no one disputes is his). But I suspect you may have known this.
Not to mention that Gaffa is still offering for sale the DVD containing said video on his business website.
So what is all the fuss?
Maybe Prince has read your posts on here, and he enjoys fucking with you because you’re a putz.
Or maybe it’s because you were making a profit off of his work, and he (correctly) felt he couldn’t trust that a thief like you would respond to a less harsh method. Seeing as how you’ve continued to use his intellectual content to make money, I suppose he was correct.
I would argue, in your example, that Prince would simply be supplying the recipe for the food, but the food itself (ie. the performance) is by the performers/cooks. Again, why not grant lifetime ownership of a chair to the furniture store it came from? Why is music, and intellectual property in general, granted such an exception?
You didn’t specify the nature of your objection. I’m not going to pretend I knew whether you simply support Prince’s rights, or think he’s also morally correct. My agreement with Gaffa takes into account the nature of the site he’s trying to host the video and the law. My agreement with Gaffa is an argument that Youtube and copyright law are morally in error and should change their policies to reflect that based on the artistic promotional nature of copyright law and art protection. That’s why I specified that its not harmful to Prince and that Prince is a dick, which is not a legal term whatsoever
He’s wrong and the law should be changed to reflect that. Plus, at this point, it is arguably more harmful to deny Youtube fair use of the songs as a performance than hold on to it so tightly
The video is the full performance. And while your solution would solve one problem, the question remains why, in a video with a song and a performance, that the owner of the song gets so much power over the entire video. Suppose the owners of the different venues that Prince plays concerts in decides that since they own the stage and the equipment, they get to decide whether or not Prince and put that concert on a DVD and sell it. What would be the difference? Did Prince break ground on the arena? Did he pour concrete and set the foundation? Why doesn’t the owner of the arena get the same rights to each concert performance like Prince or any artist gets to their songs?
What are you saying “actually, no” to? It is well-known that Prince personally surfd YouTube looking for content that uses his works.
Because he is using a mechanism that is explicitly outlined in the law. That’s infantile behavior. Hm.
Because unlike everything else, intellectual property—well, specifically, the kind of property protected by copyright law, which is creative works of expression—is more than anything else, an expression of an individual’s personality. Prince created his song. It belongs to him. Period. If you want to use it in certain ways, you have to get his permission.
And the ultimate fact is that this level of protection actually harms no one. There are hundreds of thousands of songs in existence, many of which are in the public domain and many of which have owners that would freely give permission to use them unlike Prince does. So it is never (or rarely) the case that the use of a specific copyrighted work is absolutely necessary.
If the value of Prince’s creation did not deserve the level of deference given to it, then why did the performers feel it necessary to use his song? They could have used a different song, or made up their own. The fact is that they wanted to use it because for whatever reason they felt that Prince’s song was so good that it was the most appropriate. And if Prince’s song is that good, then he should absolutely have the right to control it.
Just because the law allows it doesn’t mean it’s not petty. Which, given what I’ve heard about Prince doesn’t surprise me in the least.
If I were gaffa, I’d cut out the portions with Prince songs and leave a note in the description that says that Prince refuses to allow children to cover his songs.
Exactly. Thank you for that very succinct description.
Good idea. In this case, I’d have to re-upload it, but I’d have to mute the audio and have an explanatory title explaining that Prince was being a pissy little shit about things, because, as near as I can tell, nobody reads the descriptions on YouTube videos.
Which would be wrong. Prince can’t stop anybody from covering his songs. I can go down to open mike night at my local watering hole and sing Purple Rain all I want, and assuming he’s listed with one of the licensing entities, there’s nothing Prince can do to stop me. He’d be paid for that by the venue’s license covering live performance.
What Prince is doing is preventing a shameless leech, ie Gaffa, from posting and attempting to profit from unauthorized recordings on YouTube, which as I posted earlier, is a different bundle of rights.
That is a lie though. Prince does allow kids to cover his songs; they received permission to do so. What he is NOT allowing is for gaffa to use YouTube to facilitate the sale of the performance of his music for gaffa’s monetary benefit. Gaffa apparently feels this is “unfair” although the rest of us are unable to parse how that is.
Hey, gaffa, how’s that songwriting going? Have you written any hits yet?
eta: ninja’d by Oakminster!
Recipes are covered by copyright law:
“A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Note that if you have secret ingredients to a recipe that you do not wish to be revealed, you should not submit your recipe for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records. See FL 122, Recipes.”
With a chair, one could apply for a design patent. Copyright doesnt apply. Design patent - Wikipedia
People’s ideas and creative contributions get protected.
I don’t care for Prince’s music, but if he was twitchy before his record label stole his name I could see him being a little psycho about intellectual property in general.
Plus I strongly suspect his own legals were behind the asshattery. You can say all you want that their actions, by extension, are his own, but that doesn’t make it so. His order may simply have been, “Don’t let people steal my shit.” And, their boss being a twitchy, hyperventalating, megalomaniac, they may have erred on the side of “Holy fuck! Don’t steal Prince’s shit!”
I think your point is obvious and anyone with half a brain would understand that by “covering the song”, gaffa would mean “posted on youtube”. If anything, the muted video would amply demonstrate the ability of the kids to do something on stage.
Except that he does allow children to cover his songs. He just doesn’t want to help gaffa make money off the kids’ performance.
Perhaps I’m missing something. Apparently both the kids and the venue paid for the rights to use Prince’s songs in their performance. Is there any reason the OP can’t pay ASCAP and/or BMI himself to gain the right to distribute Prince’s compositions on his videos?
Oh, yes, anyone with half a brain knows “covering a song” means the same thing as “posting on YouTube to drum up money for my business.” Obviously. I’m pretty sure it’s worded just like that in Black’s Law Dictionary. :rolleyes:
I think it would be hilarious if gaffa took this wonderful advice and added such a note, and then was sued for libel by Prince. Imagine the Pit thread from that!
Because it’s not faaaaaiiir!
What did you expect from Google?
I wonder what the OP would think if Prince copied his videos and sold them. After all, Prince contributed to the performance so he has a right to sell the vidos for profit.
He would find that there is virtually no market for them. Seriously, do you think I’ve sold a single copy of any of the DVDs I’ve made to anyone who isn’t a parent or grandparent of someone in the show?
Of all the moronic arguments made in this thread, this has to be the stupidest.
Maybe Prince could sell to the kids’ parents.
However, since you apparently don’t get my point, let’s break it down for you.
The law says Prince has a right to prevent you from posting videos using his songs.
Youtube gives Prince several options of how aggressively he wants to address it.
Prince decides he does not want to waive the law in exchange for free advertising (which may or may not make him a jerk).
Youtube tells you that if you break the law 3 times you cannot use their service.
You, by your own admission, break the law 4 times but manage to withdraw two instances before getting caught.
You therefore still have youtube privileges as long as you abide by their rules which asks you to obey the law unless Prince waives it.
You have the choice to obey the law and stay on youtube or break the law again and lose access.
You still apparently have the right to privately advertise and sell your videos to parents as long as you do not publicly post copywrite-protected content.
Seems like you’re still dong OK.