Prince, you are the KING of the goat-felchers!

[gaffa]

@psychobunny

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.

“Break the law”? First, go fuck yourself. And, second, learn learn how to spell copyright.

The definition of a bad law is one that is applied unevenly. And that is exactly the situation. I upload videos, and AS I SAID IN THE FUCKING OP 99.99% of the time, a claim is made and the claimant is fine with the material being up on YouTube. 99.99% of the time, the owner of the copyrighted material is happy with the tradeoff of placing ads for the original recording next to my recording of the performance of the cover.

This is not, and never been about the validity of copyright. This is about Prince being a fuckwad and choosing the most vicious and obnoxious of all possible responses available to him, the one that nobody else in my experience chose.

[Oakminster]

@gaffa

This is about Prince being a fuckwad and choosing the most vicious and obnoxious of all possible responses available to him, the one that nobody else in my experience chose.

No, this is about you whining about being a useless fucking leech stealing copyrighted material for profit. Prince owes you nothing. You have no right to use his work in the way you admit using it.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@gaffa

This is not, and never been about the validity of copyright. This is about Prince being a fuckwad and choosing the most vicious and obnoxious of all possible responses available to him, the one that nobody else in my experience chose.

You previously stated:

@gaffa

Exactly. You pay the money to the Harry Fox Agency, you record and release the song. The amount depends on the number of copies sold, with a special deal for releases of fewer than 1000 copies.

I ask again. Why didn’t you use that mechanism?

[Miller]

@gaffa

“Break the law”? First, go fuck yourself.

[Moderating]
gaffa, telling other posters to fuck themselves is a violation of the Pit’s language rules. Please avoid this in the future.

No warning issued.
[/Moderating]

[Enginerd]

@gaffa

The definition of a bad law is one that is applied unevenly. And that is exactly the situation. I upload videos, and AS I SAID IN THE FUCKING OP 99.99% of the time, a claim is made and the claimant is fine with the material being up on YouTube. 99.99% of the time, the owner of the copyrighted material is happy with the tradeoff of placing ads for the original recording next to my recording of the performance of the cover.

The law is applied evenly. When copyright is violated on youtube, the holders of said copyright each have the same three choices as to how to proceed against the violator.

It’s pretty common to let the people whose rights have been violated (in this case, Prince) decide how to proceed with a case. As the guy who violated Prince’s rights, why would you get to determine which of youtube’s three options he chooses?

[Hippy_Hollow]

@gaffa

Mr. Rogers

Nitpick: surely you mean Mr. Nelson.

[11811]

@Inner_Stickler

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.

Because that doesn’t sound petty at all. :rolleyes:

[DiggitCamara]

@Kenm

What did you expect from Google?

I can understand their position very well. After all: from its very inception, as I understand it, YouTube was under fire for posting copyrighted material. They do their best to keep their own business alive (hosting videos and placing ads next to them) while avoiding unnecessary litigation against them due to a third party’s actions.

[Ludovic]

@psychobunny

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.

@gaffa

learn learn how to spell copyright.

And yet you just leave “dong” hanging there, as it were.

[11811]

@psychobunny

Seems like you’re still dong OK.

Oh, he’s dong OK, that’s for sure.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Ludovic

And yet you just leave “dong” hanging there, as it were.

[psychobunny]

You got me. I’m a poor typist and I can’t spell copyright. Also, as I said, I agree that Prince may be a jerk and shortsighted for choosing the most restrictive option offered by youtube. That does not change the fact that you are breaking the rules and youtube has the right to ban you if you break their rules. Prince has a legal right to prevent you from using his songs in your videos if he chooses and you have the right to pay to use them if you choose. Let’s try another example. Let’s say you decide to show up at church and rob the churchgoers. All but one agree to drop the matter and not press charges if you return the money. One decides that he wants to press charges. Now he may be a jerk for not forgiving you like everybody else but he is within his legal rights to press charges and does not need to drop them just because nobody else is pressing charges. Even if you return his money, he has the right to have you charged.