NationStates Jolt Archive

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3777651&page=1

Apparently Prince has more money than he knows what to do with so he puts a bunch of legal pit bulls on a retainer and sits on his ass surfing YouTube for any videos that even kind of resemble songs he makes. Such as this 29 second video of a baby pushing around a grocery cart to a terribly, terribly garbled 29 second part of "Let's Go Crazy."

Here is the song infringing upon Prince's copyright and depriving him of the absurd amounts of money he really doesn't need any more (recall Prince went against his label a little while back and distributed his new CD for free in a newspaper): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ

:rolleyes: very nice, prince (or how do you have to call them nowadays? isn't it some kind of Indian unreadable thing?) If I ever intended to buy one of your records i wouldn't anymore, I'm officially boycotting you!

Prince has no life if he really scours the net... and for once, shouldn't he be happy that he could clearly see that he still has fans?? (albeit a toddler)

Actually, he doesn't really have a choice.

If it can EVER be shown that he knew of a copyright infringing action and DIDN'T sue, his copyright over that piece can be declared null and void by a court. Bang - the music is in the public domain. And even if he has more money than god, he very well might want to keep his work from being used to advertise and promote causes or politicians he doesn't support - and losing copyright means losing that control.

Copyright is "protect it from all breaches or lose it." It's stupid, but that's the state of the law.

Oh baby, baby, baby
Don't my kisses please u right
Baby, baby, baby
Don't infringe my copyright

Actually, he doesn't really have a choice.

If it can EVER be shown that he knew of a copyright infringing action and DIDN'T sue, his copyright over that piece can be declared null and void by a court. Bang - the music is in the public domain. And even if he has more money than god, he very well might want to keep his work from being used to advertise and promote causes or politicians he doesn't support - and losing copyright means losing that control.

Copyright is "protect it from all breaches or lose it." It's stupid, but that's the state of the law.
That seems highly, highly, highly unlikely. You are going to have to back that up with... oh what are they called, oh yeah, facts.

That seems highly, highly, highly unlikely. You are going to have to back that up with... oh what are they called, oh yeah, facts.

The US Copyright code is available online. Knock yourself out.

WTF...I hope she wins her case against these a**holes

The US Copyright code is available online. Knock yourself out.
I'm sorry, I fail to see facts. Since it is available online, I trust you can produce the part of the code that proves what you said true.

The US Copyright code is available online. Knock yourself out.

I looked because I'd love for TPH to get smacked around yet again for mouthing off as it's kind of fun to watch the dude spiral out of control, but I think in this case you're talking about trade marks, not copyrights. I looked through Copyright law (the actual law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html)) and couldn't find what you're talking about.

In fact, I found two of these-
First (http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html)-
5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.
A little shy on details, so I kept digging...
Second (http://faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/myths/part1/) more or less the exact same thing. But without the double up on questions.
5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it."

False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless
explicitly given away. You may be thinking of trade marks, which
can be weakened or lost if not defended.

This place (http://www.out-law.com/page-334) mentions it as a myth but doesn't really address it.

Here (http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Use%20it%20or%20Lose%20it.htm) is something like what you described for Trademarks. Not in the US, but anyway...

I'm gonna have to say that you're thinking of trademarks unless you can show me something I missed.

I looked because I'd love for TPH to get smacked around yet again for mouthing off as it's kind of fun to watch the dude spiral out of control, but I think in this case you're talking about trade marks, not copywrights. I looked through Copywright law (the actual law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html) and couldn't find what you're talking about.

In fact, I found two of these-
First (http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html)-

A little shy on details, so I kept digging...
Second (http://faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/myths/part1/) more or less the exact same thing. But without the double up on questions.


This place (http://www.out-law.com/page-334) mentions it as a myth but doesn't really address it.

Here (http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Use%20it%20or%20Lose%20it.htm) is something like what you described for Trademarks. Not in the US, but anyway...

I'm gonna have to say that you're thinking of trademarks unless you can show me something I missed.

Yeah, you might be right at that. Been a while since I dealt with either.

Yeah, you might be right at that. Been a while since I dealt with either.

Meh, he's got to get one now and then, it gives him that false sense of confidence that allows for more spectacular face plants later on...

i think at 16 or 17 seconds i might have recognized a note or two.

but otherwise, no. i could not tell what the hell it was.

if i hadn't been told of this story,
even with the title of the video,
i doubt i would have gotten that.


but even if it was completely clear,
come on Prince.

lighten up.

you're almost as bad as a craperation here.
oops. sorry, a shiteration.
a diaherea-eration.
a corruption

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3777651&page=1

Apparently Prince has more money than he knows what to do with so he puts a bunch of legal pit bulls on a retainer and sits on his ass surfing YouTube for any videos that even kind of resemble songs he makes. Such as this 29 second video of a baby pushing around a grocery cart to a terribly, terribly garbled 29 second part of "Let's Go Crazy."

Here is the song infringing upon Prince's copyright and depriving him of the absurd amounts of money he really doesn't need any more (recall Prince went against his label a little while back and distributed his new CD for free in a newspaper): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQAlmost certainly Prince himself did not get into something that would be ultimately irrelevant to him. It's record labels that hire lawyers to surf the web in search for copyright infringements. It's like the lawyers representing the Tolkien Estate searching the web for copyright-infringing maps.

Almost certainly Prince himself did not get into something that would be ultimately irrelevant to him. It's record labels that hire lawyers to surf the web in search for copyright infringements. It's like the lawyers representing the Tolkien Estate searching the web for copyright-infringing maps.

Not according to the article...