Prince DMCAs YouTube To Block Radiohead Song

Enigma2175 writes "CNN is reporting that videos from the Coachella music festival showing Prince covering Radiohead's 'Creep' have been removed by Prince's label, NPG records. Thom Yorke of Radiohead, when told of Prince's action, said 'Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our... song.' No comment from YouTube or Prince yet. Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually the copyright holder and this seems to be just another example of DMCA abuse." As the article points out, Prince seems to have a love-hate relationship with the Interwebs.

There are 3 copyright claims in play

[Anonymous Coward]

Radiohead's ownership of the song's copyright, Prince's ownership of the performance copyright, and the video recorder's ownership of the recording copyright. Prince asked for it to be pulled on his claim. Radiohead could sue him if he didn't properly license their song, though.

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[thermian]

well since you commented on both, you own copyright on mentioning the copyright on the performance of the copyrighted song. I suggest you sue them all for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!

Re:

[Maxo-Texas]

Don't you mean ONE.... "MILLION".... DOLLARS!

(Since we can't hold our fingers up and make quote marks as we say it. heheheheh).

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[Thought1]

Or its current equivalent...34 Euros. (:

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[phoenixwade]

Or its current equivalent...34 Euros. (:

34 Euros = 52.85300 U.S. dollars
learn to convert monies properly ploxkthxbai

I really want a -1 "Woosh" mod.

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[Curien]

I was going to agree with you, but then I RTFA. Quoth CNN:

But the posted videos were shot by fans and, obviously, the song isn't Prince's.

So no, Prince doesn't own the copyright on the recording of the performance.

Re:

[/dev/trash]

So he didn't perform it?

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[sammy baby]

That all depends on whether fan recordings are expressly permitted at Cochella. If I sneak a video camera into a performance of The Philadelphia Orchestra performing the Brandenburg Concertos, I don't get to tell the orchestra to piss off just because the piece was written by Bach.

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[Curien]

A performance cannot be copyrighted. A record of it may be (such as a script, transcript, or video recording), in which case the copyright is owned by whomever created the record.

Re:

[bennomatic]

I think there's some room for interpretation here. Maybe a performance can not be copyrighted, but there are privacy rights to be considered. If this was a free concert in the park, Prince did not have a reasonable cause to believe it was private and any recording would be permissible. However, if it was in a closed venue where there were published rules about video recording, he could get it removed because it is a privacy violation.

It's kind of like paparazzi shots that get published. If someone ha

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Whether all that is true or not, its moot.
The DMCA is the Digital Millenium Copright Act, not the Digital Millenium Privacy Act.
There is no such thing as a DMPA takedown notice.

Re:

[bennomatic]

Ah, but there may be other acts or provisions under which he has the right to issue a takedown notice based on privacy laws. It may be that the source is wrong about it actually being a DMCA takedown, or it may be that his legal crew invoked the wrong law, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't have the legal right to make such a request.

These days, it seems that the phrase DMCA Takedown is used as a generic term by lots of people, like Kleenex is the generic name for facial tissue. Maybe it was something

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[2short]

And maybe it wasn't really Prince, but Elvis, back from the grave, so the copyright really rests with the aliens who resurrected him!

How about we restrict our analysis to the facts as best we know them, rather than making up whatever unsupported hypothetical situation it takes to make your post make sense. (Not that one could actually file a take down notice even under the situation you describe, but that's beside the point.) I see no reason to believe the facts or legal situation are anything other than what the reporter who actually researched the story presents them to be. The idea that Prince filed a takedown notice despite not having any right to do so is both perfectly possible, and sadly consistent with his history.

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[phoenixwade]

Hate to tell you, but Elvis is dead. Your comment doesn't make any sense. But, that being said, point taken.

I still want that -1 "Whoosh" mod...

I believe he is aware that Elvis is dead, which is why he postulated the Alien resurrection theory.

Re:

[tinkerghost]

Hate to tell you, but Elvis is dead. Your comment doesn't make any sense. But, that being said, point taken.

He's not dead, he just went home.

Re:

[cfulmer]

A live performance is not subject to federal copyright law until it is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." And, then, generally the person doing the fixing owns the copyright.

Under federal law, it is illegal to create unauthorized fixations of live works (see 17 U.S.C. 1101). But, doing so doesn't make you a copyright infringer (See 1101(a)). Copyright protection in unfixed works is still left to the states.

The distinction is important because the DMCA only applies to copyright infringement (See 1

Re:

[bennomatic]

Excellent; this is exactly what I've been trying to get at. My understanding was that the "unauthorized fixations of live works" was protected under privacy laws, but the main thing being that I'm sure that there is the possibility that Prince is indeed protected, even if not under the DMCA.

I guess what I've been trying to get at is that Prince might have a legal right to request a take-down; whether it's actually the right thing to do (i.e. is he just being greedy?) or whether he went about it the righ

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[mr_matticus]

Performances are part of the scope of copyright. 17 USC 106(4). Performance rights for other parties must be negotiated and licensed, and the derivative work then falls under the control of the licensee per the terms of their agreement. Recording rights will be included in that, as using the performance to fix the work to a different medium and sharing that publicly is not a right a person will have. 17 USC 106(2,5).
To say a performance cannot be copyrighted is to ignore the issue entirely. The whole reason that videos get pulled from YouTube is because they are unauthorized distribution of recordings.

in which case the copyright is owned by whomever created the record.

Only if that person had the right to prepare the recording in the first place.

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[void*]

Performance rights for other parties must be negotiated and licensed

That sounds a lot more like 'If I write a song, you have to get a license from me to perfom it' than it does 'If you perform a song, you automatically have the rights to any recording anyone happened to make of the performance (unless, of course, you wrote it)"

and the derivative work then falls under the control of the licensee per the terms of their agreement.

Assuming the agreement gives the licensee control - which it doesn't necessarily have to. Most agreements probably would, but I don't see anything stopping anyone from saying "Yes, you can perform my work, but I get the rights to any recordings".

If Prince didn't ask if it was ok to perform it, and if Radiohead still owns the copyrights, then it sounds like Radiohead gets to say what happens to any recordings made, even if Prince (or anyone else) made them.

Re:

[Not The Real Me]

"...If Prince didn't ask if it was ok to perform it, and if Radiohead still owns the copyrights, then it sounds like Radiohead gets to say what happens to any recordings made, even if Prince (or anyone else) made them..."

You're wrong on this.

Radiohead owns the songwriting copyright. Having a songwriting copyright does not entitle the songwriters (Radiohead) to distribution or production rights over musicians (Prince) who cover their material in a performance. Prince needs to get the permission of the so

Re:

[Curien]

Recording rights will be included in [the performance license]

So what? The DMCA only allows the actual copyright holder (or an agent thereof) to issue takedown notices, and the copyright holder in this case is Radiohead, not Prince.

You cannot copyright anything that can't be copied

[2short]

"Prince owns the performance he gave"

No. You and everyone else saying things that amount to this are wrong. Copyright applies to things that may be copied, which performances are not. You cannot hold a copyright on a performance. You can hold a copyright on a recording. You can take legal and/or technological steps to ensure nobody records your performance that doesn't assign you the copyright to that recording. But the performance and the recording of it are different things, and the performance cannot be copyrighted because it cannot be copied.

The words to a song can also be copied, and can be copyrighted. There are two copyrights possibly at play here, and Prince owns neither of them.

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[SillyNickName]

The performance may include a derivative arrangement of the music and/or lyrics (and likely does, given the notably different styles of Prince and Radiohead), and that is a matter of copyright.

I suggest you read the US copyright laws until they sink in and note the requirement that a work be "fixed" in a physical medium to be copyrighted. If Prince published his own DVD of his performance, that would be in a fixed medium and he could have a copyright on that DVD. But the performance itself, regardless of original content, is not copyrightable.

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[Xtifr]

A performance cannot be copyrighted.

Unless the performance has creative elements which stand on their own, i.e. the arrangement, the guitar solo, the intonations chosen when singing the lyrics, etc. Of course, that would technically be a composer's copyright, but that sounds confusing, so most groups that deal with legal fan-made recordings (i.e. the Internet Archive's Live Music Archive [archive.org]) usually just refer to it as a performance copyright. Basically, what it boils down to is that Prince's performance constitutes a derivative work, and unless Radiohead is now releasing their music under a copyleft, they have no say in the matter. The most they could do is ask the fan to remove the creative elements from the derivative work that Prince owns and release whatever is left, but the result would probably be incomprehensible, assuming that such removal were even possible. (Alternatively, they could try to prove that Prince's additions to his arrangement were too minimal to justify copyright protection, but that's likely to be very difficult.)

(If Radiohead's works were released under a copyleft, then Prince would have to choose between allowing fans to distribute his versions or not performing Radiohead compositions at all, but since they aren't, he doesn't.)

minor clarification

[Xtifr]

I wrote:

ask the fan to remove the creative elements from the derivative work that Prince owns and release whatever is left

That was awkwardly phrased. What I meant was: "ask the fan to remove the creative elements that Prince owns from the derivative work". I did not mean to imply that Prince now owns the complete derivative work. He's a part-owner, just like the hundreds of people that have contributed to Linux are part-owners of that kernel.

MOD PARENT UP

[julesh]

Unless the performance has creative elements which stand on their own, i.e. the arrangement, the guitar solo, the intonations chosen when singing the lyrics, etc. Of course, that would technically be a composer's copyright, but that sounds confusing, so most groups that deal with legal fan-made recordings (i.e. the Internet Archive's Live Music Archive) usually just refer to it as a performance copyright. Basically, what it boils down to is that Prince's performance constitutes a derivative work, and unless Radiohead is now releasing their music under a copyleft, they have no say in the matter. The most they could do is ask the fan to remove the creative elements from the derivative work that Prince owns and release whatever is left, but the result would probably be incomprehensible, assuming that such removal were even possible. (Alternatively, they could try to prove that Prince's additions to his arrangement were too minimal to justify copyright protection, but that's likely to be very difficult.)

My god. Somebody on slashdot understands copyright. I'm stunned! ;)

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Opportunist]

What stuns me was already that somebody at all understands it.

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[SillyNickName]

Unless the performance has creative elements which stand on their own,

Still not. A work must be fixed in a tangible medium to be copyrighted under US law. Otherwise people could claim that everything they ever do or say is copyrighted and pretty soon people would be suing each other for walking down the street.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigger clarification: NO, the copyright is not owned ab initio by whoever paid for the recording, it is owned ab initio by the creator; however, it is often ASSIGNED to whoever paid for the recording under the contract between that party and the creator.

Re:

[leamanc]

As ridiculous as it sounds, you don't have to be performing a "published" version, i.e., reading form sheet music, to owe royalties. You owe royalties every time you sing Happy Birthday [snopes.com], in fact.

Re:

[Thing 1]

I'm sorry, I know this is OT, but just how was remarking that the value may be different for a different type of day taking exception with the GP's statement (in his .sig for those who don't view them), which was that "the number of seconds in a day won't fit into a short, but they will into a long", and hence the wordplay of "it's always a long day."

I mean, to be pedantic I could go for the informational aspect of stating "aha! You're wrong, it's really 86,164.090530833 seconds" based on the Wikipedia e [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Zemran]

This is a DMCA notice demanding that you take down your sig as you have admitted that you are in breach of some else's copyright...

Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play

[Dan541]

Prince seems a little desperate for spotlight attention these days.

Wait a minute...

[sgant]

Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually the copyright holder

So let me get this straight, some person or group of persons could go and put a claim on every video on Youtube now and they'd have to take them all down...since they're not required to verify the entity making the request? That seems a bit silly doesn't it? What's stopping someone from mass emailing them with requests for a huge chunk of videos?

Re:Wait a minute...

[Enderandrew]

I do believe that DMCA claims can be contested, but if a site wants to make sure they're not liable, they have to immediately comply with DMCA requests.

Re:Wait a minute...

[smwoflson]

just to be clear...you are correct, DMCA claims can be contested. Actually, under 17 USC 512 (c), the internet service provider (here youtube), after receiving a notice of the potentially infringing material must respond expiditiously to remove the material. However, the ISP must also send notice to the person who had placed the recording on youtube, under 512(g). Then, if that person sends counter notice to whoever sent the first request for removal, the ISP must put the potentially infringing material back on line unless the first person files a court action. If the person files a court action, then the material will be removed until after it. If the first person does not, then the material should be placed back online, i believe.

Re:

[spazdor]

So what you're saying is it would have to be a sustained barrage of takedown requests. If YouTube has to take it down when I request, and put it back up when the owner requests, then all I have to do is be faster on the 'send' button than he is.

Is this a copyright race condition?

Re:Wait a minute...

[LeafOnTheWind]

Falsifying a DMCA claim is a federal offense - you really don't want to get caught doing that.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Falsifying a DMCA claim is a federal offense - you really don't want to get caught doing that.

Yet, this is far from the first time a BigCorp as issued a DMCA takedown notice for material is clearly did not own the rights too. But I've never heard of a single prosecution over such fraud.

Re:Wait a minute...

[SeekerDarksteel]

The penalty of perjury for DMCA notices is with regards to you claiming that you are authorized to speak on the behalf of the holder of the copyright you are claiming is violated. If you claim that your copyright is being violated incorrectly, that's simply an incorrect DMCA notice. So if a lawyer for a record company sends a takedown for a video that they incorrectly believe to violate their copyright, there's no penalty. If I, however, sent a takedown notice for, lets say, a Radiohead song on YouTube claiming I owned the copyright that is being violated, that would be perjury.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Mjec]

Only if you don't have an honest belief that you're Radiohead ;).

Re:

[Alioth]

But then again, there have been many false takedowns by copyright holders who just saw a filename that looked like it might be one of theirs. The Feds don't seem to be going after them at all.

One rule for the RIAA, one rule for others?

Re:

[Nullav]

In the US it is.

Re:

[smwoflson]

to be clear on this as well, under 17 usc 512(f), anyone who knowingly materially misrepresents a claim under the DMCA is liable for any damages, includign attorney's fees. So it is a bad idea to make a false claim under the DMCA.

Crime > tort

[tepples]

OCILLA, the part of the DMCA dealing with takedown notices, requires the copyright owner to make an affirmation under penalty of perjury. Perjury is more likely to be a crime than petty copyright infringement, which is far more often treated as a tort.

Re:Crime tort

[RobertM1968]

the part of the DMCA dealing with takedown notices, requires the copyright owner to make an affirmation under penalty of perjury.

Sadly though, the companies who have already commited such acts (false takedown notices) have not yet (to my knowledge) been charged with perjury, nor have any penalties been levied for time/labor spent or other damages to the parties who were "required" to take down the content.

Perjury is more likely to be a crime than petty copyright infringement, which is far more often treated as a tort.

For now... keep in mind, as many forget here, there is a Criminal Copyright Infringement law -it's just not often used (but has successfully been used recently - either by the MPAA or RIAA - forget which, but you can find it o

Re:Wait a minute...

[stinerman]

It's actually perjury that you'd get charged with if you falsify a DMCA request.

Re:Wait a minute...

[stinerman]

My original point is that lots of crimes are federal offenses, but aren't prosecuted.

I don't know of a single case of perjury being prosecuted for a false DMCA notice. I've seen several stories on this website that talk about people filing DMCA notices in bad faith, but no follow-up regarding any prosecutions.

Your point was that people won't file false DMCA notices because it's a federal crime (and with the implication that it carries a harsh penalty). I was simply pointing out that lots of crimes carry harsh penalties, but aren't prosecuted very often.

Re:

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

They could, but the part of a takedown request where you assert that you are the copyright holder or their agent is made under penalty of perjury. A mass DMCA DoS would be legally actionable.

Re:

[alexgieg]

Not if the DMCA DoS was sent from a country that has no extradition pact with the USA by an anonymous someone.

Re:

[erroneus]

If I understand it correctly, though, a DMCA counter-claim can be issued to have the content restored.

Re:

[CyberLife]

No, the law does not require material to be taken down just because somebody asks. In fact, the law quite explicitly states that a takedown notice is only valid if it comes from a duly authorized party. If you read the synopsis carefully, you'll see that it does not say anything about what YouTube is required to do, rather it says what they are not required to do. They do not have to verify whether a takedown notice is legit. They could choose to do so, but it would seem they don't.

This approach is probably

Re:

[doktor-hladnjak]

Here's my understanding of how DMCA requests work:

1. Somebody sees something that they believe they hold the copyright on
2. Said somebody informs the company that provides the service on which the possibly infringing content has been found. In this notice, they have to assert that they own the copyright of the content.
3. The provider tells whoever put up the content that they've received a DMCA notice about it. If the user agrees that they don't hold the copyright or do nothing at all, the content gets taken do

Re:

[jafo]

The DMCA actually encourages you to *NOT* verify the request is valid. As a service provider, the DMCA take-down basically says that if you take down the content immediately, you will be protected from being sued by the copyright holder.

You, as a service provider, probably cannot verify the claim in the time required by the take-down request. And if you do verify it and decide not to take it down, you are now opening up yourself to being sued.

So why doesn't someone send a butt-load of take-down requests t

Re:Wait a minute...

[HappySmileMan]

They ARE allowed to verify, but only AFTER they remove the clip, then they can verify whether or not it's actually a legal problem, and 9if not, they can put the clip back up.

Problem is, they probably get dozens, maybe hundreds of these requests per day, so they probably just comply and delete, because hiring people to verify these (they WOULD need new full time staff) would be stupid.

Prince has a performance copyright under U.S. law

[buelba]

The performer of a song has a copyright protecting that performance, although obvs. not in the underlying song. Unlike a songwriter (who cannot block covers because of the compulsory license) a performer can block reproduction of the performance. So it seems as if Prince is acting within his rights to assert a copyright over the performance, at least under U.S. law. Whether that copyright trumps fair use, etc., I don't know. But it's not correct to say that Prince has no copyright because he didn't write the song. Like most Slashdotters, I hate the DMCA, and I think it's madness for Prince to try to block this stuff, since it's good advertising and he'll sell more albums if he doesn't, but there it is.

Re:

[mwvdlee]

It really depends on whether Prince had any license to cover the song.
If Prince had no right to cover the song, he can't copyright it.
Basically, Prince has no legal rights over what he's stolen ;)

Re:

[argent]

Unless the UK has a compulsory performance license, which I don't believe is the case, the only thing they could gain from the difference in US and UK law would be the right to refuse distribution of the video.

And in any case, YouTube isn't in England.

Re:

[bennomatic]

That's right; over there it's called YouKayTube.

Seriously, though, since they're part of Google, don't you think they've got infrastructure--and administrative offices--in JOE?

Re:

[bennomatic]

What logic? I was merely pointing out that they actually are in England, and if anything I was trying to imply that they may indeed be beholden to more than just US law.

Re:Prince has a performance copyright under U.S. l

[sn00ker]

Radiohead is an English group, and I'm not sure if what you're saying is true under English law

Two problems with this.
1) YouTube is American, based in America, subject to US copyright law. It doesn't matter a damn where Radiohead is from, because the jurisdiction that counts is the one where the law is being applied. The DMCA is a 'merkin invention, being used on a 'merkin site. Ergo, Radiohead's country-of-origin is irrelevant.
2) Performance right is recognised in UK copyright law. So Prince is entitled to copyright in his performance of the song, even though he does not hold the copyright in the lyrics or the musical score.

If Prince failed to get the appropriate licence to perform the song, as others have noted Radiohead have a course of action for breach of copyright in the lyrics and/or score. They have no grounds to get the video restored, because they don't hold the copyright in the performance and that's the right that the video infringes.

Love/hate ... what a convenient description.

[pitchpipe]

As the article points out, Prince seems to have a love-hate relationship with the Interwebs.

Yeah like I love this web stuff, it makes me lot of money
Later... I hate this web stuff, these Intellectual Property burglars are taking food right out of my childrens mouths. WHAAA

Re:Love/hate ... what a convenient description.

[Bazman]

Does Prince have any children? I mean, how small would *they* be?

Yeah...

[jberryman]

videos from the Coachella music festival showing Prince covering Radiohead's 'Creep' have been removed

...and nothing of value was lost.

Re:

[tomhudson]

videos from the Coachella music festival showing Prince covering Radiohead's 'Creep' have been removed

...and nothing of value was lost.

... but we did gain something - anothr opportunity to link to the "princely" fuckup that is Kevin Smith on Prince [prince.org] :-)

let's settle this

[ILuvRamen]

Obviously Prince is going to challenge him to a game of basketball and the winner gets their way :D btw if you don't know where that's from, trust me, it's funny!

Re:

[Matt Edd]

I was going to mod this funny but when you feel you have to explain your own comment is a joke then it's no longer funny.

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

True.

If you don't have the balls to do your delivery straight and suffer the downmods of the ignorant, you don't deserve upmods either.

Re:let's settle this

[njcoder]

Rumor has it Prince invited Youtube and Radiohead over for pancakes to discuss the matter.

Prince "Owns" A Copyright

[Doc Ruby]

Radiohead owns the copyright of their original copy of the song (if they own the master media onto which it was recorded, and didn't release it from copyright control). That gives them "performance copyright", which lets them require permission from the first other person to "perform" their original recording (either a reenactment of producing the song using new instruments, or just playing back the original recording over speakers in the air to a large crowd or over other broadcast media like radio or TV soundtrack). But after they release the first public performance, anyone can perform the song, provided they pay the pre-set "mechanical" royalty rate (determined by the number of listeners in the venue's capacity, not necessarily those actually hearing the performance, though webcasting is per actual listener). The mechanical rate is low, like under $0.001 per listener, designed for repeated broadcast at rates recoverable by whatever commerce is operated using the performance.

But Prince does own his own performance of that song. He owns the copyright of his own performance, though not of the song he's performing. He's merely performing a song that copyright law lets him perform so long as he's in compliance with the royalty laws that pay Radiohead. Unless Prince was the first person other than Radiohead to perform it publicly, Radiohead doesn't have control over the public performance of the song, just the right to collect the royalties when it is played by whoever wants to.

Copyrights are fairly simple, if taken step by step. That doesn't stop them from being bullshit, especially when practiced by musicians, who always use copyrighted content from other artists without respect to the "original's" copyright.

When someone does something in public, I have the right to see it. I have the right to remember it. I have the right to record what I see and remember, even if the law these days is wrong and can stop me (like most copyright laws, and of course the Hollywood-written DMCA). And if I recorded it, I have the right to show it to anyone I want. This is a freedom of expression that copyright infringes. And since YouTube promotes Prince's commerce much more than it competes with it, no copyright is promoting "progress in science and the useful arts". In fact, this DMCA abuse is killing that progress, right when it could be exploding, but instead miserly copyright owners are pretending they represent "progress", when all they represent is profit.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, no. Prince (or NPG Records, or any of Prince's other representatives, assignees, or whatever) does NOT own his performance of anything. Only expression fixed in a tangible form is protected by copyright.

Radiohead owns a copyright in the score of the song, assuming one exists, because it was fixed on paper. Radiohead also owns copyrights on any recordings Radiohead may have made of the song, because they were fixed on some sort of media. This does indeed give Radiohead a performance right... they can

Re:

[bennomatic]

No, I don't think you can own the copyright to a performance. A performance exists in time and space. What you have is a copyright to any recordings YOU yourself (or Prince himself, or somebody he paid) created, and depending on the venue, privacy rights.

Most concerts expressly prohibit recording devices. If someone made a recording in breach of the terms on the ticket and posted at the gate, then they may be in violation of his privacy rights, and they had no right to make the recording, and thus no

Re:

[bennomatic]

That is to say, a performance exists in time and space, and as such, it's not a copy of anything. Ephemeral acts are not copyrightable; only recordings of them are.

Re:

[Tacvek]

Well, there are rights issues concerned with performance. For example you cannot in general perform a work without a license, despite the fact that under your definition, no "copy" was made. Further, Prince may own copyright to his arrangement of the work. Just like if i wrote a song, and performance it, and you recorded it, your work would still be a derivative of my work (my composition, fixed in the form of the sheet music I was using, even though you did not ever see the sheet music), generally requirin

Are copyrights really so simple?

[tepples]

Copyrights are fairly simple, if taken step by step.

Say I've written and recorded a song, and I want to avoid another "My Sweet Lord" scandal. What are the simple steps to determine whether my song is original or whether I have subconsciously plagiarized a song that I had heard on the radio a decade earlier?

And since YouTube promotes Prince's commerce much more than it competes with it, no copyright is promoting "progress in science and the useful arts".

But the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted Congress's power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as merely the power to attempt "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", refusing to review whether acts of Cong

Re:

[bennomatic]

Interesting post. I think that the "subconscious plagiarism" issue is a good example of the dangers of copyright extensions. I mean, nobody can make a cartoon of a friendly mouse that wears shorts and is friends with a dog and a duck, unless their last name (or their employer's name) is Disney.

But there are strong and weak copyrights, now, aren't there? I mean, that's why Kodak corp chose the name, because it didn't mean anything in any language, but it was easy to remember. If I were to make a solut

Re:

[Mr2001]

But there are strong and weak copyrights, now, aren't there? I mean, that's why Kodak corp chose the name, because it didn't mean anything in any language, but it was easy to remember. If I were to make a solution for cleaning natural fibers and I called it CottonCleaner, that would be a pretty weak copyright, as anything else that cleans cotton would use those words in their own product descriptions.

Those are trademarks, not copyrights. The only connections between trademark and copyright are (1) they both restrict speech and (2) some people misleadingly use the term "intellectual property" to refer to both of them.

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

How do you avoid a "My Sweet Lord" hijacking of your song because it shares a chord pattern with a previous song (and thousands of others that happened not to sue you)? Get a better lawyer.

Harrison lost that case not on its merits, but because his lawyer wasn't good enough. Copyrights are simple, which means a better lawyer can simply beat you. Complex laws might make a better lawyer more important, but it's still essential.

All power to "promote" can only be an attempt to promote, unless Congress is going t

Say, Doc...

[jpellino]

Can you direct me to the Coachella Valley and the giant carrot festival.... therein?

Thom Yorke and those other Rhs.

[unity100]

im seriously considering whether i should have your babies or not. and im a heterosexual male. go figure.

Prince isn't exactly burdened with reality.

[Ransak]

I have my doubts Prince is even aware of this particular DMCA take down notice. Reality isn't exactly where he spends most of his time.

As Kevin Smith once revealed:

t's 3 in the morning in Minnesota. I really need a camel . Go get it. - Prince

(Yes, I know it was partly farcical, but the basic premise is sound - he's a loon.)

Tough call

[DarkSkiesAhead]

I can see both sides of the issue here.

One on hand, this is an ugly example of DMCA abuse and goes against the wish of even the copy right owner.
One the other hand it's one less Prince recording on the internet.

I'm inclined to side with Prince here since the public welfare outweighs the individual IP.

Re:

[Zorque]

Disregard that, I'm a dumbass.

the moral of this tale is...

[owlnation]

... never trust a man with a dog's name.

Re:

[bennomatic]

What have you got against Indiana Jones?

Re:

[whitehatlurker]

Rex? Is that you, boy?

Are the video reviews of games on YouTube at risk?

[Joe The Dragon]

Are the video reviews of games on YouTube at risk? As well?

Re:

[Darkness404]

No, because Nintendo, Sony, EA, even MS realize that reviews help people buy games much as how music videos help people choose which music to buy. Because there is more competition, unlike in the record business, the companies usually are more sane. For example, Nintendo will most likely never go after someone downloading ROMs like the *AA will for people downloading songs, even though proportionally Nintendo loses more money per ROM download then the *AA loses per music download (A song costs $.99 or less

Fine by me

[CopaceticOpus]

If Prince doesn't want the free publicity, give him what he wants and ignore him. Then continue to ignore him when he releases a new album or comes to town. There are plenty of great musicians who aren't so dogmatic and naive about copyright issues.

You're much better off watching Radiohead perform their own ... song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpblnsJEWM [youtube.com]

DMCA Counter-Notice

[John Hasler]

> Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually
> the copyright holder and this seems to be just another example of DMCA abuse.

Under the DMCA the person who put the material up can file a counter-notice asserting that they have the legal right to distribute the item. YouTube can then put it back up with complete impunity and the only way Prince can get it taken back down is to file a copyright infringement suit (within 30 days) against the person who put it up and convince a Federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction. There are criminal penalties for filing a false DMCA takedown notice, and the target could also claim damages.

Prince?

[nurb432]

He is still around? And we care what he wants why?

He's just milking this to get free press to help save a long dead career. Ignore him (?) and he will go away.

Re:

[julesh]

Yes, the artist formerly known as The Artist Formerly Known As Prince is still around and pissing people off. It's what he does best.

Fixed

[Dragonshed]

> As the article points out, Prince seems to have a love-hate relationship with his fans.

Fixed

What abuse?

[iminplaya]

The DMCA is working exactly as intended. To help stamp out alternative methods of distribution and protect the entrenched publishing industries. The only abuse here was committed by the people who voted for and reelected the politicians who enacted this law. I don't get it. You people wanted near infinite copyright. You want 100 years of war. Well now you'll get it. You have been given what you want, and now you're complaining about it. A more schizophrenic bunch I've never seen. The government is acting on

God...

[crhylove]

Prince is such a douche. Can we just all decide to stop listening to his whiny effeminate voice now? Although I do like what he did to Paris.....

We should start a reality show where Prince is the lead singer of Metallica. They can all whine and be douches TOGETHER!

I'm amazed nobody said it yet

[Opportunist]

Video being uploaded again in 5...4...3...2...

By 100 people now, instead of just one. Just out of spite.

DMCA easily abused.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for the IP department that would handle this if I worked for google, but I don't work for google.

DMCA takedowns are no-questions asked "Under perjury, I own this, remove it, NOW" legal letters that range from "I am sueing you for 10,000 euros for every 30 seconds it's visible" to "this person has something that only looks like mine, but I want it removed."

In the case of something that Prince has covered, he doesn't own the copyright on the original song, but does on the performance. So he could request it be removed.

I regularly see stuff from Prince's lawyers, who also do stuff for other independent artists, but it appears Prince is the only one that gets attention for it.

If it's wrong, send a counter notice, counter notices are valid in the US as long as the issue is about copyright. In which case be prepared to goto court and sue the otherguy.

Artist's Relationships with the "Interweb"

[istartedi]

This aspect is what's really interesting. There probably aren't enough data points yet, and we are plainly in a transition period for music distribution technology. The intersting thing to study is to rate artist's approaches to the 'net based on one or more criteria, and attempt to correlate them to success or failure.

I think it would be difficult, if not impossible to come up with any real answer though. First, art is not a commodity so you can't compare Prince as a producer of "1000 barrels of music per day" vs. Radio Head as "1000 barrels of music per day". Secondly, the overall economic climate for musicians may be in decline, and the falling tide may be sinking all the yachts, whether they play on the 'net or not. Whether this decline is due to the the 'net or not is a separate issue that's really rather moot: the cat's out of the bag. The more practical quetion, from the PoV of the musician, is "do I have more to gain by participating in the old model or the new". The answer (pure speculation on my part) probably depends a lot on how you got started. Artists who's careers span the pre-Internet era might be well served by sticking with the old model, whereas new artists might be better off paying less attention to the old model, or maybe even ignoring it totally.

Once we enter a stage where all the currently performing artists started their careers post-Napster, the picture should be more clear.

Limelight

[Wowsers]

Thank goodness that Prince issued this ridiculous DMCA stunt, for a moment there I thought he had become an irrelevance to modern pop music scene. This will definitely make me buy his records now.

It's just not a good cover...

[Ang31us]

I just watched the video on YouTube (Streisand effect, anyone?) and found that aside from the original solos that Prince added (which were on-key and quite good), his actual singing of the song was feeble/weak, the song lacked its climaxes at the chorus, and he was off-time when singing the song's verses; he totally bastardized the song. If I were Prince, I would want it taken down too, out of embarassment for how bad the cover was.