The Home Video Prince Doesn't Want You to See

Oct. 26, 2007 —

A bouncing YouTube baby has be-bopped his way right into the legal cross-hairs of the pop star Prince, sparking a lawsuit that could test the boundaries of U.S. copyright law.

Link: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3777651

:cool::cool:

Prince doesn’t want ANY of his music or videos on You Tube or anywhere else that you can watch them for free.

Who the hell is prince ??? Never heard of him. :confused:

I am a substantial fan of Mr. Nelson, and I’ll simply state 2 things about this:

  1. The fact that a mother of an infant thinks that it is appropriate to show publicly on YouTube a film of her [I]infant[/I] dancing to sexually-intended pop music is sick, even if the kid is fully clothed.

  2. Mr Nelson (a.k.a. Prince, Prince Rogers Nelson, The Artist Formerly Known As Prince) has had millions in dollars unjustfully taken from him by dozens of corporations, and the man is simply trying to protect his image [I]and[/I] his rights as an artist. By permitting this particular film to be shown, it is the same as acknowledging that babies can be sexy. 29 seconds may not sound like a lot, but that’s [I]one seventh[/I] of the song; a greater fraction than most people remember of most pop songs.

:cop:

I can understand Prince not wanting a video like that on You Tube because he doesn’t want any “Controversy”. I understand why he wants to own the master recording for his own music instead of a record co. owning them. But I don’t understand why he won’t let sites like Yahoo Music play his videos because he would make royalties every time someone plays one of his videos. Maybe it’s because he is so against his old record company that he doesn’t want any money going to them.

[QUOTE=RocketRevenge;1932381]I am a substantial fan of Mr. Nelson, and I’ll simply state 2 things about this:

  1. The fact that a mother of an infant thinks that it is appropriate to show publicly on YouTube a film of her [I]infant[/I] dancing to sexually-intended pop music is sick, even if the kid is fully clothed.

  2. Mr Nelson (a.k.a. Prince, Prince Rogers Nelson, The Artist Formerly Known As Prince) has had millions in dollars unjustfully taken from him by dozens of corporations, and the man is simply trying to protect his image [I]and[/I] his rights as an artist. By permitting this particular film to be shown, it is the same as acknowledging that babies can be sexy. 29 seconds may not sound like a lot, but that’s [I]one seventh[/I] of the song; a greater fraction than most people remember of most pop songs.

:cop:[/QUOTE]

Yes! So true!! :iagree:

heres a question for all???what if she was listing to the radio while making this video of her kid… dose that make it a copy right law suit…
some of this stuff is getting out of hand…i have home moves of me and my family at the lake with music playing in the back ground while we are tubing.is it posible for me to be in trouble?

[Quote=]some of this copy right law suit… stuff is getting out of hand…[/Quote]
:iagree:

I hope the woman wins her suite someone needs to put those money hungry
SOB’s in their place. I guess that little 29 second video must have costs him
(Prince) several million dollars in revenue I think [B]NOT!!![/B] He should be happy
that people still like/listen to his music. I’m not trying to put him down or any
thing I still like to listen to his stuff but this is just carrying things to far IMO.:rolleyes: