Posted Monday 19th November 2007 19:47 GMT
Why any one would want to remain a fan and continue to maintain a web site for this clown is beyond me. Why El Reg keeps reporting on this crap is also beyond me.
Posted Monday 19th November 2007 19:47 GMT
All Web sites, reporters, journalists, bloggers, etc, should henceforth *completely* refrain from naming the artist formerly known. Full stop.
Remove any existing files referring to him and/or his (alleged) art.
Refuse to participate in any sort of event that names him (to include concerts, motion pictures, etc.).
In other words, a complete and total ban on any mention of this former person.
Perhaps that will satisfy him.
Posted Monday 19th November 2007 21:12 GMT
Why should a UK website take notice of an US law. US courts have no jurisdiction in the UK . Letting them run roughshod over UK citizens is out of order and is the job of " UK.GOV"
Posted Monday 19th November 2007 21:12 GMT
What a wimpy website. At least a satirical website should know using pictures for satirical use is exempt from copyright.
Posted Monday 19th November 2007 21:12 GMT
but he does know how to perform and put on a show.
Just ask anyone who enjoyed his half time performance at the Superbowl earlier in the year (or was it last year, I forget).
Just look in "the usual places", if you know what I mean.
Posted Monday 19th November 2007 23:22 GMT
>> Just look in "the usual places", if you know what I mean.
Actually no, i'm an old fart. Those newfangled "torrents", amirite?
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 00:51 GMT
... seems like a slippery slope if they start bowing ... I actually like the site because it was something that truly was free speak on the net.
I mean I would have loved to see some of the post on there go through the courts either in America or the UK ... it would have made Prince a laughing stock.
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 00:51 GMT
What a wimpy comment.
A) b3ta don't have the money to fight this kind of case. I don't suppose you're offering to fund the lawsuit?
B) Whilst parody is allowed under "fair use", this doesn't mean you can libel or slander people under the pretext of it being parody. I'm not sure that satire comes under "fair use" at all. Perhaps somebody who knows the DMCA a bit better can clarify this.
C) "Why should a UK website take notice of an US law" ? Er, because the hosting servers are in the US and therefore can come under US jurisdiction.
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 00:51 GMT
And still we should give a crap about an 80's has been because?
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 01:33 GMT
"Just look in "the usual places", if you know what I mean."
i don;t know what this says about the state of my mind but for some reason i thought this was some kind of sexual slur against the Purple One. :-)
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 10:22 GMT
It's not even *his* copyright anyway!
Lest anyone forget, the copyright in a photograph or a drawing belongs to the photographer / artist, *not* the subject.
If you don't want to see your face everywhere, then perhaps "pop star" was a bad career choice.
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 10:22 GMT
"What a wimpy website. At least a satirical website should know using pictures for satirical use is exempt from copyright."
Fairly certain it isn't.
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 10:22 GMT
Did you read the reviews of his shows at the O2? He is no has been, and remains a musical genius, and a good businessman.
People are quick to have a pop at Prince - they forget he gives FREE music, and was likely the catalyst for many other bands to do the same.
Would you like it if some website posted rude parodies of you or your family? Or someone made money using images of you? Thought not.
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 11:05 GMT
He's released a song called "PFUnk"? Seems odd to complain about copyright infringement when openly ripping off another act.
And then there's the potential lawsuit from Alvin and the Chipmunks.
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 11:29 GMT
Why did you put "[sic]" after "harmonious"? That's a correct spelling. See:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=35883&dict=CALD
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 12:07 GMT
Unfortunately to have the honour of officially photographing his purpleness you have to sign a photo-release which severely limits the use of the images - almost but not quite signing away copyright. For the cameraphone images not a problem but the photos on b3ta were professional images which almost certainly were taken under the agreement of the photo-release. Having signed a couple of these myself I'm sure they're pushing the boundaries of UK law but being freelance a) I don't have the money to test it in the courts and b) I want to carry on working ;-)
A Photog
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 14:38 GMT
"Unfortunately to have the honour of officially photographing his purpleness you have to sign a photo-release which severely limits the use of the images" -- but this almost certainly is not legally enforcible.
It would actually be worth calling the little runt's bluff and going to court. Remember, in the UK courts, the losing party pays both sides' costs and no lawyer gets a penny until a verdict is delivered.
Alternatively, you could refer Prince to the reply in Arkell vs. Pressdram .....
Posted Tuesday 20th November 2007 14:57 GMT
Missread "pint-sized warbling funkster" as "pint-sized warbling fucker". Would have been far more accurate
Posted Wednesday 21st November 2007 01:06 GMT
"People are quick to have a pop at Prince - they forget he gives FREE music, and was likely the catalyst for many other bands to do the same."
Actually he didn't give it away free, the papers gave it away to their readers but he was paid $500,000 plus the royalties from each CD so in one weekend earned 8 times as much as he made on UK sales of his previous album. Not bad earnings from giving something away.
Back to the article
