« Real Money Debates NFLX on The Street.com | Main | Netflix to Stop Accepting "Pay by Check" »



We're talking about Prince here. You should be expecting insane, irrational behavior. If it weren't for that, the man would get no publicity at all.

Edward R Murrow

Rumor has it that the lawyers representing Prince will be going after Prince William of Wales to get him to change his title to The Royal Formerly Known As Prince William, aka TRFKAPW.

BTW, TRFKAPW's Mom was MILF. LOL, :-)


Some of the criteria they have used to decide which videos stay and which videos go on Youtube and other sites are just plain ludicrous and arbitrary. Often it makes no sense at all. I've dealt with it myself, and if I had the time, money and inclination probably should have fought at least two of the deletions. One was deleted for allegedly being obscene, but was a segment on a newscast. Judge for yourself because I posted it elsewhere so I could use it on my blog:


Another was a commentary that Keith Olbermann did about Rush Limbaugh. Olbermann often uses audio and sometimes video clips of Limbaugh to make his point. I had several of these segments on youtube. But, clear channel asked for one and only to be removed because it was one after the election last year where he publicly admitted that he often lies in his news casts. None of the other clips which used Limbaugh were asked to be removed, including the one where he publicly ridiculed Michael J. Fox.

And lastly, I had a segment up where Olbermann was commenting on A. Rodriquez, and his decision to leave the Yankees being announced during the world series. Major League Baseball got all in a snit because there was about ten seconds of a game clip in the story that ran over eight minutes. That one got my whole account deleted and I that I had used for over a year, including all 400 videos. Here's the rub. It wasn't the first time that a clip I uploaded had used very brief baseball footage in a sports report. But, it was the first time that I had used baseball type descriptions and keywords in describing the video.

Sometimes I think they enjoy shooting themselves in the foot. When people were posting clips from The Daily Show on youtube, I began watching it regularly, mainly because they were a reminder to tune in when I would see them posted on blogs. When VIACOM got all huffy and saw $$$ and had the clips removed with no warning, months after people had already been putting them up to use on their blogs, I quit watching it regularly and seldom tune in anymore. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I have a feeling that it may have hurt the audience figures for The Daily Show more than it helped. And lo and behold Viacom suddenly started enabling Daily show clips so that they could be embedded in blogs.

As for Prince, what was the name of that rock group that got so bent out of shape about Napster, making themselves the poster children of the RIAA?


As for Prince, what was the name of that rock group that got so bent out of shape about Napster, making themselves the poster children of the RIAA?

Metallica and band member Lars Ulrich were very vocal about the 'evils' of the internet.


Wasn't that a rhetorical (and intentionally ironic) question?


"Wasn't that a rhetorical (and intentionally ironic) question?"



As annoying as it is, a copyright owner has to go after the "little" guys in order to protect themselves against those who do misappropriate copyright material for profit. Over time the courts may feel that you aren't really protecting "intellectual property" but in fact are only trying protect profit. Even if income is really the reason behind the legal battles. So while Fred Smith's site with 20 viewers isn't really a threat, the fact that you're letting Fred Smith get away with it my have a bearing when you sue Mr. M. Bags with 40,000 viewers a day who's making $10k a month off your pictures and tunes.

Old Timer Too

Copyrights - don't get me started. Oh, but you already did.

First, Prince is and has always been on the insane side of weird. Like a lot of others, he uses this kind of activity as an attention-grabber when his performing skills (?) leave his fans cold. Instead of working for a living, he pulls a Michael Jackson (another person on the insane side of weird) and makes headlines. I suspect most of it is because the spoiled little twit wants some attention, something that his parents likely quit giving him a long, long time ago and now stay far, far away. Or was he hatched and the bird (brain) wants nothing to do with the result?

For some reason, the entertainment industry has attempted to blur the lines between copyright and patents and wisely, the Supreme Court ruled that the bar for granting patents was far too low. This was after NF pulled their "patent the return envelope" stunt and then went after Blockbuster for infringement.

A copyright, quite simply, is designed to prevent people from making complete copies of other people's works. It includes everything from written/printed material to photographs to recorded entertainment. There is absolutely no intellectual property involved - that is the purview of a patent. Copyrights are not trademarks and vice versa. A trademark is a symbol - an icon - that represents a product or brand. It can consist of a phrase that is unique to the product - i.e., "the quality goes in before the name goes on" - an must be marked, meaning the TM or R symbol are part of the trademark. The difference between R and TM is the R is a registered trademark and is protected (to an extent) by the law. In a very few instances, trademarks can receive so much public use that they lose their protection. The words "fridge" and "xerox" are two examples of this unique situation.

Patents are inventions, and are, by their nature, intellectual property. Over the years, companies have attempted to apply patents to performances and computer code. Neither has done well, aside from the few instances where the code actually represented a process, such as a method to display a graphic. The .gif format is protected by a patent, which is why it has all but disappeared. Musical performances are no longer granted patents, so the "P" mark you see associated with some recordings has pretty much disappeared.

One could argue that a written novel is an intellectual property of its author. Likewise, one could say the same thing for a number of similar creations. But, a novel, poem, performance, etc., are essentially just variations of "prior art" destroys that notion and therefore, no patent is issued.

So that brings us to copyright protection. And that is a long discussion and varies from nation to nation. Canada, for instance, allows for personal copies (up to ten) of anything. The standard rule is much different, denying any one the right to make any complete copy and limiting "fair use" to short excerpts only, which may be used in a critical review or scholarly report/work. There are limits with respect to time and a lot of other factors. It is never legal to make a copy of a complete work for someone else. And finally, copyrights are automatically applied the moment the work is created - it does not have to be published or registered, though registering a copyright makes it easier to defend in court.

Getting back to our favorite fan, Prince - caricatures are legal variations and the man will likely not get his way if he wants them removed. His name is a common term, which will make it even harder to get take away (as one blogger pointed out about Prince William of Wales). Needless to say, the poster child for crybabies can't copyright a prior work, even though he is one (and no apologies to his fans). Since the word "Prince" has been around a lot longer than he has, and is used for everything from dogs - oh, wait, well, no, I won't go there, to attitudes (uh-huh), he's going to play havoc making much of anything stick.

As to photographs, well, if a fan has taken it himself, Prince is a public figure and is fair game for fans, who certainly own their own photographs (and that includes the copyright of those photographs).

I agree with "Public Knowledge." Using something like this shows no respect for the law and in my opinion, should be treated as frivolous and nuisance behavior (which, in some jurisdictions, can have charges brought against such behavior).

The comments to this entry are closed.


Third-Party Netflix Sites