Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Prince DMCAs YouTube To Block Radiohead Song

Posted by kdawson on from the purple-power dept.

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.

5 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Prince isn't exactly burdened with reality. by Ransak · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.)

    --
    "Powers. I have them."
  2. Are copyrights really so simple? by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 Congress succeed in promoting such progress. See the Court's opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft and the prior cases that it cites.
  3. Re:Wait a minute... by stinerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play by sammy+baby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play by SillyNickName · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.