May 03 2008

You Should Hide Your Babies from Prince, Just To Be Safe

Published by Rebeccah at 7:50 am under Uncategorized

offline youtube

We briefly touched on the fact that Prince went on a sue-spree last year, where he decided to go after his fans and a little baby with DMCA notices and trademark infringement suits.  In case you missed it, essentially, the YouTube video embedded below was taken offline by YouTube in response to a DMCA notice from Universal Music on behalf of Prince.
The EFF claimed that this was an abuse of the DMCA process in a lawsuit they filed on behalf of the little baby.  The judge dismissed the case entirely, saying that even though there was a DMCA take-down notice, Universal never expressed intent to sue.
The ruling, as TechDirt stated, is a bit disappointing on that count, and also on the fact that the EFF requested a clear ruling from the judge on whether the faint music in the 30 second clip was in fact infringement, and the judge declined.
Perhaps, though, we can take the fact that the video is back online as a tacit approval from Universal/Prince that they just don’t care anymore. That hasn’t stopped the EFF from re-filing their lawsuit, this time with more explicit language so as to elicit a clear judgement as to whether this sort of thing is fair use or is in fact infringement.
With a name like ‘Prince’ you’d think he could afford to be more magnanimous and less niggardly. The old street maxim holds true: once ghetto, always ghetto.
Hold on. Are you telling me Prince filed suit aginst the little baby? If he did, he’s nuts and so is anyone who took him seriously.
Are you a member of the Mashable Community?
Not Yet? Then what are you waiting for,Sign Up!

mashable.com


Tags: ,

13 Responses to “You Should Hide Your Babies from Prince, Just To Be Safe”

  1. Gretta on 03 May 2008 at 8:54 am

    I think it is sick. The problem with congestion is literally too many cars on the road.Their solution? Tax - with the sole aim of making the cost of driving too expensive for poor people. Basically it’s a “Roads for the Rich” scheme. Fuck the quality of life of most British people. Fuck the youth. England is turning into a shitty “for the old folks home” now we have the worst generation - a maturing bunch of selfish cunts voting for their self preservation, making housing unaffordable. The whole British system is to become as rich as possible and keep it with in the family. Secure your and your children’s future through wealth at the cost of your neighbours and so forth.I’m voting with my feet. By this time next year I plan to be living (somewhere else) in Europe or Australia or somewhere. This shitty country is turning into America.

  2. Vita on 03 May 2008 at 9:44 am

    “London mayor Ken Livingstone’s plans for a £25 congestion charge from drivers of high powered sports cars and 4×4s”Yeah, I don’t think my Toyota Corolla and I have anything to worry about.

  3. Joleen on 03 May 2008 at 10:35 am

    If babies travel and get to see the world, they may become terrorists someday.

  4. Bradford on 03 May 2008 at 11:25 am

    Most people probably aren’t, and I guess that would be the point ?

  5. Lorainne on 03 May 2008 at 12:16 pm

    ahhh you mean no way…

  6. Rebeccah on 03 May 2008 at 1:06 pm

    What electronics do you have in your home? Also what type of computer do you have?

  7. Whitaker on 03 May 2008 at 1:57 pm

    I was not talking about this specific instance of a tax, but more generally. I don’t give a fuck about the british situation, given that I’m not even british. Whatever.

  8. Iolanthe on 03 May 2008 at 2:48 pm

    That is crazy! no why i am paying that

  9. Janie on 03 May 2008 at 3:38 pm

    “A state traffic commission voted on Thursday to recommend that New York City charge drivers an $8 daily fee to bring their cars into Manhattan below 60th Street”http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/nyregion/01congest.html?ref=nyregion

  10. Normand on 03 May 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Just don’t do it like Stockholm, where the costs for the system are higher than the fees. And the payment methods sucked big time in the beginning.

  11. Wilburn on 03 May 2008 at 5:19 pm

    hmm.. IMO it would be a better policy if the funds simply went toward the maintenance of NYC roads and associated infrastructure. It is only fair that people who use a service should have to pay a larger share of its costs. Applying the funds in this manner would probably free up other funds in the city’s budget which could then be applied towards mass transit projects.

  12. Sherley on 03 May 2008 at 6:10 pm

    We all already pay stupid taxes like dull and lifeless sheep.How is one more going to hurt us? If someone sticks a knife to our throat and takes our money it is theft, but when somebody threatens us with prison and takes our money it is taxation?I wonder.