See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 25th, 2007 at 9:57 am, downwithabsolutes said:

   This seems so odd. I’m wondering why Universal Music Group has the right to dispute the use of “Let’s Go Crazy.” While Universal is the label currently distributing Prince’s new album (just distributing, he’s not actually an act on the label), “Let’s Go Crazy” was a product of Prince’s years with Warner Bros. during the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Naturally, since they own the rights to the masters for “Let’s Go Crazy,” one would think it would be up to WB to initiate any copyright cases.

2. #2
   On July 25th, 2007 at 10:16 am, swj719AWG said:

   Interesting point, Down. Does UMG even have the standing to make this claim?

   And I agree MM. You’d think this would be a great sell-point/promo piece.

   Legal and Marketing need to talk more, it sounds like.

3. #3
   On July 25th, 2007 at 10:25 am, Mindcrime said:

   Since only a fragment of the song is presented, couldn’t it fall under the whole “fair use” thing that lets rappers get away with inserting snippets of Sting songs into their rhymes?

4. #4
   On July 25th, 2007 at 11:11 am, The Raging Republican said:

   INSANE!

5. #5
   On July 25th, 2007 at 11:11 am, DirkBelig said:

   Since only a fragment of the song is presented, couldn’t it fall under the whole “fair use” thing that lets rappers get away with inserting snippets of Sting songs into their rhymes?

   If you’re referring to Puff Daddy’s dreadful “I’ll Be Missing You” tune built on top of The Police’s “Every Breath You Take”, he didn’t “get away” with anything. Just about every sample, loop and hook used in music these days is cleared and paid for under licensing terms that are pretty favorable to the original artists. Mariah Carey’s “Fantasy” used The Tom-Tom Club’s “Genius of Love” as its hook and I heard they made a fortune off both the use of their recording plus the songwriters royalties. Read the credits on a rap record and they have swaths of 4-pt. type cataloging all the loops and their writers.

   Where this stuff gets murky is when such tiny slices are used – as opposed to rapping over lengthy beds like Diddy does – that they are almost unrecognizable. Chuck D of Public Enemy has said that grabbing a guitar chord or two bars of drums shouldn’t count any more than using a I-IV-V chord progression like 99.44% of all bands do.

   Because of the crackdown on licensing and clearances, it’s unlikely that we’ll ever get a sonic maelstrom like the Beastie Boys “Paul’s Boutique” again. There are web sites dedicated to cataloging all the snippets that went into what is held as the “Sgt. Pepper’s” of hip-hop music, but under today’s ridiculous intellectual property laws, it couldn’t be done.

   There are artists, like Tyree Guyton, who take trash and junk and make new artistic creations from it. If the same laws that strangle music were used against art, Campbell’s soup could’ve shut down Warhol and Mattel could prevent the use of Barbie dolls in form they disapprove of.

   As for the video being taken down, it’s just more of what I’ve called the record industry’s “War on Consumers” elsewhere in which they’ve figured that brutalizing and suing their customers will save their sinking ship. No need to serve them a better product; sue the pants off them!!

6. #6
   On July 25th, 2007 at 12:08 pm, bipartisancomplainer said:

   If the same laws that strangle music were used against art, Campbell’s soup could’ve shut down Warhol and Mattel could prevent the use of Barbie dolls in form they disapprove of.

   Excellent analogy and definitely food for thought.

7. #7
   On July 25th, 2007 at 12:19 pm, josetheguerilla said:

   Bann a dancing baby? Are you kidding me?

8. #8
   On July 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pm, Kimmer said:

   Are these the same guys who prosecuted Napster several years ago, and who sued all the kids and their parents for downloading?

9. #9
   On July 25th, 2007 at 2:24 pm, shooter said:

   If they were smart, they’d be promoting this cute baby video, not trying to stifle it. Geez

   Big IF.

   They surely missed the boat here.
   Not even mentioning the quality and the fact it is a tiny 5% of the song.
   The ubiquitous ‘trading’ of intellectual property is a problem, but are they so mad at P2P’s and napster’s that they take it out on families?
   Wrong target.

10. #10
    On July 25th, 2007 at 2:49 pm, DesertLover said:

    This would mean that if you took video of you and friends attending any type of a function where there was music of any kind playing in the background they would try to claim you infringed on their copyright … if you made any home video of anything you would need to be sure all the TVs, radios, stereos, cd players, etc., etc., were turned off while you were filming … no more wedding dances, no video of any show your kids are in if there is music involved, the list would go on forever …

11. #11
    On July 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pm, daveglo said:

    Just another example of the legal profession demonstrating it’s disconnect with reality. I don’t fault the managers at UMG, it’s the idiot lawyers who agreed the the suit had merit that are the fools here.

    Where can you find a good lawyer nowadays?

    Oh, yeah, in the local cemetary.

12. #12
    On July 25th, 2007 at 5:32 pm, OldBob said:

    The owners of UMG should immediately fire the most senior manager who had any input into the decision to insist the video be pulled. Anyone with half a brain could figure out a way to capitalize on this cute video and use it to promote their products. That the lawyers thought they had a case is irrelevant … it was a (stupid) management decision!

13. #13
    On July 25th, 2007 at 8:12 pm, OneofThem said:

    You can barely hear the freaking song in the video! And it’s twenty-nine freaking seconds long! And I’ve seen entire songs (albeit low-quality ones) put on YouTube that haven’t been taken down yet!

14. #14
    On July 26th, 2007 at 12:12 am, DaveC said:

    the only case I can possibly see is if the mom who made the video was trying to cash in on it.. she’s not, the video is on youtube for all the world to see, for free…

    and the music is out there for the masses to enjoy..

    short of trying to set up a residual system where you pay a penny every time you listen to a song on your iPod, what more do they want?

    makes me want start illegally downloading more songs..

15. #15
    On July 26th, 2007 at 1:57 am, Mack08 said:

    Too bad the lady that posted the video isn’t an illegal alien. Nobody would dare touch her and she’d probably be given an award for fighting the “man”.

16. #16
    On August 22nd, 2007 at 10:50 am, USpace said:

    I was just about to buy that Prince Album. Now, I am not going to buy it for at least 6 months. Happy now Universal Music? Happy Prince? You idiots, first, you can barely hear the song, two, it is only a small part of the song. UMG, get a new General Counsel, and fire half your lawyers.

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    we need more lawyers…
    .

17. #17
    On November 19th, 2007 at 6:24 pm, thirteen28 said:

    The whole major-label model for the record industry is dying, thanks in no small part to the internet, and the ability of artists to promote and distribute music online. The major labels have been controlling artists and the music they put out, foisting absolute garbage on the public, while charging ridiculous sums for CD’s that have a handful of decent songs and a lot of filler. Consumers are rebelling through various means (buying and downloading individual songs, and in many well-publicized cases, downloading illegally).

    Basically, their business model was based on an internet-less world, and it doesn’t work anymore, and they were way to late to adapt. The gravy train is over, so now they are left to sue, sue, and sue again. While in some cases, they have good legal grounds for doing so, in this case they clearly do not. And in either case, it’s hard to feel any sympathy for the plight of the record companies. In fact, it couldn’t be happening to a more deserving bunch.