The Artist Formerly Known As Prince Goes To Battle Against The Practice Commonly Known As File-Sharing

Charlie, I look at it this way.  We read lots of posts here on AR by people complaining about theft of their writing and about their efforts at copyright enforcement.  If we're going to expect anyone to respect OUR rights under copyright law, we have to do the same with other creators of intellectual property, whether it's writing, art, recorded music or video.

I think members like Lenn Harley might argue with the idea that enforcing copyright is "greedy".  Lenn has been a consistent spokesperson and advocate on Active Rain for intellectual property rights.

Martin, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade.  But you may notice I don't put any music on my blog, unless it's "public domain" or it meets whatever requirements ASCAP/BMI/AFM has put in place governing the duration of a sound clip and its use on the Internet.

I currently serve on the Board of an A.F. of M. local (local 30-73, in Minneapolis-Saint Paul). I just posted some info on ASCAP/BMI/AFM and music copyright rules to my blog.

True, Inna..we have to enforce copyright equally.  Copyrighted music deserves the same legal protection afforded to works of literature and authored works (including blog and website content).

Most musicians are not anywhere near as wealthy as Prince.  They need protection too.  In the music business, a lot of people who can't afford to have their work ripped off are injured by piracy.

Natalie -- Some very prominent artists are very unhappy with YouTube  Their business model is at stake.  The fact that they make this material available for download does not automatically make it legal. 

Napster went through the same thing not long ago.  Read here about the history of several lawsuits brought against Napster for copyright infringement.  

You'd have to ask the people at YouTube in order to find out why they continue to distribute code for videos which may contain copyrighted material.  My guess would be that they'd be forced to say "no comment" since the matter is currently in litigation.

I generally don't tolerate anonymous comments on my blog, but I had to address the one above.  The anonymous comment contained the statement that "people are not ripping off artists".  He (or she) made the very amusing claim that downloading copyrighted material (for non-licensed use) is only "using html code to form a data stream to their blogs directly from youtube". 

This is a lot like saying that a deceased person isn't really dead, but only "metaphysically challenged".  A novel courtroom strategy, if I ever heard one.  I'd suggest you contact YouTube's attorneys and offer to contribute your suggestions regarding their defense against the upcoming lawsuit being brought by Prince. 

The author of the comment concluded by stating that he/she decided to remain anonymous because Karen Anne Stone disagrees with him.  That's not very courageous and demonstrates a lack of conviction.  If you want to hide behind anonymity and make pseudo-ignorant comments on someone's blog, I'd say you've come to the wrong place. 

Karen Anne, thanks for reading and contributing.  Looks like you frightened one commenter into going anonymous because of your passionate opinions!  LOL