Home› Other Music

Anyone else think Radiohead is being a bitch here?

LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
edited May 2008 in Other Music
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/30/music.radiohead.prince.ap/index.html

I mean, come on, Prince is covering your song.

EDIT: nevermind.. My drunk ass actually read the article and sort of agree with Radiohead's reasons now..
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • merkinballmerkinball Posts: 2,262
    A quick visit to google finds the following anyway:

    http://inversehiphop.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/prince-creep-live-video/
    "You're no help," he told the lime. This was unfair. It was only a lime; there was nothing special about it at all. It was doing the best it could.

    http://www.last.fm/user/merkinball/
    spotify:user:merkinball
  • Kilgore_TroutKilgore_Trout Posts: 7,334
    merkinball wrote:
    A quick visit to google finds the following anyway:

    http://inversehiphop.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/prince-creep-live-video/
    wow... that was bad... even the radiohead version is bad... thats why they dont play it

    gotta agree with thom tho... its a weird case of ownership and censorship
    "Senza speme vivemo in disio"

    http://seanbriceart.com/
  • IgottagoIgottago Posts: 483
    Interesting case..Radiohead aren't being bitches, they are simply arguing that its not Prince's decision whether to remove the song, because its their song. And seeing as Radiohead are almost always very anti-corporate, this seems to go along with most things they do, like giving an album away for free on the internet.
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    Igottago wrote:
    Interesting case..Radiohead aren't being bitches, they are simply arguing that its not Prince's decision whether to remove the song, because its their song. And seeing as Radiohead are almost always very anti-corporate, this seems to go along with most things they do, like giving an album away for free on the internet.
    I agree.. after I read the article.
  • IgottagoIgottago Posts: 483
    Its very interesting though...I don't understand Prince's thinking here..he's making an argument that the youtube video was copyright violation...but he violated copyrights by covering the song..seems hypocritical to me. What is he trying to protect? The fact that this was a piss poor cover of a pretty good song?
  • Brain Of EBrain Of E Posts: 499
    Igottago wrote:
    Its very interesting though...I don't understand Prince's thinking here..he's making an argument that the youtube video was copyright violation...but he violated copyrights by covering the song..seems hypocritical to me. What is he trying to protect? The fact that this was a piss poor cover of a pretty good song?

    Yes very interesting. But Prince isn't violating any copyrights, as long as the venue is paying it's ASCAP dues, any band can cover any song. If anything Prince is trying to protect his own copyrights, not for the music but for his image. Radiohead can tell him to unblock it all they want, but because Prince is performing it he has the right to block it. Radiohead can't decide what Prince performances can go on youtube. So i think Prince wins this one.
    Down in the hole, Jesus tries to crack a smile beneath another shovel load.
  • W.C. CarterW.C. Carter Posts: 56
    Thats not correct. Since Radiohead wrote the song, they own copyrights to it. Even if Prince covers it, they have the copyright, therefore, have all legal ownership and control over it. Prince has no legal ownership to this performance. Since the owners of the copyright, Radiohead, gave the video the OK, he has no legal standing to have it blocked.
  • Brain Of EBrain Of E Posts: 499
    Like I said before, Prince has ownership over his own image and any of his performances regardless of who's song he's singing, therefore he can block it. Radiohead can choose to block it if they want, because they do have ownership of the song, but they can not force Prince to unblock his own image. This is the same reason Eddie Vedder can block his solo performances. For example, if Ed covers a Bruce Springsteen song, the Boss can't tell him to post it on youtube, that's Ed choice. But if Ed does decide to post it, Bruce can block it if he's not OK with it.
    Down in the hole, Jesus tries to crack a smile beneath another shovel load.
Sign In or Register to comment.