Prince to Shower Purple Rain on Pirate Bay, eBay and YouTube

http://www.dailytech.com/...le9709.htm

The prince tells the Pirate Bay "Party over, oops out of time"

The Pirate Bay is the Internet's largest Torrent tracker, and has been for some time now. However while other trackers and piracy advocates tend not last very long, The Pirate Bay is actively stirring the pot.

For a short time the organization tried to raise money to buy the island nation of Sealand, and more recently it obtained the ifpi.com domain, formerly occupied by the IFPI, the RIAA's parent affiliate. However, its legal battles have come to boil, with Swedish authorities issuing charges against five Pirate Bay admins -- only two of which have actually been identified.

Now The Pirate Bay has a surprising new nemesis in the form of the chest-baring, fashioning setting, funk-rock jammer Prince. Prince, recently gave away his album for free in the British newspaper the Mail On Sunday, infuriating his record label.

Now Prince has taken a surprising stand in the other direction.

Prince Rogers Nelson sees it as his right to defend his copyrights against all who might dare commit what he sees as infringements upon them.

Prince plans to launch a triad of attacks, with lawsuits in the U.S., Sweden, and France (France, being known for its strong copyright protections), which aims to put The Pirate Bay's funky feel-good days to an end. Prince is also suing companies who advertise on The Pirate Bay.

Prince added some hired guns in the form of John Giacobbi, President of Web Sheriff, and the rest of Web Sheriff to help coordinate his fiery legal onslaught upon on the pirates.

Giacobbi already launched into allegations stating that The Pirate Bay makes $70,000 monthly in advertising revenue, a charge The Pirate Bay denies.

The Pirate Bay is not the only one who Prince is hoping to make cry like a wounded dove. Prince stated his desire to "reclaim the Internet" and in recent months has become a champion for militant copyright protection, announcing that he would take legal action against YouTube and Ebay, as well as The Pirate Bay.

YouTube chief counsel, Zahavah Levine, apparently unimpressed by Prince's legal wrath issued a unconcerned response, "Most content owners understand that we respect copyrights. We work every day to help them manage their content, and we are developing state-of-the-art tools to let them do that even better. We have great partnerships with major music labels all over world that understand the benefit of using YouTube as another way to communicate with their fans."

The Pirate Bay also responded, with Pirate Bay admin brokep stating that the organization was not been contacted by Prince, and that Web Sheriff has been sending them take down notices for a prolonged period, which The Pirate Bay's filtering software conveniently trashes.

However, even with the world's greatest funkmaster on their heels, all is business as usual at The Pirate Bay. Just last week prosecuters in Sweden vowed to take action against the organization, even though the site continues to adhere to Swedsh copyright laws.

Giacobbi, of Web Sheriff countered, "They'll either have to come out and fight or just try and ignore it. In that case, we're going to win a default judgment against them. This could be a ticking time bomb for them. They can't outrun this. We are very confident."

There have also been unconfirmed reports of Prince shutting down fan web sites for use of his images, lyrics, songs, or likeness.

This article title gave me the giggles in the worst ways.

And he proposes to get French and US law enforced in Sweden how?

I mean seriously wtf is the point in getting default judgements in the countries people are not even in?

Dead easy to get a default judgement in a country where there is no defendant

A pointless exercise designed to give WS something to crow about

Pathetic, truly pathetic

As for the legal action in Sweden, lets see if that actually happens and who wins

I know who my money is on and they aint purple

Peace8Love said:

b3xy said:

Peace8Love said:

http://www.dailytech.com/Prince+to+Shower+Purple+Rain+on+Pirate+Bay+eBay+and+YouTube/article9709.htm

The Pirate Bay also responded, with Pirate Bay admin brokep stating that the organization was not been contacted by Prince, and that Web Sheriff has been sending them take down notices for a prolonged period, which The Pirate Bay's filtering software conveniently trashes.

i never knew about this site before he decided to sue it but they definately have an interesting way of dealing with the legal stuff

.

Eye think that trying 2 control what is done in the internet is virtually impossible! And any1 attempting it, will b rendered helpless. Even if in court, the Web Sheriff were granted the right 2 do as they please (as they'v done in the past), they still wouldn't b capable 2 stop the vast # of people 4rm doing as they please. There will always b pirating, and bootlegging. The web is an immense system of programs and endless capabilities...to stop it u may as well try 2 control the astrological movements in space.
[Edited 11/19/07 17:37pm]

PurpleRain747 said:

Markland said:

violetblues said:

why is he bothering with pirate bay? idiots they may be but they're hardly making much of a difference as regards music, let alone music like prince. their "all official prince albums" torrent has a whopping four seeders and seven downloaders. a torrent of one of the o2 shows has one seeder and one downloader. the best planet earth can manage is 7 seeders and 3 downloaders. and you cant even get individual torrents of most prince albums. its much more a site for television, movies and software than music and the only music it does distribute heavily is stuff like britney which is going to sell huge amounts anyway.

all he's doing is giving them more attention for very little reward.
[Edited 11/19/07 18:51pm]

Markland said:

violetblues said:

lol, youre a twerp

And that was obviously a well thought out, articulate, convincing opinion you gave there

i only wish this guy who claims to shun the past would be more attentive to the creation of his current music than controlling the consumption of past glory.As long as evidence of his past exist he ( as he once said in a chris rock interview) "cant beat that guy" circa 198somethin.Yes there are some who get 15 minutes of fame from this but he's had 30 years of fame and still seems overwhelmed by it.

anon said:

lspear76 said:

lspear76 said:

violetblues said:

Markland said:

And that was obviously a well thought out, articulate, convincing opinion you gave there

because thats about all i could muster for you.

let me ask you this thoe.....

why are you shaking your little ass and pom-poms for these guys anyway, lol and the article quotes your supposed advertising revenues also.

dude,... i dont wonder why you dont spend your time helping the homeless or something usefull like that, but at least dont trash people that work their ass off not only make a living but to entertain you all,

whatever dude, enjoy youreself.

I think this whole thing is stupid. If other companies took the same view as those of the recording industry then we wouldn't be able to do anything. Imagine buying a car from Ford...but Ford says that you can only drive during certain times of the day and only on certain roads, and that you can't share a ride with anyone. Imagine if you went to the grocery store and bought bread, but the bread company said that you can't use it to make a sandwich, you can only use it to make toast and that you can't share not even one slice with anyone. What if you bought a tv and Sony said that you can only watch certain tv stations and that you and only you can watch it? What if it was like that with every manufacturer, developer, artist, laborer...etc. Why are we being forced to pay for cd's but it's not considered ours? Why are we purchasing music but we don't own it? We buy the cd but it's not ours. No matter what else it is, if we buy it we own it and we can do whatever the hell we want with it. But record companies who rip us all off...even the artists that make the music are telling us what we can and can't do with the cd's that WE PAID for? That is stupid. If you want the artist to make the money they deserve then control the record companies from controlling them, their music and ripping them off for millions. Force the record companies to revamp their greedy contracts. Why aren't the record companies being controlled? No, instead they want to go after us for sharing some music and bring a little joy to other people. They want to sue the people that can't afford to buy their music so they download it for free...and don't give me any crap about them affording a computer to download but can't afford a cd. I know a lot of people that don't have computers. They instead go to the library or a friends house and download.

I think that maybe the first year of a new album should be controlled. But after the surge of popularity of the song or album is done, they can loosen the sharing restrictions. there is a happy medium for us all...FIND IT!!!

I think from now on anything I buy I'm going to share it with my neighbors and friends...I hope maytag doesn't come after me!!!

lspear76 said:

Skillz4 said:

Websheriff --> <--What someone needs to do to him.

Skillz4 said:

theghostoftonym said:

Oh, to be in England!
We might be crap at football, but at least our legal system doesn't permit this nonsense.

LordMarcusMont said:

violetblues said:

Skillz4 said:

I think this whole thing is stupid. If other companies took the same view as those of the recording industry then we wouldn't be able to do anything. Imagine buying a car from Ford...but Ford says that you can only drive during certain times of the day and only on certain roads, and that you can't share a ride with anyone. Imagine if you went to the grocery store and bought bread, but the bread company said that you can't use it to make a sandwich, you can only use it to make toast and that you can't share not even one slice with anyone. What if you bought a tv and Sony said that you can only watch certain tv stations and that you and only you can watch it? What if it was like that with every manufacturer, developer, artist, laborer...etc. Why are we being forced to pay for cd's but it's not considered ours? Why are we purchasing music but we don't own it? We buy the cd but it's not ours. No matter what else it is, if we buy it we own it and we can do whatever the hell we want with it. But record companies who rip us all off...even the artists that make the music are telling us what we can and can't do with the cd's that WE PAID for? That is stupid. If you want the artist to make the money they deserve then control the record companies from controlling them, their music and ripping them off for millions. Force the record companies to revamp their greedy contracts. Why aren't the record companies being controlled? No, instead they want to go after us for sharing some music and bring a little joy to other people. They want to sue the people that can't afford to buy their music so they download it for free...and don't give me any crap about them affording a computer to download but can't afford a cd. I know a lot of people that don't have computers. They instead go to the library or a friends house and download.

I think that maybe the first year of a new album should be controlled. But after the surge of popularity of the song or album is done, they can loosen the sharing restrictions. there is a happy medium for us all...FIND IT!!!

I think from now on anything I buy I'm going to share it with my neighbors and friends...I hope maytag doesn't come after me!!!

lol, where could i download a free ford!!

SexyBeautifulOne said:

violetblues said:

lol, where could i download a free ford!!

You may not be able to download a Ford but you can buy a used one. So Skillz4's point is valid. Suppose Ford said suddenly decided that since the economy is in such a rut that you could no longer purchase a friends 2003 Explorer for say $5000 because there are plenty 2003 Explorers on the Ford Used Car lot for $15000.

Or your Grandmother couldn't give you her Lincoln that she no longer drives that's sitting in her driveway because that would prevent you from going to a dealership to buy a new one.

Or what if all of the Big 3 US automakers got together with some lobbyists and convinced Congress that since their sales are in the slumps because people are buying Toyotas and Hondas that it should be illegal to drive cars not made by them.

Far fetched...maybe...then again...maybe not!

anon said:

SexyBeautifulOne said:

Thats so funny that this post was posted as a positive thing...


lol..