This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.
New topic 
Printable I hope someone showers purple fire on his tale  | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
|
PurpleRain747 said: 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] For Real!!! |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
anon said: PurpleRain747 said: 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] It's true. There are always guys that will stay one step ahead of the technology but on the other end, there are many businesses that are being hurt. If they really wanted to make a dent, even a big one, they could. Unfortunately there are many small companies that will never develop because of pirating. These should be the poster children for the anti-fileshare campaigns. It won't hit the guys at Pirate Bay until their children can't find work because so many fledgling companies were ruined by actions like theirs. Everything balances out. In many ways, it's a noble thing that Prince is attempting to do but it must drain so much of his brain that could be put to better use...doing things like finding a small venue to play in NYC. I suspect he'll, one day, wake up and take the words of one of his songs to heart "It's going down like this system of things". If it has to go down, before it gets better, let it play out. Just make sure to play it out with a hot track. I honestly don't know where Prince finds the time for things like this. Between spirituality, music and all the temper tantrums, it's a wonder he has time to sleep. Amen!!!  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
anon said: SexyBeautifulOne said: I disagree since the problem isn't the copying, it's the loss of revenue. People have been copying and sharing with their friends since the invention of cassette tapes and recorders. It wasn't until the record companies started experiencing loss of revenue that it became a problem. When you spend six months to a year of your life programming software so you can buy a home or feed your family, and you discover that you made nothing because people are downloading without purchasing a license, you'll understand. I feel for the smaller developers most. Many are calling it quits because of this. So yes, the problem is copying. The nature of digital product changes everything. As advantageous as that may be...the problem still is not copying! I received many a copies of software on floppy discs prior to the internet. The problem is the loss of revenue for those that make it and make their living distributing it! Many of the big software companies...and I know this to be fact...are indeed putting their programs out on the internet for people to share...because...it's reaching people that would not have been able to buy it out right on the offset...but do indeed return to those same companies after using their products to generate income and spend it on other applications that help them continue to do so! Adobe products have to be the most pirated software applications out there but you can Google "Adobe sues" for days and not find one suit against piracy! Ask yourself...why is that? [Edited 11/20/07 21:04pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
anon said: SexyBeautifulOne said: I disagree since the problem isn't the copying, it's the loss of revenue. People have been copying and sharing with their friends since the invention of cassette tapes and recorders. It wasn't until the record companies started experiencing loss of revenue that it became a problem. When you spend six months to a year of your life programming software so you can buy a home or feed your family, and you discover that you made nothing because people are downloading without purchasing a license, you'll understand. I feel for the smaller developers most. Many are calling it quits because of this. So yes, the problem is copying. The nature of digital product changes everything. Buying a license you go into it realizing that you are not buying the software but in a way leasing it, so it's never yours. With CDs you buy them and you keep them permanently with no renewal fee's that a user license requires. Just like a drivers license...we don't own them and we have to renew them every so many years. And the laws for duplicating were not illegal back when cassettes first came out. It didn't become an issue till video cassettes became the rage. The point is that when buy a product that you take ownership or the ownership is implied that we still can't use the product to our discretion. There are laws the we must obey with vehicles but it's not an issue of revenue, it's an issue with safety. So if the example of a car isn't to your satisfaction...let's use clothing. I can buy a jacket from Wilson's Leather but they tell me that I can only wear it on certain days during certain hours, AND if my girlfriend is with and she just happens to get cold then too bad; I can't share it with her. Or if I have a friend over and they want to use my jacket, should they have to pay Wilson's Leather to use the jacket? To me it's like double jeopardy. A man came up 2 me, smile in his eyes
He told me I was a saint So I'm quittin' my friends much 2 their surprise I can't live up 2 the picture that they paint Ah somebody help me, I'm losing control I guess I'm just a sucker in the dream factory oh!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Skillz4 said: anon said: But even then you weren't supposed to, but you can't track a cassette tape you copied and gave to a friend? Also, when you duplicate a tape, the quality is reduced. With digital duplicates, it's an exact copy. This is why, when you buy software, you buy a license (or a number of licenses) to use it.
When you spend six months to a year of your life programming software so you can buy a home or feed your family, and you discover that you made nothing because people are downloading without purchasing a license, you'll understand. I feel for the smaller developers most. Many are calling it quits because of this. So yes, the problem is copying. The nature of digital product changes everything. Buying a license you go into it realizing that you are not buying the software but in a way leasing it, so it's never yours. With CDs you buy them and you keep them permanently with no renewal fee's that a user license requires. Just like a drivers license...we don't own them and we have to renew them every so many years. And the laws for duplicating were not illegal back when cassettes first came out. It didn't become an issue till video cassettes became the rage. The point is that when buy a product that you take ownership or the ownership is implied that we still can't use the product to our discretion. There are laws the we must obey with vehicles but it's not an issue of revenue, it's an issue with safety. So if the example of a car isn't to your satisfaction...let's use clothing. I can buy a jacket from Wilson's Leather but they tell me that I can only wear it on certain days during certain hours, AND if my girlfriend is with and she just happens to get cold then too bad; I can't share it with her. Or if I have a friend over and they want to use my jacket, should they have to pay Wilson's Leather to use the jacket? To me it's like double jeopardy. For mamy many many years, books, tapes etc have come with a warning that no part must be reproduced without the written consent of the ownwer/publisher etc. period Just because this is a lot easier people think it doesn not apply anymore. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SexyBeautifulOne said: anon said: But even then you weren't supposed to, but you can't track a cassette tape you copied and gave to a friend? Also, when you duplicate a tape, the quality is reduced. With digital duplicates, it's an exact copy. This is why, when you buy software, you buy a license (or a number of licenses) to use it.
When you spend six months to a year of your life programming software so you can buy a home or feed your family, and you discover that you made nothing because people are downloading without purchasing a license, you'll understand. I feel for the smaller developers most. Many are calling it quits because of this. So yes, the problem is copying. The nature of digital product changes everything. As advantageous as that may be...the problem still is not copying! I received many a copies of software on floppy discs prior to the internet. The problem is the loss of revenue for those that make it and make their living distributing it! Many of the big software companies...and I know this to be fact...are indeed putting their programs out on the internet for people to share...because...it's reaching people that would not have been able to buy it out right on the offset...but do indeed return to those same companies after using their products to generate income and spend it on other applications that help them continue to do so! Adobe products have to be the most pirated software applications out there but you can Google "Adobe sues" for days and not find one suit against piracy! Ask yourself...why is that? Sure some companies aren't so concerned about circulating software this way because it builds a user base and communities etc... Macromedia was better about this than Adobe. It was brilliant to make part of the Flash technology open source. Look at all the developers that use it now...YouTube wouldn't be YouTube without. And then there's all the open source software. It's free. For pretty much every app out there, there's an open sourcs equivalent. There's an open source Photoshop, there's even an open source Windows. But none of this really supports your argument. It's the developers choice to choose their business model. You can't impose it. It's like saying you have a neighbor that leaves the keys in her Ford and the doors unlocked so that anyone can use it whenever they want...so this makes it ok for anyone to break into your Ford and use it, too. Why do you like playing around with my narrow scope of reality? - Stupify | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Skillz4 said: anon said: But even then you weren't supposed to, but you can't track a cassette tape you copied and gave to a friend? Also, when you duplicate a tape, the quality is reduced. With digital duplicates, it's an exact copy. This is why, when you buy software, you buy a license (or a number of licenses) to use it.
When you spend six months to a year of your life programming software so you can buy a home or feed your family, and you discover that you made nothing because people are downloading without purchasing a license, you'll understand. I feel for the smaller developers most. Many are calling it quits because of this. So yes, the problem is copying. The nature of digital product changes everything. Buying a license you go into it realizing that you are not buying the software but in a way leasing it, so it's never yours. With CDs you buy them and you keep them permanently with no renewal fee's that a user license requires. Just like a drivers license...we don't own them and we have to renew them every so many years. And the laws for duplicating were not illegal back when cassettes first came out. It didn't become an issue till video cassettes became the rage. The point is that when buy a product that you take ownership or the ownership is implied that we still can't use the product to our discretion. There are laws the we must obey with vehicles but it's not an issue of revenue, it's an issue with safety. So if the example of a car isn't to your satisfaction...let's use clothing. I can buy a jacket from Wilson's Leather but they tell me that I can only wear it on certain days during certain hours, AND if my girlfriend is with and she just happens to get cold then too bad; I can't share it with her. Or if I have a friend over and they want to use my jacket, should they have to pay Wilson's Leather to use the jacket? To me it's like double jeopardy. Why do you like playing around with my narrow scope of reality? - Stupify | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
anon said: Skillz4 said: Buying a license you go into it realizing that you are not buying the software but in a way leasing it, so it's never yours. With CDs you buy them and you keep them permanently with no renewal fee's that a user license requires. Just like a drivers license...we don't own them and we have to renew them every so many years. And the laws for duplicating were not illegal back when cassettes first came out. It didn't become an issue till video cassettes became the rage. The point is that when buy a product that you take ownership or the ownership is implied that we still can't use the product to our discretion. There are laws the we must obey with vehicles but it's not an issue of revenue, it's an issue with safety. So if the example of a car isn't to your satisfaction...let's use clothing. I can buy a jacket from Wilson's Leather but they tell me that I can only wear it on certain days during certain hours, AND if my girlfriend is with and she just happens to get cold then too bad; I can't share it with her. Or if I have a friend over and they want to use my jacket, should they have to pay Wilson's Leather to use the jacket? To me it's like double jeopardy. Well I look at it like this, if him and his lawyers are being that petty then being petty right back is a language they can understand. If I buy a cd then it's mine. I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Even play it at a club where hundreds to thousands can all listen to it...without paying for it. Unless you think the cover charge is paying to listen to it. And if you think that then Prince has a case to go after clubs that play his music and charge people to listen and dance to it. The same goes for sporting events that play his music. A man came up 2 me, smile in his eyes
He told me I was a saint So I'm quittin' my friends much 2 their surprise I can't live up 2 the picture that they paint Ah somebody help me, I'm losing control I guess I'm just a sucker in the dream factory oh!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
anon said: Skillz4 said: Buying a license you go into it realizing that you are not buying the software but in a way leasing it, so it's never yours. With CDs you buy them and you keep them permanently with no renewal fee's that a user license requires. Just like a drivers license...we don't own them and we have to renew them every so many years. And the laws for duplicating were not illegal back when cassettes first came out. It didn't become an issue till video cassettes became the rage. The point is that when buy a product that you take ownership or the ownership is implied that we still can't use the product to our discretion. There are laws the we must obey with vehicles but it's not an issue of revenue, it's an issue with safety. So if the example of a car isn't to your satisfaction...let's use clothing. I can buy a jacket from Wilson's Leather but they tell me that I can only wear it on certain days during certain hours, AND if my girlfriend is with and she just happens to get cold then too bad; I can't share it with her. Or if I have a friend over and they want to use my jacket, should they have to pay Wilson's Leather to use the jacket? To me it's like double jeopardy. Alright, how about the analogy of a book, then? I can buy a book, it's mine, I own it and if I wanted to, I could photocopy or hand write the whole damn book and give it to my friend to read. You can make copies legally for personal or academic use (not to resell or plagerize but to read). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
F*** Prince!
He's a grade A idiot! Youtube could have been to his benefit but as usual he's a major wanker about it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DevotedPuppy said: anon said: How are you people thinking? The jacket example is as bad as the car. The reason it wasn't such an issue with copying, was before there was no real means to copy. Problems are addressed as they arise.
Alright, how about the analogy of a book, then? I can buy a book, it's mine, I own it and if I wanted to, I could photocopy or hand write the whole damn book and give it to my friend to read. You can make copies legally for personal or academic use (not to resell or plagerize but to read). Seriously, some of the logic here is a bit scary....the way issues are confused... It's like people aren't really thinking. This is the reason countries go to war with the wrong countries. People don't think beyond the surface bytes. Why do you like playing around with my narrow scope of reality? - Stupify | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
anon said: DevotedPuppy said: Alright, how about the analogy of a book, then? I can buy a book, it's mine, I own it and if I wanted to, I could photocopy or hand write the whole damn book and give it to my friend to read. You can make copies legally for personal or academic use (not to resell or plagerize but to read). Seriously, some of the logic here is a bit scary....the way issues are confused... It's like people aren't really thinking. This is the reason countries go to war with the wrong countries. People don't think beyond the surface bytes. 
i gave up trying this point here a little while ago myself, lol markland made it fun thoe thanks markland | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: anon said: This is closer but the reason it's not a problem that has to be addressed is because it's still a physical property. The cost to copy and bind...and then the difference in quality doesn't make this a popular way to share a book. So it hasn't had to be addressed.
Seriously, some of the logic here is a bit scary....the way issues are confused... It's like people aren't really thinking. This is the reason countries go to war with the wrong countries. People don't think beyond the surface bytes.
i gave up trying this point here a little while ago myself, lol markland made it fun thoe thanks markland I've avoided commenting on some of the analogies mentioned up there^ In English copyright law, a good rule of thumb is showing a "loss" has been incurred by the intellectual property rights owner by copies being made of their work And violet its always about having fun, good to see people can agree to disagree and not throw their toys out of the pram | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
anon said: DevotedPuppy said: Alright, how about the analogy of a book, then? I can buy a book, it's mine, I own it and if I wanted to, I could photocopy or hand write the whole damn book and give it to my friend to read. You can make copies legally for personal or academic use (not to resell or plagerize but to read). This is closer but the reason it's not a problem that has to be addressed is because it's still a physical property. The cost to copy and bind...and then the difference in quality doesn't make this a popular way to share a book. So it hasn't had to be addressed. Seriously, some of the logic here is a bit scary....the way issues are confused... It's like people aren't really thinking. This is the reason countries go to war with the wrong countries. People don't think beyond the surface bytes. Wrong! The problem hadn't been addressed because there's been no noticeable loss in revenue in copying books that way. Now that E-Books and scans of books are becoming the rage, as soon as publishing houses start experiencing a noticeable loss in revenue, copying will become an issue to them. As I said earlier copying has been going on for years but it's never a problem until there's a noticeable loss in revenue. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SexyBeautifulOne said: anon said: This is closer but the reason it's not a problem that has to be addressed is because it's still a physical property. The cost to copy and bind...and then the difference in quality doesn't make this a popular way to share a book. So it hasn't had to be addressed. Seriously, some of the logic here is a bit scary....the way issues are confused... It's like people aren't really thinking. This is the reason countries go to war with the wrong countries. People don't think beyond the surface bytes. Wrong! The problem hadn't been addressed because there's been no noticeable loss in revenue in copying books that way. Now that E-Books and scans of books are becoming the rage, as soon as publishing houses start experiencing a noticeable loss in revenue, copying will become an issue to them. As I said earlier copying has been going on for years but it's never a problem until there's a noticeable loss in revenue. Is someone pulling my leg or has the org really digressed to the second grade? This one isn't that hard. Why do you like playing around with my narrow scope of reality? - Stupify | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
anon said: The underground guys have always had this kind of attitude. They play the anti-establishment, Robin Hood card, but when people see the damage done over time, they will recognize them for the problem that they are.
What damage? All those numbers of CD sales going down? Funny thing that: they're still HIGHER than the numbers were back when LPs were king. Wanna know why they're down? Because they compare them to the boom that happened when people BOUGHT ALL OF THEIR MUSIC AGAIN. If bizniz is so bad, how come they still keep releasing numerous records? Buy a mag like Q, Mojo, etc and they boast on their cover about having hundreds of CD reviews. And the utter shite they release: oh look here's a solo album by the bass player from Korn -- are you fucking kidding me? Wanna know what's killing the industry? GREED. I think I've seen at least two or three "special editions" of Amy Winehouse's album, for instance. Now, I like Amy but am I gonna buy her album THREE TIMES just because there's a new bonus disc with exclusive material? The latest Smashing Pumpkins album: you had to buy four different versions because each had a special bonus track. And then they wonder why people download? Let's not forget the "one hit all filler" albums. The industry could have come up with a killer app YEARS ago, but in reality you can't even find reliable information on what track appears on what release in what country. Record company sites are usually utter cack, and sometimes the best sources of information are online stores and fan sites. And FYI: if they'd implemented a small tax on your monthly ISP bill that would go to the RIAA/MPAA as a compensation for lost income due to downloading, and in return you'd be free to dwnload whatever you want, they'd make SUBSTANTIALLY MORE MONEY than they'd ever had before. But nooooo... Instead they'd rather get their nuts kicked repeatedly by major retailers like WalMart who don't give a shit about music and only use it as a loss leader. If Prince had spent a fraction of all this time and effort into developing an online platform that would sell his concerts and outtakes and music etc in lossless, drm-free formats, he'd be happy -- lotsa money -- and we'd be happy. Instead, numbnuts attacks fan sites while every now and then deciding to "release" yet another morsel from the vault. Whoop-da-freaking-do. It's called supply and demand. And since Prince won't supply: guess what? Oh, and perhaps you should look up what Prince said about Napster back int eh day. You do remember that at one time he released a song exclusively through Napster, right? Here's another nice find from back in the day: http://www.angelfire.com/...pster.html The fundamental hypocrisy of the music industry (and of some artists) in the current debate over the MP3 4mat, Napster and other 4ms of online xchange of music is that they r talking about copyright, intellectual property and other such noble concepts when the only thing that they r actually trying 2 protect is the commercial value of their musical "product." It's indicative, 4 xample, that, in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Time Warner President Richard Parsons would make comments such as these: An increasing number of young people don't buy albums, so we are not only losing that immediate revenue. They are also growing up with a notion that music is free and ought to be free. This statement deals with the relationship between music and the public from a purely commercial point of view. Nowhere in his statement is there any indication that what might happen with young people xchanging music is that they might develop a real appreciation of music in general and of certain artists in particular and turn out to b perfectly honest citizens who realize that artists should b compensated 4 their work and who will help make sure that they r. Nowhere is it mentioned that the fundamental reason y those "young people" r xchanging music online is that they r xcited about the music, that they r actually developing a sense of appreciation of what good music is. Bcuz, of course, record companies don't really want the public 2 like good music. They want it 2 buy whatever "product" they come up with, whether it's musically good or bad. Record companies don't really want young people 2 develop a sense of what good music is. Bcuz real music lovers don't consume music. They don't buy the latest chart topper just bcuz it's at the top of the charts. They don't really participate in that "system." They don't really generate significant revenue.
[...] What record companies don't really understand is that Napster is just one illustration of the growing frustration over how much the record companies control what music people get 2 hear How times change, huh? Like I've told people a gazillion times: Prince isn't anti-corporation at all, he just hates it that he's not that important anymore whilst he still thinks he's the center of the universe. Prince stopped liking record companies stopped liking him and didn't allow him to get away with his shit, yet whenever one was prepared to spend serious dough on him he happily towed the party line. Arista was sublime -- until the shit hit the fan and Prince realised that a) Clive Davis was really hands-on and b) a record company can't polish a turd. Well, sometimes they can but plenty of times they fail miserably. And if they succeed it's because the artist jumps through all the hoops. Years from now people will look at the "Pirate Bay wars" and wonder why major companies were stupid enough to try to hold back technology instead of coming up with an answer. How stupid is it that APPLE are the leading online music download retailer? © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BartVanHemelen said: anon said: The underground guys have always had this kind of attitude. They play the anti-establishment, Robin Hood card, but when people see the damage done over time, they will recognize them for the problem that they are.
What damage? All those numbers of CD sales going down? Funny thing that: they're still HIGHER than the numbers were back when LPs were king. Wanna know why they're down? Because they compare them to the boom that happened when people BOUGHT ALL OF THEIR MUSIC AGAIN. If bizniz is so bad, how come they still keep releasing numerous records? Buy a mag like Q, Mojo, etc and they boast on their cover about having hundreds of CD reviews. And the utter shite they release: oh look here's a solo album by the bass player from Korn -- are you fucking kidding me? Wanna know what's killing the industry? GREED. I think I've seen at least two or three "special editions" of Amy Winehouse's album, for instance. Now, I like Amy but am I gonna buy her album THREE TIMES just because there's a new bonus disc with exclusive material? The latest Smashing Pumpkins album: you had to buy four different versions because each had a special bonus track. And then they wonder why people download? Let's not forget the "one hit all filler" albums. The industry could have come up with a killer app YEARS ago, but in reality you can't even find reliable information on what track appears on what release in what country. Record company sites are usually utter cack, and sometimes the best sources of information are online stores and fan sites. And FYI: if they'd implemented a small tax on your monthly ISP bill that would go to the RIAA/MPAA as a compensation for lost income due to downloading, and in return you'd be free to dwnload whatever you want, they'd make SUBSTANTIALLY MORE MONEY than they'd ever had before. But nooooo... Instead they'd rather get their nuts kicked repeatedly by major retailers like WalMart who don't give a shit about music and only use it as a loss leader. If Prince had spent a fraction of all this time and effort into developing an online platform that would sell his concerts and outtakes and music etc in lossless, drm-free formats, he'd be happy -- lotsa money -- and we'd be happy. Instead, numbnuts attacks fan sites while every now and then deciding to "release" yet another morsel from the vault. Whoop-da-freaking-do. It's called supply and demand. And since Prince won't supply: guess what? Oh, and perhaps you should look up what Prince said about Napster back int eh day. You do remember that at one time he released a song exclusively through Napster, right? Here's another nice find from back in the day: http://www.angelfire.com/...pster.html The fundamental hypocrisy of the music industry (and of some artists) in the current debate over the MP3 4mat, Napster and other 4ms of online xchange of music is that they r talking about copyright, intellectual property and other such noble concepts when the only thing that they r actually trying 2 protect is the commercial value of their musical "product." It's indicative, 4 xample, that, in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Time Warner President Richard Parsons would make comments such as these: An increasing number of young people don't buy albums, so we are not only losing that immediate revenue. They are also growing up with a notion that music is free and ought to be free. This statement deals with the relationship between music and the public from a purely commercial point of view. Nowhere in his statement is there any indication that what might happen with young people xchanging music is that they might develop a real appreciation of music in general and of certain artists in particular and turn out to b perfectly honest citizens who realize that artists should b compensated 4 their work and who will help make sure that they r. Nowhere is it mentioned that the fundamental reason y those "young people" r xchanging music online is that they r xcited about the music, that they r actually developing a sense of appreciation of what good music is. Bcuz, of course, record companies don't really want the public 2 like good music. They want it 2 buy whatever "product" they come up with, whether it's musically good or bad. Record companies don't really want young people 2 develop a sense of what good music is. Bcuz real music lovers don't consume music. They don't buy the latest chart topper just bcuz it's at the top of the charts. They don't really participate in that "system." They don't really generate significant revenue.
[...] What record companies don't really understand is that Napster is just one illustration of the growing frustration over how much the record companies control what music people get 2 hear How times change, huh? Like I've told people a gazillion times: Prince isn't anti-corporation at all, he just hates it that he's not that important anymore whilst he still thinks he's the center of the universe. Prince stopped liking record companies stopped liking him and didn't allow him to get away with his shit, yet whenever one was prepared to spend serious dough on him he happily towed the party line. Arista was sublime -- until the shit hit the fan and Prince realised that a) Clive Davis was really hands-on and b) a record company can't polish a turd. Well, sometimes they can but plenty of times they fail miserably. And if they succeed it's because the artist jumps through all the hoops. Years from now people will look at the "Pirate Bay wars" and wonder why major companies were stupid enough to try to hold back technology instead of coming up with an answer. How stupid is it that APPLE are the leading online music download retailer? all good points  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BartVanHemelen said: lotsa stuff You're making a lot of different points. They don't really have much to do with the line of reasoning here, and some of the points are valid in their own right...but not in the context of this thread.
I happen to agree with quite a few of your points, but maybe they would fit better in a "Let's Find a Solution thread". It seems that so many are upset with Prince that this becomes an emotional thing...hard to separate all that's really going on and see it for what it is. I don't see anyone as the enemy. I don't personally have a problem with the Pirate Bay guys. I think they're entertaining. Are they doing damage? Yes. Could they also become a part of the solution? Yes...but that's for another thread. Is it the corporate cracks, corporate greed, corporate control and perhaps corporate ignorance that, in part, allows the Pirate Bays to thrive? probably...but that doesn't make pirating right. I'm not all that concerned about any of this because all things will balance out on their own...they always do. Economics 101. We're just in a muddy place right now because of all the new tech variables in the equation. What really matters is that fans separate the hurt from the facts so they can stop being bratty...and that Prince stops responding to the brattiness with more brattiness... "brattiness begets brattiness". Isn't what the bible says. Anyway, since we know that Prince is the bigger brat, someone please make a first attempt at peace so that the man will release SHOE already. Why do you like playing around with my narrow scope of reality? - Stupify | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
anon said:
Anyway, since we know that [b]Prince is the bigger brat [/quote][/b] I agree wholehardly with everything exept the last part,...c'mon.these pfu's and the fams are both nuttier than Prince. we come here because we enjoy his work, and enjoy discussing his work or his flamboyant behaviour net or otherwise, .....before the net explossion I had to BUY the bootleg stuff lol, Some of you guys give a whole new meaning to the term "freeloader" Bart made a great point that if artists/record companies work it, not fight it everybody would benefit and maybe cut down on the piracy. [Edited 11/21/07 19:26pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sorry for the firestorm. But I have to say that no one has felt the pinch of the internet more than Newspaper companies. It's just the evolution of technology and the things to come.
As for sharing and copying; it's a vicious circle that seems to never be resolved unless they start restricting what we can and can't do thru internet connections. My brother just told me that he thinks that file sharing and copying is like shoplifting. I'm not sure I totally agree or disagree. The fact of the matter is that when we buy something then it is ours. If it's not, then what's the point of buying it? It's just one industry being too greedy and the fans being too greedy. I just have one question for the music industry and to companies as a whole...How much money is too much money? The recording industry as well as the movie industry has lied to us all and have been over charging us for vinyl, cassettes, cd's, and dvd's. The consumers were told that cd's would come down in price to the average price of a cassette, and that cassettes would be cheaper than vinyl. Now they are saying the same with dvd's. The prices haven't come down, they have become more expensive. These were promises made long before the internet became the issue. They first blamed it on shoplifting (see my brothers comment above). Then the companies said that it was shoplifting and then the price of distribution, producing and marketing...now they have the excuse of the internet. The recording industries higher-ups have made billions from us and even more from the artists. The artists started fighting back and have made huge progress. Well now it's us feeling the pinch and we started fighting back via the internet. I think that the artists and the recording companies have forgotten how they became famous, rich and powerful. It's because of us. That's right brothers and sisters...we made them who they are. Yes the talents of the artists and technology made the music, but no one would ever know who they are or were if it weren't for us. When I went to the NBA All star game I was next to Shaq and asked him for an autograph...he looked at me and walked away and his bodygaurd nudged me aside. This was the all star game!! The players were voted there buy us fans. Shaq or any of them wouldn't be there if it weren't for the fans votes. Just like the music and movie industry. They wouldn't be here if it weren't for us. It looks like we and they have forgotten that and that maybe the artists and the industry shouldn't slap the hand that pays them and created them. I buy Princes cd's. I buy the movies that I liked in the theater. I buy the books that I would enjoy to read. I've bought a lot of cd's, cassettes and vinyl of artist that had only one good song and the rest were horrible. I have paid a lot of money at the theater to watch movies that were horrible. I have paid a lot of money on books that were horrible. Did I ever get my money back? It would be nice to be able to get compensated for the thousands and thousands of dollars wasted. But industries didn't mind taking our money for crap. Now multply that by the millions of us that have felt the same. The money that the industries have made on just the crap they put out alone (not the good quality stuff that we also paid for), has made them billions and billions. This is my last post on this topic. I just wanted to be heard and share my thoughts. [Edited 11/22/07 11:30am] A man came up 2 me, smile in his eyes
He told me I was a saint So I'm quittin' my friends much 2 their surprise I can't live up 2 the picture that they paint Ah somebody help me, I'm losing control I guess I'm just a sucker in the dream factory oh!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
oh one last things...Thanks Prince for giving away millions of copies of Planet Earth to the good people across the pond from us.
That makes us feel good that you give millions of copies away to them and make us pay top price for it here. If he was so f*cking concerned about his music being distributed and dowloaded for free then it's pretty hypocritical what he did. I know it's his to do what he wants with it. But me personally felt pretty sh*tty about it. Maybe they are better fans that we are here...NOT. Maybe the media has been kinder to him there then here...NOT. But hey I paid for the cd...so I guess it's mine now and I can give it to whom ever I want...over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over.... A man came up 2 me, smile in his eyes
He told me I was a saint So I'm quittin' my friends much 2 their surprise I can't live up 2 the picture that they paint Ah somebody help me, I'm losing control I guess I'm just a sucker in the dream factory oh!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
anon said: I don't see anyone as the enemy. I don't personally have a problem with the Pirate Bay guys. I think they're entertaining. Are they doing damage? Yes.
There's no way of telling. anon said: Anyway, since we know that Prince is the bigger brat, someone please make a first attempt at peace so that the man will release SHOE already.
Oh please, now it's our fault? What happens now is PRINCE's fault, no one else. The online community was pretty happy until PRINCE drove a big wedge through it. It's always the fans who sided with Prince who were the guys who were responsible for all the crap, including world class hypocrite Pierre Igot posting on a.m.p under an alias and pretending not to be Igot, and not to know him, and spreading lies. Wanna know the source of all this acrimony? Go look up all the shit that's appeared on Prince's official sites over the years. Look up who was threatening who with lawsuits. look up who lied about the result of the Uptown legal action. Etcetera. Prince had all the options and each time he took the wrong road. One time is a mistake, but doing it over and over again is showing a flaw of character, plain and simple. © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Skillz4 said: oh one last things...Thanks Prince for giving away millions of copies of Planet Earth to the good people across the pond from us.
That makes us feel good that you give millions of copies away to them and make us pay top price for it here. If he was so f*cking concerned about his music being distributed and dowloaded for free then it's pretty hypocritical what he did. No, the hipocrisy lies elsewhere: he claims these legal actions are required to protect his "brand". That's pretty rich coming from a guy who sold his latest CD to a far-right-wing newspaper. © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BartVanHemelen said: anon said: I don't see anyone as the enemy. I don't personally have a problem with the Pirate Bay guys. I think they're entertaining. Are they doing damage? Yes.
There's no way of telling. anon said: Anyway, since we know that Prince is the bigger brat, someone please make a first attempt at peace so that the man will release SHOE already.
Oh please, now it's our fault? What happens now is PRINCE's fault, no one else. The online community was pretty happy until PRINCE drove a big wedge through it. It's always the fans who sided with Prince who were the guys who were responsible for all the crap, including world class hypocrite Pierre Igot posting on a.m.p under an alias and pretending not to be Igot, and not to know him, and spreading lies. Wanna know the source of all this acrimony? Go look up all the shit that's appeared on Prince's official sites over the years. Look up who was threatening who with lawsuits. look up who lied about the result of the Uptown legal action. Etcetera. Prince had all the options and each time he took the wrong road. One time is a mistake, but doing it over and over again is showing a flaw of character, plain and simple. It's no one's fault. The fans feel they're as much the victim as Prince seems to feel he is. I'm not sure I follow any of what you're talking about (What's an igot?), but I do know that your post sounds very much like a woman in divorce court. 
What a dysfunctional fan celeb relationship. With fans/fams (whatever) that say "I'm gonna love you whether you want me to or not...and you're gonna, at least, act like you love me back"...This is surely a match made in heaven. When you step back and look at it, it's pretty twisted. Entertaining, but twisted. Why do you like playing around with my narrow scope of reality? - Stupify | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The second is I dont like people telling me what to do with my property, and thats precisely what any photographs I take no matter who of are, MY property
Actually, no. You own the copyright to those pictures, but to post them on the internet or sell them, you need a model release from the person photographed. (Well, at least in the US.) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ajra said: The second is I dont like people telling me what to do with my property, and thats precisely what any photographs I take no matter who of are, MY property
Actually, no. You own the copyright to those pictures, but to post them on the internet or sell them, you need a model release from the person photographed. (Well, at least in the US.) In the UK you can do what you like with your property I also understand in the US that photos you own can be used under the "fair use" clause in law there and also if its used in a "newsworthy" context | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ajra said: The second is I dont like people telling me what to do with my property, and thats precisely what any photographs I take no matter who of are, MY property
Actually, no. You own the copyright to those pictures, but to post them on the internet or sell them, you need a model release from the person photographed. (Well, at least in the US.) I'm not sure how true your statement is. If that were true then why did sex tapes of paris, kim kardashian, Pamela Anderson...etc. Get released without their permission? Everyone of these people fought it with attorneys and still lost, and the tapes were released on dvd/video and on the internet. A man came up 2 me, smile in his eyes
He told me I was a saint So I'm quittin' my friends much 2 their surprise I can't live up 2 the picture that they paint Ah somebody help me, I'm losing control I guess I'm just a sucker in the dream factory oh!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Just convince me of one thing: I saw a detailed version of the story, and it is being claimed that the video posted was covered under "fair use", because it was for personal use. So answer me this: how can it be honestly claimed that posting a video on a public site still considered to be personal? Someone please tell me they see the illogic of this. PLEASE! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TANKAEFC said: Just convince me of one thing: I saw a detailed version of the story, and it is being claimed that the video posted was covered under "fair use", because it was for personal use. So answer me this: how can it be honestly claimed that posting a video on a public site still considered to be personal? Someone please tell me they see the illogic of this. PLEASE! The "personal" of ten years ago, isn't the "personal" of today. Everything changes.
Technically, you have a point, but it's considered personal because it's not used for gain. Either way, for an artist protecting their rights on YouTube, it's a very delicate matter because the public doesn't think the way a corporation does. Unfortunately, it's the artist and the public, that feels it all. Why do you like playing around with my narrow scope of reality? - Stupify | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
New topic Printable This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.