Meaning that YouTube wasn't what made Beiber a success, it was a canny A&R man.

And, its not a "strange argument" - YouTube has no record of success as a promotional tool for people, that is my point. Nobody has built a career of the back of YouTube. That may change but, in 5 years and millions of uploads, the evidence so far is that YouTube is not the way you are going to "make it".

All i said was that prince spends his energy on this sort of stuff when it could be better channeled into making good music, hence the degradation in the quality of his music in recent times.

In addition, i am taking the point of view of a consumer of prince's music, as a musician, i could tell you a different story, i would love millions of people to watch my videos on youtube for free as it would give me great exposure. many musicians, artists and other people's careers are being launched on youtube because of viral marketing. I would say that youtube is the equivalent of getting your music played on radio - that sort of exposure sells records.

prince complains that his music isnt getting played on radio, or at least he doesnt seem to understand why (see Tavis Smiley interview). The business has changed, here he has a chance to get exposure - to get millions of people to watch chocolate box video, but no - he wants to get paid. No one will pay. The success of the internet is based on free material for all. If youtube start charging, then other greedy artists will start requesting that their music videos should have a "price". Henceforth after that, youtube will be un-usuable (see Napster) and someone else will come along and offer his videos for free..

Prince spends too much time thinking about this - he thinks he deserves to get "paid", but its only his hard core that will pay, and as we have learned from Lotusflower, he will suck money out of you and give you little in return. And people call him a "pioneed" in internet music business - that's laughable - after lotusflower, i cannot see anyone else wanting to buy his crappy web product again, unless he waits, say 4-5 years when people start forgetting how sh1t lotusflower was.

Your last personal attack on me, saying i am naive is laughable as you dont know me. It appears from your comment that you have no business sense at all and that greed is your main motivator in life as well - letting people watch your videos for free is a great way to sell records. When KISS and Raspberry Beret came out in the 80's I saw the video clips on tv (for free) loved the songs and bought them -now Prince is suffocating himself business wise as he is closing all avenues of promotion for his music because he thinks he's right and then complains when no one (outside his hardcode fan base) gives two tosses about his music anymore. In fact he's even starting to attack his hard core base of fans for criticising his methods. I mean the guy is a hard headed business person who has very strict point of view when it comes to business. But it's all wrong, and he has such a high opinion of his own decisions that he is inflexible and wont change - his mainstream music career is dead and people only care about the old songs - let people see it for free, maybe a new set of fans will appear accross the horizon and listen to his new stuff (and make a purchase here or there).

Did you pay for the lotusflower subscription? There were videos on there, but nothing I want to see - its all the stuff prince wants you to see. Its about control, of his fan base, of what people listen to - to control you as a consumer of his product. But the reality is he has no idea - fans do what they want, they cannot be controlled (to an extent) and they can recognise sh1t music - they can recognise that they are being ripped off.

This is not about YOU the business man, its about us, the consumers. We have been fed inferior product and ripped off for ages. Its greedy business men like you that make consumers angry and rebel. We dont want to be seen as dollar notes, we want to see an old video of Prince on youtube thats all.

Ok, there's a lot wrong here, so here goes;

I disagree that he is wasting his time. Your opinion is that his music is suffering because of his efforts to protect his music. That's just your opinion and I don't agree with it. I also think it is important for an artist to protect their work.

You appear to imply that you are an artist yourself who would benefit from the promotion on YouTube. Is that the case? If it is, you have a lot to learn about the industry (which would support my "naive" comment!). I am a signed recording artist and music producer (so your businessman comment motivated by greed is WAY OFF the mark! I am interested in creating music and being paid fairly. If I was motivated by money, I wouldn't be making music that isn't mainstream - I'd be producing generic pop and chasing that money. Instead, I make music I like and hope that enough people like it AND purchase it so I can make a living, which I just about do).

Your ending comment of " I would say that youtube is the equivalent of getting your music played on radio - that sort of exposure sells records" further displays your naivety! It is NOT the same at all. Radio PAYS for the right to broadcast your tune, YouTube does not. Which is the essence of this entire argument, yes?

"Prince complains that his music isn't played on the radio" - well, no he doesn't. He took himself out of that business years ago - that was a personal decision in reponse to what he sees is wrong with the record industry. Instead of remaining a slave to the status quo (like Madonna, for example), he took the braver decision to go it alone. For most, that would be end of career. He may have complained about the way radio operates and why they might play your music (major label influence etc) but that's a cry against the system.

"Prince spends too much time thinking about this - he thinks he deserves to get "paid", but its only his hard core that will pay" - this, again, is just rubbish. He's not asking the consumer to pay in this case, he is asking the people who broadcast his material. EVERYONE else who broadcasts copyrighted material has to pay a licence fee - why should it be any different for YouTube?

You then go on to get upset about my "personal attack" - that's not an attack, its an observation and you make it even clearer that you really don't know what you are talking about. You might have seen stuff on MTV for free (although, surely you pay for your cable channels, right?), but MTV still had to pay for the right to broadcast the material! Just like if you listened to it on radio (and even that's not free, well not in the UK - anyone who owns a TV or radio in the UK has to pay a "licence fee" for the right to listen to the broadcasts), it still wasn't "free" because the radio stations still, RIGHTLY, compensate the songwriter.

His mainstream music career is not "dead" - dead mainstream artists don't get asked to play the SuperBowl, do they? Or BRIT awards? Just because he doesn't have hit singles anymore doesn't mean his career is dead!

Music is how I make my living, so I do know a thing or two about this - what do you do?

Im an accountant.