Bohemian67 said:

It's 2012. We're close to Armageddon. 1988 is 24 years ago. Things have changed.

So you're saying a digitalised, organised catalogue of any bootlegs of Prince in existence doesn't assist a buyer?

You can tell from reading this thread that a lot of people on the org didn't visit TDG and would not have noticed its disappearance if not for a few of us making a stink about it here. I would guess most of the people who are actually paying for fresh new bootlegs (as opposed to downloading them after others have shared them) do not need a public, in-your-face website to find them. Sabotage and Eye Records must have regular subscribers, as shown by the fact that some of those sharing them online seem to have every single release they have put out.

Personally, I visited TDG more than a few times but never downloaded a bootleg based on something I found there.

wonder505 said:

I agree with this. The C&D letters are annoying but this is not a big deal to me. and the fact that people are getting pissed and riled up is laughable. when there are more serious issues going on in the world. People talk about protesting at his shows. Give me a fucking break. If they could put more energy in a cause that really matters.

PRince is picky and controlling about his work. We know that. If anyone chooses to host these types of sites they should either go in with a pro se lawyer ready to support them or research on representing themselves on their own. I have friends who sued big companies with no lawyers (discrimination, sexual harrasment and one unlawful termination case), one of these cases was a settlement. I don't think that fighting these C&D letters is that hard or expensive, IF, there is absolutely no legal ground for Prince to stand on. The lady with the dancing baby took on Universal and Prince. It set a precident.

By TDG's own admission they chose not to fight back because of finances and because they feel they were treading on grounds that may or may not be legal.

Do I agree with what Prince is doing, maybe not, do I care no. Does it affect me, nah. There are more serious problems in this world and TDG's closing does not take away the fact that whatever it is they were discussing is still out there to get. If an argument can be proposed on how these boots can help Prince then in the end he is only hurting himself, not me, so I dont really care.

For the record, I have not supported the idea of protesting.

I do think that freedom of speech is a serious issue. As is money trumping law. That IS a big deal. Legal proceedings should be an even playing field and decided by the letter of the law, not skewed to the side with the most money.

None of the other issues discussed in these two threads is serious, IMHO...

djThunderfunk said:

wonder505 said:

I agree with this. The C&D letters are annoying but this is not a big deal to me. and the fact that people are getting pissed and riled up is laughable. when there are more serious issues going on in the world. People talk about protesting at his shows. Give me a fucking break. If they could put more energy in a cause that really matters.

PRince is picky and controlling about his work. We know that. If anyone chooses to host these types of sites they should either go in with a pro se lawyer ready to support them or research on representing themselves on their own. I have friends who sued big companies with no lawyers (discrimination, sexual harrasment and one unlawful termination case), one of these cases was a settlement. I don't think that fighting these C&D letters is that hard or expensive, IF, there is absolutely no legal ground for Prince to stand on. The lady with the dancing baby took on Universal and Prince. It set a precident.

By TDG's own admission they chose not to fight back because of finances and because they feel they were treading on grounds that may or may not be legal.

Do I agree with what Prince is doing, maybe not, do I care no. Does it affect me, nah. There are more serious problems in this world and TDG's closing does not take away the fact that whatever it is they were discussing is still out there to get. If an argument can be proposed on how these boots can help Prince then in the end he is only hurting himself, not me, so I dont really care.

For the record, I have not supported the idea of protesting.

I do think that freedom of speech is a serious issue. As is money trumping law. That IS a big deal. Legal proceedings should be an even playing field and decided by the letter of the law, not skewed to the side with the most money.

None of the other issues discussed in these two threads is serious, IMHO...

oh please (violins playing in the back). (I'm teasing) If as you state Prince has no legal ground then filing a pro se against him should be no problem and I guarantee you the case will go no where. What I gather is this site was more than discussing, the way it was set up, somehow Prince feels it was infringing upon some sort of copyright. I can't imagine any lawyer probono would love to take this on. I could be wrong, I'm only basing on what some of my friends did who could not afford a lawyer.

[Edited 9/3/12 10:33am]

Bohemian67 said:

It's 2012. We're close to Armageddon. 1988 is 24 years ago. Things have changed.

So you're saying a digitalised, organised catalogue of any bootlegs of Prince in existence doesn't assist a buyer?

I'm saying it breaks no laws and that infringes no copyright. The coverscans, maybe, but not the information.

Want to know how to illegally grow marijuana in your closet and avoid being detected by the authorities? You can get information on how to do that in a legal monthly magazine sold on newstands all over the country for decades.

Bohemian67 said:

More importantly. Can you prove that it doesn't?

I'm flat out saying that it doesn't matter if it does or does not. It's legal information. Just like Rolling Stone's bootleg reviews. Just like High Times' marijuana grow tips. Etc, etc, etc...

wonder505 said:

djThunderfunk said:

For the record, I have not supported the idea of protesting.

I do think that freedom of speech is a serious issue. As is money trumping law. That IS a big deal. Legal proceedings should be an even playing field and decided by the letter of the law, not skewed to the side with the most money.

None of the other issues discussed in these two threads is serious, IMHO...

oh please (violins playing in the back). (I'm teasing) If as you state Prince has no legal ground then filing a pro se against him should be no problem and I guarantee you the case will go no where. What I gather is this site was more than discussing, the way it was set up, somehow Prince feels it was infringing upon some sort of copyright. I can't imagine any lawyer probono would love to take this on. I could be wrong, I'm only basing on what some of my friends did who could not afford a lawyer.

[Edited 9/3/12 10:33am]

There is an argument about whether the coverscans and other images it provided were infringing. I've made no argument to the contrary and in fact suggested the site remove all images and return as a text only site. This should solve the issue of copyrighted images, I believe...

double post

[Edited 9/3/12 12:43pm]

KingSausage said:

And the Purple Law was handed down to Prince from God, through the Wise Ones. The Purple Law doesn't give a duck about freedom of speech.

You made my DAY with this comment WOW! lol

djThunderfunk said:

Bohemian67 said:

More importantly. Can you prove that it doesn't?

I'm flat out saying that it doesn't matter if it does or does not. It's legal information. Just like Rolling Stone's bootleg reviews. Just like High Times' marijuana grow tips. Etc, etc, etc...

How can it be legal information if bootlegs are illegal? They are not legally sold, just like marijuana (in your country anyway, I presume.) If they legalised it they'd have more control over it, just like rhino poaching in Africa. But they dont' so they'll probably be extinct one day anyway.

I'm not saying it's not an ambigous society. They sell ciggarettes saying 'it's gonna kill you' but they sell it anyway, coz they make $. Plus I suppose it also keeps some third world countries in business with their tobacco industry. Suicide is illegal (life insurances won't pay out) but if you commit suicide slowly, i.e. smoking... That's ok.

ps. Marijuana is legal for hemp purposes and clothing I presume.

Bootlegs are illegal, yet 3/4 of the concert goers have recording devices, and artists, including Prince, likes to see them. Why sell devices if they can't be used for the purposes the purchaser chooses? I don't know, it's a strange world. It was better in the old days when we had cds only or tapes and Big Brother Google didn't keep tabs on where we went.

ps. Marijana is probably legal for hemp production of clothes.

[Edited 9/3/12 12:44pm]

Bohemian67 said:

How can it be legal information if bootlegs are illegal? They are not legally sold, just like marijuana (in your country anyway, I presume.) If they legalised it they'd have more control over it, just like rhino poaching in Africa. But they dont' so they'll probably be extinct one day anyway.

I'm not saying it's not an ambigous society. They sell ciggarettes saying 'it's gonna kill you' but they sell it anyway, coz they make $. Plus I suppose it also keeps some third world countries in business with their tobacco industry. Suicide is illegal (life insurances won't pay out) but if you commit suicide slowly, i.e. smoking... That's ok.

Bootlegs are illegal, yet 3/4 of the concert goers have recording devices, and artists, including Prince, likes to see them. Why sell devices if they can't be used for the purposes the purchaser chooses? I don't know, it's a strange world. It was better in the old days when we had cds only or tapes and Big Brother Google didn't keep tabs on where we went.

It is not illegal to report on them, to discuss them, to review them, or even to crossreference information on them. They are not informing people where or how to acquire them, therefore, the information itself is not illegal. The coverscans and any other images they used might be copyright infringement. I don't know, but, it seems to be debateable by those who do know.

There is no law that prohibits reviews or discussions of bootlegs! There are laws that protect those discussions!!

At least here, in the U.S. At least for now.

[Edited 9/3/12 12:48pm]

Bohemian67 said:

djThunderfunk said:

I'm flat out saying that it doesn't matter if it does or does not. It's legal information. Just like Rolling Stone's bootleg reviews. Just like High Times' marijuana grow tips. Etc, etc, etc...

How can it be legal information if bootlegs are illegal? They are not legally sold, just like marijuana (in your country anyway, I presume.) If they legalised it they'd have more control over it, just like rhino poaching in Africa. But they dont' so they'll probably be extinct one day anyway.

I'm not saying it's not an ambigous society. They sell ciggarettes saying 'it's gonna kill you' but they sell it anyway, coz they make $. Plus I suppose it also keeps some third world countries in business with their tobacco industry. Suicide is illegal (life insurances won't pay out) but if you commit suicide slowly, i.e. smoking... That's ok.

ps. Marijuana is legal for hemp purposes and clothing I presume.

Bootlegs are illegal, yet 3/4 of the concert goers have recording devices, and artists, including Prince, likes to see them. Why sell devices if they can't be used for the purposes the purchaser chooses? I don't know, it's a strange world. It was better in the old days when we had cds only or tapes and Big Brother Google didn't keep tabs on where we went.

ps. Marijana is probably legal for hemp production of clothes.

[Edited 9/3/12 12:44pm]

If it's illegal to discuss bootlegs, and if that discussion could get prince.org slammed with a cease and desist letter, then the mods need to change the yellow banner at the top of this forum, which specifically says it's fine to discuss them:

ABSOLUTELY NO SOLICITING FOR BOOTLEGS.You want to discuss them? That's fine - but NO OFFERS TO COPY, NO REQUESTS TO COPY, NO "WHERE CAN I GET", etc. NO POSTING OF LINKS TO THESE SITES EITHER. Please be aware that the moderators here strictly enforce this rule.

djThunderfunk said:

wonder505 said:

oh please (violins playing in the back). (I'm teasing) If as you state Prince has no legal ground then filing a pro se against him should be no problem and I guarantee you the case will go no where. What I gather is this site was more than discussing, the way it was set up, somehow Prince feels it was infringing upon some sort of copyright. I can't imagine any lawyer probono would love to take this on. I could be wrong, I'm only basing on what some of my friends did who could not afford a lawyer.

[Edited 9/3/12 10:33am]

There is an argument about whether the coverscans and other images it provided were infringing. I've made no argument to the contrary and in fact suggested the site remove all images and return as a text only site. This should solve the issue of copyrighted images, I believe...

Well at least you're admitting that it involved more than just discussingand talking on a website cuz you keep emphasizing that. It appears that perhaps and maybe the photos and images were infringing copyright laws and I feel the TDG folks felt that may have stepped in a grey area as well. I like the idea of revamping the webiste on a Google backed medium using text only images.

wonder505 said:

djThunderfunk said:

There is an argument about whether the coverscans and other images it provided were infringing. I've made no argument to the contrary and in fact suggested the site remove all images and return as a text only site. This should solve the issue of copyrighted images, I believe...

Well at least you're admitting that it involved more than just discussingand talking on a website cuz you keep emphasizing that. It appears that perhaps and maybe the photos and images were infringing copyright laws and I feel the TDG folks felt that may have stepped in a grey area as well. I like the idea of revamping the webiste on a Google backed medium using text only images.

If showing images of Prince also violates copyright laws then prince.org threads like this one (currently at the top of this forum), will also have to be taken down:

http://prince.org/msg/7/386647

Or this one:

http://prince.org/msg/7/386178

If we make a good pic thread Princey may come out to play with us indeed. Meaning, he'll have his lawyers send a cease and desist letter.

[Edited 9/3/12 13:27pm]

wonder505 said:

djThunderfunk said:

There is an argument about whether the coverscans and other images it provided were infringing. I've made no argument to the contrary and in fact suggested the site remove all images and return as a text only site. This should solve the issue of copyrighted images, I believe...

Well at least you're admitting that it involved more than just discussingand talking on a website cuz you keep emphasizing that. It appears that perhaps and maybe the photos and images were infringing copyright laws and I feel the TDG folks felt that may have stepped in a grey area as well. I like the idea of revamping the webiste on a Google backed medium using text only images.

Go back and read all my comments, on both threads, I've suggested repeatedly that removing all images and returning as a text only site should solve any legal issues.

Throughout the two threads, it has been argued:

- Whether TDG provided links or other information on how or where to acquire bootlegs, which would, of course, be illegal. They did not.

- Whether the cover scans or any other images on the site might be copyright infringement. They might be, I don't know. As stated above, I suggest the site remove all images and return as a text only site.

- Whether or not it is legal to review, discuss or otherwise provide information as to the contents of Prince bootlegs and to provide a crossreference discography of such material. It is legal to do this.

These are the relevant disagreements as I see them, and my stance on each.

[Edited 9/3/12 13:32pm]

I've been thinking about this; in fact, trying to think about it from Prince's perspective.

I can understand how, as an artist gets older, protecting his brand and his output becomes more important. The likelihood of another hit is small, so his main product - nay, his only product - is the past. Re-issues and greatest hit tours are what an older artists probably has left as money-making ventures. Maybe the odd tribute or duet album, if he's lucky.

In this instance, I can certainly see how an artist who has mostly nothing to sell but concert tickets would be worried about the bootlegging of his concerts.

But I cannot name one bootlegging entity that Prince has put out of business. I can't see how he's been able to stop the bootlegging of his concerts in any way, shape or form. And shutting down The Digital Garden might remove some information about bootlegged concerts, but it's not going to remove the concert itself.

Prince allegedly has recordings of just about every concert he's ever played - soundboard recordings, no less.

If I were Prince - and I'm not, so don't anyone start that rumor again - I'd put soundboard recordings up for sale. You know who will buy them?

Pretty much the same people downloading bootlegs. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard someone say, "What a concert! Crappy quality, though. I'd give anything for a soundboard recording of it" I'd have a lot of nickels.

Oh well.

electricberet said:

wonder505 said:

Well at least you're admitting that it involved more than just discussingand talking on a website cuz you keep emphasizing that. It appears that perhaps and maybe the photos and images were infringing copyright laws and I feel the TDG folks felt that may have stepped in a grey area as well. I like the idea of revamping the webiste on a Google backed medium using text only images.

If showing images of Prince also violates copyright laws then prince.org threads like this one (currently at the top of this forum), will also have to be taken down:

http://prince.org/msg/7/386647

Or this one:

http://prince.org/msg/7/386178

If we make a good pic thread Princey may come out to play with us indeed. Meaning, he'll have his lawyers send a cease and desist letter.

[Edited 9/3/12 13:27pm]

this may be splitting hairs but i think there is a difference with posting photos to comment on versus photos of him put together and used as a cover for DVDs or CDc of illegal downloads. IMO.

[Edited 9/3/12 14:24pm]

djThunderfunk said:

wonder505 said:

Well at least you're admitting that it involved more than just discussingand talking on a website cuz you keep emphasizing that. It appears that perhaps and maybe the photos and images were infringing copyright laws and I feel the TDG folks felt that may have stepped in a grey area as well. I like the idea of revamping the webiste on a Google backed medium using text only images.

Go back and read all my comments, on both threads, I've suggested repeatedly that removing all images and returning as a text only site should solve any legal issues.

Throughout the two threads, it has been argued:

- Whether TDG provided links or other information on how or where to acquire bootlegs, which would, of course, be illegal. They did not.

- Whether the cover scans or any other images on the site might be copyright infringement. They might be, I don't know. As stated above, I suggest the site remove all images and return as a text only site.

- Whether or not it is legal to review, discuss or otherwise provide information as to the contents of Prince bootlegs and to provide a crossreference discography of such material. It is legal to do this.

These are the relevant disagreements as I see them, and my stance on each.

[Edited 9/3/12 13:32pm]

Gotcha

wonder505 said:

electricberet said:

If showing images of Prince also violates copyright laws then prince.org threads like this one (currently at the top of this forum), will also have to be taken down:

http://prince.org/msg/7/386647

Or this one:

http://prince.org/msg/7/386178

If we make a good pic thread Princey may come out to play with us indeed. Meaning, he'll have his lawyers send a cease and desist letter.

[Edited 9/3/12 13:27pm]

this may be splitting hairs but i think there is a difference with posting photos to comment on versus photos of him put together and used as a cover for DVDs or CDc of illegal downloads. IMO.

[Edited 9/3/12 14:24pm]

I don't know how the whole pictures/images thing works. But, it seems to me, that it should be the same...

This is why I so quickly concede the images argument. I just don't get it...

[Edited 9/3/12 14:43pm]

[Edited 9/3/12 14:44pm]

Let me make this clear (in this and every thread I've been posting in that discuss bootlegs):

Do not ask me how to get, or where to get, or directly for, any bootlegs. Don't ask me in the threads. Don't ask me via orgnote. Do. Not. Ask.

At this point, considering the paranoia up in here due to the closing of The Digital Garden, I have to assume every request is an attempt to entrap me specifically or the org in general. I cannot give the person asking the benefit of the doubt of newbie ignorance. It's not worth it.

Any and all requests for me to violate org policy will be reported.

That is all.

wonder505 said:

electricberet said:

If showing images of Prince also violates copyright laws then prince.org threads like this one (currently at the top of this forum), will also have to be taken down:

http://prince.org/msg/7/386647

Or this one:

http://prince.org/msg/7/386178

If we make a good pic thread Princey may come out to play with us indeed. Meaning, he'll have his lawyers send a cease and desist letter.

[Edited 9/3/12 13:27pm]

this may be splitting hairs but i think there is a difference with posting photos to comment on versus photos of him put together and used as a cover for DVDs or CDc of illegal downloads. IMO.

[Edited 9/3/12 14:24pm]

there is. but from what I remember, TDG didn't offer photos big enough to use as CD or DVD covers. didn't they only include the pictures for illustrative and commentary purposes? that is protected under fair use.

errant said:

wonder505 said:

this may be splitting hairs but i think there is a difference with posting photos to comment on versus photos of him put together and used as a cover for DVDs or CDc of illegal downloads. IMO.

[Edited 9/3/12 14:24pm]

there is. but from what I remember, TDG didn't offer photos big enough to use as CD or DVD covers. didn't they only include the pictures for illustrative and commentary purposes? that is protected under fair use.

Yes. In fact, that is arguably more the case for the pictures on the bootleg websites than the softcore Prince porn that gets posted in the org pic threads, whose sole purpose seems to be for certain orgers to drool over their Princey. But maybe the latter sort of use is allowed under the Purple Law, which does not track the law of any other earthly jurisdiction.

[Edited 10/8/12 19:39pm]

errant said:

wonder505 said:

this may be splitting hairs but i think there is a difference with posting photos to comment on versus photos of him put together and used as a cover for DVDs or CDc of illegal downloads. IMO.

[Edited 9/3/12 14:24pm]

there is. but from what I remember, TDG didn't offer photos big enough to use as CD or DVD covers. didn't they only include the pictures for illustrative and commentary purposes? that is protected under fair use.

using his image without his permission, to illustratrate illegal downloads, is protected? that part feels like a grey area to me. idk. but the Org does it so we'll see.

[Edited 9/3/12 17:37pm]

wonder505 said:

errant said:

there is. but from what I remember, TDG didn't offer photos big enough to use as CD or DVD covers. didn't they only include the pictures for illustrative and commentary purposes? that is protected under fair use.

using his image without his permission, to illustratrate illegal downloads, is protected? that part feels like a grey area to me. idk. but the Org does it so we'll see.

[Edited 9/3/12 17:37pm]

it's the same reason an album cover appears next to a review in Rolling Stone or wherever.

The best L4L sign I have seen. Nice!

What's the message?

errant said:

[Edited 9/3/12 18:11pm]

Bohemian67 said:

DJ... my question was not about 'discussing' them. It was 'prove that TDG didn't lead people to buying them. ' TDG didn't discuss them, they catagorised them like a shopping list.

[Edited 9/3/12 12:43pm]

djThunderfunk said:

novabrkr said:

The concept of "freedom of speech" doesn't stretch over to matters of copyright.

It was established for the communication of political ideas and their expression in appropriate places. During the last century the concept has also been extended to cover such matters as artistic expression as modern art started to deal more with political themes. However, having some site on the Internet that lists various illegal recordings with ratings for their sound quality has barely anything to do with the concept.

While I don't support such strict enforcement of copyright issues myself I'm not going to cry over these cases by referring to abstract concepts that weren't established because some people just wanted to exchange some boots.

It does NOT violate copyright to review or discuss bootlegs. Not one bit!

There was NO exchanging of boots on the site. There was information about what was on the bootlegs.

Please quote the law which you think prohibits discussing or reviewing or providing information about unauthorized recordings. You can't. There isn't one. Not yet.

I was only commenting on your use of the concept of the "freedom of speech" above.

Please don't quote my posts if you aren't interested in addressing their content.

electricberet said:

novabrkr said:

Meh, the bootleg end of these things works the best when it's disorganized enough and not everything is done in as public manner as possible. It's just silly that some people think they can get involved with anything that is shady in such a public manner and think that they don't have to face with any consequences. From what I could tell, The Digital Garden was coded really well and the site looked impressive, but I don't really understand why anyone would put so much time and effort into something like that if it most likely would get shut down.

It's one thing to be a "fan", a whole another to run an extensive information base that functions as an advertisement for all those companies that make money out of Prince's music. So, sorry. I can't side with the "fan-bullying" comments on this thread (not to mention with the one that's placed on the front page of the Digital Garden site). Prince might be an "asshole" sometimes, but taking down some site that offers information on bootlegs doesn't mean that he is "attacking his fans". That's utter nonsense and irresponsible employment of rhetoric.

Probably the same reason people build sand castles and make ice sculptures. Because it's fun.

Yeah, but they don't call the sea or the sun "assholes" when those things are gone.

novabrkr said:

electricberet said:

Probably the same reason people build sand castles and make ice sculptures. Because it's fun.

Yeah, but they don't call the sea or the sun "assholes" when those things are gone.

See my comment earlier about someone kicking over your sand castle out of spite.

Lol...the same procedure as every year...another website drama!

electricberet said:

novabrkr said:

Yeah, but they don't call the sea or the sun "assholes" when those things are gone.

See my comment earlier about someone kicking over your sand castle out of spite.

Then see my comment about the sand castles in the form of something to someone specific before getting kicked over.