2elijah said:

So in comparison, if you display a bootleg cd/DVD/live show with Prince's music/live performances on it on your site, and there is an image of him attached to it, with the possibility it can create interest/buzz to fans who frequent/visit said site, and want to gain access in obtaining those bootlegs, whether free or for a fee, do you not see display of that information can be seen as some form of 'advertisement?' Even if your intention was just to catalogue that bootleg for informational purposes only? Even for 'informational' purposes, it is possible it could be seen as some form of advertisement, because of the fact that it is bootleg information. The fact that you're cataloguing illegal bootlegs of a musician's music material, in which you are aware, that said artist doesn't approve approve of that type of act with his music material, should ring an alarm in the first place. That is my point.

.

Information is NOT illegal. Even information about something that is illegal does not make the information illegal. Sheesh!

Why is this so hard to understand?

djThunderfunk said:

2elijah said:

Absolutely, as I mentioned on the other thread. If you have a site that displays his image on a bootleg cd for example, then that leads to discussion of the music on that cd, ( which is Prince's music), then does that not invite, encourage, entice fans frequenting that site and commenting on those cds, to seek that bootleg material, whether for free or for a fee? What you're doing is 'advertising' that a bootleg of his music material exists and using his image without his permission to advertise that bootleg material. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Example, let's say if you took a designer bag, and made an imitation of it, and displayed it on your site, and visitors of your site are interested in the 'imitation' of that designer bag, discussing how it looks exactly like an original, and are told those imitations exist, it's more than likely some will want to know where to get it. Would that not be a violation on behalf of the original designer of that bag? So isn't providing info about existing bootlegs of a musician's music material be considered a violation as well?

[Edited 9/1/12 12:25pm]

No it would not. See above or see my response to when you said it on the other thread.

Is freedom of speech a difficult concept to grasp?

To give another example, High Times magazine has been publishing detailed information on different varieties of marijuana for decades, including pictures:

http://photos.hightimes.c...1552732455

Of course it's illegal to own any of this in the United States, but you can still write about it.

electricberet said:

rdhull said:

Prince doesnt give one iota of a fuck what any of yall think or are mad at. YOU KNOW THAT. Plus yall know the purple rules and purple risks..digital garden knew it and again knows it...When yall get hit with that puple brick yall act brand new and get all upset ..all over again..you are all crazy because you keep doing the same thing expecting different results.

I think you may have hit on the explanation here. Prince has driven away all his longtime fans except the crazy people, like me. We took that song about the purple banana too seriously back in the day.

Oh, I'm for sure crazy as hell!

electricberet said:

djThunderfunk said:

No it would not. See above or see my response to when you said it on the other thread.

Is freedom of speech a difficult concept to grasp?

To give another example, High Times magazine has been publishing detailed information on different varieties of marijuana for decades, including pictures:

http://photos.hightimes.c...1552732455

Of course it's illegal to own any of this in the United States, but you can still write about it.

YES! They even have grow tips! Want to know how to grow marijuana in your closet and conceal it from the cops? Read High Times.

[Edited 9/1/12 22:17pm]

djThunderfunk said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

I think we're caught in some semi-legal zone here... Even if a site is not actually selling bootlegs, then still, fans coming to this site saying "this particular cd is really good" is as much as an advert. I think Prince sees it this way and I really can't blame him for it. And it surely won't stop me from seeing his shows. Because that will give me another bootleg to buy!Like Timmy said, don't be surprised that the man is a control freak

Nothing semi-legal about it. It's freedom of speech pure and simple.

Since I already said it on another thread, I'm just going to quote myself from here:

and then this:

djThunderfunk said:

how I learned of the existence of a bootleg market of Prince recordings....

Back in December 1987 I read about the Black Album being canceled and subsequently bootlegged in my LOCAL NEWSPAPER. Not long after that I read a review of the Black Album in ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE. The review was clear that the album was a bootleg and that Prince canceled the album and didn't want it released.

This information led me to search out the Black Album. When I found it I also found other bootlegs, both live and outtake collections, of material I had never heard of. I've been hooked on Prince bootlegs ever since.

But I digress... my point is, by your logic, my local newspaper and Rolling Stone should be held accountable for encouraging me to seek out and buy bootlegs. Not just me either. Many, many, many obsessed Prince fans came to collecting bootlegs this way. Just ask around.

There is no law preventing people from talking about or reviewing material that is circulating just because it doesn't happen to be officially released. And that's a good thing...

As Stan Lee would say, 'Nuff Said!

Interisting thought indeed.

The assumption by Prince and his legal team is

"Information about bootlegs elicits attaining them."

This reasoning implies a direct causal relationship between information and acting upon it;

Information causes behaviour.

Imagine for a moment how the western world would look like, if that assumption would be true, and people really act on every bit of information they read!

In countries with true freedom of speech, people get informed about subjects from every possible angle. And it's up to the individual to evaluate that diverse information and decide to act or not.

I think there are more variables than just information that cause behaviour.

The assumption that information causes behaviour, is plausible under some conditions:

- All information is censured. People are informed onesided, because counterarguments are prohibited.

- People are denied acces to education, to prevent them to develop skills that are needed to objectively evaluate any information.

Under those restricted circumstances, yes, that selective information causes behaviour.

Censoring information is an effective tool for dictators to gain and stay in power. If you only allow onesided information, people can't evaluate any validity of that information. Because they don't know about other possibilities, let alone evaluate it on validity.

Putin is a great example of that.

dJJ said:

djThunderfunk said:

As Stan Lee would say, 'Nuff Said!

Interisting thought indeed.

The assumption by Prince and his legal team is

"Information about bootlegs elicits attaining them."

This reasoning implies a direct causal relationship between information and acting upon it;

Information causes behaviour.

Imagine for a moment how the western world would look like, if that assumption would be true, and people really act on every bit of information they read!

In countries with true freedom of speech, people get informed about subjects from every possible angle. And it's up to the individual to evaluate that diverse information and decide to act or not.

I think there are more variables than just information that cause behaviour.

The assumption that information causes behaviour, is plausible under some conditions:

- All information is censured. People are informed onesided, because counterarguments are prohibited.

- People are denied acces to education, to prevent them to develop skills that are needed to objectively evaluate any information.

Under those restricted circumstances, yes, that selective information causes behaviour.

Censoring information is an effective tool for dictators to gain and stay in power. If you only allow onesided information, people can't evaluate any validity of that information. Because they don't know about other possibilities, let alone evaluate it on validity.

Putin is a great example of that.

Good points.

That said, I clearly stated above that when I learned about Prince bootlegs (from my local newspaper and from Rolling Stone Magazine) I DID seek them out. Whose responsible for that? The Herald Leader? Rolling Stone? Me?

Maybe Prince is responsible. He's so good I had to have EVERYTHING I could get my hands on. If he would have toned it down and impressed me less I wouldn't have collected boots...

djThunderfunk said:

dJJ said:

Interisting thought indeed.

The assumption by Prince and his legal team is

"Information about bootlegs elicits attaining them."

This reasoning implies a direct causal relationship between information and acting upon it;

Information causes behaviour.

Imagine for a moment how the western world would look like, if that assumption would be true, and people really act on every bit of information they read!

In countries with true freedom of speech, people get informed about subjects from every possible angle. And it's up to the individual to evaluate that diverse information and decide to act or not.

I think there are more variables than just information that cause behaviour.

The assumption that information causes behaviour, is plausible under some conditions:

- All information is censured. People are informed onesided, because counterarguments are prohibited.

- People are denied acces to education, to prevent them to develop skills that are needed to objectively evaluate any information.

Under those restricted circumstances, yes, that selective information causes behaviour.

Censoring information is an effective tool for dictators to gain and stay in power. If you only allow onesided information, people can't evaluate any validity of that information. Because they don't know about other possibilities, let alone evaluate it on validity.

Putin is a great example of that.

Good points.

That said, I clearly stated above that when I learned about Prince bootlegs (from my local newspaper and from Rolling Stone Magazine) I DID seek them out. Whose responsible for that? The Herald Leader? Rolling Stone? Me?

Maybe Prince is responsible. He's so good I had to have EVERYTHING I could get my hands on. If he would have toned it down and impressed me less I wouldn't have collected boots...

Exactly.

I read that meat tastes great.

Therefore I've bought and ate a lot of meat.

FunkySideEffects said:

Well wait a sec, like Prince's lawyer wrote in the other thread titled: Prince's Lawyers Papers - there's 2 sides to every story. Maybe it's not Prince who u should take ur anger out on. Maybe 4 legal reasons or to protect his privacy & assets his lawyers thought it necessary 2 shut down this particular website. Maybe Prince didn't even know it happened & now he's copping all the flack for it. I'm just saying maybe... Think about it that's all.

His lawyers represent Prince. He pays them to do that. Therefore it's Prince his responsibility.

Or, he read information on a website about the existence of lawyers. He was informed that some lawyers are recommendable.

Therefore he immediately searched for those lawyers, and paid them to act on his behalf. He could not help himself; if you get informed about something, you buy it. Right?

Does anyone have a screenshot of what that TDG site looked like before it was shut down? 'Cause if their farewell page is any indication, its design was of very high quality, somewhat similar to Housequake.com (which for years was the best looking web forum I'd ever seen). If TDG was as pretty as it seems (that could implicitly make him look better than he does himself), that's another reason why it was absurdly targeted so quick: The more time and technical skill put into a site, regardless of content and the lack of profit garnered, the faster it's attacked and wiped out, even though it's established by fans who still somehow "love" this guy.

People should stop wasting their energy. He's not worth it.

This whole shit is way overblown.

By all parties.

Prince overreacts because he's protective over his music and image and doesn't like not being in control of what people see and hear when it comes to his work.

Fans overblow shit like this by acting like Prince commited capital fucking murder.

I've seen fans support artists after beating the shit out of their significant other.

After they have numerous DUIs.

After they go to prison.

After drug addiction.

While being accused of being a pederast on multiple occasions.

After being accused of filming himself having sex with an underaged girl and urinating in her face.

If this is all you have to bitch about when it comes to comes to Prince, then you're lucky.

Yes, he could be much more fan-friendly. But he also could be dead from a fucking drug overdose, too.

djThunderfunk said:

dJJ said:

Interisting thought indeed.

The assumption by Prince and his legal team is

"Information about bootlegs elicits attaining them."

This reasoning implies a direct causal relationship between information and acting upon it;

Information causes behaviour.

Imagine for a moment how the western world would look like, if that assumption would be true, and people really act on every bit of information they read!

In countries with true freedom of speech, people get informed about subjects from every possible angle. And it's up to the individual to evaluate that diverse information and decide to act or not.

I think there are more variables than just information that cause behaviour.

The assumption that information causes behaviour, is plausible under some conditions:

- All information is censured. People are informed onesided, because counterarguments are prohibited.

- People are denied acces to education, to prevent them to develop skills that are needed to objectively evaluate any information.

Under those restricted circumstances, yes, that selective information causes behaviour.

Censoring information is an effective tool for dictators to gain and stay in power. If you only allow onesided information, people can't evaluate any validity of that information. Because they don't know about other possibilities, let alone evaluate it on validity.

Putin is a great example of that.

Good points.

That said, I clearly stated above that when I learned about Prince bootlegs (from my local newspaper and from Rolling Stone Magazine) I DID seek them out. Whose responsible for that? The Herald Leader? Rolling Stone? Me?

Maybe Prince is responsible. He's so good I had to have EVERYTHING I could get my hands on. If he would have toned it down and impressed me less I wouldn't have collected boots...

He is responsible. As I stated a few pages ago, he actually does not have any control over any of this, and never has. This "problem" wouldn't even exist if he did.

Paris9748430 said:

This whole shit is way overblown.

By all parties.

Prince overreacts because he's protective over his music and image and doesn't like not being in control of what people see and hear when it comes to his work.

Fans overblow shit like this by acting like Prince commited capital fucking murder.

I've seen fans support artists after beating the shit out of their significant other.

After they have numerous DUIs.

After they go to prison.

After drug addiction.

While being accused of being a pederast on multiple occasions.

After being accused of filming himself having sex with an underaged girl and urinating in her face.

If this is all you have to bitch about when it comes to comes to Prince, then you're lucky.

Yes, he could be much more fan-friendly. But he also could be dead from a fucking drug overdose, too.

It's crazy when you think about it sometimes. I still consider myself a fan even after all this. But I guess because I didn't participate in said sites and such, maybe that's why I'm indifferent to what he does or what his lawyers do.

Paris9748430 said:

This whole shit is way overblown.

By all parties.

Prince overreacts because he's protective over his music and image and doesn't like not being in control of what people see and hear when it comes to his work.

Fans overblow shit like this by acting like Prince commited capital fucking murder.

I've seen fans support artists after beating the shit out of their significant other.

After they have numerous DUIs.

After they go to prison.

After drug addiction.

While being accused of being a pederast on multiple occasions.

After being accused of filming himself having sex with an underaged girl and urinating in her face.

If this is all you have to bitch about when it comes to comes to Prince, then you're lucky.

Yes, he could be much more fan-friendly. But he also could be dead from a fucking drug overdose, too.

Every artist attracts his/her own crowd of fans.

That other 'stars' behave abject, and still have fans, is their concern. That has nothing to do with Prince and his fans.

If a kid is suffering because his/her parent is an alcoholic, would you tell that kid not to wine about it, because another kid from drug addicted parents is worse off?

Do I need to lower my moral standards, because other people do that to?

dJJ said:

Every artist attracts his/her own crowd of fans.

That other 'stars' behave abject, and still have fans, is their concern. That has nothing to do with Prince and his fans.

If a kid is suffering because his/her parent is an alcoholic, would you tell that kid not to wine about it, because another kid from drug addicted parents is worse off?

Do I need to lower my moral standards, because other people do that to?

This is what I mean by overblown.

In what way is Prince like an alcoholic parent?

I don't see how an artist being overprotective with HIS art is any way comparable.

Who is suffering?

I see a whole lot of inconviencing, but I don't see any suffering at all.

Who's in pain?

Who's missing meals because of this?

And the cycle continues...

Paris9748430 said:

dJJ said:

Every artist attracts his/her own crowd of fans.

That other 'stars' behave abject, and still have fans, is their concern. That has nothing to do with Prince and his fans.

If a kid is suffering because his/her parent is an alcoholic, would you tell that kid not to wine about it, because another kid from drug addicted parents is worse off?

Do I need to lower my moral standards, because other people do that to?

This is what I mean by overblown.

In what way is Prince like an alcoholic parent?

I don't see how an artist being overprotective with HIS art is any way comparable.

Who is suffering?

I see a whole lot of inconviencing, but I don't see any suffering at all.

Who's in pain?

Who's missing meals because of this?

I meant the example of the kid as an analogy. I don't agree with your way of reasoning. Therefor I applied your way of reasoning to a different subject. So, it's clear it's the reasoning I don't agree with and not necessarily your opinion about Prince (and this matter)

I did not mean to say Prince fans are suffering in the same way neglected chidren do.

I disagree with your argument:

Compared to some other famous musicians, Prince behaves more healthy. Therefore, Prince fans should be happy and not vent critique about this action.

erik319 said:

Let's face it 'the Internet is dead' actually meant 'i'm gonna kill the internet'. He killed his own official site & forum, members scattered to HQ & the Org. He killed HQ & countless other fansites until all that is left are those slightly under the radar sites such as TDG. Those that only his real hardcore fanbase would know about anyway... The ones who buy everything he officially releases. The only placeS left now are the org & funkenberry... And the latter isn't in good shape. When all that's left to focus on is the org, do you really think it will remain immune from his contolling nature? And when the org goes, he'll have 'won'. Nobody will talk about him or his music... Great. If I ran the org, I'd go dark for a month so he (and we) appreciate the value of being able to discuss him and his music.

But you do, along with all the other members...if we didn't post then the Org. would go dark!!

So follow up on that is too try it!!

shall we try to make "Prince:music and More" dark for one week Sep 14 -20...other forums still active but just this one for one week ....Let's see if there is an impact ( I doubt it but it might be worth a try)

jfrost said:

ufoclub said:

Astasheiks said:

According to ufoclub they were doing more than encouraging they were "providing links to purchase bootlegs."!

I didn't say that! I said the sites weren't providing links to find and buy bootlegs.

my bad, I must have quoted the wrong person...

for me personally, Prince's greatest success was to occupy such a large portion of the mind so as to render us and all other forms of music inferior, or at least not keeping the beat. Don't know about you, but reggae is super fkn popular right now. And I just don't get it! People do things! Oh my gosh! Or not.

I guess what I'm trying to say is people like ABBA too. What's up with that?

Also, I've had a great idea for a cheesy disco party - "Back To The 1985" - it happens in 2015 and if you're genuinely obsessive you can host it on that date from the non-remastered Spielberg VHS of the same name, with a playlist of everything released in 1985 ever according to Amazon or some such, and not drop in "Condition Of The Heart" or "The Ladder" at any point.

maybe a bit of Goth and Lodi Dodi. up to you really. I'm only typing to maintain my mental health record.

Cx

Graycap23 said:

NeonCraxx said:

Nobody stole shit. You signed up for the website that contained all three albums, a t-shirt (if you got one), and videos. Next time, don't pay $77 for a website if you let alone think people should pay for concert tickets.

But go ahead, linger on about the $77 that YOU spent.

Mofo stole my $77.00

"you can't always get what you want... " and we all know, the more we can't have it - the more we want it. Maybe this is P's marketing strategy - create DEMAND.

And as P himself says "don't come to the show".

But I agree with the majority here - he's a bloody blockhead.

djThunderfunk said:

2elijah said:

So in comparison, if you display a bootleg cd/DVD/live show with Prince's music/live performances on it on your site, and there is an image of him attached to it, with the possibility it can create interest/buzz to fans who frequent/visit said site, and want to gain access in obtaining those bootlegs, whether free or for a fee, do you not see display of that information can be seen as some form of 'advertisement?' Even if your intention was just to catalogue that bootleg for informational purposes only? Even for 'informational' purposes, it is possible it could be seen as some form of advertisement, because of the fact that it is bootleg information. The fact that you're cataloguing illegal bootlegs of a musician's music material, in which you are aware, that said artist doesn't approve approve of that type of act with his music material, should ring an alarm in the first place. That is my point.

.

Information is NOT illegal. Even information about something that is illegal does not make the information illegal. Sheesh!

Why is this so hard to understand?

Just pick up a copy of Rolling Stone Magazine!! They have a section on the latest bootlegs for various musicians. They run articles on the latest album/singles to leak. I'm not an expert in law so maybe Rolling Stone Magazone are breaking the law??? Please feel free to school. Let me know if I'm wrong!

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-10-best-bob-dylan-bootlegs-20110511

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Just pick up a copy of Rolling Stone Magazine!! They have a section on the latest bootlegs for various musicians. They run articles on the latest album/singles to leak. I'm not an expert in law so maybe Rolling Stone Magazone are breaking the law??? Please feel free to school. Let me know if I'm wrong!

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-10-best-bob-dylan-bootlegs-20110511

You're not wrong at all. If Digital Garden broke the law then so does Rolling Stone...

If Rolling Stone had any interest in discussing a Prince bootleg today, and I assume they do not, Prince wouldn't try to sue them into stopping. They can fight back.

djThunderfunk said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Just pick up a copy of Rolling Stone Magazine!! They have a section on the latest bootlegs for various musicians. They run articles on the latest album/singles to leak. I'm not an expert in law so maybe Rolling Stone Magazone are breaking the law??? Please feel free to school. Let me know if I'm wrong!

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-10-best-bob-dylan-bootlegs-20110511

You're not wrong at all. If Digital Garden broke the law then so does Rolling Stone...

If Rolling Stone had any interest in discussing a Prince bootleg today, and I assume they do not, Prince wouldn't try to sue them into stopping. They can fight back.

The difference is that Rolling Stone magazine is a for-profit publication. If some artist had a lawyer send Rolling Stone a cease-and-desist letter for publishing information about bootlegs, the artist would get a response from the magazine's own lawyers as djThunderfunk says. But Prince fans working on a not-for-profit website have no incentive to hire lawyers and respond. This is just a hobby for them, I assume.

As I recall, the New York Times also published a joint review of the Black Album and Lovesexy. The reviewer claimed that someone put a cassette of the Black Album in his back pocket at a disco or something like that--thus explaining why he broke no laws in obtaining it.

I found an article in a scrapbook my girlfriend in college made me...

Dated Sunday, April 17, 1988

By Steve Morse, Boston Globe

Syndicated in my local paper, the Lexington Herald Leader

clearly listed as a REVIEW in the Entertainement section

Bootleg Prince tape ranchy, first-rate funk

"Prince's Black Album, a controversial record that was pulled from release this year, is starting to surface in bootleg tape versions here and abroad. Copies are running up to $100 for this underground collector's item, which features the nastiest, bawdiest funk music of Prince's often outrageous career.

Prince's label, Warner Bros., has been accused of not having the nerve to release the Black Album, which, is a hot, roiling throwback to his Dirty Mind days. But Prince's management just told Rolling Stone magazine that it was Prince's decision to have the album scuttled.

Either way, the bootleg copy procured last week indicates that the album would have reaped certain flak from the Tipper Gore crowd. Sample lyrics: 'Grab a girl and get down on the floor - this funky beast is going to show you what your hips are made for....I'm going to see you in your birthday suit tonight...'

Song titles include 'Le Grind,' 'Dead On It,' 'Super Funky Califragisexy' and 'Rock Hard in a Funky Place.'

Yet as macho as many of the lyrics are, Prince also adds some scathing satire about cooler-than-thou street hipsters.

'I've got a gold tooth that costs more than your house - and I got a diamond ring on four fingers, each the size of a mouse,' he sings in deliberate jest.

The lyrics are off the wall, but the music is first-rate funk. One can only wonder what his next officially planned album, Lovesexy, due in May, will be like. Only one song is being carried over from the Black Album. Titled 'When 2 R in Love,' it is a ballad and easily the tamest track on the bootleg. Has Prince decided to tone down? We shall see."

There is a picure of Prince, circa 1985-1986 with the caption "Is raucous Prince becoming more tame?"

This is a review of an illegal release and it certainly inspired many people to search out an illegal copy.

Here's another one...

By Anthony DeCurtis

Rolling Stone magazine

exact issue & date unknown, early 1988

Prince's 'Lovesexy' album due in May

"Prince will release a new album titled Lovesexy this spring.

According to Steve Fargnoli of Ruffalo, Cavallo and Fargnoli, the firm that manages Prince, Lovesexy is the reason Prince refused to release his controversial 'black album' late last year. 'It was purely his creative decision,' says Fargnoli. 'He preferred something else to be the next album.'

Bob Merlis, vice-president and director of publicity at Warner Bros., Prince's label, says the company had planned to use warning stickers for the 'black album.' 'I've seen things in print about how we were chicken,' Merlis says, 'but we were committed to putting this record out.' Fargnoli says advance orders for the album exceeded 1 million copies, and several hundred thousand units of the album were pressed.

Called the 'black album' because it was untitled and packaged in a plain black cover, the record consisted of eight tracks, one of which, 'When 2 R in Love,' has turned up on Lovesexy. The wide availability of the 'black album' as a bootleg in London has caused Warner Bros. concern. 'It's piracy,' Merlis says.

The atmosphere of funky irreverence on the 'black album' is best captured on the track 'Bob George,' on which Prince growls a dramatic monologue addressed to a female friend and pokes fun at Bob Cavallo, one of his managers - and at himself as well. 'You seein' that rich motherfucker again,' Prince snarls over a spare beat reminiscent of 'Sign o' the Times.' 'What's his name? Bob? /Bob. Ain't that a bitch? /What they do for a livin'? /Manage rock stars? Who? Prince? Ain't that a bitch? /That skinny motherfucker with the high voice? Please.'

What was the response inside the Prince camp to the track? 'I thought it was funny,' says Fargnoli."

This one is from the news section, but clearly, DeCurtis is giving a mini-review as well.