Prince is cool.

RodeoSchro said:

databank said:

Sassey's gonna love that

[Edited 1/22/14 8:45am]

What are the odds that Sassey T is one of the unnamed "Does"?

Oh cripes. That is one he should go after for all the slander posted on lipstick alley.

RodeoSchro said:

lwr001 said:

you should defend them..

LOL, I'm not a lawyer. And I think Prince, as unappealing as his suit may seem, is basically right.
We WANT him to sell us the stuff that gets bootlegged. Just because he won't doesn't mean he still doesn't own the recordings. Of course, he does.

But it seems there's got to be a way to settle this so that Prince gets paid, and the fans get the stuff. My guess is that if he got together with the bootleggers, he'd find some that would be willing to compile and distribute his stuff, and be happy to get paid a commission out of whatever they can make available for sale.

its simple, he doesnt want his stuff bootleged period,,every site he mentioned willingly put up copyrighteed material and they knew the blowback from doing it..They dont stand a chance in hell and yes he can win a judgement ; he may not get paid but so what. A precedent will have been set..what was the college student on the hook for for illegally dl'ing on napster...

skilletnomicrowave said:

RodeoSchro said:

Well first of all, the defendants don't have to show anything. Prince made the allegation that he lost at least $1 million per defendant, so Princehas to prove up how he lost that much money per defendant.

The defendants, as I understand it, didn't make a dime. Everything they bootlegged was given away for free from downloads and torrents. You bring up a very interesting point, though. One of Prince's requests in his Prayer for Relief is "Disgorgement of ill-gotten gains". If none of the defendants ever sold anything, what "ill-gotten gains" is Prince asking for?

In fact, there is another question. Now, I am NOT an attorney. I have, however, been involved in a lot of corporate civil cases, including one that went to the United States Supreme Court (we won, yay!). So I have some experience here but again - I am NOT an attorney, so there could be legal stuff I don't know about. Actually, I am SURE there is legal stuff I don't know about.

Here's what I am wondering:

1. Prince is asking for statuatory damages that he says are proveable for at least $1 million/defendant.

2. He is also, I assume, asking for punitive damages. My understanding is that you can't get punitive damages unless you first have actual damages. That means Prince has to prove the actual damages before he can get punitive damages. But if he can't prove actual damages then he can't get punitive damages, either. So what could he get other than an injunction against Facebook/the Internet/whatever?

3. To prove actual damages, it seems to me that Prince would have to show definitive proof that he had actual plans to sell what was bootlegged. I don't know how far testimony from Prince of "I had no plans at the present time to sell this stuff, but maybe I might want to sell it in a few years" would go in establishing actual damages. Clearly, Prince would have the ultimate right to sell his stuff, but would he have actual damages at this time? Seems a little shaky to me. However, I would not be surprised if there are laws that allow for the financial punishment of people who "steal" the work of someone else and sell it. If that's in Prince's suit though, I missed it. But I'm not a lawyer, so it's entirely possible I could miss something like that.

It appears that a LOT of this has to be substantiated through testimony from Prince himself. I don't think an assistant could get on the stand and testify, "Prince told me he was going to sell all this stuff and make $15 million from it, and I believed him". I think that would be hearsay. An assistant could say all that in a deposition, but I don't think it would ever be admissable in the trial.

.

[Edited 1/23/14 8:08am]

Ok this could all simply be a warning shot over the bow as I understand it. I have a feeling he's not expecting to get any money from this but made it an impossible sum or task to silence the distributor for good hopefully but I can't see that happening. This could also force fb etc to monitor accounts closer than they already do to prevent distribution on their platform so Zuckerberg could be as accountable as Kim. Com in the future. #imaybetalkingnonsense [Edited 1/23/14 11:21am]

It will be interesting to see if Facebook gives up the Does' names. IIRC, it was almost impossible to get actual names of Yahoo posters, no matter who your lawyer was. It might be the same with Facebook.

RodeoSchro

1. This isn't he first lawsuit Prince has been involved in, I'm pretty certain he has given depositions before.

5. "defendants will almost certainly bring Lotu$flower.com" on the contrary, Lotu$flower.com hurts the defendants,just look at the posts from the org showing how many people either didn't sign up or complained that most of the stuff they got on there they already had on bootlegs.

new album coming!

[Edited 1/23/14 16:53pm]

Really?

What the fuck ever!

This latest BS is nothing new!

I happen to KNOW good and damn well that WE created the monster...Prince has become.

So when we're finally ready to do...what we do...to show our LOVE to him.

We'll UNITE and spank his happy ass...RAW!

Don't whine. Org note me!

[Edited 1/23/14 17:49pm]

luv4u said:

RodeoSchro said:

What are the odds that Sassey T is one of the unnamed "Does"?

Oh cripes. That is one he should go after for all the slander posted on lipstick alley.

Agree......

Rebeljuice said:

RodeoSchro said:

On the face of this, it seems like a missile fired by Prince and he's certainly within his rights to do this. But as the actual case goes on, I don't see Prince ever giving a deposition or showing up for trial. If there was a trial, and Prince had avoided his deposition(s) and didn't show up at the trial to give testimony, I don't see his chances of winning over a jury as being very high.

Very interesting, very interesting!

nursev said:

Prince has sued so many sites/people over the years and im starting to wonder why the org has always been saved. Is it because he has some hold on this site? Or he needs the org to sell his stuff? What is his reason for always keeping watchful eyes here, but never going the distance to shut it down?

It is because of the 'rules' that the site founder put in place

luv4u said:

nursev said:

Prince has sued so many sites/people over the years and im starting to wonder why the org has always been saved. Is it because he has some hold on this site? Or he needs the org to sell his stuff? What is his reason for always keeping watchful eyes here, but never going the distance to shut it down?

It is because of the 'rules' that the site founder put in place

For that, Ben should be congratulated, despite all the complaints about minor site disfunctions.

nursev said:

luv4u said:

nursev said:

What is his reason for always keeping watchful eyes here, but never going the distance to shut it down?

It is because of the 'rules' that the site founder put in place

The 'rules' merely show the stifling effects of rentseeking.

Also the effects of justice for the strong versus the weak are apparent.

The systems mentioned are rotten to the core.

Of course you casn deny and stick your head in the sand but please do have a look at history.

skilletnomicrowave said:

nursev said:

Lawd have mercy.

Lol, there was no need to snip. The address wasn't real... however I'm sure the IP was

Address was real. And youre right, the IP address would be traceable too. Still couldnt give a rat's arse about it.

It would be great to see Prince and his lawyers try and negotiate the Zambian legal system.

I'll take him on a tour through Kamwala Market, a stench pit of disease and putrified mud (high heels not advised) where somewhere in the middle of the sprawling mess is a stall selling CD-Rs, with artwork, all pretending to be original pressings. Amongst those pirated copies are several Prince albums (pre 1988 because no one knows any of his stuff post Lovesexy) and occasionally a liveshow bootleg or two. I bought the Black Album there in 1989 on cassette.

Alas, there is nowhere near the number of CD-Rs that, say, Michael Jackson has or Usher or [add bland RnB artist name here]. But he is there nonetheless. And is the stall legal? By Zambian copyright laws, of which there are none, yes it is (trading licences aside).

Personally, I dont frequent this market these days, the stench is stomach churning. But I do use the internet and share in the bootleg trade. I dont share any official stuff out of respect for the artist but live shows are fair game. Prince doesnt make money off them, there is no way of paying him for them and, if anything, it spreads the word about his live performances and, just might get people to go and see him live who otherwise would not have thought twice about it.

Mind you, even the live boots are getting pretty tedious now, so they may be doing more harm than good in spreading the word about his performances. Maybe thats why he is suing now. He knows its all sub par lately and knows it aint helping him.

Anyway, my offer still stands. Prince, if you want to come after me then let me know and I will advise you on the inoculations, visa and permit requirements and how to avoid being trampled by an elephant before coming. Also, bring flat shoes. This is Africa.

[Edited 1/24/14 0:05am]

djThunderfunk said:

Javi said:

What I don't get is the huge distinction almost everybody makes between sharing bootlegs and selling them. You're disrespecting the artist's rights in both cases, your infringing intellectual property in both cases. If someone took something I have written and made it public without my consent, I couldn't care less if he sold it or gave it for free. He would have distributed my work without my permission, he would have stolen something I don't want to release and released it himself. Doesn't matter if he gets money out of it or not. The economic side has very little relevance here, the way I see it.

If you can't see the difference between selling bootlegs for profit and sharing them with other obsessive fans for the love of the art then I'll explain it: motivation and reward.

Those that sell boots are motivated by profit and it is their reward. They don't care about art and don't care which artists they sell, they only care about what they get out of it... profit.

Those that share boots are motivated by an obsessive passion for the art and their reward is in sharing that passion with like-minded obsessive fans. They care only about the art and the specific artist(s) they share. In fact, they SPEND their money and their time to share without any monetary compensation.

Get it?

[Edited 1/23/14 7:40am]

[Edited 1/23/14 7:44am]

Of course I get your opinion, I'm not that dumb. But it's just your opinion, there's no need to express it as a schoolteacher. My take is completely the contrary. How much do bootlegers love music and art if they don't respect the artist's will of not releasing his work? Do you know what it means when an artist doesn't want to release something he has created? Very often, it means that he is not satisfied with the results. Or it means that he doesn't find a place for those creations in his work. Or -you may appreciate this more, since you give so much importance to economic motivation- he may want to release them in the future and therefore he'll loose money with the bootlegs.

-----

Glorifying "bootlegers for free" and condemning those who sell them is a contradiction. But, again, that's just my take and we can perfectly agree to disagree.

-----

I myself write for a magazine and am now preparing a book. For me it would be devastating if someone released something I don't consider suitable for publication. If he made money out of it woud be much less relevant. Even Prince himself may not agree with my view here, and obviously each artist or intellectual creator can have a different opinion. But I think mine would be shared by quite a few.

-----

And, of course, free bootlegers and those who sell them don't offer the same product. The first ones offer digital files; the others, pressed CDs. For those of us who despise listening to music through a computer, the work of those who press CDs and sell them, while morally rejectable, has clearly its advantages.

[Edited 1/24/14 1:01am]

[Edited 1/24/14 1:02am]

RodeoSchro, I appreciate your post. However, releasing artistic or intellectual creations without the artist's consent is an infringement of copyright, since the only one who can decide whether to release an artistic creation is the creator himself. That's the law of my country, but I would be very, very surprised if it were different in the US. Distribution is an essential aspect of intellectual property. How on earth can someone release an artistic creation if the artist doesn't desire to do it? That would be quite absurd, wouldn't it?

[Edited 1/24/14 0:49am]

Javi said:

RodeoSchro, I appreciate your post. However, releasing artistic or intellectual creations without the artist's consent is an infringement of copyright,

It is?

That is an assertion without bounds.

Not like that part of law was originally intended.

Please look that up.

Copyright term extensions prevent that the earlier works of the Beatles will fall into the public domain.

For what reason? Not because it is ethically just.

udo said:

Javi said:

RodeoSchro, I appreciate your post. However, releasing artistic or intellectual creations without the artist's consent is an infringement of copyright,

It is?

That is an assertion without bounds.

Not like that part of law was originally intended.

Please look that up.

Copyright term extensions prevent that the earlier works of the Beatles will fall into the public domain.

For what reason? Not because it is ethically just.

It has bounds. I'm talking about Spanish legislation, but I can't imagine it being differently in the US. Come on, it's perfectly logical and fair. The right to distribute an artistic creation should belong to the creator. Who else?

[Edited 1/24/14 2:50am]

Javi said:

skilletnomicrowave said:

Javi said:

It has bounds. I'm talking about Spanish legislation, but I can't imagine it being differently in the US. Come on, it's perfectly logical and fair. The right to distribute an artistic creation should belong to the creator. Who else?

[Edited 1/24/14 2:50am]

The label. I know Prince is not signed to a label but sometimes I wish he was.

If that's the case, the bootlegers would be infringing the rights of the label. And, like you say, Prince isn't signed to a label now...

-----

Look, what I don't get of many of the posts of this thread is how people who love Prince's music so much can be so disrespectful with the artist who has created that music, even to the point of saying: "He's to blame if he's bootleged. He should have released it officially". Come on, so Prince should release offcially what we as fans decide? This is delirious beyond words and reveals a complete misunderstandig of what artistic creation is. Prince should release what he chooses to do, period. I also wish he released his complete vault officially, I would gladly pay for it. But I must respect his artistic decisions, that would be the least expected for someone who loves Prince's music.

-----

To consider bootlegers as heroes, like many people do here, reveals a very poor appreciation of what art and music is. But hey, this is the sign of the times: we live in a society that thinks culture should be free, everything should be in the internet and everything should be free. Our society doesn't appreciate art and culture, and praising bootlegers is perfectly coherent with this.

[Edited 1/24/14 4:11am]

Javi said:

RodeoSchro, I appreciate your post. However, releasing artistic or intellectual creations without the artist's consent is an infringement of copyright, since the only one who can decide whether to release an artistic creation is the creator himself. That's the law of my country, but I would be very, very surprised if it were different in the US. Distribution is an essential aspect of intellectual property. How on earth can someone release an artistic creation if the artist doesn't desire to do it? That would be quite absurd, wouldn't it?

[Edited 1/24/14 0:49am]

^this. plain and simple. there is absolutely no argument in favor of stealing someone else's creative product and using it. period. end of story. and only amoral thieves would argue against the common sense involved here

RodeoSchro said:

My take:

1. It's a civil suit. Therefore, the defendants can subpoena and depose Prince. Each and every defendant can do this, and they can all try to do it seperately. In other words, if all the Does are identified, then Prince would have to give 20 different depositions. Of course, Prince's lawyers will try to have one master deposition with 20 different lawyers present, but each one of those lawyers would get their time with Prince to ask questions. I just do not see Prince EVER sitting down for a deposition, much less 20 different depositions.

this isn't how it happens. more likely than not, one, single deposition of the plaintiff will be taken, at a date and time when all parties can make themselves available. in fact even though his deposition is noticed 20 separate times, only one deposition of 'prince' will actually take place, likely through video-conferencing.

2. Unless Prince can get a summary judgement, he can't get an award without giving these depositions. Summary judgements are hard to get and harder to keep alive if appealed. So unless there is some incredible proof against the defendants, or unless the defendants have absolutely no defense whatsoever, I don't see a summary judgement being won. Which means Prince best get ready for the deposition(s).

again, this is not how a multi-party lawsuit works. he can give a single deposition once to 20 defendants, not 20 separate depositions. and no, judgment (default, not summary, and please know that there are many awards prince can receive against defendants aside from 'summary judgment') will not be difficult to obtain since most of the defendants will be unable to retain counsel to make an appearance and go through the necessary motions to defend against default judgment. remember, we're talking hiring an IP attorney whose hourly rates will likely top $350.00.

3. You can bet the deposition(s) will be filmed. And you can bet that the very first thing Prince is going to think is, "Man, they are going to bootleg my deposition". Again, I just don't see Prince showing up for the deposition(s). And without doing that, he will have to to trial.

or, one video conference deposition will be taken and confidentiality agreements will be signed and filed with the court in connection with that video testimony. the deposition testimony will be sealed and IF it is leaked even more major lawsuits will occur against the attorneys involved.

4. Prince says that he is entitled to not less than $1 million per defendant, and that he can prove that. My response would be, "If bootlegging cost you so much money, why didn't you ever just sell this stuff yourself? You'd have made $$$millions - you said so yourself!" Of course, Prince is under no obligation to have ever offered this stuff for sale, but it will be very interesting to see how Prince proves that each bootlegger cost him at least $1 million. How will he do that? By asking his fans how much they would pay/did pay for bootlegged stuff? And how much would they have paid Prince if he HAD offered it for sale? Interesting.

don't forget to mention how prayers for relief (the one million per def) are always inflated to maximize defendants' desire to settle. this is merely a legal tactic and everyone knows it.

5. As to damages, the defendants will almost certainly bring Lotu$flower.com up as proof that Prince lost nowhere near $1 million per defendant. Lotu$flower.com was a spectacular failure, and it DID offer bootlegs/commercially unavailable stuff to its members. As I recall, the guys that developed Lotu$flower.com do NOT think very highly of Prince, as he was impossible to work with.

no. in actual legal fact anyone who tries to work another issue into this litigation will be shot down. the lotusflower issue is not relevant to this particular lawsuit. anyone wishing to address lotusflower will need to do so separately in an other lawsuit. in fact the court will insist on this since venue may well be different

6. For that matter, ALL of Prince's music clubs could be fodder for deposition questions. A good attorney could establish a pattern of Prince's business practices, starting with the "lifetime memberships" of the old NPGMC.

again, unrelated to the instant matter.

7. Bootleggers do NOT have ANY effect on copyright issues. If that were the case, nearly every single artist in the world would never own a copyright. And you don't see massively bootlegged artists like Bruce Springsteen or U2 going after bootleggers with respect to enforcing or preserving copyright ownership.

now you are voicing your opinion. of course bootlegging is wrong. it doesn't matter what springsteen is doing about this issue.

On the face of this, it seems like a missile fired by Prince and he's certainly within his rights to do this. But as the actual case goes on, I don't see Prince ever giving a deposition or showing up for trial. If there was a trial, and Prince had avoided his deposition(s) and didn't show up at the trial to give testimony, I don't see his chances of winning over a jury as being very high.

.

[Edited 1/23/14 5:36am]

the point is not for him to win, the point is to make life miserable for the folks who have no respect for his creative process and feel entitled to rip his stuff off. hopefully, this lawsuit will make them think twice. and if they have to hire counsel to defend themselves in court, well maybe that's all good too.

don't get me wrong, i know it has to be a really bad feeling to be a named defendant in this suit, but prince has already asked nicely. he's made it clear that he and he alone has the right to distribute HIS CREATIVE WORK. imo it's absolutely shameful that he is being forced to go to such lengths.

**

why won't the *fans* respect his wishes?

[Edited 1/24/14 6:09am]

udo said:

luv4u said:

It is because of the 'rules' that the site founder put in place

The 'rules' merely show the stifling effects of rentseeking.

Also the effects of justice for the strong versus the weak are apparent.

The systems mentioned are rotten to the core.

Of course you casn deny and stick your head in the sand but please do have a look at history.

No paid membership required. ............. [back on topic] ....................

Javi said:

RodeoSchro, I appreciate your post. However, releasing artistic or intellectual creations without the artist's consent is an infringement of copyright, since the only one who can decide whether to release an artistic creation is the creator himself. That's the law of my country, but I would be very, very surprised if it were different in the US. Distribution is an essential aspect of intellectual property. How on earth can someone release an artistic creation if the artist doesn't desire to do it? That would be quite absurd, wouldn't it?

[Edited 1/24/14 0:49am]

Of course Prince owns it. Like I said earlier, IMO Prince is in the right.

I'm just pontificating on the process by which Prince may have to go through in order to win in court. XxAxX has disputed a lot of what I said, and since she works in a law firm and I am a mere corporate representative, listen to what she says.

RodeoSchro said:

Javi said:

RodeoSchro, I appreciate your post. However, releasing artistic or intellectual creations without the artist's consent is an infringement of copyright, since the only one who can decide whether to release an artistic creation is the creator himself. That's the law of my country, but I would be very, very surprised if it were different in the US. Distribution is an essential aspect of intellectual property. How on earth can someone release an artistic creation if the artist doesn't desire to do it? That would be quite absurd, wouldn't it?

[Edited 1/24/14 0:49am]

Of course Prince owns it. Like I said earlier, IMO Prince is in the right.

I'm just pontificating on the process by which Prince may have to go through in order to win in court. XxAxX has disputed a lot of what I said, and since she works in a law firm and I am a mere corporate representative, listen to what she says.

Both of you have made very valuable contributions to the discussion. I agree with XxAxX position, but thanks to you both.

-----

I'm not an expert, but my job has led me to have some knowledge on intellectual property. And I'm a writer too, and that makes me quite sensitive to these issues.

[Edited 1/24/14 5:45am]

it's good to see that the majority on here agree that it is simply theft - no grey areas at all. Prince is nowhere nearly alone in being unhappy at this. It is simply NO excuse to say that his albums are crap, his tour set lists are boring, he doesn't give the fans what they really want etc - if that were the case you'd steal anything all day every day from everyone!

For the record I have collected stuff constantly - the fact that the majority was 'free' is still no excuse - i still feel bad that I am indirectly supporting bootleggers. The only way to stop it really would be to release more & until then the theft will carry on...& many of us will continue to DL & feel guilty!

Ultimately I would love to just pay prince £ & DL music legally! Going forward I doubt that I will DL anymore.