NinaB said:

Stymie said:

luv4u said:

Nope.

Between this post and NinaB, ill be laughing for the rest of the night.

Nice one

PoorLonelyComputer said:

nursev said:

If it wasnt for bootleggers his career wouldve been over years ago. He has done so much to make people forget him and they have. Yes bootlegging is wrong, but how long is he gonna pursue these lawsuits? And who is next? Dude will even go after regular ass fans...really sad.

Bingo.

Nursev sort of true, however, if you don't sue to protect your copyright you run the risk of losing your copyright and your music becoming public domain. So, you may not sue everyone, but you definitely want to sue the bigger culprits. (Now other countries may have different laws making it harder for Prince to hold on to his copyrights.)If he doesn't put effort in controlling the music then Prince wont own his music anymore and the public will, allowing for anyone to use it anytime, anywhere. Upholding your copyright by law and agreement is part of having a copyright.

Stymie said:

kCool is the orger most likely to be Prince.

Hey, Stymie!

First off never heard of any of those sites. Apparently, I'm not the one to ask for boots! (Cuz I'm not.)

Kcool couldn't be Prince he would never suck up to Will Smith.

kewlschool said:

PoorLonelyComputer said:

Bingo.

Nursev sort of true, however, if you don't sue to protect your copyright you run the risk of losing your copyright and your music becoming public domain. So, you may not sue everyone, but you definitely want to sue the bigger culprits. (Now other countries may have different laws making it harder for Prince to hold on to his copyrights.)If he doesn't put effort in controlling the music then Prince wont own his music anymore and the public will, allowing for anyone to use it anytime, anywhere. Upholding your copyright by law and agreement is part of having a copyright.

What? Where did you get that from?

Certainly the onus is on the copyright owner to enforce infringements of their copyright but it doesn't extinguish, not even after the copyright owner has died.

The case is another sign that mr Prince still doesn't get it.

The fact that these outlets exist is because there is demand.

Mr. '#1 at the bank' cannot monetize that demand for certain reasons but those are his problem.

With the case he is projecting the problem onto others.

And no, this does not mean he has to release all stuff.

But a slightly different approach could fix this situation swiftly.

Oh, BTW, this suit will not fix anything about the situation.

It's the 21st century.

We have torrents and technology is progressing slowly but steadily.

Stuff will be more and more decentralised, less likely to be tracable, less likely to be stopped.

We have the Streisand effect with a twist: it's getting easier.

See the efforts by e.g. the folks of the Piratebay and mr DotCom.

They're building networks over the internet with built-in encryption, anonymisation, etc.

This will bring us to a situation like back in the days of cassette tape trading: riskless trading with people you know at the click of a mouse.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

luv4u said:

And that 'dude' will never forget ! Gave his report on what a wonderful time he had, awwwww, sweet!

Yes it was!!! It proves Prince really does care about his REAL fans, MALE & female. But U should consider getting all the moderators together and making a decision, 2 shut this site down completely! Its become too negative and full of evil RATCHET people...

LMMFBAO!!! Girl, you are a trip!

Real talk though, if more than a couple people are telling me about myself, I would back the fuck up and acknowledge that I'm the common denominator, take a look at things, and try to get right.

But that's just me. You keep doing you booboo, cuz you know, it's everybody ELSE that's ratchet.

nursev said:

NinaB said:

Or kfool as cocorock says

LMAO

luv4u said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Yes it was!!! It proves Prince really does care about his REAL fans, MALE & female. But U should consider getting all the moderators together and making a decision, 2 shut this site down completely! Its become too negative and full of evil RATCHET people...

Nope.

I'm sorry nurse, and no disrespect to the other threads you "nominated" , but THIS is the post of the week!!!

Bravo, luv4u. Bravo!

Superconductor said:

kewlschool said:

Nursev sort of true, however, if you don't sue to protect your copyright you run the risk of losing your copyright and your music becoming public domain. So, you may not sue everyone, but you definitely want to sue the bigger culprits. (Now other countries may have different laws making it harder for Prince to hold on to his copyrights.)If he doesn't put effort in controlling the music then Prince wont own his music anymore and the public will, allowing for anyone to use it anytime, anywhere. Upholding your copyright by law and agreement is part of having a copyright.

What? Where did you get that from?

Certainly the onus is on the copyright owner to enforce infringements of their copyright but it doesn't extinguish, not even after the copyright owner has died.

I've never heard of this either. Doesn't make it not true, just odd.

Militant said:

Please ensure discussion of this matter adheres to the site rules and Terms of Service to which all have agreed - and moderators will enforce - thank you

langebleu - moderator

--------------------------------------------

Prince is going after bootleg sites for damages y'all. I'm sure most people on this site will be familiar with all the names of the defendants.

Details - http://www.scribd.com/doc...-v-Chodera




.

and he should...

Thank God kewlschool has written a reasonable post, contrary to most one can read here. I don't know where's the surprise for other orgers. He is just saying that the intellectual property of an artistic creation belongs to the artist. As simple as that. If the creation goes to public domain without his consent, of course he continues being the right holder, but what's the use of that if he can't control the distribution of his own creations? Distribution is a significant part of copyright, and it belongs only to the creator. Of course the right doesn't extinguish, but in practice it is being infringed and he has all the right to sue.

-----

I wish Prince wins here. I don't wish for the infringers to be ruined, so hopefully the sanction will be smaller, but I wish they do get punished enough so that this becomes a lesson for others. I appreciate Prince's music and Prince himself enough to be against people who go against his rights as an artist.

-----

And if this gets him bad publicity, that only speaks of the condition of our society and of how poorly it regards art and culture.

[Edited 1/23/14 0:50am]

[Edited 1/23/14 2:15am]

XxAxX said:

what a shame he has to do this. too bad fans can't be respectful and admit that his artwork is his and his alone to distribute.

*

and what's sadder is this thread is going to become full of acidic remarks about prince, the fellow whose stuff is being STOLEN and traded without his knowledge and consent.

*

to those of you whose theft has been detected and clocked and are whining and making personal attacks on prince and saying he only succeeded because you stole his stuff thereby somehow making him successful: sorry to be harsh but grow up

the truth!

kgarcia863 said:

XxAxX said:

what a shame he has to do this. too bad fans can't be respectful and admit that his artwork is his and his alone to distribute.

*

and what's sadder is this thread is going to become full of acidic remarks about prince, the fellow whose stuff is being STOLEN and traded without his knowledge and consent.

*

to those of you whose theft has been detected and clocked and are whining and making personal attacks on prince and saying he only succeeded because you stole his stuff thereby somehow making him successful: sorry to be harsh but grow up

the truth!

thedance said:

Another lawsuit once again....????????

is this a joke, what a black day in Prince history.

Proven once again: Prince is an a*sehole.

Another reason for me to quit the Prince world, his new music sucks anyway.

2014 will be big - big of disappointments and more crap-music from him,

just like in 2013.... just wait and see.

Bye. And FU Prince.

BYE!!!! don't let the door...haha, nevermind!!

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

luv4u said:

And that 'dude' will never forget ! Gave his report on what a wonderful time he had, awwwww, sweet!

Yes it was!!! It proves Prince really does care about his REAL fans, MALE & female. But U should consider getting all the moderators together and making a decision, 2 shut this site down completely! Its become too negative and full of evil RATCHET people...

I wish someone would shut this site down; the Org sucks the positive vibe right out of me as soon as I hit click! This thread is a reminder, actually a huge slap in the face as to why I elect not to post, comment and very very seldom visit this place!!! Now, I don't know Kcool, but one has to appreciate his/her loyalty. At least he/she stands for what he/she believes in. "If you don't stand something; you will fall for anything".

[Edited 1/23/14 1:15am]

udo said:

kgarcia863 said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Yes it was!!! It proves Prince really does care about his REAL fans, MALE & female. But U should consider getting all the moderators together and making a decision, 2 shut this site down completely! Its become too negative and full of evil RATCHET people...

I wish someone would shut this site down; the Org sucks the positive vibe right out of me as soon as I hit click! This thread is a reminder, actually a huge slap in the face as to why I elect not to post, comment and very very seldom visit this place!!! Now, I don't know Kcool, but one has to appreciate his/her loyalty. At least he/she stands for what he/she believes in. "If you don't stand something; you will fall for anything".

[Edited 1/23/14 1:15am]

I don't always agree with KCool but this ganging up on him/her on this thread is awful. These comments should all be deleted.

The moderators are busy ensuring that no gossip and legally problematic stuff is posted, but what about enforcing a code of conduct or such to stop the vitriol?

djThunderfunk said:

Superconductor said:

Superconductor said:

The problem discussed here is not owning bootlegs, which isn't ilegal, but distributing bootlegs, which is ilegal. It's not the same to obtain an artistic creation and make an illicit use of it -that is, distributing it without consent- than simply owning a bootleg and making a private use of it. Those who distribute bootlegs make something ilegal and offensive to the artist they love; those owning a bootleg, while not doing something morally right, aren't infringing any rights and the harm they're causing the artist can't certainly compare to the harm caused by people distributing his music without consent.

-----

Oh, and I'm talking about intellectual and artistic harm, not about economic harm. That would be a different issue, and at least for me a less relevant one. Regarding what I'm saying, there's no difference between distributing bootlegs for free and selling it.

[Edited 1/23/14 3:55am]

[Edited 1/23/14 3:57am]

hmmm. how do artists actually FEEL when their stuff is ripped off??????

'I'm done': Quentin Tarantino ditches new Western after script leaks

http://www.nbcnews.com/entertainment/quentin-tarantino-ditches-new-western-after-script-leaks-2D11972077

Kory Grow Rolling Stone

17 hours ago

Jerod Harris / Getty Images for Variety

Quentin Tarantino, seen here in 2013, says he will shift to work on another film since his planned western script was leaked.

Quentin Tarantino's plans for making another Western have quickly gone south. After telling Jay Leno in November that the experience of making "Django Unchained" had inspired him to want to make another film in the genre, he's made an about face. Deadline reports that the director was so upset when the script for "The Hateful Eight" leaked, that he no longer wishes to make the movie right now. The script was given to a small pool of actors and he learned of the leak when his manager began receiving calls from agents wishing to pitch actors for the movie's roles.

See Peter Travers' Top 10...es of 2013

"I'm very, very depressed," Tarantino told Deadline. "I finished a script, a first draft, and I didn't mean to shoot it until next winter, a year from now. I gave it to six people, and apparently it's gotten out today."

Among the people Tarantino gave the script to were three actors: Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern and Tim Roth. Tarantino exonerated Roth — who had previously worked with the director on "Reservoir Dogs," "Pulp Fiction" and "Four Rooms" — calling him "the one I know didn't do this." He said he had given the script to one of the producers of "Django Unchained," Reggie Hudlin, and he knew that Hudlin let an agent read it. "That’s a betrayal, but not crippling because the agent didn’t end up with the script," Tarantino said. Ultimately, the director believes one of the other actors let their agent read the script, and that person shared it with "everyone in Hollywood."

Check Out the 25 Greatest...f All Time

Tarantino said he now plans to publish the script as a book and possibly revisit it as a film idea sometime in the next five years. He also said that he intends to write a major part for Dern in whatever film he decides to make next.

"I don't know how these (expletive) agents work, but I'm not making this next," Tarantino continued. "I'm going to publish it, and that's it for now. I give it out to six people, and if I can't trust them to that degree, then I have no desire to make it. I'll publish it. I'm done. I'll move on to the next thing. I've got 10 more where that came from."

Tarantino said he had another script that he was "full of piss and vinegar" about, one he had been working on concurrently with "The Hateful Eight." "The idea was, I was going to write two scripts," he said. "I wasn't going to shoot the Western until next winter . . . so now I'll do that one."

kewlschool said:

Javi said:

Superconductor said:

skilletnomicrowave said:

skilletnomicrowave said:

Javi said:

The problem discussed here is not owning bootlegs, which isn't ilegal, but distributing bootlegs, which is ilegal. It's not the same to obtain an artistic creation and make an illicit use of it -that is, distributing it without consent- than simply owning a bootleg and making a private use of it. Those who distribute bootlegs make something ilegal and offensive to the artist they love; those owning a bootleg, while not doing something morally right, aren't infringing any rights and the harm they're causing the artist can't certainly compare to the harm caused by people distributing his music without consent.

-----

Oh, and I'm talking about intellectual and artistic harm, not about economic harm. That would be a different issue, and at least for me a less relevant one. Regarding what I'm saying, there's no difference between distributing bootlegs for free and selling it.

[Edited 1/23/14 3:55am]

[Edited 1/23/14 3:57am]

I agree with you but what people hate is when someone gets on a very high horse when they themselves probably own said illegally distributed items, you can't support the legal action and partake at the same time.

In my opinion, the difference between ilegal distribution and ownership is very, very big. People who distribute create an ilegal context in which an artist is ripped off. Once this context is created, diehard fans must have an almost impossible will power not to get some of the boots. Owning it's not morally right, but it's not ilegal and it's ethically miles away from ilegal distribution.

-----

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.

[Edited 1/23/14 5:19am]

[Edited 1/23/14 5:21am]

[Edited 1/24/14 1:00am]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]