Interesting article

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/prince-plays-london-living-room-gig-22367982

Asked if — as rumored — he would play the Glastonbury Festival in June, he didn't issue a denial, but said he was trying to "slow time down" and live in the moment. "I can't think of the festival now."

He spoke about his decision to launch a lawsuit — later dropped — against fans who posted links online to unauthorized footage of his performances.

"Nobody sues fans," he said. "It's just a poor way to phrase it. A bootlegger is a bootlegger, a scalper is a scalper. They know what time it is.

"Just sharing music with each other — that's cool," he said. "It's the selling that becomes the problem."

chopingard said:

Interesting article

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/prince-plays-london-living-room-gig-22367982

Asked if — as rumored — he would play the Glastonbury Festival in June, he didn't issue a denial, but said he was trying to "slow time down" and live in the moment. "I can't think of the festival now."

He spoke about his decision to launch a lawsuit — later dropped — against fans who posted links online to unauthorized footage of his performances.

"Nobody sues fans," he said. "It's just a poor way to phrase it. A bootlegger is a bootlegger, a scalper is a scalper. They know what time it is.

"Just sharing music with each other — that's cool," he said. "It's the selling that becomes the problem."

While it's true that when it came right down to it, he did not sue the people in question (and scalper is a much worse way to phrase it than fan is), anybody with a clock knew what time it was. No matter how much Prince misrepresents it.

I knew most of the sites, I knew what was going on--most (possibly all, but I only knew most) weren't selling anything. And anyone who spent five minutes looking at the sites knew it. If Prince disapproves of what was going on there, the word for what he disapproves of is "sharing"--why not just admit that? Why continue this smokescreen that the sites were selling music? Can he not get it through his head? Can he not understand the idea that his fans want other fans to hear shows that they were unable to attend, and, out of kindness, provide access to recordings of those shows? It seems like a simple idea. Why is that behavior so confusing to him? He doesn't have to approve of it, but why does he refuse to admit that he understands the basic concept? Recognizing the noncommercial nature of the sites might affect the amount he could sue for (if he's just trying to keep that option open), but I think he could still sue--so why not be HONEST about his objections?

EddieC said:

chopingard said:

Interesting article

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/prince-plays-london-living-room-gig-22367982

Asked if — as rumored — he would play the Glastonbury Festival in June, he didn't issue a denial, but said he was trying to "slow time down" and live in the moment. "I can't think of the festival now."

He spoke about his decision to launch a lawsuit — later dropped — against fans who posted links online to unauthorized footage of his performances.

"Nobody sues fans," he said. "It's just a poor way to phrase it. A bootlegger is a bootlegger, a scalper is a scalper. They know what time it is.

"Just sharing music with each other — that's cool," he said. "It's the selling that becomes the problem."

While it's true that when it came right down to it, he did not sue the people in question (and scalper is a much worse way to phrase it than fan is), anybody with a clock knew what time it was. No matter how much Prince misrepresents it.

I knew most of the sites, I knew what was going on--most (possibly all, but I only knew most) weren't selling anything. And anyone who spent five minutes looking at the sites knew it. If Prince disapproves of what was going on there, the word for what he disapproves of is "sharing"--why not just admit that? Why continue this smokescreen that the sites were selling music? Can he not get it through his head? Can he not understand the idea that his fans want other fans to hear shows that they were unable to attend, and, out of kindness, provide access to recordings of those shows? It seems like a simple idea. Why is that behavior so confusing to him? He doesn't have to approve of it, but why does he refuse to admit that he understands the basic concept? Recognizing the noncommercial nature of the sites might affect the amount he could sue for (if he's just trying to keep that option open), but I think he could still sue--so why not be HONEST about his objections?

I didn't know all the sites, but the ones I did know sold NOTHING! One of the main ones he was after was very vocally against selling and spoke out often agains selling bootlegs. He's either lying or stupid and I know he's a pretty smart guy so...

Ironically, the sites that DO sell bootlegs were untouched and are still in operation...

Prince is lying once again. What a douche.

chopingard said:

Interesting article

"Just sharing music with each other — that's cool," he said. "It's the selling that becomes the problem."

So torrents are cool with mr Prince.

udo said:

chopingard said:

Interesting article

"Just sharing music with each other — that's cool," he said. "It's the selling that becomes the problem."

So torrents are cool with mr Prince.

From his statement we'd have to say so, then so are the very sites that he shut down. I haven't bought a bootleg since about 1993 but have still managed to get most of them through sharing. But now the sharing sites have gone but we can still buy bootlegs. Awesome.

But we need to remember the over arching rule that trumps all others. Prince is full of shit.

[Edited 2/5/14 1:49am]

TheEnglishGent said:

udo said:

So torrents are cool with mr Prince.

From his statement we'd have to say so, then so are the very sites that he shut down. I haven't bought a bootleg since about 1993 but have still managed to get most of them through sharing. But now the sharing sites have gone but we can still buy bootlegs. Awesome.

But we need to remember the over arching rule that trumps all others. Prince is full of shit.

[Edited 2/5/14 1:49am]

Pretty much

Here's a another report from that interview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news...s-26045864

"There was a story last week saying he was taking a $22m (£13m) legal action against 22 internet users who allegedly posted copies of his live performances online. In response to that he simply said "Nobody sues their fans", before adding: "I have some bootlegs of Lianne [La Havas] but I wouldn't sell them. But fans sharing music with each other, that's cool.""

Superconductor said:

Here's a another report from that interview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news...s-26045864

"There was a story last week saying he was taking a $22m (£13m) legal action against 22 internet users who allegedly posted copies of his live performances online. In response to that he simply said "Nobody sues their fans", before adding: "I have some bootlegs of Lianne [La Havas] but I wouldn't sell them. But fans sharing music with each other, that's cool.""

Somebody needs to start a new share site with these quotes as banners at the top of every page.

djThunderfunk said:

Superconductor said:

Here's a another report from that interview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news...s-26045864

"There was a story last week saying he was taking a $22m (£13m) legal action against 22 internet users who allegedly posted copies of his live performances online. In response to that he simply said "Nobody sues their fans", before adding: "I have some bootlegs of Lianne [La Havas] but I wouldn't sell them. But fans sharing music with each other, that's cool.""

Somebody needs to start a new share site with these quotes as banners at the top of every page.

And the first release on that site needs to be that "Connections" set from 2012 that never saw the light of day