Think of this:

I attend a concert or listen to a song.

That song is in my head.

I "play back" that song/performance in my head over and over and over and over.

Sometimes, I even alter that song in my head.

The moment Prince allows music to touch my ears, it is no longer his. This is the TRUTH.

If an artist does not want anybody to touch his music, then he should record and engineer by himself, alone, and never release anything to anybody. Then he should burn the tapes so that nobody will ever hear those songs.

With that in mind (so to speak), how can somebody enforce possession, when they would have to eliminate from the mind?

With that established, what is the difference of having the song playing in my head, or the song playing in my stereo?

Money!

Dauphin said:

This ranks as one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. The fact that you put "play back" in quotes answers your own question.

Dauphin said:

FALSE. Nice try, but the 'ownership' of which Prince speaks relates to the intellectual property of a piece of work - not some intangible memory you carry around in your head.

The words in your thread are yours, you thought what you wanted to say and expressed the thought in words typed out on a keyboard. Just because I have read them and I have some trace of them in my head does not invalidate the fact that the words were written by you, and I cannot claim that the words are mine.

With a piece of music which is unique, copyright in the work vests in the creator at the point of creation. It is perfectly legitimate to talk about 'possession' in this context, because a legal interest is generally recognised to exist. Just because someone else hears the piece of music, purchases a copy of it, or remembers the piece of music in their head, makes no difference to the legal interest of the copyright holder.

FALSE.

Here is the TRUTH:

Prince does not own his music.


Theory 1:

Prince divines his music from God.

The music is God's music.


Theory 2:

Prince divines his music from God.

The music is God's music.

Love is God. God is Love.

We have a love relationship with the divined music.

We have a God relationship with the music.

God has willed us to have a relationship with the music.


Theory 3:

Prince believes that God provides the music.

Prince believes that he is the owner of this music.

We have music that Prince does not want us to Possess.

In spite of Prince's wishes, God allows us to have the music.

Since God provided the music, and since God allows us to possess the music, Prince does not have sole ownership of the music.


Theory 4:

Intellectual Property has a time limit. The works of Shakespeare are now public domain, for example.

Prince does not believe in time.

Prince cannot believe in something that contradicts his beliefs, unless he is willing to admit that he is not perfect.

Prince is not perfect.

Prince is not God, as Prince thinks God is perfect.

Prince believes that all things from from God.

Music comes from God.

We have possesion of Prince's music against Prince's will.

God does not stop us.

Per God's will, the music can be owned by all.


Theory 5:

Who has Intellectual Property rights over the Holy Bible? Nobody.

What is the difference between the people who wrote the Bible and the person who writes Prince's songs? Nothing.

Why is the Holy Bible owned by nobody, yet, Prince has sole ownership of his works? He doesn't. If he did, I would not have had a copy of The Black Album from 89-93.


Summerized Rebuttal:

Just because MAN'S LAW, and more clearly AMERICAN LAW dictates ownership, this does not mean that this is right by GOD'S LAW.

Advice:

Do not argue something that begs the question. If I wanted to talk about current laws, I would have quoted current laws. This is discussion of a philisophical nature. Meta-discussion in order to display the absurdity of the laws that exist TODAY. In fact, ALL these man's laws are ephemeral. Intellectual Property may not be a factor in 15 years, and what then?

Advice as a Parable:

Do not bring a knive to a gun fight.

.
[This message was edited Sun Sep 29 4:00:34 PDT 2002 by Dauphin]

what a bunch of irrational bullocks !

And your post smells of elderberries!

Never diss the ramblings of a drunk bastard!

antoon said:

Lange: also, I forgot to mention that what you are talking about in your analogy is PLAGERISM. That is different than my buying a bootleg CD that has material that Prince will not release. That problem is COPYRIGHT, which you adress in your latter point. Are you aware that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin both felt that all Intellectual Property should be public domain? Interesting that two of who are considered the wisest "founding fathers" of American Law both agree with me. But as I mentioned, you are talking about legal matters when I am talking about philosophy and the absurdity of said legal matters.

Please note that I was pretty buzzed when I wrote the "truth" response, so it's not too coherant, but there is plenty of logic there. Just not in a logical order

langebleu said:

[This message was edited Sun Sep 29 11:39:53 PDT 2002 by Dauphin]

Dauphin said:

...U smokin' dat cheeba?

Dauphin said:

I can record a song thats played off a stereo.
Some difficulty recording what you hear in your head.

ZaZa said:[quote]

Dauphin said:

Not if you are Prince, ZaZa

But Prince is the conduit between the music , God , Us etc...

THAT represents the value of his creations.

Without him we have a thread as meaningless as this...

Orig:

In this scenerio you compare Prince to a conduit. With that analogy, you are assigning to the music the quality of tangability. Meaning, the music is an item that is passed from God, to Prince, to the people who listen to it.

In that respect, the music is like a baton, passed around. With that in mind, at what point is ownership established? Perhaps Prince may have first ownership after God, but when the item is in my hands, do I then have ownership? As it is a tangable object, the answer is yes.

.

But WITHOUT Prince to harness the treasure
we have NOTHING...we should be totally greatfull and somewhat indebted to him.

Stop taking him for granted.

origmnd said:

aah so prince is actually comparable to a MIDDLEMAN... hhhmmm...