CarrieMpls said:

I can't believe how cowardly the org is on this matter. I've always enjoyed how open minded and free speaking everyone is here, so I'm surprised that when Prince says to jump they not only immeditely comply, they beg him to tell them how high.

Incredibly pathetic, and I don't just mean on Prince's part, but on the part of prince.org.

Wall said:

No i think its sensible and not a Coward as you put it, Prince and his team has requested politely to his fans and the Org has respected that request out of respect to his wishes.

What do you want another messed up site like Housequake, people getting bitter and twisted.

This IMHO is where housequake as gone wrong by saying to prince and co "we WILL remove the Photo's AS long as you give us something" this is blackmail you dont use that as a bargaining tool.

No i think Housquake as gone Too far this time even members have started to leave cause the mods are so arrogant, its do as i say NOT as i do remind you of someone i will give you a clue, his fave colour is purple and im behind him 100% this time

For a website you claim to abhor, you sure know about Housequake.com.
I applaud the staff over there. At least they aren't cowards like most fansites who run like sissies when Prince and his legal hounds bark.

cream72 said:

One Prince site is enough for me, I don't visit Housequake as it's a bit redundant to come here and there, so I'm not familiar with their battle, but that doesn't change the fact that some of the mods here appear like lemmings on this issue.

The only reason Prince doesn't want people taking his photo is because he can't have the results Photoshopped to remove the old and haggard lines from his face.

cream72 said:

You have already stated you "hate the mods at Housequake" - fair enough, but it's clearly affecting your view of the situation. That doesn't make for a messed-up site, nor does it mean they are not well within their rights to take a stance on this issue.
HQ chose to challenge their "polite request" - the Org complied.
Different strokes for different folks.

Copycat said:

Thats great and thats your opinion, you applaud the mods over there and yes i use to go on housequake but didnt like it.

For instance when the video forum went off they all went nuts cause prince took somethng way from them, but what they didnt grasp is it was a violation of copyright weather they are fans or not. Offical video sites lets say MTV etc pay royalties to whoever to play them videos now if housequake got it free well they might as well let MTV have them free.

Also the pictures request from 3121 wasnt really that hard to comply with was it, i remember in 2004 just after the musicology tour NPGMC gave housequake exclusive Pro Photo's to put on the site.

Also around the time the 3121 Album was released, Universal/Prince gave housequake a Black Sweat Ltd Edition Disc to offer as a competition for its members.

Now I dont know whats gone on behind the scenes but what i can say is their only revealing details on a need to know basis, quite a few members as asked to see these so called letters/emails thats bullying them have they complied to date, no and i dont think they ever will.

So IMHO Housequake as burst its bubble concerning prince all because of a simple request over photos YES Officially it was a request.

cream72 said:

You are completely new to the Prince community, aren't you.
Fans and their sites have a long history with Prince on shit like this.

m3taverse said:

No iam not new i first joined Housequake in around 98/99 mainly lurking that is when i thought it was a great site, untill arron took on the mods hes got now ive nothing against arron i think he set up a great fan site and then the mods he took on spoiled it in my opinion with the wrong attitudes, like you dont like the way we run the site your free to leave.

That IMO is saying put up or shut up, but like the poster earlier on said i might just be a bit biased cause i dont like some mods on housequake.

Wall said:

I totally agree. If 3121 are so big on respect and good faith how about reinstating the licences for the files that NPGMC members paid for and downloaded "in good faith" and that are now useless and unplayable?

That'll be a good place to start with respect.

here's the reality, in the UK, at first glance:

http://www.epuk.org/ABCD-...t-problems

There are usually stringent restrictions on photography in theatres, auditoria and concert halls, etc. The rights of the performers could be infringed by filming or making a video of substantial parts of a performance. The copyright in still photography taken at such venues will belong to the photographer, or their employer, whatever the restrictions but commercial use will be in breach of contract. The contract could be the terms and conditions printed on the back of the ticket or a document which photographers might be required to sign before they are allowed on the premises. It could also be part of an annual membership subscription. Remember also that surreptitious entry to an event or a property could expose the intruder to an action for trespass and that, although copyright in any photographs taken would belong to the photographer who took them, however entry was achieved, making any commercial use of the results might not be lawful. Photographing or copying individual frames from a film infringes the copyright in the film. A television broadcast can be photographed but only for private and domestic purposes.

This is really not about the situation over at HQ.

This thread is about 3121.com's request NOT to post 02 performance pics.

If you want to discusss the HQ situation, start a new thread

Let's keep on topic folks.

Wall said:

Well, I guess they just don't want to deal with any trouble. Prince is a terrible human being, not a nice person, and he has threatened fan sites ever since 97. If you don't agree to become part of his official website, then you're at the mercy of lawsuits. Prince wants to control every review, every picture, every thought about his work/etc. And when he doesn't get that, he throws the lawyers at ya. Poor little baby, you don't look perfect in this fan picture, we don't love your new album, and we actually have opinions. Prince doesn't believe people should disagree.

cream72 said:

The simple fact is that a fan site does not have to comply with Prince's request. It's a fan site, not an official site. If someone pays money to see a concert, take some pictures, they should be able to share them in any way they see fit. We don't know Prince personally, we're not his friends, therefore whatever he "wants" that is outside the context of "law" is meaningless.

cream72 said:

There's a bigger issue here Cream. How much is enough? What is the harm at Housequake having a streaming video site where fans can enjoy old videos and performances? They didn't accept any money for it. Those videos were not for sale. Those videos were rare and people enjoyed watching them, it gave Prince a mystique and cult status that no record company promotion could ever give him. In fact, those old videos, music, made Prince a superstar and made him millions of dollars. It's futile for artists and companies to try and complain about video streaming sites like Youtube, and music downloads, because you know what? Today, people don't care. The power is with the people to choose what to pay for, to share videos and music they like, and that's the way the world works now.

Prince should be happy he's a millionaire, a superstar, and leave it at that. Instead, he needs "more money." He needs "more control." That's just sad. He's got all the money, could get any woman he wanted, is world famous, and still has time to threaten fans for enjoying his work the way they want to enjoy it. To me, that makes Prince a terrible human being.

But that's just what I think about it.

lspear76 said:

[This thread is NOT about HQ.

The topic of this thread is to discuss the request of 3121.com about NOT posting 02 pics on fansites. Keep on topic - luv4u]

luv4u said:

Okay then, moderator. Yes, it was Prince's request that his fansites not allow users to post pictures they took themselves at the o2 shows. However, a person who takes a picture, is therefore the owner of that picture. From that point of view, I have to say that I have to disagree with Prince's request as there is no basis in law or anything else to his request. If I paid my ticket, and got my camera inside to take a picture, I'd want to share it with other fans. It's all a part of getting my money's worth for the show. I would have respectfully declined their request. We owe Prince nothing, and he owes us nothing.

cream72 said:

I hate you too

(Nice way of discussing things)

lspear76 said:

You can share your photos with whoever you want. You just can't do it here.
"Legal" or not, in my mind it's no different than if someone posted pics of another orger here and that orger asked us to remove the pic. While we don't HAVE to remove it, we would. It's the nice thing to do.

My personal opinion is it's the rules and although not everybody likes it! It clearly states so on the tickets about taking pics and the policy,etc! (in black and white ink) In the O2 it does say on the screen that the show is for memories and i would prefer to enjoy the concert myself without people sticking there camera phones up to obscure the view which the venue / 3121 are aware of? At the end of the day the question is do you want to see a superbly put together concert which a lot of people have paid good money for and enjoy the moment whilst respecting the venues policy and the artist The problem is we live in an accessible internet world now and back in the day there was none of this discussion because people bizarrely wanted to enjoy the music and the gig so didn't have time to even think about taking photographs At the end of the day it is a request in good faith so everybody just relax and enjoy!

CarrieMpls said:

It's a lot different. Prince is performing at a concert. Someone takes a picture. Prince is walking down the street, TMZ takes a picture and posts it. The difference is he's a celebrity, and people pay money to see him. Obviously it is a different situation then someone taking a photo of a random orger and posting it here. But, at least you agree that Prince has no legal grounds with his "request,"

CarlM said:

The venues policy and/or Prince's request is not "law" though. Next, Prince will request that nobody posts reviews or setlists of any show. Would you comply with that, too?

And how do you know his request was in "good faith?" Do you know Prince personally? Or his motives? But you're right, we live in the internet age and people do what they want instead of being told what to do. That's the way it should be. I love it. Oh, and just because some people enjoy a concert in a different way, so what? Not everyone dances at the show. Some people enjoy it by sitting down and eating pizza. Some people take pictures.

luv4u said:

Housquake is not a fansite posting 02 pics that was requested not to by 3121.com?

lspear76 said:

It's not law but then again common sense and respect in most situations aren't It is down to interpretation and each to their own! People can do what they like as it's a free country and we are all diverse and enjoy the concert experience differently as well as enjoying prince's music which i thought the forum's were about? People can do what they like but they should realise the consequences that's all. for example a trip home without the said expensive camera/phone or ejection from the concert? What has been requested is not really asking much and from what i have read i think people have taken it a little too seriously? Let's all chill out and enjoy the concerts

CarrieMpls said:

it was a request, it was not an order and prince didnt say you take them photos off your you face legal action.

Some people have got it in their heads that princes people has used threatning or bullying letters mmm wonder where they got that from if he did wheres the proof.

cream72 said:

they posted a legal threat in a forum as a user post.

ufoclub said:

Why is this a Legal Threat...



This is the same word for word paragragh that was posted by NPG RECORDS in the post you are refering to now i am no lawyer or legal expert but to me this was a request. and before anyone says anything i saw it just before the little hitlers deleted it.

cream72 said:[quote]

ufoclub said:

That is not the post that is being referred to, so once again you are misinforming people, as you have been doing throughout this thread.
The actual post in question was removed while Housequake takes advice on how to proceed. If you had not forced your own ejection from the site you might have known this and saved yourself from looking juvenile and foolish.

I apologise to the moderators, admin and members of P.Org for posting this, but the misinformation that this person is spreading due to their hatred of Housequake moderators needed to be rectified.
Now that has been done I will respond to this person no further.

Thank you.

One of "the little hitlers"

gsh said:

[Flame bait snip - luv4u]

[Please refrain from Housequake bashing. This thread is only intended to discuss the request posted on 3121.com. This is a warning - luv4u]

If the Org has in fact decided to comply with the request then what is there to discuss?

3121.com is free to make any requests they wish to make and indvidual site owners will comply or not as they see fit and that's all there is to it.

However...

I will say that what I think is totally uncalled for is anyone using the current situation in any way to vent their personal vendettas against Housequake or any of the other principals involved.

In my opinion that is something the Org should not tolerate.