luv4u said:

Well nothing indeed. Except some members here mentioned how bad it was of HQ to discuss bootlegs. I don't care one way or the other. I just mentioned it was OK to discuss bootlegs at Prince.org too. (Just a recent entry: http://prince.org/msg/7/247973) . But no. No reference otherwise to the situation at HQ.

.
[Edited 10/6/07 5:01am]

Chastity said:

This has nothing to do with the problems at HQ, keep on track or I'll have to this puppy up.

^ But shouldn't you be adressing it to Vanity45 who suggested that the discussion of bootlegs might be the problem on HQ?

Vanity45 said:

OH! I´m sorry! I thought this place was free from bootleg discussions...guess my interest in the subject wasn't big enough to made me check it out...just thought that though Prince obviesly don't like the bootlegging of his music it may be a bit irritating seeing people talking so openly about it... cause when talking about them, people must know about them (even if it's not allowed with trading). Just seems like a bit of double-morality...

Have to say, as a pretty new Prince-fan my mainexperience this far have been websites shutting down...should I feel PARANOID ? All of you behaves like it's perfectly normal with those actions from Prince...are they?
[Edited 10/6/07 6:33am]

Vanity45 said:

Prince ignoring the important of an artist's "goodwill" and being an arse is pretty common, yes.

Wow your daughter said that?? and shes 3!! wow just

xplnyrslf said:

xplnyrslf -- do you work for PP or NPG? .... starting to think so.

Peace-


aka superbadgrl @ HQ

mplsbadgrl said:

NO, she does NOT!!!

something said:

And you know this?

Don't, for a minute, think that HQ deserves this treatment, because if and when it starts to happen here, orgers will be singing a different tune.
It appears that Prince and his hired lackies are attempting to control all of Prince's content on the internet. All, not some.
And they can do it - legal or not, because these are free member sites, and they don't have a cadre of hired legal bulldogs to protect their interests.
Let's say that the sites all start to comply with Prince's wishes - remove these images, don't even discuss bootlegs, don't discuss the upcoming album before it is released-even if you've heard it. What next? We don't want any negative comments about Prince(Anyone here remember the 'did you drink your purple kool aid' atmosphere at the NPGMC?) Why must we bash HQ? Aren't we all a part of the same community? Every site has disagreements between its members, and sites that discuss the same subjects will inevitably get into pissing contests - that's the nature of free speech. I joined the org before I joined HQ. I am a member of both sites. I want them to both remain presences on the internet. If Prince is so concerned about his image - he should move to the Himalayas and become a monk and give out his new music by trained doves that carry his cds on wing from the monastery.
If people want to bend over and take whatever 'the master' gives to them, fine.
But don't come cryin' in your coffee if someday you lament the way these sites used to be.

I thought it was more a case of Prince exercising his right not to be the subject of a sadistic gang-bang courtesy of the Fuckwit Corps here there and everywhere. After all, If your 'friends' were postin your shit along with their shit about you, what in the world would YOU be doing giving two shirts about what happens to them when your dog starts bitin'?

And as for what 'the master' has been givin, so far I count it in 07 as a free CD, two shows for the price of one (as far as the lowest of other concert prices have been) and a free DVD.
I, for one, wasn't bendin' over when receivin'
I was doin' a brand new dance.
It's called the 'Aftershock'

goku said:

[Edited 10/7/07 10:03am]

excessex said:

Sorry but none of us are his "friends" at best we're customers. So with that in mind your statement takes on a very different meaning.

"If your CUSTOMERS were postin your shit along with their shit about you, what in the world would YOU be doing giving two shirts about what happens to them when your dog starts bitin'?"
[Edited 10/7/07 10:28am]

funktank said:

Reminds me of a Montaigne quote regarding the Crusades:

....nothing like a swordthrust to the chest, to convert one to Christianity....

Noodled24 said:

it can carry the same meaning, customers posting things they were asked not to, or "discussing" items obtained illegally (even though that is a matter of free speech). customers revealing legal documents sent to them, customers calling you every horrific word under the sun.

i'm just throwing that out there, not to overshadow the good side of things (free promotion for the artist, especially when the artist has been so tight on releasing stuff.).
[Edited 10/7/07 11:39am]

dothejump said:

(I edited my statement as I felt I was being rather harsh, but too late!)

Based on limited info available, this is my reasoning:

To be sure, bootlegs, and photos taken at performances by fans, have existed for a long time. Most artists and record companies have no interest in pursuing or prosecuting such. It's small scale.
The line gets crossed when the material is put on the internet for public consumption. (much less a fan-based site, where there should be some level of respect for the artist)
I understand there are copyright issues that are being challenged.
I also believe Prince, along with others in the industry have a right to control their image.

If the guy's walking down the street, click away and post on celebrity sightings. At a concert where there are warnings posted prominently.....don't post on the internet.
Some people have developed a sense of entitlement, that I simply don't agree with.

For anyone who questions my employment: I'm an RN and have been working at the same hospital for 25 years. I have no association with NPG as was suggested.
I understand my view isn't popular. I think fan sites should support each. That includes honesty and mentioning the possibility the SITE is responsible for the problem.
Prince fan sites each have their own culture, fun members,(altho HQ doesn't have Anx/Imago with the Prince movie captions) and are a unique community. Most times it isn't even ABOUT Prince! GD, P&R, other artists...etc..
Why risk all that to challenge Prince over your right to -----(fill in the blank) and break up the community at HQ?
I'm a member of HQ and hope this is resolved. A little humble pie would help.
[Edited 10/7/07 12:21pm]

wonder505 said:

Well I quoted the "sadistic gang-bang" line because it seemed the poster was talking about people "slagging off" Prince.

In short the expected relationship between "friends" and "customers" is VERY different.

xplnyrslf said:

Soz for the snip, but this was the point I wanted to address, as it seems in contradiction to what you're saying.
What is it that makes you disagree with the sense of entitlement of some fans, but you agree with the sense of self entitlement of Prince?

This isnt supposed to sound as damatic as it probably will, but sharing a few amateur pics from a concert Vs claiming ownership of something that blatently isnt yours?

luv4u said:

hmmm...no profile. Probably one of my kids.
Mom says "HI"! Text message me!
(They check this site for my posts once in awhile.)
[Edited 10/7/07 19:17pm]

Noodled24 said:

No, it's not a contradiction.
After thirty years as a musician, Prince has hauled his butt all over the country(s) performing for fans, created volumes of music, can play all the instruements, wrote the lyrics, developed a unique image(all 5'4" with high heeled boots) made movies, supports umpteen # of people in his business, had career high and lows, had the #1 most wanted bootleg of all time, "Black Albume" (wikipedia), after all that sweat and blood.....yeah! He should, and can control his image as an entertainer.
When I mention "sense of entitlement" I'm refering to the outrageous attitude of those who believe the world "owes" them. They can take and use a piece of of an artist, however they want.
[Edited 10/7/07 16:46pm]

goku said:

...

xplnyrslf said:

well you will get some challenges on the part of who's career he helped, but I agree of the entitlement I read from some comments, in addition to how some feel they own him, which can be scary.

saafiir said:

....like the doves won't get hijacked?

just because someone has posted a picture of him doesn't mean they feel he owes them or they are entitled to something.

i think one thing to remember is tha fact that he CHOSE to become famous. I am sorry, but a fansite with picturs of you (and not bad or harmful pictures) comes with the territory. If every celebrity out there "controlled" their image we wouldn't have tv shows like Extra, we wouldn't have newspapers articles, we wouldn't have magazines.

Members posting pics of Prince is nothing more but admiration for a musician they like and enjoy. It is not out of entitlement, it is not done for financial gain, it is not done for harm. The 02 pics....I enjoyed looking at them because being that the concerts are in London, I would not have been attending any of them. I can hardly see how posting a grainy camara phone picture is considered harmful, or expectional, or that we feel we are owed anything. It is does not advesely affect his image. For goodness sake, it is a picture of him performing, not masturbating.

Sorry to be so harsh, but I am really tired of the holier than though, OMG you took a picture of Prince, or you posted an older pic of Prince, he doesn't owe you anything so you shouldn't have done that.

i repeat, HE IS A CELEBRITY, it will happen. People will take pictures. as long as they are not invading his privacy, I see absolutely no problem with it, and taking a picture of any celebrity in public is not an invasion of privacy whatsoever. Celebrities KNOW what being a celebrity entails. If you don't want your picture taken, then don't put yourself in the celebrity position. If you only want to write music, and play music, but don't want to be known or be a celebrity, then become a session musician.

IMO only.

and light of the all the recent controversy. i just had to pop over to 3121 and watch the vid again to remind me why i love this musician so much. truly one fo the best musician's alive.

DAMN!

We need some funk in the US!

I have never heard JIR (one of my favs, gets heavy play in my iphone) or Anotherlover live before..what a treat.
[Edited 10/7/07 17:40pm]

txladykat said:

you make good points and you are right. my comment on people owning him refer to general complaints whenever Prince does something that they don't agree with such as releasing the 3121 perfume (where one person posted that she felt offended as a fan, which was stupid), or whenever he parties with celebrities, or in the past few years of the manner in which he has had shows, and just other general comments I've seen since joining fansites. as far as entitlement, yeah, you're right, but there is a humanistic side to it as celebrities are human, but hey, like you said, it goes with the territory. i just think the situation is deeper than that and hopefully, one day, Prince can speak to it so we can all understand better.
[Edited 10/7/07 18:21pm]

txladykat said:

wonder505 said:

now this i also agree with. it is isn't up to us decide how he lives his life or conducts his business. it is only up to us if we want to buy the music and go to the concerts...nothing more

txladykat said:

????
explain in terminology I can understand.....legalesque

Whelp! if nothing else, HQ no longer has permission to use his image??....so why take anything to court, when it's this simple. A Prince website that can't post the stuff he does have control over.....Damn! he's good....gotta love him.
[Edited 10/7/07 19:44pm]