Check out this Tweet:

[Snip - luv4u]

Where did he get that URL?

BartVanHemelen said:

As you probably know the answer anyway, why don't you enlighten us?

Well it looks like I was wrong, weird goings on...

.
[Edited 4/9/09 14:20pm]

[Snip - luv4u]

Or perhaps he knows Anthony or Scott.

For the record: here's the one for 'Chocolate Box'.

[No posting vid links from lotusflower site - luv4u]

My bad...

BartVanHemelen said:

This URL is NOT one that is linked to anywhere on Lotusflow3r.com. It cannot be found by running tracing software and then clicking through the site.

This MUST have come from somewhere else, so my question is: where did it come from?

The ONLY way this was leaked is by the Lotusflow3r folks themselves, so then the question is: why are fans paying $77 for content that Prince and/or his webmasters are giving away to non-members?

But thanks to the oh so "independent" Org, debating this is not possible.

Like I said: Prince's bitch. "Independent"? My a$$.

So links to Twitter are being snipped now?

link doesn't work anymore ... so they check this forum very well ...

netzverwalter said:

duh

PEJ said:

"duh"... does mean ????

What kind of info/material was this about?
And was the org staff indeed over-active?

No, the org staff was in the right. They were links that allowed you to see the videos for Crimson and Clover and Chocolate Box. Posting those links are a violation of the rules of prince.org. Anyone who has been around these forums for any amount of time know the rules, even basic ones like that.

Naturally the links were snipped. I'm surprised it didn't happen before it did.
But we shouldn't act surprised they were snipped. C'mon now, it's not being anyone's "bitch" and it isn't any reflection on independence. DOn't confuse the misuse of links on this site as a reflection of non-independence. If it's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of the source.

1nonly said:

Huh?
Anyone can get the files. There is NO protection at all.
So even the DMCA doesn't apply at all.
And video clips are promotional of nature, just as the infamous Target commercial. So why not allow them? Why allow eMpTyV, VH1, etc to go with the material and (not) play it until it bores the hell out of everybody and NOT allow the casual person to view the content in a lower quality format?
The fact that (c) lobby is even more so intense overseas (as seen from here, I am in Europe) does not mean that the cartel needs mr P's support or is ethically, morally or even legally right.
Then there's of course the case of the org's rules. Of course they are geared to avoid any problem that might even occur.
I perceive them as a result of the system, over there.

udo said:

wow, i'll be honest with you. In one ear, out the other. All I said was that the org is enforcing their rules, that's all. In that respect they have full right to do what they did.

netzverwalter said:

it means they posted their explanation of the site mishaps on prince.org why would they do that if they weren't aware of what goes on here

1nonly said:

Did I say they were wrong?
It is their boat.
But in a slightly wider perspective it gives plenty of reason to think.
To think about the reasons why.
And then think about the reasons for that.
Yes, slightly wider perspective.

Not just rules or law.
Especially not in the USA.
Because law and politics over there are very much influenced by lobby. Business interests. i.e.: Payola.
That backdrop is the deeper reason for the rules on the org.

1nonly said:

I linked to a Twitter message where someone posted a link that has been released by someone from the Prince organization. It had a unique port number plus a static HTML file. It is IMPOSSIBLE to debate the origins of that link without showing the link. Also, it proved that content members PAY for was given out to NON-members FOR FREE.

1nonly said:

Unless there's a DMCA complaint, the Org doesn't have to do jack shit. It's blatant cowardice.

1nonly said:

Yes it is.

1nonly said:

I didn't post to some illegal YouTube uploaded vid. I posted a link to a Twitter message that contained a link FROM PRINCE'S OFFICIAL SITE. Not a link that was found though illegal means, but clearly a link that had been given to that Twitter user.

1nonly said:

Prove it.

BartVanHemelen said:

As much as I don't like it, I guess the 'Moderators have final say.
' part is the clue here.
I painted the social/economic backdrop that led to the rules here and thus to the way the content is moderated. No risks at all are taken w.r.t. content from P. (be it videos or music, pics a re a different story, why?)
If the story is as you explained it I do think the mod(s) could have been a bit more considerate, but of course it is very hard to explain to (ab)users when a thing is allowed and when not when these links make the picture more grey (instead of black/white).