What's fair is fair. I will assume that everyone who is a member of the NPGMC is also an owner of more than a few bootlegs of the artist work. Yet u complain of fair compensation for your membership. Come, come u were raised better than that. Don't send your complaints to the club-
send a check.
But I guess there is no honor among thieves.

popgodazipa said:

We paid money for the bootlegs, let the bootleggers cut the check. I'm not paying double for my bootlegs. I already paid double for ONA Live.

The artist was never compensated, but u know that I'm sure.

popgodazipa said:

Crystal Ball, the Black Album, and even the NPG Music Club ride on the appreciation and underground status of his bootlegged work.

If you could go back in time and eliminate all bootlegged copies of his music, and noone knew anything about them, I think his supporters (the people that buy his shit) would be a fraction of what it is today. Fewer people buying his stuff over the past 15 or so years means less money for him overall.

What do you think amounts to more?

Moreover, theres a significant amount of bootlegged material (concerts and such) being posted for free. Not sold.
[This message was edited Tue Dec 10 9:31:02 PST 2002 by Tom]

NOT true. we do not *all* own bootlegs

popgodazipa said:

I am a member of NPGMC and I do not own a single bootleg of Prince's work or any other artist. I am sure I may be missing out on a lot of great music and people may think me less of a fan, BUT...Buying and selling bootlegs is stealing directly from the artist.

XxAxX said:

And we also paid money for girl 6 and chaos and disorder... which were worth precisely ... prrrp

it's seriously bad karma, if you're an artist, to own bootlegs.

i've authored published books which are available for sale on amazon.com. if anyone, ANYONE ever stole my intellectual property, before it was ready for print, made copies and sold them out from under me i would be FURIOUSLY ANGRY.

this is why i will never, ever, buy bootlegs. it's truly a matter of principle

popgodazipa said:

Then by your brain-fart logic.. the suckers who stuck with Prince through this years fiasco and coughed up $100 in order to "support" the artist deserve? to be ripped off?? These are the people if any that don't buy from bootleggers.

Thats a pretty rich assumption.

Most people we know who didn't fall for, or can't afford the $100 membership own and enjoy the quality bootlegs, file share and don't pay a dime!

So whats fair is fair?

popgodazipa said:

So at least you ARE accepting that NPGMC Year 2 has ripped people off?

Personally I consider taking peoples money based on misleading advertising thievery, though i'm not a member so can't really complain, but i can see why some would.

please explain why you see owning something like 'Small Club' is theft.I'm curious.

It's theft because it was stolen from the artist and sold or downloaded with out the artist intent or permission. I am not a fanatic, I am an optimist. I would rather believe that the club did not intend to decieve anyone, but mistakes do happen and you certainly can't please everyone.

exactly. ownership of an unauthorized copy is plain theft
it's easy and usually goes undetected, but it's theft.

when you read smeone elses manuscript you can't go and sell the plot and characters as if they're your own. and if you go see a concert you're still not authorized to take the experience with you byt recording it.
it sucks when people steal other people's work like that. ok. enough out of me. i'm usually not such a prude but i feel strongly about this issue

popgodazipa said:

nonsense

stymie said:

more nonsense

XxAxX said:

is it also a matter of PRINCiple to you when your fans copy your work but not for commercial purposes? you know ... SIMPLY to ENJOY your work. or do they have to pay for every single damn use and if they don't they are automatically branded "thieves"? If this kind of reasoning were accepted you would be stealing all the time when you use your computer and make copies all the time but NEVER pay a dime. Simply flawed reasoning you are all applying.

You know...in the far east artists feel HONOURED when people copy their work, with OR without their permission. In the west most artists start yelling that they are being "stolen" from. All nonsense talk that the RIAA and the MPAA are very good at indoctrinating people's brains with. You know those multinational "publishers" to whom artists so easily sell all their rights to... they then claim "their" work is "stolen" too you know.

-
[This message was edited Wed Dec 11 2:44:51 PST 2002 by Abrazo]

popgodazipa said:

MORE nonsense

XxAxX said:

please... Copying is creating MORE of a WORK, an INTELLECTUAL creation. Copying is therefore NOT the same as taking someone's TANGIBLE property. In the first case you still have your work, in the latter case you don't have your tangible property nomore.

popgodazipa said:

And how about Prince using the words of Martin Luther King and Thomas Jefferson in concert (Family Name). Isn't that stealing of intellectual property as well?

JeePee said:

no, because according to their "theory" about people always needing to PAY in order to copy it is of course automatically NOT stealing when you DO pay. prince paid a license to use the song. copying art is all about money and thievery. what a "wonderfull" world where everybody happily "shares" right?

ps the words from Lincoln aren't copyrighted, MLK's words are.
[This message was edited Wed Dec 11 2:51:02 PST 2002 by Abrazo]

Abrazo said:

So once again it's about money. I still call it intellectual stealin'because no matter what amount is paid, they once that spoke these words (King) wasn't asked if Prince could use it. Who knows what he would've thought about it, he might've been strongly against it.

JeePee said:

it always is, or tends to be about the money, but it never is stealing. And it doesn't matter whether MLK himself approved or not. His estate inherited and thus owns the copyright of his I have a dream" speech. The estate is therefore exlusively entitled to grant permission for uses of his speech that are covered by their exclusive rights. Usually they will do so, in return of a big sum of money and/or other conditions.

-
[This message was edited Wed Dec 11 5:00:40 PST 2002 by Abrazo]

Abrazo,

Although some artists may be flattered that people copy their music and share it, if you use something without the artist' permission, how is that O.K.? You said my post was nonsense because I believe that selling/buying boootlegs is wrong(file SHARING is another case to me), then why is bootlegging illegal?

Abrazo,

Although some artists may be flattered that people copy their music and share it, if you use something without the artist' permission, how is that O.K.? You said my post was nonsense because I believe that selling/buying boootlegs is wrong(file SHARING is another case to me), then why is bootlegging illegal?

stymie said:

I didn't say that copying music without the owners permission is "OK". I said it is not the same as stealing. Saying that it is IS nonsense. whether you personally think it is very wrong or not, copying without permission only equals copyright infringement, NEVER stealing. But copyright infringement is bad enough, so don't worry about it not being "wrong".

I'm aware the bootlegs are theft.

I think Prince has benefitted from the bootleg phenomenon more than harmed by it.

I didn't say that copying music without the owners permission is "OK". I said it is not the same as stealing. Saying that it is IS nonsense. whether you personally think it is very wrong or not, copying without permission only equals copyright infringement, NEVER stealing. But copyright infringement is bad enough, so don't worry about it not being "wrong".[/quote]

Call it what you want, but if you take something that isn't yours, it's theft. Ask the police on the southside of Chicago if you'll get locked up for theft or "copyright infringement". Ask the artists if they consider someone selling or buying bootlegs to be stealing from them.

surely the thing with the whole bootleg issue is that you only buy them once you own everything else?

prince does not lose out because you choose to buy a live cd from a market stall when you have bought everything else out there.

he is not losing money from us, especially not those who not only buy everything, but then put up with piss poor customer service with his $100-a-year club.

yes, i'm sure it is irritating, but lets not forget, it was due to us buying all his official output and going to all the shows that put him in the incredibly privileged position he is today.

You buy from official outlets and you know the quality. If you want to take a risk and splash out on a dubious boot then that is up to you.

Coincidentally, it appears to be ok for the famous to like his bootlegs - on the Crystal Ball set he mentions D'Angelo liking Movie Star so much it made the CD...

stymie

said:Abrazo said:

No. That's just it, you say it yourself: when you copy you do not "take" some thing away from somebody else, that isn't yours. Taking something away from another can only happen with tangible goods/ property, not with intellectual "goods"such as works of art.

A work in the sens of copyright is not considered the same as a a tangible good, because a work in essence only exist in the mind, not in tangible form. If you copy a WORK without permission and without the act being covered by a statutory limitation or exception of copyright, you "only" act in violation of the owner's copyright. You "only" infringe on their rights.

There is an essential difference between the latter and stealing tangible property. Infringement on someone's right therefore does NOT equal stealing and you can NOT call it what you want, because what you say is completely flawed.



Usually you will not get locked up for copyright infringement, but it can happen when there is heavy commercial trade involved. Sentences and acts are either way not the same as with theft of tangible property, because the two are essentially different matters.


it doesn't matter what they think or not think. What matters is what the LAW says and not a single copyright statute in the entire world calls copyright infringement the same as stealing.

You can take that from me... with permission


-
[This message was edited Wed Dec 11 7:34:19 PST 2002 by Abrazo]

Abrazo said:

I know his estate has the rights, and can do as they want, and that's the way it always works, but I still think that's wrong. They can only do what they think is what (in this case) MLK wanted, or would have approved.