New topic
PrintableTom said: I'm aware the bootlegs are theft.
it's not theft, but Prince has and still does benefit greatly from it.I think Prince has benefitted from the bootleg phenomenon more than harmed by it. You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
JeePee said: Abrazo 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.
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. yeah but who knows what MLK would have wanted? You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tom said: I'm aware the bootlegs are theft.
I think Prince has benefitted from the bootleg phenomenon more than harmed by it. Many people would've stopped caring for him if it wasn't for the bootlegs to keep themn interested. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo said: JeePee said: Abrazo 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.
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. yeah but who knows what MLK would have wanted? He once talked about a dream he had, so I guess he would've want that to come true  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
popgodazipa said: 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.
Mistakes OK, but why didn't they (the Prince camp) learn from CB? Why can't we constructively communicate? I can deliver my opinion and suggestions to them (I did!) but when I ask for someone managing the ONAL operation on the side of NPGMC and someone for the gage.com side I am told that the info is private. I.e.: they don't even suggest that they could pass the info on to someone that is in charge. One could even believe there is no one in charge. I don't say here that my suggestions are in vain but just what one could percieve. udo Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JeePee said: Tom said: I'm aware the bootlegs are theft.
I think Prince has benefitted from the bootleg phenomenon more than harmed by it. Many people would've stopped caring for him if it wasn't for the bootlegs to keep themn interested. And also: Why didn't Prince reap his (!) cash by starting to release live stuff (unedited, easy!) a few years ago? The Pearl Jam thing is nice but halfway would be cool. It's a chance he didn't use because some reason or another.(too critic of himself? (i.e.: why edit ONAL together? why do overdubs?)) Oh well.. Maybe when he and we get older... udo Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
XxAxX said: NOT true. we do not *all* own bootlegs
Thank you!!! [This message was edited Wed Dec 11 12:35:55 PST 2002 by RoseOfSharon] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JeePee said: Abrazo said: JeePee said: Abrazo 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.
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. yeah but who knows what MLK would have wanted? He once talked about a dream he had, so I guess he would've want that to come true You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Obviously, you do not live in the US. Copying without the permission of the author or artist is theft. It's spelled out in every criminal code in every state and the federal government.
Abrazo said: XxAxX said: exactly. ownership of an unauthorized copy is plain theft
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.it's easy and usually goes undetected, but it's theft. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JeePee said: popgodazipa said: 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.
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? Prince received permission to use the words from the company that owns the copyrights to MLK's work. Thomas Jefferson's words are in public domain. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo said: JeePee said: Abrazo said: JeePee said: Abrazo 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.
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. yeah but who knows what MLK would have wanted? He once talked about a dream he had, so I guess he would've want that to come true LOL. You have no clue, none. Nice philosophical debate, but the US courts and legislature already came up with a solution. Copyright laws. Disagree all you wish, but violate them and prepared to be bitchslapped if the copyright holder wishes to do so. [This message was edited Thu Dec 12 3:20:32 PST 2002 by MKevon] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MKevon said: Obviously, you do not live in the US. Copying without the permission of the author or artist is theft. It's spelled out in every criminal code in every state and the federal government.
Obviously you don't have a clue. You don't have to live in the US to know that copyright infringement does not equal theft and is not spelled out in every criminal code in "every state" and "the federal governement" (whatever you are trying to say with that). The US copyrightlaw is not a criminal code, but it IS subjected to international copyright treaties that do NOT "spell out" the word "theft"... Not one single time... and neither does the US copyright statute... But sincerely doubt that you are a lawyer that actually KNOWS that. Prince received permission to use the words from the company that owns the copyrights to MLK's work. Thomas Jefferson's words are in public domain.
If you would learn how to read properly you would see that I already said that. And if you would have any sense of copyright law you would know that what you just said does not equal theft. Therefore you contradict yourself and you should bow your head in shame for speaking such blatant untruths about copyright. Nice philosophical debate, but the US courts and legislature already came up with a solution. Copyright laws. Disagree all you wish, but violate them and prepared to be bitchslapped if the copyright holder wishes to do so. philosophical huh? you can't even debate with facts so I bet you know a lot about philosophical debate too...tsss... But indeed ...the courts and the legislator (and not just the US ones.. geez) found a solution and it is called copyright infringement and NOT theft. Disagree all that you wish but talk shit and get slapped too. - [This message was edited Thu Dec 12 20:42:17 PST 2002 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |