New topic
Printablesosgemini said: markpeg said: I'm wondering if Prince's actions to dominate like this are orders from on high by the Jehovah's Witnesses elders???? Or maybe Prince thinks he's getting some command from Jehovah Himself?????
nope, this is all about an overzealous websheriff company trying to make a profit. Exactly. Prince is going to allow them to ruin him and if he let's them it will be a hard lesson learned. This has opportunism written all over it. Instead of making a better business model, becoming truly innovative and creating a product that people will be banging down doors for, Prince and these people are taking their frustration over the failing music model out on the fans. They can't innovate and move with the times to make money the right way so they are trying to compensate for it by closing down our communities and gleaming money off people who's only crime was getting a prince tatoo or starting a picture thread to show the extent of their appreciation. This is just sick. There are some lawyer types here on the org. Is anyone willing to help represent Ben and the sites? I'm sure there would be a way to collectively pay for this. I'd certainly be willing to donate to the cause  2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Said this earlier in another post..but I thought it would be cool to post it here too. 
I, personally ..think that its a move of security and power. If he can control everything about himself ..he can therefore control the market. Which is were true money/power is. But if he cant he's like all the other celebrities out there and is at the mercy of the media/ his fans. I believe that Prince must come to the conclusion that you cannot control every ascpect of whatever buisness your in. And he being in the music buisness is trying to have unpresedented power that no other has had b4. This is planet earth which is unperfect, where the limit really is the sky.When u push people too hard here they quit on you. Not Utopia where if you use and abuse people who love you they will never give up and throw parade's/celebrations for u anyway. Growing up in a buisness I saw that as hard as you might try to control and plan for the future...something is always gonna fall in your lap and make things hard.So in a way I can see where he is comming from as a buisness man.Protect your investments..and his is his image/productions. To break new ground in the buisness your in..your gonna have to crack knuckles and loose friends. And its gonna be lonley and cold at the top. Its almost like when in the 80's Michael Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for his OWN beatles masters. Shrewd/selfish..but buisness is buisness. Michael lost a friend but he has been living off of those masters for close to 20 years. But Prince's shrewdness and insensitivity toward those who support him/patrons of his music (his fans) turns me off. Its not against another buisness opponent (like McCartney) its against those who truley love his music.His actions are going beyond being shrewd and is stepping into the ring of being career suicide. With little to no support..what shall become of his bank accounts (that he earned from his tours/records this year)..5 years down the line? Maybe he should cut some of the [finacial anaylists, managers, lawyers, brokers] out of his life that is showing him this path to go down. And rethink his life because he is following through on thier ill fated ideas/suggestions. Something to ponder upon... 
Sorry folks this post was so long.  U want to know the secreat of love and happiness? Love GOD with all your heart, mind soul and strength. And love your neighboor as yourself. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ToraToraDreams said: guys/ladies, my dad has been to law school, I know a itty bit about law. That is not libel. Thats a ridiculous charge. I know Prince's 49 year old grown ass knows better than this. And i sho nuff know that those LAWERS know better than this.
He's making a fool of him self. I've just had a look at the Web Sherriff website, and if that email is from them they are right to link themselves to the wild west, cowboys I am also curious as to what their legal qualifications are in each of the countries they mention I can fully appreciate anyone wanting to protect their intellectual property rights, however, what this appears to try and do is stifle legitimate debate about the actions of an artist Again, if that email is from them, they themselves are using threats to deny persons in the USA their rights of freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Constitution In the UK, that email could constitute a "malicious communication" in as much as the tone is threatening and would cause "harrassment, alarm or distress" I certainly find it distressing as well as disturbing Should the addressee of that communication wish to report it to the Police, they would investigate it and if there were sufficient grounds, charge the sender Usually a cease and desist letter consists of a list of the material that you believe infringes your rights That email appears to demand the whole website be taken down instead of just offending material being removed My personal opinion is the email is designed to bully the administrators into taking action that is neither legally enforcable or necessary In a democracy we have the luxury of free speech subject to libel laws, that includes the right to believe that someone is acting like a complete arse and to state that fact As many people now quite justifiably believe they are being treated poorly they also have the right to voice that opinion No cowboy firm of "web police" can deny you that right | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Its time for every single site and forum owner , Ben and everyone else to stand up and say screw you - we arent going to be bullied .
He cannot sue you , he can try but legally he has about as much of a leg to stand on as Heather Mills Macartney . Ben please , please , do not allow yourself to be bullied in this way | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: 1. In an extraordinary, but not unfamiliar move, the rock legend Prince is using an army of lawyers to launch attacks on his own fans.
2. It is our belief that these threats are not made in an attempt to enforce valid copyright as Prince alleges in his threats, rather we believe they are attempts to stifle all critical commentary about Prince. 3. It is their hope that Prince will reconsider his position and allow these fansites to continue their existence without constant threats from Prince and his attorneys. What is libelous about any of that? 1 - Prince has sued his fans before, therefore this is not an unfamiliar move. I guess what they mean by that (and it would probably be in everyone's best interest to understand what is being asked here, which is why it would have been wise to post the letters (if possible), before getting everyone all wound up) is that Prince is not "attacking fans" or trying to "stifle commentary" but making a request of the SITE OWNERS. 2 - What else could this be? Prince wants to censor tatoos and car license plates from being shown! CENSORSHIP
3 - How is this libelous? It is expressing the desire of the sites that we be allowed to exist without Prince and his lawyers butting their noses into our lives. THEY ARE DOING THIS! Yes, that is the line that is being distributed to the Press and that is the thing that is getting everyone wound up, but is there any indication that this is either accurate or the bulk of the claim? If it's not, then... Like I stated before, the 90s saw us as pretty disjointed and ununified. Most of us were new to these message boards and really didn't have a grasp on the initial lawsuits. Now we have a decade of community as the backdrop to all of this. Prince isn't just threatening Ben, he is threatening ALL OF US.
No, he's not. He's "threatening" Ben. And the other site owners. And they in turn are trying to rope everyone else in. As site owners, it is their responsibility to manage this legal stuff and to assure that they are running a site that lives up to basic copyright law. The sites are theirs. Remember, this is not a democracy. Why are they now appealing to our democratic impulses and free speech and whatnot? I'm sorry, this is a PR move. Don't get me wrong, I wish them well. But this has been handled badly. Look at some of the responses on this thread. We come here for more than Prince. How many friendships have been made? How many marriages have happened? How many children have been born? How many amazing experiences have been had?
I'm sorry, but I don't credit Ben for that anymore than I credit, I don't know, the telephone company. [Edited 11/6/07 16:49pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said:[quote] SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: We come here for more than Prince. How many friendships have been made? How many marriages have happened? How many children have been born? How many amazing experiences have been had?
I'm sorry, but I don't credit Ben for that anymore than I credit, I don't know, the telephone company. [Edited 11/6/07 16:49pm] 9s, get real  You know it's a fact many of those things wouldn't have happened the way they did without the site. Those who met their spouses here likely would not have met those people. Fact.2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: 2the9s said: I'm sorry, but I don't credit Ben for that anymore than I credit, I don't know, the telephone company. [Edited 11/6/07 16:49pm] 9s, get real You know it's a fact many of those things wouldn't have happened the way they did without the site. Those who met their spouses here likely would not have met those people. Fact.Okay, "uncle."  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: 9s, get real You know it's a fact many of those things wouldn't have happened the way they did without the site. Those who met their spouses here likely would not have met those people. Fact.Okay, "uncle." I know you don't mean it! 
2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It will be interesting to see if his representatives try the same threats of legal action with music critics from the media who also publish online if they are critical of him | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
stupid question,
who exactly is the Web Sheriff??? is it a private organization, or the name of Prince's lawyer who is living out a childhood fantasy during his midlife crisis??? I'm having some weird visuals... (if I could photoshop I'd show you) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Markland said: It will be interesting to see if his representatives try the same threats of legal action with music critics from the media who also publish online if they are critical of him
I'm sorry, where is everyone getting this notion that he he "stifling criticism." I'm serious. I thought this was about images and such. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Markland said: It will be interesting to see if his representatives try the same threats of legal action with music critics from the media who also publish online if they are critical of him
I'm sorry, where is everyone getting this notion that he he "stifling criticism." I'm serious. I thought this was about images and such. OK, is it a total lie then that he is asking that personal pictures of Prince related tatoos and license plates be taken down? How can he lay claim to a tatoo!? 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: No, he's not. He's "threatening" Ben. And the other site owners. And they in turn are trying to rope everyone else in. As site owners, it is their responsibility to manage this legal stuff and to assure that they are running a site that lives up to basic copyright law. The sites are theirs. Remember, this is not a democracy. Why are they now appealing to our democratic impulses and free speech and whatnot? I'm sorry, this is a PR move. Don't get me wrong, I wish them well. But this has been handled badly. Look at some of the responses on this thread. We come here for more than Prince. How many friendships have been made? How many marriages have happened? How many children have been born? How many amazing experiences have been had?
I'm sorry, but I don't credit Ben for that anymore than I credit, I don't know, the telephone company. [Edited 11/6/07 16:49pm] I don't understand your take on this. To me the underlying issue is that of the fair use debate. The copyright versus fair use debate is still evolving on top of rapid technological change. So far only the industry has been doing the talking and dictating the legislation. And we both know that as far as Prince is concerned, fair use only exists at his sole disgression. And that's not even touching on the free speech issue. In my opinion it's about time consumers, people like us, get involved in this debate. Not only do I support PFU, I think everyone who cares about fair use and free speech needs to support it. [Edited 11/6/07 17:14pm] "this especially prepared potato is called pomme de terre" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Markland said: It will be interesting to see if his representatives try the same threats of legal action with music critics from the media who also publish online if they are critical of him
I'm sorry, where is everyone getting this notion that he he "stifling criticism." I'm serious. I thought this was about images and such. The email posted by another user here of the Web Sheriff email states that the PFU site is libellous etc In point of fact, the examples given are the legitimately held opinions of the author of those comments Demanding that a whole website is taken down rather than just what they think is offending material to me constitutes a stifling of debate So no, this isnt restricted to images etc, its now gone fairly and squarely into alleged libel Personally I would simply move the hosting to somewhere like Yugoslavia and let the lawyers knock themselves out trying to do something about it | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: 2the9s said: I'm sorry, where is everyone getting this notion that he he "stifling criticism." I'm serious. I thought this was about images and such. OK, is it a total lie then that he is asking that personal pictures of Prince related tatoos and license plates be taken down? How can he lay claim to a tatoo!? How is that about stifling criticism? And that tattoo thing is probably not a lie. (I, and probably you, don't have any way of knowing) but it is probably a distortion of what is no doubt an unusual claim. If it is a distortion, and if this distortion has been distributed to the press, then P.'s claims are compounded. That is what I am getting from the letter posted by Lothan above. It's not a good sign that WebSheriff is posting actual legal text but PFU isn't. I understand there are some legally-minded people working for the fansites, but they are fans. They are probably going to need outside counsel at some point. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
whoa dude.  
vi  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
from the U.S. Copyright Office web site
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I cannot believe all of this mess.  It seems that this time "lil man" is going a bit too far. I understand his need to be in control of his music and whatnot, but to be in control of what is said on fansites??? If it was his own personal site, I could understand that, but this??? C'mon! It seems that someone is getting power happy. It feels like he is trying to be a dictator here. I cherish my freedom of speech and he has NO right to control the words that come out of my mouth or from my fingers. Even if people won't be allowed to voice their opinions about him here or anywhere on the net, there will still be talk. Is he regulating our daily speech? What next? Hidden monitors to hear every word we speak? Ugh... this is highly disappointing from someone I once thought so highly of.  "When words fail, music speaks..." --- Shakespeare | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
m3taverse said: 2the9s said: No, he's not. He's "threatening" Ben. And the other site owners. And they in turn are trying to rope everyone else in. As site owners, it is their responsibility to manage this legal stuff and to assure that they are running a site that lives up to basic copyright law. The sites are theirs. Remember, this is not a democracy. Why are they now appealing to our democratic impulses and free speech and whatnot? I'm sorry, this is a PR move. Don't get me wrong, I wish them well. But this has been handled badly. Look at some of the responses on this thread. I'm sorry, but I don't credit Ben for that anymore than I credit, I don't know, the telephone company. [Edited 11/6/07 16:49pm] I don't understand your take on this. To me the underlying issue is that of the fair use debate. The copyright versus fair use debate is still evolving on top of rapid technological change. So far only the industry has been doing the talking and dictating the legislation. And we both know that as far as Prince is concerned, fair use only exists at his sole disgression. And that's not even touching on the free speech issue. In my opinion it's about time consumers, people like us, get involved in this debate. Not only do I support PFU, I think everyone who cares about fair use and free speech needs to support it. [Edited 11/6/07 17:14pm] I agree, but the manner in which this is being done is bad. I know there was a case recently where the James Joyce estate, which is equally as aggressive about asserting copyright, was forced to settle out of court with a scholar who wanted to quote unpublished letters. They let them publish the letters. It would have been nice to have the precdent of that litigation on record. These guys are playing for the PR and Prince is going legal. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: from the U.S. Copyright Office web site
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. I'm guessing the part I highlighted would probably include a baby dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" in a home movie. "Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: OK, is it a total lie then that he is asking that personal pictures of Prince related tatoos and license plates be taken down? How can he lay claim to a tatoo!? How is that about stifling criticism? And that tattoo thing is probably not a lie. (I, and probably you, don't have any way of knowing) but it is probably a distortion of what is no doubt an unusual claim. If it is a distortion, and if this distortion has been distributed to the press, then P.'s claims are compounded. That is what I am getting from the letter posted by Lothan above. It's not a good sign that WebSheriff is posting actual legal text but PFU isn't. I understand there are some legally-minded people working for the fansites, but they are fans. They are probably going to need outside counsel at some point. Web Sheriff has quite cleverly stated in their communication that they claim copyright on the communication itself and expressly forbid it to be communicate to third parties, thus attempting to prevent the content getting into the public domain In relation to the symbol used on the most recent tour, that would be a commissioned design with all rights reserved by the artist Therefore he is well within his rights legally to forbid use of it by any other party without express consent, this would also include using that design for a tattoo without permission I somehow doubt that a judge would grant an order to have a tattoo forcibly removed though He does have every right though to demand that and other intellectual property he owns be removed from the website Where things get complicated, as I previously posted, is with photographs taken by fans The copyright on these is the intellectual property of the taker of the photograph, not the subject of the photograph That is the advice I have been given in the past by Trading Standards officers of many years experience Therefore I do not believe there is a legal right to demand their removal Where this would change is if you took a photo of an artist, then photoshopped a huge cock sticking out of the middle of their forehead and posted it That would obviously be defamatory Copyright law is notoriously difficult to enforce If you took someone elses design and changed it by say 20%, you might find a court would decide you then own the sebsequent intellectual property of the altered image, despite the fact the original design belonged to someone else | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Markland said: If you took someone elses design and changed it by say 20%, you might find a court would decide you then own the sebsequent intellectual property of the altered image, despite the fact the original design belonged to someone else for instance, the difference between the  symbol and the one for soapstone (which I actually did see incoporated with a lot of other symbols on a girl's blouse in college)."Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Raze said: Markland said: If you took someone elses design and changed it by say 20%, you might find a court would decide you then own the sebsequent intellectual property of the altered image, despite the fact the original design belonged to someone else for instance, the difference between the symbol and the one for soapstone (which I actually did see incoporated with a lot of other symbols on a girl's blouse in college).As long as there is a substantial change in the design and that work is yours you would have a vcalid claim to the intellectual property rights of the subsequent design | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Justin1972UK said: front page? of anything? wow. slow news day. or this is bigger than I imagined. "Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Raze said: front page? of anything? wow. slow news day. or this is bigger than I imagined.
It's an important issue, I guess.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As a musical talent, Prince - at his best - is untouchable, and indisputably is a genius in every sense of the word.
As a human being, it is my opinion that Prince - at his worst - is an insecure, lonely, frustrated and frightened man, a conclusion based on 25+ years of being a fan and closely following his career, as well as from direct personal experience. I don't claim to know the actual reasons behind this latest legal brouhaha or his apparent over-the-top desperation to control absolutely every little aspect of his image and persona, including what is said about him, but I will say it wouldn't surprise me to discover this irrational attempt to play dictator to be not so much due to true concern over a picture of his face being shown or somebody with the symbol tattoo on their hip or a dancing baby in somebody's kitchen, but rather the misdirected result of the spilling over of a long-simmering ugly brew of personal and professional issues which finally reached a boiling point: i.e. a second failed marriage and whatever ramifications of such he is facing due to that, financially and emotionally; the imminence of turning 50, and coming to terms with growing older compounded with the unique challenges of aging in the industry in which he works; his seemingly neverending, and ofen in vain, search/es to fill certain holes in his life, et. al. Perhaps Prince is under the delusion that micromanaging how he's perceived and is discussed will provide him a way of reshaping himself and that he will subsequently become that 'perfect', whitewashed, carefully hewn image he wishes to create for us. At the moment, for whatever reason, it appears Prince is in desperate need of a figurative punching bag. And, at the moment, for whatever reasons, we the fans are it. The above being said, I do not consider Prince a bad person nor a man completely incapable of genuine love and gratitude. I just think he is outwardly (over)reacting to certain inner demons and external situations beyond his control, and is grabbing with both hands at whatever he feels might give him a way feeling powerful and exercising control over his life..in this case, siccing his legal attack-dogs and bullying fans and fansites, and cowing them into caving to his bizarre demands. I feel badly for him. He clearly is an unhappy, aching soul. [Edited 11/6/07 18:01pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Brings to mind the expression "even bad publicity is better than no publicity" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
WillyWonka said: The above being said, I do not consider Prince a bad person nor a man completely incapable of genuine love and gratitude. I just think he is outwardly (over)reacting to certain inner demons and external situations beyond his control, and is grabbing with both hands at whatever he feels might give him a way feeling powerful and exercising control over his life..in this case, siccing his legal attack-dogs and bullying fans and fansites, and cowing them into caving to his bizarre demands. I feel badly for him. He clearly is a unhappy, aching soul. you just put in words what my heart wanted to say but my mind couldn't articulate. thanks for taking the high road as always, mr. w. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |