SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I see both of yours points ...

I myself am dissapointed in this.

I've been with Prince a minute too..its just that I want to take a look at these documents MYSELF and draw conclusions on my own. I also want to hear what he, himself has to say when he posts on the sites later on today. Reading the papers about this they keep saying its "not prince himself but his record company taking the fan sites to legal action"..and Im confused at this point.

I've been through and defended Prince through alot of his contraversial days but this is direct negativity toward those who support him. Its another arena..another ball game.

I dont want to be in denial and I dont want to cuss the man out. I just want to see what the real deal is. All I am getting is clips, inserts and quotes from a letter I cant see b/c of copyrighting issues. Its only been 2 days since this statements took place. In time everything in the darkness will come to light.Thats not asking for alot is it?

1KissAtATyme said:

No it's not but when the light gets shined, don't be surprised if all you see is blackness

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Our cre8or has blessed me with the gifts eye share with the world. Eye feel blessed 2 b able 2 do so. Eye only ask 4 the same respect u would show 2 ur friends and family, which is 2 use my image and art only with my permission. Eye am asking my fams 2 respect my wishes. It is meant in the spirit love4oneanother. All praise 2 the almighty Jehova.

Peace, Prince"

Looks like u hit him right on the nose...

I hope he isnt that vague or short today seriously..I hope for ONCE he is straight forward, explanitory, appologetic for misconceptions, and sincere.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

U know what I mean!

1KissAtATyme said:

1KissAtATyme said:

He probably won't be quite THAT brief. There will probably also be a part about evil media empires and his desire to remain outside of a system that wants to enslave him. Something like that.

I share your hope, though.

Lothan said:

Sorry but you are making no sense.
They did summarize it, did you not notice? You just have trouble believing the summary, but that is your problem, not someone elses.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

*Laughs* @ evil media empires... Yup Im sure that will be in there somewhere.

m3taverse said:

Anxiety said:

Good point there, I was thinking in the same vein after posting: that even though Matt is a lawyer, there are MANY different areas of law. Perhaps this is not something that Matt has sufficient knowledge in to comment on this situation at the present time.

1KissAtATyme said:

purplecam said:

Agreed. Hopefully Prince will clear the air on this whole ordeal.

psychodelicide said:

Yes indeed..that why I'm loggin off..BUT commin back

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Some very good valid points as well. :nods: It would definitely be nice to hear from someone in the legal field as to what's going on here. But I will respect Matt if he decides to not say anything.

1KissAtATyme said:

Maybe if Prince explains this, we can stop being mad at him and come to some understanding as to this whole ordeal.

I so cannot wait for Prince's response to this.

1KissAtATyme said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Same here. It better be a good one, dammit.

darrenj said:

Less speaking about things you are clueless about.
You seem to have no idea about how our free society works ... what you are proposing is maybe how it works in China.

psychodelicide said:

I'm going to have to get the rimming of my life to come back from this crap Prince, hope you got a strong tongue today!

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Rhondab said:

Yep .

fully appreciated and supported.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

m3taverse said:

Come on m3ta. Don't be insulting. I just asked the question because Prince's people are calling the sites' owners liars.

Lothan said:

there is a bit of a hiccup happening here. ben's blog said that prince/web sheriff requested over 3,500 images be removed from the org, including license plate and tattoo images. the reuters/yahoo news story posted on the front page has web sheriff saying they did no such thing.

i have to say, i'm a little confused.

Anxiety said:

I just want to have the facts so I can make up my own mind.

Prince Image Ban Story Was " Exaggerated " ...

A company working on behalf of PRINCE has accused fans of exaggerating a story which claims the singer has ordered them to remove any image that bears his likeness from their websites. The singer's record company has hired internet monitoring company Web Sheriff to protect the Purple Rain star from internet copyright infringement - and they insist the fan sites have made the situation sound a lot worse than it actually is. The pop superstar angered many of his supporters after he was reported to have slapped an image ban on several high profile fan websites forbidding them to use any unauthorized pictures of him. The outraged websites joined forces to form Prince Fans United in protest and have vowed to fight any legal action. But Web Sheriff insist Prince himself has nothing to do with the lawsuit threat - it is the work of the "record label". Web Sheriff's managing director, John Giacobbi, says, "At no time is Prince suing his fans and this is not about freedom of speech. "The current issue is one between Prince's record label and three unofficial web sites and relates to the use of Prince trademarks and photographs, many of which are Prince's copyright."

http://www.contactmusic.c...ed_1049253

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Cryptic message on the 3121 website with sentences full of u, r, 2. He won't really answer because he knows he's wrong.

Anxiety said:

This is the email that was posted here as coming from web sheriff:

"Dear Administrators,

Re : EXTREMELY URGENT / YOUR SITE - LIBEL NOTICE

As you know, Web Sheriff represents AEG Worldwide, Paisley Park Enterprises / NPG Records and PRINCE in relation to – inter alia – the above.

We understand that you (ergo your administrators and moderators personally) control the web-site www.princefansunited.com (hereinafter referred to as the “Libellous Site”). We are writing to advise you that our clients consider the Libellous Site to contain defamatory statements – all under the banner ”PRINCE FANS FIGHT BACK AGAINST ATTACKS” which, in itself, we would also say is defamatory - that both libel PRINCE and, equally, that constitute malicious falsehoods injurious to our clients’ business interests (hereinafter referred to as the “Libellous Statements”) including, but not limited to, the following :-

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.

Our clients consider the above statements to be both factually incorrect and misleading and, in all of the circumstances, we would ask you to immediately remove the Libellous Site (as containing the Libellous Statements or anything else that could constitute a libel and / or a malicious falsehood in respect of our clients) : this is particularly urgent, as we gather that your site is about to be publicly launched to the world’s media by means of a press-release and, if this were to happen, the scope for damage to our clients’ reputations (and, equally, the scope for compensatory damages to our clients) would be very significantly increased. Should you fail to comply with our clients’ reasonable request (as contained herein) and, therefore, should you continue to publish the Libellous Statements on a joint and several basis, we would kindly ask you to provide us with the names and addresses of your lawyers in Holland, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, for the purposes of dealing with the appropriate legal actions that shall follow against the officers of your site personally.

We shall look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Whilst writing, we would caution you against communicating any further correspondence or remarks to third parties that could, in any way, be construed as being libellous of PRINCE or that could otherwise constitute a malicious falsehood, injurious to our clients’ business interests. Similarly, we would remind you that this communication is the copyright of Web Sheriff and, as such, any publication and / or dissemination to third parties would be actionable. Furthermore, Web Sheriff cannot be held liable for the consequences of any such publication and / or dissemination in the event that the same originated from yourselves or parties connected to you.

Naturally and notwithstanding the foregoing, all accumulated, worldwide rights and remedies of our clients in this matter remain strictly reserved.

Yours sincerely,

WEB SHERIFF"

According to the Yahoo article web sheriff stated this to Reuters:


"At no time is Prince suing his fans and this is not about freedom of speech," said John Giacobbi, managing director of Internet policing specialist Web Sheriff.

"The current issue is one between Prince's record label and three unofficial Web sites and relates to the use of Prince trademarks and photographs, many of which are Prince's copyright," he told Reuters."

Is it just me or do those two statements contradict each other???

That last statement is clearly contradicted in the email by the insistence of the removal of "libellous" and "defamatory" material, nothing to do with images as is quoted in the Reuters interview