lottielooloo1968 said:

Whats the truth?

Not sure I agree with all of that???

SzeSze said:

Can we have a MOD perspective?

So we may resolve this quickly.

[Edited 11/9/07 8:34am]
[Edited 11/9/07 8:35am]

darrenj said:

i don't think my opinion on the matter is gonna resolve anything quickly, no matter what anyone thinks.

how about i move it to the site discussion forum and feature it on the main page instead?

Anxiety said:

Shifty!

ooo, its much more cozy over here.



[Edited 11/9/07 8:47am]

horatio said:

don't spill any faygo on our nice davenports, y'hear?

Anxiety said:

I like the bit about Prince fans coming out in support.

So it wasn`t that serious after all!
I`m glad that it`s resolved...or maybe people on here wants to carry on the big drama!

The following just appeared in my mailbox (in the form of a link to a PrinceFams item):





As a result, I've taken this item off the news page until we get more accurate info.
[Edited 11/9/07 8:58am]

The thing that flies in the face of that statement was specifically the threat by web sheriff to go to court over the princefansunited.com website

"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."

That looks like a threat to sue over words NOT images or copyright

Now compare this to the press release today;

"Prince is not suing his fans, is not looking to penalise fans and nor is he looking to or inhibiting freedom of speech in any way. In fact, he is simply looking to provide Prince fans with exclusive music and images entirely free of charge, and bypassing unofficial and unauthorised phoney fan sites that exploit both consumers and artists.

"The action taken earlier this week was not to shut down fansites, or control comment in any way. The issue was simply to do with in regards to copyright and trademark of images and only images, and no lawsuits have been filed.

In fact, he is simply looking to provide Prince fans with exclusive music and images entirely free of charge,"

How on earth can both statements be true?

Can you paste the link please Anxiety?
[Edited 11/9/07 9:04am]

for more clarification, check out this thread on princefams.com:

http://www.princefams.com...irculating

govinda said:

If it's over it's over!

Back to the music.

Markland said:

whoops, heh, just did. great minds...

PR companies don't just draft up final releases like that unless someone has told them to

Someone might have pushed the "send" button by accident or prematurely but that press release was formulated for a reason and gives an insight into the mindset of some of the people involved in this drama and the contempt with which they view these websites

Anxiety said:

the update/clarification blurb is now on the PFU site as well.

Anxiety said:

Redpop

I thought Ben and this site were a part of this... how is this blurb not yet on the homepage, I don't get it.
Same thing with yesterday's song ... the org is linking to someone's myspace page while it's on pfu.com? Weird.

m3taverse said:

the NME story WAS on the homepage earlier today.

then i was alerted to the fact that the article was erroneous (not NME's fault but apparently AEG's misdoing), and i was alerted to this information:

http://www.princefams.com...irculating

this update is also available at www.princefansunited.com

as for what we link to, if it is relevant and it is newsworthy, we will link to is as a matter of reference for our users. that's fair and has yet to be a bone of contention. so it is what it is.

Markland said:

Because the first one you posted (the claim against PFU) is about words and the second you cite (the original claim against the individual sites and their galeries and such) is about images.

These are two different things.

2the9s said:

I meant on the one hand they are saying they are not after closing any fan sites down and yet on the other hand they specifically demand that princefansunited be closed down

Both statements cannot be true