I think there are 2 main things that HQ had that prince.org and princefams.com don't have - and probably will never have...

1) the layout - HQ was an easy to read forum whether you were new or old

2) the content - you could pretty much search and find any bit of information you wanted

It is just a matter of getting use to a site. I am a regular here, but back in the day when you guys had a video forum up and running at HouseQuake, I would go there often, and it was confusing as anything for me to get use to that website. I knew what I was doing if I was looking in my favorite forum, but other then that I was lost. It is just a matter of getting use to it.

CarrieMpls said:

Vendetta1 said:

I like that about the org.

japanrocks said:

You see, that's exactly HQ's problem. Prince has every right to shut it down when it is an organisation that offers a trading and taping place of unreleased music, video's and pictures.

All unauthorised.

^Utter nonsense.

Housequake stopped allowing members to trade material in 2004/2005. Likewise videos were pulled around the same time.

Housequake was no different to prince.org in the respect it allowed unofficial material to be discussed. The only difference was it had a specific bootleg forum dedicated to that exact purpose. Discussion is allowed here, there or anywhere else.

thebumpsquad said:

Well, the poster I replied to said they were trading and taping. and those vids and pics aren't authorised either.

Tremolina said:

Then he/she is 4 years too late. Even "back in the day" discussion of taping shows wasn't allowed at Housequake.



Like I said, the videos were pulled years ago - it's not a valid point. Pictures are a whole other matter which the majority of fan sites have been affected by. Galleries have been wiped everywhere yet pictures are still posted on the general boards (see threads here in M&M). Prince doesn't own the copyright to each and every picture which contains his image, hence it's a losing battle. Housequake was no more/less guilty than any other fan site - including this one.

thebumpsquad said:

You may not see it as a valid point, but it does give insight to the reason Prince sought to shut down HQ and why HQ is not perceived as being some innocent victim in all this. Why would someone think that open bootleg trading, illegal by the way, would be something the artist would be cool with? Why would it be thought that posting unauthorized pictures and videos would ever be okay in the first place? It put HQ in Prince's sights. Every time I would hear something happened over there I would be like: why are they surprised?

I told a friend today that Prince behaves in a way that his fans are cool with...until it affects them personally. Then he's an asshole. I honestly don't understand it.

^So if Ben decides to close prince.org because he gets tired you will also say that Prince was right by sending request after request. Like thebumpsquad said this website (like any other fansite) is full of 'unauthorized' pictures, and even bootleg cover art (what regurlarly shows up in the pic threads), too. Prince doesn't have copyright to all photos. On HQ we didn't post photos from NPGMC etc to avoid these copyright issues and with all other photos we posted the copyright holder. As for the video forum (which was closed years ago): We never posted Prince videos, just stuff from TV shows to which Prince didn't have copyright.

dothejump said:

I personally think that the org would be far better off and not be harassed by a certain lil person if the site just dumped the whole p&m and the name.

The majority of people here hang out in GD or Non Music. Honestly I only go to the prince forum when I really bored and want to be entertained by his fans.

As was stated earlier and better than me this place is a social networking place far more than a prince site. I think there is enough support here that orgers would find themselves congregating together somewhere else. Even if Ben got fed up or princess went all lawyery on his ass.

The old adage of when you cut one head off ten more grow back always makes sense.

I came to the org as a prince fan, but i stay 4 the community. I went to hq when the org had its little fire and while i felt welcomed it was nice to come back to the org. I felt the boards were a little hard to follow, and a little clinical. But it was very informative. Hq closing was sad, but the org is not hq. pls ben, additions/changes to the org, 4 improvement are great but pls-dont change 4 the sake of change. But if u are taking suggestions a fam free forum sounds like a good idea. Oh and fam free days in chat would be good.

dothejump said:

Taking everything together, one has to wonder why the org seeems to manage to stay out of trouble most of the time but HQ does not.

Apparantly HQ still made it possible for members to trade unreleased material via private communication, after it closed the public bootleg forum.

"stuff" from TV shows DOES have Prince's copyrights on it if his songs are used in it.

As for pictures, if he doesn't own the copyright in them, it's correct that he can't claim copyright infringement, but he can still claim unauthorised use of his image on an unauthorised website. You are right, that that is a harder case to make and also an issue that is relevant to other sites. The problem however is that he CAN make a big deal out of it and make it very hard on you with his money and team of lawyers. He will simply sue you to death if you don't do as he says, even if he isn't the right.

The point that I was discussing is if Prince fansites, including the org, are a lot different from HQ. And I don't think it is.

Tremolina said:

Prince.org has orgnotes. Nobody knows what is discussed in there. Mods at HQ didn't know what was discussed in the PM's. So on this point prince.org is not different from HQ.

funktank said:

regarding the layout, the org would need a considerable overhaul, and i'm not sure if ben would wish to do the work. HQ used vbulletin which gave it a particular style that many other forums use variations off. i think princefams use the same, but perhaps a different layout. i'm not sure how easy it would be to move everything over to vbulletin, but i don't know if ben would want to do that as he wrote the software and used the site to some degree as an example of his skills to show potential business clients (for want of a better way to put it - the site is a bit of a showroom for his skills)

as for the content, if the same members from HQ participated in the org, over time the factual content could be put into the org. ie. discographies, lists of outtakes, tours, etc. that's the part that i'd like to see added. a new online host for information and where it can be discussed

dothejump said:

The org has never let its members trade in bootlegs. The org has always had a decent user agreement. The org manages to keep its members in check and Prince's lawyers at a distance.

How come?

Soemthing tells me that HQ members continued the trading via private communication and that they found out, complained and threatened to shut it if HQ wouldnt resolve it.

Tremolina said:

My god, you're amazing! So tell me... who shot Kennedy?

Huxley said:

Honestly, there have been members that told me exactly that was still going there.

Otherwise, give me another PLAUSIBLE reason why HQ can't prevent the relentless attacks when the org can.

Tremolina said:

How do you know what members "orgnote" each other?
Right: you don't know.
Same as HQ-moderators didn't know what members pm'd eachother.
(what's the definition of a "private message"?)
Do you really think nobody here trades through the orgnotes? All saints?

Vendetta1 said:

Housequake put a stop to it's members trading bootlegged material back in 2004. That's 5 years ago. The site made it perfectly clear that unofficial material was not to be traded in public or using private messaging, and most folks went on to other sites to carry out their bootlegging activities. Housequake continued allowing members to share unofficial artwork for bootleg releases, until that was also eventually pulled due to requests from the P camp.
My point is that when requests were made to stop certain activitites - the site obeyed to a point. Housequake obviously took a stance over the discussion of unofficial material and allowed the discussion forums to remain open, but all trading/sharing was stopped a long, long time ago. Prince was obviously happy enough that the site follwed his requests as he allowed them (and the org) exclusive pictures and ticket giveaways. I highly doubt he would have handed over anything had the site not complied to a point where he was sufficiently happy.



In that case, we may very well delete all avatars containing Prince pictures as they contain unauthorized images of The Dear Leader. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "unauthorized" as surely the only pictures he himself has authorized are on his own artwork, from his own magazines, or pictures he owns the copyright on. Housequake always strived to give credit to the copyright holder and gave a source for the picture being used. When anything was called into question, the images were removed in a flash. It may not have been perfect, but it strived to stay on the right side of legalities 99% of the time.

Housequake is suddenly getting a rep for flouting the law and allowing it's members to run riot when that wasn't the case at all.

Surprised? No. Disappointed? Yes.

dothejump said:

I was a member of HQ and I disagree no Prince videos were there. I distinctly remember watching Batdance, Violet The Organ Grinder and other videos there. Whether or not Prince owned copyright to the other stuff in the video forum is neither here nor there to me. HQ did not own the stuff and did not have the right to show them. The fact that the artist who so many claim to love asked that they be taken down is enough for me. I also remember HQ putting its logo on pictures it clearly didn't own the copyright to either. And just because other sites do it, it makes it okay?

Should the Org shut down, it's not the end of the world. I love this place but I am sure the members would find each other at another place. The Org hasn't been about Prince for me for a very long time because the fans ruin it for me.

thebumpsquad said:

Suddenly getting a rep? No. I remember when Aaron himself came over here when he got his hands slapped the first time. And as I mentioned above, HQ put its logo on pics that I am positive were not property of HQ.

I understand that fans want to look at pics, videos and talk about the grooviness that is bootlegs of Prince. I don't understand why people bitch about the part of it that is illegal. I also don't understand why people don't choose to just ask the guy for his permission to use his image.

Oh, because some want to do it anyway.

Vendetta1 said:

I know I'm coming across as a real nit-picker in this thread and constantly jumping in Things are being passed off as fact now that really aren't true.

The majority of Housequake logo's that appear on pictures have been added by the members who uploaded the picture themselves (apart from the Housequake photo specials which presumably had the HQ logo added to keep them all uniform).

When someone scans, cleans, uploads and hosts a picture and hands it over to a site, then they are free to add the logo of the site they choose to hand it over to. There's no copyright claim or image right attatched to it - it shows which site the image originally came from and nothing else. Look through any "LOL I LUVZ PRIONNC333" picture thread in M&M and you'll see a slew of pictures with the Housequake logo. Perhaps in retrospect the Housequake logo should have said "originally posted at Housequake.com" instead of simply "Housequake" to make that clearer.....but it didn't.

And just to make things a little more level, Paddy's gallery here has "prince.org" text on certain thumbnail images too.
Just sayin'.

thebumpsquad said:

I stick by what I said. If the person did not take the pictures themselves, they do not own the copyright to them. Putting the HQ.com logo on the bottom insinuates ownership by HQ. Originally posted at HQ.com is a misnomer, too because I am sure that I would be able to find at least a few of the pics that were posted elsewhere first.

I can nit pick, too.

And I don't understand why the Org allows pics to be posted either.

guys, the intention of this thread is to partly find out what HQ had that the org doesn't, and what the org could perhaps add or change to fulfill what it may lack, but without losing the org's long standing character

whilst HQ may have allowed trading and videos etc IN THE PAST, it didn't in more recent times. perhaps prince's apparent hatred towards HQ was deep rooted in regards to the past, perhaps not. but that's not the point of this thread, which is simply to find out what we could maybe add to the org to maybe fill a hole or two. this thread was started with positive intentions, not to start another argument

if we find out what people miss the most from HQ we can maybe see if the org can do it, or if not, maybe it can be filled in some other way, perhaps on another site

it appears to me that there is a clear desire to have a whole bunch of prince facts hosted in one easy to find place. as far as i'm aware, that can be done without breaking any laws. i know there is another great factual site that's not currently working, which fills some information, but not others. perhaps that site could add some of the other missing information like a list of tourdates, released tracks, list of known unreleased tracks etc, as HQ had in stickies

Vendetta1 said:

Prince's people didn't have a problem with the HQ logo. They used a pic with the logo in the first printing of the O2 tourbook.

Vendetta1 said:

You might have seen the pic before but not the specific scan. We only used the logo on scans made by our own members.
[Edited 2/16/09 10:15am]

unique said:

I see no reason the Org should do anything to accommodate HQ.

unique said:

I know what the intention of your thread was but I think the discussions make clear what the difference between the org and HQ are (were). And in my opinion the sites could always exist next to each other because of those differences. And therefore I think it is almost impossible to give prince.org a change so it will become more focussed on facts. But you never know

Vendetta1 said:

posting pictures on the internet isn't a criminal offence. almost every other fan site of any other thing in the world comprises mostly of photos of whatever the site represents. it's just that prince seems to be the only artist i can think off that expects owners of fan sites to remove all images of himself, regardless of the law. it's a bit unreasonable for a fan site that's in favour of and positively promotes an artist without commercial gain to be asked to remove all images

in saying that, the HQ "watermarking" on images didn't really help thier case, i think that was another thing that really pissed him off, as to prince it looked like others were making a claim to his image

but that doesn't answer the question in the original post did it?