New topic
PrintableBlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: Ummm...Napster was an online service that allowed PC users to share digital music files stored on another user's hard drive. Audiogalaxy ran a type of centralized server, which means the company had some control over the types of files on its system. As such, it was ruled that AudioGalaxy could be held accountable for infringing materials on their systems. Isn't this kind of what's going on here? Read the ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court. And is Matt a lawyer? I have enough friends who are attorneys to know that unless you are one, it's best not to theroize. Just my opinion based on legal rulings... if you're not sure either, aren't you also theorizing? I'm basing my opinion on facts, legal rulings and logic, not what I hear from other bitter fans who claim that they know the law, or rationalize the situation by claiming that Prince is an wrong because he isn't doing as we wish or as other artists do. i repeat, if you're not sure, then aren't you also theorizing along with the rest of us? you've failed to produce facts, and when you have ventured to do so, you were wrong (napster). we don't mind you theorizing, but please, don't scold the rest of us for doing the same. you've based your opinon on theorizing. just because you hold the opposite view doesn't mean your theorizing is any more or less valid. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: Ummm...Napster was an online service that allowed PC users to share digital music files stored on another user's hard drive. Audiogalaxy ran a type of centralized server, which means the company had some control over the types of files on its system. As such, it was ruled that AudioGalaxy could be held accountable for infringing materials on their systems. Isn't this kind of what's going on here? Read the ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court. And is Matt a lawyer? I have enough friends who are attorneys to know that unless you are one, it's best not to theroize. Just my opinion based on legal rulings... if you're not sure either, aren't you also theorizing? I'm basing my opinion on facts, legal rulings and logic, not what I hear from other bitter fans who claim that they know the law, or rationalize the situation by claiming that Prince is an wrong because he isn't doing as we wish or as other artists do. i repeat, if you're not sure, then aren't you also theorizing along with the rest of us? you've failed to produce facts, and when you have ventured to do so, you were wrong (napster). we don't mind you theorizing, but please, don't scold the rest of us for doing the same. you've based your opinon on theorizing. just because you hold the opposite view doesn't mean your theorizing is any more or less valid. How was I wrong about Napster? The courts stated that, regarding Napster, that the "repeated and exploitative copying of copyright works, even if the copies are not offered for sale, may constitute a commercial use." And, regarding Napster's claim that they weren't responsible for the infringing conduct of its users, they ruled that Napster "knew or had reason to know" that its users were exchanging copyrighted files and therefore could be held responsible as a "contributory" copyright infringer. This sounds like what happened here, albeit on a smaller scale. And scolding? LOL! Get a grip. The fact is, he posted songs, linked or otherwise. I'm sure that these rulings may very well apply to this. I also know that Prince's lawyers wouldn't file a suit with out ground to stand on. And since their lawyers, and I know how they do things, they definitely researched it prior to filing the suit. So based on that, and conversations I've had with other lawyers on the subject, I feel that my argument here is stronger than "I didn't post actual songs, I just linked them from other sites." And yes, based on this, I feel my "theorizing" is more valid then the emotional fluff being thrown around here. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlackandRising is my new hero... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: Ummm...Napster was an online service that allowed PC users to share digital music files stored on another user's hard drive. Audiogalaxy ran a type of centralized server, which means the company had some control over the types of files on its system. As such, it was ruled that AudioGalaxy could be held accountable for infringing materials on their systems. Isn't this kind of what's going on here? Read the ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court. And is Matt a lawyer? I have enough friends who are attorneys to know that unless you are one, it's best not to theroize. Just my opinion based on legal rulings... if you're not sure either, aren't you also theorizing? I'm basing my opinion on facts, legal rulings and logic, not what I hear from other bitter fans who claim that they know the law, or rationalize the situation by claiming that Prince is an wrong because he isn't doing as we wish or as other artists do. i repeat, if you're not sure, then aren't you also theorizing along with the rest of us? you've failed to produce facts, and when you have ventured to do so, you were wrong (napster). we don't mind you theorizing, but please, don't scold the rest of us for doing the same. you've based your opinon on theorizing. just because you hold the opposite view doesn't mean your theorizing is any more or less valid. How was I wrong about Napster? The courts stated that, regarding Napster, that the "repeated and exploitative copying of copyright works, even if the copies are not offered for sale, may constitute a commercial use." And, regarding Napster's claim that they weren't responsible for the infringing conduct of its users, they ruled that Napster "knew or had reason to know" that its users were exchanging copyrighted files and therefore could be held responsible as a "contributory" copyright infringer. This sounds like what happened here, albeit on a smaller scale. And scolding? LOL! Get a grip. The fact is, he posted songs, linked or otherwise. I'm sure that these rulings may very well apply to this. I also know that Prince's lawyers wouldn't file a suit with out ground to stand on. And since their lawyers, and I know how they do things, they definitely researched it prior to filing the suit. So based on that, and conversations I've had with other lawyers on the subject, I feel that my argument here is stronger than "I didn't post actual songs, I just linked them from other sites." And yes, based on this, I feel my "theorizing" is more valid then the emotional fluff being thrown around here. blah blah blah... addressing line 1, which is the major hole in your argument. napster DID do that. they copied the files into a database. all files passed through napster. napster is then liable. matthew is not. a link is not hosting. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: Ummm...Napster was an online service that allowed PC users to share digital music files stored on another user's hard drive. Audiogalaxy ran a type of centralized server, which means the company had some control over the types of files on its system. As such, it was ruled that AudioGalaxy could be held accountable for infringing materials on their systems. Isn't this kind of what's going on here? Read the ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court. And is Matt a lawyer? I have enough friends who are attorneys to know that unless you are one, it's best not to theroize. Just my opinion based on legal rulings... if you're not sure either, aren't you also theorizing? I'm basing my opinion on facts, legal rulings and logic, not what I hear from other bitter fans who claim that they know the law, or rationalize the situation by claiming that Prince is an wrong because he isn't doing as we wish or as other artists do. i repeat, if you're not sure, then aren't you also theorizing along with the rest of us? you've failed to produce facts, and when you have ventured to do so, you were wrong (napster). we don't mind you theorizing, but please, don't scold the rest of us for doing the same. you've based your opinon on theorizing. just because you hold the opposite view doesn't mean your theorizing is any more or less valid. How was I wrong about Napster? The courts stated that, regarding Napster, that the "repeated and exploitative copying of copyright works, even if the copies are not offered for sale, may constitute a commercial use." And, regarding Napster's claim that they weren't responsible for the infringing conduct of its users, they ruled that Napster "knew or had reason to know" that its users were exchanging copyrighted files and therefore could be held responsible as a "contributory" copyright infringer. This sounds like what happened here, albeit on a smaller scale. And scolding? LOL! Get a grip. The fact is, he posted songs, linked or otherwise. I'm sure that these rulings may very well apply to this. I also know that Prince's lawyers wouldn't file a suit with out ground to stand on. And since their lawyers, and I know how they do things, they definitely researched it prior to filing the suit. So based on that, and conversations I've had with other lawyers on the subject, I feel that my argument here is stronger than "I didn't post actual songs, I just linked them from other sites." And yes, based on this, I feel my "theorizing" is more valid then the emotional fluff being thrown around here. blah blah blah... addressing line 1, which is the major hole in your argument. napster DID do that. they copied the files into a database. all files passed through napster. napster is then liable. matthew is not. a link is not hosting. LOL! I would think that's an easy hole to fill. So, I supose that this comes down to the definition of hosting then? Please. Use some objectivity. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: rdhull said: Oh stop--arrogance and slang run fucking rampant here. He was on point ...point blank, regardless of how he came across.
i dont agree that he was *on* point...legally, this type of suit has yet to be proven...for all we know, the courts could state that it isnt against the law to post links...but thats its against the law to offer uploading of bootlegged songs... so to say the guy was breaking the law just isnt accurate...*yet*. Not true. Multiple web sites and newspapers were sued in 2000 to stop publishing the link to web sites providing DeCSS code, which would allow users to bypass the encryption used on DVDs. They lost; the judge ruling the free speech arguments were overruled by the harm caused by linking to illegal code. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: ZaZa said: freemyheart.com offered free downloads. Prince requested they stop. Instead of just ignoring the request & continuing to offer downloads (like the download pioneer
he paints himself to be)freemyheart.com flaunted the request from Prince & gloated in his denial of Prince's wishes. May he get all thats coming to him - he brought it on himself. nope...not true...freemyheart never offered downloads..only links to other sites...defend your prince all you want..just dont make up things while your doing it... What other sites? Can you name them?? ***************************************************
Seems like the overly critical people are the sheep now days. It takes guts to admit that you like something. -Rdhull ...it ain't where ya from, it's where ya at... - Rakim | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
People need to stop using their bias against Princes personality in their opinion..it's gotten down to petty semantics when everyone and their mama knows that deep down M's shit was wrong. Mean old Prince gave a warning and M neglected to heed that warning and now Prince is Mista Meany? Because of the so called collectors principle?---wake the fuck up and quit bullshittin. "Climb in my fur." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rdhull said: People need to stop using their bias against Princes personality in their opinion..it's gotten down to petty semantics when everyone and their mama knows that deep down M's shit was wrong. Mean old Prince gave a warning and M neglected to heed that warning and now Prince is Mista Meany? Because of the so called collectors principle?---wake the fuck up and quit bullshittin.
I love you, rdhull   ***************************************************
Seems like the overly critical people are the sheep now days. It takes guts to admit that you like something. -Rdhull ...it ain't where ya from, it's where ya at... - Rakim | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Props to RDHull, BlacknRising, and LCD for holdin it down in these discussions. Dayum BnR you really broke it down here. Dang, I can't wait til my DSL network is back up... can't believe I missed out on this discussion during my move. But yall held it down... "until my ISP or a judge says NO" bwaahaaahaaahahhaaa. How's that "NO" sound?? "That...magic, the start of something revolutionary-the Minneapolis Sound, we should cherish it and not punish prince for not being able to replicate it."-Dreamshaman32 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ThreadBare said: Are you sure you should be responding to matters that pertain to the lawsuit in an open forum? I mean, for your sake, if this proceeds to court, what's to stop Prince's legal team from combing threads like this one to see how you might respond legally? They obviously have been watching the Org (that much was clear in the press stories I read on the suit). Maybe -- again, for your sake -- you ought to stop responding to these posts, man. And maybe folks who support you should stop creating threads about the suit or, at least, trying to engage you on them. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see your counsel being cool with you responding to threads that deal expressly with the suit. Frill tho... any public defender will tell you take the fifth on your case until your day in court. Anything you say can and WILL be used against you. Especially when you keep diggin yourself into a ditch with the mess you're posting. What you think these orger are gonna hold a "Free Mattnew" protest outside the courtroom? Don't even engage this. Your best bet is to get your facts together, stop running your mouth, consult legal counsel, and reach an out of court settlement... and never speak on this issue again (which would undoubtedly be part of said settlement). And move on with your life. "That...magic, the start of something revolutionary-the Minneapolis Sound, we should cherish it and not punish prince for not being able to replicate it."-Dreamshaman32 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NuPwrSoul said: What you think these orger are gonna hold a "Free Mattnew" protest outside the courtroom?
Oh shit . Maybe some of the anti-Prince pro-Matts will donate money for his legal fees, I mean serious money...
crickets chirpin and shit "Climb in my fur." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: Ummm...Napster was an online service that allowed PC users to share digital music files stored on another user's hard drive. Audiogalaxy ran a type of centralized server, which means the company had some control over the types of files on its system. As such, it was ruled that AudioGalaxy could be held accountable for infringing materials on their systems. Isn't this kind of what's going on here? Read the ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court. And is Matt a lawyer? I have enough friends who are attorneys to know that unless you are one, it's best not to theroize. Just my opinion based on legal rulings... if you're not sure either, aren't you also theorizing? I'm basing my opinion on facts, legal rulings and logic, not what I hear from other bitter fans who claim that they know the law, or rationalize the situation by claiming that Prince is an wrong because he isn't doing as we wish or as other artists do. i repeat, if you're not sure, then aren't you also theorizing along with the rest of us? you've failed to produce facts, and when you have ventured to do so, you were wrong (napster). we don't mind you theorizing, but please, don't scold the rest of us for doing the same. you've based your opinon on theorizing. just because you hold the opposite view doesn't mean your theorizing is any more or less valid. How was I wrong about Napster? The courts stated that, regarding Napster, that the "repeated and exploitative copying of copyright works, even if the copies are not offered for sale, may constitute a commercial use." And, regarding Napster's claim that they weren't responsible for the infringing conduct of its users, they ruled that Napster "knew or had reason to know" that its users were exchanging copyrighted files and therefore could be held responsible as a "contributory" copyright infringer. This sounds like what happened here, albeit on a smaller scale. And scolding? LOL! Get a grip. The fact is, he posted songs, linked or otherwise. I'm sure that these rulings may very well apply to this. I also know that Prince's lawyers wouldn't file a suit with out ground to stand on. And since their lawyers, and I know how they do things, they definitely researched it prior to filing the suit. So based on that, and conversations I've had with other lawyers on the subject, I feel that my argument here is stronger than "I didn't post actual songs, I just linked them from other sites." And yes, based on this, I feel my "theorizing" is more valid then the emotional fluff being thrown around here. blah blah blah... addressing line 1, which is the major hole in your argument. napster DID do that. they copied the files into a database. all files passed through napster. napster is then liable. matthew is not. a link is not hosting. LOL! I would think that's an easy hole to fill. So, I supose that this comes down to the definition of hosting then? Please. Use some objectivity. I am. And that's exactly the case, coming down to the definition. That IS objective. And that's how it'll be worked out in court. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NuPwrSoul said:
Frill tho... any public defender will tell you take the fifth on your case until your day in court.
I thought pleading the fifth was actually something you did in court.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NuPwrSoul said: Props to RDHull, BlacknRising, and LCD for holdin it down in these discussions. Dayum BnR you really broke it down here. Dang, I can't wait til my DSL network is back up... can't believe I missed out on this discussion during my move. But yall held it down... "until my ISP or a judge says NO" bwaahaaahaaahahhaaa. How's that "NO" sound??
Damn, you moved too? No Broadband? Same here! This 56k bullshit ain't happenin...and my crib isn't in order, so all I have to do is read and check out Prince.org...lol | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rdhull said: People need to stop using their bias against Princes personality in their opinion..it's gotten down to petty semantics when everyone and their mama knows that deep down M's shit was wrong. Mean old Prince gave a warning and M neglected to heed that warning and now Prince is Mista Meany? Because of the so called collectors principle?---wake the fuck up and quit bullshittin.
For real...they lose all objectivity when it comes to Prince. LOL..."collectors principle." Is that an actual phrase used between them? And don't forget the response he gave to Prince when asked to remove said material..I'm sure that factored into his decision to file suit. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: Ummm...Napster was an online service that allowed PC users to share digital music files stored on another user's hard drive. Audiogalaxy ran a type of centralized server, which means the company had some control over the types of files on its system. As such, it was ruled that AudioGalaxy could be held accountable for infringing materials on their systems. Isn't this kind of what's going on here? Read the ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court. And is Matt a lawyer? I have enough friends who are attorneys to know that unless you are one, it's best not to theroize. Just my opinion based on legal rulings... if you're not sure either, aren't you also theorizing? I'm basing my opinion on facts, legal rulings and logic, not what I hear from other bitter fans who claim that they know the law, or rationalize the situation by claiming that Prince is an wrong because he isn't doing as we wish or as other artists do. i repeat, if you're not sure, then aren't you also theorizing along with the rest of us? you've failed to produce facts, and when you have ventured to do so, you were wrong (napster). we don't mind you theorizing, but please, don't scold the rest of us for doing the same. you've based your opinon on theorizing. just because you hold the opposite view doesn't mean your theorizing is any more or less valid. How was I wrong about Napster? The courts stated that, regarding Napster, that the "repeated and exploitative copying of copyright works, even if the copies are not offered for sale, may constitute a commercial use." And, regarding Napster's claim that they weren't responsible for the infringing conduct of its users, they ruled that Napster "knew or had reason to know" that its users were exchanging copyrighted files and therefore could be held responsible as a "contributory" copyright infringer. This sounds like what happened here, albeit on a smaller scale. And scolding? LOL! Get a grip. The fact is, he posted songs, linked or otherwise. I'm sure that these rulings may very well apply to this. I also know that Prince's lawyers wouldn't file a suit with out ground to stand on. And since their lawyers, and I know how they do things, they definitely researched it prior to filing the suit. So based on that, and conversations I've had with other lawyers on the subject, I feel that my argument here is stronger than "I didn't post actual songs, I just linked them from other sites." And yes, based on this, I feel my "theorizing" is more valid then the emotional fluff being thrown around here. blah blah blah... addressing line 1, which is the major hole in your argument. napster DID do that. they copied the files into a database. all files passed through napster. napster is then liable. matthew is not. a link is not hosting. LOL! I would think that's an easy hole to fill. So, I supose that this comes down to the definition of hosting then? Please. Use some objectivity. I am. And that's exactly the case, coming down to the definition. That IS objective. And that's how it'll be worked out in court. Oh, so now I suppose you're psychic, or have telekinetic powers that will allow you to influence the judge to ensure that "that's how it'll be worked out in court." It ain't objective if you got your "definition defense" from some damn posts on the net. Just like it was posted here...the case with the DVD codes being offered via link...I looked that up too. If the Napster ruling doesn't apply...Basically site publishers were sued for making available online, or POSTING LINKS TO, software that descrambles the code meant to prevent DVDs from being copied. Now, I would say that is relevant to this case too. I would say that this provides a precedent. Would you? Be objective. Anyway, noce chatting today, I'm off to make some ends. I look forward to reading your comments. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NuPwrSoul said: ThreadBare said: Are you sure you should be responding to matters that pertain to the lawsuit in an open forum? I mean, for your sake, if this proceeds to court, what's to stop Prince's legal team from combing threads like this one to see how you might respond legally? They obviously have been watching the Org (that much was clear in the press stories I read on the suit). Maybe -- again, for your sake -- you ought to stop responding to these posts, man. And maybe folks who support you should stop creating threads about the suit or, at least, trying to engage you on them. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see your counsel being cool with you responding to threads that deal expressly with the suit. Frill tho... any public defender will tell you take the fifth on your case until your day in court. Anything you say can and WILL be used against you. Especially when you keep diggin yourself into a ditch with the mess you're posting. What you think these orger are gonna hold a "Free Mattnew" protest outside the courtroom? Don't even engage this. Your best bet is to get your facts together, stop running your mouth, consult legal counsel, and reach an out of court settlement... and never speak on this issue again (which would undoubtedly be part of said settlement). And move on with your life. Exactly. Thanks to BnR and the rest of y'all for the enlightenment. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NuPwrSoul said: ThreadBare said: Are you sure you should be responding to matters that pertain to the lawsuit in an open forum? I mean, for your sake, if this proceeds to court, what's to stop Prince's legal team from combing threads like this one to see how you might respond legally? They obviously have been watching the Org (that much was clear in the press stories I read on the suit). Maybe -- again, for your sake -- you ought to stop responding to these posts, man. And maybe folks who support you should stop creating threads about the suit or, at least, trying to engage you on them. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see your counsel being cool with you responding to threads that deal expressly with the suit. Frill tho... any public defender will tell you take the fifth on your case until your day in court. Anything you say can and WILL be used against you. Especially when you keep diggin yourself into a ditch with the mess you're posting. What you think these orger are gonna hold a "Free Mattnew" protest outside the courtroom? Don't even engage this. Your best bet is to get your facts together, stop running your mouth, consult legal counsel, and reach an out of court settlement... and never speak on this issue again (which would undoubtedly be part of said settlement). And move on with your life. Looks like he took youz guys advice & shut up. No more chatty Cathy. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. [This message was edited Wed Oct 2 9:56:31 PDT 2002 by ThreadBare] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
joeycoco said: NuPwrSoul said:
Frill tho... any public defender will tell you take the fifth on your case until your day in court.
I thought pleading the fifth was actually something you did in court. No, the "you have the right to remain silent" advice (popularly known as Miranda rights after a famous case) to every defendant at the time of apprehension derives from the fifth. You have the right to NOT incriminate yourself... that is a right that you can invoke at anytime, whether or not you are being prosecuted in a court of law. "That...magic, the start of something revolutionary-the Minneapolis Sound, we should cherish it and not punish prince for not being able to replicate it."-Dreamshaman32 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NuPwrSoul said: joeycoco said: NuPwrSoul said:
Frill tho... any public defender will tell you take the fifth on your case until your day in court.
I thought pleading the fifth was actually something you did in court. No, the "you have the right to remain silent" advice (popularly known as Miranda rights after a famous case) to every defendant at the time of apprehension derives from the fifth. You have the right to NOT incriminate yourself... that is a right that you can invoke at anytime, whether or not you are being prosecuted in a court of law. My point is that you told him to take the fifth 'till the court date. I don't see why he should speak out in court, It's almost always better to let an attorney do the talking for you when you can. Other than in a court of law I don't see why anyone would argue you don't have the right to remain silent anyway. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Can anyone remember the Prince Spaghetti commercial? It started off as if it were a Prince concert then it would show the box of spaghetti. He thought it was funny. Warner Brothers didn't they sued the spaghetti company. Before you all get bent out of shape of the lawsuits and such his present wife is running his holding company. If anyone one knows what a holding company is let me splain it. This company holds all copyrights and would protect those copyrights from confict. etc and so forth she is a JW this religion is more of a cult then a religion. He is possibly paying his 10% of his income through this holding company. giving them power of attorney to use his name and also license out this same copyrighted material. For example to be used in commercials or in movies. Big Tithe & offerings when you make millions. sorry if that was over your head...jump up and try to catch the point next time. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
queen627 said: Can anyone remember the Prince Spaghetti commercial? It started off as if it were a Prince concert then it would show the box of spaghetti. He thought it was funny. Warner Brothers didn't they sued the spaghetti company. Before you all get bent out of shape of the lawsuits and such his present wife is running his holding company. If anyone one knows what a holding company is let me splain it. This company holds all copyrights and would protect those copyrights from confict. etc and so forth she is a JW this religion is more of a cult then a religion. He is possibly paying his 10% of his income through this holding company. giving them power of attorney to use his name and also license out this same copyrighted material. For example to be used in commercials or in movies. Big Tithe & offerings when you make millions.
English version, please. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: Ummm...Napster was an online service that allowed PC users to share digital music files stored on another user's hard drive. Audiogalaxy ran a type of centralized server, which means the company had some control over the types of files on its system. As such, it was ruled that AudioGalaxy could be held accountable for infringing materials on their systems. Isn't this kind of what's going on here? Read the ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court. And is Matt a lawyer? I have enough friends who are attorneys to know that unless you are one, it's best not to theroize. Just my opinion based on legal rulings... if you're not sure either, aren't you also theorizing? I'm basing my opinion on facts, legal rulings and logic, not what I hear from other bitter fans who claim that they know the law, or rationalize the situation by claiming that Prince is an wrong because he isn't doing as we wish or as other artists do. i repeat, if you're not sure, then aren't you also theorizing along with the rest of us? you've failed to produce facts, and when you have ventured to do so, you were wrong (napster). we don't mind you theorizing, but please, don't scold the rest of us for doing the same. you've based your opinon on theorizing. just because you hold the opposite view doesn't mean your theorizing is any more or less valid. How was I wrong about Napster? The courts stated that, regarding Napster, that the "repeated and exploitative copying of copyright works, even if the copies are not offered for sale, may constitute a commercial use." And, regarding Napster's claim that they weren't responsible for the infringing conduct of its users, they ruled that Napster "knew or had reason to know" that its users were exchanging copyrighted files and therefore could be held responsible as a "contributory" copyright infringer. This sounds like what happened here, albeit on a smaller scale. And scolding? LOL! Get a grip. The fact is, he posted songs, linked or otherwise. I'm sure that these rulings may very well apply to this. I also know that Prince's lawyers wouldn't file a suit with out ground to stand on. And since their lawyers, and I know how they do things, they definitely researched it prior to filing the suit. So based on that, and conversations I've had with other lawyers on the subject, I feel that my argument here is stronger than "I didn't post actual songs, I just linked them from other sites." And yes, based on this, I feel my "theorizing" is more valid then the emotional fluff being thrown around here. blah blah blah... addressing line 1, which is the major hole in your argument. napster DID do that. they copied the files into a database. all files passed through napster. napster is then liable. matthew is not. a link is not hosting. LOL! I would think that's an easy hole to fill. So, I supose that this comes down to the definition of hosting then? Please. Use some objectivity. Um, you are wrong and Aaron is right. Napster hosted the songs, Audiogalaxy enabled PTP transferring, which is how Kazaa works. Whoever has those files stored on their server is hosting the songs. You do not understand the internet and now must shut up. And enough of this talk about filling holes, gentlemen, this is a family site. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
queen627 said: This company holds all copyrights and would protect those copyrights from confict. etc and so forth she is a JW this religion is more of a cult then a religion. He is possibly paying his 10% of his income through this holding company. giving them power of attorney to use his name and also license out this same copyrighted material. For example to be used in commercials or in movies. Big Tithe & offerings when you make millions.
:O | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
tommyalma said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: AaronForever said: BlackandRising said: Ummm...Napster was an online service that allowed PC users to share digital music files stored on another user's hard drive. Audiogalaxy ran a type of centralized server, which means the company had some control over the types of files on its system. As such, it was ruled that AudioGalaxy could be held accountable for infringing materials on their systems. Isn't this kind of what's going on here? Read the ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court. And is Matt a lawyer? I have enough friends who are attorneys to know that unless you are one, it's best not to theroize. Just my opinion based on legal rulings... if you're not sure either, aren't you also theorizing? I'm basing my opinion on facts, legal rulings and logic, not what I hear from other bitter fans who claim that they know the law, or rationalize the situation by claiming that Prince is an wrong because he isn't doing as we wish or as other artists do. i repeat, if you're not sure, then aren't you also theorizing along with the rest of us? you've failed to produce facts, and when you have ventured to do so, you were wrong (napster). we don't mind you theorizing, but please, don't scold the rest of us for doing the same. you've based your opinon on theorizing. just because you hold the opposite view doesn't mean your theorizing is any more or less valid. How was I wrong about Napster? The courts stated that, regarding Napster, that the "repeated and exploitative copying of copyright works, even if the copies are not offered for sale, may constitute a commercial use." And, regarding Napster's claim that they weren't responsible for the infringing conduct of its users, they ruled that Napster "knew or had reason to know" that its users were exchanging copyrighted files and therefore could be held responsible as a "contributory" copyright infringer. This sounds like what happened here, albeit on a smaller scale. And scolding? LOL! Get a grip. The fact is, he posted songs, linked or otherwise. I'm sure that these rulings may very well apply to this. I also know that Prince's lawyers wouldn't file a suit with out ground to stand on. And since their lawyers, and I know how they do things, they definitely researched it prior to filing the suit. So based on that, and conversations I've had with other lawyers on the subject, I feel that my argument here is stronger than "I didn't post actual songs, I just linked them from other sites." And yes, based on this, I feel my "theorizing" is more valid then the emotional fluff being thrown around here. blah blah blah... addressing line 1, which is the major hole in your argument. napster DID do that. they copied the files into a database. all files passed through napster. napster is then liable. matthew is not. a link is not hosting. LOL! I would think that's an easy hole to fill. So, I supose that this comes down to the definition of hosting then? Please. Use some objectivity. Um, you are wrong and Aaron is right. Napster hosted the songs, Audiogalaxy enabled PTP transferring, which is how Kazaa works. Whoever has those files stored on their server is hosting the songs. You do not understand the internet and now must shut up. And enough of this talk about filling holes, gentlemen, this is a family site. Oh lawd...another one...for the sake of argument, who the fuck cares? My point is hosting, providing links, etc...you're still providing content to be downloaded. The end result of providing a link is the passing on of something from one source to another. Therefore, providing a link, if you asses wanna stick with that, makes his involvement at the very least "contributory." Rulings are made with room for interpretation. So interpret and stop trying hype up this host vs link thing. It's almost as bad as the "twinkie defense." But that one actually worked. Understand the internet...lol! How goofy does that sound? No, I'm not a dork who sits at a desk looking for things that matter not, trying to decipher this or that. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: queen627 said: This company holds all copyrights and would protect those copyrights from confict. etc and so forth she is a JW this religion is more of a cult then a religion. He is possibly paying his 10% of his income through this holding company. giving them power of attorney to use his name and also license out this same copyrighted material. For example to be used in commercials or in movies. Big Tithe & offerings when you make millions.
:O LMMFAO!!! This emoticon response had me rolling...perfect response! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't think Prince has a problem with File sharing but just Organized Bootlegging and the guy at FreeMyHeart.com
Understand this: Prince has people lurking here and other places (I'm assuming OkayPlayer.com as well). His people on The Net have seen this guy's post regarding Mr. Nelson. He's basically spouting garbage about Prince so bad that it makes you wonder why (now) he's saying that he's a fan (in defense). It's a "get-back". I'm sure his people have found several other people linking and sharing, but he nabs this guy. Again. I you are honest, and have read this guy's diatribes about Mr. Nelson (even before Jehovah, Larry, Internet Lawsuits, etc.), you know he was due for a check-up. He's viscous as hell on OKplayer. How can he diss Prince. How can he label Prince a "has-been" and crazy, then link boots to his latest material?!! D'Angelo, Me'Shell ?uest, Bilal are all better than him? He needs to shut-up and retire? Oh by the way, I have a friend who has some "ONA Boots" (a friend who may actually be himself on another website). Living in a Studio Apartment without a job with (probably DSL or Cable) Internet access isn't that bad of a lifestyle. I can see how he could survive off of boots. Again, Prince doesn't seem to care too much about sharing, and trading because he's been connected with Napster before. He checked this guy because of his arrogance. Of course, Prince isn't going to bury this guy. He'll probably waste more money than he'll ever gain in return. If you're off The Bandwagon (as a fan), get off "The Gravy-Train". [This message was edited Wed Oct 2 15:23:53 PDT 2002 by NGSPW7200] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NGSPW7200 said: I don't think Prince has a problem with File sharing but just Organized Bootlegging and the guy at FreeMyHeart.com
but "the guy at freemyheart" is more akin to file-sharing, if you want to use an example of what prince is for and against. and he wasn't even putting them on his site, just links. he's not a bootlegger Understand this: Prince has people lurking here and other places (I'm assuming OkayPlayer.com as well). His people on The Net have seen this guy's post regarding Mr. Nelson. He's basically spouting garbage about Prince so bad that it makes you wonder why (now) he's saying that he's a fan (in defense).
since when did it become illegal to criticize an artist? if this is what Prince is suing him for, and if they bring up in court any supposed attitude matthew gave them in response to their frivolous and unfounded lawsuit, then the judge will hopefully see it as Prince taking out a grudge on people who say less-than-nice things about him and Prince will be laughed out of court. this isn't the first time Prince has gone to court over some meaningless bullshit and lost. but hopefully it'll be the last. It's a "get-back". I'm sure his people have found several other people linking and sharing, but he nabs this guy. Again. I you are honest, and have read this guy's diatribes about Mr. Nelson (even before Jehovah, Larry, Internet Lawsuits, etc.), you know he was due for a check-up.
So Prince is the thought-police now? I should rephrase that. Prince has tried to be the thought-police for years now. But Prince is above criticism? You think a lawsuit filed on that basis has a leg to stand on? He's viscous as hell on OKplayer.
so? what's your point? How can he diss Prince. How can he label Prince a "has-been" and crazy, then link boots to his latest material?!!
you're obviously not a Prince fan. it's quite easy. D'Angelo, Me'Shell ?uest, Bilal are all better than him? He needs to shut-up and retire? Oh by the way, I have a friend who has some "ONA Boots" (a friend who may actually be himself on another website).
Living in a Studio Apartment without a job with (probably DSL or Cable) Internet access isn't that bad of a lifestyle. I can see how he could survive off of boots.
ummm... he's not selling boots. so he's not "living off of" them. are you really that stupid? oh, and by the way, i know for a fact that matthew is on dial-up. Again, Prince doesn't seem to care too much about sharing, and trading because he's been connected with Napster before. He checked this guy because of his arrogance.
which makes this a completely frivolous lawsuit. Of course, Prince isn't going to bury this guy. He'll probably waste more money than he'll ever gain in return.
probably. that's Prince's specialty since about 1993. If you're off The Bandwagon (as a fan), get off "The Gravy-Train".
how ignorant do you have to be to realize that if he's not selling bootlegs or even hosting them on his site that he isn't profiting from them? think before you go on a rant. do some research to find out what it is you're spouting off about. it's worth it in the long run. you won't end up looking foolish like you did here. [This message was edited Wed Oct 2 15:54:33 PDT 2002 by AaronForever] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |