I can't believe so many of you act like Prince is personally responsible for this.

Prince has hired people to look after the rights to his stuff on the internet - to protect his own intellectiual property. He himself does not scour YouTube. Or email warnings. No way. He's got other (and way better) things to do with his time than to deal with all this administrative work.
One of the people hired by the person Prince put in charge of this "operation" got a bit overzealous (probably because they have taken care of all the big and obvious cases, and feel they have to do _something_ for their paycheck, so they dig deeper - too deep), and the shit hit the fan (no pun intended) because it's all blown out of proportion.

Yes, I personally think it's a silly story, but things like this happens.

Prince himself is way above this. Why should he comment, be blamed for or even KNOW about this little story? He has people to care of that stuff. So he can do the things HE does best - create!

[Edited 11/1/07 14:01pm]

Jacob67 said:

Jacob67 said:

HE IS IN FULL CONTROL!

PRINCE IS A CONTROL FREAK.

nobody in his camp does anything without him telling them to

fcukthepolice said:

Do you really believe that?
How on earth do you think he's getting _anything_ done if he micromanages on this level?


Yes, Prince gave someone the job to "make sure any material braching my intellectual rights is removed from the internet. Here's your budget".

No, Prince didn't say: "Bob George! I spent an insane amount of hours on YouTube the past days - using parts of all my song titles as searchwords and watching every video all the way through - and I came over this 30-second homevideo with a baby dancing to one of my tunes. Make sure the poster gets a seriuos threat so she removes it. And if she objects, send a couple of lawyers after her! I don't care what it takes - I want that clip removed! Whatever the cost!"

Jacob67 said:

Because your last couple of posts have ended with a laughing icon, I am assuming you are kidding in your posts right?

VelvetJ said:

No, I'm laughing because some people act like Prince is personally responsible for this mishap - and some even think he should personally take blame for it.

Oh, and I think the fictive Prince monologue I wrote was hilarious! It was soooo surreal!

toots said:

oh no, i know he is one lol...but seriously...the word "psycho" is coming to mind now more than ever!!...what shocks me is that a baby is in the video, and with prince loving kids so much...well...i would hope he would give the baby a break lol...

"...the legal controversy has changed the way Lenz thinks, she said, every time she picks up her digital camera. "I'm constantly thinking about what's going on in the background, what's on the TV, what's on the CD player, the characters on my kids' clothes, the characters on the toys that they are playing with,'' she said. "

Well this is all to the good since that's exactly what you should be doing once you've become a media-producer. I know most people have not clicked with this concept, that they can move from being a consumer to being a producer of media, but that was the big, democratic, as yet underrealised, promise of digital media.

But what the established media companies have done as this 'low-end' production by 'users' creeps up on them, has been to marginalise it's potential to compete with them, to be as valid as them. What the media establishment fears is that advertisers may someday prefer to pay users posting popular media on the web rather than media companies hosting them.


When you use your camera with the intention of broadcasting to the world, you're a producer and you need to be aware of the legal considerations.
To be thinking of yourself as a consumer 'just posting pictures of a baby' is to have been sold your position in the scheme of things.

And the next move as a consumer-turned-produer? GET PAID!

Now run and tell your mama bout that!
[Edited 11/2/07 6:26am]

When you use your camera with the intention of broadcasting to the world, you're a producer and you need to be aware of the legal considerations.
To be thinking of yourself as a consumer 'just posting pictures of a baby' is to have been sold your position in the scheme of things.
[/quote]

One word. Bollocks.

One word: CONSUMER!

NPGoperata said:

One word. Bollocks.[/quote]

Jacob67 said:

If Prince is hiring these people to do this work on his behalf, then yes he is responsible for addressing the backlash.

Tom said:

no if about it

Prince will never address us

He could just take 5 mins to post a quick note but no we are beneath him.

Its this type of shit, that puts me right off Prince. Hello this is a democracy, someone should be able 2 dance 2 and appreciate a song without 50 coming down on their ass.
Like my partner said yesterday after we read and discussed Scar Tissue by Anthony Kledis, a great musician but a complete asshole and thats how I feel about Prince.

tane1976 said:

why is anthony an asshole?

His bandmates actually like him

SexyBeautifulOne said:

oh no!!!

i sang kareoke 2nite in curly wig & painted on tash. totally murdered 'take me with u'
hope 2 god it doesn't end up on u tube...

Well ya know, any video you post out there is a form of publishing or broadcasting. It's surprising sometimes how few people realize that you really can't put somebody else's work within your own. If a newspaper or news show did that they'd be sued in a minute. I think that in this situation (which of course it wasn't Prince himself shutting it down -- he probably didn't even know the video existed), the policy was across the board to just protect material from being out there in poor quality or used in ways it wasn't intended. When somebody decides to protect their property they have to do it as an "all or nothing" approach or else it has no merit, so this baby thing got caught in the crossfire.

IMO, I think 3121 is trying to clear out all the raggedy, poor quality clips so they can provide fresh material that is so over the top it will blow our minds. Something REALLY worthy of the NPG's music. And an artist's site should be the place where that happens, not an internet full of junk none of us will ever watch just eating up bandwidth.

ZombieKitten said:

BINGO! Thanks for the link.

The points raised by the article you posted are what's really worthy of discussion IMO. These 2 quotes stood out for me but I hope everyone reads the whole article.

"The problem is it's all lies, wishful thinking and irresponsible promises"

"Remaking the internet to invade privacy and silence our conversations is a crummy idea but even worse is the fact that it won't actually stop or even slow infringement. But so long as there are technology companies with magic beans to sell-and desperate ageing entertainment execs willing to buy them we'll have to keep fighting."



That's whats really up and to me the article, especially these two statements suggests that these so-called internet policing organizations are little more than swindlers just as I suspected.

babynoz said:

exactly

ZombieKitten said:

Don;t be fooled by any smoke screens! 'Copy infringements' is a smoke screen to take away our freedoms on the net to post and view what we want.

The globalists want to net censored and will not stop. Too much info is passed.

fcukthepolice said:

Sexybeautifulone tried to bring up a similar issue early on but not many people picked up on it.

Bill Moyers did an excellent piece on the issue this past Friday about how the FCC is trying to sneak through more deregulation and how this will affect the internet.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers...e_t_1.html

Anyone who knowingly empowers any supposed internet policing organization needs to take a look at the larger implications.

Tom said:

Precisely. You're absolutely right. He dealt it. So, he has to smell it.

babynoz said:

Exactly

say hello to prisonplanet

Hear about the new laws in the U.K?

They want people to saty in school till 18.
It's about control.

Our civil liberties are being thrown out of the window

Dickhead.

fcukthepolice said:

I think it is a brilliant idea to keep kids in school until they are 18. It would also be better if the kids took on there subject choices at a later age as no child really knows what they want to be when they just turn 14. Having this done at a later age to do GSCE’S then onto A-Levels may give them a chance to think what job they wish to do when older and studying maybe less pressured they may actually enjoy course work then hopefully wish to do further education in college or university.

Sadly just now in the UK many children do drop out off school or cut classes at ages 14 to 15 due to the pressures of school life, and children in the UK have to have at least 5 GCSE’S “C” and above to get into college or to get an interview for a job, if you do not have at least 5 GCSE’S most employee’s will discard the CV and not give the young ones a chance.

If making compulsory for children to stay in school until they are 18 and this gives the children less stress and better opportunities in life then I am all for it.

This further proves what I said about the guy. Too bad muthafuckas can't take their goddamned golden, rose-tinted 3-D Shades off for one, solitary second. If anyone supports this....."YOU'RE NUTS!!!!" "A kid.....dancing....with Prince's Music. Oh, shit! Let's call the FCC!!!!" Riiiiight. Get over yourself, already, you pint-sized egg nog carton of a man!

katt said:

School is a joke. A complete waste of time.

Education is great and it would be nice if people started to get one. That doesn't mean in schools.

fcukthepolice said: