http://www.dailytech.com/...le9709.htm

The prince tells the Pirate Bay "Party over, oops out of time"

The Pirate Bay is the Internet's largest Torrent tracker, and has been for some time now. However while other trackers and piracy advocates tend not last very long, The Pirate Bay is actively stirring the pot.

For a short time the organization tried to raise money to buy the island nation of Sealand, and more recently it obtained the ifpi.com domain, formerly occupied by the IFPI, the RIAA's parent affiliate. However, its legal battles have come to boil, with Swedish authorities issuing charges against five Pirate Bay admins -- only two of which have actually been identified.

Now The Pirate Bay has a surprising new nemesis in the form of the chest-baring, fashioning setting, funk-rock jammer Prince. Prince, recently gave away his album for free in the British newspaper the Mail On Sunday, infuriating his record label.

Now Prince has taken a surprising stand in the other direction.

Prince Rogers Nelson sees it as his right to defend his copyrights against all who might dare commit what he sees as infringements upon them.

Prince plans to launch a triad of attacks, with lawsuits in the U.S., Sweden, and France (France, being known for its strong copyright protections), which aims to put The Pirate Bay's funky feel-good days to an end. Prince is also suing companies who advertise on The Pirate Bay.

Prince added some hired guns in the form of John Giacobbi, President of Web Sheriff, and the rest of Web Sheriff to help coordinate his fiery legal onslaught upon on the pirates.

Giacobbi already launched into allegations stating that The Pirate Bay makes $70,000 monthly in advertising revenue, a charge The Pirate Bay denies.

The Pirate Bay is not the only one who Prince is hoping to make cry like a wounded dove. Prince stated his desire to "reclaim the Internet" and in recent months has become a champion for militant copyright protection, announcing that he would take legal action against YouTube and Ebay, as well as The Pirate Bay.

YouTube chief counsel, Zahavah Levine, apparently unimpressed by Prince's legal wrath issued a unconcerned response, "Most content owners understand that we respect copyrights. We work every day to help them manage their content, and we are developing state-of-the-art tools to let them do that even better. We have great partnerships with major music labels all over world that understand the benefit of using YouTube as another way to communicate with their fans."

The Pirate Bay also responded, with Pirate Bay admin brokep stating that the organization was not been contacted by Prince, and that Web Sheriff has been sending them take down notices for a prolonged period, which The Pirate Bay's filtering software conveniently trashes.

However, even with the world's greatest funkmaster on their heels, all is business as usual at The Pirate Bay. Just last week prosecuters in Sweden vowed to take action against the organization, even though the site continues to adhere to Swedsh copyright laws.

Giacobbi, of Web Sheriff countered, "They'll either have to come out and fight or just try and ignore it. In that case, we're going to win a default judgment against them. This could be a ticking time bomb for them. They can't outrun this. We are very confident."

There have also been unconfirmed reports of Prince shutting down fan web sites for use of his images, lyrics, songs, or likeness.

This article title gave me the giggles in the worst ways.

And he proposes to get French and US law enforced in Sweden how?

I mean seriously wtf is the point in getting default judgements in the countries people are not even in?

Dead easy to get a default judgement in a country where there is no defendant

A pointless exercise designed to give WS something to crow about

Pathetic, truly pathetic

As for the legal action in Sweden, lets see if that actually happens and who wins

I know who my money is on and they aint purple

Peace8Love said:

i never knew about this site before he decided to sue it but they definately have an interesting way of dealing with the legal stuff

.

b3xy said:

The underground guys have always had this kind of attitude. They play the anti-establishment, Robin Hood card, but when people see the damage done over time, they will recognize them for the problem that they are.

That response is funny, though.

Eye think that trying 2 control what is done in the internet is virtually impossible! And any1 attempting it, will b rendered helpless. Even if in court, the Web Sheriff were granted the right 2 do as they please (as they'v done in the past), they still wouldn't b capable 2 stop the vast # of people 4rm doing as they please. There will always b pirating, and bootlegging. The web is an immense system of programs and endless capabilities...to stop it u may as well try 2 control the astrological movements in space.
[Edited 11/19/07 17:37pm]

PurpleRain747 said:

It's true. There are always guys that will stay one step ahead of the technology but on the other end, there are many businesses that are being hurt. If they really wanted to make a dent, even a big one, they could.

Unfortunately there are many small companies that will never develop because of pirating. These should be the poster children for the anti-fileshare campaigns. It won't hit the guys at Pirate Bay until their children can't find work because so many fledgling companies were ruined by actions like theirs. Everything balances out.

In many ways, it's a noble thing that Prince is attempting to do but it must drain so much of his brain that could be put to better use...doing things like finding a small venue to play in NYC.

I suspect he'll, one day, wake up and take the words of one of his songs to heart "It's going down like this system of things". If it has to go down, before it gets better, let it play out. Just make sure to play it out with a hot track.

I honestly don't know where Prince finds the time for things like this. Between spirituality, music and all the temper tantrums, it's a wonder he has time to sleep.

Markland said:

lol, youre a twerp

violetblues said:

And that was obviously a well thought out, articulate, convincing opinion you gave there

why is he bothering with pirate bay? idiots they may be but they're hardly making much of a difference as regards music, let alone music like prince. their "all official prince albums" torrent has a whopping four seeders and seven downloaders. a torrent of one of the o2 shows has one seeder and one downloader. the best planet earth can manage is 7 seeders and 3 downloaders. and you cant even get individual torrents of most prince albums. its much more a site for television, movies and software than music and the only music it does distribute heavily is stuff like britney which is going to sell huge amounts anyway.

all he's doing is giving them more attention for very little reward.
[Edited 11/19/07 18:51pm]

Markland said:

because thats about all i could muster for you.

let me ask you this thoe.....

why are you shaking your little ass and pom-poms for these guys anyway, lol and the article quotes your supposed advertising revenues also.

dude,... i dont wonder why you dont spend your time helping the homeless or something usefull like that, but at least dont trash people that work their ass off not only make a living but to entertain you all,

whatever dude, enjoy youreself.

i only wish this guy who claims to shun the past would be more attentive to the creation of his current music than controlling the consumption of past glory.As long as evidence of his past exist he ( as he once said in a chris rock interview) "cant beat that guy" circa 198somethin.Yes there are some who get 15 minutes of fame from this but he's had 30 years of fame and still seems overwhelmed by it.

anon said:

I don't agree with what you're saying. Why do you think pirated software, music, games, and applications exist at all? Because people already "can't find jobs" and therefore can't afford things they want to enjoy, so they download it for free instead of spending money they don't have on "luxuries." I'd say it's the poor people's right to seek out and download things for free.

lspear76 said:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

lspear76 said:

Come off it. Surely no one in their right mind can believe that.

I think pirating movies, games, music etc that can be bought in shops is wrong. You're stealing fron the artist and the label/distributer or whatever.

Giving away an audience recording of a 20 year old concert that would never see the light of day otherwise is a wholey different matter to me. I have a few of the latter, and all they make me want to do is go out and buy more of an artists material (yes, legally).

When I got my first such concert recording on cassette in the early 1990's, I owned maybe 4 or 5 of the particular artists albums. Now, I own everything that has been officially released. 30+ albums. All bought and paid for, and all because there were a few songs on that boot that I liked.

Maybe not justification for piracy, but in my case, it had a possitive effect on the artist in questions bank balance.

violetblues said:

The great thing about free speech is everyone gets a go even you regardless of how assinine that opinion is

This latest posturing by the prince legal team over The Pirate Bay is exactly that, posturing

Its a bit like suing you for a traffic offence in a court in outer mongolia when you have never even been there

Easy to get a judgement in absentia, but a waste of time designed to provide more soundbites

There are two reasons this whole "lets go out and threaten to sue someone" ticks me off

The first is I dont like anyone telling me what to say and where to say it, which is precisely what WS is doing by demanding princefansunited is taken down

The second is I dont like people telling me what to do with my property, and thats precisely what any photographs I take no matter who of are, MY property

Now if you dont mind being told what to do and what to say thats fine

You carry on sniping from the cheap seats

I think this whole thing is stupid. If other companies took the same view as those of the recording industry then we wouldn't be able to do anything. Imagine buying a car from Ford...but Ford says that you can only drive during certain times of the day and only on certain roads, and that you can't share a ride with anyone. Imagine if you went to the grocery store and bought bread, but the bread company said that you can't use it to make a sandwich, you can only use it to make toast and that you can't share not even one slice with anyone. What if you bought a tv and Sony said that you can only watch certain tv stations and that you and only you can watch it? What if it was like that with every manufacturer, developer, artist, laborer...etc. Why are we being forced to pay for cd's but it's not considered ours? Why are we purchasing music but we don't own it? We buy the cd but it's not ours. No matter what else it is, if we buy it we own it and we can do whatever the hell we want with it. But record companies who rip us all off...even the artists that make the music are telling us what we can and can't do with the cd's that WE PAID for? That is stupid. If you want the artist to make the money they deserve then control the record companies from controlling them, their music and ripping them off for millions. Force the record companies to revamp their greedy contracts. Why aren't the record companies being controlled? No, instead they want to go after us for sharing some music and bring a little joy to other people. They want to sue the people that can't afford to buy their music so they download it for free...and don't give me any crap about them affording a computer to download but can't afford a cd. I know a lot of people that don't have computers. They instead go to the library or a friends house and download.

I think that maybe the first year of a new album should be controlled. But after the surge of popularity of the song or album is done, they can loosen the sharing restrictions. there is a happy medium for us all...FIND IT!!!

I think from now on anything I buy I'm going to share it with my neighbors and friends...I hope maytag doesn't come after me!!!

lspear76 said:

That made me laugh. I know you're playing D's Advocate or having fun so I won't reply. Funny.

Skillz4 said:

lol, where could i download a free ford!!

Websheriff --> <--What someone needs to do to him.

Skillz4 said:

"greedy contracts" doesnt hold much weight as an excuse anymore, since only two thirds of people paid to download the radiohead record

theghostoftonym said:

And the average they paid was £2.90

Oh, to be in England!
We might be crap at football, but at least our legal system doesn't permit this nonsense.

LordMarcusMont said:

Exactly, which is why a british lawyer based in the Uk is ahving to use the legal systems in the USA France and god alone knows where else

Why? Because little if anything of their ridiculous case would stand up in an English court

violetblues said:

You may not be able to download a Ford but you can buy a used one. So Skillz4's point is valid. Suppose Ford said suddenly decided that since the economy is in such a rut that you could no longer purchase a friends 2003 Explorer for say $5000 because there are plenty 2003 Explorers on the Ford Used Car lot for $15000.

Or your Grandmother couldn't give you her Lincoln that she no longer drives that's sitting in her driveway because that would prevent you from going to a dealership to buy a new one.

Or what if all of the Big 3 US automakers got together with some lobbyists and convinced Congress that since their sales are in the slumps because people are buying Toyotas and Hondas that it should be illegal to drive cars not made by them.

Far fetched...maybe...then again...maybe not!

SexyBeautifulOne said:

That would only be a good example if you could duplicate your car and give a copy to a friend.

anon said:

I disagree since the problem isn't the copying, it's the loss of revenue. People have been copying and sharing with their friends since the invention of cassette tapes and recorders. It wasn't until the record companies started experiencing loss of revenue that it became a problem.

SexyBeautifulOne said:

But even then you weren't supposed to, but you can't track a cassette tape you copied and gave to a friend? Also, when you duplicate a tape, the quality is reduced. With digital duplicates, it's an exact copy. This is why, when you buy software, you buy a license (or a number of licenses) to use it.

When you spend six months to a year of your life programming software so you can buy a home or feed your family, and you discover that you made nothing because people are downloading without purchasing a license, you'll understand. I feel for the smaller developers most. Many are calling it quits because of this.

So yes, the problem is copying. The nature of digital product changes everything.

Thats so funny that this post was posted as a positive thing...


lol..