http://blog.wired.com/bus...sue-y.html


I like the first comment on there. Finally an intelligent defense to Prince's actions against youtube.

I think if more outspoken and intelligent people would calmly explain the copyRIGHT issue to the pirates, maybe they would understand Prince's side better.

I just think of dumb college kids in dorm rooms, drinking their beer and loading up their PC's with tons of stolen music. Sure, they are in a university but they are as dumb as a brick and can't slow down to think about the fact that they are stealing. "Oh, Prince and Eminem are rich. They don't need the money, anyway." College kids, pffft. Real intelligent answer to a big problem, you brainless twat. You aren't smart. You just know how to get a degree. Half the people I know who graduated college and have good jobs still can't spell and have bad grammar.

Sorry, I got off topic there for a second.

I am not traveling, to the article...I just wanted to state how ugly that blog word is...I hate it...it's the stupidest word on the face of the earth, and everybody's writing on one...Why couldn't they call it a "flight," or something...I would much rather type up a flight than write on a blog....To the dummy in this world that came up with that...change it before our grandchildren have to see it....please!!!!!

There are plenty of people in the world stealing music outside of the college scene...I think you're overgeneralizing quite a bit.

The post you found is more than a half year old, btw.

Doozer said:

I wholeheartedly agree with your first statement. Also, without college kids, music downloading (legal/illegal) and other important music technology would probably not be as widespread (there's good stuff about it, don't forget, I'm sure you've downloaded a track or two in your day, whether from P's Web site, iTunes or a random orger) without college students!

Tame, yes the word "blog" is annoying. I also hate the word "viral". Everyone talks about things being "viral" in the world of business and things. To me that sounds like a disease. I'm still not sure what people mean exactly or if half the time people just use the word because it's the cool word to use.

Also, as a side note, I hate the term "land line"!!!!! Everyone talks about non-cell phones as land lines. Telephones have been around since the days of Alexander Graham Bell and have never been referred to as land lines. Now, because all of a sudden these bratty new-age people and their precious cell-phones, us normal traditional phone users are forced to accept this new term "land line". No! F that shit! It's a telephone.

*****

Doozer, yes of course, but I was just choosing college students as part of the whole group of pirates out there. There are plenty of other groups that steal music. I have just had experience with college students who are going to school to become nurses and lawyers, yet they claim to be "poor college students" with a hard-drive full of stolen material. In 4 years they'll be making $100,000 a year while the musician whose music they stole will be still living out of a van in the July summer travelling around Texas with no air condition and just hoping to sell a cd or tee-shirt to get gas money to get to the next town. (run-on thought, run-on sentence)... I can't wait for the day someone invents the Napster of medicine and people start stealing drugs online and put all these yuppy, unappreciative "doctors" out of business. Doctors who make loads of money but don't have an artistic or intelligent bone in their bodies and spend their offtime drinking in meathead bars picking up dumb gold-digging blondes.

(haha can you tell I'm venting? it's all love, though)

And yes the article is from 2007. But it's only May 2008 now and I haven't had time to scan the entire internet just yet for articles on Prince's battle against youtube. This is the first I've seen that article.

Prince does not understand the culture change in media distribution. Then again, I'm not sure ANYBODY does.

But really... it's his mistake to make. He's entitled to take his toys home and play in his own yard. The idea of "oh, it's better for him so lets do it anyway" is the poison on the internet.

berniejobs said:

Viral as in a virus as in it spreads simply from person to person, hence viral marketing - something that happily passes from person to person because they want to pass it on or unwittingly not realising that it is in fact marketing - like youtube the greatest viral marketing toy at the mo.

everytime you post a link you are increasing somethings viral potential

i dont know where blog came from to me it sound like captain kirks log and maybe became a b - log so something you report about daily, probably some trekky geeks brilliant funny idea to encapsulate the whole world into an episode of startrek!

(much maligned for the most of the twentieth century the NERD has his day, with everything being on-line etc and we all talk like that now!)

every online company has b-log i guess it was better than calling it a-log and all the toilet connotations that would ensue!

i agree with the telephone thing, when companys ask if you have a landline really bugs me, why should I - does it matter which method of telephone i choose? anyhow we call them mobiles in the uk not cell-phones. That also causes confusion when you talk about your land-line mobile at home, or you walk-about phone - confused - you will be!!!!


as for Prince and his rage against copyright - to a point he is correct. But as ive posted before, you have to temper ideology with judgement. Some argue it is better to bring down the few in order to bring down the masses, in other words it is better for a few to be trampled in the wake of the greater good.

Copyright is an archaeic law and i think he should redress his views accordingly, in this age information is freely shared and to get around that 'owners' of material must think of ways to hold onto their wealth.

Before the laws of copyright painters, artists etc created their art for enjoyment few made a living or they were commissioned their art for sums of money, in this world they wish to be paid every single time it is listened to, played on air, they want paying over and over again! it is not possible with the net and the freedom of information.

I do not advocate piracy or stealing and posted that here many times, but time has changed and the world is evolving - it is time to re-evaluate 'ownership'.

Cool, thanks for posting.

Yeah, I know Bernie....I wrote to the Corporate office with Glen Beck this morning....saying that Webster is probably throwing up in his grave right now...and why can't we call it a "Flight" because it's an airborne piece of paper...and I agree with u on the viral thing as well...The land line thing doesn't really bother me....however, I see what u mean...Telephone is a Telephone...Cellular is a Cellular....

Dauphin said:

You think so? What about Planet Earth distribution in the UK and the early days of the NPG Club and the Internet? Or Musicology being given out to ticket-buyers? I definitely agree that no one understands it, but I would have to say that Prince has an inkling of what's going on or else he wouldn't be seeking alternative.

Doozer said:

Yep.

I've stolen many, many, items off the internet. OR I merely retrieved what others decided to give away...

Music, DVDs, software, games...

(DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT SO DON'T BOTHER POPPING OFF AT THE MOUTH OVER IT)

From the same blog:

While I am sympathetic to Mr. Riddick's and other content creators' need to protect their livelihoods, there are two points about which I can offer a different perspective.

The first point is regarding his characterization of Google/YouTube as an active pirate of copyrighted materials. It is more accurate to say that they are an Internet Service Provider, as defined by the DMCA; and some of their *users* are pirating copyrighted materials. No employee at YouTube willfully pirates anything, and they are, in my judgement, a DCMA-compliant ISP, since they earnestly respond to take-down requests.

The DCMA does not require an ISP to do more than to take down pirated materials when notified by copyright owners.

If YouTube is held responsible for violations of its users, the legal precedent would have exceptionally broad and chilling implications for the entire Internet. Any ISP which stores and communicates data would find themselves liable for their users' legal violations. That may be an outcome desired by commercial copyright owners, but it's not one that will be accepted by society at large.

The second point I would like to make is that the future value of copyrights is in doubt, and not just from piracy.

Before the internet, only a small fraction of the population had access to mass distribution for their creative work. That has changed. Literally anyone can reach an audience now, and some of the new content creators don't have high expectations when it comes to compensation.

This is the future: anyone can create, and anyone can distribute. You can argue that amateur productions are not as good as commercially-produced materials, but that's changing, too, as exceptionally capable equipment and software reaches consumers at ever-lower prices. The truth is that there is a vast untapped pool of talent out there, they're eager to share what they can do, and the barriers stopping them are falling.

Hence piracy alone is not going to be responsible for depressing the market value of commercial copyrights. Consumers *are* going to become accustomed to obtaining creative works for free. That cannot be stopped, nor should it.

The creative media businesses which survive the transition will be those which are able to adjust to the new market conditions - reducing the cost of production, finding new distribution channels, tapping new revenue streams. That's how capitalism works; the nimble survive, and the lead-footed don't.

Blaming Google won't turn back the clock, and a company which holds too dearly to the past may find itself relegated to it.

Even more:

OK, YouTube and other free Internet offerings are like the sample tables at Costco-- Shoppers graze, they buy what they like, and they get a sampling. It does not deter them from paying money for what they want. No one goes to Costco for free lunch.
Assuming that free content availablilty cuts into sales 1-for-1 is naive. I DL plenty of free content, watching/listening to very little of it. What I like I buy more of. I'd buy more if the price of a CD were $5 and the price of a movie were $10. There is a price at which folks would rather purchase that hunt. iTunes proved this. What cannot be purchased at any price (not marketed) will thrive on YouTube. Advice to media giants:
-1- Lower your prices
-2- If an artist/concert/song/movie is in demand, offer it for sale. Exactly!!
-3- Thin your ranks and lower your costs-- the party is over.

Tame said:

Actually a telephone IS a telephone, but a cellular is also a telephone. So, therein lies the confusion. But no need to invent a new word (landline) for a device that has been around for a century.

My name was always Bernie, but in 8th grade there were 2 other Bernies, so people made up nicknames to keep us separate. No! My name was always Bernie. It's not my fault there are two others with the same name...

And some older people (and pretenious emo types) refer to albums as "records". "Did you get the Prince record?" No, but I got the new Prince ALBUM. I didn't know the new Prince album was on vinyl. And then some people say "I found all my dad's old albums." Meanwhile, they are just 45's, but they refer to them as albums, when they are records.

The confusion lies in the fact that an album is a "collection of songs" and a record is the material that collection is recorded on to. An album can be on record, tape, CD, mp3, etc. Although, a record might be short for 'recording', so therefore a CD could be a record(ing).

But basically I can't stand when they pretentious white kids talk about music and aristocratically refer to albums as records. "Did you get the new Leonard Cohen record?" NO you douchebag, but I got the new Leonard Cohen ALBUM... ON CD!

berniejobs said:

Yeah but...If I say I got the new Prince record, You could say.."What is it On?" and I could say...solar powered laminated microbacterium.

Tame said:[quote]

berniejobs said:

No, but it would be the new Prince ALBUM that is on solar powered laminated microbacterium, not a record. Album not record.

Album - collection of songs.

Reel to reel, 8-track, record, cassette, CD, mp3, solar powered laminated microbacterium - audio formats.
[Edited 5/9/08 23:29pm]

berniejobs said:[quote]

Tame said:

Okay...when Glen calls I'll pass the word on....

Glen who?

cassingle said:

-----
"but I would have to say that Prince has an inkling of what's going on or else he wouldn't be seeking alternative."

Co-Sign P knows what is going on. He just wants to control the distribution and reap whatever financial benefits he can from his music.

Some fans just want something for free.

JimRockford said:

-----
Read what Mr.Riddick had to say. Makes a lot of sense and some of the comments that follow are made by a lot of cheap asses who do not want to pay for anything. Copyright laws are not going away anytime soon.
-----

You see, the vast majority of copyright holders (my estimate is well over 90%) in this country are actually individual creative people and small development companies like mine. Not Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Eric Schmidt. We depend on copyright protection for survival. Some of us may decide that creating a new market with free distribution of our copyrighted works is a smart choice, and some of us may not.

But the Constitution (and our current copyright laws in this country) give this choice to us, not you. Let the free market decide whether it wants to support Prince's way of doing business, and creating useful art, or it wants to put him out to pasture.

Nothing says a legitimate copyright holder cannot choose to give all of his/her work to YouTube for free if they choose to do so. YouTube deciding this for them, however, is pure and simple "stealing". There's no intelligent debate on that issue.

You are right on one point ... the 80's were simpler times ... but nowhere near as exciting as things are today!

What exactly do you expect Prince to do here ... cry for "Purple Rain"?

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

griddick@imageline2.com
[Edited 5/10/08 10:49am]

berniejobs said: