violetblues said:

The music business is sick and it should die, real music will do better without it. Prince would have agreed with this just a few years ago.
[Edited 2/4/09 15:05pm]

berarma said:

Instead he's selling out to the major labels.

violetblues said:

Youtube has licensing agreements with the majors.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Yeah keeping the music locked up, "exclusive" and for profit okly, instead of "free".

this is an endless and interesting discussion.
Though one thing comes up in my mind:When a group of fans make a website for their musical hero you can expect to find some photographs on this website.

Prince walks the street, you see him and make a picture. What makes him decide you are not allowed to post that on the internet? and on what basis (copyright control?) ?

if you do not want to be a public person stop whatever you are doing and change your life (maybe a job at K-mart?)
sort of "elvis has left the building" thing.
[Edited 2/5/09 7:48am]

Tremolina said:

I believe Warner Bros asked for Youtube to remove their content from the site.

ufoclub said:

Perceptive. Fans posting low quality videos of live concert footage from handheld cameras is not doing him any harm financially. Neither is video of a baby dancing to one of his songs.However, if he bothered to release more high quality concert videos he might actually turn a profit.

Prince, a decade ago, might have been an Internet visionary. Prince, today, seems like a spiteful prick.

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Because they want more money for a new license term.

Tremolina said:

False. Look for other WB artists like Alanis and Madonna on youtube, there's thousands of videos. Besides, live recordings and other prince non-musical recordings aren't under WB control.

It's his business, and his right.

berarma said:

What's false? that there are no more WB videos on you tube or that they want more money for a new license?

Yes, copyright all of your work to the fullest.

Tremolina said:

The whole sentence "I believe WB asked ... because ..." isn't Prince related. WB may have had an argument with youtube in the paste but that's not the reason for removing all Prince related videos.

berarma said:

Ah I see okay, but we weren't talking specifically about Prince video's on Youtube, but WB owned videos in general.

I would guess Prince's video's aren't on Youtube because Prince doesn't want it.

ToraToraDreams said:

viewaskew said:

I don't think so. The minute he releases a DVD of any kind it will end up on youtube or other sites for free. With the cost of making a DVD and distributing it I dont' see how anyone could made a profit.

Meeeees

wonder505 said:

This means a lot of people that weren't going to buy the DVD may end watching it, and the people waiting for it will buy it unless it's a rip-off.

I have double feelings about this issue.

One the one hand, it IS his own material, so, in a legal way, it is to him what he should let happen with the material.

On the other hand, I think he is not always using his legal rights in the most 'intelligent' ways.
I mean: probably 95 percent (or even more) of the music artists allow their material to be shown on sites like Youtube (with sound and all), probably because they:
- understand its free publicity for their work;
- seem to know it lets the fans / lovers of their work keep in touch with their output, and it might lead to new fans;
- recognize they wont be 'hurt' by it financially (on the contrary, i think).
So it can be a mixture of both financial and artistic goals.

Prince on the other hand, who tries to withdraw his copyrighted material from Youtube, misses the opportunity to let young people, who dont know much about his career and music, get in touch with his 'art'.
Especially the several video's of his live-performances that were on sites like Youtube, before he and his team became very 'strict', showed how great and relevant an artist he was/is.
Why not share that knowledge and experience with as many people as possible then? It isnt only about the legal and financial aspects of music, isnt it? I mean, this man has a great artistic legacy that should be shared IMO.

Concerning the issue of bootlegs: I understand his tendency to fight against illegal bootleg material of his outtakes and concerts, but should he always be so 'strict' when it comes to protecting his own material?
I know for instance that a band like REM sometimes 'sees it through the fingers' that certain bootleg CD's of live-performancesget released. Why? Because they probably know there biggest fans like to follow the bands artistic proces and that those fans like too hear new, different takes on older studio-versions.
This kind of 'laissez fair'-attitude, gives the issue of 'bootlegging' a more positive edge, keeps fans and people more casually interested in the band 'committed' and tempts those people to buy their new, upcoming studio-albums.

A final complaint i have about how Prince deals with copyright issues has to do with 'secondary' use of his music and photomaterial.
For example: there was some video in the past on youtube showing a little kid singing along with Lets go crazy. Princes team demanded it did get removed. But did those people really think about what that video actually 'represented'? It might be the kid of a die hard Prince-fan, who enjoyed seeing his or her kid singing along with his or her favourite artist.
In that case that video can be seen as a form of 'flattery': positive feedback towards Prince for delivering his music and the influence it can have on people (including little kids...lol).

Something similar in my opinion: the subject of people on fansites (like 'the org') photoshopping, seemingly copyrighted, pictures of Prince.
IMO they first of all express the 'commitment' these people show when it comes Princes music and career. Some of these pictures might show 'ugly' or 'weird' representations of his image and looks, but i think that in the first place 'photoshop-threads' are a form of 'bonding': between prince-fans in particular, and most important, by humans in general.
Laughing about eachothers attempts, or being stunned by the creativity of someones photoshop should not (always) be confused with an attempt to mock or ridiculise Prince, but could also be labeled as 'positive', because these people with a shared interest are communicating through images of Prince, just BECAUSE their admiration for his legacy. I mean, they could also photoshop pictures of squirels or something...lol

To conclude: I can understand that Princes uses his rights to control copyright, and in many cases i consider it legitimate, but I also think that he is too often taking things too seriously for their own good, and is not always making the 'wisest' decisions.
To use a cliche: you have the letters and words of the law, you also have 'the spirit of the law'. IMO Prince is focussing too much on the first, and it would benefit him a lot if he moved more towards the latter.
[Edited 2/7/09 17:10pm]

i could give a shit really. i know i'm a good/bad fan that will find the shit he does/doesn't want me to find and enjoy it, so it doesn't phase me. people take the shit all personal, like it's their stuff or something

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

no he's not. He's being in control and calling the tune when it comes to the so called major lable's. He deals with them on HIS terms and needs to be fully applauded for this whatever your feelings are towards him.

punkofthemonth said:

what's wrong with caring if his actions affect our access to his work directly?
.Sorry but I want to see videos pro-shot and multi-angled and I am happy to pay for them directly unlike most of my shitty boots from Dirty mind onwards!.[Although the ones filmed from the screens are great!!].

funkyhead said:

That's true, he DEALS with them on his own much better terms than before. I applaud him for that.

But he still deals with the devil so to speak, and he isn't releasing the loads of albums he said he wanted to once he would be unshackled.

berarma said:

People will watch it but outside of the die hard fanbase they ain't buying. especially now.

I agree with this 100%.

viewaskew said:

Well said my friend, well said.
[Edited 2/8/09 12:34pm]

Velvet123 said:

To a degree, I accept this. We also have to keep in mind that there are robots that work for him and dont care what the situation is or what its about (baby dancing) and yes they represent him but how responsible is he for their representation if he doesnt know about their methods. Okay lets pretend he doesnt know how his people handle his business. It makes him culpable for not knowing but is it really what he's about? Housequake was truly a great place and I miss it already but is it Prince bitching about control or his "people" misguided saying take this down or else?

I dont know what the innerworkings are, but I do think he has the right to look over his image and music as he sees fit cus its his.

A little off topic, but personally I think its wrong that people are making money off of Pres Obama's image and he gets none of the profits. There are Obama merch everywhere, and for the first time in history a black man is marketable, but he STILL doesnt get paid.

I dont know maybe I'm off base here.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Television.