It's HIS music and I respect his copyright controls. I just wish that some others would too.

'nuff said.

wildgoldenhoney said:

So it his fault if we think he is acting stupid.
Right?
No, we should educate the man.
How?

I had a lot of other artists videos saved on youtube and the other day I went over there and some of those vids had been removed because of copyright agreements, so it is not only Prince that does this. I think it's a good thing to protect what is his.

Oh?
Low res youtube videos that really interested people won't find to be enough?
(C) legislation is outdated, not of this time and impractical. Also it is unfair.
And still they lobby to get more.

for me its like this:

copyrights are good... songwriters do deserve to make money... i mean, would we want PRN or other faves working at Target or making music for us to buy at Target?... maybe even a gig at the Target Center?... It is a brand he needs to protect... If I took the red bullseye as my moniker, Target would have my arse. Same kind of thing. I think there could be some limited use agreements and modest licensing out there... that would be nice.

To a point I agree with something Dylan said about his music... it was on an interview from TV years ago... my memory forgets the name... the idea was this...
they asked Bob how he feels about his music changing history... reply was something along the lines that once he writes the music and plays it in public, its not his anymore. the listeners are the one that imbue it with what gives it "history" or not...

Its on that point that I'd like to see Prince relax a bit. perspective...

Have to make money?
In what ways?
And for how long?
Did you check current (C) laws?
And in what way they are heading?
Even DEAD artists must be able to earn momey for their relatives or rather record companies.

In the early days (C) law was more fair.
But now the Beatles'songs are at risk to fall into the public domain. Oh no! We can't have that. So we lobby for an even larger extension of the (C) term.
Don't these artists pay for a pension while they are alive like ordinary people can do?
It's pure greed.

Then the day to day business: if I buy a 'license' to listen to the audio on a CD, why don't I get a replacement CD/DVD/whatever at reasonable cost when the CD goes bad?
Why do I have to obtain a new `license`?
Why is the media so fickle?
Why are they hindering me to make backup copies? (yes, even CD's are perverted for this purpose)
So indeed the (C) situation is very strange indeed with regard to music.

BSOD said:

of course theres a legal reason why they are not allowed, to photoshop something you have to alter the original and you dont have the rights to the original, even if you took the pic as you are not allowed to take photos of him unless of course you are the owner of Getty Images!

A lot of people here would say something completely different if others stole from them. What a bunch of complete hypocrites.

ufoclub said:

no not correct as his melding of the symbles created a previously unthought of design, its his design.

If everyone remembers, 3121.com had several posts of links for us to read about copyright history and the call for its reform. I read all of them.

I suspect the tattoo thing was taking copyright to the letter, if you draw or trace the symbol and reproduce it by ink tattoo whatever you are making a facsimile of it.

the same as peeps used to fake famous paintings, same thing in that you do not have the right to reproduce it.

yes its taking copyright law to the enth degree but surely that is the point being made - that the law needs reform.

I think P has been fighting a very large battle that perhaps seemed too huge for most artists. The industry is now collapsing and he has been instrumental in that. Other artists are following suit and are perhaps encouraged by what they see him doing. Using the law to show what an ass it is. How outmoded and old it is.

These laws have been instrumental in making many artists penniless as the fatcat business men take possession of their creations after 25 years.

The fact that many bands are on youtube is a sign that the labels they are with are happy to promote the shit out of them as they know there isnt much longevity in popular music anymore, they wont get much after 25 years, so they grab what they can in the short term, once again leaving the artist bereft in the long term.

By Prnce making headlines or column inches he has created a public knowledge of the rights of artists, the issues they have with copyright and has brought the debate into the foreground.

As fans we may think it unjust, but this seems to be his peronal fight and I suspect he wants to make a mark on the world by getting the laws changed.

Unfortunately in true Prince style, the lack of communication with his fans has led to many misunderstandings. However I feel pretty certain that people in the music/film industry are probably well aware of his fight on their behalf.

The word has changed since victorian times and it is time to reform the laws. They were devised to protect people but with the advance of technology have allowed business men to find the loopholes and pocket the wealth. Contracts are onerous and unfair, fame fleeting and wealth hard to come by.

I think this is what the NPG is all about, artists supporting each other, seizing life by the hands and taking control.

rwn said:

Thanks for portraying us in such way.
I don't want to be a public figure as he is.

udo said:

and public figures are ok to steal from?

mystickitty said:

right on

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

We did not "make" Prince he made himself and he really doesn't owe us didly but he does still give us loads more than any other artist.

mystickitty said:

U took the words rightotta my mouth - a talent like Prince's will always come out and has nothing to do with us - we did not make him, he made himself we are just lucky that he shares it with us. Thank you P xx

syble said:

You imply that.
I mean: by being a public figure, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a (semi) public setting yet he is protecting his whatever like he is at home.
That is one of the wrong things that make P look very unconnected to the real world.

Same for his product. He is proud of being number 1 at the bank, yet he doesn't at all grab most easy profit opportunities. So we are left with the mess to solve it.
And that is true for all of us, both US, European and from elsewhere. And is downloading to fill the gap until you *can* buy a problem?

He has had communication problems before yet he still gives out half of the info we need. Is it so hard?

Totally agree.
[Edited 3/11/09 6:26am]

I support him....It will be hard to release stuff in the future (if he needs money) if everything is already out there on youtube and every other site. Plus, there may be stuff that he is ashamed of...regrets...or feels shouldn't be watched. I am sure there are photos we have that once were hung up and now is shoved away in a box never to be seen again....or videos.....

Do I think it sucks....YES....I think you need to leave something for people to enjoy while you are on a 2-3 year break. This kind of reminds me of the mid 90's where he pushes everyone away and when he wants a "come back" only a few return (Emancipation/Rave). He had everyone in the palm of his hand in 2004 the same way he did in 1991.....now it's 1995 again and folks are pissed at him....and soon it will be 2000 again and a new album will be released with little fan fare.....JMO

Our boy is back and he needs to protect his future but don't kill the now.....

It will be 1995 again *ONLY* when he plays 75+% of unreleased material at his shows, is dissed by the mainstream critics and the mainstream fans but LOVED by the hardcore fans.

(dissed by mainstream fans for not hearing purple rain and kiss etc)

udo said:

It was only unreleased because he had no way getting it out....WB feud / name change

As i said before, he has problems to be 'loose' when it comes to his musical legacy.

Its like he feels: after his bullies at high school, and Warner Brothers during his succes-years, sites like You-tube are 'gonna get him'.

He seems to forget most of that is happening in his own mind, and that people will actually appreciate him when he 'shares' himself.

Sure, I understand that on a strictly technical and jurisdictic level he is the owner of his own music, but too often i think he fails to understand that its actually the sharing of his own creativity that has made him loved and appreciated.

funkyhead said:

I am as supportive as Prince is tasteful about this. I have seen some pretty strange Prince impersonations (the fucker with the PR outfit singing My Name Is Prince/Kiss is someone I would have just love to see someone else get into a with) - not to mention the BAD cover versions of which there are a PLETHORA out there. But obviously he went too far with the Let's Go Crazy baby - that was just tacky.

IMHO...Ask Hefner how he would feel if someone pilphered or tried to make a profit off his hard work with Playboy or Motown to give up its rights. If the shoe was on the other foot; what would you do?

They are his and he has a right to protect his name,legacy; and money.What are other artists like?

Prince's Sarah

prime said:

I was referring

to the

.
So no, it is not 1995.
And yes even though he is not under any WB record contracts (?) he can still play unreleased stuff and have, sort of, a 1995 situation.

not me! i think copyright is a violation of TRUTH.

carry on

uh, I am what u make is yours. you should be able to control how your image and likeness are used as best as you are able to in the world we live in. a company like Warner that helps you get it to the masses is to be appreciated but they didn't cre8 JACK! so it shouldn't be theirs.

As i'm sure it's been said, now he can do with it what he wants to do with it on his OWN site instead of everything being everywhere. i ain't mad at him.

make yo money Prince, capitalists Americans do it all day every day and never get called on it. eff em!

Way too general.
(C) law is strangling creativity.
(C) law is bordering on greed, if not yet over that line.
And the way mr P handles the (C) of his images, especially when he is in semi-pubnlic places it outside of normal law.

(C) law is general is sort of OK, but (C) terms are too long.
(C) law treats artists as super humans that cannot afford a pension payment and need to profit from their works for way too long.
The hidden agenda is of course that especially the record companies will profit from the long (C) term.

udo said:

What a load of toss!

How, exactly, does copyright law stifle creativity? Because its stops people unlawfully using/incorporating your own work? What's wrong with that?

Bordering on greed? You may have that view when you look at the super-rich Mr Nelson - but, for most artists, they just about get by from the money earned. So, what about those people, you're average musician who is just trying to make a bare living?

The terms are too long? Shouldn't an artist be able to hold the copyright to their own work for the rest of their lives? Why should it just be given up after a certain period of time? How about when you reach 50, whatever assets and cash you have have to be given over to the government? Like that, would you?!

And, I am speaking here as a music producer and musician who has to rely on the scant protection provided by these laws, to make my living. They clearly don't go far enough, or else musicians and the industry itself wouldn't be so threatened by the mass availability of pirated material. People around the globe are happily obtaining and distributing people's lifework without any thought or consideration for the producer of the work they enjoy.

My last album came out in August last year. For a couple of months preceding its release, a search on google would give you 20 pages of retailers who were going to be stocking the album. Just 24 hours after its release, the same search yielded 20 pages where the majority of links were to bittorrents and file sharing site, where d/load figures that were visible appeared to be far exceeding the number of ligitimate sales - can you imagine how that feels? And, yes, udo, I'll direct that question at you, because it seems clear to me from your comments that you are not speaking as someone who has to rely on these laws for your income!

Mindflux said:

Please elaborate.


Why else would there be a difference between (C) and public domain stuff?
Why is (C) material restricted?
Exactly: you can do less with it.
You combine that with 'unlawful'.
There is a difference between ethics and law.
Not everything that is bad is forbidden by law.
Nor is everything that is forbidden by law bad.
So, because your copyrights are written in(to) law does not mean they are the truth, or that they are correct, or fair, or anything in that direction.
The general idea behind (C) law is to give a certain protection.
But when that protection gets expanded and expanded until perversion...


Now compare to the record companies and draw your conclusion using the same law.


You imply that I am denying people a libing, that I deny them protection of their rights, etc.
That is a false implication.
It is about the general direction of (C) law that is protecting works for for too long for the wrong reasons.


What about beyond their lives?


Why should it be protected for longer and longer?
(yes, that is the trend; what the disney lobby, see how the beatles works will not fall into the public domain, etc)
How was stuff before these changes?
Why didn't it work back then?


That is far too black and white.
By giving my cash to another party I loose the cash.
When a copyrighted work falls into the public domain I, as the author, can still profit from it, but others as well.


Who is pressing for expanding (C) terms the most?
The record companies!
Who should get the money according to your argumentation?
The artists!
Who gets the most money? (a few exceptions not mentiond)
Not the artists.



Yes. So...


Correct.
I produce works (texts, code, ideas, etc) that directly fall into the (C) pool of my employer. Anyone in there can use them. People from outside can simply copy the texts or code etc when they get hold of such things.
Times are changing, and so are the distribution methods.
BTW: A download is not necessarily a lost sale.
Because we can download stuff, why does suddenly the (C) term have to be extended?
Because Disney wants it?
No, we need a fairer distribution of the generated income from the work(s) during the lifetime of the author.

So, in short:
The (C) protection time should not go beyond the lifetime of an author.
The profits from a work should give a guaranteed minimum share to the author.

In your case: you can use the internet to get people interested, get in touch with them, give them a bit. This could lure them into buying CD's and such.

udo said:[quote]

Mindflux said:

So, yes, exactly as I suspected - your talking from an outside, idealogical persepective and don't really have a grasp of the real issues at stake here.

I agree with the points that copyright should not extend beyond the lifetime of the author and that the artist should receive a fairer share, clearly, but you are attempting to scale down this debate to a singular point of argument against the endless quest for more power by large corporations and its much more than that. You work for an employer and, as such, you sign away your right to your creations, whether you like that or not. However, should you feel your creations are worthy of profit, perhaps you should risk running your own business, like a musician and expoliting that for yourself! Artists, on the other hand, have to fend for themselves and rely on correct and fair practice to protect them (something which is not generally well applied).

With regard to your wonderfully naieve advice on how I, as an artist, should use the internet, you should perhaps stick to what you know! You don't think we already utislise the internet for promotion, that we already give away free music to those that join our mailing lists? It would be ridiculous not to. What I strongly object to, and what is a world away from what you are saying, is the thousands of people who have nothing to do with the creation of my product offering the entire, brand -ew product to anyone that wants it, for free, (regardless of whether they profit from that or not!) without any royalty coming to the creator - it is blatant theft by the perpetrators and the downloaders. And, it is an indisputable FACT that more people will download the product for free than would pay for it.
[Edited 3/12/09 11:13am]

Mindflux said:

What are the real issues?
Copyrights?
Protection?
Technology?
Law enforcement?
DRM?


That is true, I guess, but the `single point` you mean is the main goal of hwta is happening.


So yes, we return to the real issue question I ask at the top of this reply.
What feasible/doable thing do you mean?


I don't say you don't, so don't give me rhetoric that says so.
It's just that also artists should use new technology.



Yes, so does that mean you lose sales from downloading?
As I said: that is not directly true.
Anyone that is happy with just some songs on an ipod, with CD-Rs etc will not buy the CDs.
So you won't lose sales to them.
This is no a black/white thing, there are various shades of grey.
So maybe the direct sales at concerts etc are closest to a situation without middlemen, with possiblity of fairest and best profit.
But I guess you mean the general music marketplace and wrestle with how to make it fair and reasonable?