someone i cant rememeber in regards to music video take downs by prince said: "It will help him sell more concert yes. but people i know who download music free almost never buy music."

not strictly true, with sites, people can get to listen to exactly what they like but buying it gives you better quality & personally i download stuff for free all the time to check it out first, but the stuff i really like i buy at better quality & thats the beauty of the net & i know thats the case for many people. i dont know about elsewhere but in the UK the bigest downfall of music sales has been the redicolusly over priced CD's. This is changing with net sales. This for me & others i know is also the case for DVD's too.

Regarding all these prince videos on youtube that are either bad quality or altered, why would prince not block these too? after all they make him look bad, maybe the reasoning behind this is to give you a taste of his music & make you want to go buy it, but for me it just turns me off, so why?

also can someone enlighten me as to why he allows his music but not his music-videos to be allowed on youtube? whats going on there?

I noticed 'Sign O times' music video on youtube with no take down from prince as of yet? again this seems a little strange, or perhaps prince wants this on youtube? It strikes me this is all a 'Sign O Times' by prince.

With this attitude of Prince he will gain no new listeners & imho his sales & fans will slowly die out.

MrJolly said:

With this attitude of Prince he will gain no new listeners & imho his sales & fans will slowly die out.

That's not true.

I've become a Prince fan in 2007, a time when Prince "declared war" with the internet and took down everything. It was to that point where you couldn't see one video of Prince unless there was like a video blog about him or there was a Prince video with a very unique title so that Prince's camp couldn't find it. Now you'd be surprised what Prince videos are up now. I've subscribed to more than ten (not hard to find) Youtube channels with great material, most of which has been up for years and have not been taken down. One popular channel had one of it's videos embedded on Andy Allo's facebook page by Andy Allo herself.

Even so, I've drawn to Prince without the help of Youtube. People fail to understand that Youtube isn't the only source of music because it's a website for VIDEOS. Young and old, there are fans increasing that could be due to a concert, a suggestion from a friend, an old school kid's parents, etc, and they could google his discography and buy the entire thing if they wanted to.

I've chatted with people over the internet who've became new fans regaurdless of the limitations of Youtube. And the average of young Prince fans on this site happen to be 14-16 years old. Hell, I've found two twelve year olds on this site.

So in my opinion, the fanbase is still increasing because Prince is just that good without the overrated need for Youtube.

[Edited 12/17/11 20:11pm]

MrJolly said:

someone i cant rememeber in regards to music video take downs by prince said: "It will help him sell more concert yes. but people i know who download music free almost never buy music."

not strictly true, with sites, people can get to listen to exactly what they like but buying it gives you better quality & personally i download stuff for free all the time to check it out first, but the stuff i really like i buy at better quality & thats the beauty of the net & i know thats the case for many people. i dont know about elsewhere but in the UK the bigest downfall of music sales has been the redicolusly over priced CD's. This is changing with net sales. This for me & others i know is also the case for DVD's too.

Regarding all these prince videos on youtube that are either bad quality or altered, why would prince not block these too? after all they make him look bad, maybe the reasoning behind this is to give you a taste of his music & make you want to go buy it, but for me it just turns me off, so why?

also can someone enlighten me as to why he allows his music but not his music-videos to be allowed on youtube? whats going on there?

I noticed 'Sign O times' music video on youtube with no take down from prince as of yet? again this seems a little strange, or perhaps prince wants this on youtube? It strikes me this is all a 'Sign O Times' by prince.

With this attitude of Prince he will gain no new listeners & imho his sales & fans will slowly die out.

The bitter ones won't die, they'll just troll around here for eternity!

As far as I know Prince doesn't have a deal with Youtube. At least not for a couple of years ago.

If he doesn't want his music there, then the law requires him to send Youtube take down notices of videos infringing on his copyrights to have it removed.

That's a hell of a job, considering he has so much music that so many fans are posting and there are also so many tricks to "hide" it.

Costs a lot of money to have Websheriff, Universal or whomever go on the web daily to take it all down.

He may have given up or perhabs even seen the light:

It's economically more sound to have free promotion of your music, than to increase your overhead by taking it down and not have it promoted.

And it's even better to make a deal with Youtube on it, so there is not just free promotion but also a straight cashflow you make from it.

[Edited 12/18/11 7:17am]

Or... maybe he is just waiting for "the government" to come in and censor the web...

he did say something to that effect the other day in an interview...

[Edited 12/18/11 6:41am]

MrJolly said:

i dont know about elsewhere but in the UK the bigest downfall of music sales has been the redicolusly over priced CD's.

You think five or six quid is overpriced? Wow, I remember the days of buying bog-standard chart releases for £15/16, not to mention imports etc.

The largest reason for any supposed downturn in music sales is most definately not the price of an average chart CD.

MrJolly said:

someone i cant rememeber in regards to music video take downs by prince said: "It will help him sell more concert yes. but people i know who download music free almost never buy music."

not strictly true, with sites, people can get to listen to exactly what they like but buying it gives you better quality & personally i download stuff for free all the time to check it out first, but the stuff i really like i buy at better quality & thats the beauty of the net & i know thats the case for many people. i dont know about elsewhere but in the UK the bigest downfall of music sales has been the redicolusly over priced CD's. This is changing with net sales. This for me & others i know is also the case for DVD's too.

Regarding all these prince videos on youtube that are either bad quality or altered, why would prince not block these too? after all they make him look bad, maybe the reasoning behind this is to give you a taste of his music & make you want to go buy it, but for me it just turns me off, so why?

also can someone enlighten me as to why he allows his music but not his music-videos to be allowed on youtube? whats going on there?

I noticed 'Sign O times' music video on youtube with no take down from prince as of yet? again this seems a little strange, or perhaps prince wants this on youtube? It strikes me this is all a 'Sign O Times' by prince.

With this attitude of Prince he will gain no new listeners & imho his sales & fans will slowly die out.

This isn't true, neither in Spain -where I live- nor in any place I've visited. If you don't want to buy CD's, that's OK, but don't use this false argument. The price of music CD's didn't increase between the early 90's and the beginning of the crisis of the music industry. Actually, music may be the only good that has maintained its price in the last two decades.

On the contrary, the price of concert tickets has increased terribly in the same period. But people go to live shows now more than ever.

So the thing is: if I can steal it, why should I buy it? As simple as that.

NouveauDance said:

MrJolly said:

i dont know about elsewhere but in the UK the bigest downfall of music sales has been the redicolusly over priced CD's.

You think five or six quid is overpriced? Wow, I remember the days of buying bog-standard chart releases for £15/16, not to mention imports etc.

The largest reason for any supposed downturn in music sales is most definately not the price of an average chart CD.

Indeed.

So CD's are overpriced, but clothes, restaurants, drinks, even concerts aren't. Oh, I know, all these things aren't available to be stolen in the internet, so you have to buy them.

Tremolina said:

As far as I know Prince doesn't have a deal with Youtube. At least not for a couple of years ago.

If he doesn't want his music there, then the law requires him to send Youtube take down notices of videos infringing on his copyrights to have it removed.

That's a hell of a job, considering he has so much music that so many fans are posting and there are also so many tricks to "hide" it.

Costs a lot of money to have Websheriff, Universal or whomever go on the web daily to take it all down.

He may have given up or perhabs even seen the light:

It's economically more sound to have free promotion of your music, than to increase your overhead by taking it down and not have it promoted.

And it's even better to make a deal with Youtube on it, so there is not just free promotion but also a straight cashflow you make from it.

[Edited 12/18/11 7:17am]

That's where SOPA is supposed to come in, at least here in the US. They are hoping to shift the cost back on YouTube, instead of out of pocket for something like a web sheriff.

SOPA has a lot of merit to it, but I could see where it can be abused. Of course Google and anyone who makes their money from user generated content would agaisnt it as it places the burden and the liability on them.

I love Youtube, it is one of the best things that has come out of the internet for a lot of reasons, but I can see both sides of the issue. I wouldn't want politicians having the ability of taking down videos that did not meet their "criteria".

It's a difficult proposition and boggles my mind just thinking about it. Content creators have been give the shaft in many ways, and I feel for them, but handing the government too much control over this is just as bad.

[Edited 12/18/11 11:56am]

^

Gawd... how I hate Politico. All that IN YOUR FACE advertising and then just alot of blablabla.

Wiki is not flawless, but it explains it all much better http://en.wikipedia.org/w...Piracy_Act

In short: this proposal of law is prospectless and pointless. Even if it stands a chance in hell of getting through Congress, the courts will surely strike it down for being unconstitutional. And even if they wouldn't (which won't happen but suppose) it wouldn't be possible to enforce. Passing such a bill would be, as one music exec said about the legal arguments of his opponents: "nothing more than a delay tactic".

This Lamar Smith from Texas (what a surprise) is out of touch with reality. When you read the summary of his bill it's obvious that he doesn't understand a thing about the internet nor the law. He is just being used as a tool.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi...mp;summ2=m&

[Edited 12/20/11 12:22pm]

Youtube and such sites that "stream content" should be treated just the same as radio stations were in the early 20th century.

In 1907, a Lee De Forest company advertisement ALREADY said this:

You know how long it took to get the music copyright owners or "content suppliers", the radio station owners and the politicians to agree on a model that served everybody, including the PUBLIC?

Decades, I tell ya.

And you know what they came up with? Not with censorship or measures to stiffle (radio) technology, but with COMPULSORY LICENSES.

I am pretty sure that is what the future will bring if copyright owners keep seeking the help of Congress and law enforcement to solve their issues, instead of investing all their time, money and energy in finding and perfecting new ways to produce, distribute and sell music.

[Edited 12/20/11 12:33pm]

Dont worry about such things.

the way i see it...Youtube is like the radio of today. if U really wanted to...U could pull out a maxell and record your fav dittys off the radio...and..if U wanted to U could hunt down free mp3's and what not...in the end, IT INCREASES exposure and awareness. Use it...it even cost LESS than radio...the listeners run this machine, no programmers. Prince always complained about programmers but he hated on the user controlled enviornments as well...he wants his cake andeat it too. not gon' happen

[Edited 12/25/11 15:54pm]

Javi said:

NouveauDance said:

You think five or six quid is overpriced? Wow, I remember the days of buying bog-standard chart releases for £15/16, not to mention imports etc.

The largest reason for any supposed downturn in music sales is most definately not the price of an average chart CD.

Indeed.

So CD's are overpriced, but clothes, restaurants, drinks, even concerts aren't. Oh, I know, all these things aren't available to be stolen in the internet, so you have to buy them.

I thought I was the only person left in Spain who thought like this...

rdhull said:

Dont worry about such things.

I can assume that post was meant to adress me?

To be honest, I have worried about these things before. But I have also stopped doing so several years ago. When it became clear to me, that the only way for the industry to change its sinful ways and live on, is to first die and be purified, so it may be reborn and resurface in a better form and shape than what it is and has always been ...

BobGeorge909 said:

the way i see it...Youtube is like the radio of today. if U really wanted to...U could pull out a maxell and record your fav dittys off the radio...and..if U wanted to U could hunt down free mp3's and what not...in the end, IT INCREASES exposure and awareness. Use it...

Exactly my point. It is like radio. Thus not the same, but similar. Therefore it should be used and treated in a similar way.

Which youtube and others already do with those who want to: Copyright owners who make a deal with youtube et al, agree to give permission to not ban their (agreed) material, in return of a more or less standard compensation.

The way this voluntary model works is similar to compulsory licenses. Except that it's not based on some sort of a compulsory license law, but on more or less standard contractual agreements, the copyright owner may still choose to not enter into, or only partly enter into, or only for a limited period of time etc...

An owner of copyright could still choose to excercise his exclusive right and go the hard way of trying to ban material. Surely costing him a lot of money when it concerns somebody like P for example, in return of nothing but:

A huge loss of PAID exposure and promotion to the general public. It's not so hard to do the math and realise that the way to go is to make a deal...

[Edited 12/31/11 7:05am]