Prince earns his money through performing for people who paid for that performance.

The audiance paid for that performance, and therfore are entitled to that performance.

So, why is it illegal for them to make a picture or video of that performance? They paid their money for the perfomance, right?

Prince should keep himself busy with the really important stuff, which is delivering good music.

This kind of fan-bullying makes me feel sick!

Meh, the bootleg end of these things works the best when it's disorganized enough and not everything is done in as public manner as possible. It's just silly that some people think they can get involved with anything that is shady in such a public manner and think that they don't have to face with any consequences. From what I could tell, The Digital Garden was coded really well and the site looked impressive, but I don't really understand why anyone would put so much time and effort into something like that if it most likely would get shut down.

It's one thing to be a "fan", a whole another to run an extensive information base that functions as an advertisement for all those companies that make money out of Prince's music. So, sorry. I can't side with the "fan-bullying" comments on this thread (not to mention with the one that's placed on the front page of the Digital Garden site). Prince might be an "asshole" sometimes, but taking down some site that offers information on bootlegs doesn't mean that he is "attacking his fans". That's utter nonsense and irresponsible employment of rhetoric.

Well said novabrkr,

novabrkr said:

I agree with your whole 2nd paragraph, and how you worded it too!
In your 1st paragraph, you note how impressive the site looked. I thought the same thing - I thought it looks so professional, it looks official. Plus TDG references one of his own songs, unlike TDB, I could imagine that a complete novice to the world of bootlegs and what it was all about could think these were like buying any other albums and that they were endorsed by the artist. Yes, I know, I know there was language on the site that disclaimed all that. But imagine a complete novice, an innocent, not hardcore into Prince or any other artist, stumbling onto that site. It looks legit. That's a problem.

funkaholic1972 said:

He does. His legal/publishing/copyright have standing instructions I would think. Prince is not personally monitoring the web every moment of the day and night.

rdhull said:

djThunderfunk said:

Except for one pesky problem... FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I can talk or write about crack cocaine, robbing banks, or murder without being prosecuted for "tempting, encouraging, inviting" others that may be so inclined to participate in actually comitting those crimes because I'm free to talk about whatever I want. This is a simple concept.

You think there is actual freedom of speech in the world?

The concept of "freedom of speech" doesn't stretch over to matters of copyright.

It was established for the communication of political ideas and their expression in appropriate places. During the last century the concept has also been extended to cover such matters as artistic expression as modern art started to deal more with political themes. However, having some site on the Internet that lists various illegal recordings with ratings for their sound quality has barely anything to do with the concept.

While I don't support such strict enforcement of copyright issues myself I'm not going to cry over these cases by referring to abstract concepts that weren't established because some people just wanted to exchange some boots.

dJJ said:

Prince earns his money through performing for people who paid for that performance.

The audiance paid for that performance, and therfore are entitled to that performance.

So, why is it illegal for them to make a picture or video of that performance? They paid their money for the perfomance, right?

I remember on a Bootleg of a ACT II Show Prince Said: "NEXT TIME YOU BRING YOUR TAPE RECORDER" ... (someone know the date/venue?) but recently in Australia they said something like "drop your iPhones etc. or we leave/stop playing" . . . .

rdhull said:

electricberet said:

I'm as serious as a crazy person can be. The hold on my tickets to Chicago expires at midnight. I even forwarded my itinerary to Dr. Funkenberry.

Prince, you have a decision to make. Do you want the famous Electricberet at your concert, or not? The clock is ticking...

but on the real..prince still keeps winning..because even still with all his ..supposed...as yall claim..bad behavior..you guys are still willing to possibly go see him live..will still buy his cds..and at the very least..still have him or something associated with him as yalls avatar

Speak for yourself. I'm not willing to give his ass SHIT of mine except for maybe my foot up his ass! Maybe that'd make him call his alien friends to bring the REAL Prince back to Earth, and he can go back to home Planet Career Fuckup. Because apparently, the real Prince was alien-napped back in late 1996.

Once again, thanks for the support. We were never naive to the fact that what we were doing was 'a bit dodgy' and even we are surprised this was our first proper cease & desist (for TDG anyways). So, yeah it's a bummer but we'll get over it and maybe come up with something else or come back (again) as we have done many times before. We only do it to keep those collecters informed and we've been doing just that for years and years now, one way or another.

Also, as nice as the sentiment is that some people are wanting to protest on our behalf can I please ask that you don't. We have chosen not to fight as there is no point and we really don't have a huge moral high ground on this one. Please remember that by doing anything like that you are indirectly involing us and we do not want that to happen. This was something we did in our spare time as fans and it's not the first time this has happened and it certainly won't be the last. Thanks everyone!

electricberet said:

OzlemUcucu said:

I know, but what I meant is that the site closing down to coincide with the fucking Chi announcement does not compute.

He is not aware of what's happening. Why do people moan instead of acting I don't understand. As I said, if you wanna make your voice heard, get those damn banners/posters out and tell him to stop shutting down sites.

He will notice if it's coming from people attending his lame ass "masterpiece" gigs, and that's the only way to go with this @electricberet.

So, how many orgers are going to Chi gig? How many are willing to get some banners up? Who is going to the copy shop and have prints made for fucks sake.

Even though I am crazy, I don't really want to fly to Chicago, stay in a hotel, and pay for expensive tickets just to get thrown out of the arena for supporting a website that I had nothing to do with. Are there any cheaper ways of getting Prince's attention?

And if you did do this, you'd more than likely STILL have more fun than actually staying at the concert and listening to Vegas-band-horrid-versions of the same regurgitated hits he's been doing since fuckin' 2004.

This is Chicago...he better come hella more correct than he's done in the past 8 years (yeah right).

Flaunt said:

Once again, thanks for the support. We were never naive to the fact that what we were doing was 'a bit dodgy' and even we are surprised this was our first proper cease & desist (for TDG anyways). So, yeah it's a bummer but we'll get over it and maybe come up with something else or come back (again) as we have done many times before. We only do it to keep those collecters informed and we've been doing just that for years and years now, one way or another.

Also, as nice as the sentiment is that some people are wanting to protest on our behalf can I please ask that you don't. We have chosen not to fight as there is no point and we really don't have a huge moral high ground on this one. Please remember that by doing anything like that you are indirectly involing us and we do not want that to happen. This was something we did in our spare time as fans and it's not the first time this has happened and it certainly won't be the last. Thanks everyone!

@ last paragraph, bolded part. Good point, and I think that's the best piece of advice you can give some fans here, because some may not realize, that what they may be planning to do in your defense, at his show, could possibly create more harm than good for you. Also, athough some sympathize with you, on the other hand, you have to be careful, that some are not just planning to use the shutting down of your site, for their own personal vendetta or excuse to protest at one of his shows. At the end of the day, if some do that, it's possible they'll get their asses kicked out anyway.

[Edited 9/2/12 3:57am]

novabrkr said:

Meh, the bootleg end of these things works the best when it's disorganized enough and not everything is done in as public manner as possible. It's just silly that some people think they can get involved with anything that is shady in such a public manner and think that they don't have to face with any consequences. From what I could tell, The Digital Garden was coded really well and the site looked impressive, but I don't really understand why anyone would put so much time and effort into something like that if it most likely would get shut down.

It's one thing to be a "fan", a whole another to run an extensive information base that functions as an advertisement for all those companies that make money out of Prince's music. So, sorry. I can't side with the "fan-bullying" comments on this thread (not to mention with the one that's placed on the front page of the Digital Garden site). Prince might be an "asshole" sometimes, but taking down some site that offers information on bootlegs doesn't mean that he is "attacking his fans". That's utter nonsense and irresponsible employment of rhetoric.

Very good points.

artist76 said:

I could imagine that a complete novice to the world of bootlegs and what it was all about could think these were like buying any other albums and that they were endorsed by the artist. Yes, I know, I know there was language on the site that disclaimed all that. But imagine a complete novice, an innocent, not hardcore into Prince or any other artist, stumbling onto that site. It looks legit. That's a problem.

I errr, I errr... Yeah, I'm done. Some twisted BS logic here there is no use picking apart no matter how flawed it is.

KeithyT said:

funkaholic1972 said:

Prince should keep himself busy with the really important stuff, which is delivering good music.

He does. His legal/publishing/copyright have standing instructions I would think. Prince is not personally monitoring the web every moment of the day and night.

There it is. It sure looks as if Prince himself is way too busy to have been a part of this. With the Chicago residency, and new band members, Prince is too busy making music!!! Can't wait to hear his new arrangements and read the reviews

NouveauDance said:

Seriously.

novabrkr said:

The concept of "freedom of speech" doesn't stretch over to matters of copyright.

It was established for the communication of political ideas and their expression in appropriate places. During the last century the concept has also been extended to cover such matters as artistic expression as modern art started to deal more with political themes. However, having some site on the Internet that lists various illegal recordings with ratings for their sound quality has barely anything to do with the concept.

While I don't support such strict enforcement of copyright issues myself I'm not going to cry over these cases by referring to abstract concepts that weren't established because some people just wanted to exchange some boots.

It does NOT violate copyright to review or discuss bootlegs. Not one bit!

There was NO exchanging of boots on the site. There was information about what was on the bootlegs.

Please quote the law which you think prohibits discussing or reviewing or providing information about unauthorized recordings. You can't. There isn't one. Not yet.

macbos said:

dJJ said:

Prince earns his money through performing for people who paid for that performance.

The audiance paid for that performance, and therfore are entitled to that performance.

So, why is it illegal for them to make a picture or video of that performance? They paid their money for the perfomance, right?

I remember on a Bootleg of a ACT II Show Prince Said: "NEXT TIME YOU BRING YOUR TAPE RECORDER" ... (someone know the date/venue?) but recently in Australia they said something like "drop your iPhones etc. or we leave/stop playing" . . . .

I'm asking the question for the sake of discussion and because I love those what value has art discussions.

djThunderfunk said:

This. Yes.

Flaunt said:

Superb level-headed dignified post there. Keep on keepin on...

djThunderfunk said:

Bohemian67 said:

chain of events with foreseen circumstances that the information regarding the boots existence would lead to 1. searching for them 2. buying 3. downloading for free.

But I digress... my point is, by your logic, my local newspaper and Rolling Stone should be held accountable for encouraging me to seek out and buy bootlegs. Not just me either. Many, many, many obsessed Prince fans came to collecting bootlegs this way. Just ask around.

There is no law preventing people from talking about or reviewing material that is circulating just because it doesn't happen to be officially released. And that's a good thing...

Smart move Flaunt and some nice later responses from others.

TBA in 87 is not a good example because there was a huge hoo-ha about that album. Gonna be released, not released, cancelled last minute, and so I think it would make sense that RS would have already had a review on it. Plus in 87, bootlegging wasn't as big as it is today. Almost everyone today has a 'recorder' at every 40 thousand pax. concert.

No there's no law around discussing or reviewing circulating material. But there are rules to protect artist productions and a big player that fails to do that is gonna get sent to detention to show the rules and set the precedent.

'As for the rainbow children

They began deconstructing the digital garden

Door to door they went, in search of those willing to do the work.'

2elijah said:

Flaunt said:

No, I never had plans to resolve it with him. It would be like a pencil with no lead in it.......pointless. And no, we never gave out information on these recordings other than cataloguing their existence. Nothing more.

[Edited 9/1/12 12:24pm]

Ok, thanks for responding, but I guess the cataloguing of those existing bootlegs on a public site, could be seen like advertising existing bootlegs of his music, which more than likely creates discussion and interest in fans to seek those bootlegs. That could be the way he may have seen it, and could possibly be the reason your site was shutdown. Just a guess. I'm not trying to speak against you, just looking at the whole situation with an open mind.

'be' edit

[Edited 9/1/12 14:55pm]

Do you read Rolling Stone Magazine? They have a section in the magazine where they discuss bootlegs from various musicians. How can that be any different? Sometimes I get emails from them discussing material that leaked onto the internet! When Guns-n-Roses "Chinese Democracy" leaked they had tons of articles about an actual studio album that took 10+ years to make leaking! Same goes for when Bowie's "Toy" album leaked! And the Madonna "MDNA" leaks! and the Dr.Dre leaks and so on. So how can a major publisher discuss bootlegs and music that leak???? It's the ultimate advertising for people to seek out unreleased music. I'm not sure if I'm right but let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks for your expertise on the issue.

[Edited 9/2/12 11:59am]

SuperFurryAnimal said:

2elijah said:

Ok, thanks for responding, but I guess the cataloguing of those existing bootlegs on a public site, could be seen like advertising existing bootlegs of his music, which more than likely creates discussion and interest in fans to seek those bootlegs. That could be the way he may have seen it, and could possibly be the reason your site was shutdown. Just a guess. I'm not trying to speak against you, just looking at the whole situation with an open mind.

'be' edit

[Edited 9/1/12 14:55pm]

Do you read Rolling Stone Magazine? They have a section in the magazine where they discuss bootlegs from various musicians. How can that be any different? Sometimes I get emails from them discussing material that leaked onto the internet! When Guns-n-Roses "Chinese Democracy" leaked they had tons of articles about an actual studio album that took 10+ years to make leaking! Same goes for when Bowie's "Toy" album leaked! And the Madonna "MDNA" leaks! and the Dr.Dre leaks and so on. So how can a major publisher discuss bootlegs and music that leak???? It's the ultimate advertising for people to seek out unreleased music. I'm not sure if I'm right but let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks for your expertise on the issue.

[Edited 9/2/12 11:59am]

Edit: whatever!

OzlemUcucu said:

Edit: whatever!

Edit: you got the org note!

SuperFurryAnimal said:

OzlemUcucu said:

Edit: whatever!

Edit: you got the org note!

Yes, I have boo boo.

Notice that how slim and sexy I look? I man compared to your fatty bird?!!! Lmao!

We are twins now!

[Edited 9/2/12 12:32pm]

rdhull said:

djThunderfunk said:

Except for one pesky problem... FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I can talk or write about crack cocaine, robbing banks, or murder without being prosecuted for "tempting, encouraging, inviting" others that may be so inclined to participate in actually comitting those crimes because I'm free to talk about whatever I want. This is a simple concept.

You think there is actual freedom of speech in the world?

Not in China.

Bohemian67 said:

TBA in 87 is not a good example because there was a huge hoo-ha about that album. Gonna be released, not released, cancelled last minute, and so I think it would make sense that RS would have already had a review on it. Plus in 87, bootlegging wasn't as big as it is today. Almost everyone today has a 'recorder' at every 40 thousand pax. concert.

No there's no law around discussing or reviewing circulating material. But there are rules to protect artist productions and a big player that fails to do that is gonna get sent to detention to show the rules and set the precedent.

Rolling Stone didn't have a review ready to go. They specifically reviewed the bootleg LP. They made that VERY clear in their review.

How was Digital Garden a "big player"?

If "there's no law around discussing or reviewing circulating material", and there isn't, then how is using lawyers to bully someone not breaking the law who don't have the money to fight back justified? How is it not bullying?

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Do you read Rolling Stone Magazine? They have a section in the magazine where they discuss bootlegs from various musicians. How can that be any different? Sometimes I get emails from them discussing material that leaked onto the internet! When Guns-n-Roses "Chinese Democracy" leaked they had tons of articles about an actual studio album that took 10+ years to make leaking! Same goes for when Bowie's "Toy" album leaked! And the Madonna "MDNA" leaks! and the Dr.Dre leaks and so on. So how can a major publisher discuss bootlegs and music that leak???? It's the ultimate advertising for people to seek out unreleased music. I'm not sure if I'm right but let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks for your expertise on the issue.

I've seen some of the articles you mention. Excellent point!

novabrkr said:

Meh, the bootleg end of these things works the best when it's disorganized enough and not everything is done in as public manner as possible. It's just silly that some people think they can get involved with anything that is shady in such a public manner and think that they don't have to face with any consequences. From what I could tell, The Digital Garden was coded really well and the site looked impressive, but I don't really understand why anyone would put so much time and effort into something like that if it most likely would get shut down.

It's one thing to be a "fan", a whole another to run an extensive information base that functions as an advertisement for all those companies that make money out of Prince's music. So, sorry. I can't side with the "fan-bullying" comments on this thread (not to mention with the one that's placed on the front page of the Digital Garden site). Prince might be an "asshole" sometimes, but taking down some site that offers information on bootlegs doesn't mean that he is "attacking his fans". That's utter nonsense and irresponsible employment of rhetoric.

Probably the same reason people build sand castles and make ice sculptures. Because it's fun.

electricberet said:

novabrkr said:

Meh, the bootleg end of these things works the best when it's disorganized enough and not everything is done in as public manner as possible. It's just silly that some people think they can get involved with anything that is shady in such a public manner and think that they don't have to face with any consequences. From what I could tell, The Digital Garden was coded really well and the site looked impressive, but I don't really understand why anyone would put so much time and effort into something like that if it most likely would get shut down.

It's one thing to be a "fan", a whole another to run an extensive information base that functions as an advertisement for all those companies that make money out of Prince's music. So, sorry. I can't side with the "fan-bullying" comments on this thread (not to mention with the one that's placed on the front page of the Digital Garden site). Prince might be an "asshole" sometimes, but taking down some site that offers information on bootlegs doesn't mean that he is "attacking his fans". That's utter nonsense and irresponsible employment of rhetoric.

Probably the same reason people build sand castles and make ice sculptures. Because it's fun.

Knowing they are only temporary.