rdhull said:

electricberet said:

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

Knowing they are only temporary.

Yeah, but it's not fun to see someone kick your sand castle over out of spite, rather than watch the waves slowly wash it away.

electricberet said:

All this is giving me warm and fuzzy memories of 1997. Naysayers, Toast, the Collective, Kathy what'shername, Pierre Igot, etc.

electricberet said:

rdhull said:

Knowing they are only temporary.

Yeah, but it's not fun to see someone kick your sand castle over out of spite, rather than watch the waves slowly wash it away.

Its expected of your sand castle is givig the middle finger to you.

errant said:

All this is giving me warm and fuzzy memories of 1997. Naysayers, Toast, the Collective, Kathy what'shername, Pierre Igot, etc.

yeah..folks (well three of them really is all lol) are giving this go round a full on revolt reaction akin to the 97 years...like they just woke up from that year Rip Van Winkle style.

rdhull said:

errant said:

All this is giving me warm and fuzzy memories of 1997. Naysayers, Toast, the Collective, Kathy what'shername, Pierre Igot, etc.

yeah..folks (well three of them really is all lol) are giving this go round a full on revolt reaction akin to the 97 years...like they just woke up from that year Rip Van Winkle style.

It's because I didn't have good internet access in 1997. I want to experience it again.

rdhull said:

errant said:

All this is giving me warm and fuzzy memories of 1997. Naysayers, Toast, the Collective, Kathy what'shername, Pierre Igot, etc.

yeah..folks (well three of them really is all lol) are giving this go round a full on revolt reaction akin to the 97 years...like they just woke up from that year Rip Van Winkle style.

maybe one of them will take up Bart's mantle and he can retire

errant said:

rdhull said:

yeah..folks (well three of them really is all lol) are giving this go round a full on revolt reaction akin to the 97 years...like they just woke up from that year Rip Van Winkle style.

maybe one of them will take up Bart's mantle and he can retire

There's a few vying for that spot but they are was less formidable.

Is there some way to merge this thread with the asshole thread? It seems like the same people are commenting on the same things in both threads.

All said, from both these threads, there's only one thing I really get bent out of shape about:

It's this idea that discussions or reviews or any other cataloging information about bootlegs is illegal because they might possibly cause or assist someone's illegal acquisition of said bootlegs. It's not illegal. I'll argue this fact all day.

The rest of it? I'm just having fun with the discussions. I don't hate Prince, I love him. His music brings me happiness all the time. He is an ass and makes a lot of stupid decisions, though...

djThunderfunk said:

Stymie said:

djThunderfunk said:

All said, from both these threads, there's only one thing I really get bent out of shape about:

It's this idea that discussions or reviews or any other cataloging information about bootlegs is illegal because they might possibly cause or assist someone's illegal acquisition of said bootlegs. It's not illegal. I'll argue this fact all day.

The rest of it? I'm just having fun with the discussions. I don't hate Prince, I love him. His music brings me happiness all the time. He is an ass and makes a lot of stupid decisions, though...

I've not seen anyone say the discussions are illegal. If tdg had the bucks I'm sure princes argument would not stand up in court. Perhaps sites like rolling stone and others that discuss bootlegs don't get cease and desist letters because they can fight in court AND someone is smart enough to know that it's not RS doing the bootlegging but in our case, someone in this very community is. As far as decisions p makes, we may not agree with them and may think they're dumb bt they are not our decisions to make. I'm glad my decisions aren't fodder for the public.

Are you kidding me. This is the only argument that I even care about in either of these threads and you haven't seen this? Repeatedly it has been argued that the discussions, reviews and information causes people to want bootlegs and to seek out and obtain bootlegs and therefor is illegal for "advertising" bootlegs. On the first point, that the information can lead obsessed people to search out bootlegs, I concede. Whether this is a crime to be stopped or freedom of speech that like it or not is acceptable is the argument, the only argument, really worth getting bent out of shape about. In my opinion... Feel free to read through the two threads, I have had to repeatedly make the case that it is not illegal. I take freedom of speech very seriously.

All the rest? I'm just having fun...

[Edited 9/2/12 22:26pm]

djThunderfunk said:

Stymie said:

djThunderfunk said: I've not seen anyone say the discussions are illegal. If tdg had the bucks I'm sure princes argument would not stand up in court. Perhaps sites like rolling stone and others that discuss bootlegs don't get cease and desist letters because they can fight in court AND someone is smart enough to know that it's not RS doing the bootlegging but in our case, someone in this very community is. As far as decisions p makes, we may not agree with them and may think they're dumb bt they are not our decisions to make. I'm glad my decisions aren't fodder for the public.

Are you kidding me. This is the only argument that I even care about in either of these threads and you haven't seen this? Repeatedly it has been argued that the discussions, reviews and information causes people to want bootlegs and to seek out and obtain bootlegs and therefor is illegal for "advertising" bootlegs. On the first point, that the information can lead obsessed people to search out bootlegs, I concede. Whether this is a crime to be stopped or freedom of speech that like it or not is acceptable is the argument, the only argument, really worth getting bent out of shape about. In my opinion... Feel free to read through the two threads, I have had to repeatedly make the case that it is not illegal. I take freedom of speech very seriously.

All the rest? I'm just having fun...

[Edited 9/2/12 22:26pm]

I was watching my local news and they were talking about a prostitute who was arrested for an act of prostitution. Not only did they give the street address, the "job" preformed, but how much it cost. If that's not promoting prostitution I don't know what is. MY point is that just because you talk about it doesn't mean your going to participate in it. (That goes for bootlegs too.)

djThunderfunk said:

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?

Ok, I never read the review but the Black Album is noteable in bootleg history, it's the only one mentioned in Wiki under Prince.

Digital Garden was a 'big' player because they are/were not just a virtual place floating round in cyber space with a bit of info there and a bit of info here, but a clear-cut digital framework with indexed clarity of an artist's work which he has never released to the public. they're not being fought or bullied, they have been told that they are on the border of passing over onto territory that is a no no.

TDG have been wise to not fight back. People here y'all are fighting against a one man show, Prince for something as petty as bootlegs, when the world's people should be up in arms and revolting against the lies, deceit and greed of bankers and governments! Viva la revolution! But there we all lay down meek and mild like a helpless child, scared out of our wits, manipulated by propaganda and believe the bullshit. I'm all for rocking the boat against the BIG ONES and here Prince is not the big one! Bootlegs are arbitrary in comparison.

Bohemian67 said:

djThunderfunk said:

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?

Ok, I never read the review but the Black Album is noteable in bootleg history, it's the only one mentioned in Wiki under Prince.

Digital Garden was a 'big' player because they are/were not just a virtual place floating round in cyber space with a bit of info there and a bit of info here, but a clear-cut digital framework with indexed clarity of an artist's work which he has never released to the public. they're not being fought or bullied, they have been told that they are on the border of passing over onto territory that is a no no.

TDG have been wise to not fight back. People here y'all are fighting against a one man show, Prince for something as petty as bootlegs, when the world's people should be up in arms and revolting against the lies, deceit and greed of bankers and governments! Viva la revolution! But there we all lay down meek and mild like a helpless child, scared out of our wits, manipulated by propaganda and believe the bullshit. I'm all for rocking the boat against the BIG ONES and here Prince is not the big one! Bootlegs are arbitrary in comparison.

Okay, I'm riled up again. All you had to do was ignore the fact that THERE IS NO LAW PROHIBITING THE DISCUSSION, REVIEWS OR INFORMATION ABOUT BOOTLEGS!!!

If you think there is such a law, provide your information. You won't. Because there is not.

Even though there is no law, and TDG's actions were completely legal, they shut down because they could not afford to prove that in a court of law. Prince is using legal threats which are not based on any law to bully a website that cannot afford to fight back so that it will have no choice but to shut down. How does that not make him an ass?

The law is not on his side, his money is. In this case money trumps the law and the truth. This is the problem that has had my panties in a wad in this and the other thread.

We need a civics class up in here!

djThunderfunk said:

Bohemian67 said:

Ok, I never read the review but the Black Album is noteable in bootleg history, it's the only one mentioned in Wiki under Prince.

Digital Garden was a 'big' player because they are/were not just a virtual place floating round in cyber space with a bit of info there and a bit of info here, but a clear-cut digital framework with indexed clarity of an artist's work which he has never released to the public. they're not being fought or bullied, they have been told that they are on the border of passing over onto territory that is a no no.

TDG have been wise to not fight back. People here y'all are fighting against a one man show, Prince for something as petty as bootlegs, when the world's people should be up in arms and revolting against the lies, deceit and greed of bankers and governments! Viva la revolution! But there we all lay down meek and mild like a helpless child, scared out of our wits, manipulated by propaganda and believe the bullshit. I'm all for rocking the boat against the BIG ONES and here Prince is not the big one! Bootlegs are arbitrary in comparison.

Okay, I'm riled up again. All you had to do was ignore the fact that THERE IS NO LAW PROHIBITING THE DISCUSSION, REVIEWS OR INFORMATION ABOUT BOOTLEGS!!!

Yes there is. It's called Purple Law lol. Unless some of yall making these websites got some relevant monies, purple law trumps legal law.

KingSausage said:

And the Purple Law was handed down to Prince from God, through the Wise Ones. The Purple Law doesn't give a duck about freedom of speech.

rdhull said:

djThunderfunk said:

Okay, I'm riled up again. All you had to do was ignore the fact that THERE IS NO LAW PROHIBITING THE DISCUSSION, REVIEWS OR INFORMATION ABOUT BOOTLEGS!!!

Yes there is. It's called Purple Law lol. Unless some of yall making these websites got some relevant monies, purple law trumps legal law.

And that's my point exactly. There is no law so Prince uses the fact that he has the money and TDG does not to BULLY them into stopping their legal actions.

This is my only real issue. It's bullshit.

djThunderfunk said:

rdhull said:

Yes there is. It's called Purple Law lol. Unless some of yall making these websites got some relevant monies, purple law trumps legal law.

And that's my point exactly. There is no law so Prince uses the fact that he has the money and TDG does not to BULLY them into stopping their legal actions.

This is my only real issue. It's bullshit.

Its been this way for decades. Soon as you resign yourself to this fact of how things are, the sooner we can contiue with this god damned love affair.

rdhull said:

errant said:

All this is giving me warm and fuzzy memories of 1997. Naysayers, Toast, the Collective, Kathy what'shername, Pierre Igot, etc.

yeah..folks (well three of them really is all lol) are giving this go round a full on revolt reaction akin to the 97 years...like they just woke up from that year Rip Van Winkle style.

Ah...memories.....

rdhull said:

djThunderfunk said:

And that's my point exactly. There is no law so Prince uses the fact that he has the money and TDG does not to BULLY them into stopping their legal actions.

This is my only real issue. It's bullshit.

Its been this way for decades. Soon as you resign yourself to this fact of how things are, the sooner we can contiue with this god damned love affair.

As long as we're calling it like it is, and not pretending Prince has any legal standing for his actions, then love away!!

I would suggest that if anybody wants to start another site like TDG that they host it on something like blogspot, that has Google's deep pockets behind it. Yes, Google does receive and act on requests to take down copyrighted material, both from copyright owners and from governments. However, they are generally pretty decent about investigating the so-called infringing material. And if a cease & desist comes to them as the site provider, they're going to do exactly what should be done with it after they've determined that there is no violation in describing bootlegs, and throw the notice in the trash.

djThunderfunk said:

Okay, I'm riled up again. All you had to do was ignore the fact that THERE IS NO LAW PROHIBITING THE DISCUSSION, REVIEWS OR INFORMATION ABOUT BOOTLEGS!!!

Dj....

I work with lawyers regularly. If there is a circumstance that, could lead to a chain of events to to something uhm...'non kosher', that was foreseeable in the original circumstance, then TDG wouldn't stand a chance in hell in trying to prove or provide evidence, that the 'thing' that led to the chain of events was NOT foreseeable. That's the way it works. The law is not that black and white.

[Edited 9/3/12 9:42am]

errant said:

I would suggest that if anybody wants to start another site like TDG that they host it on something like blogspot, that has Google's deep pockets behind it. Yes, Google does receive and act on requests to take down copyrighted material, both from copyright owners and from governments. However, they are generally pretty decent about investigating the so-called infringing material. And if a cease & desist comes to them as the site provider, they're going to do exactly what should be done with it after they've determined that there is no violation in describing bootlegs, and throw the notice in the trash.

THIS.

Bohemian67 said:

Dj....

I work with lawyers regularly. If there is a circumstance that, could lead to a chain of events to to something uhm...'non kosher', that was foreseeable in the original circumstance, then TDG wouldn't stand a chance in hell in trying to prove or provide evidence, that the 'thing' that led to the chain of events was NOT foreseeable. That's the way it works. The law is not that black and white.

[Edited 9/3/12 9:42am]

Then why can Rolling Stone review bootlegs? Is it because they have money to defend against a lawsuit?

Why can High Times magazine provide marijuana grow tips and advice for avoiding detection?

TDG is not responsible for people seeking out bootlegs. If they are, then so was every review and news story about the Black Album in 1988. They sparked my interest in bootlegs which led me to seek them out. Read some of the articles & reviews I posted earlier (this thread or the other, can't remember which), it is clearly forseeable that their information and reviews would lead fans to search out that particular bootleg.

If TDG facilitating acquiring bootlegs in any way, you would have a point. They didn't and you don't.

Bohemian67 said:

djThunderfunk said:

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?

Ok, I never read the review but the Black Album is noteable in bootleg history, it's the only one mentioned in Wiki under Prince.

Digital Garden was a 'big' player because they are/were not just a virtual place floating round in cyber space with a bit of info there and a bit of info here, but a clear-cut digital framework with indexed clarity of an artist's work which he has never released to the public. they're not being fought or bullied, they have been told that they are on the border of passing over onto territory that is a no no.

TDG have been wise to not fight back. People here y'all are fighting against a one man show, Prince for something as petty as bootlegs, when the world's people should be up in arms and revolting against the lies, deceit and greed of bankers and governments! Viva la revolution! But there we all lay down meek and mild like a helpless child, scared out of our wits, manipulated by propaganda and believe the bullshit. I'm all for rocking the boat against the BIG ONES and here Prince is not the big one! Bootlegs are arbitrary in comparison.

I agree with this. The C&D letters are annoying but this is not a big deal to me. and the fact that people are getting pissed and riled up is laughable. when there are more serious issues going on in the world. People talk about protesting at his shows. Give me a fucking break. If they could put more energy in a cause that really matters.

PRince is picky and controlling about his work. We know that. If anyone chooses to host these types of sites they should either go in with a pro se lawyer ready to support them or research on representing themselves on their own. I have friends who sued big companies with no lawyers (discrimination, sexual harrasment and one unlawful termination case), one of these cases was a settlement. I don't think that fighting these C&D letters is that hard or expensive, IF, there is absolutely no legal ground for Prince to stand on. The lady with the dancing baby took on Universal and Prince. It set a precident.

By TDG's own admission they chose not to fight back because of finances and because they feel they were treading on grounds that may or may not be legal.

Do I agree with what Prince is doing, maybe not, do I care no. Does it affect me, nah. There are more serious problems in this world and TDG's closing does not take away the fact that whatever it is they were discussing is still out there to get. If an argument can be proposed on how these boots can help Prince then in the end he is only hurting himself, not me, so I dont really care.

It's 2012. We're close to Armageddon. 1988 is 24 years ago. Things have changed.

So you're saying a digitalised, organised catalogue of any bootlegs of Prince in existence doesn't assist a buyer?

More importantly. Can you prove that it doesn't?

errant said:

I would suggest that if anybody wants to start another site like TDG that they host it on something like blogspot, that has Google's deep pockets behind it. Yes, Google does receive and act on requests to take down copyrighted material, both from copyright owners and from governments. However, they are generally pretty decent about investigating the so-called infringing material. And if a cease & desist comes to them as the site provider, they're going to do exactly what should be done with it after they've determined that there is no violation in describing bootlegs, and throw the notice in the trash.

Well there it is. Problem solved.