I feel bad for the sites that have received noticed from Prince's lawyers.

But I suppose there is a bright side to everything. As a hardcore fan, it's probably a cool little collector's item to receive a letter from his lawyers. You know, it's only one degree of separation from Prince himself!

As a matter of fact, I think I am going to start a fan site right now, filled with videos and free downloads of his music, just so I can get one of those nifty little collector's items.

I've had that same thought myself. Whoever is running The Digital Garden website might be able to fund their legal defense by auctioning off the cease and desist letters on eBay. I'd certainly put in a bid.

It reminds me of Mike D.'s comment when the Beastie Boys were sued for sampling Beatles songs: "What's cooler than getting sued by the Beatles?”

electricberet said:

I've had that same thought myself. Whoever is running The Digital Garden website might be able to fund their legal defense by auctioning off the cease and desist letters on eBay. I'd certainly put in a bid.

It reminds me of Mike D.'s comment when the Beastie Boys were sued for sampling Beatles songs: "What's cooler than getting sued by the Beatles?”

Good point! I mean, I'd wish no harm to Prince or his legacy, but wouldn't it even be cooler if you had to go to court for it and got to meet Prince in the actual courtroom?

Sike. I'm not a pscyho-fan like that, just saying.

berniejobs said:

electricberet said:

I've had that same thought myself. Whoever is running The Digital Garden website might be able to fund their legal defense by auctioning off the cease and desist letters on eBay. I'd certainly put in a bid.

It reminds me of Mike D.'s comment when the Beastie Boys were sued for sampling Beatles songs: "What's cooler than getting sued by the Beatles?”

Good point! I mean, I'd wish no harm to Prince or his legacy, but wouldn't it even be cooler if you had to go to court for it and got to meet Prince in the actual courtroom?

Sike. I'm not a pscyho-fan like that, just saying.

The problem is that there's a lot of work involved in setting up and running a website, and you can't be sure that you will be rewarded with a cease-and-desist letter.

electricberet said:

berniejobs said:

Good point! I mean, I'd wish no harm to Prince or his legacy, but wouldn't it even be cooler if you had to go to court for it and got to meet Prince in the actual courtroom?

Sike. I'm not a pscyho-fan like that, just saying.

The problem is that there's a lot of work involved in setting up and running a website, and you can't be sure that you will be rewarded with a cease-and-desist letter.

True. But I bet if you straight up put his studio albums on there for free download it wouldn't take long...

Kudos to Ben for standing up against bully threats all these years!

FunkySideEffects said:

U guys are funny

I second that....

If you love Prince and you

Just can't resist....

Set up a site....

For a cease and desist

Cheers to Ben too for his will power.

berniejobs said:

electricberet said:

I've had that same thought myself. Whoever is running The Digital Garden website might be able to fund their legal defense by auctioning off the cease and desist letters on eBay. I'd certainly put in a bid.

It reminds me of Mike D.'s comment when the Beastie Boys were sued for sampling Beatles songs: "What's cooler than getting sued by the Beatles?”

Good point! I mean, I'd wish no harm to Prince or his legacy, but wouldn't it even be cooler if you had to go to court for it and got to meet Prince in the actual courtroom?

Sike. I'm not a pscyho-fan like that, just saying.

Pretty sure you'd just meet his lawyers...

[Edited 9/1/12 8:59am]

djThunderfunk said:

berniejobs said:

Good point! I mean, I'd wish no harm to Prince or his legacy, but wouldn't it even be cooler if you had to go to court for it and got to meet Prince in the actual courtroom?

Sike. I'm not a pscyho-fan like that, just saying.

Pretty sure you'd just me his lawyers...

Or maybe not. He didn't even respond to the perfume lawsuit, which is why the judge accepted their version of the facts.

The only infringment a discussion or discography site (even a bootleg one) really makes is using copyright images, because they're not hosting or even linking to the bootlegs themselves. Of course hardcore fans who dedicate their own time and money to strengthen the fanbase and promote their favourite artists' work don't have an angry team of scary lawyers, making their position in effect defenceless.

Petty.

NouveauDance said:

The only infringment a discussion or discography site (even a bootleg one) really makes is using copyright images, because they're not hosting or even linking to the bootlegs themselves. Of course hardcore fans who dedicate their own time and money to strengthen the fanbase and promote their favourite artists' work don't have an angry team of scary lawyers, making their position in effect defenceless.

Petty.

purplethunder3121 said:

Kudos to Ben for standing up against bully threats all these years!

Weird how he could "stand up" to "bully threats" but he can't update his own fucking website.

[Edited 9/1/12 10:01am]

All I got was a few harassing emails and youtube messages! Nothing in writing.

here is a redacted copy and paste:

A Message From NPG

[Edited 9/1/12 17:24pm]

Message #2

WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-323 8013 / Fax 44-(0)208-323 8080
websheriff@websheriff.com www.websheriff.com

STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
ATTENTION ADDRESSEES ONLY
COPYRIGHT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
& WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Hi Again ,

Thanks for your PM ... .. although we should point-out that that video clearly states that PRINCE "steals" (ergo that he is a thief) and this, like-it-or-not, is highly defamatory / libellous ... .. you are, of course, entitled to insult anyone you please (again within the bounds of libel laws), but the above crosses-the-line (and then some).

The reason why we chose to write to you is that you clearly 'had-a-beef' and we wished to communicate with you directly to demonstrate you that there are two sides to this story. Should you wish for us to remove the clip and then take further action, then that's up-to-you, we were / are simply offering you the opportunity to withdraw the clip (again, the choice is entirely yours).

We'll look forward to liaising further.

Regards,

WEB SHERIFF

Message #3

WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-323 8013 / Fax 44-(0)208-323 8080
websheriff@websheriff.com www.websheriff.com

STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
ATTENTION ADDRESSEES ONLY
COPYRIGHT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
& WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Hi Again

Thanks for the further PM ... .. although nothing rhetorical about your statement that PRINCE is thief !!

We'll assume that you now want us to crack-on with Plan B ... .. but please don't say that we didn't try to reason with you first.

Anyway, such is life (sometimes !!).

Regards,

WEB SHERIF

what i like the most is the warning that it is illegal for me to publish the messages! Sorry you can not enforce that after the fact. My work email attaches something like that too. Now I could lose my job I guess if I violate it but it is not a legally binding statement as there was never any opportunity to refuse the communication.

[Edited 9/1/12 17:32pm]

^^^ That's what I mean. You might get a C&D email like that for putting up some unauthorized stuff, but if you really want a fancy letter signed by lawyers, suitable for framing, you'll have to be more creative like the TDG guys.

electricberet said:

^^^ That's what I mean. You might get a C&D email like that for putting up some unauthorized stuff, but if you really want a fancy letter signed by lawyers, suitable for framing, you'll have to be more creative like the TDG guys.

I was calling prince a jerk and I isted a few songs he did not write that he claimed as his own.

The worst it got was an email from youtube saying a request for my personal information had been made. I replied with my full name and address and I send it to the web sheriff too. I was hoping to get a letter....

[Edited 9/1/12 17:51pm]

FunkySideEffects said:

I wonder what it will take to get a letter from Prince himself, and not his suits. How about hiring a football stadium & projecting all his videos onto the main big screen & inviting anybody and everybody for a free showing. Or how about we order one billion helium balloons (purple ones of course) each with a cd, picture, dvd or song lyrics attached to them, then every Prince fan around the world releases them simultaneously on an auspicious day, which they will ultimately pop thus creating genuine purple rain falling onto earth and into the hands of every boy & girl. This will surely get Skipper out to play with us, no?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what i like the most is the warning that it is illegal for me to publish the messages! Sorry you can not enforce that after the fact. My work email attaches something like that too. Now I could lose my job I guess if I violate it but it is not a legally binding statement as there was never any opportunity to refuse the communication.

What I like the most is that you ignored the warning! Thank you posting. Love it!!

OnlyNDaUsa said:

artist76 said:

I just want to clarify the legal language as I see it. And I'm a corporate attorney so maybe that counts for something, I don't know. You did not do anything illegal by choosing to post these letters here on a discussion site. The "legalese" at the bottom is saying that the Web Sheriff letter is copyrighted material, therefore you cannot misappropriate it like any other copyrighted material. You cannot send it to other people as a prank or to do your own enforcing, you cannot use the language as your own and publish it (like plagiarism, also actionable).

Oh Interesting: I focused on the " that all publication and communication to any third party (other than, of course, your attorneys) is strictly prohibited and actionable against you..." As seems to say that I am not allowed to show that to anyone other than an attorney.

The "legalese" at the top saying "private, confidential, to addressee only" basically warns other people who might see it (because it's wrongly delivered or accidentally opened by someone not the addressee) that this is a confidential, private communication not meant for them. You may wonder, OK so someone else has now seen it, so what does the "warning" matter? Yes, what has been seen by an unintended party cannot be unseen, but the language does have a purpose if a matter involving this communication comes to litigation. The unintended party cannot offer confidential information that was not intended for them into evidence. So the language is crucial protection in a procedural sense. In legal procedure, facts/ information that cannot be entered into evidence properly do not exist in the case. If you choose to show someone your confidential communication, you have waived your right to confidentiality. For example, medical result documents may have the "confidential" warning on top (that tells other people it is not meant for them), but if you show your mTedical results to someone, you have waived your right to confidentiality to that person.

That is how I understand that as well.

The other "legalese" which you do not reference, but I will explain anyway for those interested, is the "without prejudice" language. It just means that this Web Sheriff communication/ warning is not lieu of formal legal action by Web Sheriff's client (that is, by Prince). Whatever contained in these Web Sheriff messages does not preclude or forgo any argument that could be made in a formal legal action.

Again, I understand that. Like when a judge dismisses a case 'without prejudice' then the same case/charges can be refiled. If dismissed 'WITH Prejudice' it can not be refiled.

So while I see you relish the idea that you have somehow stuck it to Web sheriff or Prince by graciously choosing to share these communications with us here, that's really not the case. You have done nothing wrong or subversive by sharing them.

I am not sure I relished it at all. I just pointed out that the statement was not something that could be held (and you seemed to have confirmed) against me. *and this letter is a few years old too*

Posting a rant about an artist plagiarizing or stealing IP and claiming it as fact, however, can be quite wrong and I would say yes, verging on libelous. But I have not seen your YT clip in question nor have any facts about it so I'm just making conjectures there. Thanks again for sharing.

As a lawyer you know that the standard for a successful libelous cases against a public figure by a lay person is very high. That it would have to be done with a reckless disregard for the truth.

The reason IT IS NOT liblous was in the "about" section of the video. I cited cases and examples and sources for my claims. At the time Prince was being sued over "Girl 6" I also named "guess who's knocking", "Do me Baby" "Party UP" and a few tracks off of "For You" that Chris Moon suggested he wrote or co-wrote and was either not credited or under credited for (that was from the book "Pop Life").

All of those examples are either well established (true or not is not material) parts of Prince lore or as was the case of the For You songs, from a published work--and thus no action action against me would have a chance in a US Court. **note the web sheriff is in the UK which they may be successful. In part because I would not go there and in part because no US court would affirm any judgments against me for what I said.

Thanks for your Reply.

Speaking as someone NOT in the legal field or music industry, how does this work? Does Prince scan the dead internet, see a video or a picture or a link to another site hosting the vid/pic, then contact which ever current attorney he has that thinks they're getting paid and tell them to contact WS about that specific thing? Or does he/his atty just make a blanket statement to WS saying 'you guys look thru the web and send a C&D on anything that you find'?

Webseheriff is no logal entity related to Prince as far as I know.
Email is no legal communication method without sufficient authentication.
Did they provide a verifieable GPG/PGP pubkey? Sign their email with that?

If not I would insist on an oldskool written letter from the lawyers repesenting mr P.
Explain them that they have no real expectation of privacy/confidentiality of their communicatons with out, first.
Then you'd know the issue is real and you could auction off the letter later.