SoulAlive said:

to those of you who agree with Prince's anti-bootleg stance...let's see how sincere you are

1) Take all of the Prince bootlegs that YOU own and send them to Prince

2) Enclose a note saying you're really sorry for having these bootlegs

3) Give Prince the name of the bootlegger(s) you purchased (or somehow "obtained") them from,so that he can sue these people,too

If you REALLY agree with his stance, start paying him damages. Not the cost of a comparable CD (and certainly not the "amount he would have gotten after all parties involved in the distribution chain got their part) but something comparable to the amount he's asking for--in other words, have you copied anything for someone else? If so, boom! There's a million! And let's see, what sort of punitive damages can we add on that?

If you didn't copy anything for anyone else? You were still part of the whole process... so maybe not a million--but a whole lot more than makes any sense! Maybe a hundred thousand? That's not TOO unreasonable, is it?

By the way, what's the legality on all those streams he's been dropping lately? If you download them and keep them on your computer (or do something else with them as if you owned them)--how's that fit in copyright laws? If I decide to follow Prince's desires regarding his artwork--do I never listen to anything after it's been purged from 3rdEye's Youtube account? Honestly, if he's distanced himself from a work, or even denied that he wanted it released (all that "Contractual obligation" foolishness that was stamped on the late Warner releases on his "official discography" pages back in the day, for example)--shouldn't I honor the artist's wishes and not listen to those? He's not able legally to come and take my copies from me, but he has pretty much requested that "Chaos & Disorder" and "The Vault: Old Friends 4 Sale" not be considered as part of his work. And as someone who has the power to keep most of what's been released since 1996 available for download (without any real hassle)--that he hasn't strongly suggests that he doesn't want it listened to either. And I'm pretty sure that he doesn't want me to listen to Dirty Mind as it was released. Or a lot of the released material.

Yes, I've gone beyond the legal issues. But if it's about respecting the artist's vision for his work, well, that's part of it too.

Edit--Oh yeah, add the Black Album to the contractual obligation list. He's made clear from the announcement that that was coming that he did not want that to happen. I know not everyone loves it, but I'm guessing more people would feel it was a significant loss to the "canon" than the other two I named.

[Edited 1/26/14 7:59am]

EddieC said:

By the way, what's the legality on all those streams he's been dropping lately? If you download them and keep them on your computer (or do something else with them as if you owned them)--how's that fit in copyright laws?

As I wrote before:

Law won't make wrong what isn't.

If you cannot use your own sense of ethics, then why depend on laws (rules...) set by the benefactors of those laws? (not you and yours)

scorp84 said:

What's funny is that P has bootleg tapes of James Brown, Little Richard and Sly and the Family Stone sitting in his crib given to him by MJ and morality is a hot button issue concerning unreleased recordings and live shows. [Edited 1/25/14 15:18pm]

SAY THAT AGAIN. and SAY IT LOUDER THIS TIME.

Cognitive Dissonance

Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong.

When they are presented with evidence that works

against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted.

It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable,

called cognitive dissonance.

And because it is so important to protect the core belief

they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that

doesn't fit in with the core belief.

- Frantz Fanon

babynoz said:

Udo--

Don't get me wrong--I'm listening to the streams, whether he's pulled them or not. I ethically have no problem with it. I also have read the Aeneid (even though Virgil wanted it burned) and the works of Kafka (ditto) and looked at the draft sheets of assorted other poets and have quite a bit of Dylan and Beatles unofficials (and some others). I was just curious how the law stood, if it has even been determined.

But for those who claim the artist's desires are paramount, why stop with the law's limitations--just because the law allows them to them do it, why should they listen to what Prince doesn't want them to? If they value the artist's desires (not just his legal rights), then they should respect those desires, not just his legal rights. Just as "Law won't make wrong what isn't," it is also true that

Law won't make right was isn't.

Just because you can legally listen to "Gett Off" on your legally purchased copy of Diamonds and Pearls doesn't mean you should--because you know Prince doesn't want you to... and you shouldn't listen to any of the new lyric versions, because he hasn't released them... so--NO "GETT OFF" for you!!! (and of course, the original DMSR, and a huge chunk of his 90's output, and so on, and so on, and so on).

Again, that's not me arguing that. It's just the obvious extension of what some people seem to be saying. If it's about what Prince wants, then it's about what Prince wants. He wants us to forget about much of his past, but to still have the impression of his greatness based on the material he wants you to forget he ever did. Largely so people don't compare the present to the past, but also possibly because of religious issues--I understand the desire, it's behind (I think) a lot of what he does on the internet, and why he hasn't released stuff from the vault and why he doesn't go back and do the extended remaster projects we all want.

You can't compare owning bootlegs for private use to distributing bootlegs. No way. I've said this twice on the thread, but don't worry, I won't say this again! I don't mean owning bootlegs is something to be proud of, but is's ethically very far from distributing music ilegally.

---

Also, I am right according to the law: I can give my name and address and say I have bootlegs and I won't have a single problem. But if I give my name and address and say I distribute bootlegs, I am breaking the law and the Prince police would kindly visit me to my house, and they'd be right in doing so.

---

I mean, if the music is out there and you're a harcore Prince fan, it is damn hard to resist it, isn't it? I can resist anything but temptation. At least I have the decency to confess my weakness and that I'm not perfect.

---

Anyway, my musical culture would be the same if I hadn't listen to a single Prince bootleged song, and I would be a hardcore fan equally, since his offically released output is impressive anyway.

---

Like I said before, the real hypocrisy here is defending bootlegers and saying that you admire Prince as an artist. Moreover, the hypocresy is defending bootlegers and saying you have appreciation for what music, and art in general, mean.

[Edited 1/26/14 13:07pm]

[Edited 1/26/14 13:08pm]

PoorLonelyComputer said:

scorp84 said:

What's funny is that P has bootleg tapes of James Brown, Little Richard and Sly and the Family Stone sitting in his crib given to him by MJ and morality is a hot button issue concerning unreleased recordings and live shows. [Edited 1/25/14 15:18pm]

SAY THAT AGAIN. and SAY IT LOUDER THIS TIME.

So, if Michael gave the boots to Prince, then Richard and Sly and Brown's estate should sue Michael's estate. The real question is, did Prince pass these boots on to anyone else--like say Questlove (cuz you know he wants anything he can get)? Then they could hit Prince up, too.

[Edited 1/26/14 16:44pm]

tab32792 said:

This thread still alive? Differing opinions are going to continue forever. But I will say this. I own bootlegs. I turn my friends on to Prince with them. Yes his released output is great. But his unreleased stuff & live boots are as impressive if not more. No I don't feel guilty for having them. Yes it is his art & his creations so on one hand, he has the right to sue whoever as he sees fit but in the other hand, after all these years, why now? And why not go after ppl selling the stuff as opposed to sharing amongst fans & not the general public? [Edited 1/26/14 17:25pm]

I can't tell it for sure, but I think he has gone after ebay too. Some bootleg has been strangely retired of ebay recently, and it may be due to Prince's actions.

[Edited 1/27/14 2:06am]

now, a danish article about this lawsuit, (on site: gaffa.dk)...

With a lot of coments too.... from danish fans and non-fans.

Prince sagsøger fans

22 fans får sangerens vrede at føle, efter at han har anklaget dem for brud på ophavsrettigheder

^ source: http://gaffa.dk/nyhed/80170

[Edited 1/27/14 4:06am]

EddieC said:

Udo--

Don't get me wrong--I'm listening to the streams, whether he's pulled them or not. I ethically have no problem with it. I also have read the Aeneid (even though Virgil wanted it burned) and the works of Kafka (ditto) and looked at the draft sheets of assorted other poets and have quite a bit of Dylan and Beatles unofficials (and some others).

Nursev - you're famous. The Guardian quoted you. http://www.theguardian.co...recordings

thisisreece said:

Nursev - you're famous. The Guardian quoted you. http://www.theguardian.co...recordings

thisisreece said:

Nursev - you're famous. The Guardian quoted you. http://www.theguardian.co...recordings

And they have a typo ......... it's prince.org NOT Prince.org

Frame it!

Good happens 2 those that ask 4 forgiveness says the lord.............

thisisreece said:

Nursev - you're famous. The Guardian quoted you. http://www.theguardian.co...recordings

I kind of know someone famous

Becasue we all know suing your fans worked out so well for Metallica...

Superconductor said:

kewlschool said:

Nursev sort of true, however, if you don't sue to protect your copyright you run the risk of losing your copyright and your music becoming public domain. So, you may not sue everyone, but you definitely want to sue the bigger culprits. (Now other countries may have different laws making it harder for Prince to hold on to his copyrights.)If he doesn't put effort in controlling the music then Prince wont own his music anymore and the public will, allowing for anyone to use it anytime, anywhere. Upholding your copyright by law and agreement is part of having a copyright.

What? Where did you get that from?

Certainly the onus is on the copyright owner to enforce infringements of their copyright but it doesn't extinguish, not even after the copyright owner has died.

True to an extent, however, you can not get monetary damages from art that has become public domain (Mozart music is public domain-no royalties needed to pay to play his music).

Byron said:

Without the bootlegs? I would have been standing at the store's door at 6:00 am excited as hell to FINALLY get to hear the mysterious Black Album.

Without boots it would have never gotten released.

djThunderfunk said:

By the time it was officially released I'd already had 5 or 6 different bootlegs of the Black Album on vinyl & CD in an effort to upgrade the quality. That didn't stop me from picking up the official copy when it was released. It sounded better than even the best bootleg I've ever heard

This is nonsense. By 1994 there had been plenty of straight CD rips released as boots. The 1994 master is exactly the same as the one used for the 1987 release.

FYI To this date there has been ONE case where a Prince-bootlegger ended up in court: a UK guy who sold copies of The Black Album. Guess what happened? WB couldn't be arsed to provide proof that they were in fact legal representatives for Prince etc. and the judge threw the case out of court.

Also note that Uptown called Prince's bluff and countersued, and suddenly there was a lot of cooperation coming from the Park: P does not want to park his silk-clad tushi in a courtroom to provide testimony.

This is simply Prince bullying people once again.

Wouldn't it be nice if Prince actually had a clue and would turn a blind eye? Imagine how great it would be to have something like http://www.reflectinginthechrome.com/ (note that they uploaded their rips of various NIN livestreams to YouTube and that Sony linked to them in a press release for the latest NIN album).

Made the DrudgeReport and Fast Company

thisisreece said:

Nursev - you're famous. The Guardian quoted you. http://www.theguardian.co...recordings

The Guardian no less!

excited said: