SquirrelMeat said:

Javi ups the game. He takes NurseV's namecheck on The Guardian and says, I raise to a name check on the BBC!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news...y-25927363

Oh... What can I say? I fear I'm not prepared for fame yet...

---

Anyway, the BBC article is more balanced than The Guardian one, in my opinion. The author tries to give space to all the opinions, while The Guardian spoke only about one of the positions in the debate.

---

But I'm famous, so what do I care anyway?

thedoorkeeper said:

They just discussed this on The Talk.

No one had a problem with Prince doing this.

[Edited 1/28/14 17:17pm]

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

thedoorkeeper said:

They just discussed this on The Talk.

No one had a problem with Prince doing this.

Us in the entertainment industry always understand how important it is to own our artistry. Prince will again go down in history 4 standing up 4 his RIGHTS...............

[Edited 1/28/14 15:09pm]

If you own any unauthorized Prince songs, you are talking out of your ass.

Does he even realise you can rip the audio from his 3EG youtube channel? Some folks get millions of views, not Prince though. Just thousands. Maybe a few hundred actually ripped that shit and stuck it on their iPod, maybe they didn't. But if one person puts it on a blog there's a bill for $1m?! Really Prince?!

..

The lawsuit quoting gigs from 31 years ago says it all. He got paid that night, i can say without a doubt he certainly has no plans to release this history himself, so no monies have or will have been lost. The only thing he's losing is respect and fans. Fans are certainly not entitled to this music, but this has gone on forever, be it vinyl, cassette, cd or digital. He should maybe just... letitgo.

..

He isn't suffering, he doesn't remember, never mind know the meaning of the word. He's like a kid who regularly has breakfast and lunch proclaiming they're "starving" at 4pm.

..

Looks like this is the first tour I'll pass on in the UK since Parade, Shame cause i quite like 3EG from the boots i've heard. But rather than spend that money on a person who seemingly doesn't really appreciate my interest and investment in him over the years anyway, i'll happily spend it on nice summer holiday with my family instead.

..

Unless he wants to sue me just for listening. Then i won't be able to.

[Edited 1/28/14 15:56pm]

http://www.scribd.com/doc...-Prejudice

Prince v. Chodera - Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Ratings:

Published by Mark H.

Jaffe Prince's voluntary dismissal of his copyright and anti-bootlegging action. Dismissal with prejudice means he can bring the action again. It is unclear from the document why Prince dismissed the action. Last week, he had made a motion for expedited discovery to identify the Doe defendants. For informational purposes only. Not legal advice. I am not representing parties in this action. For more information about my practice, see:

http://torekeland.com/about/mark-h-jaffe For interesting and witty analysis, see my twitter feed at:

@MarkJKings

https://twitter.com/MarkJKings

http://www.tmz.com/2014/01/28/prince-drops-22-million-lawuit-bootleggers-music/

dismissed

bonnie184 said:

http://www.tmz.com/2014/01/28/prince-drops-22-million-lawuit-bootleggers-music/

dismissed

He's still a dick.

Case closed.

Marrk said:

I don't know--if (as the techdirt article says) statutory damages begin at $750 per infringed work--well, these blogs linked to a whole lot of boots (to locations where the bloggers--mostly--had uploaded the files themselves, so the whole link verses actual posting of the files seems like a distraction, one that Prince's people could handle quickly). Also, none of these blogs only had three tracks--they may have only mentioned three in the papers so far, but Prince's people would, again, have no trouble showing that there were way more files involved.

So, if it's $750 per infringed work (at a minimum)--does that mean (since these are unreleased live versions of released songs, for the most part) that the twenty versions of "Let's Go Crazy" (and many would have had many more than that) count as one "infringed work" or twenty? Depending on which way it works, even at the lower level (not the $150,000 per), that could add up pretty quickly.

I've said several times that I don't think Prince has been harmed by these bloggers, but if I'm reading this article correctly, he doesn't have to show actual damages (though that might be what the paperwork suggests), but could mount up possibly pretty big statutory damages. Of course, as with any lawsuit by the wealthy against the (relatively, at least) poor (and I assume that Prince is way richer than any of the defendants), you don't have to win or even go to trial to cause people all kinds of problems, and even if someone does come to their legal aid, is a hobby (which is what this amounts to for these people) worth the hassle?

Sorry--hadn't read the dismissal notice until after I posted. I started my post in the afternoon, but didn't get back to it to send until just a few minutes ago. So, read my former post in either the past tense or, I don't know, some sort of conditional future if he starts this thing up again.

errant said:

BartVanHemelen said:

djThunderfunk said:

It's not nonsense. I kept the best vinyl and the best CD from my boots. Both sound terrific but neither sounds as good as the official CD.

Who was "ripping" CDs in 1994? I'd say they were "dubbing" CDs back then.

Just because the technology wasn't cheap and available to the public back then, doesn't mean bootleggers weren't ripping CDs.

And, just because some of the bootleggers might have had the technology doesn't mean that they all did and doesn't mean that all or even most of the Black Album boots were direct rips as opposed to dubs. I worked at a record store that sold bootlegs in '94. We had 3 or 4 different Black Album boots while I was there. None were direct rips.

How 'bout this:

I'll concede that you may have had a bootleg CD of the Black Album that was a direct "rip" of an official CD.

You concede that of the 1/2 dozen or so Black Album boots that I had, none were a direct rip.

Then we can get on with the OP discussion about the lawsuit and not go off the rails on a tangent.

Cool?

Stymie said:

errant said:

LOL! Best round of Piss-off-the-fan-base yet!! LOL!

the one around 2004 was better. Remember when he asked fans to send in their boots? This place went up in flames.

'The Ways Of the Pharaoh' incident.

Pity, was really looking ahead to how all of this would really unfold in front of court.



Honestly, I would probably sue too. If someone stole my compositions and spread them as if they were theirs (in a recording quality not chosen by myself), or, even worse, made money selling them, I'd sue too. And I'd have every right to, just like Prince has.


People think Prince somehow has the moral obligation to let others do what they want, because he's rich and famous and they are not. Wrong.

People think Prince has the obligation to let them do what they want, because after all they are simply "saving his career". Wrong. It's his career, and he is the only one to decide whether it needs saving or not, and how it is to be saved. If he wants to destroy it, he is the only one who has the right to do so, too.

People do not understand the connection a musician often has to his work, because most of them never made a living doing the only thing they absolutely love doing. Hence, they don't understand the motivation behind Prince not wanting anyone else to fuck with his work. Not his problem, though.



By sharing bootlegs, you risk getting burned. From a fan perspective, I get the want for bootlegs. I love them too. From a musician's perspective, go Prince.

Militant said:

Prince has dropped the lawsuit.

That was because he didn't have his house in order.

udo said:

Dave1992 said:

Pity, was really looking ahead to how all of this would really unfold in front of court.



Honestly, I would probably sue too. If someone stole my compositions and spread them as if they were theirs (in a recording quality not chosen by myself), or, even worse, made money selling them, I'd sue too. And I'd have every right to, just like Prince has.


People think Prince somehow has the moral obligation to let others do what they want, because he's rich and famous and they are not. Wrong.

People think Prince has the obligation to let them do what they want, because after all they are simply "saving his career". Wrong. It's his career, and he is the only one to decide whether it needs saving or not, and how it is to be saved. If he wants to destroy it, he is the only one who has the right to do so, too.

People do not understand the connection a musician often has to his work, because most of them never made a living doing the only thing they absolutely love doing. Hence, they don't understand the motivation behind Prince not wanting anyone else to fuck with his work. Not his problem, though.



By sharing bootlegs, you risk getting burned. From a fan perspective, I get the want for bootlegs. I love them too. From a musician's perspective, go Prince.

pReAcH!

Dave1992 said:

Militant said:

udo said:

That was because he didn't have his house in order.

Can you elaborate?

Either house in order was a reference to "200 Balloons", or udo meant that you can't sue a trillion John Does without relevant evidence/precedence.

Stymie said:

Dave1992 said:

Pity, was really looking ahead to how all of this would really unfold in front of court.



Honestly, I would probably sue too. If someone stole my compositions and spread them as if they were theirs (in a recording quality not chosen by myself), or, even worse, made money selling them, I'd sue too. And I'd have every right to, just like Prince has.


People think Prince somehow has the moral obligation to let others do what they want, because he's rich and famous and they are not. Wrong.

People think Prince has the obligation to let them do what they want, because after all they are simply "saving his career". Wrong. It's his career, and he is the only one to decide whether it needs saving or not, and how it is to be saved. If he wants to destroy it, he is the only one who has the right to do so, too.

People do not understand the connection a musician often has to his work, because most of them never made a living doing the only thing they absolutely love doing. Hence, they don't understand the motivation behind Prince not wanting anyone else to fuck with his work. Not his problem, though.



By sharing bootlegs, you risk getting burned. From a fan perspective, I get the want for bootlegs. I love them too. From a musician's perspective, go Prince.

i agree with most of what you say here. However, knowing tat he doesn't approve of the bootlegs, as a musician, why would you actively seek them out?

I have decided to draw the line after the moral barrier because I feel no personal moral obligation to Prince. I am willing to risk his dislike, so to speak.

However, that doesn't mean that I do not understand and support his actions. If he were to call Dave1992 a cunt in his next interview, I'd have to agree and be guilty for my own ignorance.

The musician in me wants to hear new, good music, so I listen to boots and watch videos of Prince performing live. The difference is, I do not claim to have any moral right to do so and if he finds a way to stop bootlegging, I won't fight it, because he has every right to do so.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Dave1992 said:

Pity, was really looking ahead to how all of this would really unfold in front of court.



Honestly, I would probably sue too. If someone stole my compositions and spread them as if they were theirs (in a recording quality not chosen by myself), or, even worse, made money selling them, I'd sue too. And I'd have every right to, just like Prince has.


People think Prince somehow has the moral obligation to let others do what they want, because he's rich and famous and they are not. Wrong.

People think Prince has the obligation to let them do what they want, because after all they are simply "saving his career". Wrong. It's his career, and he is the only one to decide whether it needs saving or not, and how it is to be saved. If he wants to destroy it, he is the only one who has the right to do so, too.

People do not understand the connection a musician often has to his work, because most of them never made a living doing the only thing they absolutely love doing. Hence, they don't understand the motivation behind Prince not wanting anyone else to fuck with his work. Not his problem, though.



By sharing bootlegs, you risk getting burned. From a fan perspective, I get the want for bootlegs. I love them too. From a musician's perspective, go Prince.

pReAcH!

Unfortunately, agreement from you actually equals a complete shattering of any seemingly reasonable argument...

Dave1992 said:

Dave1992 said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

pReAcH!

Unfortunately, agreement from you actually equals a complete shattering of any seemingly reasonable argument...

Eye expected that! But will continue to post through all the insults thrown at me, its like the rocks thrown at Jesus on the cross.......

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Dave1992 said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

pReAcH!

Unfortunately, agreement from you actually equals a complete shattering of any seemingly reasonable argument...

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Dave1992 said:

Unfortunately, agreement from you actually equals a complete shattering of any seemingly reasonable argument...

Eye expected that! But will continue to post through all the insults thrown at me, its like the rocks thrown at Jesus on the cross.......

You did NOT just compare people making fun of you on this site to the crucifiction of Jesus.

Yeah. Yeah, you did.

Not that anybody around here took you seriously before, but, you just proved what an nut you are.

You know that, right?

djThunderfunk said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Eye expected that! But will continue to post through all the insults thrown at me, its like the rocks thrown at Jesus on the cross.......

You did NOT just compare people making fun of you on this site to the crucifiction of Jesus.

Yes he did