OldFriends4Sale said:

Stymie said:

Then why would he sue those 22 people who were sharing and not selling?

they weren't sued, he withdrew the lawsuite

But why threaten to sue? Why file a suit in the first place?

Stymie said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

they weren't sued, he withdrew the lawsuite

But why threaten to sue? Why file a suit in the first place?

Because either he thought he had a leg 2 stand on(thinking these people were making money) and then realized he didn't or he was just trying to scare em, his control needs kicked in

OldFriends4Sale said:

Stymie said:

But why threaten to sue? Why file a suit in the first place?

Because either he thought he had a leg 2 stand on(thinking these people were making money) and then realized he didn't or he was just trying to scare em, his control needs kicked in

Someone should have done some research.

Javi said:

If this is true, it's a great disappointment for me. I think Prince has changed his position in view of the bad publicity his actions gave him in some circles, including some fans. I think it's a shame.

---

On the other hand, I wish some orgers stopped pretending to represent all fans. Fans have different opinions , they are not a mass of gregarious people with a uniformized mind. So, for example, not really, this is not the way of telling "us" he is sorry. Who are "us"? I'm not included in any "us", least of all in the "us" of fans who approve distributing music ilegally. Please be strong enough to have an independent mind and don't project your opinions into all fans.

[Edited 2/6/14 1:22am]

Why's it "a great disappointment" for you?

It has precisely nothing to do with you if Prince decides to soften his stance on bootlegs. It has zero impact on your life either.

Different level stuff going on in your second paragraph in general. Kudos.

.

[Edited 2/7/14 17:54pm]

What I think Prince means is, it's fine with him if fans share the music among themselves, in a discreet and private manner. Posting things on YouTube, Facebook, public blogs, etc for everyone to see is what Prince doesn't like. I've known this for quite some time, and it's why I chose to stop sharing links and vids publicly online. Have I slipped up from time to time and shared something I shouldn't have? Yes. But for the most part, the stuff I share is officially sanctioned by Prince.

jon1967 said:

P makes jams .. p stores said jams in stored place .. hes the only one w key ... hes the only one takes stuff out..so tell me how is it theres stuff out he didnt take out if it all starts n ends w him???

P goes and plays jams live, people record and share. In recent years it's pretty much all been live stuff that's been circulating. Wasn't it from around the Emancipation perioed when the last studio bootlegs got out?

In the old days he'd give copies of songs to band members, studio execs, friends etc. He seems to have a much tighter grip on his studio material in recent times.

Marrk said:

Javi said:

If this is true, it's a great disappointment for me. I think Prince has changed his position in view of the bad publicity his actions gave him in some circles, including some fans. I think it's a shame.

---

On the other hand, I wish some orgers stopped pretending to represent all fans. Fans have different opinions , they are not a mass of gregarious people with a uniformized mind. So, for example, not really, this is not the way of telling "us" he is sorry. Who are "us"? I'm not included in any "us", least of all in the "us" of fans who approve distributing music ilegally. Please be strong enough to have an independent mind and don't project your opinions into all fans.

[Edited 2/6/14 1:22am]

Why's it "a great disappointment" for you?

It has precisely nothing to do with you if Prince decides to soften his stance on bootlegs. It has zero impact on your life either.

Different level stuff going on in your second paragraph in general. Kudos.

.

[Edited 2/7/14 17:54pm]

It's a disappointment because I agreed with the position he had that all bootlegs infringe copyright equally, not being of much relevance if they're for sale or not. So it disappoints me that he has changed his position. But yeah, at the end of the day, you're right, it has zero impact on my life... And thank you for your other comment.

OldFriends4Sale said:

If he doesn't technically 'own' them how can he sue?

And he withdrew the lawsuite

He hasn't signed away rights for the recorded bootleg to be distributed, so it's not a licensed product with his consent. Unless he contracted the recording, in which case, he does own that master.

On a bootleg recording, he owns the Performance rights. He also owns the right to grant or deny use of his image, or voice.

As far as the soundboard, or outtakes that have leaked, it's not uncommon for multiple reference copies to float around. Studio assistants, or former collaborators might have material, or recordings might have gone out for consideration on movie soundtracks, or the labels A&R departments. Who knows. Tons of variables. Musicians like control over their work.

treehouse said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

If he doesn't technically 'own' them how can he sue?

And he withdrew the lawsuite

He hasn't signed away rights for the recorded bootleg to be distributed, so it's not a licensed product with his consent. Unless he contracted the recording, in which case, he does own that master.

On a bootleg recording, he owns the Performance rights. He also owns the right to grant or deny use of his image, or voice.

As far as the soundboard, or outtakes that have leaked, it's not uncommon for multiple reference copies to float around. Studio assistants, or former collaborators might have material, or recordings might have gone out for consideration on movie soundtracks, or the labels A&R departments. Who knows. Tons of variables. Musicians like control over their work.

when he was with warners ...wouldnt he have had to be in contract NOT to erlease anything without them?

luvsexy4all said:

when he was with warners ...wouldnt he have had to be in contract NOT to erlease anything without them?

I'm not sure I follow your point.

When Prince was under Warners, he signed them over exclusive rights to put out his recorded output, or anything Prince.... but even then he retained performance rights. That was also the threat of putting out music under another name.

So that means, if you want to use Dirty Mind in a Sitcom you have to get two different kind of licenses - the music rights, cleared through the label, and the performance rights, cleared through the artist. That's standard in most cases, unless someone signed away their publishing.

On a live show tape, Prince and everyone playing on it, are technically owed a royalty for their performance.

Technically prince tried to change his name and release music while under CONtract with WB. Karma is coming for him. For a guy who bucked the CONtract CONcept this guy sure has a lot of legal intentions. Technically nobody is using his performance. Technically there is no law against taking photos or vid or live recordings while at a concert if you are not selling them. Technically prince has no legal standing to sue his fans for sharing live tapes they recorded of their experience. Technically he can only sue if they are making money off of those recordings. Technically if you are one of the most popular names in the music industry and you DON'T want your fans to share and enjoy your music .. you are a real douchebag. No wonder his music sucks these days.

So, say someone shared his music on the internet without charging money or making any kind of profit. Then, Prince sues them. Couldn't that person use his statement in court to defend themself from the lawsuit? I would say so.

If I put a twenty dollar bill on a table in a restaurant, and announced to the crowd that anyone that wanted this $20 can have it. I couldn't then have someone arrested for "stealing" my money if someone actually took it.

ThomasBjj said:

TrevorAyer said:

Technically there is no law against taking photos or vid or live recordings while at a concert if you are not selling them. Technically prince has no legal standing to sue his fans for sharing live tapes they recorded of their experience. Technically he can only sue if they are making money off of those recordings.

Not true.

Distributing the work, the likeness, or using the name can infringe on intellectual property, and an implied trademark.

It could be argued you are infringing on his ability to sell an authorized copy of his own recording, done how he wants it, professionally, autotuned, edited, with cover art he's picked and licensed. He would be entitled to damages.

Buying a ticket to his show does not give you the right to record or archive the experience, then share it. You would also be liable in theory for where the material ends up, and if someone you share it with then makes money off it. Prince isn't consenting to bootlegs like the Grateful Dead have. Would be awesome if he did.