So readily available in a video form?

I cannot IMAGINE I'm giving away any secret information but the very first choice when you put "Prince" in YouTube is this concert and it has been for ages. It's been on there forever. Again, this is not me revealing anything....it's the very FIRST choice; Prince's crack team would be well aware of this.

Why is this concert available? Is there a dispute with rights? Does anyone know?

I've been curious about this one for awhile?

I've been wondering the same thing.I'm not complaining,though I just wonder why it's in black and white instead of color

sro100 said:

Why is this concert available? Is there a dispute with rights? Does anyone know?

I wonder if it has anything to do with the Second Coming project? Maybe that footage was filmed for that planned concert film,and Prince may not necessarily own the rights to it?

SoulAlive said:

I've been wondering the same thing.I'm not complaining,though I just wonder why it's in black and white instead of color

Well I can understand the black-and-white;it was fairly common for this sort of thing.

TraSoul82 said:

I thought that video was like 'fight club'(first 2 rules).

You put "Prince" into YouTube and it's the FIRST choice. Not quite like "Fight Club;" there's NOTHING hidden about it. In what possible world would the Purple Team not be aware of it?

[Edited 11/11/15 0:09am]

The video was filmed by the theatre itself, and has the rights to it. It was avalable from their archives site.

And its black and white, just because thats what the theatre had at the time.

Great show.

sro100 said:

This very much looks like a video recording rather than film as it does look very flat with very low contrast.

As the first commercial camcorder was issued in 1983, this could have been shot on a professional Betacam, but even that didn't come out until 1982.

Whatever they used to shoot this on would have been cutting edge at the time. I think colour camcorders weren't invented for another year or two.

Just a thought!

callimnate said:

The video was filmed by the theatre itself, and has the rights to it. It was avalable from their archives site.

And its black and white, just because thats what the theatre had at the time.

Great show.

Not exactly but almost. The theatre's owners along several others have sold the rights to their huge personal archives to a site luv4u won't allow me to name here, that has released for either purchase or streams hundreds of shows by hundreds of artists. The site has had legal issues with artists and labels in the past (still has, in fact) but always settled the issues in or out of court and is a legit, registered American site/company, not an illegal bootleg thing.

This site offers the NY 98 Prince aftershow for purchase (audio) and the 93 DNA Lounge (audio) and aforementioned Capitol (audio and video) for streaming only, the last one is also on YT, on their official channel.

It also offers the 1983 The Time 1st Avenue show (and more recent MD & The Time shows) for purchase in audio.

Those are official releases/streams and the 98 NY album is therefore a legit, released live album.

Princevault refuses to acklowledge this website's releases existence but nevertheless they're real and legit.

cause the mafia owns the videos from that venue==all of em

databank said:

PopcornFetus said:

databank said:

Not exactly but almost. The theatre's owners along several others have sold the rights to their huge personal archives to a site luv4u won't allow me to name here, that has released for either purchase or streams hundreds of shows by hundreds of artists. The site has had legal issues with artists and labels in the past (still has, in fact) but always settled the issues in or out of court and is a legit, registered American site/company, not an illegal bootleg thing.

This site offers the NY 98 Prince aftershow for purchase (audio) and the 93 DNA Lounge (audio) and aforementioned Capitol (audio and video) for streaming only, the last one is also on YT, on their official channel.

It also offers the 1983 The Time 1st Avenue show (and more recent MD & The Time shows) for purchase in audio.

Those are official releases/streams and the 98 NY album is therefore a legit, released live album.

Princevault refuses to acklowledge this website's releases existence but nevertheless they're real and legit.

To bring more attention to databank's correct response.

sro100 said:

So readily available in a video form?

I cannot IMAGINE I'm giving away any secret information but the very first choice when you put "Prince" in YouTube is this concert and it has been for ages. It's been on there forever. Again, this is not me revealing anything....it's the very FIRST choice; Prince's crack team would be well aware of this.

Why is this concert available? Is there a dispute with rights? Does anyone know?

I've been curious about this one for awhile?

Deleted - langebleu - moderator

Some of you orgers kill me trying to do so right and be so loyal Prince fan/fanatics and he doesn't even give a shit. What do you get out of it?! If the video has been on there, I don't care how long it's been on there, let it stay on Youtube and let the fans and non fans who may become Prince fans enjoy it until the person who posted it is ready to take it down! Mind your business.

[Edited 11/14/15 16:51pm]

TurnItUp said:

sro100 said:

So readily available in a video form?

I cannot IMAGINE I'm giving away any secret information but the very first choice when you put "Prince" in YouTube is this concert and it has been for ages. It's been on there forever. Again, this is not me revealing anything....it's the very FIRST choice; Prince's crack team would be well aware of this.

Why is this concert available? Is there a dispute with rights? Does anyone know?

I've been curious about this one for awhile?

Deleted - langebleu - moderator

Some of you orgers kill me trying to do so right and be so loyal Prince fan/fanatics and he doesn't even give a shit. What do you get out of it?! If the video has been on there, I don't care how long it's been on there, let it stay on Youtube and let the fans and non fans who may become Prince fans enjoy it until the person who posted it is ready to take it down! Mind your business.

[Edited 11/14/15 16:51pm]

You are sooo right.

sro100 said:

TurnItUp said:

Deleted - langebleu - moderator

Some of you orgers kill me trying to do so right and be so loyal Prince fan/fanatics and he doesn't even give a shit. What do you get out of it?! If the video has been on there, I don't care how long it's been on there, let it stay on Youtube and let the fans and non fans who may become Prince fans enjoy it until the person who posted it is ready to take it down! Mind your business.

[Edited 11/14/15 16:51pm]

You are sooo right.

Thank you.

TurnItUp said:

sro100 said:

You are sooo right.

Thank you.

You're welcome. BTW, it's great that you didn't even bother to read the thread.

The more loyal and fanatic the fan the more you should reject his iron-fist control of the material.

Oh I know that he has the LEGAL RIGHT and an army of lawyers but THIS STUFF BELONGS TO ART AND THE WORLD--it is (and I am sure I am preaching to the choir here) TOO IMPORTANT to sit in a vault and rot because its creator is vain or greedy or fels paternal about it.

My life would have been LESS INTERESTING (by a fair bit) if I had not heard Small Club or Dance to the Desert Groove or Montreaux 2008 or on and on.

they have inspired me to CARE about playing guitar and been a constant background theme in my Man Cave.

I dont care who he is, if he doesn't understand that contraband=premium=MORE DEMAND then the hell with him.

His lawyers love it I have no doubt.

Simple. Prince doesn't own the rights.

Stimpy said:

The more loyal and fanatic the fan the more you should reject his iron-fist control of the material.

Oh I know that he has the LEGAL RIGHT and an army of lawyers but THIS STUFF BELONGS TO ART AND THE WORLD--it is (and I am sure I am preaching to the choir here) TOO IMPORTANT to sit in a vault and rot because its creator is vain or greedy or fels paternal about it.

My life would have been LESS INTERESTING (by a fair bit) if I had not heard Small Club or Dance to the Desert Groove or Montreaux 2008 or on and on.

they have inspired me to CARE about playing guitar and been a constant background theme in my Man Cave.

I dont care who he is, if he doesn't understand that contraband=premium=MORE DEMAND then the hell with him.

His lawyers love it I have no doubt.

Nonsense + out of topic + dupe post + u were probably drunk when u wrote this.

Graycap23 said:

Simple. Prince doesn't own the rights.

I have to say I'm puzzled regarding how this company got away with it. Basically recordings were made by concert venues without the knowledge or consent of artists, and years later those venues' owners sold their private collections to this company (for massive amounts of money, from what I could read) and the next thing you know this company gets a compulsary licencing deal from artists and labels that allows them to stream the recordings and make money out of the service (it seems the right to sell the recordings for purchase/download, needs label/artists authorization, though, which could explain why the 2 WB era shows can't be purchased and the post WB era one can). Several artists and labels have sued over the course of the last decade but all they could get is to renegociate their percentage, not to have the recordings removed from the site.

I seriously doubt Prince is happy to see those 3 shows on that website, in relatively low quality on top of it all, and still he didn't even make an attempt to have the shows removed and even, it seems, made a deal allowing the site to offer one of the shows for purchase. My take is his lawyer told him "better than us have tried and failed so better you take the money and be happy with it".

The legal basis of that is that whomever made the recording owns the recording. However I fail to understand what legally differenciates a venue from recording its concerts and a member of the audience recording a concert they attend or a sound engineer recording the soundboard. it sounds to me as if anyone could stream a private bootleg recording and make money with this as long as they were the one recording the show with their phone. However, for some AFAIK undisclosed reasons, American judges have always ruled in favor of this website and seem to make a clear difference between those venue recordings and ordinary bootlegs.

If anyone understands the legal logic of this, I'd love to know

databank said:

Graycap23 said:

Simple. Prince doesn't own the rights.

I have to say I'm puzzled regarding how this company got away with it. Basically recordings were made by concert venues without the knowledge or consent of artists, and years later those venues' owners sold their private collections to this company (for massive amounts of money, from what I could read) and the next thing you know this company gets a compulsary licencing deal from artists and labels that allows them to stream the recordings and make money out of the service (it seems the right to sell the recordings for purchase/download, needs label/artists authorization, though, which could explain why the 2 WB era shows can't be purchased and the post WB era one can). Several artists and labels have sued over the course of the last decade but all they could get is to renegociate their percentage, not to have the recordings removed from the site.

I seriously doubt Prince is happy to see those 3 shows on that website, in relatively low quality on top of it all, and still he didn't even make an attempt to have the shows removed and even, it seems, made a deal allowing the site to offer one of the shows for purchase. My take is his lawyer told him "better than us have tried and failed so better you take the money and be happy with it".

The legal basis of that is that whomever made the recording owns the recording. However I fail to understand what legally differenciates a venue from recording its concerts and a member of the audience recording a concert they attend or a sound engineer recording the soundboard. it sounds to me as if anyone could stream a private bootleg recording and make money with this as long as they were the one recording the show with their phone. However, for some AFAIK undisclosed reasons, American judges have always ruled in favor of this website and seem to make a clear difference between those venue recordings and ordinary bootlegs.

If anyone understands the legal logic of this, I'd love to know

Perhaps it's as simple as the representative of the party signed a contract; knowingly or not it included this?

sro100 said:

databank said:

I have to say I'm puzzled regarding how this company got away with it. Basically recordings were made by concert venues without the knowledge or consent of artists, and years later those venues' owners sold their private collections to this company (for massive amounts of money, from what I could read) and the next thing you know this company gets a compulsary licencing deal from artists and labels that allows them to stream the recordings and make money out of the service (it seems the right to sell the recordings for purchase/download, needs label/artists authorization, though, which could explain why the 2 WB era shows can't be purchased and the post WB era one can). Several artists and labels have sued over the course of the last decade but all they could get is to renegociate their percentage, not to have the recordings removed from the site.

I seriously doubt Prince is happy to see those 3 shows on that website, in relatively low quality on top of it all, and still he didn't even make an attempt to have the shows removed and even, it seems, made a deal allowing the site to offer one of the shows for purchase. My take is his lawyer told him "better than us have tried and failed so better you take the money and be happy with it".

The legal basis of that is that whomever made the recording owns the recording. However I fail to understand what legally differenciates a venue from recording its concerts and a member of the audience recording a concert they attend or a sound engineer recording the soundboard. it sounds to me as if anyone could stream a private bootleg recording and make money with this as long as they were the one recording the show with their phone. However, for some AFAIK undisclosed reasons, American judges have always ruled in favor of this website and seem to make a clear difference between those venue recordings and ordinary bootlegs.

If anyone understands the legal logic of this, I'd love to know

Perhaps it's as simple as the representative of the party signed a contract; knowingly or not it included this?

Might be. Montreux at least make sure they're allowed to archive everything, however AFAIK they're not allowed to release it without permission of the bands/labels.