thedoorkeeper said:

Did MTV kick back any $ to Prince when they played his videos in the 80's & 90's?

That's FREE advertisement! Just like The SuperBowl doesn't pay artist to perform. That's the ultimate free advertisement 4 any product an artist wants to promote.

But it is similar to radio stations. Artist get payed royalties when played on air through a publishing company like BMI.

[Edited 4/1/16 6:58am]

feeluupp said:

SoulAlive said:

What's really going on here is that the Internet took Prince by surprise.It's something that's become bigger and more powerful than any of us ever expected.Prince is a notorious control freak and this is something that even he can't really control,lol.Youtube is this generation's MTV but the difference is,the listener can choose what he/she wants to see and when they see it.I truly believe that's the *real* reason why Prince is against Youtube.It's not the money (he's already a multi-millionaire anyway),it's the lack of control that he has over it.Just my opinion.

i don't think it took him by "surprise"... remember he was one of the first artists as well as David Bowie who actually took to the internet to distribute their music in the mid 90's...

.

Taking pre-orders with the goal of leveraging a deal with a traditional distributor isn't being an Internet pioneer.

BartVanHemelen said:

feeluupp said:

i don't think it took him by "surprise"... remember he was one of the first artists as well as David Bowie who actually took to the internet to distribute their music in the mid 90's...

.

Taking pre-orders with the goal of leveraging a deal with a traditional distributor isn't being an Internet pioneer.

Can you kindly stop making stuff up. Regardless to the extent of which you approve he is widely & rightly acknowledged as being 1 of the 1st main stream/high profile artists to embrace/use the internet.

Thank-you Purplized3121

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Taking pre-orders with the goal of leveraging a deal with a traditional distributor isn't being an Internet pioneer.

Can you kindly stop making stuff up. Regardless to the extent of which you approve he is widely & rightly acknowledged as being 1 of the 1st main stream/high profile artists to embrace/use the internet.

.

CB wasn't sold unline until much after it was only available through a 1-800 number. And Prince then used those pre-orders to convince a distributor to sell it in stores, and in fact the set appeared in stores BEFORE it was sent out to fans. Meanwhile both eBay and Amazon already existed and were thriving. Those are the FACTS.

BartVanHemelen said:

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

Can you kindly stop making stuff up. Regardless to the extent of which you approve he is widely & rightly acknowledged as being 1 of the 1st main stream/high profile artists to embrace/use the internet.

.

CB wasn't sold unline until much after it was only available through a 1-800 number. And Prince then used those pre-orders to convince a distributor to sell it in stores, and in fact the set appeared in stores BEFORE it was sent out to fans. Meanwhile both eBay and Amazon already existed and were thriving. Those are the FACTS.

-

Ebay where concert tickets are sold at 1.5 k by scalpers.

Amazon who steal from society by not paying taxes. http://fortune.com/2015/0...egulators/

POWER TO THE ARTISTS AND PEOPLE.

Bohemian67 said:

LittlePurpleYoda said:

Did I say that? No. But thank you for putting words in my mouth.

YouTube is a resource that fills a void. Many of us would certainly welcome legitimately released, tangible product to add to our home library that we could purchase directly from the source in the highest quality & add to his coffers, but that is not forthcoming, & frankly, the Hits VHS is not exactly reason enough to hold onto a VCR.

Defending Prince at every turn is a bit laughable. As is failing to acknowledge the potential of YouTube.

[Edited 4/1/16 4:57am]

-

Dear Little Purple Yoda,

-

The question was a legitimate question.

-

May I refer you to Prince's tweet today, which includes a link to the RIAA.com website, who announced via a blog that a Music Community Commission (comprised of nearly 400 individual artists, songwriters, managers, and music organizations), submitted Docket No. 2015-7 yesterday, to the U.S. Copyright Office Library of Congress. A quote iin the blog from CARY SHERMAN, Chairman and CEO, RIAA: “I don’t recall a time when the entire music community has united behind an issue like it has this one – speaking with a collective voice for reform of the DMCA..." (Digital Music Copyright Act). The joint brief was drafted by J. Rosenthal, Esq. Steven Metalitz, Esq. of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP in Washington DC.

-

The submitted 100 page brief (pages 1-46 for your reading), outlines the facts, legal status, statistics of music industry financial losses, Google's failure to invest in software, costs for artists in policing Youtube to prevent their art being devoured by the 'I want it for free culture" in detail. Please let me know if you still feel the same way about Youtube's current potential.

-

Might I suggest that you look beyond the choppy surface waves of the ocean and instead, dive deep down to the ocean floor so that you expose your awareness to the real picture.

-

Yours sincerely,

Bohemian67

[Edited 4/1/16 6:52am]

[Edited 4/1/16 7:07am]

[Edited 4/1/16 7:22am]

A Tweet by Prince, & more significantly a 400 page diatribe means nothing.

Especially when you're failing entirely to grasp the point.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Many artists actually embrace & work with Youtube. They understand its significance & have their own YouTube channels. Many consumers don't their heads so far up the ass of an artist, that they understand this fact & can see beyond sycophancy.

Might I suggest you join us there? The air is much cleaner.

[Edited 4/3/16 12:47pm]

Bohemian67 said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

CB wasn't sold unline until much after it was only available through a 1-800 number. And Prince then used those pre-orders to convince a distributor to sell it in stores, and in fact the set appeared in stores BEFORE it was sent out to fans. Meanwhile both eBay and Amazon already existed and were thriving. Those are the FACTS.

-

Ebay where concert tickets are sold at 1.5 k by scalpers.

Amazon who steal from society by not paying taxes. http://fortune.com/2015/0...egulators/

POWER TO THE ARTISTS AND PEOPLE.

You might as well just kill yourself, what with such forces of commerce & convenience aligning against you, huh? After all, people are literally forcing you to buy tickets off of eBay.

The above were likely cited as 2 very successful online retailers that could have been emulated & anyone who can infer from context could grasp that. Prince, a so-called Internet pioneer, who 2 decades later, can't even maintain a proper web site, couldn't manage so much as a simple pre-order process.

[Edited 4/3/16 12:53pm]

[Edited 4/3/16 12:56pm]

LittlePurpleYoda said:

BartVanHemelen said:

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

Can you kindly stop making stuff up. Regardless to the extent of which you approve he is widely & rightly acknowledged as being 1 of the 1st main stream/high profile artists to embrace/use the internet.

.

CB wasn't sold unline until much after it was only available through a 1-800 number. And Prince then used those pre-orders to convince a distributor to sell it in stores, and in fact the set appeared in stores BEFORE it was sent out to fans. Meanwhile both eBay and Amazon already existed and were thriving. Those are the FACTS.

True - I ordered mine through 1-800-New-Funk, but saw it at Best Buy well in advance of getting mine delivered (so, I ended up with 2 copies). Prince included The War cassette and a few extra copies of the large-format Emancipation lyric book as freebies with the order.

I was disappointed in Prince as an Internet pioneer when the Musicology Store sold DRM'd downloads (which are no good now). He was onto something with the NPGMC but then went in the wrong direction.

The people who post videos....even the un-reeleased stuff---won't cut him a check--when they receive clciks and views for commercials on their accounts.

Viveo may be another argument all toegether... I'm not sure about percentage for clciks and commercials over on that site.

"Happy" and Adele have about a Billion views, but it may be a tenth of a cent/per view..

Of course, one can say a starving-artist, or new one would looove theh exposure, but Mr. Nelson doesn't really need it.

Youth: most youth won't like what theri parents, and uncles liked anyway... tehy just don't. Some..maybe.. I did not like The Motown sound, and stuff in the 70s and early 80s unitl I lived some.

The argument that YT videos are easy to download and get for free is nonsense. Remember back in the day recording music from the radio onto cassette? Just as easy to get the music for free. The only annoyance, and reason why people still went out and bought the music, was the dj voiceovers at the start and end of the song. So what is to stop Prince watermarking his videos and adding a voiceover to the intro/outro that is unobtrusive but annoying enough to ensure people track down copies they can purchase without the interuptions? Its not rocket science. Cripple the videos somewhat with annoyances that will prevent YT being the primary source of piracy whilst at the same time still showcasing the work. He wont get paid much, but it also wont cost him much either to reach potentially billions of people. I just do not get his argument against it.

Se7en said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

CB wasn't sold unline until much after it was only available through a 1-800 number. And Prince then used those pre-orders to convince a distributor to sell it in stores, and in fact the set appeared in stores BEFORE it was sent out to fans. Meanwhile both eBay and Amazon already existed and were thriving. Those are the FACTS.

True - I ordered mine through 1-800-New-Funk, but saw it at Best Buy well in advance of getting mine delivered (so, I ended up with 2 copies). Prince included The War cassette and a few extra copies of the large-format Emancipation lyric book as freebies with the order.

.

That frikking lyric book got propped in just about every order at one point. I recall people on amp saying they had dozens. "The War" was sent out erratically at best.

Linn4days said:

The people who post videos....even the un-reeleased stuff---won't cut him a check--when they receive clciks and views for commercials on their accounts.

.

Oh please, that is bullshit. Getting paid by YT involves plenty of work.

BartVanHemelen said:

LittlePurpleYoda said:

Bohemian67 said:

-

Ebay where concert tickets are sold at 1.5 k by scalpers.

Amazon who steal from society by not paying taxes. http://fortune.com/2015/0...egulators/

POWER TO THE ARTISTS AND PEOPLE.

You might as well just kill yourself, what with such forces of commerce & convenience aligning against you, huh? After all, people are literally forcing you to buy tickets off of eBay.

The above were likely cited as 2 very successful online retailers that could have been emulated & anyone who can infer from context could grasp that. Prince, a so-called Internet pioneer, who 2 decades later, can't even maintain a proper web site, couldn't manage so much as a simple pre-order process.

"Can't maintain a proper web site"? Try "chooses not to, doesn't want to".

"Go and kill yourself"? Is that the best you got? Tch tch tch But I understand. Ethical business practices don't interest you.

[Edited 4/3/16 12:53pm]

[Edited 4/3/16 12:56pm]

LittlePurpleYoda said:

Bohemian67 said:

-

Dear Little Purple Yoda,

-

The question was a legitimate question.

-

May I refer you to Prince's tweet today, which includes a link to the RIAA.com website, who announced via a blog that a Music Community Commission (comprised of nearly 400 individual artists, songwriters, managers, and music organizations), submitted Docket No. 2015-7 yesterday, to the U.S. Copyright Office Library of Congress. A quote iin the blog from CARY SHERMAN, Chairman and CEO, RIAA: “I don’t recall a time when the entire music community has united behind an issue like it has this one – speaking with a collective voice for reform of the DMCA..." (Digital Music Copyright Act). The joint brief was drafted by J. Rosenthal, Esq. Steven Metalitz, Esq. of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP in Washington DC.

-

The submitted 100 page brief (pages 1-46 for your reading), outlines the facts, legal status, statistics of music industry financial losses, Google's failure to invest in software, costs for artists in policing Youtube to prevent their art being devoured by the 'I want it for free culture" in detail. Please let me know if you still feel the same way about Youtube's current potential.

-

Might I suggest that you look beyond the choppy surface waves of the ocean and instead, dive deep down to the ocean floor so that you expose your awareness to the real picture.

-

Yours sincerely,

Bohemian67

[Edited 4/1/16 6:52am]

[Edited 4/1/16 7:07am]

[Edited 4/1/16 7:22am]

A Tweet by Prince, & more significantly a 400 page diatribe means nothing.

Especially when you're failing entirely to grasp the point.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Many artists actually embrace & work with Youtube. They understand its significance & have their own YouTube channels. Many consumers don't their heads so far up the ass of an artist, that they understand this fact & can see beyond sycophancy.

Might I suggest you join us there? The air is much cleaner.

[Edited 4/3/16 12:47pm]

"Many consumers don't ..... their heads so far up the ass of an artist". Again you're showing your age. Calling a 'call to fairness from a group of artists' paying for best practices "diatribe" says a lot more about you than the Artists who dare to ask for what they feel their work is worth. Keep Trying Little Purple Yoda. You haven't impressed me so far.

BartVanHemelen said:

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

Can you kindly stop making stuff up. Regardless to the extent of which you approve he is widely & rightly acknowledged as being 1 of the 1st main stream/high profile artists to embrace/use the internet.

.

CB wasn't sold unline until much after it was only available through a 1-800 number. And Prince then used those pre-orders to convince a distributor to sell it in stores, and in fact the set appeared in stores BEFORE it was sent out to fans. Meanwhile both eBay and Amazon already existed and were thriving. Those are the FACTS.

desperatly dont want to sound like a prnce apologist BUT i will agree that his approach was cack handed at the time..bordering on laughable BUT the flipside is that he dipped his toe into largely unknown waters at the time. His words & actions re $£ for artists [which he has largely been consistent in over many years know] has resonated with the public & other artists. If nothing else we know what he wants to achieve [& he has every right to demand that as do other artists] even if his methods are sometimes inconsistent. At the end of the day there's still a tonne of stuf out there!

Prince is very stuck into this pre- 2000 era of the music industry. I feel he has a lot of legitimate reasons for his views BUT you have to adapt to the times to a degree. There is literally no way future generations will know about his music and legacy if he doesn't make it more accessible. Maybe having money versus having a flourishing legacy is more important to him but if he wants his legacy to stand more generations he is going to have to make his music accessible, period. I think he is arrogant and doesn't give a fuq about his fans.

mjscarousal said:

Prince is very stuck into this pre- 2000 era of the music industry. I feel he has a lot of legitimate reasons for his views BUT you have to adapt to the times to a degree. There is literally no way future generations will know about his music and legacy if he doesn't make it more accessible. Maybe having money versus having a flourishing legacy is more important to him but if he wants his legacy to stand more generations he is going to have to make his music accessible, period. I think he is arrogant and doesn't give a fuq about his fans.

Well, at any rate, it's not like tons of people are going around searching and wondering "where is Prince?" He's a bit off the radar, comercially, at this point, but realistically that kind of thing is going to happen to a fading star.

>

If the model of Internet exposure can be tweaked to get promotional items online for viewers' consumption that doesn't exploit the content-creators and cannibalize their revenue, something vital to support artists' commerce as a whole, then that will be a good development to sustain. Until the environment moves closer to such realization, Prince will say:"Sayonara, publicity; farewell, fickle fame; hello, discount jeweler!"

I'm just saying it like it is. I don't feel that arrogance is a factor on this point. I think that the very conversation we are having here today is yet one more contribution to Prince's legacy as a forward-thinking artist. That's a counterintuitive thought at this point, but our hindsight will be 20/20. And if it doesn't wash out that way then I guess Prince's failure will be in his own hands. At least he followed his own bliss! I truly hope, however that artists' own industry can come through this morass in the best form possible.

Germanegro said:

mjscarousal said:

Prince is very stuck into this pre- 2000 era of the music industry. I feel he has a lot of legitimate reasons for his views BUT you have to adapt to the times to a degree. There is literally no way future generations will know about his music and legacy if he doesn't make it more accessible. Maybe having money versus having a flourishing legacy is more important to him but if he wants his legacy to stand more generations he is going to have to make his music accessible, period. I think he is arrogant and doesn't give a fuq about his fans.

Well, at any rate, it's not like tons of people are going around searching and wondering "where is Prince?" He's a bit off the radar, comercially, at this point, but realistically that kind of thing is going to happen to a fading star.

>

If the model of Internet exposure can be tweaked to get promotional items online for viewers' consumption that doesn't exploit the content-creators and cannibalize their revenue, something vital to support artists' commerce as a whole, then that will be a good development to sustain. Until the environment moves closer to such realization, Prince will say:"Sayonara, publicity; farewell, fickle fame; hello, discount jeweler!"

I'm just saying it like it is. I don't feel that arrogance is a factor on this point. I think that the very conversation we are having here today is yet one more contribution to Prince's legacy as a forward-thinking artist. That's a counterintuitive thought at this point, but our hindsight will be 20/20. And if it doesn't wash out that way then I guess Prince's failure will be in his own hands. At least he followed his own bliss! I truly hope, however that artists' own industry can come through this morass in the best form possible.

We are talking about this issue because we are on a Prince site but outside of this site nobody is really checking for Prince. The problem with your post is that, Prince is not JUST a veteran act that has faded. He is a LEGEND and because he is a legend his music and merchandaise should be more accessible. You dont just have a legendary legacy without being accessible for future generations. That is what makes a legacy, it has to be passed down and constantly accessible. This is why I say I think money is more important to him than being exposed to a new generation of music listeners

mjscarousal said:

Germanegro said:

Well, at any rate, it's not like tons of people are going around searching and wondering "where is Prince?" He's a bit off the radar, comercially, at this point, but realistically that kind of thing is going to happen to a fading star.

>

If the model of Internet exposure can be tweaked to get promotional items online for viewers' consumption that doesn't exploit the content-creators and cannibalize their revenue, something vital to support artists' commerce as a whole, then that will be a good development to sustain. Until the environment moves closer to such realization, Prince will say:"Sayonara, publicity; farewell, fickle fame; hello, discount jeweler!"

I'm just saying it like it is. I don't feel that arrogance is a factor on this point. I think that the very conversation we are having here today is yet one more contribution to Prince's legacy as a forward-thinking artist. That's a counterintuitive thought at this point, but our hindsight will be 20/20. And if it doesn't wash out that way then I guess Prince's failure will be in his own hands. At least he followed his own bliss! I truly hope, however that artists' own industry can come through this morass in the best form possible.

We are talking about this issue because we are on a Prince site but outside of this site nobody is really checking for Prince. The problem with your post is that, Prince is not JUST a veteran act that has faded. He is a LEGEND and because he is a legend his music and merchandaise should be more accessible. You dont just have a legendary legacy without being accessible for future generations. That is what makes a legacy, it has to be passed down and constantly accessible. This is why I say I think money is more important to him than being exposed to a new generation of music listeners

I just think that it is more of a singluar-focused point of view originating from thought of the passive consumer (and active retailer) that his stuff must absolutely be put out there to sell and sell some more to cultivate some greater brand of LEGACY. The record companies will be sure that Prince's merchandise will be accessible in the near-to-distant future at any rate--no need worry on that point, that's what they're paid to do. As you confirm, Prince is a legend that WILL BE capitalized on at least for merchandising's sake, and maybe in a distant second, for culture's sake. You say that a legend is built through selling, but I say that the legend is built through the artists's oeuvre and integrity of such.

>

Taylor Swift will have a grand legacy at the end of it all if her sales and popularity keeps pace and grows. Will she or some other great-selling pop star thus build a legacy that outshines another legend of the craft--not all necessarily superstars--such as Hendrix, Elvis, Hank Williams, Miles Davis, Earth, Wind and Fire, Michael Jackson, etc? I think that the status of an artist's legacy is truly relevant only in people's own mind. Would you be considering, instead, the notion of building Prince's superstardom via the Internet?

>

It's just my observation that not everyone cares about superstardom. I think that Prince may care--selfishly--more about other things than that, too. So why shouldn't he? Why shouldn't any of us?

I find it hilarious how people get all worked up over this nonsense.

It's a simple yet SUBJECTIVE topic.

I posted a thread not-too-long-ago explaining why I feel that Prince is doing more harm than good by keeping his music to himself.

People here go on rants about "free music" and "making a living".
It's the 21st century. The music industry has changed. Albums are no longer a money-maker. Teenagers are addicted to social media. The internet is THE way that new music is found.

YET, somehow, miraculously, there are artists out there making a HEALTHY living with their music.

Taylor Swift is an obvious example. She is rolling in cash making bubble-gum pop AND ALL THE WHILE you can pull up any of her songs on Youtube.

As I said, this is a subjective topic. I feel one way, you may feel another way.

But unless you're on Prince's payroll, I don't see why anyone needs to get all worked up over it.

In my experience, people only go to YouTube to:

A) hear/see new music FREE

B) rip off that music (there are plenty of programs that download the video or audio to your HD)

C) use the Comments section to spew the most hateful things you could imagine

Tell me why we want Prince on here?

People do not go there to "support" their favorite artists. Appreciate, yes -- support, no. If they wanted to support their artists, they'd head on over to any paid-download site and download the same content. It's a gimme-gimme-free world.

Do you think that if YouTube started charging money-per-view, that people would still be watching all of those Taylor Swift/Adele/etc. videos?

Se7en said:

In my experience, people only go to YouTube to:

A) hear/see new music FREE

B) rip off that music (there are plenty of programs that download the video or audio to your HD)

C) use the Comments section to spew the most hateful things you could imagine

Tell me why we want Prince on here?

People do not go there to "support" their favorite artists. Appreciate, yes -- support, no. If they wanted to support their artists, they'd head on over to any paid-download site and download the same content. It's a gimme-gimme-free world.

Do you think that if YouTube started charging money-per-view, that people would still be watching all of those Taylor Swift/Adele/etc. videos?

Preach!