purplethunder3121 said:

Warning from the estate's lawyers:

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

Uh Oh.

purplethunder3121 said:

selah said:

http://m.startribune.com/...ection=%2F

I certainly hope not.

Why wouldn't you want cameras at the Estate proceedings? The spectacle?

selah said:

http://m.startribune.com/...ection=%2F

Why? Just why?

Yes, the estate does have the right to issue threats and take action. <sigh> However the larger truth is that estate already has gained huge short and long term benefits from the massive amount of free publicity and exposure that was wrought by all the "unauthorized use". IMO the gains to the estate so far outweigh any speculatory loss that it's rather a farce to be mentioning justice, even if it's technically correct.

endiadj said:

Eileen said:

Yes, the estate does have the right to issue threats and take action. <sigh> However the larger truth is that estate already has gained huge short and long term benefits from the massive amount of free publicity and exposure that was wrought by all the "unauthorized use". IMO the gains to the estate so far outweigh any speculatory loss that it's rather a farce to be mentioning justice, even if it's technically correct.

I'm not sure that's tru, the casual fan has already got what they need. The huge file-sharing, fake copies, bottlegs etc have all been sold and the bootleggers paid. The huge rise in interest is now largely falling back to Prince's original fanbase. I sadly think that the estate's slow movement has lost millions tha cannot be replaced.

jayspud said:

1Sasha said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Warning from the estate's lawyers:

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

I certainly hope they don't pull down everything on YouTube.

I certainly hope they will realize that volume of people who want to watch/see/listen/have these things of Prince, and maybe start formulating a plan to re-release the concerts for us to legitimately buy. I for one want them all (hopefully polished versions, maybe with some outtakes if anything like that exists). Same goes for the merchandise. If they in time - when they bring the wrath and shut down all those peeps, that they will create a store <online?> where people could purchase a few tokens for nostalgic keepsakes where the funds will go to preserve Paisley Park or something along those lines...that would be ideal.

jayspud said:

Eileen said:

Yes, the estate does have the right to issue threats and take action. <sigh> However the larger truth is that estate already has gained huge short and long term benefits from the massive amount of free publicity and exposure that was wrought by all the "unauthorized use". IMO the gains to the estate so far outweigh any speculatory loss that it's rather a farce to be mentioning justice, even if it's technically correct.

I'm not sure that's tru, the casual fan has already got what they need. The huge file-sharing, fake copies, bottlegs etc have all been sold and the bootleggers paid. The huge rise in interest is now largely falling back to Prince's original fanbase. I sadly think that the estate's slow movement has lost millions tha cannot be replaced.

IMO it wasn't the hardcore original fanbase snapping up record-breaking quantities of Prince Hits and Purple Rain cds, or buying most of the official stuff on Tidal. We already had all of it.

The bigger loss is all the unavailable items like SOTT DVDs and other official shirts, symbol jewelry, etc... but that's not the fault of the estate either, those were largely Prince's decisions. Unfortunately he left the gaping hole of unavailable product.

I think it's mainly hardcore fans that would be hoarding grainy low-res, third, fourth-gen compressed video and audio such as we've seen in the recent flood. And we'll buy anything better that is finally released too. Casual fans now having gotten a bit of the Prince bug can be enticed back again intermittently by quality, easy to find releases such as SOTT DVDs, upgraded Purple Rain product, etc.

Just my 2 cents.

Some has had to of posted this by now...


http://www.smobserved.com/story/2016/07/28/news/paternity-test-proves-that-prince-rogers-nelson-left-a-son/1680.html

laurarichardson said:

ForeverPaisley said:

Okay I can agree with that they wouldn't waste their time on other claimants being distant, distant, 14times removed family members or something, just wasn't sure how many more of those could be possible offspring claims. Unless you mean to say they did all those claims first to rule that out and then if no-go, then that would be round two.

I guess I missed out on the part that the 6 siblings were being accepted as legal siblings, not that they were JUST accepted, as in the rest of the investigation isn't complete yet. Thanks for clearing that up.

Still really angers me though if this person IS the son and even he and/or the mother could have known the whole time.

--- I am not sure where this paper is getting the number of 700 claimants from. If you go to the court website you see about 15 listed to legal notices and not all of those people are listed as possible heirs. The distant cousins get nothing,some are insane women who claim to have been married to him, inmate who said he was adopted, man who claims to have a will were everything was left to him, and a few paternity claims that the court has sealed. Not sure how this paper is able to access sealed court docs. Also this is the same paper that said P died from AIDS and then removed the story from their website.

That 700 claimants lie came from a British tabloid. A radio DJ in south Louisiana, where I'm from, went on this ignorant diatribe on air about people not working and wanting something for nothing, based on this false report.

I'm really distrustful of any Johnny come latelys claiming to be Prince's child only after his death. Why didn't he contact Prince way before he died? Why did his mother keep him from his father all these years? If Prince was not aware of them before he died, 9 out 10 times it's BS, because I think that Prince was the type of guy who, if he knew he had a child he would acknnowledge him/her.

Eileen said:

YaThink said:

selah said:

..so how does a company in CA know about it?

Exactly

Thank You! The other thing that the article mentions that sounds like total BS is that they have Prince's entire genome. If this one company in Ohio has Prince's DNA, why would they give someone's entire genome to a 3rd party? Makes no sense.

Eileen said:

Yes, the estate does have the right to issue threats and take action. <sigh> However the larger truth is that estate already has gained huge short and long term benefits from the massive amount of free publicity and exposure that was wrought by all the "unauthorized use". IMO the gains to the estate so far outweigh any speculatory loss that it's rather a farce to be mentioning justice, even if it's technically correct.

.

It's not at all a farce. You are overlooking the big issue.

The more the estate "grows", the more taxes are due. When thieves are allowed to steal from the estate (which is what this is, legally), it forces the estate to cannibalize itself to pay taxes on what the thieves did not license.

Would you want to see Paisley Park sold off to AEG or some other big promoter, just to pay off more taxes due to "gains to the estate" by the unlicensed products?

.

tmo1965 said:

endiadj said:

selah said:

http://m.startribune.com/...ection=%2F

Why? Just why?

That young girl. Is she VN?

The article does mention that the attorney for Brianna and VN have dropped their request to have everything sealed.

.

laytonian said:

Eileen said:

Yes, the estate does have the right to issue threats and take action. <sigh> However the larger truth is that estate already has gained huge short and long term benefits from the massive amount of free publicity and exposure that was wrought by all the "unauthorized use". IMO the gains to the estate so far outweigh any speculatory loss that it's rather a farce to be mentioning justice, even if it's technically correct.

.

It's not at all a farce. You are overlooking the big issue.

The more the estate "grows", the more taxes are due. When thieves are allowed to steal from the estate (which is what this is, legally), it forces the estate to cannibalize itself to pay taxes on what the thieves did not license.

Please rephrase this somehow, I'm not understanding.

All those folks who snapped up the record-breaking number of charting official cds, that revenue did go to the estate and can be used to pay the increased taxes wrought by that increased revenue. It's not like the estate makes another $100 and then owes $200 in taxes on it.

People buying non-estate RIP tshirts, that revenue did not go to the estate and the estate won't be taxed on it. And the estate wasn't making those products available either so they weren't losing sales there. If you mean people would have patiently waited 4-8 months and then bought the same boatload of RIP tshirts, I guess we would disagree on that point.

People cannot license what was not available to license either.

You might be meaning something else, like goodwill, I'm really not sure.

Prince has a ton of new fans now and old fans with renewed interest and new casual fans too, because they've been exposed/re-exposed to his art and compelling performances via the flood of unauthorized vids. If the estate fails to capitalize on that renewed interest going forward with little to no accessible and quality product, that would be their own doing. Just like the huge gaps of official product available after Prince died was his own doing.

Eileen said:

laytonian said:

.

It's not at all a farce. You are overlooking the big issue.

The more the estate "grows", the more taxes are due. When thieves are allowed to steal from the estate (which is what this is, legally), it forces the estate to cannibalize itself to pay taxes on what the thieves did not license.

Please rephrase this somehow, I'm not understanding.

All those folks who snapped up the record-breaking number of charting official cds, that revenue did go to the estate and can be used to pay the increased taxes wrought by that increased revenue. It's not like the estate makes another $100 and then owes $200 in taxes on it.

People buying non-estate RIP tshirts, that revenue did not go to the estate and the estate won't be taxed on it. And the estate wasn't making those products available either so they weren't losing sales there. If you mean people would have patiently waited 4-8 months and then bought the same boatload of RIP tshirts, I guess we would disagree on that point.

People cannot license what was not available to license either.

You might be meaning something else, like goodwill, I'm really not sure.

Prince has a ton of new fans now and old fans with renewed interest and new casual fans too, because they've been exposed/re-exposed to his art and compelling performances via the flood of unauthorized vids. If the estate fails to capitalize on that renewed interest going forward with little to no accessible and quality product, that would be their own doing. Just like the huge gaps of official product available after Prince died was his own doing.

.

True, you did not understand the basic point: the estate has the right to LICENSE AND PROFIT from Prince's work. They are negligent if they allow UNlicensed products to continue to be sold without profiting the estate.

You are saying it's good for the estate for the UNlicensed products to be continued to be sold AS "good will" or publicity. Right? YET...that "good will" can result in a higher value for the estate which has not collected taxes on it.

I don't know how to explain it more simply, but I'm with Bremer and the estate on this one.

Prince understood it well.

.

YaThink said:

jayspud said:

I'm not sure that's tru, the casual fan has already got what they need. The huge file-sharing, fake copies, bottlegs etc have all been sold and the bootleggers paid. The huge rise in interest is now largely falling back to Prince's original fanbase. I sadly think that the estate's slow movement has lost millions tha cannot be replaced.

Yup, perhaps folks should've put their money where their mouth is.

Exactly, people need to wait for the official stuff from the estate. Trust me it will be coming. In the meantime I hope the lawsuits rain down on the vultures like hellfire from the sky. The vast majority of these bootleggers were not even fans just people trying to cash in.

tmo1965 said:

YaThink said:

selah said: Exactly

Thank You! The other thing that the article mentions that sounds like total BS is that they have Prince's entire genome. If this one company in Ohio has Prince's DNA, why would they give someone's entire genome to a 3rd party? Makes no sense.

You've got to take into account that dna taken during the autopsy isn't necessarily the only material out there. Hair samples are just one way to get dna...like hairs left in a brush? Saliva on a toothbrush or rim of a cup? There's numerous ways, so the "official" dna may not be all that's out there. What if the woman kept some hairs from a hairbrush he used? A facecloth which would have skin flakes on it? Used dental floss or a used bandaid? You know....."insurance", just in case? These are things we don't know but could very well have occurred.

[Edited 7/28/16 17:07pm]

laytonian said:

Eileen said:

Prince has a ton of new fans now and old fans with renewed interest and new casual fans too, because they've been exposed/re-exposed to his art and compelling performances via the flood of unauthorized vids. If the estate fails to capitalize on that renewed interest going forward with little to no accessible and quality product, that would be their own doing. Just like the huge gaps of official product available after Prince died was his own doing.

.

True, you did not understand the basic point: the estate has the right to LICENSE AND PROFIT from Prince's work. They are negligent if they allow UNlicensed products to continue to be sold without profiting the estate.

You are saying it's good for the estate for the UNlicensed products to be continued to be sold AS "good will" or publicity. Right? YET...that "good will" can result in a higher value for the estate which has not collected taxes on it.

Ahhh. Okay, it was you who misunderstood me then. I didn't say, or intend to say, "it's good for the estate for the UNlicensed products to be continued to be sold" - I didn't argue that the current massive flood should continue unlicensed or unauthorized indefinitely. (Although I believe that copyright terms are too long, but that's a different issue.)

I believe the massive flood gave a couple generations of consumers new and renewed exposure, interest, attention, that Prince's work has been missing for a very long time, and that the estate benefited far more from this than not. There is no way imo that this was a net loss to the estate now or in the future. (People are only going to rewatch "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" so many times.) And I believe the estate is well aware of this, because if all they had to go by was Prince's sales WITHOUT THAT EXPOSURE, they'd have been hard pressed to even justify hiring back Londell. And I believe to pretend otherwise is indeed farcical.

Also to be clear, I do not believe every unlicensed Prince-related product and event is "wrong" or "robbery" as some do. Some are entirely legal and legitimate. Some are harmless and should be ignored or managed lightly. The current state of Zappa is highly instructive here. The estate can go ahead and hemorrhage its cash to slap down every corner bar's "Tonight - Prince Dance Party!" if they want to, or maybe invest in a few more dancing baby video lawsuits, but that won't keep the lights on at Paisley Park.

(just to prevent having to scroll back, if anyone was inclined)

what Eileen had said about Londell twitter graphic:

Yes, the estate does have the right to issue threats and take action. <sigh> However the larger truth is that estate already has gained huge short and long term benefits from the massive amount of free publicity and exposure that was wrought by all the "unauthorized use". IMO the gains to the estate so far outweigh any speculatory loss that it's rather a farce to be mentioning justice, even if it's technically correct.

laytonian said:

endiadj said:

Why? Just why?

That young girl. Is she VN?

The article does mention that the attorney for Brianna and VN have dropped their request to have everything sealed.

.

Yes, Duane's granddaughter is referred to as VYN in court documents.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

laytonian said:

That young girl. Is she VN?

The article does mention that the attorney for Brianna and VN have dropped their request to have everything sealed.

.

Yes, Duane's granddaughter is referred to as VYN in court documents.

laytonian, are you talking about the girl in the photo who has her hand on the attorney's arm? If so, that's Brianna Nelson. If you click on the photo and read the caption at the top, it says that that is Brianna.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRINCE_ESTATE?SITE=WNYC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The Associated Press is also reporting Judge Eide will "consider allowing cameras in court on a hearing-by-hearing basis."

tmo1965 said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

Yes, Duane's granddaughter is referred to as VYN in court documents.

laytonian, are you talking about the girl in the photo who has her hand on the attorney's arm? If so, that's Brianna Nelson. If you click on the photo and read the caption at the top, it says that that is Brianna.

.

Thanks. Usually a + means "enlarge this photo" -- NOT "we hid the caption here instead of putting it underneath the photo where normal news sites do"

Brianna looks very young; younger than 31. Beautiful woman.

I see that they're now identifying 11-year-old VN as Victoria Nelson.

.

bilbolives said:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRINCE_ESTATE?SITE=WNYC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The Associated Press is also reporting Judge Eide will "consider allowing cameras in court on a hearing-by-hearing basis."

.

I think the fact that the attorney for Brianna and her daughter Victoria dropping the "sealing" issue had a lot to do with that.

Mumio said:

morningsong said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Warning from the estate's lawyers:

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

Uh Oh.

I had a feeling this would happen. Just a matter of time...........

laurarichardson said:

-- Even if they have a legimate sample the court is not going to accept it. They have to file a claim and make their case for a test like everybody else.

Right, I believe the article did say he'd have to come forward by September to file and be tested.

[Edited 7/29/16 9:00am]

Maybe that's the reason why Prince requested the house to be torn down to show them that they can't have even if he owned it? and secondly to avoid pay property taxes? Either way it was a sensible decision by Prince to have torn down the house.

laytonian said:

nelcp777 said:

I understand why Prince would not take the share, due to his success. But I wonder why Tyka did the same? Curiosity.

I remember reading on the Org that Prince was being money hungry when his father passed (paraphrasing) but it appears the opposite.

The documents were interesting to read, particular the accusation of paternal claims. I am not sure how much truth there was to the claims Prince and Loyal Jimmy had a relationship prior to Loyals passing. It seems that would be easy to prove with witnesses from Prince's side and family side.

Still think John L was his pops.

Now the other part is the paternity claims. I think this may take longer, but it will be a definitive answer, no doubts or uncertaintities.

Lastly, I am curious to know why Duane was removed as a dependent for John L. This may explain the strain on Duane's and Prince's relationship. One thing that I believe, no matter what Prince's siblings accused him of, he still took care of them, good or bad.

That is respect.

.

The money-hungry issue was about the amount first claimed in John L's estate: $200. YET, that same person claimed that John L had given her a check for $400K.

It's interesting that the $400K turned out to be almost exactly the "cash value" of John L's estate.

So at first there was $200 and then suddenly the $400K comes back.

It's not hard to guess what happened there!

I haven't read everything (it's so much and so much is all alike) but there was also a complaint about the home John L lived in -- like everyone should share in it. But only Prince owned it.

The monetary distributions are in Document N here:
http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/Documents/Affidavit-of-Heirship-of-Sharon-Louise-Nelson-Redacted-and-Response-of-Special-Administrator.pdf

.