leecaldon said:

What Prince had to say about the deal with Tidal.

.

http://www.stereogum.com/1850356/prince-explains-why-tidal-will-win-the-streaming-wars/news/

well atleast we all now know what the 2nd disc of Purple Rain Deluxe is gonna be......say goodbye to the b-sides...

I just looked for it. Maybe it's gone already?

3rdeyeboy said:

The estate can't take down the live album sales because they don't own them. They were all publicly broadcast.

Nonsense. Sheer, absolute nonsense.

1/ Not all of those bootlegs on G.Play or Deezer were broadcast.

2/ Whomever sells/streams those bootlegs that were broadcast isn't the TV or radio channels that aired them.

3/ Shows that are aired on TV or radio are subject to contracts specifying that the recording is rented to such channels for X number of broadcasts, they do not own the sound recording (or video for that matter).

4/ No such deal includes an automatic right for such channels to release the recording on CD. Further releases are to be authorized and subject to specific deals.

5/ None of those bootlegs are actually being released on official, legit labels.

6/ The recordings belong to whomever produced them (i.e. paid for them), i.e. Paisley Park Production. In the case of Syracuse I invite you to look at the copyright notice on your VHS or LD release of the show.

Etc., etc.

Please do some research before making absurd claims on this board. There are young fans reading us and they are not to be fooled by false claims.

AnnaStesia91 said:

People need to admit their issue is with Jay-Z not the validity of whatever agreement he had with P CLEARLY the majority of what's been on Tidal was on there before he passed and he was doing the purple pick right up until he died. Get over your beef with Jay already folks. Oh and Prince is not the only person with bootlegs and unauthorized shit on there. Some artists are even catalogued incorrectly. Notify support and it'll be handled.

Yeah I have no idea where this nonsense about the official albums not being authorised on Tidal comes from, given that Prince himself promoted the whole thing last year. Brings me back to all those debates about "information bubbles" following the US election: 1 person makes a hoax, and the next thing u know 10,000 are repeating it without having a clue. People who spread false informations should be warned then, if the offense is repeated, banned from this board as far as I'm concerned. I'm sick to death of the internet becoming a platform for lies, hoaxes and disinformation.

purpleaslan said:

databank said:

AnnaStesia91 said:

People need to admit their issue is with Jay-Z not the validity of whatever agreement he had with P CLEARLY the majority of what's been on Tidal was on there before he passed and he was doing the purple pick right up until he died. Get over your beef with Jay already folks. Oh and Prince is not the only person with bootlegs and unauthorized shit on there. Some artists are even catalogued incorrectly. Notify support and it'll be handled.

Yeah I have no idea where this nonsense about the official albums not being authorised on Tidal comes from, given that Prince himself promoted the whole thing last year. Brings me back to all those debates about "information bubbles" following the US election: 1 person makes a hoax, and the next thing u know 10,000 are repeating it without having a clue. People who spread false informations should be warned then, if the offense is repeated, banned from this board as far as I'm concerned. I'm sick to death of the internet becoming a platform for lies, hoaxes and disinformation.

Amen to that!!

If people believe there are bootlegs posted on Tidal, GooglePlay, iTunes, or whatever, have they contacted anyone about it? Such as the hosting site itself? If that doesn't work, try these links:

https://twitter.com/prnfamily

https://twitter.com/londellmcmillan

cloveringold85 said:

Prince giving the side-eye to JayZ/Tidal.

.

The only thing Prince gave Tidal was his music. He was more than happy for them to put everything up. Often adding new songs as the Purple Pick of the Week.

When Prince passed the reason he sold so many CDs was because people couldn't stream stuff. If they make his catalog available everywhere obody is going to hand over 9.99 for ONE record when they can get EVERY record for 9.99 a month.

If the estate thinks they'll make more by allowing spotify to stream Prince music they're wrong. They'll get 0.004 cents perr stream... they'd need tens of millions of streams just to pull in a few tens of thoustand of dollars.

Seems like another example of the estate dismissing Prince's wishes.

TheDigitalGardener said:

Remaster my arse.

Maybe later.

This does at least sound better than the casette recording I made of the VHS therough the TV's crappy speakers back in the day.

TwiliteKid said:

leecaldon said:

Yes, Tidal added several album's since P's death, but the vast majority were on there already, very much with Prince's blessing.

Work on your reading comprehension, son - that's exactly the point I was making.

I was agreeing with you, daddy-o, to back up your point

leecaldon said:

TwiliteKid said:

leecaldon said: Work on your reading comprehension, son - that's exactly the point I was making.

I was agreeing with you, daddy-o, to back up your point

Oh. Well then - keep up the good work!

.

[Edited 12/7/16 1:29am]

3rdeyeboy said:

The estate can't take down the live album sales because they don't own them. They were all publicly broadcast.

.

Utter nonsense.

3rdeyeboy said:

I'm refering to the live CDs etc that are on some download sites and as CDs on Amazon. All I said is the estate can't take them down, as they don't own them.

.

UTTER NONSENSE. Stop spreading this ignorant bullshit.

.

[Edited 12/7/16 1:28am]

CandaceS said:

Noodled24 said:

cloveringold85 said:

Prince giving the side-eye to JayZ/Tidal.

.

The only thing Prince gave Tidal was his music. He was more than happy for them to put everything up. Often adding new songs as the Purple Pick of the Week.

When Prince passed the reason he sold so many CDs was because people couldn't stream stuff. If they make his catalog available everywhere obody is going to hand over 9.99 for ONE record when they can get EVERY record for 9.99 a month.

If the estate thinks they'll make more by allowing spotify to stream Prince music they're wrong. They'll get 0.004 cents perr stream... they'd need tens of millions of streams just to pull in a few tens of thoustand of dollars.

Seems like another example of the estate dismissing Prince's wishes.

.

If Tidal/JayZ is doing something that they are not supposed to be doing, then justice needs to be served. I'm sure Prince was in agreement with Tidal, in the beginning -- but the way things are going right now, I'm not sure he would be cool with that.

3rdeyeboy said:

databank said:

Nonsense. Sheer, absolute nonsense.

1/ Not all of those bootlegs on G.Play or Deezer were broadcast.

2/ Whomever sells/streams those bootlegs that were broadcast isn't the TV or radio channels that aired them.

3/ Shows that are aired on TV or radio are subject to contracts specifying that the recording is rented to such channels for X number of broadcasts, they do not own the sound recording (or video for that matter).

4/ No such deal includes an automatic right for such channels to release the recording on CD. Further releases are to be authorized and subject to specific deals.

5/ None of those bootlegs are actually being released on official, legit labels.

6/ The recordings belong to whomever produced them (i.e. paid for them), i.e. Paisley Park Production. In the case of Syracuse I invite you to look at the copyright notice on your VHS or LD release of the show.

Etc., etc.

Please do some research before making absurd claims on this board. There are young fans reading us and they are not to be fooled by false claims.

Keep your hair on.

I'm refering to the live CDs etc that are on some download sites and as CDs on Amazon. All I said is the estate can't take them down, as they don't own them.

If they could, don't you think WebSheriff would be all over them? They are so sharp at the moment they are shutting down small scale tee shirt designs that include any likeness to Prince.

There has always been a legal grey around radio and TV broadcast audio. I think it was Bryan Adams that tried to stop the official release of a live radio broadcast and lost.

As for the performer owning their live work, I believe performance rights drop to the broadcaster unless contractually agreed (something Prince tried to arrange with Coachella, insisting his section could not be broadcast). A DVD or VHS release is a different case, but if its publically broadcast, its out of their control. The key difference is between public broadcast, and recording of a private function (a paid for Prince gig).

The broadcaster probably has a good chance of taking legal action, but I don't think its been tested yet.

So before you call it nonsense, can you explain why, the estate of the most prolific artist for taking legal action to protect his work, hasn't taken action?

Indeed, I seem to recollect that Prince tried to stop the interview picture discs in the early 90's and couldn't, even when they contain Prince, and were broadcast on a copyrighted channel (such as the MTV interview in 1985).

Why would he (or the estate), not go after such obvious targets, and instead concentrate on babies dancing to Lets Go Crazy?

Prince couldn't stop this even when he was alive.
Remember these a while back??



Same story as now. It's nothing new, and it happens to all the artists.
Nothing to do with Tidal, or Amazon or any other provider.

Someone found a loophole and its as simple as that.

3rdeyeboy said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Utter nonsense.

So why don't they get them taken down? How have CDs been on sale on Amazon for so long? Why did Prince fail to get the interview discs stopped?

Happy for it to be called nonsense, if someone can back up there claim.

Just to confuse matters further, didn't Prince splash a large amount of money to buy the rights to the Rio '91 gig so that MTV couldn't air it? Yet this is one of the live album on Google Play.

databank said:

3rdeyeboy said:

The estate can't take down the live album sales because they don't own them. They were all publicly broadcast.

Nonsense. Sheer, absolute nonsense.

1/ Not all of those bootlegs on G.Play or Deezer were broadcast.

2/ Whomever sells/streams those bootlegs that were broadcast isn't the TV or radio channels that aired them.

3/ Shows that are aired on TV or radio are subject to contracts specifying that the recording is rented to such channels for X number of broadcasts, they do not own the sound recording (or video for that matter).

4/ No such deal includes an automatic right for such channels to release the recording on CD. Further releases are to be authorized and subject to specific deals.

5/ None of those bootlegs are actually being released on official, legit labels.

6/ The recordings belong to whomever produced them (i.e. paid for them), i.e. Paisley Park Production. In the case of Syracuse I invite you to look at the copyright notice on your VHS or LD release of the show.

Etc., etc.

Please do some research before making absurd claims on this board. There are young fans reading us and they are not to be fooled by false claims.

Nevertheless Databank, I'm pretty sure there's some obscure technical loophole that makes them legal releases (in Europe anyway), if obviously not authorised. Many, many artists suffer from this and these albums aren't sold only online or in dodgy record stores, you can buy them in your local HMV (RIP) / Virgin (RIP) / Tower (RIP)/ Woolworths (RIP)/ whoever is still around.

None of these live albums came out when he was alive, i assume they wouldn't risk the lawsuit he would inevitably file. No matter what the legalities he could have kept these things going for an expensive amount of time.

These grey market live albums have been around since at least the 90's. I remember Ash talking wayyyy back in 1997 about how they couldn't stop the Live at the Wireless album coming out so they semi-endorsed it by (IIRC) releasing it themselves. They called it an "official bootleg"

[Edited 11/21/16 20:20pm]

3rdeyeboy said:

databank said:

Nonsense. Sheer, absolute nonsense.

1/ Not all of those bootlegs on G.Play or Deezer were broadcast.

2/ Whomever sells/streams those bootlegs that were broadcast isn't the TV or radio channels that aired them.

3/ Shows that are aired on TV or radio are subject to contracts specifying that the recording is rented to such channels for X number of broadcasts, they do not own the sound recording (or video for that matter).

4/ No such deal includes an automatic right for such channels to release the recording on CD. Further releases are to be authorized and subject to specific deals.

5/ None of those bootlegs are actually being released on official, legit labels.

6/ The recordings belong to whomever produced them (i.e. paid for them), i.e. Paisley Park Production. In the case of Syracuse I invite you to look at the copyright notice on your VHS or LD release of the show.

Etc., etc.

Please do some research before making absurd claims on this board. There are young fans reading us and they are not to be fooled by false claims.

Keep your hair on.

I'm refering to the live CDs etc that are on some download sites and as CDs on Amazon. All I said is the estate can't take them down, as they don't own them.

Nonsense. Have you checked the labels? Bootlegs. Either Prince's estate or TV or radio channels own the recordings but you're not going to claim that they're public domain, are you?

If they could, don't you think WebSheriff would be all over them? They are so sharp at the moment they are shutting down small scale tee shirt designs that include any likeness to Prince.

This is proof by absence of proof: sophism. Because I can't prove that God doesn't exist doesn't proves that God exists.

There has always been a legal grey around radio and TV broadcast audio.

No there haven't. I've searched online for such so-called loopholes and all I could find was... people saying it on message boards. It's what you could call an internet loop: someone says X on a board and soon everyone else is saying it but when looking for the original source you realize that it is... someone saying it on a board.

I think it was Bryan Adams that tried to stop the official release of a live radio broadcast and lost.

Please provide details about this case. We may be able to get to the bottom of it. Even if real, an exception doesn't make a rule. Again: sophism.

As for the performer owning their live work, I believe performance rights drop to the broadcaster unless contractually agreed (something Prince tried to arrange with Coachella, insisting his section could not be broadcast). A DVD or VHS release is a different case, but if its publically broadcast, its out of their control. The key difference is between public broadcast, and recording of a private function (a paid for Prince gig).

What you "believe" isn't relevant here. The worst that can happen would be the radio or TV channel being able to rebroadcast the show undefinitely. But that does not explain either CD's on Amazon or shows on Spotify, Deezer or Tidal. Certainly you do not claim that TV channels have themselves licenced the shows to those streaming services.

The broadcaster probably has a good chance of taking legal action, but I don't think its been tested yet.

Are you now talking about CD's or streamin services?

So before you call it nonsense, can you explain why, the estate of the most prolific artist for taking legal action to protect his work, hasn't taken action?

Ask them.

Indeed, I seem to recollect that Prince tried to stop the interview picture discs in the early 90's and couldn't, even when they contain Prince, and were broadcast on a copyrighted channel (such as the MTV interview in 1985).

Nonsense. Interviews are not music and do not fall under the same category. A recorded interview belongs to whomever recorded it, not the artist.

Why would he (or the estate), not go after such obvious targets, and instead concentrate on babies dancing to Lets Go Crazy?

Those bootlegs were not available on either online shops or streaming platforms during Prince's lifetime. They suddenly appeared after he passed. Explain this.

3rdeyeboy said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Utter nonsense.

So why don't they get them taken down? How have CDs been on sale on Amazon for so long? Why did Prince fail to get the interview discs stopped?

Happy for it to be called nonsense, if someone can back up there claim.

You are the one trying to make an extravagant claim. I believe the duty of proof falls on you, not us.

callimnate said:

3rdeyeboy said:

Keep your hair on.

I'm refering to the live CDs etc that are on some download sites and as CDs on Amazon. All I said is the estate can't take them down, as they don't own them.

If they could, don't you think WebSheriff would be all over them? They are so sharp at the moment they are shutting down small scale tee shirt designs that include any likeness to Prince.

There has always been a legal grey around radio and TV broadcast audio. I think it was Bryan Adams that tried to stop the official release of a live radio broadcast and lost.

As for the performer owning their live work, I believe performance rights drop to the broadcaster unless contractually agreed (something Prince tried to arrange with Coachella, insisting his section could not be broadcast). A DVD or VHS release is a different case, but if its publically broadcast, its out of their control. The key difference is between public broadcast, and recording of a private function (a paid for Prince gig).

The broadcaster probably has a good chance of taking legal action, but I don't think its been tested yet.

So before you call it nonsense, can you explain why, the estate of the most prolific artist for taking legal action to protect his work, hasn't taken action?

Indeed, I seem to recollect that Prince tried to stop the interview picture discs in the early 90's and couldn't, even when they contain Prince, and were broadcast on a copyrighted channel (such as the MTV interview in 1985).

Why would he (or the estate), not go after such obvious targets, and instead concentrate on babies dancing to Lets Go Crazy?

Prince couldn't stop this even when he was alive.
Remember these a while back??



Same story as now. It's nothing new, and it happens to all the artists.
Nothing to do with Tidal, or Amazon or any other provider.

Someone found a loophole and its as simple as that.

Prove that Prince could not stop them.

jaawwnn said:

databank said:

Nonsense. Sheer, absolute nonsense.

1/ Not all of those bootlegs on G.Play or Deezer were broadcast.

2/ Whomever sells/streams those bootlegs that were broadcast isn't the TV or radio channels that aired them.

3/ Shows that are aired on TV or radio are subject to contracts specifying that the recording is rented to such channels for X number of broadcasts, they do not own the sound recording (or video for that matter).

4/ No such deal includes an automatic right for such channels to release the recording on CD. Further releases are to be authorized and subject to specific deals.

5/ None of those bootlegs are actually being released on official, legit labels.

6/ The recordings belong to whomever produced them (i.e. paid for them), i.e. Paisley Park Production. In the case of Syracuse I invite you to look at the copyright notice on your VHS or LD release of the show.

Etc., etc.

Please do some research before making absurd claims on this board. There are young fans reading us and they are not to be fooled by false claims.

Nevertheless Databank, I'm pretty sure there's some obscure technical loophole that makes them legal releases (in Europe anyway), if obviously not authorised.

The only source I've ever found regarding those supposed European legal loopholes were... posts on message boards. I believe this was made-up once by someone on a message board and became an internet urban legend. When one can't find any other source than someone saying something online, the infor is very likely false.

Many, many artists suffer from this and these albums aren't sold only online or in dodgy record stores, you can buy them in your local HMV (RIP) / Virgin (RIP) / Tower (RIP)/ Woolworths (RIP)/ whoever is still around.

Certainly not in French record stores.

None of these live albums came out when he was alive, i assume they wouldn't risk the lawsuit he would inevitably file. No matter what the legalities he could have kept these things going for an expensive amount of time.

Either he had ground to sue or he didn't. Either those things are legal or they aren't. You can't say "it's legal but they were afraid of Prince sueing". It makes zero sense.

These grey market live albums have been around since at least the 90's. I remember Ash talking wayyyy back in 1997 about how they couldn't stop the Live at the Wireless album coming out so they semi-endorsed it by (IIRC) releasing it themselves. They called it an "official bootleg"
I know nothing of Ash but according to the link you've posted it was released... on Ash's own vanity label. How can't a band prevent... themselves from releasing a record?

[Edited 11/21/16 20:20pm]

Noodled24 said:

3rdeyeboy said:

So why don't they get them taken down? How have CDs been on sale on Amazon for so long? Why did Prince fail to get the interview discs stopped?

Happy for it to be called nonsense, if someone can back up there claim.

Just to confuse matters further, didn't Prince splash a large amount of money to buy the rights to the Rio '91 gig so that MTV couldn't air it? Yet this is one of the live album on Google Play.

My understanding of the events has always been as such:

1/ Either Prince himself or Rock In Rio signed a deal with MTV.

2/ If it was RIR, artists signed a deal with RIR allowing the deal with MTV top apply to their show.

3/ Prince deson't want the show broadcast, his only way out of the deal is to buy the rights back to MTV.

4/ MTV accepts out of courtesy because they don't wanna piss Prince off.

.

Now what Prince apparently wasn't able to prevent, or didn't care to prevent, or wasn't aware of is that RIR also had made some deal with Brazilian TV channel iSat, and the public Argentinian TV service. As a consequence the show was aired in both Brazil and Argentina, and the show can now be found on the official YT channel of the Argentinian public TV service's archives.

.

Totally independently from any of this, the show ends-up on Amazon, Google Play and so on... because bootleggers put it there after Prince died.

SonyaG said:

oliviacamron said:

SonyaG said:

Thanks for the screenshot.

It's gone I guess . I can't find it

It's still there. Found it in about 2 seconds.