Well lets be real the only people looking for this material are loyal fans, that is what people dont get. Universal didnt want this stuff because it felt it was paying tons of cash for albums that no one bought then. Even the WB releases or any kind of re issues are not going to hook new fans, its just not going to happen. The one album that everyone had interested in Purple Rain is has already been re issued, and re issues by rule sell about 1% of what the original sold, so do the math on all his releases and what has to go into reissues etc....

lastdecember said:

poppys said:

I don't give a rat's ass if anyone does steal from Sony - or artists - that's on them. But calling it "simply copyright infringement" is hilarious. Prince would've loved that. If you're gonna steal, just be honest and call it stealing.

.

Prince would have been the first to tell you that words have meaning. (although he said it as "the prefix of contract is con"...)

.

The media industry (and some others) have been working hard to convince people that making a copy of something is stealing. The original is not touched, so it is not stealing. Nothing can change that. Now, I am aware that copyright infringement is against the law. I also know that the current law is unjust to an extreme. However, that has nothing to do with this thread.

.

Poppys, get a clue, copyright infringement (however against the law it might be) is not theft. Words do have meaning and it is especially important to use words correctly in this type of forum.

.

Do not fall into the propaganda by evil corporations such as Sony.

"Exclusive" to Variety, more like....

mediumdry said:

poppys said:

I don't give a rat's ass if anyone does steal from Sony - or artists - that's on them. But calling it "simply copyright infringement" is hilarious. Prince would've loved that. If you're gonna steal, just be honest and call it stealing.

.

Prince would have been the first to tell you that words have meaning. (although he said it as "the prefix of contract is con"...)

.

The media industry (and some others) have been working hard to convince people that making a copy of something is stealing. The original is not touched, so it is not stealing. Nothing can change that. Now, I am aware that copyright infringement is against the law. I also know that the current law is unjust to an extreme. However, that has nothing to do with this thread.

.

Poppys, get a clue, copyright infringement (however against the law it might be) is not theft. Words do have meaning and it is especially important to use words correctly in this type of forum.

.

Do not fall into the propaganda by evil corporations such as Sony.

.
Nice try at justifying breaking laws, but apparently you have very little clue of what you're talking about.
.
When someone grabs your family photos off your facebook profile and reuses them for whatever purpose, I hope you'll be cool about it as "the originals are not touched". When you release your own recordings, or you have even just a tiny record label as I had, and people repost (in other words: redistribute) your releases without your permission, I'm sure you'll just go "that's fine, as my originals are untouched."
.
The thing is, what you don't seem to grasp: the "original" you're referring to is not the physical storage format (whether it's photographic paper or a memory card or magnetic tape or hard drive) that contains the work in question, but the RIGHTS of duplication. And in all of the above cases your rights are "touched" indeed, in other words: violated.
.
Obviously no-one will go after you if you copy an album for your friend on a physical format. But in case you upload it to the web they can come after you and they have every right to do so, as that is indeed stealing, like it or not.
.

Another thing: businesses, incl. corporations are, in most cases, simply a bunch of people trying to make a living and create something. Some do it honestly, some dishonestly, most of them do it in many different honest and dishonest ways – just like how people act in their private lives. Calling them "evil corporations" just because they are trying to protect their assets and rights is not only ridiculous, but childish too.
.

[Edited 6/18/18 4:13am]

feeluupp said:

Millions less than the Universal deal... Wondering what Prince would think to tell him all his post WB output is worth no more than 30 million...

.
It doesn't matter if it's "millions less" or more. That is primarily for signing the contract (but of course it can also contain a royalty-advance component). What matters is how much revenue the contract will generate for the Estate in the long run and right now we have no info on that, it would be next to impossible to predict.
.
The long-term revenue will depend on the releases; how they are compiled, produced, distributed, marketed – and on the royalty the Estate will receive after the copies sold. The Estate will also have an additional revenue stream as a result of these future releases from Prince's publishing rights.
.
So all things considered, the money they'll receive for signing the contract is not an indication of whether it's a better or worse agreement than the previous one. We don't know the details.
.

It's a very telling sign that Prince's music is so "neatly" (legally) divided into two categories: WB, and post-WB. For all intents and purposes, his "legacy" is the WB stuff. Not one album post-WB was a huge moneymaker or had big hits.

And even the "post-WB" is cloudy from 2014-2016 because he had a deal in place with WB again!

RODSERLING said:

Kares said:

mediumdry said:

.

Prince would have been the first to tell you that words have meaning. (although he said it as "the prefix of contract is con"...)

.

The media industry (and some others) have been working hard to convince people that making a copy of something is stealing. The original is not touched, so it is not stealing. Nothing can change that. Now, I am aware that copyright infringement is against the law. I also know that the current law is unjust to an extreme. However, that has nothing to do with this thread.

.

Poppys, get a clue, copyright infringement (however against the law it might be) is not theft. Words do have meaning and it is especially important to use words correctly in this type of forum.

.

Do not fall into the propaganda by evil corporations such as Sony.

.
Nice try at justifying breaking laws, but apparently you have very little clue of what you're talking about.
.
When someone grabs your family photos off your facebook profile and reuses them for whatever purpose, I hope you'll be cool about it as "the originals are not touched". When you release your own recordings, or you have even just a tiny record label as I had, and people repost (in other words: redistribute) your releases without your permission, I'm sure you'll just go "that's fine, as my originals are untouched."
.
The thing is, what you don't seem to grasp: the "original" you're referring to is not the physical storage format (whether it's photographic paper or a memory card or magnetic tape or hard drive) that contains the work in question, but the RIGHTS of duplication. And in all of the above cases your rights are "touched" indeed, in other words: violated.
.
Obviously no-one will go after you if you copy an album for your friend on a physical format. But in case you upload it to the web they can come after you and they have every right to do so, as that is indeed stealing, like it or not.
.

Another thing: businesses, incl. corporations are, in most cases, simply a bunch of people trying to make a living and create something. Some do it honestly, some dishonestly, most of them do it in many different honest and dishonest ways – just like how people act in their private lives. Calling them "evil corporations" just because they are trying to protect their assets and rights is not only ridiculous, but childish too.
.

[Edited 6/18/18 4:13am]

.

Kares, do not start with a strawman argument please. I did not try to justify breaking laws. I am just saying that copyright infringement is not theft. It will never be, no matter how much it might "feel" that way to someone who feels their rights are trampled upon. It is not "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another".

.

And yes, infringing on someones copyright is against the law. And in some cases morally wrong as well.

.

Also, I did not say "evil corporations", I said "Sony is an evil corporation". I feel that their business tactics are reprehensible and when they are caught, their "apologies" double down on their behaviour. They feel their rights trump my rights and my property. To me, that is so far over the line that it is hard to ever come back from that. That, to me, is simply evil. And Sony has done that and has expressed opinions that they'd want to go further than they already went. I will not buy anything from such a company. That is my right. I also want to listen to Prince's music. If it comes out on Sony, I will get the music through means may not be legal, but they are not theft.

.

Kares, whatever reasons you have for trying to further the actions of those that hold "intellectual property" that's fine. If you believe that moving to further the duration of copyrights and expanding the policing powers of corporations and trampling competing rights that the people have is the right thing to do, we simply disagree. If you think my opinions are childish, that's fine. You, like poppys, come across to me as short-sighted and trigger happy, spouting garbage before you read and comprehend. All in a days work on the Internet, I suppose.

.

But do not try and throw opinions on me that I do not say. It is sloppy at best and evil tactics at worst.

Se7en said:

It's a very telling sign that Prince's music is so "neatly" (legally) divided into two categories: WB, and post-WB. For all intents and purposes, his "legacy" is the WB stuff. Not one album post-WB was a huge moneymaker or had big hits.

And even the "post-WB" is cloudy from 2014-2016 because he had a deal in place with WB again!

"The music business runs like this U have a manager,a attorney,various record company people, EVERYBODY is taking a cut of EVERYTHING When your in the club(the fold)EVERYBODY is getting a cut of touring, publishing, endorsements etc. When they getting a piece of ALL that. U WILL have hit records. But the minute U try to step away from all of that and take control of your own. You'll find U not hot anymore."

mediumdry said:

Kares said:

.
Nice try at justifying breaking laws, but apparently you have very little clue of what you're talking about.
.
When someone grabs your family photos off your facebook profile and reuses them for whatever purpose, I hope you'll be cool about it as "the originals are not touched". When you release your own recordings, or you have even just a tiny record label as I had, and people repost (in other words: redistribute) your releases without your permission, I'm sure you'll just go "that's fine, as my originals are untouched."
.
The thing is, what you don't seem to grasp: the "original" you're referring to is not the physical storage format (whether it's photographic paper or a memory card or magnetic tape or hard drive) that contains the work in question, but the RIGHTS of duplication. And in all of the above cases your rights are "touched" indeed, in other words: violated.
.
Obviously no-one will go after you if you copy an album for your friend on a physical format. But in case you upload it to the web they can come after you and they have every right to do so, as that is indeed stealing, like it or not.
.

Another thing: businesses, incl. corporations are, in most cases, simply a bunch of people trying to make a living and create something. Some do it honestly, some dishonestly, most of them do it in many different honest and dishonest ways – just like how people act in their private lives. Calling them "evil corporations" just because they are trying to protect their assets and rights is not only ridiculous, but childish too.
.

[Edited 6/18/18 4:13am]

.

Kares, do not start with a strawman argument please. I did not try to justify breaking laws. I am just saying that copyright infringement is not theft. It will never be, no matter how much it might "feel" that way to someone who feels their rights are trampled upon. It is not "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another".

.

And yes, infringing on someones copyright is against the law. And in some cases morally wrong as well.

.

Also, I did not say "evil corporations", I said "Sony is an evil corporation". I feel that their business tactics are reprehensible and when they are caught, their "apologies" double down on their behaviour. They feel their rights trump my rights and my property. To me, that is so far over the line that it is hard to ever come back from that. That, to me, is simply evil. And Sony has done that and has expressed opinions that they'd want to go further than they already went. I will not buy anything from such a company. That is my right. I also want to listen to Prince's music. If it comes out on Sony, I will get the music through means may not be legal, but they are not theft.

.

Kares, whatever reasons you have for trying to further the actions of those that hold "intellectual property" that's fine. If you believe that moving to further the duration of copyrights and expanding the policing powers of corporations and trampling competing rights that the people have is the right thing to do, we simply disagree. If you think my opinions are childish, that's fine. You, like poppys, come across to me as short-sighted and trigger happy, spouting garbage before you read and comprehend. All in a days work on the Internet, I suppose.

.

But do not try and throw opinions on me that I do not say. It is sloppy at best and evil tactics at worst.

mediumdry, copyright benefits the creator of the work first and foremost. It is up to them who they assign the copyright.

mediumdry said:

Kares said:

.
Nice try at justifying breaking laws, but apparently you have very little clue of what you're talking about.
.
When someone grabs your family photos off your facebook profile and reuses them for whatever purpose, I hope you'll be cool about it as "the originals are not touched". When you release your own recordings, or you have even just a tiny record label as I had, and people repost (in other words: redistribute) your releases without your permission, I'm sure you'll just go "that's fine, as my originals are untouched."
.
The thing is, what you don't seem to grasp: the "original" you're referring to is not the physical storage format (whether it's photographic paper or a memory card or magnetic tape or hard drive) that contains the work in question, but the RIGHTS of duplication. And in all of the above cases your rights are "touched" indeed, in other words: violated.
.
Obviously no-one will go after you if you copy an album for your friend on a physical format. But in case you upload it to the web they can come after you and they have every right to do so, as that is indeed stealing, like it or not.
.

Another thing: businesses, incl. corporations are, in most cases, simply a bunch of people trying to make a living and create something. Some do it honestly, some dishonestly, most of them do it in many different honest and dishonest ways – just like how people act in their private lives. Calling them "evil corporations" just because they are trying to protect their assets and rights is not only ridiculous, but childish too.
.

[Edited 6/18/18 4:13am]

.

Kares, do not start with a strawman argument please. I did not try to justify breaking laws. I am just saying that copyright infringement is not theft. It will never be, no matter how much it might "feel" that way to someone who feels their rights are trampled upon. It is not "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another".

.

And yes, infringing on someones copyright is against the law. And in some cases morally wrong as well.

.

Also, I did not say "evil corporations", I said "Sony is an evil corporation".

.

But do not try and throw opinions on me that I do not say. It is sloppy at best and evil tactics at worst.

.
You ARE trying to justify breaking laws. You are saying that copyright infringement is not theft (using an ignorant and ridiculous argument such as "the original is untouched") while in fact it IS.
.
Also, you DID say "evil corporationS SUCH AS Sony" – and calling either Sony or other companies evil just because they try to protect their assets and rights IS childish.
.
Have a nice day.

.

^^^^^^ move on............

Stay on topic!

Kares said:

.
You ARE trying to justify breaking laws. You are saying that copyright infringement is not theft (using an ignorant and ridiculous argument such as "the original is untouched") while in fact it IS.
.
Also, you DID say "evil corporationS SUCH AS Sony" – and calling either Sony or other companies evil just because they try to protect their assets and rights IS childish.
.
Have a nice day.

.

Sigh....

.

If I steal your copyright, I have it. If I copy your copyrighted work, I infringe on your copyright. There are many things against the law. They are not all stealing. And some unlawful acts are misdemeanors and some are crimes (an important distinction). Infringement (without monetary gain) has already been dragged into the criminal sphere. Still doesn't make it theft. How difficult is it to see the distinction? If I run a red light I did not steal safe passage from a pedestrian about to cross the zebra path. What is your obsession with calling it stealing?

.

I'm sorry you were thrown by "evil corporations such as Sony". There are many types of corporations, including those that act in ways I find evil. Not all do, luckily.

.

And lastly, it is my right to not want you to walk on my lawn. If, however, you do and I shoot you in the kneecaps, I will still be prosecuted (in any civilised country, stand your ground my ass). It is about proportionality and keeping in mind that you can have rights, but I also have them. If your reaction to people insulting you is always to bash in their skulls, authoritites might remove you from society. "I was just protecting my good name" is not a valid defense.

.

If a company sells cds and says they conform to the red book standard, but instead they install malware on a computer that the company does not own, on the presumption that some of their customers might make a copy of the contents of the cd, then they have far exceeded what is proportional, moral and lawful. If calling Sony out for doing that and more is childish... then I hope everyone will be childish.

.

PS luv4u, sorry, saw your remark only after I posted. I'll leave it alone from here on out.

[Edited 6/18/18 7:26am]

anywho. i wonder if the post WB vault is already catalogued. you'd think that a company
that pays 30 mil for licensing would like to know exactly what it is they are getting rights
to.

WB seem to be well underway to catalogueing the vault up to 93 or so (given some bits
and pieces of info that were reported by 3rd parties about previews being given to them
of material that seems to span beyond just 78/84)

but has anyone done the work yet on everything 93-10?

how do you negotiate such a deal? it would be very interesting to know some more of the
details. who knows, perhaps sony will be a little less stingy with information in the future.

but it would seem, to my reasoning, that if the whole post WB vault still needs to have a
decent going through and catalogueing and in earlier parts also digitizing etc, it will be a
while before sony will release anything.

unless there are things in there that are 'ready to go' which were previewed to them as a
means of securing the deal.

also, does sony now have the right to re-distrubute all the post warners album that were
released in one off deals with other labels such as arista for Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic?
we know that prince kept the mastertapes to all those later albums and only had deals in
place with these companies to distribute (or license?) these albums (at least we think he
did it that way as that was what was being reported).

but why did he never sell those albums on his websites anymore? they finally showed up
for the most part on Tidal, but is that the same thing, in regards to rights and licensing
and such, as selling them on your own website, or even on itunes?

some of you know a lot more about that i guess and it may seem like a lot of silly/stupid
questions but these are the things that are interesting, to me. i'd love to know more and
read up on these things. maybe information about this already became available in the
past year or so and i just missed it?

TrevorAyer said:

Honestly I would be tempted to pay for a book that simply lists every thing they found in the vault

same here

How well did Prince take care of labeling recordings? I mean, will there be a long process of determining just which songs are part of WB and which parts are from later? And how will they deal with all the tracks that are partially recorded in the WB timeframe and partially after?

.

I kind of wish WB would have gotten the rights to everything, as I can see it taking a long time to resolve issues if there hasn't been excellent record keeping.

rogifan said:

TrevorAyer said:

i would love an UN mastered series with his most recent brickwalls presented without the butchered mastering ... alas we live in an age of deaf consumers so they will probably take the opposite approach and brickwall his whole catalog

Co-sign

[Edited 6/18/18 16:48pm]

love2thenines2003 said:

What are the example of very good Deluxe edition under Sony Contract? Thanx

http://www.michaeljackson.com/music/thriller-25th-super-deluxe-edition/

tomds said:

Sony did the bad 25 edition which was very good. Including unreleased material and a concert dvd in a nice deluxe packaging. It had also remixes but i think they didn't have much outtakes to work.with. They also did the king of pop compilation. They asked the fans in every big country which songs they wanted to have on the cd. The result was different issues in different countries with lots of surprises. Especially the french edition is very good including several extended versions previously only available on vinyl. Finally the xscape cd was very good since it included the original unfinished versions combined with the remastered versions. So I believe this deal can work out very good.

+1

leecaldon said:

Revolution18 said:

This is terrible news. I hope I am wrong but after what Sony did to the Michael Jackson releases I don't hold much hope. Here some info for those who don't no. First MJ release was a greatest hits from "This Is It" this had one new song and album versions of hits with the also the movie. (That actually was decent) The next album was "Michael" 3 of the ten tracks were sung by an impersonater and not Michael the other 7 songs were produced ok but none of the songs were fully the way Michael left them. Then there was immortal a remix album for cirque. This would of been better if they had got the actual producers who worked on the music to make this remix album just like they got George Martin and his son to remix The Beatles for the "Love Album" Then we got Xscape which was remixed by Timberland. That was ok but I don't like the thought of anybody touching Prince's music let alone making songs into duets that didn't happen like they did with Michael and Justin Timberlake. Then the latest release has been another greatest hits. Sorry for the rant but I really don't hold much faith in Sony.

Excuse me?

that is sad but true ((

infamous Jason Malachi

this deal seems okay maybe they will let the family stream music on the prince estate site, the paisley park site and other sites maybe or they can make they own site and ask to stream music on their site. I noticed Sony lets fans stream music on their fan sites as long as its copyrighted material and allowed by the label and not bootleg material.

jdcxc said:

lastdecember said:

Well lets be real the only people looking for this material are loyal fans, that is what people dont get. Universal didnt want this stuff because it felt it was paying tons of cash for albums that no one bought then. Even the WB releases or any kind of re issues are not going to hook new fans, its just not going to happen. The one album that everyone had interested in Purple Rain is has already been re issued, and re issues by rule sell about 1% of what the original sold, so do the math on all his releases and what has to go into reissues etc....

There are multiple ways Prince music can be repackaged and resold...commercials, movies, reissues, stage, entertainment venues. Sony didn’t buy this to lose money. They will be able to exploit huge money out of Prince material forever.

With all due respect. The opportuntiy for new formats and platforms is still limited by the original value of the material in question.

Not going to put on a broadway show that sells off the back of Gold Experience outtakes.

[Edited 6/19/18 7:43am]

Knightoflight said:

Knightoflight said:

leecaldon said:

Excuse me?

that is sad but true ((

infamous Jason Malachi

AFAIK nothing has been proven yet.

So, no.

Sad but possible.

RODSERLING said:

HNR2 was released physically one week after his death and didn t make top 40 worldwide (!).

I bought the physical release of HNR2 several months before his death.

tomds said:

Knightoflight said:

that is sad but true ((

infamous Jason Malachi

you can compare this is it with 4ever: a compilation with only one new song. Published by....WB. The duet between mj and justin was good. It brought mj back to the attention of the masses and was a big hit. Meaning lots of money. That's a good thing to keep the estate alive. They can do the same thing with prince. Release a duet with bruno mars for instance. Why this can be good you ask ? Because along with the justin duet they also released the original version without any overdubs or remixes. They can release whatever they want. I don't care. As long as the diehards can have the originals. Two birds with one stone. Cash and hits thanks to the duet and historical content for the diehards. No harm in that. That's why I also liked the elvis remixes. Not because of the remixes itself. But because we got the original unreleased version as well.

NEVER!