New topic
Printablelangebleu said: DigitalLisa said: Well uhm instead calling me stupid, why don't you explain it buddy... as far as I'm concerned there's not much difference, for the reason the public doesn't have the authoirty 2 have it or else Prince wouldn't be trying 2 shut down the sites if that wasn't the case. Stealing is Stealing either it way it goes which was the point I was trying 2 make and you clearly missed. Yet I'm the dumbass
 Basically, piracy - copying property belonging to someone else without authority is illegal. It is certainly likely to amount to breach of copyright, although certain breaches are sometimes permitted under certain statutes. Bootlegging - usually the taping and distribution of a live musical performance - is not piracy, and is not a 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property. It's fair to say that such activity might sometimes be in breach of other laws e.g. a breach of contractual terms if someone purchased a concert ticket under specific conditions. Owning a bootleg recording is generally not illegal. I've seen a lot of people in recent days use the words 'theft' and 'stealing' incorrectly and confuse 'piracy' with 'bootlegging'. Here's an example to ponder, and I only use it to illustrate that things are not so straightforward that they entitle people to blithely complain that using someone else's property without permission is tantamount to 'theft': If, as you say, 'stealing is stealing', then how come Prince regularly performs other people's songs without even asking them for permission to do so, without paying the writer a penny for the live performance of the song - and yet that performance goes towards making Prince money, by entertaining the audience? . [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 8:41:52 PST 2004 by langebleu] I'm just gon flip this for a second, most bootlegs are recording of live shows... well I don't know how it were you all from, but it is illegal 2 bring a camera, video camera or whatever to a show. Most of time if you read the back of ticket (small print) it will say don't bring this material, why cuz it's illegal. That' like somebody going into a movie theater with a video camera, or a camera into live shows are no different. Y'all are making this more difficult then it has 2 be. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
DigitalLisa said: langebleu said: DigitalLisa said: Well uhm instead calling me stupid, why don't you explain it buddy... as far as I'm concerned there's not much difference, for the reason the public doesn't have the authoirty 2 have it or else Prince wouldn't be trying 2 shut down the sites if that wasn't the case. Stealing is Stealing either it way it goes which was the point I was trying 2 make and you clearly missed. Yet I'm the dumbass
Basically, piracy - copying property belonging to someone else without authority is illegal. It is certainly likely to amount to breach of copyright, although certain breaches are sometimes permitted under certain statutes. Bootlegging - usually the taping and distribution of a live musical performance - is not piracy, and is not a 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property. It's fair to say that such activity might sometimes be in breach of other laws e.g. a breach of contractual terms if someone purchased a concert ticket under specific conditions. Owning a bootleg recording is generally not illegal. I've seen a lot of people in recent days use the words 'theft' and 'stealing' incorrectly and confuse 'piracy' with 'bootlegging'. Here's an example to ponder, and I only use it to illustrate that things are not so straightforward that they entitle people to blithely complain that using someone else's property without permission is tantamount to 'theft': If, as you say, 'stealing is stealing', then how come Prince regularly performs other people's songs without even asking them for permission to do so, without paying the writer a penny for the live performance of the song - and yet that performance goes towards making Prince money, by entertaining the audience? . [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 8:41:52 PST 2004 by langebleu] I'm just gon flip this for a second, most bootlegs are recording of live shows... well I don't know how it were you all from, but it is illegal 2 bring a camera, video camera or whatever to a show. Most of time if you read the back of ticket (small print) it will say don't bring this material, why cuz it's illegal. That' like somebody going into a movie theater with a video camera, or a camera into live shows are no different. Y'all are making this more difficult then it has 2 be. Or you are over-simplifying it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DigitalLisa said: langebleu said: DigitalLisa said: Well uhm instead calling me stupid, why don't you explain it buddy... as far as I'm concerned there's not much difference, for the reason the public doesn't have the authoirty 2 have it or else Prince wouldn't be trying 2 shut down the sites if that wasn't the case. Stealing is Stealing either it way it goes which was the point I was trying 2 make and you clearly missed. Yet I'm the dumbass
Basically, piracy - copying property belonging to someone else without authority is illegal. It is certainly likely to amount to breach of copyright, although certain breaches are sometimes permitted under certain statutes. Bootlegging - usually the taping and distribution of a live musical performance - is not piracy, and is not a 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property. It's fair to say that such activity might sometimes be in breach of other laws e.g. a breach of contractual terms if someone purchased a concert ticket under specific conditions. Owning a bootleg recording is generally not illegal. I've seen a lot of people in recent days use the words 'theft' and 'stealing' incorrectly and confuse 'piracy' with 'bootlegging'. Here's an example to ponder, and I only use it to illustrate that things are not so straightforward that they entitle people to blithely complain that using someone else's property without permission is tantamount to 'theft': If, as you say, 'stealing is stealing', then how come Prince regularly performs other people's songs without even asking them for permission to do so, without paying the writer a penny for the live performance of the song - and yet that performance goes towards making Prince money, by entertaining the audience? . [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 8:41:52 PST 2004 by langebleu] I'm just gon flip this for a second, most bootlegs are recording of live shows... well I don't know how it were you all from, but it is illegal 2 bring a camera, video camera or whatever to a show. Most of time if you read the back of ticket (small print) it will say don't bring this material, why cuz it's illegal. That' like somebody going into a movie theater with a video camera, or a camera into live shows are no different. Y'all are making this more difficult then it has 2 be. I see you are now using theword "illegal". That's a fine improvement. You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo said: DigitalLisa said: langebleu said: DigitalLisa said: Well uhm instead calling me stupid, why don't you explain it buddy... as far as I'm concerned there's not much difference, for the reason the public doesn't have the authoirty 2 have it or else Prince wouldn't be trying 2 shut down the sites if that wasn't the case. Stealing is Stealing either it way it goes which was the point I was trying 2 make and you clearly missed. Yet I'm the dumbass
Basically, piracy - copying property belonging to someone else without authority is illegal. It is certainly likely to amount to breach of copyright, although certain breaches are sometimes permitted under certain statutes. Bootlegging - usually the taping and distribution of a live musical performance - is not piracy, and is not a 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property. It's fair to say that such activity might sometimes be in breach of other laws e.g. a breach of contractual terms if someone purchased a concert ticket under specific conditions. Owning a bootleg recording is generally not illegal. I've seen a lot of people in recent days use the words 'theft' and 'stealing' incorrectly and confuse 'piracy' with 'bootlegging'. Here's an example to ponder, and I only use it to illustrate that things are not so straightforward that they entitle people to blithely complain that using someone else's property without permission is tantamount to 'theft': If, as you say, 'stealing is stealing', then how come Prince regularly performs other people's songs without even asking them for permission to do so, without paying the writer a penny for the live performance of the song - and yet that performance goes towards making Prince money, by entertaining the audience? . [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 8:41:52 PST 2004 by langebleu] I'm just gon flip this for a second, most bootlegs are recording of live shows... well I don't know how it were you all from, but it is illegal 2 bring a camera, video camera or whatever to a show. Most of time if you read the back of ticket (small print) it will say don't bring this material, why cuz it's illegal. That' like somebody going into a movie theater with a video camera, or a camera into live shows are no different. Y'all are making this more difficult then it has 2 be. I see you are now using theword "illegal". That's a fine improvement. I know what the hell I'm talking about and if people were bootlegging my shit I didn't want out there, I would sue everyone of y'all . Simply cuz y'all making money off my damn career and that ain't right. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
DigitalLisa said: I'm just gon flip this for a second, most bootlegs are recording of live shows... well I don't know how it were you all from, but it is illegal 2 bring a camera, video camera or whatever to a show. Most of time if you read the back of ticket (small print) it will say don't bring this material, why cuz it's illegal. That' like somebody going into a movie theater with a video camera, or a camera into live shows are no different. Y'all are making this more difficult then it has 2 be.
Digital - I said quite clearly that taping might be illegal under breach of contract. It doesn't say in the small print of your ticket 'Don't bring a camera because it is illegal' There is no such law as: 'Thou shalt not take a camera to a concert' It says on the ticket: 'Use of cameras is not authorised' and Prince not only places sign to that effect at his concerts, but he also has security state so at Paisley Park. Moreover, he even has members of his crew sit in the audience, possibly looking for unauthorised taping ... I know, because I've spoken to one of the guys. So if you, as a ticket holder, take a picture, Prince is entitled to claim that you are in breach of contract, and demand your film (and you) be removed from the auditorium. But it's breach of contract ... not theft. It's very easy to claim that people are making this subject much more difficult than it has to be. But the law, which you have said you understand, is more complicated than you are making it out to be. . [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 9:06:11 PST 2004 by langebleu] ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderator
|
DigitalLisa said: I know what the hell I'm talking about and if people were bootlegging my shit I didn't want out there, I would sue everyone of y'all . Simply cuz y'all making money off my damn career and that ain't right.
You still haven't answered the example about Prince performing other people's songs without paying them a penny. Surely he's making money off the back of another writer's hard work? But it isn't 'theft', and the writer can't sue Prince, because life isn't that straightforward. ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DigitalLisa said: If you were in this position and you were the artist how would you handl the people who was bootlegging your music, you didn't want to be out there in the first place ? Be Honest
Well I for one wouldn't sue or threaten some website that just provides info... Prince knows full well who run some bootleg labels (and even if he didn't he could find out in a heartbeat) but the fact is he can't do shit about them... So instead his frustrated ass irritates some website that isn't doing anything illegal... And as long as he keeps this up people will keep on bootlegging his stuff just to fucking irritate him... Next thing you'll know he'll shut down Prince.org just because people are talking about boots or posting a tracklist of a show he did... Neversin. O(+>NIИ<+)O
“Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man's?” - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
langebleu said: DigitalLisa said: I know what the hell I'm talking about and if people were bootlegging my shit I didn't want out there, I would sue everyone of y'all . Simply cuz y'all making money off my damn career and that ain't right.
You still haven't answered the example about Prince performing other people's songs without paying them a penny. Surely he's making money off the back of another writer's hard work? But it isn't 'theft', and the writer can't sue Prince, because life isn't that straightforward. It's not like he's going into the studio 2 record the song, Rather he's paying contributes 2 the people who's inspired,alot of times when a performer does this a show, they say who the artist is which is giving credit, therefore he can't get in trouble . For example on ONA LIVE he performed Erykah Badu's Didn't cha know (well Rhonda Smith) Did he not say who the performer was that originally peformed it? It's really 2 entirely different things. Now if he went into the studio and recorded a song with that person premission or giving credit , then he's stealing and his ass can get sued. And about being authorized 2 use a video camera, I said the same thing just not in pacific details, damn I swear y'all make a sistah want 2 pull out her hair  .[This message was edited Tue Jan 20 9:11:24 PST 2004 by DigitalLisa] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
langebleu said: DigitalLisa said: I know what the hell I'm talking about and if people were bootlegging my shit I didn't want out there, I would sue everyone of y'all . Simply cuz y'all making money off my damn career and that ain't right.
You still haven't answered the example about Prince performing other people's songs without paying them a penny. Surely he's making money off the back of another writer's hard work? But it isn't 'theft', and the writer can't sue Prince, because life isn't that straightforward. Life is very straightforward in these matters: Prince doesn't have to pay the writers... of every concert a certain percentage of the revenue (less than 1%) is paid out to the artist copyright interest organisation in that country. They check which songs are played (an official set list has to be handed out to that organisation) and pay the fair share to the legally owner of the copyrights of the song performed ('paid' in unedited text). By the way, this cut of the revenue comes from the company that organised the concert. So Prince also makes money by playing his own music... [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 9:16:48 PST 2004 by roverlo] |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DigitalLisa said: Abrazo said: DigitalLisa said: langebleu said: DigitalLisa said: Well uhm instead calling me stupid, why don't you explain it buddy... as far as I'm concerned there's not much difference, for the reason the public doesn't have the authoirty 2 have it or else Prince wouldn't be trying 2 shut down the sites if that wasn't the case. Stealing is Stealing either it way it goes which was the point I was trying 2 make and you clearly missed. Yet I'm the dumbass
Basically, piracy - copying property belonging to someone else without authority is illegal. It is certainly likely to amount to breach of copyright, although certain breaches are sometimes permitted under certain statutes. Bootlegging - usually the taping and distribution of a live musical performance - is not piracy, and is not a 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property. It's fair to say that such activity might sometimes be in breach of other laws e.g. a breach of contractual terms if someone purchased a concert ticket under specific conditions. Owning a bootleg recording is generally not illegal. I've seen a lot of people in recent days use the words 'theft' and 'stealing' incorrectly and confuse 'piracy' with 'bootlegging'. Here's an example to ponder, and I only use it to illustrate that things are not so straightforward that they entitle people to blithely complain that using someone else's property without permission is tantamount to 'theft': If, as you say, 'stealing is stealing', then how come Prince regularly performs other people's songs without even asking them for permission to do so, without paying the writer a penny for the live performance of the song - and yet that performance goes towards making Prince money, by entertaining the audience? . [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 8:41:52 PST 2004 by langebleu] I'm just gon flip this for a second, most bootlegs are recording of live shows... well I don't know how it were you all from, but it is illegal 2 bring a camera, video camera or whatever to a show. Most of time if you read the back of ticket (small print) it will say don't bring this material, why cuz it's illegal. That' like somebody going into a movie theater with a video camera, or a camera into live shows are no different. Y'all are making this more difficult then it has 2 be. I see you are now using theword "illegal". That's a fine improvement. I know what the hell I'm talking about and if people were bootlegging my shit I didn't want out there, I would sue everyone of y'all . Simply cuz y'all making money off my damn career and that ain't right. MUHAHAHA!!! Miss lawyer got mad | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bluelight said: DigitalLisa said: Abrazo said: DigitalLisa said: langebleu said: DigitalLisa said: Well uhm instead calling me stupid, why don't you explain it buddy... as far as I'm concerned there's not much difference, for the reason the public doesn't have the authoirty 2 have it or else Prince wouldn't be trying 2 shut down the sites if that wasn't the case. Stealing is Stealing either it way it goes which was the point I was trying 2 make and you clearly missed. Yet I'm the dumbass
Basically, piracy - copying property belonging to someone else without authority is illegal. It is certainly likely to amount to breach of copyright, although certain breaches are sometimes permitted under certain statutes. Bootlegging - usually the taping and distribution of a live musical performance - is not piracy, and is not a 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property. It's fair to say that such activity might sometimes be in breach of other laws e.g. a breach of contractual terms if someone purchased a concert ticket under specific conditions. Owning a bootleg recording is generally not illegal. I've seen a lot of people in recent days use the words 'theft' and 'stealing' incorrectly and confuse 'piracy' with 'bootlegging'. Here's an example to ponder, and I only use it to illustrate that things are not so straightforward that they entitle people to blithely complain that using someone else's property without permission is tantamount to 'theft': If, as you say, 'stealing is stealing', then how come Prince regularly performs other people's songs without even asking them for permission to do so, without paying the writer a penny for the live performance of the song - and yet that performance goes towards making Prince money, by entertaining the audience? . [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 8:41:52 PST 2004 by langebleu] I'm just gon flip this for a second, most bootlegs are recording of live shows... well I don't know how it were you all from, but it is illegal 2 bring a camera, video camera or whatever to a show. Most of time if you read the back of ticket (small print) it will say don't bring this material, why cuz it's illegal. That' like somebody going into a movie theater with a video camera, or a camera into live shows are no different. Y'all are making this more difficult then it has 2 be. I see you are now using theword "illegal". That's a fine improvement. I know what the hell I'm talking about and if people were bootlegging my shit I didn't want out there, I would sue everyone of y'all . Simply cuz y'all making money off my damn career and that ain't right. MUHAHAHA!!! Miss lawyer got mad I'm through with this damn conversation, it's just gonna go in circles , y'all can think what ever the hell y'all want. I'm done and my nerves are bad | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think Prince doesn't understand that WE pay him and we always did, that's why he's so fucking rich now. He should be more indulgent IMHO, we are not thieves in his goddamn temple 
I got mad too. lol | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DigitalLisa said: bluelight said: DigitalLisa said: Abrazo said: DigitalLisa said: langebleu said: DigitalLisa said: Well uhm instead calling me stupid, why don't you explain it buddy... as far as I'm concerned there's not much difference, for the reason the public doesn't have the authoirty 2 have it or else Prince wouldn't be trying 2 shut down the sites if that wasn't the case. Stealing is Stealing either it way it goes which was the point I was trying 2 make and you clearly missed. Yet I'm the dumbass
Basically, piracy - copying property belonging to someone else without authority is illegal. It is certainly likely to amount to breach of copyright, although certain breaches are sometimes permitted under certain statutes. Bootlegging - usually the taping and distribution of a live musical performance - is not piracy, and is not a 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property. It's fair to say that such activity might sometimes be in breach of other laws e.g. a breach of contractual terms if someone purchased a concert ticket under specific conditions. Owning a bootleg recording is generally not illegal. I've seen a lot of people in recent days use the words 'theft' and 'stealing' incorrectly and confuse 'piracy' with 'bootlegging'. Here's an example to ponder, and I only use it to illustrate that things are not so straightforward that they entitle people to blithely complain that using someone else's property without permission is tantamount to 'theft': If, as you say, 'stealing is stealing', then how come Prince regularly performs other people's songs without even asking them for permission to do so, without paying the writer a penny for the live performance of the song - and yet that performance goes towards making Prince money, by entertaining the audience? . [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 8:41:52 PST 2004 by langebleu] I'm just gon flip this for a second, most bootlegs are recording of live shows... well I don't know how it were you all from, but it is illegal 2 bring a camera, video camera or whatever to a show. Most of time if you read the back of ticket (small print) it will say don't bring this material, why cuz it's illegal. That' like somebody going into a movie theater with a video camera, or a camera into live shows are no different. Y'all are making this more difficult then it has 2 be. I see you are now using theword "illegal". That's a fine improvement. I know what the hell I'm talking about and if people were bootlegging my shit I didn't want out there, I would sue everyone of y'all . Simply cuz y'all making money off my damn career and that ain't right. MUHAHAHA!!! Miss lawyer got mad I'm through with this damn conversation, it's just gonna go in circles , y'all can think what ever the hell y'all want. I'm done and my nerves are bad Mine are worse 
LOL | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Didn't Prince tell Kurt Loader that he planned on giving away his music?  "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
bluelight said: I think Prince doesn't understand that WE pay him and we always did, that's why he's so fucking rich now. He should be more indulgent IMHO, we are not thieves in his goddamn temple
I got mad too. lol and to complete the circle/picture: for every $1 you pay Prince buying stuff from 1978 - 1995 you pay Warner Brothers $4 (last years) to $6 (early years). That would piss me off as an artist. Heck it would make me want to change my name |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bluelight said: DigitalLisa said: bluelight said: DigitalLisa said: Abrazo said: DigitalLisa said: langebleu said: DigitalLisa said: Well uhm instead calling me stupid, why don't you explain it buddy... as far as I'm concerned there's not much difference, for the reason the public doesn't have the authoirty 2 have it or else Prince wouldn't be trying 2 shut down the sites if that wasn't the case. Stealing is Stealing either it way it goes which was the point I was trying 2 make and you clearly missed. Yet I'm the dumbass
Basically, piracy - copying property belonging to someone else without authority is illegal. It is certainly likely to amount to breach of copyright, although certain breaches are sometimes permitted under certain statutes. Bootlegging - usually the taping and distribution of a live musical performance - is not piracy, and is not a 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property. It's fair to say that such activity might sometimes be in breach of other laws e.g. a breach of contractual terms if someone purchased a concert ticket under specific conditions. Owning a bootleg recording is generally not illegal. I've seen a lot of people in recent days use the words 'theft' and 'stealing' incorrectly and confuse 'piracy' with 'bootlegging'. Here's an example to ponder, and I only use it to illustrate that things are not so straightforward that they entitle people to blithely complain that using someone else's property without permission is tantamount to 'theft': If, as you say, 'stealing is stealing', then how come Prince regularly performs other people's songs without even asking them for permission to do so, without paying the writer a penny for the live performance of the song - and yet that performance goes towards making Prince money, by entertaining the audience? . [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 8:41:52 PST 2004 by langebleu] I'm just gon flip this for a second, most bootlegs are recording of live shows... well I don't know how it were you all from, but it is illegal 2 bring a camera, video camera or whatever to a show. Most of time if you read the back of ticket (small print) it will say don't bring this material, why cuz it's illegal. That' like somebody going into a movie theater with a video camera, or a camera into live shows are no different. Y'all are making this more difficult then it has 2 be. I see you are now using theword "illegal". That's a fine improvement. I know what the hell I'm talking about and if people were bootlegging my shit I didn't want out there, I would sue everyone of y'all . Simply cuz y'all making money off my damn career and that ain't right. MUHAHAHA!!! Miss lawyer got mad I'm through with this damn conversation, it's just gonna go in circles , y'all can think what ever the hell y'all want. I'm done and my nerves are bad Mine are worse
LOL | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
roverlo said: langebleu said: DigitalLisa said: I know what the hell I'm talking about and if people were bootlegging my shit I didn't want out there, I would sue everyone of y'all . Simply cuz y'all making money off my damn career and that ain't right.
You still haven't answered the example about Prince performing other people's songs without paying them a penny. Surely he's making money off the back of another writer's hard work? But it isn't 'theft', and the writer can't sue Prince, because life isn't that straightforward. Life is very straightforward in these matters: Prince doesn't have to pay the writers... of every concert a certain percentage of the revenue (less than 1%) is paid out to the artist copyright interest organisation in that country. They check which songs are played (an official set list has to be handed out to that organisation) and pay the fair share to the legally owner of the copyrights of the song performed ('paid' in unedited text). By the way, this cut of the revenue comes from the company that organised the concert. So Prince also makes money by playing his own music... [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 9:16:48 PST 2004 by roverlo] I simply used the example to show that using someone else's property without their permission isn't always 'theft', despite the fact that the original writer might even not want the song to be performed. But thanks for illustrating the reality behind the way the writer gets paid so well. ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
roverlo said: and to complete the circle/picture: for every $1 you pay Prince buying stuff from 1978 - 1995 you pay Warner Brothers $4 (last years) to $6 (early years).
That would piss me off as an artist. Heck it would make me want to change my name LOL ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
langebleu said: You still haven't answered the example about Prince performing other people's songs without paying them a penny.
Surely he's making money off the back of another writer's hard work? But it isn't 'theft', and the writer can't sue Prince, because life isn't that straightforward.[/quote] I agree and I'm definitely not into law, but I remember hearing that a song by another artist can be played live without any monetary consequences. However, if that song is recorded then that's different. I beleive royalities are still in place for whomever owns the material. Just like when people sing Happy Birthday on TV shows or commercial appearances, they have to pay the inheritors of those two little old ladies that made up the song royalities. However, if is **************************************************
If the wind blew every petal from your precious red rose 
Would U be afraid of what U'd find inside? 
Prince - Dreamin' About U | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
roverlo said: bluelight said: I think Prince doesn't understand that WE pay him and we always did, that's why he's so fucking rich now. He should be more indulgent IMHO, we are not thieves in his goddamn temple
I got mad too. lol and to complete the circle/picture: for every $1 you pay Prince buying stuff from 1978 - 1995 you pay Warner Brothers $4 (last years) to $6 (early years). That would piss me off as an artist. Heck it would make me want to change my name Look i don't care about WB and shit. I think that P got a lot of money when he signed the contract with them. Why doesn't he sue WB instead of sueing his fans? Because he's one silly man  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
So y’all don’t think none of what I said is relevant ?
I mean I didn’t go into the blue print and everything , but still it’s just know the difference between right and wrong. I guess some people don’t know what that is  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DigitalLisa said: Look I may not know how 2 explain, but I know exactly what's going on. I know about the law as far as music is concenred and I know somewhat of the RIAA, Just ask urself this question, If you were in this position and you were the artist how would you handl the people who was bootlegging your music, you didn't want to be out there in the first place ? Be Honest
GOTTA BE HONEST IF I KNEW MY FANS WANTED IT AND I WAS THE ARTIST I WOULD RELEASE IT...REASON 'GIVE ME THE CASH' !! SIMPLE... PRINCE PLAYS A GAME AND ANYONE WHO HAS FOLLOWED HIM AND HIS MUSIC KNOWS THAT... THE THING IS, WHEN WE WERE TEENAGERS, WE FOLLOWED, BOUGHT ALBUMS AND SINGLES, BLIMEY I'M GOING BACK NOW I NEARLY FORGOT CD'S AND DVD'S. I'M GOING ON A BIT NOW AND PPL WHO READ MY POSTS KNOW I DONT LIKE LONG THREADS... "If you really want something in this life, you have to work for it - Now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers!"
- Homer Simpson | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DigitalLisa said: So y’all don’t think none of what I said is relevant ?
I think what you've said revelant because that is the way you feel and you have always spoken your mind reagrdless of what others think. You just have to know that a lot of people won't agree with you but that's okay. Do your own thing, Lisa.I mean I didn’t go into the blue print and everything , but still it’s just know the difference between right and wrong. I guess some people don’t know what that is | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said: DigitalLisa said: So y’all don’t think none of what I said is relevant ?
I think what you've said revelant because that is the way you feel and you have always spoken your mind reagrdless of what others think. You just have to know that a lot of people won't agree with you but that's okay. Do your own thing, Lisa.I mean I didn’t go into the blue print and everything , but still it’s just know the difference between right and wrong. I guess some people don’t know what that is ur right, that's true  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Main thing is taht Prince "never" gave us the opportunity to by live recordings,...We HAD TO by it fro the bootleggers. I'm sure if Prince decided (just like Pearl Jam did!!!) to sell these recordings himself we would LOVE to by it from him! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
artist319 said: Main thing is taht Prince "never" gave us the opportunity to by live recordings,...We HAD TO by it fro the bootleggers. I'm sure if Prince decided (just like Pearl Jam did!!!) to sell these recordings himself we would LOVE to by it from him!
I agree. That is def. the best way to shit on the bootleggers. Put it out yourself, and in good quality, in nice packaging, at a decent price, and quickly. We'd ALL buy the Melbourne show. We'd ALL buy Crystal Ball II. If any artist was in a position to do exactly this, it's Prince. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If someone gave Prince an unreleased album
o Miles Davis or Sly Stone or Santana I don't think he'd toss it... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DigitalLisa said: And about being authorized 2 use a video camera, I said the same thing just not in pacific details...
Oh suhNAP, that's some funny shit. I mean your whole argument is pretty hilarious, but this part pacifically kills me. No confusion, no tears. No enemies, no fear. No sorrow, no pain. No ball, no chain.
Sex is not love. Love is not sex. Putting words in other people's mouths will only get you elected. Need more sleep than coke or methamphetamine. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
langebleu said: Digital - I said quite clearly that taping might be illegal under breach of contract. It doesn't say in the small print of your ticket 'Don't bring a camera because it is illegal' There is no such law as: 'Thou shalt not take a camera to a concert' It says on the ticket: 'Use of cameras is not authorised' and Prince not only places sign to that effect at his concerts, but he also has security state so at Paisley Park. Moreover, he even has members of his crew sit in the audience, possibly looking for unauthorised taping ... I know, because I've spoken to one of the guys. So if you, as a ticket holder, take a picture, Prince is entitled to claim that you are in breach of contract, and demand your film (and you) be removed from the auditorium. But it's breach of contract ... not theft. It's very easy to claim that people are making this subject much more difficult than it has to be. But the law, which you have said you understand, is more complicated than you are making it out to be. It is, indeed, langebleu. To piggyback on what you're saying, a ticket is in essence a license to attend an event. That license is revocable if certain conditions are violated. Like taking pictures, for example. There are different legal theories to cover various types of conduct, but without further researching the issue, I would venture to guess that one who sells recordings of Prince's performances without his permission, or without sending him a cut, could be liable for damages, if not for violation of a statute or a contract, then for unjust enrichment or other tort cause of action. If they make money then Prince can find some legal or equitable theory to recover from the seller. If they obtain concerts, etc. for their personal use, maybe that's a different story. Prince has not sustained any damages in that case. Personally, I do believe Prince can exercise any copyrights he has and work to prevent the use of his likeness or performances by third parties for financial gain. I would never question the motives or intentions of the orgers who own or purchase these items, I am not in a position to judge anyone. Now would I question the intentions of 99% of website organizers whose sole purpose is to celebrate Prince and his legacy. But I can say that no one should resent Prince for any legitimate exercise of his legal rights. 
[This message was edited Tue Jan 20 14:10:27 PST 2004 by namepeace] [This message was edited Tue Jan 20 14:13:02 PST 2004 by namepeace] Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DigitalLisa said: I know what the hell I'm talking about and if people were bootlegging my shit I didn't want out there, I would sue everyone of y'all . Simply cuz y'all making money off my damn career and that ain't right.
You are saying fans that buy and trade bootlegs (i.e recorded live performances) are making money of the artists. Sorry but that's not true. You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |