langebleu said:

Wouldn't we have gone to the concert whether he'd played, say, Whole Lotta Love or not? So in this case, Prince makes no money from playing that or playing one of his own. I don't think the rumour he might play Red House or Just My Imagination or whatever gets bums on seats.

In fact, mostly you don't know what covers will be played when you buy a ticket to see an artist. So it makes no difference.
Pedantic I know (I'm almost regretting clicking Post Reponse... but I'm gonna...!!)

DigitalLisa said:

I admire the way that you support Prince.

DavidEye said:

That's because recording artists, musicians and record labels alike receive a percentage of money from purchased blank cassettes and audio recorders.

In the internet age the record companies haven't been able to keep up with technological advances of the internet. Which is why the hassle with Napster and other online file sharing networks was such a big deal to them - until they figured out a way to let such entities exist while being compensated. The thing is, the record companies aren't as noble as they would like to appear; there has been at least one label that took more money for the label itself and bilked the artists of the percentage they were supposed to have received. The labels were/are primarily looking out for themselves.

Note to Lisa: I truly hear what you're saying, but keep this in mind: Prince gave his own verbal thumbs up to free file sharing while major labels were in a dispute about it, yet his actions (this has nothing to do with the recent website promoting bootlegs) have proven that he doesn't want his music to be downloaded that way, thus, he was just saying things contrary to the major labels because of his own history with them.

I'll also say If Prince or his people find those making much money from his stuff they should go after them.Yet as far as these sites getting closed will not stop bootlegs nor the talk of them. Sorry things go underground 2 re-surface again when the smoke clears and sometimes they stay on the under. Trust so many people don't use the internet 2 do these deeds. Example a recent record buyers show a friend went 2 in some state was selling his boots, in the open! In saying that, Prince got way behind on the issue and with so much gettig leaked out ripped off etc... Whats done is done...its already apart of his musical foundation with the rest of his offical music, no matter the poor quality of alot of it.

If it were me I would have put out something 2 my fans that I do have rights 2, "TRY" and counter "some" of the bootlegs that R floating. Like with ONA Live Vegas..he gave U a different edited show leaving out much. There will always B people who want what there not meant 2 have, or they want it "Uncut" and pure with no edits...so U will never please everyone but U can make solid efforts that will in the end reap U more money...Like what he did 4 "Crystall Ball". And putting out more live Cd's Like ONA Live.

But that itself didn't & won't ever stop that bootleg train...

I'm just saying it like it is...U can pick what side of the fence your on but the overall best way 2 attack back and or 2 make things even out a bit more despite Prince being way behind this game...is 2 put out counter DVD's/CD's 2 get in some new money and some would even say new interest in his music again...He won't ever make up his total losses $$$...nor will WB who owns his biggest and most bootleged music. So U got 2 B creative and know whats best 2 put out and what would really hit home with the fans. I guess only in a perfect world right?

Like I've stated B4 the chance of him with his now beliefs putting out the more sexual controversial Prince of the past that we all come 2 love and with some even love the most...I'd say the chance is slim 2 none! I guess U can say he's not all about the money seeing he would sell more records being his oldself right? So call it a matter of him not owning the stuff 2 put out thats truly Past & his beliefs being the 2 best reason I think. Thats why he said he'd re-make all his past albums again. But 4 most fans they'll leave the past as it is...and not touch it. Theres just no way he's going 2 with his belief system redo "Sister" 4 example...dout it.

So in saying that, and not being able himself 2 release "Controversy Tour Live in Detroit" if he wanted 2 do it...the fans or supporters who missed the early magic & desire 2 see what it was like (If they can't get it offical) will always seek out bootlegs thus keeping the cycle alive...

He'll never outright win but he can start cutting into more of "his own" Purple Pie and know hes not getting 100% the short end of the stick... Thats better then nothing~

1p1p1i3 said:

You are right, of course in the sense that I'd have great difficulty in claiming breach of contract because he didn't play a cover song that he never promised to playin the first place!!!

That said, it could be argued that we paid to hear him perform and if he plays a cover version, then the performance of that cover version partly satisfies his part of the contract.

---

But you've now got me thinking. I'm guessing that amongst the Prince community there's:

1. Some people who'd feel Prince has met his part of the deal if he walks on stage, farts and walks off again.

2. Someone in the audience trying to capture the fart on DAT and sell it on eBay

3. Some dumbass willing to buy it

4. Prince demanding Londell writes to eBay claiming theft of intellectual property

5. NPGMC announce something big is coming. (Prince has really bad wind!)

langebleu said:

namepeace said:

That's correct and to be more specific, complicated and piggybag some more ..lol..it's a license agreement. Therefore ruled by contract law. The way this "agreement" is made is by unilaterally dictating the terms to the visitor. Because of this it's not entirely clear and legally dubious in many countries whether a concert organiser can take away certain legal rights of a concert visitor he normally enjoys by law.



1) is a very serious form of copyright infringement: recording, reproducing, distributing publicly and selling of copyrighted material. Practically all the acts protected by copyright law and then some more. Damages don't have to be proved by the plaintiff or established in a copyright case.
2) sending a cut doesn't make the above legal, ever.

Tort actions are always possible, as is breach of contract. Damages generally would have to be proved by the plaintiff in a tort case in the US (right?)


Depending on the wording and intention
of the statutory provisions concerning the copying for personal use this can be completely legal. In the Netherlands for example it is permitted by law to make a copy of a musical work for personal use without permission. The wording and intention of the provision do not exclude the recording/ copying of a work that is being performed live.

The way I see it downloading the music without of buying it is one thing; but buying every album and single ever released and pursuing live recordings is something else.

I'm not saying that having purchased everything over the years gives me the right to have live bootlegs, but there is so much more material that should be released.

U only have to look at what Pearl Jam are doing now, I no longer buy inferior live recordings because eventually become officially available.

On the other hand I do believe in Prince's theory of every live experience being for that particular moment only. But if I go to a record fair and come accross a live boot -I'll buy it. - That's Temptation for ya.

Also, let's analyse the legacy behind the legend of Jimi Hendrix. Every talking point (be it journalistic or otherwise) always reverts back to a live performance somewhere. Most of these live recordings were only available on boot' for many years before they became officially released.

The same I think will happen with Prince, in time I think we will see some of the great live performances being officially released. I just cannot imagine future generations discovering this genius and not knowing of those great early career live tours or the amazing PR or Lovesexy Live tours.

Anyway, the bigger problem is pirated cds produced in mass quantities and sold at the market fairs and discount stores. The ones responsible for this are usually hard catch, but those behind "guide to bootleg" type web-sites are much easier targets. Closing them down does not contribute to solving any Priracy issue.

I think Prince's actions in regards to recent events was not an issue over money or profit but over control of his material.

Abrazo said:

Yup. The license (agreement) is essentially a "contract of adhesion" that leaves no bargaining room for the consumer. Here in the "good old US of A," such "agreements" are enforceable.



I am not a copyright lawyer, but I was distinguishing between performances and studio recordings. A public performance of a copyrighted work could be protected by copyright, but I am not an intellectual property owner.



Sure, assuming the absence of an express agreement betweent the parties.



The measure of damages in a tort case would be compensatory or consequential damages (damages caused by the wrongful conduct of the tortfeasor). In an unjust enrichment claim, for example, the plaintiff would request the disgorgement of any ill-gotten profits. If the conduct was intentional, reckless or malicious, punitive damages could be in order. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving those damages, and in most states, the defendant can limit his damages by asking the court to apportion fault to the plaintiff or a third party.



Absolutely. Nice comparative legal analysis.

Abrazo said:[quote]

namepeace said:

Wouldn't that "cut" be for the mechanical rights of the performers? Do any of you remember KTS recrds? Their webpage is still archived, on which they claimed that by making a payment to a performer for the mechanical rights they were perfectly legal in their release of bootleg concerts. Now, I don't know if this is/was correct, or whether it was region specific, and as far as I'm aware the label is no more.I did however find reference to this payment on another bootleg site. There it was claimed that the artist would probably not be able to collect/receive this payment because of the contract with their record company forbidding them to release music on another label.
I've got to admit I'm finding this subject fascinating.

gsh said:

I am too. I am not an intellectual property expert so I find the opinions on here quite enlightening.

Therapy said:

And i admire the way Prince sues his fansites an shut them down. Michael Jackson never does that (and i'm not a MJ lover) that's why he has much more fans than Prince.

Prince is a man who always talked about God and believing in Him but his only God is called the Holy $!

Prince should rather make a good album (it's been 16 years since the last) than spending his time shutting down fan-sites ...

Almost everyone who's buying bootlegs has bought every single legal item ... so they support Prince financially more than he deserves ...

Prince is just a big asshole, who made some brilliant albums.
If you ask me if I wanted to be a friend of Prince ...
no thank you ... he's an asshole ...

I'm in it for the music ... not the greatness of his character (which character?)

So Prince ... get a life ... stop anoying your fans who even bought the baddest legal shit, just to keep their collection complete. Buying bootlegs never hurts the financial flow to the artist.

When an artist starts to make shitty music ... there will be more good bootlegs sold ... Prince shoud ask himself why he's in the top of the bootleg list instead of the R.S. guitar-player list.

namepeace said:

I am.

The claim of the website that by making a payment to the "performer" for the "mechanical rights" they were perfectly legal in their release of bootleg concerts" is bogus.

You have to distinguish first between the author/ writer of the songs and the performer of the songs. Two different persons/entities, two distinct rights, two different systems.

Paying "mechanical" royalties on the basis of a mechanical license is a system for arranging a legally permitted release without having to secure the author's permissions. Instead of having to negotiate with the authors individually the CD producer can make an agreement with the collective rights organsiations (representing authors collectively).

Collective rights organisations collect these mechanical royalties in return of permission for music authors/ writers of songs only, not for the performers. Therefore, the bootlegger has to get express permission from the performer anyways to make his release fully legit.

Further mechanical licenses are for the reproduction of songs only. It therefore does not function as a means for securing permission to broadcast songs or to play them live. The collective rights organsiation do however often also collect the royalties of those copyright protected acts.

namepeace said:

The agreement in itself should be enforceable, but certain provisons may or should still not be enforceable depending on the meaning and consequences. It's a current hot topic amongst copyright lawyers; can consumer/ user rights be pre-empted when this is done through a contract of adhesion or not? Interesting question and not fully answered yet.


A performance of a work enjoys a certain basic form of copyright protection. Basic rule is that it's the performer's exclusive right to give permission to record the performance.

Studio sound recordings (recorded performances of an original work of authorship) are seen by US copyright law as a derivative original work of authorship of the underlying original song/composition. The owner of the sound recording's copyright therefore basically enjoys the same protection as the owner of the songs copyright.



which was what I was assuming considering the situation you described.


Interesting. The "great" thing about copyright lawsuits is that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove damages (unless the court rules otherwise).

--
[This message was edited Wed Jan 21 6:18:55 PST 2004 by Abrazo]

ThataintFunky said:

Well said...I dunno if Prince is really as greedy as y'all orgers are convincing me of, but damn..

VAMPIRELLA said:

Well in my opinnon, it is up 2 the artist what gets released or not , rather we argee on it as fans or not and really that's what all it comes down 2. We're just angry with Prince, because he's not giving us what we want ... so much 4 inspiration

asipration edit
[This message was edited Wed Jan 21 6:26:24 PST 2004 by DigitalLisa]