Does anyone know them?!!

I take it for granted that the act of selling bootlegs is illegal. And making them too. Can anyone confirm? Is this the same around the world?

Is buying them?

Is promoting them?

Is reviewing them?

Is giving them away?

Is swapping them?

I think that it would be great if someone could sort out the legal niceties of the whole thing for me!!

Is discussing them?

Is describing them?

there R international copyright laws. these laws R enforced (we that government agrees) abroad just as well as home.



PEACE N B WiLD!!!

Anxiety said:

I'm not privy to the arguments that Prince's lawyers used, resulting in Guide2Prince closing, but it seems to me that there are at least a couple of possible legal arguments for approaching a website such as G2P:

1. Some of the pictures of bootlegs might possibly copyrighted and be used (originally by the bootlegger) without permission. Other cover, although not authorised pictures themselves, might make substantial use of a copyrighted picture without permission.

There would then at least be grounds for demanding that the images be removed if the pictures are copyrighted to Prince.

2. Although a site might assert that it provides no information about the sale of bootlegs, it might be claimed, that any comments and ratings (despite being simply subjective judgment) implicitly or explicitly endorse bootleg content e.g, if a site rated some bootlegs more highly than others, and commented that some bootlegs were preferred over others / were to be regarded as mainstays to a collection etc.

There is some legal room here, I suspect, for suggesting that a site has in some way advocated the acquisition of at least some of the material, even though it never explicitly endorsed purchasing the material or provided information on how to do so.

It might then be demanded that the comments and ratings be removed.

Given the above, a site would be left with merely a list of titles, catalogue numbers and tracklistings.

3. Whether or not there is validity in either or both of these arguments, it is possible that a legal team could express a reserved right to approach a website user's internet service provider and exert pressure for potentially offending material to be remove or the site closed.

It's quite possible that a legal team would copy the ISP in on the demand letter.

In such circumstances, an internet service provider might consider it in its own best interests to request the website owner to withdraw the material immediately rather than become vicariously embroiled in a legal tussle over copyright issues.

Thanks langebleu.

That's pretty much what I though.

I wish G2P would show us the letter - although I guess that was prohibited by the lawyers.

but NAMBLA is legal. they talk about sex with boys. sex with minors is illegal. but talking about it is not against the law. i know its a banal example but it does fall under the same category...sort of.

SassyBritches said:

Because talking about it falls under the freedom of speech and expressing your view... a different category all together

Publishing a review of a bootleg will never be a case in front of a judge. Throw in the freedom of speech and you're safe.

Illegal to buy, sell them, LEGAL to own Nice loophole huh??

langebleu said:

AND IF U DONT WORK FOR PRINCES' LEGAL TEAM M8, U SHOULD...
[This message was edited Tue Jan 20 14:42:00 PST 2004 by xt1000]

XT,
about that email - sure you can!

langebleu said:

Nicely done.

From a practical standpoint, Prince has more pennies to give to lawyers than G2P does, and it would likely bankrupt the G2P organizers to conduct the discovery necessary to absolve themselves. Uptown apparently had the cash and financial incentive to fight Prince and they won.

If I were G2P's lawyer, assuming my clients operated a legitimate site, I would try to work out a deal. If I couldn't, I'd let them sue and I'd notice Prince's deposition. I'd want to know who worked at Paisley Park, who had custody of the bootlegged tracks, steps taken to bar access to bootleggers, bases of copyright claims, etc. I am convinced that Prince would not be up for a deposition and I suspect that was why he caved to Uptown.

langebleu said:

I agree with the possibilites you mentioned and would like to add a few comments:

1)"There would then at least be grounds for demanding that the images be removed if the pictures are copyrighted to Prince."

Right, nicely said, but Prince most probably doesn't own the copyrights of the pictures. And indeed there will be room for a demand to remove the pictures, but not for a demand to remove the entire site.

2) "There is some legal room here, I suspect, for suggesting that a site has in some way advocated the acquisition of at least some of the material, even though it never explicitly endorsed purchasing the material or provided information on how to do so.

It might then be demanded that the comments and ratings be removed."

Agreed and again well put. The problem here is that a case based on copyright infringement is hard to make, because the website doesn't copy and publish bootlegs, nor do its visitors with help and/or under control of the website. There may be endorsement or encouragement of bootlegging , but there is no clear cut answer as to whether a court would rule that as some sort of contributory or vicarious copyright infringement. There is a pretty good defense based on freedom of expression to be made too.

3) "In such circumstances, an internet service provider might consider it in its own best interests to request the website owner to withdraw the material immediately rather than become vicariously embroiled in a legal tussle over copyright issues."

And thus in practice the bully with money and lawyers usually wins it from the small guy who is practically doing nothing or vbery little wrong.

It would indeed be nice to see what prince's lawyers have claimed.
--
[This message was edited Tue Jan 20 15:15:59 PST 2004 by Abrazo]

Abrazo said:

Isn't that always the way. God bless America.

1p1p1i3 said:

Usually it is and I would have hoped Prince to be smarter than act like that.

Abrazo said:

I'd be curious to see that myself. Lawyers can be sanctioned for taking legal action without carefully researching the facts or having a good-faith legal argument in support of their allegations. I'd assume P's lawyers at least floated a feasible legal theory.

Ask Uptown about this, they've already been through it.
I'm sure they could tell you what's acceptable legally and
what isn't in more detail.

But the basic upshot is...
Discussing and reviewing unreleased songs is OK.
Discussing and reviewing specific bootlegs is not OK.

So it would be OK to have a site describing and reviewing
Prince's unreleased material in detail track by track.
But it's not OK to describe bootlegs, as this would be
deemed as 'promoting illegal activity'. Even though no
mention is made about how or where to obtain bootlegs on
the site, it can be seen as a 'Which?' guide to bootlegs,
and therefore on dodgy legal ground as it acts as an aid
to fans in choosing which bootlegs are worth aquiring
(thus promoting the buying of bootlegs, which are illegal).

BorisFishpaw said:

Are you basing this conclusion on actual facts or from legal proceedings that Uptown went through?

Moreover, are any of y'all actual lawyers? If so, can you give G2p some advice?

Basically G2P are onto a lost cause. The site catalogues and
reviews bootlegs, and there is no way to alter that fact to
make it acceptable to Prince's camp.

If they changed the site to one about Prince's unreleased
recordings (the songs themselves) then they'd be OK, but
that would be a completely different site with a totally
different purpose.

Since the legal wranglings with Uptown, they were no longer
allowed to discuss bootlegs in any shape or form, and when
they released a CDRom of archive editions of Uptown with their
'Days Of Wild' book, they had to remove all chapters discussing
bootlegs. Talking about tracks like 'All My Dreams', 'Moonbeam
Levels' etc. is fine. What Prince objects to is reviewing
actual bootlegs, eg; discussing, say, Moonraker's 'Fantasia'
bootleg.

Reply to 'Bootlegs - the legal facts'

Anxiety said:

I think that sites displaying bootleg covers and tracklists plus reviews provide a catalog of illegal items for people to try and seek out and possibly illegally sell or buy. Because someone would then know titles and covers and tracklists to look for. They provide the shopping list minus the store. But who's to say that someone from a site discussing and discribing bootlegs would not point someone in the direction to obtain bootlegs at least some bootlegs via an email response or other communication? Like if someone was seeking to buy stolen art. You go to one house and they let you know what is available. Then you go to another house to pay up and then in a few hours you go to another house to pick it up. Discussing and describing bootlegs encourages illegal activity. Because it provides a catalog of whats out there to try and find...

BorisFishpaw said:

But this case with Uptown was settled out of court. Therefore both parties came to an agreement, and entered into a "contract" that stated that ALL lawsuits would be dropped if certain conditions were met. It didn't set a legal precedent, and cannot be used in any similar case to show precedent. My opinion would be that Prince's legal team took the view that they were happy for his unreleased work to be discussed, thereby promoting the artist, but did not want the bootleg labels discussed, because it raises awareness of the product. Uptown made the concession because their focus was not primarily bootlegs, but more of recording Prince's career.
It still does not answer the question whether reviewing bootlegs is in fact illegal. There has not been a successful lawsuit of this kind prosecuted (as yet). I seriously doubt that a site that only reviews bootlegs could be legally closed down (The issue with pictures of the bootlegs/covers is different, because as has been said before there is a better case for copyright infringement, although as to who holds that copyright is not clear. Usually it is the photographer, but Prince may well make a stipulation that he can veto a photographs usage before he signs a release.) I re-iterate that this is my interperetation of the facts that I have heard. I've been trawling the web researchig this, and haven't found anything concrete with regards to reviewing bootlegs.

gsh said:

Great post.

We've got a formidable bar association on this org. I think langebleu. Abrazo and gsh LLP would make a fantastic law firm!

BorisFishpaw said:

that's what i was saying in the news thread of this situation. The site does at least implicitly promote bootlegs. That is the problem.

Boris and Langebleu thanks for the outstanding insight on this subject. I think IM going to start my own P site that covers P bootleg and live tracks. Poor little Prince would pout all the way over to Londel Mcmillians office.

Thank you guys for the thoughtful respones.

The only thing is, I understand what Prince's camp/legal team "wants" (i.e. discussing tracks, not actual bootleg "product").

I also understand how someone might interpret reviewing something as "promoting" but that doesn't necessarily deem it illegal.

That's one interpretation...of course one Paisley lawyers would make, but is it clear the U.S. legal system would??

As someone pointed out, the Uptown case did not set a legal precedent, so itsn't all this "G2P promotes illegal activitiy" simply conjecture??

I'm not a lawyer so I really don't know, but I'd love to hear from someone who is.

I have posted re this elsewhere..

As a UK based litigation solicitor I can see no legal basis for P's team to kick G2Ps ass - I suspect that G2P have caved because -

1. There is always risk in litigation no matter how strong your case is. Precedents can be set. Whoever loses ends up with a big financial headache. Means in reality often the person withthe bigger chequebook wins

2. No profit in running te site so not worth the fight anyway.

3. Probably have not enough / any money to get the services of a clued up lawyer who wont just hedge his /her bets and therefore will have received non-committal advice from whomever has been instructed = percieve the financial risk to be higher than it is.

If P owns copyright to his images then he has a case but I doubt that the images were in fact copyrighted to him. The recordings themselves can be discussed and it is my opinion that this cannot be seen as in anyway illegal. Indeed I believe that G2P would be commended by the ample and often warnings re bootleg requests.

P is here misguided. The bully analogy works well. He is kicking fans and scaring them as they do not have the resources to fight back and to pay a lawyer. The bootleggers on the other hand one must assume may have the resources - he is too much of a chicken ass to take them on and risk them fighting - ala Uptown. His morals and principle only goes so far = hypocrite.

On a personal note - I am 34 and have followed Prince since I was old enough to listen to music. He has alwys amazed and pleased me with his daring approach to music which is never what you want/expect but which challenges you. I well remember when Parade was released and how this shocked me at the time! In my opinion he continues to innovate and frankly to play (very well) the musical odd-ball freak who does not give a damn about what the fans want / say. He tells us what we need is how he sees it one suspects. Unfortunately this all means that in the rest of his life he plays the oddball freak as well - in seemingly all his dealings eg the NPGMC, Uptown, girlfriends, late notice shows, cancelled projects, empty promises, moralising, hypocrisy etc etc

But the point for me is the music. He is an asshole and will never change. I just accept it because if he wasnt then I doubt we would have all enjoyed the breadth of innovation over the years. I dont wnt to meet him/like him or be his friend. I buy his records. Thats enough for me!

I am a bit of a lurker in theses parts and dont post often!

Here's a couple of relevant sections of US Law regarding
bootlegs. Different laws apply to you depending on where
you live.

In the USA, US Code, Title 18, Section 2319A applies to you:

Offense. — Whoever, without the consent of the performer
or performers involved, knowingly and for purposes of
commercial advantage or private financial gain —

(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical
performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies
or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized
fixation;

(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the
sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance;
or

(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to
sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or
phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless
of whether the fixations occurred in the United States;

shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years or fined
in the amount set forth in this title, or both, or if the
offense is a second or subsequent offense, shall be
imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined in the
amount set forth in this title, or both.

http://www4.law.cornell.e...2319A.html

As does US Code, Title 17, Sections 1001-1010, which deals
with any non-profit duplication of copyrighted material:

No action may be brought under this title alleging
infringement of copyright based on the manufacture,
importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording
device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog
recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based
on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or
medium for making digital musical recordings or analog
musical recordings.

http://www4.law.cornell.e.../ch10.html

People living in the USA should also be aware that various
state laws may also apply.

The legal underpinnings for rights in licensed products are
found either in copyright, trademark, or the right of
publicity. If one owns the copyright in a work, under
copyright law they have the exclusive right to determine
how that image is exploited. Similarly, if you are a
trademark owner or you have the right to determine how that
work is used in the marketplace and if you are a celebrity
state law allows you to control how others use your name
and likeness on commercial products.

So the basic upshot is that using images of bootlegs is
illegal, as the image will a)breach copyright, and b) use
said indivual's name and image without their consent.

Bootlegs themselves are illegal (for the reasons set out
above).

The creation of a site or publication discussing and
cataloguing bootlegs is a grey area. If it was just a list
of bootlegs with tracklists and other factual information
about said bootlegs, then I doubt there would be any legal
ground to support it's removal.

The problem is if the site offers reviews and opinions of
said bootlegs, as this could be construed as 'promoting',
(for the reasons outlined in previous posts). If it went
to court there is a chance that Prince could win (even if
it is only slight), and therefore no website owner is
going to risk litigation on something that they have no
financial interest in (see the 3 points in LoveRobot's
response).

Bootlegs... what's illegal...?

1. Is buying them? - Yes

2. Is promoting them? - Yes (though it would fall under a
Civil action, rather than a Criminal one)

3. Is reviewing them? - Not technically, but it could be seen
as a form of promotion.

4. Is giving them away? - No

5. Is swapping them? - No

6. Is discussing them? - No (but again, depending on context,
it could be seen as a form of promotion)

7. Is describing them? - No (but see point above)

The crux of the problem is tied up with 'Profit', or at a
basic level 'money changing hands'.

It is not illegal to be in possession of bootlegs, but it is
illegal to sell them.

BorisFishpaw said:

You seem to have found the same websites that I did. Nothing really revealing in this information, (it mirrors what most of us thought anyway) apart from knowing that trading or giving away bootlegs is not illegal. Once again though, these laws/statutes are relating to US, and I am unsure how US law relates to the international marketplace. A US judge can make any decision they want, but the ruling is not enforceable outside of America, surely? In order for Prince to fight a case with a website hosted in Malysia, he must prove illegal action/breach of copyright etc under Malaysian law.
Nice to know I'm not a criminal, though!