Does anyone hear respect copyright? No, nor me, but we have been lucky to get all this material for so long on bootleg - but Prince is an artist and these bootleggers DO make money from his art - imagine yourself being stolen from in that way - Prince is right to do what he has done, it is his property - he can protect it as he wishes, it is his perogative!

I'm sorry for all those connected with it - and I am sorry I won't get my hands on such brilliant gems as Small Club and SOTT Valium etc... but it is his property and at the end of the day he is right to protect it, whatever his current output!

Controversial I know, but that is what I think!

Chasing said:

IMHO,

In my opinion,I think it's a little too late for Prince to be concerned about bootlegs.His unreleased stuff has been circulating among fans since the late 80s (maybe even earlier than that).There are some fans that literally have HUNDREDS of bootleg Prince CDs.There are bootleg concerts from EVERY phase of his career.If I wanted to get a recording from a recent show,I know exactly where to go.So much stuff has already "leaked out" that it's now pointless to try to control it,or stop it.He's wasting his time.

I agree to the extent that there is loads circulating, but the fact that he is flexing his muscle now, is well within his right to do so - so we should consider ourselves to have been very fortunate to have such an abundance of bootleg material to date - he wants his work back, and it to be fully respected... Go on the lil' man!

Chasing said:

If this is referring to threaten to close Guide2Prince.org than your point is beside the matter.
The content of that website was mainly reviews of existing bootleg material. The website owners explicitly stated that they were not selling bootlegs, nor would they provide information where you could purchase boots.

If Prince is so concerned to get his material back than he should fight Sabotage, Premium and the other bootleg companies. But he isn't, he is fighting some guys with a website... whoa big hero... this kind of actions make Princyboy a fucking loser in my - not so - humble opinion.

copywhat?

Chasing said:

So what now can I legally do?

Host a site with Prince pics?

Host a site with Prince lyrics from the WB years?

Host a site with Prince lyrics from the NPGMC years?

Host a site with lyrics to unreleased songs by Prince?

Host a site with pics of bootleg covers?

Host a site with track listings of Prince bootlegs?

My point is this - where does it start and stop? This whole nonsense is just not legal..selling copyrighted material is one thing...but mentioning it is not.

derek said:

It's the small-print on every released album: "[...] none of this material may be reproduced without permission [...]"
Publishing on the web is reproducing.

So as for your questions:


Not unless you have permission to reproduce the copyrighted pictures. If the pictures are not copyrighted/protected: you can publish them.

Note: bootleg covers are usually protected by the bootleg company. Pictures usually by the photographer, sometimes by the person in the pic.


Not unless you have permission to reproduce the copyrighted texts.

Yes. There is nothing copyrighted about tracklistings. You can even give tracklistings to all albums Prince officially released. Even tracklistings of test pressings or different versions of albums (Dream Factory for example).
You can publish your personal review of everything little thing Prince ever has done.

And don't forget: also you have the right to state your opinion. That includes your experience of a concert you witnessed. Let that be in person at the concert or through watching tv, listening to radio or your stereoset...

Chasing said:

You and Prince are right. It is his stuff. I wish he'd sell it, though. He knows there are over 1,000 bootlegs of his stuff out there, and he has better recordings of it than the bootleggers usually do (I know, I know - "Small Club" is a sound board). Why not offer it for sale on NPGMC? I'd buy the high-quality Prince concert and gladly pay $5/$10 more than Thunderball wants.

Chasing said:

He has every right to flex his muscles, but that doesn't mean he should, anymore than, say, if he ordered his bodyguards to rough up some fans to clear a way to his car after a gig.

He can't get his work back, it's out there forever now. It's like that old fable of commanding the sea not to come in.

Besides which, I thought he was gonna sue Warners for releasing some of his music illegally? Probably found them quite tough so he's taking on the smaller guys instead by way of compensation.

However, I have to put a cease and desist order on myself now for talking about this without Prince's direct permission.

roverlo said:

Couldn't put it better myself.

Chasing said:

Yeah, right

Chasing said:

actually, "valium" sucks.

and too bad for you, because "small club" is the album i'd take on a desert isle if i had to choose just one.

Chasing said:

actually i agree with u

Chasing said:

for those of you who are makin statements such as these i would like to pose a question to you:

how do you figure bootleggers wound up getting a hold of this material in the first place?

is there a certain somebody who could've prevented such material from leaking out?

the reason why i ask this is because some of you make it seem like it is totally the bootleggers' fault that all of this is happenin, when in fact bootleggers are a small part of the picture.

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

Plus it's too late!! The boots are already out there. And for every person who has a copy of just one, how many copies have they made for others? He's fighting battle he can't possibly win and just making himself look bad in the process. If he would just release them himself he could at least make some money off of them and would be able to quit his damn belly-achin'!

Chasing said:

You're forgetting one, simple, glaringly obvious fact.

These websites DID NOT offer (as in sell/trade) any unathorised recordings.

They mearly catalogued them as a matter of interest to fans.

If I make a website about drug use that doesn't mean I stand on street corners and deal to little kids.

//
[This message was edited Mon Jan 19 9:33:33 PST 2004 by Romance1600]

Romance1600 said:

Some of the best, most descriptive and illustrative web sites on drug use are maintained by our government, for whatever that's worth.

Romance1600 said:

Well said. It does get tiresome repeating the same thing again and again. No one can really defend the legality of selling bootlegs. The whole issue with the disillusioned fans at the moment is the bully boy tactics from Prince's legal team by going after fan run websites that broke no laws. Cut and dried. If he actually started going after the bootleg labels, it would make a hell of a lot more sense(and one or two of us very very sad). He won't because it would cost him too much in time and effort just to track them down, let alone mount a legal action in a non US country. So he goes after the fans who have put more time, effort and passion into their (perfectly legal) websites than he does into his own eronneously named "Music Club".

Tw@
[This message was edited Mon Jan 19 9:58:24 PST 2004 by gsh]
[This message was edited Mon Jan 19 9:59:53 PST 2004 by gsh]

Chasing yes you're right, you have to imagine being in his shoes and it being your work at stake.

Chasing said:

Why not?

As for the theme of your post, fans will rationalize it until the cows come home.

The hard truth is, Prince is right, and he is well within his legal rights to take action against those who use his likeness or copyrighted works without permission. If he doesn't do so, it could operate as a waiver of those rights. Now there are cases where use of photos and public info is considered "fair use" and legal, but Prince has a legal right to go after sites that advertise or facilitate sales or exchanges of bootleg materials. think about it: if these sites inform fans of boots, what are those fans going to want to do? Track down copies of the boots. And eventually bootleggers WILL make cash.

Now it's true that these sites may simply discuss boots, or use pictures for the purposes of "tributes" and things of that nature, and that the sites are for fans that don't want to profit off of Prince, but want to celebrate him. And Prince is likely alientating some of his most loyal customers. I am sympathetic to all of those points of view. But he is well within his rights shut down illegal sites.

namepeace said:

Namepeace... His "royal likeness" is all over the net without his royal permission, including here on the org.

Using someones likeness without their permission is not by definition illegal, in for example the press, or on websites. There are important rules based on the right of freedom of expression and fair use that apply there combined with the lesser right of privacy that a celebrity has when it comes to published pictures. Prince would have to show that his privacy is somehow infringed, that his image and reputation is somehow DAMAGED with these publications. And that is not easy to show, especially when you have been a celebrity for 25 years and have had thousands of your pictures published all over the globe. Using the pictures argument to bust a site you simply don't like because it talks about bootlegs is a very weak argument and a bullying tactic.

Next, if Prince wants to show he is serious he would have to start threatening to sue all of the sites that display his image without his permission. Arbitrary random targeting of sites he simply doesn't LIKE isn't going to cut it.

Even if a court would rule that Prince is legally in his rights to prohibit the display of his likeness on these sites without his permission it doesn't justify taking down the entire site. Instead taking down just the pics would be enough to satisfy his demands. And then he should go and pay a visit the hundreds, or thousands of others websites out there using his likeness without his permission as well.

As for "copyrighted material". As far as I could see, there is none of that on the websites now targetted, besides the pictures. But the copyrights of those pictures are very probably NOT owned by Prince. So, Prince hasn't got a leg to stand on with a case based on copyright infringement of those pictures. Plus, even if he would own those pictures and have a case, again there are rights like "fair use" and "freedom of expression" that serve as a counterbalance to copyright owners looking to abuse their right.




He didn't do it for 20 long years in his carreer. If he would have waived any right he would have done that a long time ago already.



Now you are using the argument that these sites somehow "encourage" people to buy bootlegs or "facilitate" bootlegging.

Let me ask you something first: If I would be actively encouraging soemone to buy bootlegs in a private conversation would I be acting illegal? Could you call Prince and have my ass busted? No, I didn't think so. What the other person has done is their own personal responsibility. me encouraging him is not infringing on any copyrights.

Further on to the argument.

First, since no copying or publishing of bootlegs is being done by these websites themselves there is no direct copyright infringement of bootlegged works case here (i.e. copyright infringement committed by the wesbites themselves).

However, there could be a case of indirect, or contributory copyright infringement. There comes the "encouragement" argument in. In order to constitute contributory copyright infringement the actions of the websites must be connected to and directed at the copying and/or publishing of copyrighted works that is being done by others (e.g. its visitors), and the websites must be able to control this copying (like Napster was able to do, but not Kazaa, because Kazaa can't control the copying). If the websites can't control the copying/publishing they allegedly encourage, their actions can not constitute contributory copyright infringement.

Based on what I've seen I say the targetted sites do not "encourage", "advertise", nor "facilitate sales or exchanges" of bootlegged material. Advertisements promote a product, offer it, tell you what it costs and where to get it with the purpose of convincing the consumer to buy it. As far as I could tell, what these sites do is very far from that. A discussion of the contents and quality of the boots with a clear disclaimer that no info is given on how and where to get them is not enough to constitute "encouragement", "advertising" or "facilitating the sales or exchanges"of bootlegged material.

Conclusion: Prince got no case.



As far as I could see these websites only purpose is what you just described there. If Prince disagrees with that it is up to him to prove in court that they don't. And quite frankly I highly doubt that he could.
Further I totally agree that he is alienating even more fans and I would like to add that he has become so stupid he doesn't see his own stupidity anymore.
Lastly, sure Prince is "well within his rights to shut down illegal websites". But as far as I can see these websites are not acting illegal. Prince on the other hand is simply acting like a stupid bully abusing his rights and power.


--
[This message was edited Tue Jan 20 4:39:50 PST 2004 by Abrazo]

namepeace said:

What is illegal about publishing your personal review of an album available on the market?

The recording on the album may be illegal but that does not make your opinion about that album illegal.

So please elaborate about the 'illegalness' of websites such as Guide2Prince.org.

Romance1600 said:

[spelling edit]

What if you make a website that says:
Heroin - brilliant high, but very addictive, bit pricey, 9/10.
Crack - great if you can get it 8/10.
Speed - my favourite 10/10 You must try some speed.
etc.
A "PS, I do not in any way condone drugs, nor know where you can get them" wouldn't really be enough, would it?
You'd be encouraging, promoting and condoning an illegal act. Legally dubious.
[This message was edited Tue Jan 20 11:24:19 PST 2004 by 1p1p1i3]

I don't know much about Bootlegging. What I do know is thanks to a friend I now get to enjoy music of Princes that I otherwise would have never heard.

And Davideye is correct. This stuff has been circulating since way before Prince got poor..

Abrazo said:

So you're dealing with the photographs first. Okay.

Of course there are fair uses. I didn't say there weren't, which is why I suggested that legal counsel be consulted on these issues. But he does retain the right not to have his image used for the purposes of making money without his permission. Regardless of whether he owns the copyright to the image, if it is being used for the furtherance of a business enterprise without his permission, he is being damaged. That is a misappropriation of likeness issue (a tort claim) as opposed to a pure copyright claim.

Remember that a news site, which reports on public affairs, is altogether different from a fan site which has the potential of generating advertising revenues.

And as far as your copyright analysis, a copyright lawyer may disagree with you, and if you're a site operator who has not consulted a lawyer, then that means one thing: you pay through the nose to hire or you shut down.

Again, a site operator could be operating a legitimate enterprise and making fair use of Prince materials, but Prince has a right to enforce his proprietary rights where appropriate (a concept which he has not mastered yet).

Abrazo said:

Prince has been coy about his approach to bootlegs, I agree, but with copyrighted works, registration is a key issue, particularly with boots. All the unreleased stuff is, on information and belief, registered and copyrighted. So if he finds out someone is selling, say, "Charade" without his permission, he has a right to stop them.

Now with trademark cases, the waiver issue is a little more important.

Abrazo said:[quote]

namepeace said:

Come on, now. That comparison is totally inapposite to the situation I am addressing. That is different from a site easily accessible to the WORLD AT LARGE and which itemizes bootlegs by collections, dates, and tracks. If you were Prince, and you found out someone was cataloguing collections that were disseminated and reproduced without your permission to millions of people across the globe, what would YOU do? I know I'd at least act to ensure that the site was acting within the bounds of copyright law and then proceed accordingly. If a site is touting bootlegs, even if they're not making a penny, Prince could conceivably send a "cease and desist" letter and consult with the site organizer for more information. If the site operator is violating the law or is uncooperative, I think Prince could take legal action.




Again, if the website facilitates bootleg sales, then it is violative. If it doesn't then it doesn't. But doesn't Prince and his lawyers have the right to discernt these things? Or should he just sit back and let things take their course?



That analysis uses more terms of art but isn't much different from mine. Isn't Prince entitled to discover whether such links exist?



Then they're likely okay. Look, I am not saying that Prince is totally right or that the site organizers have committed violations per se. All I am saying is Prince has certain rights that are enforceable in certain circumstances.



Assuming that the conditions are as you described above, then I'd go along with that. Which is why I recommended that a site organizer consult a lawyer first. And I can tell you from experience that on any given day a judge is inclined to disagree with your analysis, even if it IS correct. That's the reality and risk any site organizer must acknowledge and accept.

Abrazo said:

I agree with that.



He doesn't appear to be very judicious in picking his legal battles.



The sole reason for my post was to note that Prince does have certain rights and has the right to enforce them. My other point made was that a site organizer can do so legitimately if they comply with basic concepts of intellectual property and seek qualified legal counsel.


[This message was edited Tue Jan 20 11:59:10 PST 2004 by namepeace]

I think Price is right for what he is doing. It is illegal and he has every right to handle it any whay he chooses. If the shoe was on the other foot you would look at it competely different. It is ridiculous how some people think they know what is best for others. If Prince loses fans because he is doing what he feels is right than the fans he loses are probably not worth having. I look at the website whether frequently though I often do not offer my opinion, but I notice so much flip flopping it is pathetic. If he does something you agree with he receives all praises if he does something that you don't like you pretty much damn the man to HELL!!! It seems to me he can do no right unless it is something that you can reap the benefits. You handle your day to day activity how you see fit and let him handle his business the way he sees fit. No one is perfect. I can definitely tell that from the posts on this site.

Over the years not all websites sold Boots. Right? this we know... Yet the mere talk of them closed some of them down. These sites also clearly stated the proper info that gave them as they felt legal legs 2 stand on. (Guess them legs were weak)
If thats the case perhaps hes not a fan of this site and the things discussed?
I'll just say this...Prince I would've thought had done more 2 combat this issue at this present time. He's been in the know 4 years now. Meaning the only way 2 make money is 2 himself put out a series of past concerts/music Cd/DvD/Videos etc.. and cash in on all this by putting out the read deal quality. Why Hasn't he done much more? Seeing more fans would support his older msuic.

Because he don't own the rights 2 all that 70's 80's and some early 90's stuff thats widely look at as his best work.. So he himself can't put a 1999 Live Triple Threat Tour DvD 1982/83 Out and make $$$. But say like a "Jam Of The Year Tour" San Jose etc... he can , But he hasn't still seemed interested in doing stuff like this 2 much. Ouside of ONA. He could easily made money had he started doing stuff like this as soon as he became "free". But 4 whatever reason, thats his biz if he don't see what his fans see.

I'll also say If Prince or his people find those making much money from his stuff they he 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".

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

Ask yourself this: Whats the chances of Prince if he did own the rights 2 his music ever wanting 2 put out his "Classic Series" of say live shows from Dirty Mind Tour etc? That shows him in a far different light then the one he is in now right? Cursing sexual wild shows...the ones we love and we find interesting ...trust "I" think he wouldn't with his "beliefs" these days. So with that, peoples desires & need 2 see what his old stuff was about what they missed etc..will always make his older stuff stand out alot more.


At the end of the day...I'm still very pleased and won't let none of this stuff effect me.

roverlo said:

roverlo, I never mentioned Guide2Prince.org or proclaimed it was an illegal website. It may be legal, as far as I know. But you would agree that Prince does have the right to shut down illegal sites. Wouldn't you?

A personal review of an LP "available in the market" but otherwise an illegal reproduction tends to draw questions from a legal standpoint, especially when it is broadcast to the world for consumption. It may be an opinion which one is free to express, but it also piques the interest of fans interested in finding the material.

As I and Abrazo have pointed out in separate threads, any site that facilitates or otherwise contributes to the sale of illegally reproduced material is breaking copyright laws. Whether G2P.org does that is subject to question. I am not saying that the site is illegal per se, but anyone who thinks that a site devoted to reviews of illegally reproduced material is not going to get targeted by Prince is seriously deluded.

The outtakes and concerts may be fascinating for Prince fans, and 99% of Prince fans may not want to use those materials for personal gain. Same with site organizers, who are devoted Prince loyalists and customers, but sites that discuss bootlegs must realize there is a risk of legal action, even for otherwise legitimate conduct.