we all know Prince has threatened to sue fan sites before. He's even boasted about it in various magazine interviews during the 90s. The most rabid fans in the Prince Music & More forum defend this as his right , although it's been stated many times before that much of the time, it's not about his legal rights, but the fact that he's got enough money to tie any fansite up in court exhausting their own funds just to prove their innocence. So it's best to err on the side of caution when dealing with a image obsessed control freak such as Prince.


However, the conversations always rage on within the confines of a Prince fan 'bubble', much like the health care conversations in P&R exist within an American 'bubble'. It would help shed some light on the topic at hand if we look towards other artists near Prince's caliber as to how they treat their fansites.


Take, Micheal Jackson, for example. Because I am absolutely creeped out by him, and loath his self-proclaimed and utterly assinine 'king of pop' moniker, I seldom ever click links to his websites. So I know almost nothing about them.
Does Michael enjoy a Prince fansite community that rival's Prince's? I'm sure in the 90's the answer would have been 'no' considering the proliferation of Prince fansites out there. But today, I would imagine the tables have turned?

How has Micheal treated his non official fansites? U2? Radiohead?
Springsteen? Madonna?


Are there any other occurrences of other artists restricting their unofficial fansite's speech to the extent Prince has been willing to go?


Nothing would make me delight more than finding out Micheal threatened to sue an unofficial fansite if they posted pre-plastic surgery/skin bleaching pictures of him or some silliness like that It would just fuel my disgust for the guy. But I doubt Micheal would do such a thing. I'm thinking he realizes the value of his fans.

When you google the phrase "threatens to sue fansite" Prince is the most popular result but other artists who have threatened at least

Abba
Usher
Michelle Williams (Destiny's Child)

There must be others...

KeithyT said:

Abba
They're so fierce!

What types of offenses are these folks sueing over?

I totally understand things like exchanging music illegally, etc.
But there's a point were it get douchey such as not allowing folks to post photoshop parodies and such. That's just douchey.

courtney love will ban your ass off her fan site herself. then again, of COURSE she would.

and George Michael famously switched his site forums off cos everyone was bitching and moaning on there. Didn't he say something like "Peace and love or not at all" a bit like Ringo!
[Edited 3/6/09 8:42am]

KeithyT said:

That was an official site though, right?

I couldn't fathom bitching posts even appearing on L4OA.com or NPGMC.com

But I understand artists controlling their official sites. The site has to also serve as an advertisement.

But unofficial ones are more interesting to me anyway cause they express, or should express, the whole range of opinions on an artists and his various works.

Anxiety said:

Whenever I think of Courtney love, you always pop into my head as well.

weird.

I think Prince is courageous for standing up for whatever he believes in, even when (especially when?) people do not agree.

Cinnie said:

ok, then, perhaps I'm rephrase my question: Are there any other artists as courageous?

BSOD said:

I like that spin!

I had only heard about Usher doing this.

There has got to be more artists that hate bootlegging.

BSOD said:

Re: Michael Jackson fansites - Are you kidding me? He has probably one of the biggest online fan communities out there, and it was significantly bigger in the '90s. I can't say if it rivals Prince's community, because as much as I love the guy, I can't stomach most of his sites. How many large P forums are there at the moment, and how many thousand members each (roughly)?

I thought the title of the thread was "Suing Your Fantasies"

Cinnie said:

And DUMB since those people he's suing are the same folks who are paying for his crusty ass perm.

People are not checking for him anymore, and for a so-called business man, he should've let the internet WORK for his favor, not against him. And no, making those alienating money leeching sites ain't really much of a help, he made it clear that those who PAY money for him are the ones who count,,,,the rest can go to hell, as far as he's concerned.

I don't think he's hurting anybody but himself with his actions

Annika said:

Again, because Michael Jackson absolutely grosses me out and makes me want to vomit, and because I think he sleeps with little boys, I really don't know anything about his community at all.

But I digress: The point of this thread is to see if any artist of Prince's caliber has gone to the lengths that Prince has gone in threatening to sue his fans. And by lengths, I'm not just talking bootlegs, but the actual cease and desist request that go beyond that.

Whether Micheal Jackson has more fans than Prince or not is of no concern of mine. Hitler once had more fans that Prince has today.
[Edited 3/6/09 11:37am]

Harlepolis said:

I agree with this, though I think artists not only have the legal right to sue over bootlegs and illegal music distribution, but the moral high ground is on their side.


But Prince has gone far beyond attempting to stop bootlegging.
He's tried to even prevent the discussion of the material. Moreover, Paisley Park has sent requests on several occasions to remove images they think are offensive.
I guess I'm struggling to see if other artist have gone to such lengths.

I'm sure other artists have sued people for illegal music distribution. But have other artists tried to stop their fansites from using pictures of them and other acts they think are offensive?

BSOD said:

In your original post you specifically asked a series of questions concerning the MJ fan community, so I was merely trying to answer them to give you some perspective (which you asked for). Silly me.

To answer your basic question, MJ has to the best of my knowledge never sued fansites, and in fact actively encourages sharing of his material. He even has his own YouTube channel with all his videos and a few other bits and pieces.

Annika said:

Harlepolis said:

Prince's main problem with the Internet is that,it's something so big and powerful that even HE can't control it.Just like the recording industry didn't know how to deal with file-sharing and adapt to changing times,Prince doesn't know how to use the Internet to his advantage.He'd rather just fight against it.diss popular sites like Youtube and sue fansites devoted to him.

KeithyT said:

I was a member and to this day I feel guilty. I was one of the leading critics of Patience. I argued with many of his 35 yo housewive fans who still masturbate over him because I felt so disapointed of Patience, and that his vocals would be bad and that he became fat and not as cool and would not even bother to promote.

I still feel this way anyway, haha
[Edited 3/8/09 16:37pm]
[Edited 3/8/09 16:41pm]

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OMG! So did I! I was looking like how can you sue a fantasy?!

1. No, Michael wouldn't sue or threaten his fansites. He lets them do what they want. He used those same forums to give information about releases and such as the tracklisting to Invincible, the King of Pop tracklistings, and Thriller 25. You're digusted by him, we get it

2. I think many artists don't threaten their fansites, some use them to communicate with those communities

3.It's not "sueing" it's "suing"

bboy87 said:[quote]1. No, Michael wouldn't sue or threaten his fansites. He lets them do what they want. He used those same forums to give information about releases and such as the tracklisting to Invincible, the King of Pop tracklistings, and Thriller 25. You're digusted by him, we get it

2. I think many artists don't threaten their fansites, some use them to communicate with those communities

3.It's not "sueing" it's "suing" [quote]

I find this one quite mean. He might be a non-Native-English speaking person, Jay!
[Edited 3/8/09 18:30pm]

graecophilos said:[quote]bboy87 said:[quote]1. No, Michael wouldn't sue or threaten his fansites. He lets them do what they want. He used those same forums to give information about releases and such as the tracklisting to Invincible, the King of Pop tracklistings, and Thriller 25. You're digusted by him, we get it

2. I think many artists don't threaten their fansites, some use them to communicate with those communities

3.It's not "sueing" it's "suing"
No it wasn't. He knew enough to make that long post

bboy87 said:[quote]graecophilos said:[quote]

bboy87 said:

mmh. He has got a bigger vocabulary than I have anyway. Well who cares, would be HIS turn to cry about your remark.

BSOD said:

Well there were bitching posts on NPGMC.com. They may not have been full of profanity but people complained on a regular basis over there like they did and still do here with Prince, but you had to be a member to know that, not just be on the outside looking in like a lot of people were who complained about the site. That always made me laugh.

purplecam said:

Hey, PC, are you going to buy a membership to LotusFlow3r? I'm still thinking about it

bboy87 said:

I was always curious to ask what makes a paid membership worth it? I've never
been part of a paid /fan community (for any artist) and I was wondering what are the some of the perks you get....I won't be paying for anyone anytime soon (I'm too cheap ) but I was curious what the extra goodies are like?

bboy87 said:

Absolutely. Whatever it costs, I have the money for it cause I've been saving for it and I want to see what's going to be on there as people who've gotten a glimpse of the site say it looks spectacular. Plus, if Prince comes back to NYC, I want to get first dibs on getting a ticket for a show. That was the best thing about the NPGMC.
[Edited 3/8/09 21:42pm]

purplecam said:

I agree. The selling point for me is the unreleased material