Express sentimentsthat most of us feel.
I'm also going to continue not buying his records, but anyone I know will know about Prince's campaign against free speech.
I also think that perhaps he cracks down like this in order to generate publicity about himself. (after all, all publicity is meant to be good publicity)
Self obsessed twat
(,
Thu 15 Nov 2007, 1:13,
archived)
I'm also going to continue not buying his records, but anyone I know will know about Prince's campaign against free speech.
I also think that perhaps he cracks down like this in order to generate publicity about himself. (after all, all publicity is meant to be good publicity)
Self obsessed twat
Hear hear.And for the record I'd like to add that I think he's a shortarsed pompous little cunt trumpet.
*EDIT*
In fact, everyone should click "I like this" on this thread and get that image^ on the frontpage.
(*EDIT*
In fact, everyone should click "I like this" on this thread and get that image^ on the frontpage.
PMGT -Bacon.,
Thu 15 Nov 2007, 1:16,
archived)
Technically no-one buys his records any more, and that's the point of all thisHis most recent album was given away free, as have many of his other works lately.
Basically, the argument runs that his primary source of income now is his performances, not actually selling records. Due to this, he argues that people 'stealing' materials from his performances is theft of his primary income source. Due to this it (apparently) falls outside of the 'fair use' rule of copyright.
His view is that there's bugger all money to be made from actually selling records now, and there's going to be even less in the future (fair enough, I think most of us would agree with that), so if musicians are going to be able to support themselves then they need to protect their other revenue stream (performing live) and in return they'll give away their music free. We don't pay for the music, but we don't get to piss around with things that he considers to impinge on his chances of profiting from the live concerts.
Yeah, it's a very grey legal area, and I don't blame Rob for a moment for backing out of the debate. I just thought that it might be handy to clarify the other side of the argument. (He's still acting like a dick, but he does have a unique legal position, and quite an interesting view of the future of music.)
(Basically, the argument runs that his primary source of income now is his performances, not actually selling records. Due to this, he argues that people 'stealing' materials from his performances is theft of his primary income source. Due to this it (apparently) falls outside of the 'fair use' rule of copyright.
His view is that there's bugger all money to be made from actually selling records now, and there's going to be even less in the future (fair enough, I think most of us would agree with that), so if musicians are going to be able to support themselves then they need to protect their other revenue stream (performing live) and in return they'll give away their music free. We don't pay for the music, but we don't get to piss around with things that he considers to impinge on his chances of profiting from the live concerts.
Yeah, it's a very grey legal area, and I don't blame Rob for a moment for backing out of the debate. I just thought that it might be handy to clarify the other side of the argument. (He's still acting like a dick, but he does have a unique legal position, and quite an interesting view of the future of music.)
Matazone has new icons, but is keeping this one,
Thu 15 Nov 2007, 2:01,
archived)
but how does photoshopping a magenta cock onto his face(as many have)
hurt his revenue stream from live performances? I don't see how he can claim damage to his livelihood due to fan sites posting his image, or indeed, headswaps with MsPaint.
(I know you're not prince's lawyer, just thinking out loud :)
(hurt his revenue stream from live performances? I don't see how he can claim damage to his livelihood due to fan sites posting his image, or indeed, headswaps with MsPaint.
(I know you're not prince's lawyer, just thinking out loud :)
The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated,
Thu 15 Nov 2007, 2:05,
archived)
I guess it's a case of not knowing where to draw the line, so blanketing the whole thing as bad.When you draw a line of what you say is allowed you are always going to have a grey area. By saying 'nope, you're not allowed anything, you can all eff off' he makes it far easier in the future to collar anyone who is genuinely damaging his income, e.g. people selling extensive photographic or video recordings of his performances. It means being draconian now, but it gets much easier for him in the future because of this.
Again, I'm not saying he's going about it the right, but I can see a vague sense behind it. The revenue from selling records is falling for the musicians, and a new model does need to be found if there's going to be any future for bands making a living from their music. Prince's solution probably isn't the right way to solve the problem, but I can't blame him for trying to do something about it, because that's more than most of the industry.
(Again, I'm not saying he's going about it the right, but I can see a vague sense behind it. The revenue from selling records is falling for the musicians, and a new model does need to be found if there's going to be any future for bands making a living from their music. Prince's solution probably isn't the right way to solve the problem, but I can't blame him for trying to do something about it, because that's more than most of the industry.
Matazone has new icons, but is keeping this one,
Thu 15 Nov 2007, 2:16,
archived)
I agree that it makes perfect sense as a strategy for TAFKAP,I just don't think it can be on a firm legal standpoint to claim damages.
Unless he intends to sell images of himself, in which case posting an image on the web is limiting to that business.
I dunno.
(Unless he intends to sell images of himself, in which case posting an image on the web is limiting to that business.
I dunno.
The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated,
Thu 15 Nov 2007, 2:20,
archived)
I can only assume that's part of what he wants to do, otherwise, as you say, it doesn't make much legal sense. Matazone has new icons, but is keeping this one,
Thu 15 Nov 2007, 2:26,
archived)