Prince sues internet users for total of $22m over alleged bootleg recordings.

[dipsydoodle]

Prince is suing 22 internet users believed to be among his fans, accusing them of sharing bootlegs of his concerts. The musician is demanding $1m (£605,000) each from the owners of websites and Facebook pages that he claims enabled the free distribution of recordings of his concerts.

The 21-page lawsuit was filed last week at San Francisco's US district court, reported Consequence of Sound. The mostly anonymous defendants are accused of engaging in "massive infringement and bootlegging of Prince's material", with each web page contributing to "up to thousands of separate acts of infringement and bootlegging".

The targets aren't bootleg factories in Asia or eastern Europe, but websites with links to download decades-old live recordings. While some have general-interest titles like World of Bootleg and NPR Universe, other sites – like Purple House, Purple Kiss and Funky Experience Four – are aimed at Prince's most obsessive fans.

Together, Prince's lawyers allege, these websites "constitute an interconnected network of bootleg distribution which is able to broadly disseminate unauthorised copies of Prince's musical compositions and live performances". The plaintiffs cited shared bootlegs such as Prince's 24 March 2011 performance in Charlotte, North Carolina, his 24 April 2002 show in Oakland, California, and a 10 April 1983 concert in Chicago.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jan/27/prince-sues-internet-users-alleged-bootleg-recordings

[vt_native]

1. bootleggers always buy more music

This didn't go so well for Metallica.

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. Might as well sue the wind.

With the interwebs, the bootleggers will always be ahead of you. Find a different way to market and capitalize on your talent.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Well, he's worth a few hundred millions and a seat to a show is hundreds of dollars

and he sells out huge arenas in seconds so marketing and capitalizing on his talent is not really a problem for Prince, he just does not care to be ripped off and I don't blame him.

[Are_grits_groceries]

4. I don't blame him either.

However, as I said, trying to stay ahead of the technology, the thieves and the interwebs makes that problematic. He and the lawyers he is paying will be chasing them forever.

I wish it was easy to catch those that rip off other's work and get renumeration. It's not anymore if it ever was.

I am suggesting that people also approach it from another end too. Or not. That's up to them.

[treestar]

38. If he has that much money, what does he care if he gets "ripped off" for a few dollars?

[Scootaloo]

51. Point is, once information is released, it's pretty much impossible to control

And trying to do so is largely a futile exercise. I don't blame the man either, but the reality is, this is one of those "the toothpaste is out of the tube" things.

[hunter]

5. Pissing on one's fans is probably not a good marketing decision.

The internet is similar to what radio used to be. An artist ought to be happy if people are tweeting links to their music. Otherwise they'd just be another unknown.

Television and radio are no longer the center of the media universe. Radio is realizing they are next in line after newspapers to be ignored, but television still thinks it's king, even as they grow more and more desperate to attract viewers.

I'm not sure how all this will work out.

I do my best to avoid copyright violations, buying most of my art and music directly from the artists themselves, or else in the form of books, CDs, and DVDs I find in thrift stores.

My latest "book" purchase was an e-book, money payed directly to the author's Pay-Pal account. Books I much enjoy and think "timeless," I'll buy a nice new edition printed on archival quality paper.

My wife is a greater bibliophile than I am. We have thousands of books.

I'm intrigued by the resurgence of vinyl records. People like to have things they can touch. A pretty album cover, even if the LP is never played on a phonograph but kept as a "collectible" while listening to the electronic version, might be a pretty good incentive to pay for music. And obviously, live concerts too. In a similar way people enjoy going out to see movies on the big screen. I enjoyed "Gravity" and it's not going to be the same on a DVD or Blue Ray disk.

[Logical]

7. Pissing of thiefs is ok! I am a fan and am glad he is doing this! nt

[hunter]

10. Makes no difference to me.

I'm simply saying he won't increase his "fan base" if his music is less available.

If he wants to grow old with his present, "legal" fans, fine. It's his music.

I exist within the Open Source and Free software community. It struck me years ago that proprietary software was expensive and didn't last. Want some "legal" copies of Windows 95? I have a few...

The first "real" operating system I fully "grocked" was BSD Unix. At the time my personal computer was an Atari 800. I could log into the university computers with a 300 baud modem, or I could (obsessively) hang out in the computer labs.

The Atari 800 (which I still have) was followed by numerous IBM compatibles. The last Microsoft so-called "operating system" I used was Windows 98SE. I first logged onto DU with that.

Upgrading to Debian was like going home in a "Back to the Future" kind of way. There was a brand new pickup truck in the driveway, and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were waxing it.

Hah, hah. They just got money and had to hire body guards. But I won.

.

[Xyzse]

12. Sir, I think I am now a fan of yours.

...

[Logical]

16. Most end users don't want to mess with open source. nt

[hunter]

21. So well trained by corporate world they are.

I've been a cog in a machine. I didn't like it.

That's mostly the way it is with art, right?

[LanternWaste]

32. As are those who drive a premade auto rather than building their own...?

"So well trained by corporate world they are...."

As are those who drive a premade auto rather than building their own...? (Insert distinction between six of one and half a dozen of the other here)

[hunter]

45. ?

There are a lot of people contributing, a bit here, a bit there, to the Open Source world, some for money, some not.

Nobody has to build their own car.

Download and install, free, any of the awesome Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, etc.,) and you are good to go for the things most people use computers for.

I have EVERY computer I've ever owned, every computer I've ever worked with, going back to the 'seventies just one or two clicks away on my desktop. When I upgrade to a new computer, it all comes along. Some Windows 3.1 or Atari 800 program I wrote long ago, no problem. Some "ancient" vi or .tex document, no problem. Geoworks document, no problem. My old Mac SE/30 stuff, still there. A novel I wrote in college, still there. 1802 code I wrote, still there.

I posted this from my desktop quite a long time ago:



Living like that in Microsoft or Apple or Android world would be a hemorrhoid pain in the ass.

No thanks.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. There's not a lot of "messing" required with newer versions of Linux, actually.

Most end-users are pretty ignorant and will just use whatever comes installed. And plenty of people use open-source software all the time without being aware of it; Firefox is open-source. So is Chromium (which Google Chome is based on).

[sendero]

56. This is pretty dumb..

... most of those bootleg concert type tapes are only of interest to the most hardcore fan AND they are usually not of sufficient audio quality to be commercially releasable. So acting like this activity is depriving the artist of revenues is specious.

A much more effective tactic would have been to send these websites a cease and desist letter, threatening legal action if they don't take down the objectionable materials. Now it is possible they tried that, but I doubt it.

In any event, artist after artist has thrown a similar tantrum and none of them have come out better that I am aware of.

[dipsydoodle]

9. But I doubt it will piss off the fans who were not ripping him off.

I too buy music from artists themselves and have a huge number of CDs apart from a 1000 or so iTune tracks all bought and paid for in the proper manner , quite apart from an absurd number of films on DVD and Blu-ray gathered over the years.

[Logical]

6. Good, stealing is stealing! nt

[FSogol]

8. I knew Prince Harry wuz no good.

[Xyzse]

11. I don't understand why he would do such a thing.

1 - These individuals went to his concert, they just happen to record him using their individual devices.
2 - This basically allows individuals who don't know about Prince to enjoy his content, which is a potential revenue source for those who may become interested in seeing him in person.
3 - Unless these performances are widely distributed, these small scale clips from facebook sites showing off the point that they went to a Prince concert, are the only instances where it shows his work.

All this does really is limit his exposure, other than some guy not allowing people to post their activities online.

He is welcome to do so, but I think it is counter productive.

[JHB]

13. I assume it's the same reasoning why he changed his name to a graphic symbol

He's changed it back, of course, but technically he should be addressed as
Prince, formerly known as The Artist, formerly known as The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, formerly known as Prince.

[Xyzse]

14. I see...

I guess, I am not worthy of figuring out his logic.

That's cool.

[babylonsister]

52. ...

[Logical]

17. Like people who record movies and upload them? nt

[Xyzse]

18. Not the same.

Movie ticket prices are very low in comparison to a concert.
They are also much more widely distributed and easy to get to.

It is why some concerts, bands allow people to record them, particularly for exposure as it is enticement for fans to actually go to a concert.

A concert is an experience, you go there for the band, the energy and the venue.
These bad recordings of people showing where they have been can be used to build buzz. Particularly nowadays, in the era of selfies and such, it shows where a person has been and makes people think they want to do the same thing.

This would make a whole lot more sense if he has a distribution system that shows every single performance of his.

What's next? Will he then ban all camera phones and videos of his concerts?

Like I said, I don't mind him doing this, and it is his right to do so. I just think it counter-productive.

[jmowreader]

28. And there is this

1. Every concert I've ever been to has printed on the ticket, "Recordings are not allowed."

2. We are not talking about a garage band here: Prince is very well-known especially in the fraternity of disc jockeys. If he buys a new eyeliner pencil the press will pick up on it: "This is Radio WXYZ...hey, didja hear Prince went makeup shopping today? Is he touring soon? Here's a solid hour of classic Prince!"

3. Prince is the kind of guy who'd film every concert he ever did and sell Blu-rays of the best shows.

[Xyzse]

35. As mentioned, I can agree with those, but I still think it counter productive.

1 - I agree that most concerts have that. Although, I must admit the very few I have been in, I don't remember seeing that. I mean, I went to Jon Mayer, and it was open taping. It is the venue's policy usually. The recordings we are talking about are from way back then.

2 - Not disputing he has a niche. Though he has not been heard from by quite many. Quite a few people I know, only know about him through the Dave Chapelle skit and basketball.

3 - See, I mentioned this too, on my number 3 as well, where if "these performances are widely distributed, these small scale clips from facebook sites showing off the point that they went to a Prince concert, are the only instances where it shows his work." Since he has them as Blu-rays, well that is a great thing, which many people would not really know to get unless they get samples.

I don't disagree that he has the right to litigate such individuals. Just saying, I don't think it is going to help much, and may even cause a backlash. I mean, considering how the culture is now in regards to sharing and showing clips.

He may have better luck asking those individuals to reference his site, so that people could get the better quality items.
It is free press.

Like I said, he's welcome to do this, and I don't blame him for doing so. I just don't think it worth it and doesn't engender good will.

[treestar]

39. Exactly, it's stupid

Though I know who he is, but would rather not. During the MTV generation, there was no avoiding him!

[KamaAina]

15. Compare and contrast with the Dead

who used to sell tapers' tickets. I actually ended up with one once, 'cause I was way at the back of the line.

[jmowreader]

27. The Dead were utter nazis about their logos and trade dress

What many do not realize about the Dead, is most of their income was licensing royalties on their name and the various logos they used. Way more people had a Jer Bear t-shirt than had a Grateful Dead album or ever went to concerts...because the twenty-minute jams the Dead specialized in haven't ever been mainstream and they knew it.

Because they were making their money on shirts, they were ultra aggressive about defending their marks. They hired hippie types to walk through the vendor areas at their concerts making sure no one displayed for sale unlicensed GD marks; if you were caught, God help you.

Prince, Metallica and the others who defend copyright on their music (under the legal construct that a copyright not defended is lost) make money by selling music.

[Egnever]

41. As someone who used to go to quite a few dead concerts this sounds like BS to me

You couldn't walk through the parking lot without tripping on Jerry bears. If they were enforcing strict licensing they were doing a shitty job of it.

Metallica hasn't had a hit album since they went after their fans. Maybe it had nothing to do with their downward spiral ever since but..

[jmowreader]

48. This is from a book titled "Perspectives on the Grateful Dead: Critical Writings"

"We have the Deadheads who see themselves as a subcultural group, existing outside the boundaries of "private property," who see the band as embodying these same principles, ideals and beliefs, and for whom a Dancing Bear is something more than a legally recognized monopoly. Then we have the Grateful Dead as a capitalist enterprise, albeit one with a heart and a social conscience. Grateful Dead Merchandising, Inc., markets, sells and licenses a wide array of products from CDs to t-shirts and golf balls. Like those other 'good guys,' the Walt Disney Company, the Dead and their licensees jealously guard their intellectual property in the courts. (insert a couple of cases decided in favor of the Dead.) They have requested the unusual step of making the losing party pay the band's attorney's fees, even when the losers are small-time bootleggers. Even when successful at trial on copyright-infringement actions, they have appealed and asked for increased damages. They also hire private detectives to track suspects and seek the enforcement of criminal sanctions against those who violate their property rights. In short, when they get to court, they play hardball."

http://books.google.com/books?id=wFuE229iBwkC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=were+the+grateful+dead+protective+of+their+copyrights&source=bl&ots=QxYtenRQfK&sig=UV2ez7bZajdjCUp1vIO-E8y17uE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kuLmUt7hDsjioATp4YGIDg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=were%20the%20grateful%20dead%20protective%20of%20their%20copyrights&f=false

There were tons of Jerry Bears, but those bears came from authorized sources.

On edit: when you produce something that can be copied and sold without bringing you profit, you either protect yourself very vigorously or you go broke.

[Egnever]

50. Interesting that you take the citations out

None of the cases listed sound like dead heads. Again saw tons of them and I am damn sure the majority of them werent licensed

[jmowreader]

54. I just didn't want to type them in, sorry

[cbdo2007]

19. This is the absolute wrong way to deal with this problem...

and appears to be what artists do when they are no longer creative.

Smart musicians and artists have figured out how to use bootlegging and social media to their advantage, as a promotional source.

He's worried about concerts from 1983, 2002, and 2011?? LOL There are like 1,000 people looking for shitty video of Prince from 1983, yet if he would release a blu ray of him performing at a huge concert this year, he'd sell 100,000 copies and would actually be relevant in pop culture anymore.

I know, it's illegal...blah blah blah...well he's never going to *stop* the bootlegging, and this is terrible publicity, and there are thousands of other artists out there who use bootlegging to their advantage. You know how many people these days are talking about Prince and how great he is?? Right, nobody. Everyone is talking about Prince and how great he was.

[ecstatic]

33. I agree. nt

[JCMach1]

20. attack hardcore fans... that couldn't possibly cause a backlash

[1000words]

22. Prince has always had a heavy hand regarding copyright

After a performance at Coachella, he formed a team of folks to remove all footage of the performance from the internet. Youtube was teeming with vids. They were all removed within hours.

[PeaceNikki]

31. One was an interesting sore spot... he covered Radiohead's "Creep"

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1045247/radiohead-to-prince-unblock-creep-youtube-vids

[hughee99]

24. The biggest problem for the defendents is that people will find out they're Prince fans. n/t

[1000words]

25. Prince fan here

The man is an extremely talented musician. His influence is enormous, and only still being fully realized.

[Xyzse]

26. I can agree with this, without being an actual Prince fan.

Though I must say, he barely has exposure.
This is just negative buzz.

--Edited due to huge white space that I'm not sure how it happened.

[reflection]

30. No doubt. I think the guy is hella talented.

Like fans of most bands, I appreciate the early stuff more than the stuff that followed But his first several albums (yes, I realize I'm dating myself with the term "album&quot are in heavy rotation on my iPod.

[1000words]

36. Most folks don't know what a great guitar player he is:

Rolling Stone rates him as #33 best of all time.

Check out this solo at around the 3:00 minute mark:

http://vimeo.com/22533001

[reflection]

37. Hell yeah!

That guitar wasn't weeping. It was screaming like a banshee at the shredding Prince was giving it.

[Egnever]

42. Obviously Prince has not seen this video....

[cbdo2007]

44. He doesn't own this video....and the company that does likes

the publicity of having it available. He should talk to their marketing people instead of crying in his corner.

[stuntcat]

53. I love this video.

Prince really is a genius. and totally beautiful..
I'm sorta sorry if real fans will have to pay. I admit I've watched some bootlegged shows of his, and I've never paid to do it, I don't know where the money will come from.

[reflection]

29. Above and beyond the copyright aspect, I wonder if it undercuts Prince's argument

that he suffered some sort of damage as a result of fans sharing copies of a bootleg concert. It's not as if anyone can get in a time machine and go back to that day and attend the concert, so he's not missing out on any money. Although, to poke a hole in my own argument as I think about it further... Prince could theoretically release the show himself at a later date, and the show being shared beforehand could definitely put a damper on potential sales.

[NaturalHigh]

34. I didn't know he was still around.

He's got some longevity.

[Beringia]

40. I remember looking for something of his on Youtube

and could find nothing. He is very miserly with his music.

[cbdo2007]

43. Last night I was doing the same thing....

was thinking about great guitar solos and wanted to see video of Prince playing Let's Go Crazy live. Went to Youtube....couldn't find it. That doesn't make me want to listen to Prince's music or go see him in concert. It makes me want to listen to someone else and not think about Prince. He should want to keep his name and music in the public eye, instead of wanting people to listen to other artists.

[Beringia]

46. same here

it keeps you liking an artist and possibly buy some of their music.

[Number23]

57. Same here. I have been looking for his Alphabet Street video for ever

Every time it gets put up some where, it vanishes a week later.

[CFLDem]

47. Someone's going broke.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. Nah. P is worth over $300 million.

[Dr. Strange]

55. The artist formerly known as the artist that sued 22 of his fans.

He's dropping the suit.