Prince Fans Fight Back

[joyinrepatition]

http://princefansunited.com/images/avatar_pfu_3.gif
PRINCE FANS FIGHT BACK AGAINST ATTACKS
In an extraordinary, but not unfamiliar move, the rock legend Prince is using an army of lawyers to launch attacks on his own fans.

Several of the largest web communities dedicated to the artist have received notices to cease and desist all use of photographs, images, lyrics, album covers and anything linked to Prince's likeness.

It is our opinion that these threats are not made in an attempt to enforce valid copyright as Prince alleges in his threats, rather we believe they are attempts to stifle all critical commentary about Prince. We strongly believe that such actions are in violation of the freedom of speech and should not be allowed. Prince claims that fansites are not allowed to present any artwork with Prince's likeness, to the extreme that he has demanded removal of fan's own photographs of their Prince inspired tattoos and their vehicles displaying Prince inspired license plates.

Prince's representatives have requested that the fansites provide them with "substantive details of the means by which you [the fansites] propose to compensate our clients [Paisley Park Enterprises, NPG Records and Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG)] for damages..."

The owners of the three largest fansites supporting Prince: www.housequake.com (http://www.housequake.com), www.princefams.com (http://www.princefams.com) and www.prince.org (http://www.prince.org) have come together to fight back to what amounts to an injustice to the fansites and the very fans who have supported Prince's career, many since the very beginning nearly thirty years ago.

It is their hope that Prince will reconsider his position and allow these fansites to continue their existence without constant threats from Prince and his attorneys. Should this not be possible, the fansites are fully prepared to defend their position in the proper court of law, as well as fully prosecute any claims to which they are justly entitled.

The owners of housequake.com, princefams.com and prince.org acknowledge that, while Prince is entitled to control of his copyrights, it should be within the law. The law clearly provides for displaying of images of a celebrity's likeness for newsworthy events or matters that are considered to be public interest. All three websites feel that the photographs and/or likeness displayed on their websites clearly fall within the public interest category. Additionally, the use of photographs is legal based on the fair use doctrine, i.e. the displaying of album cover art, or the collage headers created by website members using a variety of different photographs.

For housequake.com: Aaron A. Sikkink and Gavin McLaughlin
For princefams.com: Endre Adolfsen and Jonathan Nice
For prince.org: Ben Margolin

For more information, please contact the Prince Fans United Group spokesperson: Gavin McLaughlin at: pfu@housequake.com (pfu@housequake.com).



Take a look!.... http://www.princefansunited.com/ (http://www.princefansunited.com/)

[unique]

http://perezhilton.com/?p=8290

from the worlds 2nd most famous bloggers site...


Prince Hates His Fans! (http://perezhilton.com/?p=8290)

Filed under: Prince (http://perezhilton.com/?cat=174) http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/a76894204__opt.jpg
Holy shit! Not since Alysa Milano went sue-happy has a bunch of fans revolted against their object of devotion.
Prince fans are angry.
They claim that the pop star and his lawyers are threatening fan sites and trying to get money from them through fear and intimidation.
In an unparalleled move, three of the largest Prince fansites have started a new site, Prince Fans United (http://princefansunited.com/?ref=org-hp-link), and they are taking their frustration public.
Here is the eye-opening press release they just sent out!
“November 5, 2007
PRINCE FANS FIGHT BACK AGAINST ATTACKS
In an extraordinary, but not unfamiliar move, the rock legend Prince is using an army of lawyers to launch attacks on his own fans.
Several of the largest web communities dedicated to the artist have received notices to cease and desist all use of photographs, images, lyrics, album covers and anything linked to Prince’s likeness.
It is our opinion that these threats are not made in an attempt to enforce valid copyright as Prince alleges in his threats, rather we believe they are attempts to stifle all critical commentary about Prince. We strongly believe that such actions are in violation of the freedom of speech and should not be allowed. Prince claims that fansites are not allowed to present any artwork with Prince’s likeness, to the extreme that he has demanded removal of fan’s own photographs of their Prince inspired tattoos and their vehicles displaying Prince inspired license plates.
Prince’s representatives have requested that the fansites provide them with “substantive details of the means by which you [the fansites] propose to compensate our clients [Paisley Park Enterprises, NPG Records and Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG)] for damages…”
The owners of the three largest fansites supporting Prince: www.housequake.com (http://www.housequake.com/), www.princefams.com (http://www.princefams.com/) and www.prince.org (http://www.prince.org/) have come together to fight back to what amounts to an injustice to the fansites and the very fans who have supported Prince’s career, many since the very beginning nearly thirty years ago.
It is their hope that Prince will reconsider his position and allow these fansites to continue their existence without constant threats from Prince and his attorneys. Should this not be possible, the fansites are fully prepared to defend their position in the proper court of law, as well as fully prosecute any claims to which they are justly entitled.
The owners of housequake.com, princefams.com and prince.org acknowledge that, while Prince is entitled to control of his copyrights, it should be within the law. The law clearly provides for displaying of images of a celebrity’s likeness for newsworthy events or matters that are considered to be public interest. All three websites feel that the photographs and/or likeness displayed on their websites clearly fall within the public interest category. Additionally, the use of photographs is legal based on the fair use doctrine, i.e. the displaying of album cover art, or the collage headers created by website members using a variety of different photographs.
For housequake.com: Aaron A. Sikkink and Gavin McLaughlin
For princefams.com: Endre Adolfsen and Jonathan Nice
For prince.org: Ben Margolin
For more information, please contact the Prince Fans United Group spokesperson:
Gavin McLaughlin at: pfu@housequake.com.”
Fight the power!!!
[Photo via Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/).]
Posted: November 5, 2007 at 5:30 pm

[unique]

http://princefansunited.com/


PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 5, 2007
PRINCE FANS FIGHT BACK AGAINST ATTACKS

In an extraordinary, but not unfamiliar move, the rock legend Prince is using an army of lawyers to launch attacks on his own fans.
Several of the largest web communities dedicated to the artist have received notices to cease and desist all use of photographs, images, lyrics, album covers and anything linked to Prince's likeness.
It is our opnion that these threats are not made in an attempt to enforce valid copyright as Prince alleges in his threats, rather we believe they are attempts to stifle all critical commentary about Prince. We strongly believe that such actions are in violation of the freedom of speech and should not be allowed. Prince claims that fansites are not allowed to present any artwork with Prince's likeness, to the extreme that he has demanded removal of fan's own photographs of their Prince inspired tattoos and their vehicles displaying Prince inspired license plates.
Prince's representatives have requested that the fansites provide them with "substantive details of the means by which you [the fansites] propose to compensate our clients [Paisley Park Enterprises, NPG Records and Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG)] for damages..."
The owners of the three largest fansites supporting Prince: www.housequake.com (http://www.housequake.com/), www.princefams.com (http://www.princefams.com/) and www.prince.org (http://www.prince.org/) have come together to fight back to what amounts to an injustice to the fansites and the very fans who have supported Prince's career, many since the very beginning nearly thirty years ago.
It is their hope that Prince will reconsider his position and allow these fansites to continue their existence without constant threats from Prince and his attorneys. Should this not be possible, the fansites are fully prepared to defend their position in the proper court of law, as well as fully prosecute any claims to which they are justly entitled.
The owners of housequake.com, princefams.com and prince.org acknowledge that, while Prince is entitled to control of his copyrights, it should be within the law. The law clearly provides for displaying of images of a celebrity's likeness for newsworthy events or matters that are considered to be public interest. All three websites feel that the photographs and/or likeness displayed on their websites clearly fall within the public interest category. Additionally, the use of photographs is legal based on the fair use doctrine, i.e. the displaying of album cover art, or the collage headers created by website members using a variety of different photographs.
For housequake.com: Aaron A. Sikkink and Gavin McLaughlin
For princefams.com: Endre Adolfsen and Jonathan Nice
For prince.org: Ben Margolin
For more information, please contact the Prince Fans United Group spokesperson:
Gavin McLaughlin at: pfu@housequake.com.

[joyinrepatition]

Stand back as the **** is about to hit the FAN! :boxing:

[unique]

http://www.nme.com/news/prince/32312


Prince launches attack on fan websites



But the Purple one's fans are fighting back

9 hours ago
Lawyers for Prince (http://www.nme.com/artists/prince) have ordered several of the superstar's biggest fan sites to remove any image that bears his likeness prompting fans to form a group to fight the demands.

Three websites: housequake.com (http://www.housequake.com/), princefams.com (http://www.princefams.com/) and prince.org (http://www.prince.org/) have come together to form 'Prince Fans United' in response to the situation, which even sees demands to remove images of fans own tattoos.

In a statement on princefansunited.com (http://www.princefansunited.com/), the websites' owners believe that it is an infringement of their right to freedom of speech.

"It is our opinion that these threats are not made in an attempt to enforce valid copyright asPrince (http://www.nme.com/artists/prince) alleges in his threats, rather we believe they are attempts to stifle all critical commentary about Prince (http://www.nme.com/artists/prince). We strongly believe that such actions are in violation of the freedom of speech and should not be allowed. Prince (http://www.nme.com/artists/prince) claims that fansites are not allowed to present any artwork with Prince (http://www.nme.com/artists/prince)'s likeness, to the extreme that he has demanded removal of fan's own photographs of their Prince (http://www.nme.com/artists/prince) inspired tattoos and their vehicles displaying Prince (http://www.nme.com/artists/prince) inspired license plates."

It goes on to say:

"The law clearly provides for displaying of images of a celebrity's likeness for newsworthy events or matters that are considered to be public interest. All three websites feel that the photographs and/or likeness displayed on their websites clearly fall within the public interest category. Additionally, the use of photographs is legal based on the fair use doctrine, i.e. the displaying of album cover art, or the collage headers created by website members using a variety of different photographs."

--By our New York staff.

[The One]

Prince Attempts To Alienate Entire Fanbase In One Fell Swoop (http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/11/06/prince-attempts-to-alienate-entire-fanbase-in-one-fell-swoop/)

11/6/07, 1:01 pm EST
http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/0/9/3/4/17214390-17214393-slarge.jpg

From his days as a symbol to his anti-YouTube stance (http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/09/14/princes-message-to-everyone-stop-bootlegging-my-stuff/), it’s a given that Prince (http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/prince) takes his image seriously. Now the Purple One is expanding his copyright fight to include a brand-new enemy: his own fans. Prince’s lawyers have recently sent cease-and-desist letters to Prince fan sites, demanding that they remove all photos, artwork and fan-submitted, Prince-related pictures. That includes, oddly, photos of Prince-inspired tattoos and license plates. Now, three such sites — housequake.com, prince.org and princefams.com — have banded together to form PrinceFansUnited.com (http://www.princefansunited.com/).

The united fan front suspects the Paisley Park legal team is taking this bizarre course of action “to stifle all critical commentary about Prince” (fortunately, they haven’t read this post … we think). If forced to remove all images from their sites, and thus forego their First Amendment rights, the union vows to “defend their position in the proper court of law, as well as fully prosecute any claims to which they are justly entitled.” They just wanted to celebrate Sign O’ the Times (http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/prince/albums/album/118458/review/5943668/sign_o_the_times), now they have to hire lawyers. So far, the sites are yielding, as Princefams.com’s vacant photo gallery (http://www.princefams.com/gallery) reads, “The gallery is currently unavailable due to legal pressure from Prince and his organisation NPG. We are sorry about this, but hope you understand that this is something Prince is forcing us to do.”

If there was ever a clear indication of when to retire your fansite, this is probably it. This is like that time the Italian Guns N’ Roses fanpage boycotted (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/italian_guns_n_roses_fan_site_shuts_down_showing_p rotest.html) GN’R. The whole show of unity here is an attempt to get Prince to second-think the photo embargo. But perhaps he’s had other things on his mind: His native Minnesota has found a brand new “Purple Jesus (http://www.adrianpeterson28.com/adrian-peterson-minicamp-2.jpg).”

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/11/06/prince-attempts-to-alienate-entire-fanbase-in-one-fell-swoop/#more-4385

[The One]

Prince threatens to sue his fans over online images



Owen Gibson, media correspondent
Wednesday November 7, 2007
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)


He's a singer who has made some odd career moves in his time, from changing his name to an unpronounceable love symbol to scrawling "slave" on his cheek in protest at his record company.

But industry experts yesterday warned that Prince's latest decision might be the most controversial of all.

He has threatened to sue thousands of his biggest fans for breach of copyright, provoking an angry backlash and claims of censorship.

His lawyers have forced his three biggest internet fansites to remove all photographs, images, lyrics, album covers and anything linked to the artist's likeness. A legal letter asks the fansites to provide "substantive details of the means by which you propose to compensate our clients [Paisley Park Entertainment Group, NPG Records and AEG] for damages".
The singer himself is believed to take a close interest in unofficial use of his image and music, monitoring websites from his sprawling Paisley Park studio complex in Minneapolis.


A coalition named Prince Fans United, representing Housequake.com (http://www.housequake.com/), Princefans.com (http://www.princefans.com/) and Prince.org (http://www.prince.org/), has been formed by the website organisers to fight back. They said they would contest the action on the basis that it was an attempt "to stifle all critical commentary about Prince". They added that the "cease and desist" notices went as far as calling for the removal of pictures taken by fans of their Prince tattoos and their vehicles carrying Prince-inspired licence plates.

"It's a really short-sighted and futile move," said Nicola Slade, editor of the industry newsletter Record of the Day. "Prince has got a lot of fans and as he's decided to take a more leftfield approach to releasing his material, he should be nurturing the relationship. I'm shocked, really."

The singer had been considered to be in the vanguard of efforts by some artists to cut record labels out of the equation and forge their own relationships with fans through the web and live concerts, having been one of the first to sell music directly to fans via his website.

He recently completed a 21-night residency at London's O2 arena, effortlessly mixing up the setlist each night to draw on a rich back catalogue that includes Purple Rain, Raspberry Beret, Kiss and Sign o' the Times, and was lauded for a genius marketing move in giving away his CD to concertgoers and with copies of the Mail on Sunday.
Alex Burmaster, an analyst at Nielsen Online, said: "It's a paradox that a musician who has done so much to bring himself closer to his fans, particularly with his 'them and us' crusade against the record labels, should be engaging in a course of action that effectively removes the raison d'etre of fansites.

"But it's the mark of the man who always goes against the grain that he should be doing this at a time when other artists and their labels are suddenly embracing the social media phenomenon."

In 1993, amid a bitter dispute with the record label, Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable "love symbol" as a step towards his "ultimate goal of emancipation from the chains" that he said tied him to Warner Bros.

Yesterday's move follows an earlier declaration of war on copyrighted material hosted by web giants such as YouTube and eBay.
In September, he appointed the internet company Web Sheriff to police the removal of up to 2,000 clips from YouTube. Web Sheriff managing director, John Giacobbi, said at the time that the singer wanted "to create a template for other artists". "Prince doesn't really want to go around suing people - he'd much rather people just respected his rights. He will be victorious," he said.

Controversy followed this decision, too, when a mother from Pennsylvania posted a clip of her baby dancing to his 1984 hit Let's Go Crazy and Prince's lawyers demanded it was taken down.

Lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have vowed to contest the claim on her behalf, saying the song is hardly audible and constitutes fair use.
By going after the Google-owned YouTube, Prince was merely following the lead of a handful of other big rights owners - including MTV-owner Viacom, the estate of Elvis Presley and the Premier League - that believe the video sharing site makes advertising revenue off the back of their copyrighted content. But while some artists have resorted to the law in an attempt to persuade websites or internet providers to remove pirated songs and there have been disputes over lyrics, most decided long ago that it was counterproductive to attempt to get fans to remove images and album covers.

"You can get things taken down, the legal tools are there to do it," said Caroline Kean, a partner at the law firm Wiggin. "The reason people don't is partly practical, because there are so many images, but also due to the bad publicity you get from going after your biggest fans. Most people soon realised it was counter-productive."
A spokeswoman for the fans' campaign said the sites had always tried to work with Prince's management. But it appeared that Prince wanted to edit his past and there was "no sign" of his lawyers backing down, she said. "He's trying to control the internet 100% and you can't do that without infringing people's freedom of speech," she added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2206461,00.html

[hazel dewhurst]

people seem too emotional about this

take a step back lower your blood pressure and see where things are next month


im sure he will be on with something else by then

:rolleyes:

[unique]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7082684.stm

Prince sites face legal threats

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44223000/jpg/_44223414_prince_getty203b.jpg Prince recently performed for 21 nights at London's O2 arena

Prince has threatened to take legal action against fan-run websites unless they remove photographs of him.
A fan group, Prince Fans United, claims the star is trying to "stifle all critical commentary" and he is in "violation of the freedom of speech".
But Web Sheriff, the UK firm the pop star has hired to enforce the ban, said it was "not an attack on fans".
In September, Prince took action against video sharing website YouTube to remove clips of his London concerts.
'Voluntary and unpaid'
He is now hoping to have any album covers, images of him in concert and any lyrics removed.
"The dispute, in so far as there is one, is related to the use of photographs and images of Prince, many of which are Prince's copyright," said John Giacobbi, managing director of Web Sheriff.
"At the end of the day it's the artist's decision as to what they're happy to let people have," he added.
However, a spokesman for Prince Fans United, who asked to remain anonymous for legal reasons, denied the sites had done anything wrong.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif The websites are run by fans, therefore it is an attack on fans http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


Prince Fans United spokesman


"We respect copyright laws always. However about 80% of the images on the websites are not copyright owned by Prince," he said.
"For example there are photos taken of him in concert where the copyright remains with the photographer."
Tight security
He said all the websites were run on a "voluntary unpaid basis" and none of the sites were a "commercial venue".
He added: "The websites are run by fans, therefore it is an attack on fans."
During Prince's recent residency at London's O2 arena, fans were banned from taking photographs or video footage on their mobile phones.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44223000/jpg/_44223500_slave_ap203b.jpg Prince publicly protested against his record company in the 1990s


Security at the concerts was tight with people's bags being searched for cameras.
But clips of the singer still appeared online.
Prince is well-known for being protective of his image.
In 1990 he fell out with his record company, Warner Brothers, over the ownership of his master tapes.
He went on to change his name and famously wrote the word "slave" on his cheek during public appearances. More recently, in the UK his most recent album, Planet Earth, was given away free with a newspaper. Several websites offered copies of the album for download as soon as the paper went on sale - despite the album being sold commercially in the rest of the world.

[joyinrepatition]

people seem too emotional about this

take a step back lower your blood pressure and see where things are next month


im sure he will be on with something else by then

:rolleyes:
I do hope your right Hazel!..but Prince does seem to be pressing the self distruct button at the moment.He spent years going on about his freedom as an artist now he is the one trying to prevent freedom of speech!! Get a grip man before we all move on and get a life!...who will keep you in shoes then?... 31it certainly wont be Chelsea Rogers!!:whip:

[The One]

Prince moves to sue fan Web sites

By Mike Collett-White


LONDON (Reuters) - Fan sites dedicated to Prince say they have been served legal notice to remove all images of the singer, his lyrics and "anything linked to Prince's likeness," and have vowed to fight what they said was censorship.

The move was a shock to his followers and came two months after Prince threatened to sue YouTube and other major Internet sites for unauthorized use of his music.
But by targeting fan sites directly, Prince risks a backlash, and the sites have vowed to unite under the banner "Prince Fans United" and take the matter to court if necessary.
"We strongly believe that such actions are in violation of ... freedom of speech and should not be allowed," said a statement from the three sites -- www.housequake.com (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/nm/music_nm/storytext/prince_fans_dc/25119621/SIG=10r4r15kt/*http://www.housequake.com), www.princefams.com (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/nm/music_nm/storytext/prince_fans_dc/25119621/SIG=10rl9nbo1/*http://www.princefams.com) and www.prince.org (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/nm/music_nm/storytext/prince_fans_dc/25119621/SIG=10naktqio/*http://www.prince.org).

A company helping Prince control his image and music on the Internet said the fan sites had spun the story so that it was "incorrect and misleading."
"At no time is Prince suing his fans and this is not about freedom of speech," said John Giacobbi, managing director of Internet policing specialist Web Sheriff.

"The current issue is one between Prince's record label and three unofficial Web sites and relates to the use of Prince trademarks and photographs, many of which are Prince's copyright," he told Reuters.

Giacobbi said Prince was expected to issue a full response to the fan sites' statement later on Wednesday.

FANS SEE THE IRONY

Prince fans were surprised at the artist's threat to sue them, pointing out that the 49-year-old was seen as a pioneer of online music distribution. He won an Internet award last year for "reshaping the relationship between artist and fan."

"The irony is that someone who has won that award is now challenging the very ethos of the Internet," said a spokesman for Prince Fans United.
He added: "The intention of this is to drum up public support, not to damage him. The fan groups want peace, they don't want war."

The sites, now featuring an image of a hand print with "pfu" written on it, said the singer had demanded the removal of fans' photographs of Prince-inspired tattoos and vehicles displaying Prince-inspired license plates.

They urged Prince to reconsider his decision, but vowed to defend their position in court if need be.

"The law clearly provides for displaying of images of a celebrity's likeness for newsworthy events or matters which are considered to be public interest," they said.
Prince, behind hit albums "Purple Rain" and "Sign O' The Times," is known as a maverick in the music business.

He performed with the word "SLAVE" scrawled across his cheek in protest against his then record label and changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol.

Prince also gave his "Planet Earth" album away free with a British Sunday newspaper earlier this year, infuriating music retailers but winning plaudits from fans for innovation.
(Editing by Paul Casciato)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071107/music_nm/prince_fans_dc;_ylt=AiTrprJnA7iJAS7xb58tDV2VEhkF

[The One]

PRINCE IMAGE BAN STORY WAS 'EXAGGERATED'

A company working on behalf of PRINCE has accused fans of exaggerating a story which claims the singer (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/prince%20image%20ban%20story%20was%20exaggerated_1 049253#) has ordered them to remove any image that bears his likeness from their websites.

The singer's record company has hired internet monitoring company Web (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/prince%20image%20ban%20story%20was%20exaggerated_1 049253#) Sheriff to protect the Purple Rain star from internet copyright infringement - and they insist the fan sites have made the situation sound a lot worse than it actually is.

The pop superstar angered many of his supporters after he was reported to have slapped an image ban on several high profile fan websites forbidding them to use any unauthorised pictures of him. The outraged websites joined forces to form Prince Fans United in protest and have vowed to fight any legal action. But Web Sheriff insist Prince himself has nothing to do with the lawsuit threat - it is the work of record label.

Web Sheriff's managing director, John Giacobbi, says, "At no time is Prince suing his fans and this is not about freedom of speech. "The current issue is one between Prince's record label and three unofficial web sites and relates to the use of Prince trademarks and photographs, many of which are Prince's copyright."

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/prince%20image%20ban%20story%20was%20exaggerated_1 049253

[unique]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/gallery/2007/nov/07/princefashion?picture=331185442

Hey, Prince fans...
Enjoy looking at your favourite singer's colourful costumes, but don't want to get sued (http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html)? Don't fret: Guardian Unlimited Music has put together a gallery of some of his best outfits for you to peruse without having to worry about a lawsuit.

[joyinrepatition]

Really guys all we want to do is enjoy his music look at video's and pictures, and chat to like minded people.
And whats wrong with that!! ......the publicity on this story has (hopefully )run it's coarse.
It's all getting a bit tiresome now!...I for one would like to concentrate on what we already know ,which is we have adoration for this guy and his musical genius!!!..
That should be the focus....anything else is out of our control...what will be will be!...untill all the facts come out then I reserve jugement on this topic.
So untill then it's business as usual...what do you think???? :wondering:

[The One]

Prince Releases Diss Track As Battle With Fans Gets Funky

11/9/07, 2:14 pm EST


As you may have read (http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/11/06/prince-attempts-to-alienate-entire-fanbase-in-one-fell-swoop/), as part of their copyright crusade, Prince’s legal staff recently demanded that all images of the Purple One be removed from specific fan Web pages. Several sites banded together to form Prince Fans United (http://princefansunited.com/?ref=org-hp-img), there was a brief pause in the action and now … a diss track.

In response, Prince registered the Web domain name “Princefamsunited.com (http://www.princefamsunited.com/)” and posted a seven-minute funk jam called “PFUnk,” alerting fans to its presence on fan site message boards. The song makes no secret of its target: “The only reason you say my name is to get your fifteen seconds of fame, nobody’s even sure what you do,” Prince sings. “I don’t care what people may say, I ain’t gonna let it ruin my day.” Toward the end, Prince tells his fans, in his famed helium-like “Camille” voice, “I love all y’all, don’t you ever mess with me no more,” before taking out all his anger on his guitar. Prince goes as far as calling one person, likely a member of the PFU, “a big fat punk,” and threatens someone called “Weemolicious” by singing “Look here Weemolicious, you and your boyfriend, lemme tell you somethin’ right now, you run up on me again with words or otherwise, I’mma knock both you punks out.” He also sings that he wants digital music to “disappear.”

How did the fans, and the PFU, take to the diss track? With open arms and, surprisingly, dropped jaws. As one poster on the Housequake.com board said, echoing the general response, “It really is head and shoulders above anything on [Planet Earth] or 3121.” Another poster thought they discovered an unearthed B-side from 1987, if not for the topical lyrics. Even the union that gets the brunt of Prince’s bile, the PFU, celebrated the track they helped inspire.

Still, the question remains: Why did Prince’s team target specific Web sites and ask for photos of everything from Prince-inspired tattoos to album-cover images to be removed? Could it be that the sites penalized were bootlegging and file sharing concerts, or diverting traffic from Prince’s official site, 3121.com? Avera denies both claims, saying there’s no file sharing on the boards, and that all the sites route traffic to 3121.com when possible. The sites in question claim they were singled out because they operate message boards that are sometimes critical of the star. Prince does have a history of unleashing his purple wrath on online boards: He terminated the NPG Music Club’s message board, an official paid service for diehard fans, shortly after the release of 2001’s Musicology. “I signed in one day, everything was fine,” Karen Avera, spokesperson for PFU and Housequake moderator, said. “The next day I went and everything was gone. No warning.” Avera speculates negative reactions to the album on the board — which is similar to some of the fan criticism Prince’s Planet Earth received just a few months ago — was to blame.

The fan sites say they have always cooperated with the Paisley Park lawyers — that is, until now. When fan photos of Prince’s London concert marathon started surfacing on message boards, the lawyers asked that the photos be removed and replaced with shots provided by Prince-hired photographers. The fan sites gladly replaced the pictures. Now, however, the lawyers are demanding those photos be taken down. To date, Housequake.com has not removed the images, and since the site is based in Holland, Avera is unsure of whether the cease-and-desist letters are within their jurisdiction.

When Rolling Stone talked to John Giocobbi, the Managing Director of copyright protection agency Web Sheriff, regarding Prince’s battle with YouTube (http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/09/14/princes-message-to-everyone-stop-bootlegging-my-stuff/), Giocobbi said, “Prince has always been a very independently minded artist and kind of bold and pioneering in a way. It goes back largely to the kind of promise he had with Warner Bros., when he lost the right to use his own name and then he became The Artist Formerly Known As. And once he recovered his scars from that battle, he was a lot more savvy as a result of that too. And he’s a lot more kind of protective about his rights.” When asked whether the Web Sheriff is just going after illegal bootlegging of Prince videos, Giocobbi admitted that, “In essence we’re going after everything, which is why it’s kind of pioneering.”

As far as Avera is concerned, those message boards are going nowhere. “Oh, we’re going to keep the message boards,” Avera promises, “because the boards go far beyond just talking about Prince’s music. It’s a connection where a lot of people worldwide have come together to talk and make friendships.” Despite feeling unappreciated, and the threat of a looming lawsuit, Avera swears that she, and the PFU, will remain Prince fans. “With everything that’s going on, we continue to listen to his music. We’ll continue to buy his music, because we appreciate his music.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/11/09/prince-releases-diss-track-as-battle-with-fans-gets-funky/

[joyinrepatition]

Let's hope we see an end to all this soon !!...all this you kick my ass and ill kick yours ass is suerly detremental to both parties, all us fans want to do is celibrate his music and enjoy all things which are PRINCE......what do you think!!!

[unique]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/30/fashion/02fans650.3.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/fashion/02fans.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Pout and Shout

Jeff Swensen for The New York Times

I QUIT Mia Piazza, 9, in her Hannah Montana costume, wants out of an official fan club.



Members of mileyworld.com (http://mileyworld.com/), mostly preteen and young teenage girls devoted to the Disney TV show “Hannah Montana” and the show’s star, Miley Cyrus (http://movies.nytimes.com/person/376879/Destiny-Miley-Cyrus?inline=nyt-per), are suing the singer’s official fan Web site for allegedly promising them first dibs on concert tickets and leaving them empty-handed.
“I really don’t want to be in the fan club anymore,” said one of the plaintiffs, Mia Piazza, a 9-year-old from Pittsburgh.
Over in the principality of Prince, subjects are also rebelling. Three fan Web sites have banded together as “Prince Fans United” to fight the music performer’s attempts to stop them from posting photos and other content related to him.
One of the sites declared: “We at prince.org (http://prince.org/) will not stand for this and have joined forces with the other affected sites to tell our side of the story and stand up to what are, in our opinion, bullying tactics designed to silence freedom of speech.”
By definition, members of fan clubs are passionate, but these days they also seem cranky and some are even at war with the performers they supposedly slavishly admire. Fan clubs today are online communities that vent on Internet message boards and gripe directly to performers about everything, including song lists, merchandise and the prices and availability of tickets. And when sounding off is met by dead air, fans sue, complain to consumer protection agencies and even plot concerted action on a global scale.
"There’s all kinds of ways to be indignant," said Jerry M. Lewis, an emeritus professor of sociology at Kent State University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/k/kent_state_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org), who studies fan behavior.
Ticket woes are a major source of anger. Average ticket prices for concerts keep rising, and many fans are priced out or forced to buy at exorbitant markups from brokers and other resellers. Last year, some Barbra Streisand (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/barbra_streisand/index.html?inline=nyt-per) fans were fuming when they learned she was staging her final concert tour — this after they had already paid steep prices for her previous, supposedly, last-ever tour in 2000. (The average ticket cost nearly $300, according to Pollstar, a concert trade magazine ).
But Streisand fans are not unique. When any hot concert tour is announced, some fans are already seething.
“The attitude is, “How am I going to get taken advantage of this time?’” said Tim McQuaid, the president of Fan Asylum, a company that manages fan clubs, ticket sales and V.I.P. packages for artists such as Maroon 5 (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/maroon_5/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and Whitney Houston (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/whitney_houston/index.html?inline=nyt-per).
Fans often join a performer’s “official” fan club for the specific benefit of having access to tickets before they go on sale to the general public. But some of the fan clubs have become suspect — serving mainly as a profit center, charging membership fees that can reach more than $100 and making even more money selling “exclusive” merchandise and other items.
Mr. McQuaid, who has been managing fan clubs since 1980, beginning with the band Journey, said when the mission shifts from an emphasis on service to one of revenue, “You’re just asking for trouble from the fan base.”
Some MileyWorld members want their membership money back. They are suing the two companies that run the club for the artist, Interactive Media Marketing and Smiley Miley, which is owned by Ms. Cyrus.
Although MileyWorld has benefits like exclusive “webisodes” of the singer backstage, contests, games and access to her “secret diary,” it was the offer “to do our best” to secure an allotment of concert tickets for members that persuaded Mia’s mother, Debbie Piazza, to let her daughter join the club for $29.95.
Ms. Piazza, 32, who works for U.S. Steel adjusting invoices, said she had joined fan sites for Kenny Chesney and Bon Jovi to buy concert tickets and was successful in both cases. But with MileyWorld, she said, she found no tickets even when she logged on to Ticketmaster at the exact time they went on sale.
In defense, Miss Cyrus’s representatives said that 70,000 of MileyWorld’s 200,000 members were able to buy tickets, and issued a public statement: “MileyWorld members had far greater access to concert tickets than the general public and other fan clubs. The claim that the vast majority of MileyWorld members were unable to obtain concert tickets is simply false. MileyWorld will vigorously defend itself from the frivolous claims in the lawsuit.”
Robert Peirce, the lawyer suing on behalf of members, said the site should have revealed the size of the membership at each concert location so that fans could have figured out their chances and made an informed decision about whether to fork over almost $30.
“I felt I was misled,” Ms. Piazza said. “All I want is my $30 back and I hope they put some kind of disclaimer so it doesn’t happen to somebody else again.”
Fans have long come together in another type of club — the free unofficial sites used to trade information about tickets and the artist. Most exist harmoniously with the official sites. But the informal sites can develop existences of their own, with members as loyal to each other as to the artist.
On their Web site, the leaders of Prince Fans United say they believe the performer is using copyright concerns to hide his real goal: “to stifle all critical commentary about Prince.”



Calls to AEG Live, the singer’s promoter, and to the Web Sheriff, the copyright enforcement company handling Prince’s cease-and-desist notices, were not returned. The fan sites, based in California and Europe, said they were negotiating a resolution and couldn’t comment on the dispute, but their message boards have not demonstrated noticeable new restraint.

As a fan wrote to prince.org: “The more I think about it, I say just drop him, remove all content, let him have his way. It’s obvious he doesn’t want us as fans anymore, so why should we want him?”
Ben Margolin, 36, a software engineering manager from Millbrae, Calif., said he became a founder of prince.org 10 years ago because “I really connected with his music.” But now the site functions more as an international social network where people discuss politics and other topics, he said.
“People stay for the community that’s evolved, the personalities and environment,” he said. “It’s a virtual hang-out.”
Andrea Baker, an associate professor of sociology at Ohio University who specializes in online relationships and is studying two fan sites dedicated to the Rolling Stones (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/rolling_stones/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said that with communication comes the ability not only to swap intelligence but to complain collectively.
Ms. Baker said many fans are encouraged to gripe by the assumption that their favorite artists may be tuning in to their boards.
“There’s a closer connection between the fan and the performer,” she said. “Some of the assertiveness comes from their knowing they are being heard.”
Once all fans expected was an autographed picture, but now many demand blogs, MySpace (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/myspace_com/index.html?inline=nyt-org) pages and V.I.P access to the artist, some fan club managers say.
“Before, an artist could do a concert and disappear into the ether,” said Nathan Hubbard, the chief executive officer of Musictoday, a subsidiary of Live Nation that manages fan sites for 30 artists, including John Mayer, Celine Dion (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/celine_dion/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and the Rolling Stones. “Today fans expect you to be present and the connection doesn’t stop when the artist leaves the stage.”
Performers, he said, must be clear about what they will do. “If you underdeliver, the Internet gives everybody an equal voice.”
But almost anything can spark fan ire. A group of Clay Aiken fans fired off a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission last year accusing his record label of false advertising for promoting him as heterosexual. Mr. Aiken, who has faced relentless rumors that he is gay, does not talk about his sexuality. The F.T.C. has taken no action.
“People will complain about everything,” said Tim Bierman, the manager of Pearl Jam’s Ten Club, which is run in-house by the band. “We might hear a whole day’s worth of criticism about a particular shade of color for a T-shirt.”
But fan club managers say artists are aware that fan clubs are their most loyal audience and strive to reward them. The Ten Club offers members perks like an exclusive new single at Christmas.
And Ms. Baker said that despite all the griping, fans are still fans. When Keith Richards fell from a tree and was injured last year, she said, “there was an outpouring of concern” on boards. “The fans were very preoccupied with finding out every detail of what happened,” she said.
Even Ms. Piazza is trying to find tickets for Ms. Cyrus’s concert in Pittsburgh on Jan. 4, four days before her daughter Mia’s 10th birthday. She checks three or four times a day with Ticketmaster, hoping a corporate sponsor has released a batch of tickets. And she test-drove a car from a dealership in order to be eligible for a drawing for tickets.
Mia says the ticket snafu has not soured her on her favorite artist.
“No matter what, I’ll always be her fan,” she said. “I just love her music.”