Is it because of Ivan Ooze's purple-ness?

Is it because Prince earned the disrespect??

100% Wolf Urine

What has he done to earn disrespect beyond his copyright protection stuff?

His copyright protection stuff was not evil. "HOW DARE HE DEMAND PAYMENT FOR HIS ART. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR MUSIC OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENTERTAINMENT THAT CAN BE DOWNLOADED ONLINE!!!!"
He stood against piracy for the sake of his artistic integrity and to protect him and other artists. He took a stand against streaming services that pay artists hardly anything for their music.

I think it was because he was in the Illuminati.

Or maybe because he made this movie. How is this movie so much worse than the show? How did they accomplish that in one child actor? The kid from Troll2 should be happy he's not this kid.

hey Cena:
www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/prince-inducted-takedown-hall-sh ame-new-lifetime-aggrievement-award

shut the fuck up

Those aren't abuses. They may be Vine videos, but they're still unauthorized recordings of his concerts. Sure it's cool to let folks shoot at your concert, but it's still his right to stop it. It is you who needs an attitude adjustment.

I didn't realize until after his passing, but Prince's career shares a lot of parallels with Bill Watterson's. An artist who showed exceptional talent in numerous styles, years of widespread output followed by years of relative reclusivity, a bitter fight to wrest creative control from a publisher... heck, even the subsequent strident copyright policing of his own material, even against fans.

Also if that article was any more self-satisfying and slanted I'd think I was watching Battlefield Earth again.

Thank you Sanest Man Alive, you're truly living up to your name. That was a lame and slanted article. Thatguy should team up with the Nostalgia Critic and cry over "abuses".

I can see that you really fully considered what the EFF's specific objections to each of those DMCA complaints were.

You are a circumspect and intellectually virtuous young man, Cena.

I think you've earned the reward of humping your fist.

What does the phrase, "unauthorized recording" mean? Why is it "his right to stop it"?

Recordings of audio or video that are not authorized by Prince. For fucks sake people you know you're not supposed to record video inside of a movie theater, and that rule often applies to concert venues. You also wouldn't steal a car.

But WHY are you not supposed to? Define "steal".

The problem is, words like "rights", "stealing", and most importantly, "property" itself, all have meanings. I think you'll find that, if you define your terms and examine the issues more carefully, Prince's fraudulent arguments will be revealed for the nonsense they were.

No. I have a pretty good knowledge on the subject of copyright and intellectual property laws. Prince may have been overbearing and petty in enforcing his copyrights against Vine users, but it was still his right to do so. The word "abuse", however, is inapropriate for this case.

Yes, you certainly have knowledge of our unjust legal system as it has operated for the last decade or so, I won't dispute that, but the real issue here is the fact that copyright and intellectual property laws are unjust legal fictions, based upon philosophically untenable premises. Again, please define "steal". What exactly was being "stolen"? What precisely did Prince have "a right" to control, and why?

I understand some of the unjust nature of modern copyright laws, but that's mostly due to the Mickey Mouse laws. The original point of copyright laws was to encourage artists in that they'd be able to make money off their creations during their lifetimes. I believe they have an important role in helping artists, as long as they fit their original lifetime intentions.
What's being stolen is his concert experience. He won't sell as many tickets if people are watching the footage on Vine for free. It's his concert, he sets up the rules for the attendees and one of those rules is no recording. By buying those tickets the concert goers are consenting to his rules.

So let me ask you this. Let's say you go to a Prince concert, you watch the show, and you have a great time. Then, after you go home, you start thinking about the concert, remembering it.

Do you owe Prince royalties over your memories? Have you stolen something of Prince's each and every time you reminisce about that magical night?

The point here being that, even IF we accept that Prince has rights over the concert experience, that only means he has rights _over the concert experience_. The concert experience is a service that exists only in a fleeting moment of time. *Memories* are not the concert experience, they are memories. *Recordings* are not the concert experience, they are recordings. While Prince may well be within his rights to profit off of the moments he is performing on stage (such as by selling tickets and merchandise), those moments are literally just those moments - nothing else. And unless you're going to argue that fans owe Prince money over any memories they might have of him, there's really no way around that.

As for concert-goers "consenting to his rules", that's a matter of terms of service; that's different from both enforced copyright law and philosophically-grounded natural law! That's a whole barrel of cider-apples in itself, and should perhaps be set to the side for the moment.

Maybe they don't consent, but its established that by going to the show you're to follow the rules. Otherwise they get thrown out.

Again, that's a terms of service matter - different issue, different discussion. Don't eat the cider-apples before the regular apples are done!

Do you owe Prince royalties over your memories?

There is a difference between memories and video that's distributed online.

So are you saying "no"? If so, then why not?

I'm saying there's a huge difference. Taking your own photos or even videos is far different than putting video footage online. Prince didn't like that one bit. It's theft of his intellectual property, and he was very much in the right to take it down. You don't stand for forgeries and plagiarism. How would you feel if someone was stealing CWC's work?

I'm still trying to understand your definition of the word "steal".

If you are reminscing about Prince, tehn I say that you are stealing from him. If you disagree with this, explain to me why I am wrong.

I use no different definition for steal than the dictionary. Theft. Reminiscing isn't theft, but unauthorized use of copyrighted material is.

Why isn't reminiscing theft? If you're reminiscing about copyrighted material, and he didn't authorize you to use his material in that way, wouldn't that be theft?

Cause that's absurd. That's thought crime, thought isn't tangible.