A Nation of Thieves?

Something happened on the way 2 the 21st century. Media and entertainment companies started “converging” and “shareholder value” became far more important than customer service and respect 4 company employees ever managed 2 b. Compensation packages 4 company xecutives hit the stratosphere — while holding them accountable 4 their company’s results became nearly impossible.

These xecutives r indeed very naïve if they think that people haven’t noticed.

People r noticing that something isn’t quite right — that something is indeed very wrong. After a decade during which the stock market gained apparent respectability as a legitimate, sensible 4m of investing, the recent slew of huge corporate scandals reveals that it is still what it has always been: a sick place where neurotic, puerile gamblers get their kicks off the backs of millions of “anonymous” workers and individuals, who have no control over what happens 2 their hard-earned retirement savings.

Yet this is the place that most company xecutives feel is much more important 2 watch than the actual people 4 whom they produce their goods and services. This is the place where the fate of thousands of employees is decided every day by people staring at computer monitors showing ever-changing, meaningless lists of numbers and charts. And if u happen 2 personally hold shares in a company that has just announced that it is “restructuring” in order 2 improve its bottom-line and thus increase its “shareholder value”, don’t kid urself: When the company is talking about “shareholders”, it’s not talking about u and ur measly couple of thousands of shares. It’s only talking about big shareholders — i.e. other companies that own a more significant share of its market value.

This is a world where “hostile takeovers” and government-approved “mergers” r feeding a never-ending cycle of fewer and fewer xecutives wielding more and more power on a multinational scale. Soon enough, the “World Company” and George Orwell’s 1984 will no longer b the stuff of satire or fiction — but prophetic descriptions of a very real “New World Order” gradually unfolding b4 r eyes.

A Little History

Let’s start with a simple list: America Online, Time, Life, Warner Bros., Fortune, Elektra, Sports Illustrated, HBO, Turner Broadcasting, CNN, Cinemax, Entertainment Weekly, New Line Cinema, In Style, Warner/Chappell Music, Time Warner Cable, WBN, ICQ, Warner Music Group, Netscape, People, Reprise, Rhino, Atlantic, WEA, TNT, MapQuest, WinAmp, In Demand, Erato, Moviefone, Road Runner, etc. All owned by the same corporate giant (AOL Time Warner).

And another one: Universal Music Group, Verve, Nathan, Canal+, Impulse!, Cegetel, USA Networks, Decca, Interscope, Geffen, A&M, Barclay, Armand Colin, L’Express, Universal Studios, Larousse, Sierra, MP3.com, MCA Records, Deutsche Grammophon, Cineplex, etc. All owned by the same corporate giant (Vivendi Universal).

And yet another one: Disney, ABC, ESPN, Hyperion, Miramax, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, A&E, The History Channel, E! Entertainment, RTL-2, Buena Vista, Mr. Showbiz, Wall of Sound, Mammoth Records, etc. All owned by the same corporate giant (Walt Disney).

Need we say more? See 4 urself… There’s already only 7 of these corporate giants in total — and how long will it b b4 there r even fewer?

It all began innocently enough. Young entrepreneurs in the early 20th century started up new companies with a mix of creative ambition and business acumen. Then these companies grew bigger and bigger, and whatever entrepreneurial vision was present at their birth became more and more diluted and less and less relevant. Then corporate accountants suggested merging with or taking over other companies — and it all became an all-2-real game of Monopoly.

Then the Internet and “new technologies” came about, and the accountants’ next big idea was convergence — i.e. the merging of “content” providers and “access” providers in order 2 control everything from the inception of a “cultural product” 2 its ultimate consumption by the unsuspecting masses.

The Art of Manipulation

It is easy 2 guess what got lost along the way… Creativity. Artistry. Independence. Critical objectivity. Uncontrolled access. The ability 2 “break thru” cultural barriers. Cultural diversity. Innovation. Freedom. Real music. Real art.

Juggling between art and commerce is a delicate balance at the best of times… and these r definitely NOT the best of times.

So now we have a so-called magazine “reporting” on the latest new blockbuster movie with a 10-page, full-color spread — as if the reporters weren’t aware that the same company that produced the movie also owns their magazine… Yes, this is still called a “magazine”. These r still called “reporters”. And this is still called “journalism”… And yet millions of people r gleefully letting themselves b had.

Maybe we should stop calling this “art”, or even “entertainment” 4 that matter — 4 what is so entertaining about being involved in a collective hallucination? Maybe we should start calling it what it really is, i.e. unfettered MANIPULATION.

In 1995, Clear Channel Communications owned 43 radio stations. Now it owns more than 1,200 — and its army of so-called “independent promoters” r letting legalized payola dictate what u get (or rather don’t get) 2 hear on the radio.

Everywhere u look, the story is the same: more and more money, less and less choice, less and less freedom of access, fewer and fewer companies. How far will this have 2 go b4 a big shift in people’s attitude causes this commercial hubris 2 collapse on2 itself and implode?

Power Struggles

The first major cracks in this highly concentrated corporate world have, of course, already begun 2 appear, in what has been making the headlines in the past few months, i.e. shady accounting practices involving enormous amounts of money — enough 2 shake the economy of the most powerful nation of the world. And the hysterical stock markets have of course been swayed by this news, at the xpense of tens of thousands of workers worldwide and millions of small investors who thought that their holdings had nowhere 2 go but up.

The value of AOL Time Warner’s stock is now a quarter of what it was at the time of the merger between AOL and Time Warner, and this decline 4ced the company 2 take a $54 billion writedown earlier this year. And now it 2 is being investigated about its accounting practices. The story at Vivendi Universal is similar. Disney shares r near an 8-year low. And there is little doubt in people’s mind that the problems r similar everywhere, in every big conglomerate that has become utterly out of touch with the reality of everyday work and the essence of human creativity.

In addition, people also realize all 2 well that governments have little — if any — power left when it comes 2 regulating these multinational monsters. Governments have much more power when it comes 2 regulating the lives of ordinary, law-abiding citizens — and they use and abuse this power as a way 2 distract people’s attention from how much control the conglomerates have over what we get 2 hear, watch, read, eat, drink, buy, and generally xperience as “free” citizens of the world.

One of the areas where this struggle is most acutely felt is, of course, the online world — a sprawling, anarchic community that is still in its infancy and whose xponential development in the last decade took everyone by surprise. And nothing xemplifies the struggle between government, big business, and individual rights better than the highly controversial issue of “peer-2-peer” file sharing and its many digital variations.

A Nation of Thieves?

Will the media/technology giants recover from the latest stock market slump? They probably will — but at what cost? In all likelihood, the cost will b more “restructuring”, more layoffs, more xecutive shuffles and golden parachutes, causing even further alienation from their own employees and customers. And this, in turn, will further encourage the very behaviors that they claim r illegal and want punished by criminal law — all the while preserving their own impunity as they continue 2 carelessly flounder a capital that they do not own.

Napster may have gone bankrupt and become a closed chapter in the Internet’s short history, but its death is by no means a reflection of a decline in peer-2-peer (P2P) file sharing, quite the contrary. If anything, P2P has grown even further — but since it’s becoming totally decentralized, there is no easy way 2 measure its significance.

What is 4 sure, however, is that, in spite of its many claims 2 the contrary, the recording industry has yet 2 provide evidence that P2P is actually detrimental 2 music making as an artistic endeavor, and even as a commercial venture. It is worth remembering, 4 xample, that sales of music CDs actually increased when Napster was at its peak, and declined after Napster was abruptly shut down. Even economists who thought that file sharing “should b” hurting the recording industry r now xpressing their doubts, based on what they say is simply not happening.

More importantly, many well-respected artists have sided with Internet users against corporate greed and actually use the Internet 2 promote alternative ways 2 distribute their music and reach out 2 a non-captive, legitimate audience of authentic music lovers.

This does not mean, of course, that all 4ms of file sharing r equally innocuous. There is little doubt that, when people use the Internet as a substitute 4 radio, i.e. as a way 2 discover new music, it can help promote the work of artists. But when a young junior high school student downloads tracks off the Internet and makes CD-R copies of them that he then sells 4 $5 in the schoolyard, it hurts sales of the original CD and it’s disrespectful of the artist — regardless of how small a cut of the actual CD price the artist actually gets after all the xecutives and the middlemen in the recording industry have taken their piece of the pie.

Still, can we really go as far as 2 say that digital technology is creating a “nation of thieves” who no longer recognize the just value of art?

Protecting the Product

It is worth noting, 2 begin with, that the recording industry itself is far from having distinguished itself by recognizing the true value of art. Instead, it has consistently fought 2 b allowed 2 deprive many artists of their most fundamental rights. It has allowed popular artists 2 go bankrupt even though their albums were selling by the millions. It has reduced the artists’ cut of the album sales pie 2 a ridiculously small portion of the actual income generated by these sales. It has consistently pushed commercial musical products at the xpense of real musical artistry.

This hardly entitles the recording industry 2 lecture anyone about recognizing the just value of art.

It is also interesting 2 note that the cultural products that seem 2 b the primary concern of the industry giants r those that r already the most popular ones, and that things such as CD copy protection r being xperimentally used mostly with items that will sell millions regardless of whether they r copy-protected or not.

So r most citizens really being completely disrespectful of the value of art and the need 2 provide appropriate compensation 2 the artists 4 their works? We’ve said it b4 and we’ll say it again: the rise of digital technology and peer-2-peer file sharing has little 2 do with people’s intrinsic respect 4 art and artists, and everything 2 do with the cynical attitude of big industry conglomerates, which have consistently pushed 4 more and more commercial, highly profitable products at the xpense of authentic art and respect 4 artists.

If people do not feel enough guilt 2 prevent them from making digital copies of the latest episode of a popular TV show or hit pop song, it is precisely because the industry giants have succeeded in making these works purely commercial products, with little or no consideration 4 their actual artistic value. It is precisely because these companies have been consistently promoting commercial products at the xpense of artistic works.

The fact that actual works of art still manage 2 seep thru the cracks of this huge profit-driven industry does not change anything about the fundamental equations that have been driving and still drive the industry, 2day more than ever — i.e. that art = money, artists = money-makers, and art lovers = consumers.

As a simple xample of how little music is valued as an art 4m by the industry, it is estimated that only about 20 percent of music ever recorded is currently available — and, of this 20 percent, what proportion is actually readily available 2 music lovers? What proportion is not the current 100 top albums on the SoundScan charts?

It simply appears that the instinctive reaction of the lover of art (b it music, TV shows, movies, or other 4ms of art) is such that, if the industry has no respect 4 his or her identity as an appreciator of art, then he or she has no reason 2 have any respect 4 the industry as a purveyor of art. By making digital copies of so-called cultural products, many people r not demonstrating their lack of respect 4 art and 4 artists, but r xpressing — consciously or not — their frustration with the way the entertainment industry profits from art at the xpense of both art makers and art lovers.

The consumers of the commercial products of the entertainment industry r only as cynical as the industry has deliberately made them, by dumbing down their products, by xploiting artists, by making profit-driven choices and decisions, and by providing their own kind with obscene compensations and legal impunity that r completely out of touch with the real world of ordinary people.

Don’t Get It Twisted

That being said, the whole debate about file sharing and digital piracy is, most of all, a convenient way 4 industry conglomerates 2 deflect attention from their own shady business practices and dubious alliances.

4 xample, it is worth noting that the Warner Music Group is heavily involved in the recording industry’s fight against piracy, but that its own parent company, AOL Time Warner, is directly benefiting from file sharing, as a provider of Internet access 2 millions of Internet users worldwide. When AOL Time Warner repeatedly flaunts its ever-increasing number of members (34 million and counting) and the billions of hours that they spend online, is there any doubt that a good part of this growth involves the “unlawful” xchange of computer files at the detriment of recording artists?

In other words, the real “thieves” r not necessarily those that r currently getting the blame… Rather than a “nation of thieves”, the current situation looks, 2 us, much more like an “elite of thieves”.

And the real victims of this thievery r very much, as usual, the recording artists themselves, who will never get their share of AOL’s profits as an Internet access provider, even though these profits r partly based on the content that they originally provided. And the real victims also include authentic music lovers, who already suffer from restricted access 2 the full range of music that they would like 2 xplore, and who r also likely 2 suffer from technological restrictions that will soon prevent them from making legitimate copies of the works that they have lawfully purchased 4 their own enjoyment.

Make no mistake: the entertainment industry (including TV, movies and music) might b big, but the technology industry is even bigger. Remember that it is AOL that bought Time Warner, and not the other way around. Remember that Sony makes much more money in electronics and computer equipment than it does in record sales…

If the technology industry ends up implementing technological limitations that prevent users from lawfully enjoying their purchases — as it is threatening 2 do — the beneficiaries will not b the artists whose works r thus being allegedly “protected”. And it will certainly not b the art lovers whose enjoyment of art will thus b restricted. No, it will simply b, once again… the industry conglomerates, who will have yet another generation of incompatible media and devices 2 sell 2 us under the guise of “technological improvement”.

Conclusion

The technology and entertainment industries r simply 2 big 4 us 2 xpect any overnight changes. The industry giants will continue 2 do their best 2 deflect people’s attention away from their own wrongdoings and 2 blame falling profits and commercial failures on piracy at the same time that they r encouraging their customers 2 adopt the very technologies that make piracy possible. Artists will continue 2 b lured by unrealistic promises and contracts with big numbers and lots of small print.

How long, however, b4 a critical mass of established artists realize that it is in their best interests, both artistically and commercially, 2 leave the system 4 good? How long b4 a critical mass of young aspiring artists become aware of the enslaving aspects of the system and r careful not 2 get involved in it without a maximum of precautions? And how long b4 a critical mass of art lovers get 2gether 2 provide these artists with a real, valuable, legitimate, truthfully enthusiastic alternative audience that completes the process of rendering the xisting system artistically irrelevant?

It all depends on us — and it all depends on u.

That was an excellent essay, but I don't like all the '2's, '4's, 'b's and so on. If these were changed so as not to look like internet ebonics, this essay could be very fitting to send to senators, and other leaders.

if you want someone to listen to you, you shouldn't write like a 12-year-old girl on AOL....

just my 2 cents..

Hey, people, that's Prince. That's been Prince for 25 years. Deal with it.

And this was indeed an excellent read. I think Prince is one of the few artists who's always had good sense (as well as talent).

hehe, you're right,

it actually was a really good essay

why doesn't somebody take a search and replace to it????

Ah but then it wouldn't be Prince.

I h8 people who post ncrypted messages n order 2 get their point across.

and here I thought this was on purpose in response to the ebonics backlash in the forum and shoutbox lately
'sup wid dat?

damn people... i liked the essay... i just don't like all the b's 4's 2's and whatnot. I have never read anything Prince has written in his 25 years, so I don't give a rat's @$$ if that is how he writes, it's still annoying to me... so deal with it if I say something about it.

I couldn't agree more with the criticism of the childish pseudo-English. I've been trying my hardest to inform and get people to take this whole series of issues seriously by writing to (and voting out) their congressmen, etc. I am active in many discussion groups and civil foundations and desperately want to point those types of people to a serious site where they can be informed and empowered.

I had hoped boycott-riaa was it - specially after reading the well written piece at ExtremeTech. But childish presentation of writing like this (I haven't read the piece because it "looks" so amateur...) just makes this site go to waste - it turns off any professional over the age of 25 that might possibly *be* influenced to help the cause.

I have full respect for anyone who can write well and influence others with their thoughts, specially when it is such an important topic as this. If Prince is indeed such a writer, its a complete shame that the influence he may have had is fully lost on the very people most likely to help the cause. There was another news piece on this site a few days ago that had the same spelling and grammar "problems".

I implore the admins here to change the sometimes childish feel of this very important site. Until then, I'm forced to de-link this site from all of my correspondence - it just turns too many people off, and worse, makes them disregard the entire set of issues. Until its too late.

I apologize to Prince - I'm sure you *are* a wonderful writer. I just hope you think about the people you want to attract to your cause in future writings.

Elrond Pazal

Wait a minute boycott-riaa takes the heat because of the way Prince writes? Hmmm..

Please, give me a break, why all the negativity about the 2's and 4's, I think is fine, stick to the point of the writer, or would you also criticize Shakespeare because of it's old English grammar?

...or complain about e.e. cummings or James Joyce. After reading the usage of language in our responses to these articles, we should be the last to complain.

I don't agree with the guy who said badly of the letter or this site because of the 2's and 4's, but I criticize the way it was presented. It is a WONDERFUL essay, but NO ONE would take it seriously because of the way Prince chooses to write. If he tried to send that to an official of anything they would just laugh and throw the letter in the trash. It shows a disrespect to the English language, which professionals do not appreciate. I am not trying to rant about this, nor am I trying to say everyone should write perfectly, but with such a flawlessly worded statement, the 2's and 4's only muck up its purpose and its seriousness to those that would read it for those reasons.

ANYWAY, I didn't mean to start a whole debate about this... if you read my original post, I said it was a great essay, but I didn't like the 2's and 4's. This is not a website about 2's and 4's, it is about people coming together to resist the copyright industry, and more specifically, the RIAA. Lets end this stupid thing and get on with our reason for being here.

Scott,

I am humbled by your subsequent response. It is exactly the sentiment I was trying to express. But I now realize my own response failed to do this and was itself written poorly. I guess that's why I am not a column writer.

I apologize again to Prince: I don't want him to think in any way I dislike the substance of his work. Indeed, I just finished reading it and it *is* an excellent piece. It is only the style of its presentation that diminishes its influence, at least on the people I would have otherwise sent here to read it. I still firmly hope boycott-riaa takes a more professional editorial stance: like every successful and organized protest site does. Old-English is fine for a play or nightly reading, but organized resistance must be of professional calibre today to be effective.

Thanks Scott - for wording my thoughts better than I (probably again).

Elrond Pazal

Thanks Scott, and Elrond for the follow up,
as I wanted to present the article exactly as it was written.

Funny, I thought this article was supposed to open up dialogue about the entertainment industry and p2p, not how to use (or not use) the English language...yeah, I admit, the reading does become a bit muddled when you have to go through the b's and 4's and such, but as milladrive said, it's Prince. I think the important thing here is that he got his point across, b's and 4's or otherwise, and a damn fine point it was.

To tell everyone the truth, I don't agree with Scott. This is NOT a site for people to come and resist the copyright industry. It has turned into such, and lost a certain amount of flavour.

I don't think it should go back to being a warez site, when MP3s were considered as such, most major warez sites have bombed and probably for good reason. The point of this site is more the appreciation of independent music. A bastion where artists could post their works for both promotion of their wares (without the 'z') and to hope for appreciation from an audience of other musicians and people who want to hear something different and fresh. At least that's what the spirit of the site seemed to be.

I'm not trying to bash the current site, it does an adequate job of what it does, however I think, with all respect to the staff, that they should decide on one or the other. Are they a 'music site' that posts news of interest to the community, or are they a news site? Because to be a news site and deliver music seems like trying to do too much with a good idea. Being a music site with hyperlinks to news stories seems more productive for the staff than copy-pasting and formatting already-posted essays.

Simon, especially I've noticed, was a very comprehensive and persuasive writer, he could provide a brief synopsis, his interpretation, and a link to the actual document all in a small package, and leave debate of the content to the newsgroups or the chat channels...

Again you guys seem to do a good job, it just seems like there's a lack of focus.

Just my two cents

Oh - one more qualification, in the third paragraph I was not specific enough into my form of news. The DMusic Notes by Joe give a brief synopsis of the E!Now style news, which is one form. I should qualify (though in context with the article, it may not be necessary) the anti-RIAA sentiment.

I don't want to take sides on this argument, however, I leave that to people with more real knowledge of all the issues than I. Yes, we are breaking copyright, and yes, we are overcharged for music, and the RIAA effectively gives artists the shaft. So the RIAA is wrong, and we are wrong.

I just think waging a war like this has put the spotlight on activists on either side, and maybe we're fighting a war against the RIAA that by sheer quantity of actions has sped the RIAA to fight back harshly.

The RIAA has champions (ex: US Senators) for their cause, but this isn't a physical war, and will not be won by sheer numbers...

I may be wrong, however.

This site started as a warez site? Wow, I didn't know this. I have only known about this site for 2 months tops.

Regardless of its beginnings, however, the reason I have kept visiting this site is because of the issues it has discussed. It seems that way for a lot of the people who come here, judging by the posts. I do think that this website does an excellent job of living up to its name, boycott-riaa.com. It is a very informative site full of everyday people, and a mix of views (okay, so a lot of people tend to agree on certain things . I really hope it continues to serve people as it does currently, whether the people are here to support independant artists, technology, or vent about politicians and the bills they draft. I suppose we aren't all here because we despise the way the copyright industries behave, but *reaching* I think we all love music... that perhaps is our common thread? I hope? I'll shut up now. I think I type too much .

Leviathan,

"The RIAA has champions (ex: US Senators) for their cause, but this isn't a physical war, and will not be won by sheer numbers..."

Thats where I fully believe the opposite. It is the vulnerability of those "paid-for" congressman that makes our fight winnable. Here is the text I have in my signature pic (that was linked to this site) - this is derived from Janis Ian's wonderful articles on these issues:

"Our representatives are NOT in Congress because they want to make a better living. They're there because they want power and influence. Without the office, they have neither. If you let your representatives know that you will NOT vote for them as they support Anti-American special interest and measures - such as the bill encouraging media companies to hack and spread viruses on any computer "suspected" of legal file-sharing - they will not stay in bed with the RIAA."

The issue is one of empowerment. If the general population isn't informed of what is really going on in Congress or stay resigned to the fact that there's nothing *we* as little people can do, thats when we loose. Grass-roots education - from the ground up - is the only answer for *us* to change this climate.

Sites like boycott-riaa could be on the front line of just such a mobilization of knowledge and disgust, and thus: empowerment. Money buys power on the way to and once in office, but votes buy the office itself. Thats what makes organized, grassroots efforts so powerful. Think of the Elderly coalitions and lobbies as mirrors to what is needed here: they are non-corporate backed, fully grassroots organizations. Why are they one of the most powerful lobbies in the land and so desperately feared by those in office? Because the elderly in this country vote - and vote on a massive, organized scale (72 percent in the last Presidential election - compared to an average of 36 percent for the non-elderly). Soft money pales in comparison to the power of organized votes.

Its time *we* took back Congress, and shape this country by *our* ideals instead of the decades long Pigopoloist ideals. If we don't, they win.

Elrond Pazal

omg y???

I'm not keeping up with the times, I guess.

First of all, I thought boycott-riaa.com was a completely separate site hosted on the same server with similar code, not a direct mirror on these links, therefore I am in error there, as many of these boycott-riaa sites come from the proper source.

Still, if you ask me, perhaps they should be kept separate, but I don't know, I didn't put forth the business outlook.

If you ask me, the RIAA probably sifts through thousands of emails per day and never reads a one. Besides the annoyance of a veritable email bomb, the people seem to be doing nothing.

I agree completely, congress is elected to office to represent the people and businesses of the region - and are often paid off by the businesses to neglect the needs of the aforementioned people. However, I'm not sure, but if you go by the assumption that the major population of elderly are not aware of copyright issues, a site dedicated to boycotting the riaa probably will not promote awareness of the issue.

It seems like there is a lot of will, and very little hands in action. To tell you the truth, the majority of the population probably doesn't care much. The new-timers such as ourselves have come to expect sub-par audio in digital formats on stereos that cost as much as a used car, but for many of those old-timers music is not their bread-and-butter, yet perhaps background detail.

And just think - that's the ASSUMED general rule, just think of ALL the exceptions!

Exactly what I'm trying to say . . . .

Too much talking not enough action !

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/forums/general/255

i agree fully and completely with elrond in his last post. but i disagree with him fully and completely in his first. prince's article was informed and eloquent. why should anyone really care how he types it? it's possible to read and understand 12-yr-old aol english, so i would call it pretentious to wave your hand and refuse to read the essay just because it's written with less than Grammar Book English. perhaps, prince happens to think that this form of english is more efficient and more unique than formal english, both true statements.

I can't believe that anyone would read this incredible essay and be so ignorant as to focus in on the format over the context. Your inability to appreciate his originality and creative choices is the root of the sheep-like behavior that the message embodies. You should be ashamed of your self. It's this same lack of heart and individuality that has caused us to be a world caught in distraction and lack of substance over true spiritual meaning and creative relevance. Great leaders like Martin Luther King would be disapointed in what our world has become.

The format is infinitely important. There's a big difference, especially when a degree of formality is in order, on how an essay is written. Prince wrote it with 2's and b's because he's Prince, but it DID detract from the essay. "DIE FUCKERS!" is much more powerful a message than, "I wish for your life to become terminated as soon as possible as I dislike all of you." And some degree of writing finesse conveys a message much better than 2's and b's and "prolly" and what have you. The content is the most important aspect, but the presentation is the secondmost important.

I thought I might point out that Prince submitted this article on his website, and I would also venture to say that the person that copied it and posted it here was performing a bit of thievery himself. "Thieves In The Temple," indeed.

First, Prince encourages his messages to be tossed around the internet like fertilizer.

Second, why should a person change a consistent style they've been using for over a quarter century just to "impress" a stuffed shirt? If the stuffed shirt can't see the content for the format, then the stuffing should be let out by the next electorate. Infinitely? I would guess that if it's the 2nd most important thing, then there is most certainly a finiteness to it.

I violated copyright four times which I checked the new scientist website earlier. Two buffers, one proxy cache, one browser cache. You cant use existing IP law properly on the internet because simply viewing anything copies it. Publishing on the internet effectivly grants permission for those working copies, but things get more complicated with caches.

The presentation does need fixing.

Presentation is 90% of the meal. I thought maybe (at first) this was a bit of a rant, but then I read the first paragraph, and got kinda weirded out by all the grammar things. Not a HOWEVER.. once I sat down and read it, I agree it's an excellent piece of work. It just took some getting used to.
I'm NOT going to criticise the form. I'm going to say it was unusual, and just enough out of the ordinary to catch my eye and twist my head a bit. Nothing more.
Good job Prince.
As for the "all talk no action" bullshit.. get a clue. Talk about the American bit.. wtf? It's a natural progression. Abstract thoughts turn into ideas turn into forums (discussion) turn to plans of action. I act when/where I can by wearing my boycott shirt large and loud. I get chewed out at work by management cuz I tell customers about the issue. I don't give a DAMN if they aren't on "our" side or not..I just spread the word. They don't like it, they can go take a leap. Action takes many forms, and I'm sure there are people who do close to or exactly as I do. When you say "all talk and no action".. from the comfort of your office/desk/wherever you are.. well.. the assumption itself is flawed. General statements like that lead to adverse reactions and prejudice. oops.. I'm ranting here. didn't mean to tho.. would have been better in a forum I suppose. BUT.. there you have it. Opinion presented.. any takers for the oppposition? remye@mindless.com

Thank you for the response - exactly what I want - and please keep wearing the shirt and pissing off your management !!!

Keep explaining this issue to the average Joe Bloggs.

Stand up for what you believe in !

Hail MP3 !!!

Good speech, written in the style of a true artist. The same style that made him a national icon. Maybe it's time the frumpy, out of touch old windbags in congress got "Hip" to new things.

Thank U Prince

4 the nsight, yet again, the masses will never "get it" their eyes r wide shut. PPl r not ready 4 the Real World Order, they not even ready 4 what Lies Beneathe, U even have some who just don't give a hoot. Bro' eye'm feelin' u though. The system is a game, ppl r still b-ing played by it, what a shame. 1 day, many will relise what U've xpress here, & say Dang! Y did eye not open my eyes...was it fear? Some will listen, some will not, the government is just 1 BiG pLoT.

Princebonic's is here 2 stay, get over it yall & have a great day


Thanks again Prince c u soon

Peace Pious~