Post by Elenir on Oct 29, 2008 15:17:17 GMT -5
After Prince and Metallica now apparently Bryan Adams is taking action, too. Against his fans. He has hired the same company as Prince, "Web Sheriff".
Apparently a few fansites are down because they link to copyprotected material. They're also trying to get away with "unofficial" pictures. I read that even a tribute band was asked to change their name from "The Bryan Adams Experience" to "The Bryan Adams Tribute Experience". Also material on YouTube is targeted.
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/27/canada_rocker/
WTF?
I mean I understand that the artist don't want everyone to illegally download their songs and not buy them. It's their job, they worked on it and they should be paid for it. But I think that fans are more likely to go and buy them than just random people - so targeting fan websites, even if they link to Torrent material, is targeting the wrong people. I mean probably they're just wanting the 1987 live version from London or whatever - because they're fans - fantatics - and that won't have any monetary affect on the artist.
But pictures and videos is going too far, imo. They are certainly not keeping people from buying music or concert tickets (except maybe if you suck live and people see that on videos ) - quite the contrary, probably people who wouldn't have been fans will become one. And pictures? How can they even think of only allowing "approved" pictures on fan sites? That's ridiculous.
A case with Prince even went to court because he had a clip taken down from YouTube, where a woman had her baby "dancing" and you could (hardly) hear a Prince song in the background.
Honestly - who shitted into his brain?!
What do you think of it?
Do you think Queen will go this way, too? They seem to be pretty cool with people taking pictures and even videos at concerts.
Apparently a few fansites are down because they link to copyprotected material. They're also trying to get away with "unofficial" pictures. I read that even a tribute band was asked to change their name from "The Bryan Adams Experience" to "The Bryan Adams Tribute Experience". Also material on YouTube is targeted.
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/27/canada_rocker/
WTF?
I mean I understand that the artist don't want everyone to illegally download their songs and not buy them. It's their job, they worked on it and they should be paid for it. But I think that fans are more likely to go and buy them than just random people - so targeting fan websites, even if they link to Torrent material, is targeting the wrong people. I mean probably they're just wanting the 1987 live version from London or whatever - because they're fans - fantatics - and that won't have any monetary affect on the artist.
But pictures and videos is going too far, imo. They are certainly not keeping people from buying music or concert tickets (except maybe if you suck live and people see that on videos ) - quite the contrary, probably people who wouldn't have been fans will become one. And pictures? How can they even think of only allowing "approved" pictures on fan sites? That's ridiculous.
A case with Prince even went to court because he had a clip taken down from YouTube, where a woman had her baby "dancing" and you could (hardly) hear a Prince song in the background.
Honestly - who shitted into his brain?!
What do you think of it?
Do you think Queen will go this way, too? They seem to be pretty cool with people taking pictures and even videos at concerts.