My opinion has waffled over the years on the topic of how an artist should manage or deal with their copyright or intellectual property with respect to fan usage / abuse, particularly on the internet (although the issue is not new and it certainly predates the internet).  I recognize the importance of protecting intellectual property but, does an artist personally going after an individual(s), usually a fan(s), really serve a purpose IN THE LONG RUN?
 
OK, so here is The Artist Formally Known as a Symbol suing an individual, presumably a big fan that distributed bootlegs of his concerts, for $1,000,000 in damages.  Assuming for the sake of discussion that the fan was not profiting off of the bootlegs, is there really a good argument for aggressive litigation against a fan, doing something that a very obsessive fan does even though it is very legally dumb?  I just envision a 30–something year old dude living in his mother’s basement, without a real grasp of the legal system or the implication of his actions, whose net worth is probably less than 1% of the artist’s, getting hit with a million dollar lawsuit.
 
Going beyond any short term legal gains and I would think something that is far more important, is the question: what is the legacy an artist wants to leave?  People’s lives, especially artists, can be complex at many levels.  Artists can have moments of brilliance that positively impact the world while simultaneously dealing with destructive demons (wow, I sound like a Behind the Music narrator).  Fans and detractors alike will dissect an artist’s life and impact on society long after the artist has left this world.
 
Take Metallica’s Lars for example.  If Metallica just simply aged into obscurity, I think (and this is my opinion so don’t get your undies all bunched up) people might say they were an influential metal band and that Lars was like the Ringo of metal drummers.  But, when I and many others think of Metallica, it goes past the music to their high profile assault of individuals who used their music.  The Napster thing was misguided in my opinion but not the worst of it.  There was a cringe worthy (bordering on the bizarre) YouTube video out there of Lars where he called out a fan (a young girl if my memory serves me correctly) by name for posting a video of herself playing a Metallica cover.  Maybe that is the image he/they want to portray and they envision themselves as stalwarts defenders of the artistic communities property but for me, I see it simply as a distraction. 
 
And just to play an annoying devil’s advocate, I would venture to take a guess and say that if we turned the tables (how many clichés can I use in one sentence) we may find that these artist’s personal and professional dealing are not all completely legal but we choose as a society to let things slide (use your imagination) except of course for the IRS.
 
I am NOT suggesting that musicians simply ignore the inappropriate use of their property.  Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to managing the music once it is out in the ether.  I am just of the mind that an artist simply intimidating fans overzealously celebrating their stardom (i.e., stealing from them) ultimately doesn’t serve the music.

The guys in Metallica once said in an interview "back when we were coming up we made cassette copies of albums and songs and passed them around" IIRC.
 
To whom and for what purpose (the passing around) is moot; the fact that they broke the very rules they have tried to be stalwarts about is ridiculously delicious.

The law is the law - it's not for one to decide when or to who it should apply, even though there is room for discussion and improvement. But for as long as it is in place, distributing copyrighted material without permission is theft, plain and simple. 
 
I've read so many arguments and people justifying it - almost as if justifying it to themselves made it acceptable. Or as if there was an actual gap into the legislation that allowed them to download whatever they wanted as long as they can justify it. But there is no such gap.
 
We have not been invited to freely download while we debate copyright, and it's not because we can discuss it on the internet and some people agree that we suddenly have the authority to bypass the laws in place.
 
This isn't a town meeting where we decide which color we'll be painting the Welcome sign at the entry of our village.
 
I've had to deal with people distributing my wife's entire catalog online for free. I'm not talking about a rich artist here - back then we were living on my income almost exclusively, because things were rather slow on her side.
 
But her fans in Europe and in Russia took it upon themselves to "celebrate the stardom". 
 
But no matter who you are stealing from - it's theft. 
 
If a couple of poor hungry guys broke into your studio and stole your computer and your gear, would go: that's alright, I still have my house and food in the fridge?
 
I find it rather depressing to think the we feel entitled to judge artists on their reaction to that, man. Seriously. People steal from them AND get to judge them? How f'd up is that?
 
It's as if I took a crap on your lawn and publicly slammed you because you reacted "like a jerk".

A (not so) funny anecdote - while I was trying to get one of those fan sites to take the copyrighted material off their web site, we had some issues clearing the rights to a promo shot of my wife and had to quit using that shot for a while.
 
So she could not legally use a picture of herself. Meanwhile, that exact same picture - and tons of others - was everywhere on that Russian web site which celebrated the stardom.
 

Don’t confuse my discussion; I am not making an attempt to justify theft.  I am only discussing the artist’s response to it.
 
Wrt the law is the law and it’s not for one to decide … we do it all the time … Mary Jane comes to mind and I can name others.
 
I think our desire to prosecute certain crimes depends on how closely they hit home (or at least my lawn).

Well, that's the point. I don't see how we have a saying in that. I don't get how people who steal get to drag the people they steal from in the mud. That's adding to the insult.
 
In other words, the thieves are the judges and no one gets to judge them. That doesn't work for me.
 
Honestly, I don't think it's just a matter of hitting close to home, though in this case it does it closer to me, I guess. 
 
In fact, I'd tell you that the real reason why it bothers me is that I do my very best to comply with laws rules that technically are there to help make this world a better place for the exact same people who constantly break those rules. 
 
 

I think Prince lost his mind years ago.  I have no problem with him wanting to enforce his copyright. It's the excessive nature of such suits.  There are many who want to cap damages for lawsuits where people get crippled or die.  The idea that his music is worth more than people's lives is absurd. Prince is showing classic behavior of someone wit han inflated sense of himself.  I enjoyed Prince's music two decades ago, but he has not been able to generate a record sale in forever for good reason.  It goes beyond simply generation gap.  The talent is still there but every time he makes news these days it is either to whine or sue.  That's what superstars do when they lose the ability to make hit records.  Prince has a history of making awful business decisions and then trying to sue to make up for the money he should have made.

One problem that "the law" has a devil of a time coming to grips with is that every case is (even if only marginally) different. And that difference can (should, IMHO) affect it's adjudication. So...the aggrieved party's reaction to the aggrievment does matter. As it should. Call me Pollyanna...even though I don't answer to that...if you must, but being reasoned, level headed and...yes...compassionate if need be doesn't seem like bad advice to give both the aggrieved party and the adjudicator. If, after that advice has been taken and used it's still determined that harsher measures need to be applied...then...and only then...apply them...without guilt or remorse.

He dropped the lawsuit, by the way.
 
I remember reading the biography of a French poet called Paul Verlaine, and the author remarked that, the more sublime his work was getting the more atrocious and unforgivable his behaviour became.
 
At the end of the day, I think it would be our loss to throw away his work, but that doesn't mean that it redeems the man. And the same thing can be said about many, many, many artists.
 
So as to whether this will affect an artist legacy, I think we collectively need to grow up and stop worshiping people and start making the distinction between them and their work. That would already be a huge step.
 
I find it tragic that some people would be willing to drop an artist body of work and contribution to our culture because they didn't like being robbed. 
 
Me, I'm for 100% what Metallica did - even if I weren't much of a fan anymore when the napster thing started. It's THEIR work. It's not for me to judge or to decide whether it should be free.
 
I find it far more distasteful to see the thieves condemning the people they are stealing from and, as if it weren't bad enough, contributing to create an illusion of legitimacy by spreading their "wisdom" everywhere on the internet.
 
IMHO, those folks need to see that there are consequences.
 

On that topic, does anyone have a download link to Prince's CD's?
(Just kidding!)