Vali 25.03.2013 05:45 |
Whatever the source of this leak is, I really like the preview of this new song. You can listen to it in the player after some scrolling down, here: http://daverfuller.tumblr.com/ |
john bodega 25.03.2013 05:53 |
Haha, with the audio watermark it sounds like it's one of those awful black people tracks where the artists have to repeatedly mention their own names (in case they forget, I guess?). Jason Derulo does it a bit. "YOH, JASON DERULOHHH", at the start of the song usually. |
Vali 25.03.2013 06:12 |
yeah, but the most dramatic issue here is that the audio watermark was put by DRF, actually ... !! |
princetom 25.03.2013 06:37 |
nice one reminds me of "happiness?" (which i love, btw). but i hope there will be some fresh stuff on the new album aswell. |
Vali 25.03.2013 07:01 |
princetom wrote: nice one reminds me of "happiness?" (which i love, btw). but i hope there will be some fresh stuff on the new album aswell. yeah I agree, reminds me of "happiness?". And for sure the new album may contain much fresh stuff. This "Smile" is now .... 3 or 4 years old ? |
gregorsamsa 25.03.2013 07:59 |
nice ! hope the album itself won't be forever postponed. no recent news on the project from official source, |
Togg 25.03.2013 08:42 |
Come on Rog, get the album out... |
Holly2003 25.03.2013 09:08 |
Perhaps he doesn't want to "flood the market" with Queen-related material lol |
pittrek 25.03.2013 09:18 |
|
k-m 25.03.2013 15:26 |
The preview sounds nice. |
Holly2003 25.03.2013 16:58 |
So how did this source originally leak out then? Anyone know exactly? |
Hangman_96 25.03.2013 19:27 |
Holly2003 wrote: So how did this source originally leak out then? Anyone know exactly?Perhaps some people weren't good enough at keeping their promises...? As usual. |
inu-liger 25.03.2013 19:35 |
Lostman wrote:And further giving QPL more reason not to trust convention attendees with special A/V treats.Holly2003 wrote: So how did this source originally leak out then? Anyone know exactly?Perhaps some people weren't good enough at keeping their promises...? As usual. Typical. PS. Fuller can once again go fuck himself. What an arrogant prick, doing his own voice-over on the preview! |
john bodega 25.03.2013 23:58 |
He is the 5th member of Queen. |
Holly2003 26.03.2013 05:06 |
inu-liger wrote:Lostman wrote:And further giving QPL more reason not to trust convention attendees with special A/V treats. Typical. PS. Fuller can once again go fuck himself. What an arrogant prick, doing his own voice-over on the preview!Holly2003 wrote: So how did this source originally leak out then? Anyone know exactly?Perhaps some people weren't good enough at keeping their promises...? As usual. So you are confirming this was played at a convention and somone recorded and then shared it? Or is that a guess? |
The Real Wizard 26.03.2013 11:05 |
You would be correct. There's nothing like putting your fingerprint on someone else's work. I believe there are laws against that.. |
GratefulFan 26.03.2013 11:29 |
That audio print cracks me up. He's a bright enough boy for that to be a total send up of the last David R. Fuller 'fingerprint' controversy. He said on the blog that he had to do it because 'somebody else might claim they leaked it' and he even set up a 'had to mark it' tag. LOL. He said he got the track in a trade 'many moons ago'. Does leaking from the convention stuff become an outrage when it's circulating among the elite or does that just happen when the rest of us get to hear it? |
The Real Wizard 26.03.2013 11:56 |
Without needing to resort to labels.. It's a problem when it goes public because they have said time and time again that they will stop playing such recordings in the future if they leak out. If people are going to pay to go to a fan convention, they want to provide perks that can't be found elsewhere. Making these recordings public makes that privilege all but impossible. Don't blame the people who recorded it for their own purposes. Blame the people who ignore the warnings for their own short term personal gain. |
GratefulFan 26.03.2013 12:22 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Without needing to resort to labels..Laugh. Out. Loud. Beyond that, the point still remains: if David received this in a trade some time ago, with the track having then presumably benefited traders for an extended period prior to this, there appears to be a certain level of comfort with that relative to any enjoyment by the rest of us. We're just listening. The traders who passed this around were seeking and gaining benefit as well, not just Fuller doing what Fuller does. If you yourself make some kind of distinction tween two levels of public with a separate set of privileges and expectations for each, don't complain about 'labels'. |
Holly2003 26.03.2013 12:37 |
GratefulFan wrote:The Real Wizard wrote: Without needing to resort to labels..Laugh. Out. Loud. Beyond that, the point still remains: if David received this in a trade some time ago, with the track having then presumably benefited traders for an extended period prior to this, there appears to be a certain level of comfort with that relative to any enjoyment by the rest of us. We're just listening. The traders who passed this around were seeking and gaining benefit as well, not just Fuller doing what Fuller does. If you yourself make some kind of distinction tween two levels of public with a separate set of privileges and expectations for each, don't complain about 'labels'. lol! 100% spot on. It takes some major logical and moral contortions to justify why SOME deserve to hear music like this (even though it might be stolen) while the rest of us don't deserve anything (except maybe until the traders have got their pound of flesh out of it). |
The Real Wizard 26.03.2013 13:25 |
GratefulFan wrote: If you yourself make some kind of distinction tween two levels of public with a separate set of privileges and expectations for each, don't complain about 'labels'.You're the one doing the labeling here. I'm just explaining what happened without the need to resort to labels and division. That said - you're welcome to step off your soapbox any time and start collecting too. ...unless you feel like you have a sense of entitlement to every collectible that isn't already in your attic. Until then, what collectors do is not your business. If it weren't for collectors, the announce section of this forum (and every other music sharing forum) would be 99% more bare than it is today. Funny it's always people who don't collect who seem to be the experts. How many acetates or film reels have you got again? Was that you at the auction last week in the pink feather hat? |
Holly2003 26.03.2013 13:30 |
Same tired old nonsense wiz. Very disappointing from you. If it's no one's business except the collecting clique, please keep ALL your petty arguments off the forum. Collectors don't own Queenzone: you are guests here like everyone else and you don't make the rules. |
The Real Wizard 26.03.2013 13:33 |
Well at least I have some consistency :-) I'll just never understand why people who aren't collectors feel like they understand how these things work. It's like people without vaginas with double-digit IQs who feel like they have all the necessary information when voting on legislation related to abortions and birth control. |
Holly2003 26.03.2013 13:37 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Well at least I have some consistency :-) I'll just never understand why people who aren't collectors feel like they understand how these things work. It's like people without vaginas with double-digit IQs who feel like they have all the necessary information when voting on legislation related to abortions and birth control. Because it's condescending. You act like non-collectors are too stupid to understand the rules. In fact,we know exactly how collectors operate -- not least because you keep telling us -- and it's our critique of that system that collectors don't like. Hence the usual "shut up" replies -- albeit not stated quite as bluntly. |
The Real Wizard 26.03.2013 13:37 |
Holly2003 wrote: If it's no one; business except the collecting clique, pleae keep ALL your petty arguments off the forum. Collectors don't own Queenzone: you are guests here like everyone else.I quite agree with that. If this forum had moderation and these threads were removed, the discussions wouldn't have to happen in public. So don't blame me or any other collector. Blame whoever thinks it's a good idea to let fools run rampant. That said - this is the only music sharing forum I've ever seen where collectors are openly slagged for spending countless hours and dollars on providing music for the community to enjoy. I'm not seeking accolades - I'm just reporting reality for what it is. It is truly disappointing that this is what a fair portion of the Queen community has turned out to be. |
The Real Wizard 26.03.2013 13:43 |
I respect your position, but I disagree. Again - no person who has spent time actively seeking new music would ever come to that position. It only comes from people with absolutely no first hand knowledge or experience. The only reasonable response when a new piece of music comes is to graciously thank the person who taped, bought, transferred and/or liberated the recording. To vilify the people who do these things is the most ludicrous thing to do, as it will not encourage these people from wanting to make more music available. Nobody is looking to get their arse kissed. A simple thanks is all that's needed, as would be the case when any service is provided. When you get your car fixed, you don't tell the mechanic that you're not happy with the way that he and his fellow mechanic friends are able to go out after work for a nice meal with the profits they made. You simply say thanks because they did something for you that you couldn't do yourself. Hasn't anyone noticed that the announce section of the forum has been pretty quiet for about the last year? |
The Real Wizard 26.03.2013 13:50 |
And I must wonder - how is this very discussion improving the quality of this place? What are you seeking to accomplish? What would be your ideal state for this place to be in? |
Holly2003 26.03.2013 14:04 |
The Real Wizard wrote: I respect your position, but I disagree. Again - no person who has spent time actively seeking new music would ever come to that position. It only comes from people with absolutely no first hand knowledge or experience. The only reasonable response when a new piece of music comes is to graciously thank the person who taped, bought, transferred and/or liberated the recording. To vilify the people who do these things is the most ludicrous thing to do, as it will not encourage these people from wanting to make more music available. Nobody is looking to get their arse kissed. A simple thanks is all that's needed, as would be the case when any service is provided. When you get your car fixed, you don't tell the mechanic that you're not happy with the way that he and his fellow mechanic friends are able to go out after work for a nice meal with the profits they made. You simply say thanks because they did something for you that you couldn't do yourself. Hasn't anyone noticed that the announce section of the forum has been pretty quiet for about the last year? That's hilarious. Did you "graciously thank" the guy who shared the RT recording on this thread? Did you "graciously thank" the guy show shared the KYA acetate? Like fuck you did! You gave him a bollocking for letting it get out to us undeserving masses! Seriously, don't you see how bizarre your own logic is? Now we've gone through all these arguments before: you are about to tell me that the trading model means stuff like the above shouldn't be shared because it means less stuff will be shared in future (oh and the sharing forum will be quieter). As if that's a natural state of affairs like night follows day rather than choice -- you guys simply punishing eachother and us out of pettiness and revenge. Your model went out of date a decade ago when we enetered the digital age. You just haven't realised it yet. A new trading model might be for all of you to release what you have. Then there will be much less traded privately and therefore little incentive to keep hoarding. Now that might happen if all of you genuinely were interested in the Queen community as a whole hearing all of these rarities. But, like all collectors, there is of course a selfish "me, me" aspect to it: an items "value" comes from you having access or owning it and no one else (-- or at least only a few others "in the know"). As you have stated clearly on numerous occasions, we get your discards, when all trading value has been exhausted. And yet you guys DO want thanks and ass kissing for this, again as evidence from your own mouth indicates. Even when people do say thanks it's never enough and now we're not even allowed to talk about it. Read your comments above and in the sharing section if you don't believe me. Nothing personal Bob. Believe it or not I can see where you're coming from, I just think you've got a very narrow perspective about this particular issue. |
The Real Wizard 26.03.2013 14:12 |
Holly2003 wrote: That's hilarious. Did you "graciously thank" the guy who shared the RT recording on this thread? Did you "graciously thank" the guy show shared the KYA acetate?Why would I thank someone for things I already have? Your model went out of date a decade ago when we enetered the digital age.Then why don't you share all your rarities that you've acquired by other means and effectively prove that the current model is no longer viable? As you have stated clearly on numerous occasions, we get your discards, when all trading value has been exhausted.If you think this is a problem, then let's change roles. You do the work and share everything you accumulate. As soon as you do that, I'll graciously thank you and apologize for how wrong I've been for all these years. |
Holly2003 26.03.2013 14:21 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Holly2003 wrote: That's hilarious. Did you "graciously thank" the guy who shared the RT recording on this thread? Did you "graciously thank" the guy show shared the KYA acetate?Why would I thank someone for things I already have?Your model went out of date a decade ago when we enetered the digital age.Then why don't you share all your rarities that you've acquired by other means and effectively prove that the current model is no longer viable?As you have stated clearly on numerous occasions, we get your discards, when all trading value has been exhausted.If you think this is a problem, then let's change roles. You do the work and share everything you accumulate. As soon as you do that, I'll graciously thank you and apologize for how wrong I've been for all these years. A pointless and nonsensical response which doesn't address what I said. |
The Real Wizard 26.03.2013 14:46 |
It absolutely does. I'm not being pointless and nonsensical - I'm being completely practical. If you don't like the way collectors currently do their business, then I invite you to be the change you wish to see in the world. How else will you know first hand that the current process is categorically wrong unless you experience it yourself? Step 1 - go to a music auction and be the highest bidder (be sure to bring four figures of banknotes with you) Step 2 - transfer the recording to digital to see whether or not you're lucky enough it actually is something uncirculated (this often isn't the case) Step 3 - decide whether you'd like to trade this item for something else which will eventually result in two new things for everyone to enjoy (skip step 3 if you wish to change the existing model) Step 4 - share your one new thing and everyone rejoices You don't go into an established bowling league to tell them that you wish they did ten pin bowling instead of five. You start your own ten pin bowling league. |
GratefulFan 26.03.2013 14:51 |
The Real Wizard wrote: You don't go into an established bowling league to tell them that you wish they did ten pin bowling instead of five. You start your own ten pin bowling league.Which is exactly what, in essence, David Fuller has done. Same pins, bigger balls. |
. 26.03.2013 14:55 |
Is this the Big Lebowski? |
The Real Wizard 26.03.2013 14:55 |
GratefulFan wrote:Absolutely.The Real Wizard wrote: You don't go into an established bowling league to tell them that you wish they did ten pin bowling instead of five. You start your own ten pin bowling league.Which is exactly what, in essence, David Fuller has done. Same pins, bigger balls. Except he did it while holding up a sign that said "I learned how to do five pin bowling from these guys, and I'm going to run a bulldozer over their bowling alley to create my own." What happened was he crashed into the wall and was sent off running. If he wants to start his own league, then he can do so without stealing from others who were generous enough to help him and asked for nothing in return. Taking all the credit for someone else's work is never an honourable thing to do. |
Holly2003 26.03.2013 15:31 |
The Real Wizard wrote: It absolutely does. I'm not being pointless and nonsensical - I'm being completely practical. If you don't like the way collectors currently do their business, then I invite you to be the change you wish to see in the world. How else will you know first hand that the current process is categorically wrong unless you experience it yourself? Step 1 - go to a music auction and be the highest bidder (be sure to bring four figures of banknotes with you) Step 2 - transfer the recording to digital to see whether or not you're lucky enough it actually is something uncirculated (this often isn't the case) Step 3 - decide whether you'd like to trade this item for something else which will eventually result in two new things for everyone to enjoy (skip step 3 if you wish to change the existing model) Step 4 - share your one new thing and everyone rejoices You don't go into an established bowling league to tell them that you wish they did ten pin bowling instead of five. You start your own ten pin bowling league. Tell me, is the scenario above what happened to the Roger Taylor track? What auction did it come from? Re: bowling league -- a ridiculous comparison. Is there much demand for digital copies of some old duffer playing down the local bowling league? C'mon. Let's stick to what's happening rather than bizarre analogies. |
Wijnand 26.03.2013 15:35 |
Damn.... I can't wait to hear the full track of Smile. Love it already! Thanks to everybody who brought this to my ears! ;-) |
. 26.03.2013 17:54 |
They peed on his rug man. |
GratefulFan 26.03.2013 18:07 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Absolutely. Except he did it while holding up a sign that said "I learned how to do five pin bowling from these guys, and I'm going to run a bulldozer over their bowling alley to create my own." What happened was he crashed into the wall and was sent off running. If he wants to start his own league, then he can do so without stealing from others who were generous enough to help him and asked for nothing in return. Taking all the credit for someone else's work is never an honourable thing to do.Fuller may be no prince but he is the only person I am aware of who has ever given off any sense of seeing himself as a curator and not just a collector. Art is not an automobile or a bowling ball, nor is it's highest purpose to be a chip on a somebody's strategic private bingo card. The internet changed the format of music and the speed of everything, but it also dramatically changed demand. Suddenly everybody in the world who might turn their eyes to a music forum discovered that treasures existed that they hadn't even previously imagined. It's disingenuous to pretend that the collecting world would want or remotely benefit from a torrent of inexperienced new demand rolling in like an avalanche on on the same fixed supply. That people selfishly want something for nothing is a useful meme but the truth is that nobody with the power to make it happen has developed any practical way for everybody who might like to participate and contribute to do so. A 1970's era model in 2013 serves only the maintenance of the current distribution of power and privilege and while it's only human nature to find justification in that, the cost to the collective you has been the void into which David Fuller has so determinedly tumbled. It's not his fault the collecting world didn't have the vision or the tendency to reflection that might have ignited a shift to the idea of being both curators and collectors when the barriers of distance and lack of awareness fell. I can't go to the Louvre and stand in front of the Mona Lisa, but I can go to their website and see a picture of it. I can order a print and I can donate to the museum with a click. There is no reason that I can't after a little amount of time listen to a low quality copy of a rarity, or a portion of one, or one with an audio mark all over it, or one distinguished in some other way from a high quality version that a skilled collector operating in an orderly system has acquired, other than the fact that the collective you has decided that it shouldn't be so. I can't donate to an auction purchase or the purchase of some audio equipment because nobody made me a donate button, not because I don't want to. You don't like Fuller's ethics and he doesn't like yours. I understand. But nonetheless the no trial executions and the careless false accusations a la the Cherie track and the public and back channel communications to shut people up on this topic are disturbing. Why don't you try beating him with a better system instead of what is essentially intimidation and the determined squashing of dissent? |
john bodega 27.03.2013 03:07 |
Meh, leak everything. |
TRS-Romania 27.03.2013 03:41 |
Maybe it would be time for me to release some of my other rarities. Just to name two: Queen Out of Luck (1:43 min 1985 demo , drum track , guitar, lead vocal Roger) Brian May Supernatural (3:14, 1991, instrumental complete demo, no vocals) |
Cruella de Vil 27.03.2013 05:12 |
Excuse the blatant materialism, but I feel that like many people here who could never dream of accessing such things would be gleefully grateful! The philosphists can argue about the rest to their heart's content! Bring it on! Thank you! (I hope) |
scottmax 27.03.2013 05:13 |
^^^^^^^^ oh go on then, if you insist....... |
Holly2003 27.03.2013 06:33 |
TRS-Romania wrote: Maybe it would be time for me to release some of my other rarities. Just to name two: Queen Out of Luck (1:43 min 1985 demo , drum track , guitar, lead vocal Roger) Brian May Supernatural (3:14, 1991, instrumental complete demo, no vocals) You should hang onto them. After all, you might still be able to wring some value out of them with other traders. Get every last drip drop of blood out of that stone. Another 12 years of mean and grubby haggling between fellow traders and then you can release "Out of Luck" to the masses on the 40th anniversary of its creation. (Created not by you of course, but by the band we're all fans of.) Then we shall worship you as a true God of Capitalism. |
Wilki Amieva 27.03.2013 07:52 |
David Randolph Fuller? A curator??? It seems you really don't know what a curator is! Having been one for several years of my life (nothing Queen-related), I feel ashamed to hear that noble word being used to describe what Fuller did/does. He's definetely NOT a curator. A curator KNOWS about the material he offers, she/he CARES about it, she/he helps tracing it and/or establishing its source, and do her/his best to restore it in all its glory. That's exactly what the people Fuller has stolen from has been doing in the past decades. Not only gathering stuff - but COLLECTING it. That means a quest, a lot of research, and it's been ALWAYS a collaborative effort. I have the privilege to count amongst my friends some of the greatest Queen collectors in the world, and the collector's path (to hell - some would say!) has always been a joyful one thanks to them. Of course we had bad times, some disappointments, a few rotten apples and robotos, and a lot of fruitful disagreements. It was good. Then some collectors conformed the Fanthology, and it was decided to open the game to some people beyond the realms of collecting, to gather the best sourced material and all the accessory info available, with the aim of making the best fan-made anthology (hence the name) possible, and eventually SHARE it for FREE and ANONYMOUSLY. And it was very good. Some of use were really trying to change things for the better, it seems. The ONLY bad thing about that group was -strangely enough- one member who exposed very sensitive (Brian May was concerned about it) material to gain personal fame and then lied to us. And -strangely enough- he left the group without never contributing anything. Nada. Nothing. Zip. Zero. To be fair, we didn't expect him to contribute much material - after all, he was not a collector. He was invited because he was proficient in YouTube affairs, and we thought he might be able to offer some expertise at the sharing stage. But it seems he didn't want to share (no pun intended) the credit. Can you guess his name? Fuller only thinks about Fuller - don't make a mistake on this. It's as simple as that. And now he's got all the adulation he (wetly) dreamed for, he's SELLING other people's material... I think the paradigm changed for the worst. Also, there's one more consideration to make... Most (almost all) of the Queen-related rarities circulating nowadays come from actual items in the hands of Fanthology members. Yes, there is a pattern here... But there is also a lot of uncirculated stuff that has been in the hands of other people for years. And now it would be more difficult to make those collectors part with it. We all lose in the long term. Thanks again, David! |
splicksplack 27.03.2013 08:01 |
You people really need to get a life. Bickering about scraps of tracks that the band haven't released. I'll happily wait to hear 'Smile' or anything else when it's released - in the form it's creator intended. And if it's shit I won't buy it. (it's not the 70s anymore). It;s clearly not about collecting. It's all about power isn't it? I have this, you haven't, therefore I have something over you. What a shit way to lead your life. |
Holly2003 27.03.2013 08:11 |
If this is very sensitive (I assume that's what you meant) material that Brian May is concerned about, what are you doing with it in the first instance? |
Wilki Amieva 27.03.2013 08:33 |
Holly2003 wrote: If this is very sensitive (I assume that's what you meant) material that Brian May is concerned about, what are you doing with it in the first instance?I think The Real Wizard already explained this in this very topic. When you bid for a rare cassette tape, most of the time you don't know what you're biding for until you paid for it and its yours. In this case, the tape contained a lot of worthy material - some sensitive (thanks for the correction), some not. |
Holly2003 27.03.2013 08:39 |
Hmmm... you seemed to be suggesting something else, that Brian May was concerned that Fuller had released sensitive material. And yet you guys have this material in your possession. You can't have it both ways. You either care what Brian May thinks or you don't but you have to be consistant: you can't trot him out to support your case when one collector annoys you. In any event, your extremely sunny description of events above, which paints collectors as entirely altruistic, suggests you were going to release this material to the masses anyway, except Fuller beat you to it! So what eactly was your point again? Material got out that you didn't want to get out? My heart bleeds for you ... |
Wilki Amieva 27.03.2013 08:56 |
I don't have to explain myself. And I'm asking no-one to explain herself/himself. I'm just telling some facts. If you don't want to aknowledge them, Holly, there's nothing I can do to help it. And it's OK. If you want to understand what I've stated, just read again my first post in this topic, all of it. I've nothing to add. |
Holly2003 27.03.2013 09:02 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: I don't have to explain myself. And I'm asking no-one to explain herself/himself. I'm just telling some facts. If you don't want to aknowledge them, Holly, there's nothing I can do to help it. And it's OK. If you want to understand what I've stated, just read again my first post in this topic, all of it. I've nothing to add. If you don't have to explain yoursslf then why did you try to err.. explain yourself? lol You just don;t like the questions ... This is where these conversations always end up: feeble defense of their activities by collectors, some tough questions then ... "I'm taking my ball home, I don't like you any more and you can't play with it". lol |
Wilki Amieva 27.03.2013 09:23 |
Pointless to discuss things with you, Holly. You don't want to debate, just to attack. I believe the answers you ask for are already in this post. There's really nothing to add. I am not explaining myself - again, I really don't feel the need to. I'm just telling some facts. You can either like them or not. But don't kill the messenger. If you feel inclined to defend Fuller's actions - that's fine with me. Perhaps he gave you something earlier than you could possibly expect, and you like that. I do understand that. But that won't change the facts. And to be honest, I hope I'm overestimating the possible nasty consequences of some of his cheats and lies. |
Holly2003 27.03.2013 09:39 |
Err... no, you don't get away that easy. You made a number of assertions that you are now not prepared to explain. YOU don't want to debate. And that's fine: like I said earlier, you guys should shut the hell up about your collecting problems and keep it all off the forum. But that also means when something leaks out you need to shut up about that too and don't criticise the leaker. Either that, or change the way you do business. |
Wilki Amieva 27.03.2013 09:56 |
It's pointless, Holly - as I am telling you: You're NOT reading. The stuff was SHARED with Mr. Fuller (mind that he was Mr. Emptier then :). All the listed material, freely, as the Fanthology would be sharing most of it eventually. There was no trade. (Nor there were/are 'collecting problems' I am aware of. Most of us collect actual items, and we have continued to do so.) There was no 'business' involved... You ask for a change - yet you side with the wrong people. David is now selling the stuff. How's that positive? The Fanthology was the change. It wanted to get stuff from people not inclined to share, provided they would benefit with a lot of rarities for a while, and then share most of them with everyone for free. He has made that task virtually impossible now - for several reasons. The Fanthology wanted to do it right. Using the best transfers (some still in the making) from the most original sources to be gathered (still working on this, but it's getting more difficult as we speak) and with all the researched information, properly compiled (that implies a lot of time). (There were of course some things -I'm guessing here- the Fanthology wouldn't have shared nor traded: Private/intimate stuff and also stuff from forthcoming releases - as they would have affected the artists.) After all this, I believe 'hoarding' would become a standard practice in the near future. Once again, thanks David! |
brians wig 27.03.2013 10:25 |
I think Wilki has hit the nail on the head with his last post. Sadly, we don't live in a world where everyone shares freely and so trading rarities to obtain other rarities is a necessary evil. Fuller is continuing to shaft some of the biggest collectors in the world who have legitimately paid megabucks for acetates and reels in auctions for this material that they were slowly beginning to share. I can only imagine how some of them will be feeling knowing that this material is now being openly sold. Of course, the people who will benefit most will be the bootleg companies who will release it on CD at extortionate prices... |
TenementFunster91 27.03.2013 13:45 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: Then some of us conformed the Fanthology, and we decided to open the game to some people beyond the realms of collecting, to gather the best sourced material and all the accessory info available, with the aim of making the best fan-made anthology (hence the name) we could, and eventually SHARE it for FREE and ANONYMOUSLY. And it was very good. We were really trying to change things for the better. The ONLY bad thing about that group was -strangely enough- one member who exposed very sensitive (Brian May was concerned about it) material to gain personal fame and then lied to us. And -strangely enough- he left the group without never contributing anything. Nada. Nothing. Zip. Zero. To be fair, we didn't expect him to contribute much material - after all, he was not a collector. He was invited because he was proficient in YouTube affairs, and we thought he might be able to offer some expertise at the sharing stage. But it seems he didn't want to share (no pun intended) the credit.So you shared rare material that was going to be released eventually to David out of the kindness of your hearts and being the douchebag that he is, he didn't only release stuff taking all the credit because he's an attention whore but now he's going to sell it all. So my question is why don't you release everything that was intended so Dave gets no profit or further attention and gets lost? Wilki Amieva wrote: We, the Fanthology, were the change. We wanted to get stuff from people not inclined to share, provided they would benefit with a lot of rarities for a while, and then share most of them with everyone for free. He has made that task virtually impossible now - for several reasons. We wanted to do it right. Using the best transfers (some still in the making) from the most original sources we could gather (we are still working on this, but it's getting more difficult as we speak) and with all the researched information, properly compiled (that implies a lot of time). (There were of course some things -I'm guessing here- we wouldn't have shared nor traded: Private/intimate stuff and also stuff from forthcoming releases - as they would have affected the artists.) After all this, I believe 'hoarding' would become a standard practice in the near future.Alright, we get it, Dave sabotaged this great endeavor, Dave sucks. But if you're sincere, the question remains, why wait for David himself or his buyers to make it public and not just take the initiative? What's done is done. brians wig wrote: Of course, the people who will benefit most will be the bootleg companies who will release it on CD at extortionate prices...And after the first buyer uploads it all on youtube, only dumbfucks will pay for the CD. |
inu-liger 27.03.2013 18:28 |
TenementFunster91 wrote: So my question is why don't you release everything that was intended so Dave gets no profit or further attention and gets lost?BECAUSE, if you had even bothered to read and take in Wilki's explanation which I can see you didn't, the missive of the Fanthology group was to collect together all the available unreleased, uncirculated material from all sources possible, and filter out the multiple sources for certain items to allow the BEST QUALITY MATERIAL possible to reach your hard drives and ears. This is a problem with Queen fans really, they want it all, and they want it NOW, quality control be damned! |
Wilki Amieva 27.03.2013 18:55 |
inu-liger wrote: This is a problem with Queen fans really, they want it all, and they want it NOW, quality control be damned!...And those are the very same fans that rip their clothes off at every QPL release because ...lack of quality control! Haha! But seriously... For my part, I would like to hear most of that material shared "as is" - even if that means that the web will be polluted with inferior copies (yes, as I mentioned, the best-possible-quality digital transfers are still to be made, correct speed/pitch, phasing, etc.) and that the material would reach the bootleggers without any countermeasure. But I 'own' just a tiny part of that list, TenementFunster91, so it's not (entirely) a decision I would make. Also, we would have loved to remain anonymous, because there are a lot of legal considerations (it seems Mr. Fuller feels he's beyond the law, but the laws ARE there). It seems that everyone here wants to ask me questions, so let's reciprocate: Which amongst you would be willing to pay for that stuff? Would you be so kind to make a donation to the Mercury Phoenix Trust in the name of the Fanthology if we release some of it? Perhaps a nice gesture some of you could change some minds... |
inu-liger 27.03.2013 19:57 |
Re: Fuller thinking he's beyond the law... Honestly, it would not surprise me if he was diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder |
GratefulFan 27.03.2013 21:20 |
Whatever one thinks of Fuller he is a seriously intuitive strategist. I wouldn't eliminate either prison or the presidency at this point. |
GratefulFan 27.03.2013 21:20 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: It seems that everyone here wants to ask me questions, so let's reciprocate: Which amongst you would be willing to pay for that stuff? Would you be so kind to make a donation to the Mercury Phoenix Trust in the name of the Fanthology if we release some of it? Perhaps a nice gesture some of you could change some minds...Truly unbelievable. After years of openly treating people like beggars and sometimes addressing them as such directly, and after years of implicit suggestions as recently as yesterday that rings ought to be be kissed with every release, and after a day of transparent and organized pressure and propaganda against the idea of Fuller making his material available to the common Queenzoner and the common good, do you really think you are in any position to to be asking for "nice gestures" that "perhaps" might "change some minds"? That is an insulting and delusional level of arrogance. Understand this. You have lost control of this situation, at least as far as this material goes. David Fuller is not an aberrant bit of bad luck that happened to you, he is 100% your creation. Here's a suggestion for you, and for everybody else. Read this thread top to bottom. Really well. Pay particular attention to Holly, who even for him was incredibly acute and pithy. Then it might be a "nice gesture" that "perhaps might change some minds" about just who it is - you or the community - that deserves to be in control of this material for you to acknowledge that it's always been a bit of a stacked deck, that your self interest has never been any less grubby than our self interest, and that your sustained smear campaign against Fuller has always served to hide the fact that you have no good argument against his fundamental desire to strike a new balance between collector's rights and privileges and the other way to "care" about music: get it out there before it is so anachronistic as to be eligible for social security benefits. Shockingly transparent that this new flexibility didn't come until there was a suggestion of a group purchase on the 'Selling Queen Demos?' thread in Serious Discussion. Stop treating people like serfs and idiots. And I wouldn't bet five cents that Fuller wouldn't release the whole list for a donation to the MPT instead. Either way, whatever comes of this, it's blindingly clear just who all that thanks you folks like deserves to go to here. |
The Real Wizard 27.03.2013 22:09 |
Once again, a non collector suggests listening to a non collector on matters of collecting. ...which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science. If you want to learn about Paris, do you listen to the person who lived there for 20 years or someone who has skimmed two chapters of a picture book? You are no doubt very intelligent and mean well, but you have no experience in these matters and therefore no first hand perspective. Nobody on the outside can possibly understand the irreparable damage that has been done. And that's perfectly acceptable. But effectively saying your ignorance knows more than others' actual experience is a pretty shortsighted stance to take. TRS - feel free to share the tracks ! |
john bodega 27.03.2013 23:26 |
"which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science" It's absolutely different, actually. Creationists are bogged down in their own irrelevant beliefs on a strictly scientific and evidentiary topic. A lot of the hooplah on collecting and collectors, on the other hand, comes down to moral considerations (or the lack thereof) and I'm sorry to say that is almost completely a subjective discussion. Waaaaaay different from the creationism thing - I'd refrain from using them as a crutch in unrelated debates to be honest, because it undermines your point. Now, you can debate until you're blue in the face on whether or not the subjective opinions being offered here are Educated - that's a whole different can of worms, and usually a pretty entertaining one. Bottom line - this whole thing is a massive grey area and I don't see too many discussions wherein a One Size Fits All approach would really work. (I do maintain that Dave R Fuller is a knob-end and a mouthbreather, but I knew all about that before he pissed off his fellow collectors, and am surprised it took so long for the rest of the world to cotton on). But seriously, the "You're not a collector, you wouldn't understand!" is not only off-base, but it's also a bit of an insultingly low estimation of the imagination of others. I can well imagine the factors at play here, because they've been explained by collectors a million times. Just because you disagree with the evaluation that other people have made of your plight doesn't really invalidate their opinion. It comes down (as I intimated earlier) to how well educated that opinion is. If you have an issue with that, then educate everyone - serve as an example. *shrug* |
tcc 28.03.2013 00:23 |
I think the whole thing to blame here is human nature. The group of collectors has the best intentions to gather the best versions etc before they share. However, when they have listened to each other's "rarities", they have satisfied their curiosity. Thereafter, what incentive do they have to spend time quickly to put out the best share, especially if they have to work for a living. The people who are outside the "elite" group are anxious to listen to the "rarities". They are told to wait but how long do they have to wait ? So whatever the elite group says, they will not see the point. |
john bodega 28.03.2013 01:32 |
Yeah - from the outside looking in, people are obviously going to lack an immediate or intrinsic understanding of what's going on (for my part, I don't give much of a shit). But we've had these things explained to us now (in muddled fashion) and honestly it just sounds like a lot of bullshit. I think any collector with issues about the way non-collectors are talking should move on from "You don't know what you're talking about!" to "You guys are assholes". At least it'd be more honest. Y'know, I get that some people sunk money into their rarities, but I'd just call it a bad investment at this point. Life's full of those. Take a deep breath, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and staaaaaaaart all over again. |
Wilki Amieva 28.03.2013 05:34 |
I think a couple of you COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD the bit about the minds that need some changing... I wasn't referring to the Fanthology - nor to David. I am referring to the ones that could be in control of the situation - should they ever be bothered to be. Come on! I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow. Do you remember that this very site was at risk at some stage? That we've been following certain rules since then? Does any of this sound familiar to you? Sometimes the level of ALIENATION here surprises me!!! |
scallyuk 28.03.2013 06:21 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there's also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow.There are actually 2 legal issues here Wilki. Whoever has the originals of these tracks - note I said has not owns because they only own the item(tape/cd/acetate - whatever) they have the recordng as a by product of owning the item has broken copyright law by copying and then sharing whether for profit or not. The fact that David is attempting to profit from his is neither here nor there, both he and the person who initially leaked the items are equally guilty of breach of copyright . There's no moral high ground , once it's out there we become guilty under the law the moment we contribute to sharing. |
Wilki Amieva 28.03.2013 06:23 |
tcc wrote: The group of collectors has the best intentions to gather the best versions etc before they share. However, when they have listened to each other's "rarities", they have satisfied their curiosity. Thereafter, what incentive do they have to spend time quickly to put out the best share, especially if they have to work for a living.I believe you're understimating the work load, or overstimating our work force. The thing is that the Fanthology was working VERY HARDLY until David started to leak stuff for personal gain, and he left in the first stage of gathering stuff. Since then, the group spirits were kind of lost. It fragmentated, and everyone started to focus again in their specific field, instead of keeping also with each other's work as it used to. I think it's understandable. Yes, you could blame human nature, I guess... |
Wilki Amieva 28.03.2013 06:50 |
As simple as it might appear, 'copyright' it's a difficult concept, which sets several levels of rights to authors, intellectual property holders and publishers and means different things in different territories and also depending on the time of creation and registration of the copyrighted work. All in all, most jurisprudences wouldn't make anybody accountable unless there's loss of profits [lucrum cesans] or a break of privacy. I've been working in music production for 15 years now, so I am well aware of local and international laws, agreements and sentences. Thanks, Scallyuk, but I will take my own advice on this. So... making a transfer from an owned acetate/tape/VHS/reference CD-R/etc. to a digital media is labeled as 'personal use' and it's allowed. Sharing that between a very limited group of researchers working together (and a moron) could be regarded as 'fair use' - allowed, again. Publishing that in the internet for anybody to hear/see/download... well, that's entirely a different thing, believe me. Of course, I am making no apologies for the fact that the Fanthology originally intended to break the law - that's why it also intended to remain anonymous. Strangely enough, that seems to be perfectly OK with most (if not all) of you. Anyway... Surely this MPT donation thing would open an umbrella over these legal considerations (and other subjects), as we ALL would be doing something GOOD. A GOOD thing, beyond discussion. This is a simple idea. It's only an idea, and perhaps a naive one. If you like it, fine - if you don't, fine again. If buying the stuff from David makes things easier to any of you, go ahead. That's your walk of life, not mine. |
ferdy 28.03.2013 07:24 |
scallyuk wrote:No, it's not the same in a legal aspect. If I let you listen my acetate, even if in a modern way (audio file) and I ask you please not to leak, you can call me imprudent but as I don't want to have any legal problems, you should respect my will.Wilki Amieva wrote: I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there's also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow.There are actually 2 legal issues here Wilki. Whoever has the originals of these tracks - note I said has not owns because they only own the item(tape/cd/acetate - whatever) they have the recordng as a by product of owning the item has broken copyright law by copying and then sharing whether for profit or not. The fact that David is attempting to profit from his is neither here nor there, both he and the person who initially leaked the items are equally guilty of breach of copyright . There's no moral high ground , once it's out there we become guilty under the law the moment we contribute to sharing. Then if you break this accord and also try to make profit from it, I call this theft and receivership. Hope these are the correct terms but the two figures are light years distant. |
The Real Wizard 28.03.2013 07:51 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science" It's absolutely different, actually. Creationists are bogged down in their own irrelevant beliefs on a strictly scientific and evidentiary topic. A lot of the hooplah on collecting and collectors, on the other hand, comes down to moral considerations (or the lack thereof) and I'm sorry to say that is almost completely a subjective discussion. Waaaaaay different from the creationism thing - I'd refrain from using them as a crutch in unrelated debates to be honest, because it undermines your point. Now, you can debate until you're blue in the face on whether or not the subjective opinions being offered here are Educated - that's a whole different can of worms, and usually a pretty entertaining one. Bottom line - this whole thing is a massive grey area and I don't see too many discussions wherein a One Size Fits All approach would really work. (I do maintain that Dave R Fuller is a knob-end and a mouthbreather, but I knew all about that before he pissed off his fellow collectors, and am surprised it took so long for the rest of the world to cotton on). But seriously, the "You're not a collector, you wouldn't understand!" is not only off-base, but it's also a bit of an insultingly low estimation of the imagination of others. I can well imagine the factors at play here, because they've been explained by collectors a million times. Just because you disagree with the evaluation that other people have made of your plight doesn't really invalidate their opinion. It comes down (as I intimated earlier) to how well educated that opinion is. If you have an issue with that, then educate everyone - serve as an example. *shrug*Good post. I'd like to think I've done a decent job educating people, and having spent years tracking down tapers, master recordings, upgrades and various other things and sharing 99% of them here, I'd like to think those who have done none of the above would understand that collectors like me don't owe them anything. I truly would like to think that the couple outspoken people in this thread speak for an extreme minority. Either way, we don't live in a utopia, so there will always be someone to vilify collectors for keeping 1% to themselves so that they can accumulate more for everyone's eventual benefit. When someone circumvents this process, there are consequences. But somehow they get praised, and the people who have done all (yes, literally ALL) the work get chastised for simply explaining. ^ Some people are just too thick to understand this, and I'm effectively wasting my breath and bandwidth on them. But I'd like to think there are lurkers reading with an actual interest in putting their ignorance and seemingly biological need to shoot the messenger aside and instead learn how this all works. |
tero! 48531 28.03.2013 09:52 |
ferdy wrote:If you are merely an owner of an acetate as opposed to the artist performing on an acetate, you have absolutely no rights for the content of the disc. You can ask for the listener for whatever you want, but you don't have any legal say over what he does.scallyuk wrote:No, it's not the same in a legal aspect. If I let you listen my acetate, even if in a modern way (audio file) and I ask you please not to leak, you can call me imprudent but as I don't want to have any legal problems, you should respect my will. Then if you break this accord and also try to make profit from it, I call this theft and receivership. Hope these are the correct terms but the two figures are light years distant.Wilki Amieva wrote: I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there's also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow.There are actually 2 legal issues here Wilki. Whoever has the originals of these tracks - note I said has not owns because they only own the item(tape/cd/acetate - whatever) they have the recordng as a by product of owning the item has broken copyright law by copying and then sharing whether for profit or not. The fact that David is attempting to profit from his is neither here nor there, both he and the person who initially leaked the items are equally guilty of breach of copyright . There's no moral high ground , once it's out there we become guilty under the law the moment we contribute to sharing. Secondly, unless you have received the acetate directly from the artist, you have already bought stolen property (=music on which the previous owner has no rights), which means you have no better morals than the person(s) you are discrediting. Thirdly, if traders are making any profit from products on which they do not own legal rights, they are also thieves. If you have at any time received any compensation (even a 1$ donation for your website) for your trading, you are also a thief profiting from other people's work. And to get back to this topic... Any trader in possession of an unreleased Roger Taylor track, with full awareness of RT's wishes to not record the song, has commited an intentional theft and breach of his intellectual copyright. If you recorded it with a cell phone to listen again the next day, you're a thief. If you recorded it with a minidisc player to trade it with your friends, you're a thief. If you traded it for a rare Queen concert, you have knowingly received stolen (intellectual) property. If you bought it from David Fuller, you have knowingly received stolen (intellectual) property. What it really comes down to is that some people are trying to paint their own actions as somehow more righteous than other people's, but they aren't really fooling anyone. Deep down not even themselves. You said it yourself: You know you have stolen the contents of the acetate, and the only repercussion you want from it is profit. How moral of you! |
shannaschaffer 28.03.2013 10:01 |
I'm one of those lurkers who is ignorant of how this all works and I am trying to educate myself. But one thing keeps me from wrapping my head around this whole process - and that is: How do these unreleased rarities and demos get "out there" in the first place? I'm sure that's a naive question to most of you (and please don't bite my head off if it is), but I am just wondering how it all starts. Maybe it is just my type-A nature and not everyone else's, but if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key. |
Wilki Amieva 28.03.2013 10:07 |
tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense. |
Wilki Amieva 28.03.2013 10:23 |
shannaschaffer wrote: I'm one of those lurkers who is ignorant of how this all works and I am trying to educate myself. But one thing keeps me from wrapping my head around this whole process - and that is: How do these unreleased rarities and demos get "out there" in the first place? I'm sure that's a naive question to most of you (and please don't bite my head off if it is), but I am just wondering how it all starts. Maybe it is just my type-A nature and not everyone else's, but if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.Good question! As you know, the music business is a collaborative effort. So artists/producers/engineers have to cut recordings for other artists/producers/engineers, labels, managers, PR people, media, agents, etc. or just for themselves, for whatever reason (promotion or review purposes, to assess work progress, sound testing, etc.). Sometimes (just sometimes) those cuts would contain different songs/versions to those that finally get released. Most of those recordings get lost or destroyed - some survive. And some of them are given/auctioned/sold to 'outside' people, like most collectors are. That's how it usually starts. |
The Real Wizard 28.03.2013 10:26 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.Actually, not entirely. If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner. But to say collectors seek monetary gain is just plain foolish. The post was actually largely accurate up to that point. |
shannaschaffer 28.03.2013 10:31 |
Thanks for the explanation, Wilki. I didn't realize how many possible holes there were where things could get out. |
The Real Wizard 28.03.2013 10:37 |
shannaschaffer wrote: if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.And most do nowadays ! But now and again accidents do happen. For instance, Derek Sherinian let out a copy of a rehearsal tape of Dream Theater in the early stages of creating Scenes From A Memory before Jordan Rudess joined the band. It was a thing of legend for a few years, but after it exchanged enough hands it popped out. Mike Portnoy was pissed beyond belief, and rightfully so. But to answer your question more directly - there are many avenues for old recordings. For concert recordings, it's usually recordings taped from the audience or things taped off TV back in the day. But deeper than that, there are recordings from the archives of TV/radio stations (or even the artists themselves - stories abound), reel to reel tapes, or maybe even recordings made by a crew member who worked the gig. Every story is unique. Studio recordings have an extra dimension to them - they often come from acetates that the band themselves turfed. They just didn't care back then. An acetate can only be played back a handful of times, as it was just meant to be heard once as a work in progress and then discarded. Sometimes they're recovered from trash bins by passers-by, and sometimes they end up at auctions. These can be an absolute goldmine. The reason why there's so much unreleased Beatles studio stuff is because people literally walked into the studios and made copies of recordings. There was often no security. The business end of The Beatles was in shambles after Brian Epstein died, so tapes got out there. There are literally hundreds of hours of The Beatles in the studio. The entire Let It Be sessions are out there - the whole month of January 1969, two tapes referred to as tapes A and B, and the compilation was aptly named "A-B Road". In FLAC format it's about 14 gb ! There are just so many stories. And while so few of them are related to some sort of theft, this one certainly is. But on the other side of the moral argument is a view of a piece of music history that is absolutely unparalleled - a bird's eye view of The Beatles breaking up. |
Wilki Amieva 28.03.2013 10:44 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Actually, not entirely. If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved. |
The Real Wizard 28.03.2013 10:46 |
Wilki Amieva wrote:Bingo.The Real Wizard wrote: Actually, not entirely. If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved. Everyone take notes. The professor has spoken. I have studied copyright law for years. Anything to the contrary is absolute hogwash. |
Wilki Amieva 28.03.2013 10:47 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Just a couple of decades ago, artists/producers/engineers/etc. weren't used to take care of what got 'outside'. Acetates have a limited playability, tapes decay easily if the storage conditions are not good and test pressings tend to be unlabeled and fastly misplaced. Also, in that time, copies were mostly analog, and the audio degraded with the generations. So there was no need to be over-jealous with that kind of material. Once they did their job, these recordings were quickly forgotten and time usually wasn't kind on them.shannaschaffer wrote: if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.And most do nowadays ! |
shannaschaffer 28.03.2013 11:31 |
Thanks for explaining, Bob and Wilki :) |
GratefulFan 28.03.2013 11:34 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Once again, a non collector suggests listening to a non collector on matters of collecting. ...which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science. If you want to learn about Paris, do you listen to the person who lived there for 20 years or someone who has skimmed two chapters of a picture book? You are no doubt very intelligent and mean well, but you have no experience in these matters and therefore no first hand perspective. Nobody on the outside can possibly understand the irreparable damage that has been done. And that's perfectly acceptable. But effectively saying your ignorance knows more than others' actual experience is a pretty shortsighted stance to take. TRS - feel free to share the tracks !Before who knows how many edits who knows when this reply to me initially alleged boundless "pride in my ignorance" and suggested that I go ahead and keep up with my "long posts full of nothing". "Nobody", you said, "is listening". I'd suspect those are a little closer to your real sentiments that the reasonable man facade you eventually wind around to here and other places, but people of course are listening, to all of it, from all sides. Which I expect explains why you're hanging out like a hawk here today and yesterday trying to stay in control of the ever fraying narrative after recently bragging you don't spend more than five minutes a day on the place. My last thought on shutting off my computer last night was you as Assad trying to hang on to Syria, railing that the commoners were too stupid to understand the benefits of tyranny. "Creationists" ffs. You can't even suppress your inherent arrogance when you've edited a post 50 times. |
The Real Wizard 28.03.2013 12:18 |
I appreciate the character judgement (and now apparently the trolling of my forum activity - flattering), but the process is actually the opposite - I realize there's ultimately no point in making it personal. You just rack your brain a bit too much. My apologies for not being fully Buddhist yet - I'm working on it. One of my points remains - when are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread? Have you actually read through it and gained some new insight into what's going on, or are you still convinced that music collectors are the scourge of the earth? |
tero! 48531 28.03.2013 13:10 |
Wilki Amieva wrote:I suppose it all depends of the definition of "personal use".The Real Wizard wrote: Actually, not entirely. If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved. As long as you play the music to your friends in the same room it's alright, but If you have it available for trade with any person in the world, it's no longer personal use. It's just a tool for your personal gain. There are legal precedents for that as well. In Finland it's perfectly legal to make copies of albums for your personal use, or for your friends, but it's illegal to share the music online. But hey, whatever makes you sleep through the night. ;) |
tero! 48531 28.03.2013 13:16 |
The Real Wizard wrote:My post had two quotes about profit:Wilki Amieva wrote: tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.Actually, not entirely. If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner. But to say collectors seek monetary gain is just plain foolish. The post was actually largely accurate up to that point. #1 "If you have at any time received any compensation (even a 1$ donation for your website) for your trading, you are also a thief profiting from other people's work." 100% fact. If you gain a single CENT from somebody else's work, you're a thief, and no better than David Fuller. #2 "You said it yourself: You know you have stolen the contents of the acetate, and the only repercussion you want from it is profit." 100% fact. The collector who makes a trade with the stolen material of an acetate is in it to make a profit. Whether it's monetary profit, fame among peers, or an exchange with other stolen material, it's still a profit made with stolen property. |
tero! 48531 28.03.2013 13:27 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense. |
Wilki Amieva 28.03.2013 13:39 |
Here we go again... As simple as it might appear, 'copyright' it's a difficult concept, which sets several levels of rights to authors, intellectual property holders and publishers and means different things in different territories and also depending on the time of creation and registration of the copyrighted work. All in all, most jurisprudences wouldn't make anybody accountable unless there's loss of profits [lucrum cesans] or a break of pivacy. I've been working in music production for 15 years now, so I am well aware of local and international laws, agreements and sentences. Its contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of an item still retains the right to listen/watch them, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent from the authors, intellectual property holders and publishers - as long as is for 'personal use'. So making a transfer from an owned acetate/tape/VHS/reference CD-R/etc. to a digital media is labeled as 'personal use' and it's allowed. Of course, 'personal' in this context means... well... just that: personal - its for the solely enjoyment of the owner or owners and rules out third parties or profit. But the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties, under the 'fair use' legal figure. Sharing the contents of an item between a very limited group of researchers working together (such as the Fanthology) could be regarded as 'fair use' - allowed, again. As long as the contents remain off the public eye and profit is not made nor there's measurable loss of profits to authors, intellectual property holders or publishers [lucrum cesans]. Once again, the legality issues arises when broad public or profit is involved, so publishing the contents in the internet for anybody to hear/see/download... well, that's VERY DIFFERENT to 'fair use' or 'personal use'. |
ParisNair 28.03.2013 14:53 |
Breach of trust is really shameful. It affects my enjoyment of a share, when I come to know that promises and trust was broken while sharing the music. This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago. |
inu-liger 28.03.2013 15:21 |
ParisNair wrote:This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.Yeah, that was a nightmare in itself. People on QZ are just TOOOOO bloody stiff and opinionated! |
Holly2003 28.03.2013 16:01 |
The Real Wizard wrote: I appreciate the character judgement (and now apparently the trolling of my forum activity - flattering), but the process is actually the opposite - I realize there's ultimately no point in making it personal. You just rack your brain a bit too much. My apologies for not being fully Buddhist yet - I'm working on it. One of my points remains - when are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread? Have you actually read through it and gained some new insight into what's going on, or are you still convinced that music collectors are the scourge of the earth? She already has contributed something useful, as have others. You just don't like the answers. On the other hand, you continue to peddle the same old tripe you have here in the past, and then condescend as if we don't understand your pov. Seriously chum, condescending only works if you have something to condescend about, and you're not in that position. Nice hyperbole too -- "scourge of the earth" -- no one has suggested that or even come close. No, wait. That's how you guys are describing David Fuller! Oh dear... So you can add misrepresenting other people's views to your tactics. Amazing how on other topics you would be outraged if that happened and one of the first to point it out. You have a huge blind spot on this topic. Since you're fond of analogies, no matter how silly, let me give you an apt one: you guys are a bit like drug addicts: consider this an intervention :) |
inu-liger 28.03.2013 16:46 |
You know, we ought to have a get-together on Skype for a Gregsynth-style debate on this whole collectors issue. Really interesting seeing how the divisive mindsets play out on the boards here, I wonder how well that would translate over into a live realtime realm! Anyone up for the idea? |
Gregsynth 28.03.2013 17:24 |
LOL. I would love to part a part of this. |
John S Stuart 28.03.2013 19:22 |
Preface: What I have written below is a generic response to the generalised presentation of this thread. However, I know nothing about the above track. It's source, it's leak etc are all outside my ken; but even though I have nothing specific to contribute to that particular discussion; I still feel that I would like to add my thoughts to this particular thread. I am not going to be dragged into a long drawn out argument - especially when everyone knows that 99% of this material was stolen from me in the first place. So allow me to make a statement if I may: "IF" I do own an acetate - I only own a 12" plastic disc. Nothing more. I do not own the music on that disc. I do not own the copyright to that music. The content is not my intellectual property to do with as I please; and I have always respected that. Because to do otherwise would be to break the law, and that can mean very steep penalties such as huge fines and/or long jail sentences (or both), and I am not prepared to pay the price of either of those options. I have listened to such type material in the privacy of my own home (I have never broadcast publically - even when invited to do so at conventions) and when meeting up with like-minded friends who own similar type rarities - we "may" have swapped electronic copies on the understanding of "personal use only", but this has always been based upon the strict understanding of a "gentleman's agreement" that this material is for private use only and cannot be "sold" or "released" because the contents are not mine/ours to do so. You can scream, shout, threaten and beg for "Hangman" as long as you like you like, but the fact is - it is not mine to offer or distribute - so I cannot do so. David R Fuller has in essence stolen and published tracks without permission which means Queen PLC CAN and MAY directly suit for Loss of earnings and/or including the loss of potential future earnings, and that is a bill which can run into hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars! So for those who have just written to me saying "Pre-empt... release and be damned", forgive me for being a coward - but I will not be damned for the "sins" of others. Likewise any thoughts of financial donations or compensations towards the MPT charity - is a good idea, but I cannot do so. That is not my call to make. So far, my only "crime" in all of this stupid affair was to trust someone whom was essentially untrustworthy - but hey even Jesus trusted Judas - so it can't be that big a sin! As for David R Fuller - breaking his part his of a gentlemanly agreement is the very least of his worries... He has now both distrubuted and broadcast (do you really think Radio 1 is actually free?), very sensitive material, and if that is not enough; he now also claims that he owns the copyright to these tracks too! Does he honestly believe that he can just upload a (for example) unreleased Roger Taylor track on YouTube with a Copright by David R Fuller and that magically makes the consequences of his actions go away? DISCLAIMER: I want it made perfectly clear to everyone; that these turn of events have nothing to do with me whatsoever, and that any electroniic copies which "may" have originally originate from me - were infact STOLEN, and I do not accept any responsibility or liabilty for his wantonly stupid and wreckless criminal behaviour. |
tero! 48531 29.03.2013 01:57 |
John S Stuart wrote: I have listened to such type material in the privacy of my own home (I have never broadcast publically - even when invited to do so at conventions) and when meeting up with like-minded friends who own similar type rarities - we "may" have swapped electronic copies on the understanding of "personal use only", but this has always been based upon the strict understanding of a "gentleman's agreement" that this material is for private use only and cannot be "sold" or "released" because the contents are not mine/ours to do so.This isn't meant personally (as I don't know you), but that kind of "gentleman's agreement" is nothing more than an excuse to ease your conscience. You know the song wasn't meant to be heard by outsiders, you know the artist isn't profiting from it in any way, and you know YOU are profiting from it by "maybe" receiving other dubious material in exchange. If you had the consent from the artist you would have a true gentleman's agreement, but now you're left with nothing more than honor among thieves. |
tero! 48531 29.03.2013 02:04 |
Wilki Amieva wrote:Once again, the legality issues arises when broad public or profit is involved, so publishing the contents in the internet for anybody to hear/see/download... well, that's VERY DIFFERENT to 'fair use' or 'personal use'.(See also the above reply to JSS.) From the viewpoint of the average Joe, your moral is no better than David Fuller's. And in some ways he's more honest than you are. It's like the difference between a regular thief who works for himself (like you) and a mercenary who works for anybody who pays him (like David appears). With a mercenary you at least know what your paying for, and know not to trust him too much. |
tcc 29.03.2013 04:06 |
|
The Real Wizard 29.03.2013 09:34 |
ParisNair wrote: Breach of trust is really shameful. It affects my enjoyment of a share, when I come to know that promises and trust was broken while sharing the music. This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.And look at all the mp3 threads here now... ...you're welcome :-) |
The Real Wizard 29.03.2013 09:43 |
tero! 48531 wrote: If you had the consent from the artist you would have a true gentleman's agreement, but now you're left with nothing more than honor among thieves.So if someone legitimately purchases an acetate at an auction and does not distribute the musical content he is still a thief? Why aren't you a professor of copyright law? They're clearly missing out. Seriously - stop with the labels. You have no idea of the context in which any of these pieces of music were obtained. If you assume by default that all acquisitions of unreleased music are synonymous with theft, then there is no thinking twice - you are a complete idiot. |
Wilki Amieva 29.03.2013 09:55 |
tero! 38531: I don't agree with YOUR opinions about what the average Joe thinks. I believe you're wrong. And I cannot be less interested in what YOU (under a Joe disguise) regard as moral or not, as it seems that YOU really have no idea what you're writing about. Anyway, I'd like to remind you that morality (unlike ethics) is defined by a social agreement. The Fanthology has a mutual agreement, which was discussed and accepted by all its members -collectors and non-collectors- on an equal-rights basis. Again, there was no 'business' involved. It benefited us all; it did no harm to anybody. As a matter of fact, it was both moral and ethical. But, if my memory does not fail me, we were discussing law here... So I'd like to establish that the Fanthology was 100% legal. Benefit is not the same as profit. What David Randolph Fuller is doing is NOT. Once again, you can like it or not. But that's the way it is. |
john bodega 29.03.2013 11:48 |
I'm sure the scumsucker laughs his arse off whenever a thread like this gets started because of his antics. |
splicksplack 29.03.2013 14:51 |
Listening to the little 'Smile' clip (which is obviously from a verse) it sounds like he's treading water. Same 'up' title as 'Happiness?' juxtaposed against a melancholy piano-led backing. Then cue the drums. It could be off 'Happiness?'. If this is anything to go by we can only expect a rich old man's indulgent wank. Nothing new to see here. I think Roger should pay David R Fuller and use the 'David R Fuller' bit all the way through. Really high up in the mix. That would be more interesting. |
inu-liger 29.03.2013 15:42 |
Not at all splicksplack, it's most certainly not off "Happiness?" at least as far as recording goes. Roger's vocal quality is definitely much more aged now and it matches that in the sample recording as opposed to his vocal quality of the Happiness/Electric Fire era, studio effects withstanding. Whether it was written or not in the 90's is certainly up for debate, but my dollar is on it being written sometime in the past decade. |
splicksplack 29.03.2013 19:03 |
inu-liger wrote: Not at all splicksplack, it's most certainly not off "Happiness?" at least as far as recording goes. Roger's vocal quality is definitely much more aged now and it matches that in the sample recording as opposed to his vocal quality of the Happiness/Electric Fire era, studio effects withstanding. Whether it was written or not in the 90's is certainly up for debate, but my dollar is on it being written sometime in the past decade. What I meant to say (and didn't write it properly) was that it sounds like it could have come off 'Happiness?' in terms of songwriting. I know it's a limited sample but I think we can get the idea. I think (obviously without hearing the finished song) it sounds like he hasn't progressed. It's just more of the same and you could never say that of Queen pre '91. I honestly don't think Roger will better 'Happiness?'. |
tero! 48531 30.03.2013 01:46 |
The Real Wizard wrote:So if someone legitimately purchases an acetate at an auction and does not distribute the musical content he is still a thief? Why aren't you a professor of copyright law? They're clearly missing out. Seriously - stop with the labels. You have no idea of the context in which any of these pieces of music were obtained. If you assume by default that all acquisitions of unreleased music are synonymous with theft, then there is no thinking twice - you are a complete idiot.You can dress it up as nicely as you want, but it still comes down to the fact that you are making a personal gain from somebody else's work, and the only reason why the collectors get all worked up about David Fuller is because they are losing that personal gain. An analogy in the financial world would be an investment banker loaning his customer's portfolio to make a personal profit on insider tips, and then getting a bit crossed when his colleague tells it all to the public. The individual actions are perfectly legal, but the combination is dubious to say the least. |
tero! 48531 30.03.2013 01:55 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: I don't agree with YOUR opinions about what the average Joe thinks. I believe you're wrong. And I cannot be less interested in what YOU (under a Joe disguise) regard as moral or not, as it seems that YOU really have no idea what you're writing about. Anyway, I'd like to remind you that morality (unlike ethics) is defined by a social agreement. The Fanthology a mutual agreement, which was discussed and accepted by all its members -collectors and non-collectors- on an equal-rights basis. Again, there was no 'business' involved. It benefited us all; it did no harm to anybody. As a matter of fact, it was both moral and ethical. But, if my memory does not fail me, we were discussing law here... So I'd like to establish that the Fanthology was 100% legal. Benefit is not the same as profit. What David Randolph Fuller is doing is NOT. Once again, you can like it or not. But that's the way it is.There's a simple test to the morality of your actions: Send a letter to Brian's soapbox telling him that you have been trading with unreleased Queen material (detailing that you have demos, unreleased songs, rehearsals, etc.), say that you have started to second guess the morality of your actions, and agree to delete/destroy all the material if the original artist (Brian) says that he doesn't want it spreading around. What do you think is the answer? |
Wilki Amieva 30.03.2013 03:35 |
Brian May is a collector/researcher himself. He does know how this works and, as far as I know, has no problems whatsoever with it. As a matter of fact, several educated collectors work or have worked for/with Queen (myself included). Remember that collecting/researching it's not illegal. And, again, as far as nobody does any harm to anybody, it remains an ethical activity/pursuit. Should collectors never have treasured and shared things amongst them, there would be a lot less available 'in the vaults' for release... be that material from Star Wars, Dr. Who, stereographic cards or Queen! Of course, there are grey areas and even dark ones - I have addressed those in this very topic, and they are fortunately covered by the law. I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online. |
Sebastian 30.03.2013 06:15 |
The song could be 99.99% identical to Happiness and that still wouldn't guarantee he wrote it in the 90's. There's nothing to it. He could also self-plagiarise Loser in the End and it wouldn't mean he wrote the new song in 1973. As for non-collectors not having a say in that because they don't know how it is, I can see Bob's point of 'the person who's lived in Paris all their life knows more about Paris than the person who's just read some pages about it,' but this isn't a B/W issue. The person who's read about Paris may not be the top expert about it, but they're not necessarily entirely ignorant about it. There *are* exceptions, though: a female behavioural psychologist in her 40's may be better suited to treat a 12-year-old male who's depressed about losing a sibling even if she's neither male nor a teenager nor depressed nor has she ever lost a loved one, because she's got enough theoretical, clinical, etc., expertise to make up for the fact she hasn't experienced any of that. Likewise, a female urologist knows more about the male reproductive system than literally billions of blokes, even though those billions of blokes actually have the organs, which she doesn't. |
tero! 48531 30.03.2013 07:06 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online.And I suppose at that time you also asked him "Can I trade with these unrelesed Queen songs with a few hundred other people, to receive other unreleased Queen songs?" If Brian May had at any publicly endorsed the trading of unreleased Queen material, the fanthology argument would be a lot more credible. |
tcc 30.03.2013 07:59 |
tero! 48531 wrote:You have stated your point of view and the group of collectors are comfortable that they have acted legally. To date, QPL had not acted against the people who put up the acetetes for sale in the auctions and who have sold them accordingly, and the people here whom we know have listened to them. I cannot see the objective for the persistent drilling of your point of view.Wilki Amieva wrote: I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online.And I suppose at that time you also asked him "Can I trade with these unrelesed Queen songs with a few hundred other people, to receive other unreleased Queen songs?" If Brian May had at any publicly endorsed the trading of unreleased Queen material, the fanthology argument would be a lot more credible. |
GratefulFan 30.03.2013 13:53 |
The Real Wizard wrote: I appreciate the character judgement (and now apparently the trolling of my forum activity - flattering), but the process is actually the opposite - I realize there's ultimately no point in making it personal. You just rack your brain a bit too much. My apologies for not being fully Buddhist yet - I'm working on it. One of my points remains - when are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread? Have you actually read through it and gained some new insight into what's going on, or are you still convinced that music collectors are the scourge of the earth? Are you working on it often? Because it seems to be happening an awful lot. In another section of the forum an initial response to me invited me to "stop being so longwinded and wrong" followed by the admonition that "obviously I had never studied science and knew nothing about it". I'm not sure what was funnier. Your incoherent and incorrect definition of the scientific method that followed that, or the fact that the next time I saw that post all that had vanished to be replaced with "Ah. Wonderful quote. Blah blah blah". LOL. Seriously, stop insulting my intelligence. If you have thoughts to work out, work them out on Notepad rather than putting them out on the internet for the world to see long enough to make a statement and leave the impression but never long enough to have them challenged or confronted or in many cases I'm sure even seen by their target. I have written things I regret and would like to take back because they make me look stupid or aren't properly reflective of the way I feel, but I leave those things in place because I made the statements and put them out on the internet and I'm responsible for them. They're also a useful reflection of unfiltered thoughts and feelings and a good if sometimes uncomfortable self check if one is really after an honest conversation. Ahem. Moving on, I do think your positions are driven by arrogance at times. What would you call effectively unilaterally characterizing my thoughts on this thread as useless? It was a five page three day old thread by that time, with several participants. Did you take a poll? Further, I have all the insight I believe I need Bob. You rather consistently and predictably underestimate other people and perhaps deliberately miscast their positions. Whatever. I suspect the raw superciliousness of a post like the one I've quoted above does more damage to your position that three straight days of my chatty thoughts, so you know, knock yourself out. |
GratefulFan 30.03.2013 14:35 |
Sebastian wrote: As for non-collectors not having a say in that because they don't know how it is, I can see Bob's point of 'the person who's lived in Paris all their life knows more about Paris than the person who's just read some pages about it,' but this isn't a B/W issue. The person who's read about Paris may not be the top expert about it, but they're not necessarily entirely ignorant about it.I'm not sure direct vs.indirect experience is the right focus. The better framing is perhaps the fact that you don't have to be a Harvard Economist to understand that there are options other than trickle down economics, and that those who support that model as the best way or the only way to ultimately lift everyone up are also fiercely protecting their own elitism and their own interests. It's the consistent sidestepping or outright denial of the latter in the collecting community that I find irritating. That and the rather organized and oppressive resistance to alternative models trying to arise which I see as an abuse of power that needs standing up to. Though the collecting community benefits from the idea of Fuller as a purely selfish and ego driven careless rogue it's actually much more than that. Fuller vs. the established community is also a war of ideas about rare music's place in the subculture. All I want is a fair fight and for the misuse of power to be seen for what it is, particularly in those instances where it is concentrated and arrayed against Fuller as though it were objective fact and not subjective and clutching self interested spin. |
Sheer Brass Neck 30.03.2013 21:16 |
|
Sheer Brass Neck 30.03.2013 21:17 |
|
Sheer Brass Neck 30.03.2013 21:18 |
after 6 pages of this, I believe I can sum up by saying that GratefulFan and The Real Wizard were jamming at one time and had the mother of all bad break ups :) |
GratefulFan 30.03.2013 22:28 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: after 6 pages of this, I believe I can sum up by saying that GratefulFan and The Real Wizard were jamming at one time and had the mother of all bad break ups :)LOL. Perhaps that was a minor explosion of stuff better solved through PM but it has been irritating me for a few weeks now and this is the thread on which it finally irritated me enough to call it out. Sorry to all to whom it seemed largely irrelevant. That's probably a fair complaint. It's worth noting though that the disappearing post routine is a weapon regularly deployed against Fuller by a few of the usual suspects. Accuse him of crap - sometimes demonstrably falsely - drum up some outrage, and then delete your posts or the offending parts so all that's left is the sense of outrage and nothing to look at for accuracy or fairness. And then that accomplished, tell everybody to stop talking about it. All without ever having to have your bias or motivation examined. Sounds completely reasonable to me. |
LCSeixas 31.03.2013 08:42 |
I remember watching the Unblinking Eye video clip in 2009. I hope Roger won't take much longer. |
tero! 48531 31.03.2013 11:05 |
tcc wrote:Legally perhaps, but how about the question of morality?tero! 48531 wrote:You have stated your point of view and the group of collectors are comfortable that they have acted legally. To date, QPL had not acted against the people who put up the acetetes for sale in the auctions and who have sold them accordingly, and the people here whom we know have listened to them. I cannot see the objective for the persistent drilling of your point of view.Wilki Amieva wrote: I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online.And I suppose at that time you also asked him "Can I trade with these unrelesed Queen songs with a few hundred other people, to receive other unreleased Queen songs?" If Brian May had at any publicly endorsed the trading of unreleased Queen material, the fanthology argument would be a lot more credible. That was brought up the by collectors themselves, so it must mean something to them. If you are asked not to record a Queen song at a convention, record it anyway, and trade it with anyone for other similar material, are you acting morally? And if you have already broken a "gentleman's agreement" with the organiser of the event, why should you expect anybody to hold a similar agreement with you? As long as the traders keep it to their own private backroom, I don't really give a shit. But the minute they enter the message board with their tall tales of altruism and morality, you have to question their words. |
John S Stuart 31.03.2013 14:25 |
tero! 48531: I fully agree with you 100% I think that is both morally and legally wrong. Suffice to say; I can say with complete honesty that I have never recorded anything under such conditions. |
Holly2003 31.03.2013 15:11 |
"As long as the traders keep it to their own private backroom, I don't really give a shit. But the minute they enter the message board with their tall tales of altruism and morality, you have to question their words. " That's it in a nutshell. |
ParisNair 01.04.2013 15:58 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Totally. I didn't mention it in so many words, but the discussion was productive that time. I thinl people understood over a period of time, the importance of preserving/sharing the music in lossless.ParisNair wrote: Breach of trust is really shameful. It affects my enjoyment of a share, when I come to know that promises and trust was broken while sharing the music. This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.And look at all the mp3 threads here now... ...you're welcome :-) |
Wilki Amieva 03.04.2013 09:30 |
tero! 48531 wrote: And I suppose at that time you also asked him "Can I trade with these unrelesed Queen songs with a few hundred other people, to receive other unreleased Queen songs?" If Brian May had at any publicly endorsed the trading of unreleased Queen material, the fanthology argument would be a lot more credible.It seems you KEEP MISSING THE F*CKING POINT, so let me level with you: 1) Trading: It's just the way it is - another piece on the collecting world. Take it or leave it. Brian May is a collector. QPL has traded stuff with collectors. Enough said. ...And, MORE SPECIFICALLY: 2) Trading: That's NOT what Fanthology was all about!!! |