QueenZone discussion #1341788

Pim Derks wrote: They should put out stuff like this on iTunes. I'd happily pay 1.29 euros for an mp3 of an unreleased track. Ofcourse, a boxset would be even better.

mooghead wrote: All it would take is 1 person to buy the stuff (the 5% of stuff listed that is worth actually hearing) then share it. Its a shame though that this person seems to be trading respect for cash.

oliverd05 wrote: the audio tapes of Garden Lodge though im rather interested in, would anyone mind sending me a link ?? im rather intrigued Cheers guys much respect (since its soo hard to come by haha) David

mooghead wrote: I remember the Reaction debacle (and may have thanked him at the time for sharing... hence liked/respected etc..) as far as a dangerous fine line.. dangerous to him only...have a feeling we will all be winners out of this....

mooghead wrote:Like a lot of unreleased Queen stuff. NOTHING can top hearing the Bo Rap master tape.

TRS-Romania wrote: Selling is totally wrong and one can debate for hours if even giving it away for free or trading it would be legal either. I do find it interesting to see what is indeed available (even without having heard it) I am still hanging on to the 2 earlier mentioned demos as well as some other recordings (I cant disclose all though) 1:40 min Show Must Go on Demo (drum-click track, keyboards, bass, + Freddie vocals , alternative lyrics) 2:33 min Innuendo Demo (lyrics are pretty close to the original, but a totally different middle part e.g. without the Spanish guitar part) 0:59 min Bijou Demo (Different guitar solo melody by Brian, middle part vocal by Freddie , but different take) 2:11 min All God's People (alternate take, different lyrics) 3:22 min Unfinished Song (Innuendo era), simple piano track + Freddie humming and trying out certain lyrics etc etc

inu-liger wrote: It may be surprising, but I think it could have to do with his expulsion from the core community. He knows he's on a permanent shit list with the collectors, he knows he's not welcome to participate here anymore, so how else is he going to get his kicks? Simple, selling rare stuff and once again pissing off the community and the collectors in the process, thus driving the wedge even further than it needed to be and screwing us over further back than you can say "stone age"

dowens wrote: I find it interesting that David Fuller continues to get these recordings. How? And he doesn't even try to hide the fact that he's the person who releases the content, etc. We all know that Queen Productions know this website exists and have not shut it down (which I'm thankful for). Seems to keep Queen relevant with serious Queen fans, this website. If QPL wanted to shut David Fuller down, seems they would have already done so? Just my two cents...for what's the worth. ha....

mooghead wrote: NOTHING can top hearing the Bo Rap master tape.

GratefulFan wrote:As for for getting shut down, some Steve Erkel firing off rounds of emails may have gotten his Tumblr taken down.

inu-liger wrote: Please explain how reporting violations of copyright law to the appropriate copyright holders and protecting people from getting ripped off by unscrupulous individuals makes me a "rat" I think you're quite fucked in the head, you judgmental little bitch. Making unrealistic comparisons like that...GO FUCK YOURSELF. Maybe you should move to Alberta. You'd fit in just fine with all the other ignorant assholes I have to deal with here on a daily basis. Yup, all the nice little assholes that keep contributing to the depression which I don't speak about that in turn causes me to have suicidal thoughts, who nobody seems to care if I have them or not. Oh and a happy easter to you too.

John S Stuart wrote: Let me be very blunt and very plain. The difference between morality and legality. Forget all the sweet and twee talk, financial Capitalistic elitism and trickle down models. Let me talk about something we all understand - sex. For my allegory; I will discuss three types of sex. Single people's sex: No commitments, no ties all Footloose and fancy free; The morality of which is down to the belief of the individual. If one leans towards atheism or free love - there are no moral issues. On the other hand if one is a devout Catholic or Latter day Saint, then there are very strong moral objections, but the point is, this sexual liaison is not ILLEGAL, (No matter how loudly your momma complains). Adultery: very morally suspect, but again not illegal. One cannot go to prison for adultery, no matter how many families it wrecks. Actually this kind of sex can be seen as both prostitution and incestuous as far as my Queen allegory is concerned, because most Queen fans end up in bed together (metaphorically speaking) as a mutual agreement because both parties will end satisfying each other. Of course this can be seen as suspect, but it is consensual and not criminal. Rape: What David Fuller has done is illegal. His behaviour is illegal, and he can go to prison because he is blatantly and loudly screwing the band out of all royalties and legalities without and permission or consent whatsoever. Forget the twee politically correct answers. There are none. This is a short message to differentiate between morality and illegality. One is not against the law, and is not a punishable by offence. The other is illegal and ends up as a court case, and may end up in penal servitude. That is the law, and the law is the law. Some of us may be a musical sluts, and I accept the feigned outraged of the morally outraged; but please, please, please never call me a criminal, not only is there a world of difference, but it is actually a criminal offence for you to do so!

inu-liger wrote: Vindictive much, Holly2003?

John S Stuart wrote: No Holly: do not twist my words. My simple point is that selling Demos like Rape (or murder, or theft) is illegal. Is that so really difficult to grasp? Morality Vs Legality is not a grey area. One is illegal. The other is not. But I guess you missed the bits that said allegory and metaphorical.

John S Stuart wrote:

mooghead wrote: Why is it ok for this website to share unofficial stuff but not officially released material? Isn't the material in question just the same? Queen are not losing out on potential income from this stuff because it hasn't been officially released so there are no earnings to be lost. Is it the same principle? Genuine curiosity? If DRF was giving this stuff away would we all be happy or is it just making certain people angry because he is selling it? Devils advocate......

One: simple answer is that much of this was to end up on the Anthology boxsets. Imagine if most of the "Beatles Anthology" was illegally distributed before it was officially released? Therefore; Queen are indeed losing potential income (even if Divid Fukker was giving it away for free), and this can run into compensation for hundreds of thousand of dollars world-wide. (Not a fine I would like to pay!). Second: Queenzone is monitored. QPL will turn a blind eye to both live concerts/fan mixes and the "perhaps" the odd release. However, when the Bo Rhap 24 track tapes went up, they were taken down very quickly due to legal reasons. There is only so far one can stretch a point. Three cheers for Mr. Fuller. He has landed himself (and perhaps) QZ in some very legally choppy waters. I can be very smug, sit back and say; "I told you so..." but some in here think I speak from guile or eletistism rather than from honesty.   Just think about it for a moment - so how many rarities does it need to hit the market all at the same time to draw the attention of the QPL Legal team? Personally; I have never showed-off or talked about my many rarites. It was not even I who talk about the "Hangman" acetate disc - I was "ratted" out by another QZ'er if I recall correctly, but when I did answer, I was vilified when I did so! This is why I no longer contribute to QZ, because there is aways a "smart alex" who wishes to "rip-one-off" or play the "Look at him - has has what we have not" card, when I deserve this just as much because... In reality, there are too many in here who adopt a moral high-ground when they are ignorant of all the relevant facts or information. Tip for life: Just because you have never left the shire, does not mean life stops at the garden fence - or makes one an expert on the other side. You want rarites?  Go to Queen auctions - Ebay even, there you will find all the legal rarities you desire (if you wish to pay for them) but don't sit and cry and playing the sympathy vote because of (whatever excuse come conveniently to hand). Elitism? Powerhouses? All bull-sh*t terms for those who will not get off their ars*s and expect the world to hand them everything freely on a plate. "For he who works hard - thus cometh his reward!" (Does anyone else remember the Disney Cartoon "The World owes me a Living"?) I too desire much. There is a lot of Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Bruce Lee material I do not have and would give my eye-teeth for but hey - no one ever said life was fair. [PS: edit] However; (and I have no inside knowledge here) but it "seems" some interesting consequences have just kicked off. Perhaps we should all stock up with our long-weekend popcorn stocks?

Holly2003 wrote:  As for the legal/illegal thing, pull your troosers up... Holly; I know you are not female. Likewise you know I don't wear troosers. We Highlander's are made of far sterner stuff! PS: I think a lot is about to kick off pretty soon - so your wish to keep it all on Queenzone may just come to pass!

inu-liger wrote: Please explain how reporting violations of copyright law to the appropriate copyright holders and protecting people from getting ripped off by unscrupulous individuals makes me a "rat" I think you're quite fucked in the head, you judgmental little bitch. Making unrealistic comparisons like that...GO FUCK YOURSELF. Maybe you should move to Alberta. You'd fit in just fine with all the other ignorant assholes I have to deal with here on a daily basis. Yup, all the nice little assholes that keep contributing to the depression which I don't speak about that in turn causes me to have suicidal thoughts, who nobody seems to care if I have them or not. Oh and a happy easter to you too.

inu-liger wrote: Vindictive much, Holly2003?

GratefulFan wrote:

inu-liger wrote: Vindictive much, Holly2003?

Are there dictionaries in Alberta or do y'all just pull random words out of big hats? "Vindictive". Jesus.

The Inquisitr wrote: According to a federal judge, MP3 files are legal to sell if the person selling them, bought them. This is after Capitol Records wanted to shut down a used MP3 store which the record company deemed not legal to do.

John S Stuart wrote:

John S Stuart wrote:

mooghead wrote: Why is it ok for this website to share unofficial stuff but not officially released material? Isn't the material in question just the same? Queen are not losing out on potential income from this stuff because it hasn't been officially released so there are no earnings to be lost. Is it the same principle? Genuine curiosity? If DRF was giving this stuff away would we all be happy or is it just making certain people angry because he is selling it? Devils advocate......

It was not even I who talk about the "Hangman" acetate disc - I was "ratted" out by another QZ'er

inu-liger wrote: Anyways getting back to the issue of copyrights and selling MP3's, here's an interesting article I found about a federal ruling made last year in the U.S. that I was completely unaware of until now: http://www.inquisitr.com/191781/used-mp3-music-files-legal-to-sell-says-federal-judge/

The Inquisitr wrote: According to a federal judge, MP3 files are legal to sell if the person selling them, bought them. This is after Capitol Records wanted to shut down a used MP3 store which the record company deemed not legal to do.

I think it can be said with certainty, and with backing from JSS' statements on the matter, that Fuller did not pay for nearly all the files he was offering on his list. And this was definitely grounds enough to get his page shut down for that reason as quoted above. Sure helps when people do their research sometimes, eh? ;-)

John S Stuart wrote:

Holly2003 wrote:  As for the legal/illegal thing, pull your troosers up... Holly; I know you are not female. Likewise you know I don't wear troosers. We Highlander's are made of far sterner stuff! PS: I think a lot is about to kick off pretty soon - so your wish to keep it all on Queenzone may just come to pass!

inu-liger wrote: Anyways getting back to the issue of copyrights and selling MP3's, here's an interesting article I found about a federal ruling made last year in the U.S. that I was completely unaware of until now: http://www.inquisitr.com/191781/used-mp3-music-files-legal-to-sell-says-federal-judge/

The Inquisitr wrote: According to a federal judge, MP3 files are legal to sell if the person selling them, bought them. This is after Capitol Records wanted to shut down a used MP3 store which the record company deemed not legal to do.

I think it can be said with certainty, and with backing from JSS' statements on the matter, that Fuller did not pay for nearly all the files he was offering on his list. And this was definitely grounds enough to get his page shut down for that reason as quoted above. Sure helps when people do their research sometimes, eh? ;-)

John S Stuart wrote: Elitism? Powerhouses? All bull-sh*t terms for those who will not get off their ars*s and expect the world to hand them everything freely on a plate. "For he who works hard - thus cometh his reward!" (Does anyone else remember the Disney Cartoon "The World owes me a Living"?)

The Kurgan wrote: To be honest, I can't see the problem with multi tracks. Who would want them anyway, other than the die hards?

brENsKi wrote: john, her fine WAS for SHARING. that's the thing the RIAA are really interested in so you got you answer 24 shared tracks = $220,000, therefore DF must be looking at something in the region of $100,000

Holly2003 wrote:

John S Stuart wrote:

Holly2003 wrote:  As for the legal/illegal thing, pull your troosers up... Holly; I know you are not female. Likewise you know I don't wear troosers. We Highlander's are made of far sterner stuff! PS: I think a lot is about to kick off pretty soon - so your wish to keep it all on Queenzone may just come to pass!

Nonsense. Scottish people wear troosers or breeches and sit on an upturned bucket instead of a chair. According to "Oor Wullie" anyway ... http://blogs.nls.uk/modernscot/enclosures/Oor%20Wullie1.jpg ps "OFF" Queenzone, not "on".

John S Stuart wrote:

brENsKi wrote: john, her fine WAS for SHARING. that's the thing the RIAA are really interested in so you got you answer 24 shared tracks = $220,000, therefore DF must be looking at something in the region of $100,000

No: His fine would be mutiplied by all the tracks he shares: not just one or two; and as we have seen, that can run into millions of dollars in the US alone.

Panchgani wrote: http://www.queenconcerts.com/queenzone/1261303.html That slippery famous UK collector provided the BBC sessions for upload and illegal broadcast (sharing), but bravely left the sharing to someone else. JSS is hypocritically talking out of multiple orifaces and claims to be "innocent" while invoking the "honor of thieves" code because Fuller leaked something. It is the same old story from 10 years ago ... a leak occurs and the collectors blacklist and harass the leaker. Is it any wonder that Fuller is still rubbing Fanthology's nose in "it" with absurd copywrite statements and conducting cash sales?   You Sir; have no idea what you write; because your view is from from a position of rumour and ignorance, or what you have read on the internet. You have no idea whatsoever of my legal position or status and seem to be happy to shoot all birds during hunting season rather than stick to the ducks your license permits.   Let's consult my oriface... FACT: Fuller has a Youtube channel; under his control FACT: Fuller's Youtube Channel blatantly flaunts RIAA copyright guidelines. FACT: This is clearly illegal for him to do so. (Even a blind man in a dark room can see this!) FACT: This has now come to the attention of the RIAA FACT: "A big boy did it and ran away" is not a legal excuse.  FACT: Therefore he must face this "trial" alone. Further FACT: No one in this room gives a damn about Fuller or his welfare, so why pretend otherwise? Perhaps you missread. I requote: "This thread is about owning the LEGAL rights to freely distribute material that belongs to others - and to do so otherwise... is ILLEGAL and indefensable. End of argument, full stop.   

John S Stuart wrote:This thread is about owning the LEGAL rights to freely distribute material that belongs to others - and to do so otherwise... is ILLEGAL and indefensable. End of argument, full stop.

John S Stuart wrote:

Panchgani wrote: http://www.queenconcerts.com/queenzone/1261303.html That slippery famous UK collector provided the BBC sessions for upload and illegal broadcast (sharing), but bravely left the sharing to someone else. JSS is hypocritically talking out of multiple orifaces and claims to be "innocent" while invoking the "honor of thieves" code because Fuller leaked something. It is the same old story from 10 years ago ... a leak occurs and the collectors blacklist and harass the leaker. Is it any wonder that Fuller is still rubbing Fanthology's nose in "it" with absurd copywrite statements and conducting cash sales?   You Sir; have no idea what you write; because your view is from from a position of rumour and ignorance, or what you have read on the internet. You have no idea whatsoever of my legal position or status and seem to be happy to shoot all birds during hunting season rather than stick to the ducks your license permits.   Let's consult my oriface... FACT: Fuller has a Youtube channel; under his control FACT: Fuller's Youtube Channel blatantly flaunts RIAA copyright guidelines. FACT: This is clearly illegal for him to do so. (Even a blind man in a dark room can see this!) FACT: This has now come to the attention of the RIAA FACT: "A big boy did it and ran away" is not a legal excuse.  FACT: Therefore he must face this "trial" alone. Further FACT: No one in this room gives a damn about Fuller or his welfare, so why pretend otherwise? Perhaps you missread. I requote: "This thread is about owning the LEGAL rights to freely distribute material that belongs to others - and to do so otherwise... is ILLEGAL and indefensable. End of argument, full stop.   The blacklisting and harrassment of leakers is IMMORAL and Indefensable. End of argument, full stop. 

Panchgani wrote:  The blacklisting and harrassment of leakers is IMMORAL and Indefensable. End of argument, full stop.  No Siree Bob:  The final judgement in this case is neither yours, mine, Fuller's or anyone else's to call. That will be up to the RIAA. When Fuller is eventually prosecuted by the RIAA for breach of copyright it will not be because of the supposed "blacklisting or harrassment of others" - but because of his own stupid fault for uploading then advertising with a huge red neon sign - that he did all of his own free will and accord. He will therefore ultimately face the consequences for his own actions. You may not like that fact. You may not like me. You may not like other serious collectors. That is totally irrelevent and immaterial to this debate If you cannot comprehend the singular simple fact below; I feel very sorry for you. Returning to point: "This thread is about owning the LEGAL rights to freely distribute material that belongs to others - and to do so otherwise... is ILLEGAL and indefensable.

inu-liger wrote:

John S Stuart wrote:This thread is about owning the LEGAL rights to freely distribute material that belongs to others - and to do so otherwise... is ILLEGAL and indefensable. End of argument, full stop.

Best not to pursue further arguments with these juvenile, Urkel-comparing deviants who clearly haven't progressed beyond elementary levels of bullyish mentality. Same heartless individuals that don't give a shit about people afflicted with various mental health issues of serious proportion, typical.

John S Stuart wrote:

Panchgani wrote:  The blacklisting and harrassment of leakers is IMMORAL and Indefensable. End of argument, full stop.  No Siree Bob:  The final judgement in this case is neither yours, mine, Fuller's or anyone else's to call. That will be up to the RIAA. When Fuller is eventually prosecuted by the RIAA for breach of copyright it will not be because of the supposed "blacklisting or harrassment of others" - but because of his own stupid fault for uploading then advertising with a huge red neon sign - that he did all of his own free will and accord. He will therefore ultimately face the consequences for his own actions. You may not like that fact. You may not like me. You may not like other serious collectors. That is totally irrelevent and immaterial to this debate If you cannot comprehend the singular simple fact below; I feel very sorry for you. Returning to point: "This thread is about owning the LEGAL rights to freely distribute material that belongs to others - and to do so otherwise... is ILLEGAL and indefensable.

Panchgani wrote:

inu-liger wrote:

John S Stuart wrote:This thread is about owning the LEGAL rights to freely distribute material that belongs to others - and to do so otherwise... is ILLEGAL and indefensable.  End of argument, full stop.

Best not to pursue further arguments with these juvenile, Urkel-comparing deviants who clearly haven't progressed beyond elementary levels of bullyish mentality. Same heartless individuals that don't give a shit about people afflicted with various mental health issues of serious proportion, typical.

Despite being bipolar, I did not attempt to bully GF with a veiled suicide threat.

John S Stuart wrote: It is still illegal for him to do so (upload and broadcast that is), and as such, sooner or later will face the wrath of the RIAA. (And that is just the American arm of copyright law).

John S Stuart wrote: Please read the following story (I hope you are reading this too David): "Woman to Pay RIAA $220,000 For 24 Downloaded Songs" http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119550-Woman-to-Pay-RIAA-220-000-For-24-Downloaded-Songs

inu-liger wrote: Anyways, get back on topic and keep them attacks on the collectors coming, since that's all you seem to be capable of doing here.

John S Stuart wrote:5 March 2013 Japan link As mentioned in the statement above, Japan’s newly enacted laws could land illegal downloaders with two years in jail, while uploaders could face a whopping ten years and ¥10m (£69,000) fine.

GratefulFan wrote: Why would anyone think they have some kind of right or privilege of control of Fuller's intentions or philosophy?

Zebonka12 wrote: Can't you guys just band together to get his channel removed? I'm sick of hearing about this shit. Do something about it, or shut the fuck up.

tero! 48531 wrote: "Dear Brian We are a group of huge fans of yours, and for years we have been collecting and trading all the unreleased material that has anything to do with Queen. We have hours and hours worth of Queen material you wouldn't even remember recording, let alone all the material you do remember. We have traded with hundreds of peope around the world, and recently a few of us, a group called Fanthology, came up with the idea of releasing all this material (except of course a few choice items as an exclusive reward for our inner circle) for anyone to publicly download. We had estimated that within a few years, well before any Queen anthology, we would be able to have it all publicly available. You can imagine our moral outrage when we discovered that somebody in our group had broken their word and humiliated us by already making available something the proper owner (ie. the Fanthology) had not authorised. What's even worse is that now he's selling the same material, and possibly hindering your future business of releasing any official anthology material. Please advise us how to best stop this unfair and immoral activity. Yours Sincerely Fanthology"

The Kurgan wrote: They give it to pittrek and let him take the rap!

Anime News Network wrote: U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan ruled against the sale of "used" digital music in a case against the reseller ReDigi on Monday. The judge stated "the first-sale defense is limited to material items, like records, that the copyright owner put into the stream of commerce." ReDigi's business model was based on users' ability to sell digital music content. After a sale, ReDigi deleted the original owner's copy via their cloud storage. Music label Capitol Records took issue and brought ReDigi to court claiming the company was making way for copyright infringment. Judge Sullivan agreed, pointing out that users can purchase a digital file and make copies for personal use before reselling the file, and that the process of the sale creates copies as well. Amazon patented a digital resale market, including music, in 2009. It was approved in February.

GB: Queen Archivist wrote: Please see new threat I've just offered

inu-liger wrote:

GB: Queen Archivist wrote: Please see new threat I've just offered

Maybe I'm just misreading, but did you mean to write thread, not threat? :-)

YAFF wrote: Been lurking for awhile. This whole self-righteous "collectors" bunch are a riot. You spend a ridiculous amount of time and money on 99% drivel. About the only thing ever mentioned to be in the hands of one of you that is truly interesting is "Hangman" and I doubt that's even true. This John fellow hasn't offered up a 15 second audio sample has he? I heard all the unfinished scraps on youtube and "I Guess We're Falling Out" is the only song that's almost a full song. Now if someone had the Freddie version "Let Me In Your Heart Again" or actual finished Queen tracks that were unreleased I could get what the fuss is about but ad lib dees and dahs over skeletal backing tracks is only valuable to you obsessive collector elites. Frankly unless there's good, completed stuff out there most Queen fans don't want to hear it anyway.