QueenZone discussion #1036808

DavidRFuller wrote: So he is upset that Queen fans (who have never had the opportunity to do the awesome things he has)get to listen to and enjoy a rare Ibex performance. Hmmmm............

Queen Archivist wrote: By the way, the tape I lost was a COPY he made me, not John's master.

Queen Archivist wrote: "Greg from Queen lost my Ibex tape.

Negative Creep wrote: If the tape was genuinely lost, how did it end up being bootlegged? Also, if it was indeed the master that was lost - couldn't QP at least have given John a digital copy of the professional transfer of the tape? And as a side note John - it would make more sense to back up such recordings to DAT or as uncompressed audio files as MD is unreliable and below the quality of CD.

YourValentine wrote: Greg - I do express my conviction. Only because you don't agree you think something is wrong with my views. You want my entire feelings about the issue? here you go (apologies to everyone else) I think it's an utter shame that a multi million organisation like QP borrowed a precious tape, allowed it to be stolen or get lost or whatever and did not have the courtesy to refund the owner, accordingly. If QP had done the right thing and if they had refunded the tape owner - nobody would even remember the affair. I have no knowledge about your role in the matter and I do not care. If you feel offended you may have your own good reasons. Truth is that John never held you personally responsible for the loss of the tape on this board. Certainly it was not your job to refund John, it was the job of QP who have more than enough money to repay a fan and collector for a lost/stolen item he kindly lent them. If I were in John's shoes I would not shut up, either. Why should he? What in all the world would it have cost QP to pay him for his loss? Why should he be the one who lets the matter die when it's only in their interest to hush it up? If I were in his shoes I would keep complaining till the end of time, believe me. I am all for fairness and a peaceful solution but I do not see the fairness on the QP side and it would not cost them 1% of their annual income to settle the matter once and for all in a decent way. John Stuart is not my friend, I am not biased because he sends me birthday greetings - he does not. I have never seen a photo, I do not know his age or any other personal data. He is a fan and respected member of this board, nothing more - and nothing less. If you don't like my opinion that's really not my problem :)

[..Cake..Or..Death..]..[[TONKS]] wrote: I really need to start reading properly or wear glasses i thought it was john deacon you was talking about..lol That would be funny if you had a arguement with him..:D:D

Donna13 wrote: JSS: "Anyway, as I have repeatedly said also, this has NOTHING to do with a cassette tape, but more to do with a philosophy or attitude. However I guess points of order or principle are lost on the materialistic." Do you have a "philosophy or attitude" regarding forgiveness, JSS?

John S Stuart wrote:

Donna13 wrote: JSS: "Anyway, as I have repeatedly said also, this has NOTHING to do with a cassette tape, but more to do with a philosophy or attitude. However I guess points of order or principle are lost on the materialistic." Do you have a "philosophy or attitude" regarding forgiveness, JSS?

As a matter of fact Donna13 - yes I do - but that does NOT mean that I must suffer fools gladly either!

Donna13 wrote: So, are you saying you are willing to forgive Greg?

YourValentine wrote: Togg, you overlook the fact that it has been Greg (again) who brought this topic up in various threads at the same time. It's easy to say "move on", "forgive" but how would you feel - if someone lost a precious item you lent him and did not only not pay up but instead allowed an employee (free lance or not) to come to a fan board and insult you in the worst possible way over again, called you names, caused you distress, while you stayed calm and never returned the insults? Because this is what happens here, just search for "GB" or "Queen Archivist" and read up the endless rants and redundant topics by the official archivist of QP posted here on this board just to attack, offend and insult John Stuart who was the victim and not the offender. I wonder how you would feel in his shoes.

Togg wrote: Regardless of who lost what etc the fact remains that this has been covered endlessly here, and I think Greg has a point that surely now after all this time we don't need to go through it again! I feel sorry for John, and maybe things could have been handled better but you know what guys, lifes too short move on

Adam Baboolal wrote: Yeah, there's a lot of back n forth with no real outcome. This tape thing should just disappear. I share sympathy for John. But I see the point about all the constant bickering over something as silly as this being too much. My word of advice is that holding onto this will only leave a negative impact. I know this won't mean anything, but I'll mention it anyway. My brother saw fit to delete my music from our PC back in 1998. That's my original work, btw. I have no copies or tapes. cd's, etc. So, it's completely gone. But, I hold no grudge and I haven't thought about it for many years. I know what you'll say, "he's your brother", etc. Fair enough. But I'm just trying to help and say that it's far healthier to forgive something like this. Adam.

Sebastian wrote: Regarding Adam's comment, I partially disagree, because the case is not the same IMO: how old was your brother back then? Was your brother a multi-millionaire company with the possibility of compensating you - economically and ethically - for your loss without having to invest over 1% of their income? I think Mr Faron Hyte's analogy is more appropriate. I'd add this: if I lent my car to a friend and he/she wrecked it, I'd be obviously pissed off. But if I lent my car to Renault SA and they lost it, never compensated me (which would be a tiny effort for them, compared to my friend who'd have to work his/her arse off for quite a long time), and had their employee going on a series of stupid tantrums offending me, that's a completely different story.

YourValentine wrote: "Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me." If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....

Micrówave wrote: I don't think it's a matter of taking sides. I think we all like the fact that both John and Greg post on here, regardless of if we like them or not. But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point. This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't. Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?

Donna13 wrote:

YourValentine wrote: "Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me." If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....

"If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner?

Micrówave wrote: Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?

Micrówave wrote: I But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point. This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't.

John S Stuart wrote:

Donna13 wrote:

YourValentine wrote: "Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me." If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....

"If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner?

Donna13 Can I remind you these posts are NOT of my making. What should I do while these tirades are still made against me? Keep silent? More to the point, what should my fellow members of QZ do when they witness such behaviour? Keep silent also? Tyrany and freedom of thought are poles apart, and whether you agree or disagree with what is taking place - ultimately you have a choice - like a bad television station you can refuse to tune in. However, for some of us, this is more about 'bear-bating' and I do not think that such sport should be tolerated anywhere - and especially not in a forum which exist primarily to discuss the music of a rock band.

John S Stuart wrote:

Micrówave wrote: Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?

In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later.

Micrówave wrote:

John S Stuart wrote:

Micrówave wrote: Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?

In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later.

John, you're not using a fair comparison. So let me try to use one. Think about a Picasso painting, which Picasso decides it ain't that great so he puts it in his storage shed. 20 years later someone has broken into that storage shed and stolen the painting. He sells it to Bob. Bob sells it to Joe. And then Joe sells it to you. Is it right for you to profit off the sale of the painting, one that was never intended to be released? Is it right that you sent it to the estate of picasso because they wanted to release a picture of it in a tribute book to Picasso fans and don't feel obligated to send back their stolen painting even though you weren't the one who stole it?

YourValentine wrote: I don't understand why it is so hard to see the unfairness in this incident.

John S Stuart wrote: And if I happen to win that bid, why is it that it is NOT my property to do with what I like?

YourValentine wrote: "I don't mind somebody defending somebody here, but I do think if they try to escalate the matter beyond what it should be, by berating others, it does not help to solve the problem in the short term. I'm not sure if anyone here has the power to make Greg stop stating his side of things in multiple threads and poking fun. We can only ask him to stop. I hope we can all get past this and be friends. And I think YV is your friend. Sorry I could not be of any help in this matter." Donna13 - to make it crystal clear: I do not have a problem with you and I am not into any fights here. If you think that my comments are "escalating matters" I want to remind you that I answered this thread because Greg asked for my opinion in two threads. Escalating or not - I do have an opinion in this matter and I will repeat it whenever the topic will come up. I don't understand why it is so hard to see the unfairness in this incident. On the one hand you have a collector who spends thousands on rare tapes because it's the passion of his life. He is not rich but he is patient, determined, spends a lot of time in researching and tracking down rare material. On the other hand you have a multi million organisation who apparently is not so determined and passionate about their past recordings. They borrow an old tape from the collector, lose it and tell him "oh, just bad luck". Instead of paying a compensation and apologise they allow their bully of an archivist to offend the collector on a public message board. There is no humour in Greg's attacks, they are mean and childish. You think I am John's friend. Well, I am sure if I ever come near his house I might ring up and spend some time listening to some Queen tapes. A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)

YourValentine wrote: A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)