| Mayday999 13.04.2009 16:14 |
Dear all, just by accident I have found this on eBay today: http://shop.ebay.de/merchant/mehacefaltavitaminas?_nkw=queen&_sacat=0&_trksid=p3911.m270.l1313&_odkw=&_osacat=0 Didn't know that this is (still) possible to announce auctions for Bootlegs in these days. Dunno what to say about that... |
| Micrówave 13.04.2009 16:59 |
I don't know what's worse. Selling bootlegs or "accidentally" finding them on ebay and giving them publicity on Queenzone. |
| pittrek 14.04.2009 03:49 |
DELETED |
| YourValentine 14.04.2009 05:03 |
pittrek wrote: Oh my god. I hope you end in a jail. When you're such an idiot that you sell bootlegs, don't be such an idiot and don't put the links on a site which is being visited by employees of Queen Productions The topic starter just discussed the auction. The seller is a professional from Uruguay, the topic starter a German, so please do not rush to assumptions. I know that people sometimes plug their own auctions on QZ but not in this case :) |
| brians wig 14.04.2009 05:11 |
I'm really glad that people sell bootlegs on ebay. It means that not only do I NOT have to wait hours between each Rapidshare link or get my head around this torrenting lark, I can, and more importantly, feel safe in the knowledge that I have legitimately PAID my money to get them. Do I need to add a smiley now, or will folks guess I'm joking? ;) |
| pittrek 14.04.2009 07:41 |
YourValentine wrote:pittrek wrote: Oh my god. I hope you end in a jail. When you're such an idiot that you sell bootlegs, don't be such an idiot and don't put the links on a site which is being visited by employees of Queen ProductionsThe topic starter just discussed the auction. The seller is a professional from Uruguay, the topic starter a German, so please do not rush to assumptions. I know that people sometimes plug their own auctions on QZ but not in this case :) OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm taking my comment back. Since the auction is on the German eBay site, I thought it's this person. |
| Mayday999 14.04.2009 11:38 |
Thank you YourValentine! I thought my post was clear: I have only found these auction/the seller on ebay.de. I thought is is illegal and forbidden by German Law to sell Bootlegs. But nevermind - I shut up :-(. |
| Snefru 14.04.2009 15:01 |
This is just DVD-R copies of already well know Queen Pro-DVD-R bootlegs. Nothing new. Make your own choice. I will not buy any of them, or make any more comments... |
| YourValentine 16.04.2009 04:44 |
@ pittrek I know what you mean. People often post their own auctions here acting like they "found" them on ebay :) These auctions do not come from ebay Germany, they are international auctions which are also posted on ebay.de because the seller sells worldwide. When you click on one of the auctions you see that the seller is in Uruguay. It's illegal to sell these DVDs and it's against ebay rules but ebay does not act when you complain. A couple of years ago German police contacted various Queen fans who bought DVD-Rs on ebay and asked if they wanted to file fraud charges against the (German) sellers. Apparently, the police needs a customer to file charges to be able to take action. I have not heard that any of the customers actually filed charges because they knew what they were buying and they were not dissatisfied at all but it's possible that some did. I have bought DVD-Rs in the past myself, it was often the fastest way to get a new recording and it could then be shared on QZ with no trouble. |
| Micrówave 16.04.2009 11:57 |
I'm confused. So we're agreeing that DVD-Rs are bootlegs. And selling bootlegs is illegal in Germany (and parts of New Guinea). So buying them and sharing them on QZ is ok?!?!?!? |
| Yara 16.04.2009 12:56 |
Micrówave wrote: I'm confused. So we're agreeing that DVD-Rs are bootlegs. And selling bootlegs is illegal in Germany (and parts of New Guinea). So buying them and sharing them on QZ is ok?!?!?!? Micrówave, Hi! How are you? I think dear YourValentine is just saying that some time ago, when it was not that easy for one to find his way in the search for unofficial recordings and it was hard for the fan to have access to it through the internet, it was easier to get them on ebay and share them here - thus, avoiding more people from buying it through e-bay. What she meant, I think, is that although ebay is responsible for the selling of whatever gets qualified as bootleg, it's the consumer who's expected to charge the company if the product doesn't get to him or gets to him damaged or simply in such a way as to not meet his desires. He's the one, after all, who has the knowledge to know what's official and what's not in the catalogue, by the way! It's illegal in Germany, but I think the German Police is busy enough to keep tracking down the selling of Queen's unofficial recordings through ebay: how is one expected to proceed in such cases? The seller may not be from Germany, or the buyer, for that matter! The German ebay website is acting as a channel for the trade - what could the Police do if no consumer speaks out? If the people are...feeling ok? What kind of penalty could they possibly aply to e-bay, which is a world-wide bazar, that would stick? Once they feel pressured, they can move on the trade to e-bay dot whatever country. It's very likely that, as in many other legal systems, it's very hard to classify these sellings as criminal acts: it's not so clear-cut. The intentions of fans in getting the material are not usually of harming the interest of the Copywright's owner; the material itself may be regarded by some judge not as illegal as an official recording, for instance. So it is illegal, as YV said, but it's not, I think, a clear cut criminal offense, but a Civil one, which can only be persecuted if there's some noise, let's say, in the communication between buyer, seller and e-bay. So, if one got really distressed with something and thought that ebay was harming consumers, and he managed to gather people in order to make a kind of collective plea, so I think yes, the German Police could at least in theory, I guess, interfere to protect the interests of consumers who had been harmed - otherwise, it's a problem between private individuals, I guess, and if they don't make their voices heard if their interests are harmed, there's nothing to be made. And if they feel the trade is ok, well, there's nothing much to do, is it? It's Queenzone, I guess, as a community, which is opposed to these practices and doesn't want to spur them in any way. What dear YV tried to do was allowing the discussion of the issue, which is absolutely fair to my mind, and not the use of the website as a bridge to these activities. I hope you're doing fine. Wish you the best, Yara. ** Dear YV: Feel free to ask me to edit the post and delete it if you or Richard deem it unecessary or harmful in any way. I just tried to be helpful there and I don't claim to have any special knowledge regarding the german legal system. I based my reasoning on what usually happens in my country and others I know of. I wish you the very best, I like you a lot and all those things you know already. lol. Hug! |
| Micrówave 16.04.2009 14:54 |
Hello Yara. I am well. Hope you are doing the same. I am not pointing the finger at anyone (except the one who knows I'm talking about him!!! :) ) but I can't see why Queen would approve of someone recording their performance without permission. That should be a crime. Unfortunately it's a grey area and not too prosecuteable, but it is still WRONG. If you put your heart and soul into a project and someone was copying or using that for their own use, I think you'd agree. Kinda like stealing a radio. And then two weeks later selling it for cash cause you need your fix. The person who buys the radio from Mr. Crack has just received stolen goods and is highly prosecuteable. Now I don't think that Sanyo should receive a 10% fix commission, but clearly an offense has occurred. How can me trading my illegal copy of Berlin - Live in Belfast for the ultra-rare Alan Parsons 1978 impromptu in Hyannis MA? That bootleg is very hard to find, but I've found someone who needs to hear Take My Breath Away in it's original Slovenic. We didn't exchange cash, but we both profitted from the transaction. Berlin and Alan Parsons didn't get a penny. Why is this OK? |
| The Real Wizard 16.04.2009 15:41 |
Micrówave wrote: I can't see why Queen would approve of someone recording their performance without permission. That should be a crime. Unfortunately it's a grey area and not too prosecuteable, but it is still WRONG. If you put your heart and soul into a project and someone was copying or using that for their own use, I think you'd agree. Naturally I see your point from an artistic viewpoint, but there are plenty of artists who don't really care, and/or ultimately accept that it can't be stopped. Most of the people who get these kinds of recordings have already purchased every one of that band's officially-available cds/dvds to begin with, so it's not like the band is losing revenue over a sub-standard quality recording. |
| Micrówave 16.04.2009 18:35 |
Yes, I have six Grateful Dead shows. I was allowed to plug directly into the mix with kind permission. That hasn't stopped me from owning every studio album and a few of the One From The Vault series. But I think this trading/recording issue has really skewed things. Queen really doesn't have much control of their catalog, because most of it has been "bootlegged" over the years. To the people who still want to see them and don't own DVD-Rs, this catalog is very much in demand. Of course, I can't ever see owning or even wanting to own 18 different Magic Tour shows. "Oh, but it was Freddie's last show" "Oh, but Freddie was really on that day" "Oh, Freddie's addidas were really kicking" That's usually the logic for owning all these different shows from the same tour. Big deal. I have always wanted Live Aid. That was the Queen Golden Nugget to me all these years. I saw it a couple of times, including when it was broadcast. Sure, I could've downloaded a "DVD-R" or watched some Youtube, but that wouldn't satisfy the need to have it in the highest possible quality. So when Queen Rock Montreal came out, I was finally satisfied. This fresh from the Wembley release which I enjoyed, since only having the official Hollywood CD and VHS for the last 10 years or so. But everyone complains about what Queen is releasing and how terrible the cover looks, etc. I guess to people that have 18 different shows from the Magic Tour, they have just become "another show". So now the "golden nugget" is some obscure Austrailian performance? Or Hangman studio version? Give me a break. If it weren't for the bootleggers, we'd probably have access to all of that by now. |
| The Real Wizard 17.04.2009 03:06 |
You're not a collector, and that's totally fine. Nobody's condemning you for it. Just don't condemn people who do choose to collect, and want to hear the things that are out there. It's as simple as that. :-) >If it weren't for the bootleggers, we'd probably have access to all of that by now. Not exactly sure what you mean by that... can you elaborate? |
| inu-liger 17.04.2009 05:06 |
Sir GH wrote: You're not a collector, and that's totally fine. Nobody's condemning you for it. Just don't condemn people who do choose to collect, and want to hear the things that are out there. It's as simple as that. :-) >If it weren't for the bootleggers, we'd probably have access to all of that by now. Not exactly sure what you mean by that... can you elaborate? I think he meant elitist collectors |
| Saint Jiub 17.04.2009 22:42 |
Micrówave wrote: If it weren't for the bootleggers, we'd probably have access to all of that by now. Do I detect an RIAA shill? Traders, collectors and bootleggers have nothing to do with archive material not being released. If it weren't for bootleggers, collectors and traders, none of this unreleased material would be readily available. Need I remind you that Wembley 96, Live Aid 85, Milton Keynes 82, Montreal 81 and Rainbow Nov 74 were all bootlegged before they were ultimately officially released. Queen are too busy re-releasing their back catalog time and time again, and ignoring their most loyal customers who have seen vitually no released archive material since 2004 when Milton Keynes was released. |
| Winter Land Man 18.04.2009 01:43 |
Panchgani wrote:Micrówave wrote: If it weren't for the bootleggers, we'd probably have access to all of that by now.Do I detect an RIAA shill? Traders, collectors and bootleggers have nothing to do with archive material not being released. If it weren't for bootleggers, collectors and traders, none of this unreleased material would be readily available. Need I remind you that Wembley 96, Live Aid 85, Milton Keynes 82, Montreal 81 and Rainbow Nov 74 were all bootlegged before they were ultimately officially released. Queen are too busy re-releasing their back catalog time and time again, and ignoring their most loyal customers who have seen vitually no released archive material since 2004 when Milton Keynes was released. Wembly 96 rocks. |
| Saint Jiub 18.04.2009 02:00 |
Yeah - Freddie was so impressed with the efforts of Brian, Roger and John on Made in Heaven that he rejoined his bandmates for one final concert one the first day of April in 1996. |
| YourValentine 18.04.2009 04:11 |
Micrówave wrote:
I am not pointing the finger at anyone (except the one who knows I'm talking about him!!! :) ) but I can't see why Queen would approve of someone recording their performance without permission. That should be a crime. Unfortunately it's a grey area and not too prosecuteable, but it is still WRONG. If you put your heart and soul into a project and someone was copying or using that for their own use, I think you'd agree.
Kinda like stealing a radio. And then two weeks later selling it for cash cause you need your fix. The person who buys the radio from Mr. Crack has just received stolen goods and is highly prosecuteable.
Now I don't think that Sanyo should receive a 10% fix commission, but clearly an offense has occurred. How can me trading my illegal copy of Berlin - Live in Belfast for the ultra-rare Alan Parsons 1978 impromptu in Hyannis MA? That bootleg is very hard to find, but I've found someone who needs to hear Take My Breath Away in it's original Slovenic. We didn't exchange cash, but we both profitted from the transaction. Berlin and Alan Parsons didn't get a penny. Why is this OK?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to make a difference between released material and unreleased material. Released material is sold in an official market and the profit is shared by the record company and the artist. Unreleased naterial is not the property of the record company, the "only" offense is harming the ownership of the artists who wrote and performed the concert. It's only the artist who can take action against such bootlegging, not the record industry. Many artists think it's very uncool to prosecute their own fanbase and turn a blind eye - mainly when the fans take great care not to distibute any released material like we do on Queenzone. People who collect audience recordings are usually people who also buy released material and concert tickets. Bands like Metallica were already heavily bootlegged before they even had a record contract - it's safe to say that Metallica actually own their carreer to the fans who recorded and distributed the concerts on cassettes in big numbers. Therefore they lost a lot of respect in their original fanbase when they took Napster to court. Selling bootlegs is a different subject. If you sell unreleased material it's also only the writer/performer who can take action because of copyright infringement and most artists simply do not bother. But in addition you have other offenses like for example not telling your customer that you are selling a bootleg (that is why ebay forbids the sales of CD-R and DVD-R media) and maybe tax evasion or other offenses. Pirate bay was not taken to court for distributing some old obscure live recordings, they were taken to court for distributing brand new movies, computer games and records. As to the connection between bootlegs and unreleased archive stuff - there is none. Quite a considerable number of demos and outtakes "leaked" from the archives but that has nothing to do with bootlegging. The best way to stop such leaks is to release the material. |