| John S Stuart 30.03.2012 13:13 |
I think both my record and generosity within the Queen community can speak for itself. I have never been greedy with any of my material and apart from a few rarities I have kept behind for very special trades - my collection has been freely given - and widely bootlegged. Almost every article, web-page and bootleg ever released has my fingerprints - somewhere, but I sit quietly, say little and expect even less. Even those rarities I have reserved - will be released - sometime. This is a good business strategy. If I decide to keep my iphone 3 for NOW, then give it away freely after I update to an iphone 4 - that does NOT make me " greedy" or a "cunt". It only keeps me one step ahead. You can take away my iPhone 4 with my blessing - but please wait until I get my iPhone 5. After all, it is me who is paying. It is I who own the Bellboy tape. I have never released the "A" side (yet) because I thought there was a little more millage in it. In the next year or so I would HAVE released it anyway. Ask yourselves - did you even know the A side existed? If so - it was because I told you. Try and find someone (anyone) who had this track before 2012 - and you will draw a blank, because even the bell-boy had no copy. In face of all this, all I recieve in return are threats, torrents of abuse, PC viruses, and (as can be seen) name-called as elitist, hoarder or "greedy cunt". Thanks guys. You really know how to support each other. |
| deleted user 30.03.2012 14:03 |
You got an iphone 3? |
| John S Stuart 30.03.2012 14:08 |
Not now - I gave it away! |
| Lord Fickle 30.03.2012 14:24 |
At least you didn't have it stolen. ;) Well said, John. |
| Micrówave 30.03.2012 15:05 |
Don't know what this is all about... but after the contributions you made on the Freddie box, you're one of the best fans this band has. You have a free pass to do with your collection what you wish. Just continue dangle a carrot every once in a while. |
| Woody43 30.03.2012 17:02 |
OK, I also have no idea what has been said - but obviously its pretty bad. So to show my ignorance - what is the bellboy tape and what is on the A and B side? I've been a longtime fan although not as up to speed as I used to be - I am now intrigued (wrong spelling - too much wine!) |
| brENsKi 30.03.2012 17:13 |
john you are not answerable to anyone. these people are the real cunts, selfish demanding, clawing ingrates who feel they have a divine right to everything for free - regardless of what it cost someone else...well fuck em leechers, scroungers and parasites all one slight slip-up john, you shouldn't have mentioned that you had "bell boy side 1", because this'll become the new "hangman" and these cunts will not let up, and the place will become even less bearable - of that's possible |
| John S Stuart 30.03.2012 17:48 |
brENsKi wrote: john you are not answerable to anyone. these people are the real cunts, selfish demanding, clawing ingrates who feel they have a divine right to everything for free - regardless of what it cost someone else...well fuck em leechers, scroungers and parasites all one slight slip-up john, you shouldn't have mentioned that you had "bell boy side 1", because this'll become the new "hangman" and these cunts will not let up, and the place will become even less bearable - of that's possibleThanks Brenski: The only reason I mentioned this was because it has already leaked on Queenzone. (Please don't expect me to supply a link!). But my point was - it was leaked under the pretence of; 1: Mine was NOT the only copy - while in reality it is the only copy. Only one genuine version exists. This is not an acetate but a sole cassette. 2: I never, ever, shared this ever - but only once - with someone I thought I could trust - and guess what - within a few weeks it was up here. (you figure). 3 - The uploader claimed he had it years ago (as if it was some pre-copy) YET, a sonic forensic ananlysis revealed that it came from my Mini Disc. This was a great achievement as the bell boy cassette was recorded almost 10 years BEFORE the MD was invented! Therefore my tape - which I converted to MD - was being touted as the original version! 4: Anyone can forensically see/hear that this share was from mini/disc. (Besides the MD was an edit - and guess what...) 5: The hub, PC, NAS or whatever this was downloaded from has electronic stamping. Everything uploaded and downloaded was recorded electronically. So I know exactly, when, where (ISP) and it was copied. Yet the uploader claims he never took it down - which in the face of this evidence is obviously a lie. 6: After asking for the download to be politely removed, the downloader provided a faked screen-shot to back-date innocence, denied all knowledge, the continued to update on other sites also Now; don't get me wrong. C'est La vie - and all that. I really don't care about the tape. My life is far bigger and fuller than that, but the betray hurts, and in two or three years after all sharing has stopped, perhaps looking back on today may be seen as some-sort of doomsday - rather than a revolution. |
| Wiley 30.03.2012 18:13 |
I sympathize with the hardcore collectors. The very few I have ever known of come into contact with have been nice to me but really this has nothing to do with it: If someone promises not to do something (share X material) and then does it, that is WRONG. this person is failing to their own word and will not be trusted again. I don't see how someone can be considered a hero or a modern day Robin Hood for doing this. It's stupid, really... breaking a promise for 15 lousy minutes of fame with kids who will only look/hear the material once (twice if it makes it to their iPod playlist) and then forget about it. It used to mean something... collecting, being a Queen fan. So now this 17 year old hears a Queen song on American Idol, likes it and 10 minutes later he is listening to Drammen '82 on YouTube... -_- Heesh! This sucks, for sure... I don't know if I would call this the Queen Armageddon or Queenpocalypse, though... :S |
| theCro 30.03.2012 19:17 |
John S Stuart wrote: I think both my record and generosity within the Queen community can speak for itself. I have never been greedy with any of my material and apart from a few rarities I have kept behind for very special trades - my collection has been freely given - and widely bootlegged. Almost every article, web-page and bootleg ever released has my fingerprints - somewhere, but I sit quietly, say little and expect even less. Even those rarities I have reserved - will be released - sometime. This is a good business strategy. If I decide to keep my iphone 3 for NOW, then give it away freely after I update to an iphone 4 - that does NOT make me " greedy" or a "cunt". It only keeps me one step ahead. You can take away my iPhone 4 with my blessing - but please wait until I get my iPhone 5. After all, it is me who is paying. It is I who own the Bellboy tape. I have never released the "A" side (yet) because I thought there was a little more millage in it. In the next year or so I would HAVE released it anyway. Ask yourselves - did you even know the A side existed? If so - it was because I told you. Try and find someone (anyone) who had this track before 2012 - and you will draw a blank, because even the bell-boy had no copy. In face of all this, all I recieve in return are threats, torrents of abuse, PC viruses, and (as can be seen) name-called as elitist, hoarder or "greedy cunt". Thanks guys. You really know how to support each other.i'm really thankful for everything you shared. |
| inu-liger 31.03.2012 02:41 |
It was one thing for said uploader to be pushing the envelope when it came to their popular YouTube channel, however nice it was to organize a lot of rarities in one place in addition to some official material. But breaking the trust of a select few for the "benefit" of the many, and now all but guaranteeing that those of us who theoretically WERE to "benefit" are instead going to be fucked over for a LONG time in terms of any "new" rarity uploads...I hope you are proud of yourself, Robin Hood |
| john bodega 31.03.2012 03:13 |
No one gives a fuck. It's not your fault, it's just the position that you're in. People who offer band rarities on the internet will never make a real friendship doing so. Look at Dave R Fuller, and then look at yourself. No one actually *likes* the guy, but you can bet that they suck-the-hell up to him in order to keep him doing what he's doing. It's hilarious to watch the little kiss-asses go to work on him as though he recorded the music himself. Just because they want more of it. Then there's you - you're perceived as a carrot dangler, or whatever, so the people who want something get frustrated and throw regular tantrums about it because they're not getting any. What you have to accept is that you're basically irrelevant. Even if people were nice to you and gave you full credit for everything you do, it's not because they like you or care about you. They just want their rare shit. There's no point explaining to people who you are or what great work you've done, because really ... they don't care. They care about Queen, and you're just a middleman. (Unless of course you were in the band or something, in which case I take that back). |
| john bodega 31.03.2012 03:31 |
I did forget to add that Dave Fuller is a worthless cocksucker. |
| 1sharppencil 31.03.2012 05:50 |
could sb pls let us know what the "bellboy" is? jss: nothing but respect for you |
| 1sharppencil 31.03.2012 06:21 |
ok, did my research...but I would expect sth detailed... |
| 4 x Vision 31.03.2012 08:23 |
"revolution", "good business strategy". Honestly? It's just a song. You'd think you were the one that made it the way you're ranting here. You're posts are normally very inciteful and intersting, but this just reads like a madman who hasn't left his PC since the internet began. I spent an absolute fortune when I was younger on bootlegs and "rare" material... all shitty quality and in hindsight a total waste of money (and not just because the same material is free online nowadays). Greedy "traders" preyed on young fans like myself and robbed us blind under the "rare" guise. These items would have had no monetary value had folk like yourself been more generous with material that no matter how hard it took to get... is the property of Queen. Why should you get to pick and choose what gets released and what gets hoarded. You're trying to have it both ways. i';m sure after you (generously) shared the BBC masters there were plenty of traders upset with your actions.... did they come to QZ and have a moan? I appreciate the trading world, and apperciate the amount of effort genuine traders (like yourself) went to over the years to build up your collections, but those days are long gone. Anyone that gets upset because a track they had gets released should really have a think to why they'er getting upset. After you give someone a track (which is up to you) then you lose any rights of distribution. Whether you were duped or not! Coming here and saying there's a "doomsday" starting... well, maybe you should have calmed down before writing such nonsense. You could have just came on and said, "x is a cunt, he lied to me and shared a song I was hoarding and i want you all to know. I had the track first, it was mine" and then just put your dummy back in. |
| 4 x Vision 31.03.2012 08:32 |
Zebonka12 wrote: No one actually *likes* the guy, but you can bet that they suck-the-hell up to him in order to keep him doing what he's doing. It's hilarious to watch the little kiss-asses go to work on him as though he recorded the music himself.Got to laugh here, you're being so hyopocritcal it's laughable. Did John S Stuart make the music himself? You've a right to your opinion on Dave Fuller, but he has and still is sharing a wealth of Queen material that nobody had heard before or could find. Like most of us over a certain age, finding new Queen material isn't the be all and end all, but too the kids (who you call kiss-asses) just getting into the band in a big way, new material is a big rush. The same rush that most of us got at the same stage of our Queen fan apprenticeship. If you say you didn't then I'd say you're telling porkies. Give Dave pelters all you like, but don't go making others sound like martyrs just because you know them from an internet forum. Not many (including John Stuart) have went to the same effort to release hard to find Queen material online without asking for nothing in return and without page long comments making sure the world knwos that they had it first. Not too mature. |
| A Word In Your Ear 31.03.2012 08:36 |
|
| John S Stuart 31.03.2012 09:19 |
I think that I may be being stupid here - but this thread is not about Queen, music, traders, hoarders or even myself per se, but about personal troll abuse. My point is: I do not think anyone (whether it is me - or anyone else) deserves threats, vile e-mails, personal messages or viruses. Yes; they can be deleted, but that doesn't make them any less tolerable. Sure, in the real world we can accept that not everyone likes us. That is normal and acceptable. But to have someone invade one's privacy and personal space in such a degrading manner is just not acceptable in a civilised society (imo). And, there is no correct answer. I get trolled if I do share, and trolled if I do not. That is why I very rarely post on here anymore. It's just not worth the hassle. It's not dummy spitting out, it's not even a complaint. It's a plea for understanding, not agreement or acceptance. Get a job, get an education, get a widescreen HD telly. Life is too short. To quote Star Wars: "Who is the bigger fool. The fool who leads - or the fool who follows"? Likewise who is the bigger c*nt? |
| john bodega 31.03.2012 10:02 |
"Got to laugh here, you're being so hyopocritcal it's laughable" I don't see how. I'm making an observation on the behaviour of fans, and furthermore it's a behaviour I'm not a fuckin' party to. I won't kiss anyone's arse on this forum with the assumption that I'm going to get something out of it. Either they upload stuff or they don't; I'm not about to grovel. No hypocrisy there. I can only assume that you mean to say that you think I'm somehow talking up JSS at the expense of Dave Fuller, which I assure you was not my intention. I find Fuller's "I'm the 5th member of Queen" act a little galling at times, but ultimately I don't care about him or any collector. The umbrage you see being taken with his actions in the past couple of days purely comes down to him being untrustworthy and self interested. He is a duplicitous sod; friendly when he has something to gain, dishonest when he's been caught out, and illiterate in the extreme if he thinks you've insulted him (I have the emails to prove it, ha ha). |
| Holly2003 31.03.2012 10:16 |
I'm not involved in any of these trades so I have no inside knowledge. However it strikes me that some underhand deal was done whenever Sun City was offered here for free. The guy uploaded one part but not the other (as he promised to do). Now I'm willing to bet there's a few people on here know what happened to the second part and have kept quiet about it. My guess is that someone here made the guy an offer in return for exclusive owndership of the whole Sun City gig. I could be wrong of course -- maybe the guy just cleared off, or maybe he was using the partial upload as a bargaining ploy and wasn't the rather naive roadie figure he made himself out to be -- but if I'm right how does that sit with the idea that the "elite" traders are doing us all a favour? In this case surely they are keeping material out of the public domain? Should they be praised for this? |
| Pierre 31.03.2012 10:53 |
Elite suckers i will say bloodsuckers...who F cares give it away free & its F stolen stuff anyway. |
| john bodega 31.03.2012 11:24 |
This is just my personal position, and I'm not claiming to know the minds of anyone who does this - but I would never pay for a frigging Queen rarity. The truth of it is that someone snatched it for free originally. That thing, however many generations ago, came from somewhere it shouldn't have. I figure if one person can get it for free, then so can someone else.. ie. Me. Selfish attitude? Maybe. I'm just being practical. There is literally no actual reason for someone to charge money for these things, so I have limited (read : NO) sympathy for these people who say they've spent thousands of dollars on their collections. Commiserations to you guys ... you got fucked. It happens when you're too loose with your money. |
| Wiley 31.03.2012 12:15 |
Zebonka has a point. Why pay for these rarities? I would pay for the actual acetate, reel to reel or whatever, but not for a copy of it. I assume the hard copy would lose some value but it would still be equally rare, equally unique, don't you think? I don't believe JSS or any other "elite traders" (like everybody seems to call them today) would sell their material for profit. They trade it to get other similary rare material. I don't see anything bad about it. Would you rather trade for a rare baseball card or buy it for $100k USD? Would it be the same if you downloaded a high quality print of it? I don't think so! Like I said before, this is not about hoarders and leechers, heroes or villains. This is about a promise broken. Still, Queenzone has seen several of those in the last 12 years I've been here. It's certainly not Queen fan doomsday. |
| Fireplace 31.03.2012 12:17 |
John S Stuart wrote: I think that I may be being stupid here - but this thread is not about Queen, music, traders, hoarders or even myself per se, but about personal troll abuse.Perhaps I'm the one being stupid here, but I clearly remember this board being about Queen and music when i joined. When did that change and why wasn't I notified? |
| John S Stuart 31.03.2012 12:46 |
|
| John S Stuart 31.03.2012 12:46 |
|
| John S Stuart 31.03.2012 12:47 |
|
| John S Stuart 31.03.2012 12:47 |
Fireplace wrote:Good point, succinctly made and I totally agree with you.John S Stuart wrote: I think that I may be being stupid here - but this thread is not about Queen, music, traders, hoarders or even myself per se, but about personal troll abuse.Perhaps I'm the one being stupid here, but I clearly remember this board being about Queen and music when i joined. When did that change and why wasn't I notified? My only defence is that this rant was generically aimed at a very few on Queenzone, the board, and the community in general - and that's why I said it. It may be the wrong forum (I appologise for that) but I still think it's the right place. I far prefer it over here in QZ than on the other channel - but that is my preference. I also don't believe that the abuse should be accepted, tollerated or comes with the territory. I don't think I can see myself calling anyone a "c*nt" on any public forum, so perhaps I am being over-sensitive, but remember my mum, my kids, my friends, and their friends read this! I am not after sympathy, support, kudos or anything like that. However, I did politely request the poster to "refine" his post (not delete or censorship) but my request has been declined. Seeing as how my request has not been granted; I still ask in my own awkward way - while you may agree with the poster - does anyone actually accept that anyone needs this abuse, especially in a forum that is supposed to be fun? I am not a cry baby, or bleeding heart liberal, but my final point is - should such abuse be tollerated in here (in real life one can always walk away); or by ignoring or just accepting this as the norm - are we are actually approving via inaction? Again; sorry for the rant. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, but the printed word is a lot more permanant and unforgiving than an off-the-cuff oral remark. I agree, we may never play happilly together, one can not please all the people all the time, (so someone is always offended) but the least we can do is show some respect towards each other - or am I really that much out of touch? |
| MadTheSwine73 31.03.2012 13:37 |
I'm not an elite, but I liked the message. Thanks for all your help Mr. Stuart. |
| pma 31.03.2012 14:04 |
The notorious Queen elite descends from the tribe of Hoarders who invaded the land of Fairy Queen's back in 1207. They soon took over the lands of the fairies and started ruling over the community, having slain the Fairy King. They brought their own customs and language, and currency (bootlegged audience recordings, rare tracks, acetates). The king of the elite hoarders, King John Stuart III is a ruthless ruler who regularly sends his army of hoarders to pillage the mp3-album collections of "ordinary fairies". How long will the rule of this upper-crust last? Nobody knows, but the fairies await for the birth of their saviour, for he shall be born soon and his name shall be Sir Jacob of Britt. And he shall be strong, handsome and manly, Oh and talented beyond our wildest dreams. Oh wait, what was this topic about? |
| mooghead 31.03.2012 15:18 |
JSS you do what the hell you want with what you have in your possession. You really should name and shame the 'collectors' with no morals. In fact, come clean with exactly what you have in your collection and just keep it to yourself, forever. It will drive them insane. |
| horse feathers 31.03.2012 15:25 |
JSS, You don't own the stuff, you just have an ability to aquire the stuff. Wether you share that stuff or not, I don't give a toss. But please stop playing the martyr, FFs. |
| brENsKi 31.03.2012 16:24 |
Zebonka12 wrote: This is just my personal position, and I'm not claiming to know the minds of anyone who does this - but I would never pay for a frigging Queen rarity. The truth of it is that someone snatched it for free originally. That thing, however many generations ago, came from somewhere it shouldn't have. I figure if one person can get it for free, then so can someone else.. ie. Me. Selfish attitude? Maybe. I'm just being practical. There is literally no actual reason for someone to charge money for these things, so I have limited (read : NO) sympathy for these people who say they've spent thousands of dollars on their collections. Commiserations to you guys ... you got fucked. It happens when you're too loose with your money.not everything was stolen some stuff is unceremoniously dumped - in skips etc, other things are given to people, sometimes engineers get to keep copies for their own "portfolios" in any way, in these cases the stuff was unwanted at the time, so it's the property of whoever gave it a new life, and before this starts another row, i am not talkign about intellectual property, i am referring to physical property but i take your point that lots of it is stolen |
| Erin 31.03.2012 19:04 |
It's a shame all this went down the way it did. It sounded like a cool project y'all were working on. I'm grateful for all the contributions JSS has made to the Queen community, especially allowing his ultimate lists to be used on certain fan sites. ;-) I guess I'm greedy cause if I spent hundreds of dollars on an acetate, I probably wouldn't want to share it, at least not with everyone. >:-) |
| john bodega 31.03.2012 21:08 |
"i am not talkign about intellectual property, i am referring to physical property" I take your meaning. A couple of you raise the point that it's worth paying for the original item - for curiosities sake, I'd buy a Queen tape, or acetate, or film reel, or whatever-the-fuck one would find a rarity on in its original form. But paying for a replication is ridiculous. The collector didn't make the thing and sure as shit isn't giving the songwriter a cut of the proceeds. I'm strongly in favour of spreading stuff that isn't for sale when the artist can't be boned putting it out officially, but I also strongly believe that it shouldn't be to line someone else's pockets. |
| 1sharppencil 01.04.2012 01:19 |
as a collector, granted not "elite" (you have to be an ass to call yourself that, r u still living in 1993/1994?), I have to say I don't give a flying fuck about the Reaction tapes...gee...nor do I care much about the "Too Much Love Will Kill You" sessions... as for "Hangman", the never-ending-story of the Queen fora (yes, that's the plural!), I've heard so much b/s over the years...Dave F. is now accusing JSS of selling the acetate to QP while at the same time QP deny everything (well QP can keep on denying - their credibility is non-existent) ... kindergarten rulez do me a favor, "elite": post a 30 seconds clip of a studio take of "Hangman" or sth interesting...please... |
| mooghead 01.04.2012 04:40 |
People fail to realise that the single greatest item of Queen product that could ever be 'leaked' has been and that is the BoRhap multitrack. There is NOTHING locked away anywhere that can touch that. The obvious superiority complexes of the 'Elite' or whatever pretentious name they have given themselves are completely unfounded. |
| Holly2003 01.04.2012 05:43 |
Holly2003 wrote: I'm not involved in any of these trades so I have no inside knowledge. However it strikes me that some underhand deal was done whenever Sun City was offered here for free. The guy uploaded one part but not the other (as he promised to do). Now I'm willing to bet there's a few people on here know what happened to the second part and have kept quiet about it. My guess is that someone here made the guy an offer in return for exclusive owndership of the whole Sun City gig. I could be wrong of course -- maybe the guy just cleared off, or maybe he was using the partial upload as a bargaining ploy and wasn't the rather naive roadie figure he made himself out to be -- but if I'm right how does that sit with the idea that the "elite" traders are doing us all a favour? In this case surely they are keeping material out of the public domain? Should they be praised for this? No takers on this one? lol |
| pittrek 01.04.2012 06:26 |
Pierre wrote: Elite suckers i will say bloodsuckers...who F cares give it away free & its F stolen stuff anyway.Sorry, who the F are you and why the F do you claim that "it" is stolen stuff ? |
| YourValentine 01.04.2012 06:57 |
Holly2003 wrote:Okay, since you asked I answer: If some fan had obtained the Sun City gig we would surely have heard about it - at least rumours. In fact, there are usually more rumours than actual recordings. Of course it is much better to blame it on "elite traders" - whoever they may be. Like 9/11 was an "inside job" and men never flew to the moon. Conspiracy theories have the advantage that you can blame anyone - not even someone specific - without the slightest proof. "someone" "made an offer", some "underhand deal", omg - I don't believe it. If you knew ANYTHING about collecting you would know that any collector would have been too happy to download Sun City for free because exclusiveness is not the aim of collecting - completeness is.Holly2003 wrote: I'm not involved in any of these trades so I have no inside knowledge. However it strikes me that some underhand deal was done whenever Sun City was offered here for free. The guy uploaded one part but not the other (as he promised to do). Now I'm willing to bet there's a few people on here know what happened to the second part and have kept quiet about it. My guess is that someone here made the guy an offer in return for exclusive owndership of the whole Sun City gig. I could be wrong of course -- maybe the guy just cleared off, or maybe he was using the partial upload as a bargaining ploy and wasn't the rather naive roadie figure he made himself out to be -- but if I'm right how does that sit with the idea that the "elite" traders are doing us all a favour? In this case surely they are keeping material out of the public domain? Should they be praised for this?No takers on this one? lol |
| Holly2003 01.04.2012 07:09 |
Err.. 9/11? Okay ... The aim of collecting is completion, of course, but to be able to do that you need something to trade and the rarer the thing you have the more you have to trade with. Isn't Sun City rare? I find it very odd that the person uploaded 1/2 a concert for free then completely disappeared. Don't you? I suspect he was made an offer. That's the most likely explanation -- nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracies etc. Bit surprising to hear that from you YV. Honestly, I find it very hard to work up any sympathy for JSS or anyone else hanging onto rare recordings, be that Queen Productions or people here. The stuff recently leaked is nearly 50 years old ffs! How long are people going to hang onto this stuff? Until we're all dead and buried? |
| tero! 48531 01.04.2012 07:24 |
Holly2003 wrote: ...The aim of collecting is completion, of course, but to be able to do that you need something to trade and the rarer the thing you have the more you have to trade with. Isn't Sun City rare? I find it very odd that the person uploaded 1/2 a concert for free then completely disappeared. Don't you? I suspect he was made an offer. That's the most likely explanation --Another explanation would be that the uploader had gotten it as a trade himself, and for some reason wanted to make the item worthless in the trading scene. Perhaps he was cheated on a trade ("I'll send you half the show before you send me your material, and the other half afterwards"), and wanted to have revenge for it? |
| tero! 48531 01.04.2012 07:28 |
Holly2003 wrote:Honestly, I find it very hard to work up any sympathy for JSS or anyone else hanging onto rare recordings, be that Queen Productions or people here. The stuff recently leaked is nearly 50 years old ffs! How long are people going to hang onto this stuff? Until we're all dead and buried?That's pretty much how I feel too, but I'm also beginning to lose interest in the material. 15 years ago I would have jumped at the chance of getting every bit of Queen material, but I'm just not interested in it anymore. A few more decades and there's NOBODY interested in the material, and all the collectibles will turn into worthless items again. :/ |
| GratefulFan 01.04.2012 08:44 |
YourValentine wrote: Of course it is much better to blame it on "elite traders" - whoever they may be. Like 9/11 was an "inside job" and men never flew to the moon. Conspiracy theories have the advantage that you can blame anyone - not even someone specific - without the slightest proof. "someone" "made anoffer", some "underhand deal", omg - I don't believe it. I think an example of elite traders might be a dozen or so people who enrol in a secret society called 'Fanthology' that aims to tightly keep everything in the group, even the knowledge of the very existence of material. Look at the language in the other thread: "David this should never have been made public"......"since you left Fanthology has updated a huge range of studio rarities - which will never be discussed in public."...."you betrayed your trust". As strange as it is for me to completely fathom, this *is* the language of conspiracy, |
| John S Stuart 01.04.2012 09:22 |
Grateful Fan: This is getting quite silly. All sorts of groups exist. "Red Special" collectors meet in Italy. The mini-cooper club exists, The Aberdeen supporters club exists, the mile-high club, the millionaires club etc. Queenzone is a club. So a few Queen fans (I myself included) are fed up with Queenzone. The bitching, the moaning, the back-stabbing, the death-threats etc, and decide - "you know what let's start our own wee club - free from all of that hassles and trolls - and lets live happy ever after". So we did - for a while. This was a private exclusive club. Now before I hear talk about conspiracy or revolutions - there was an admission price. That is capitalism for you. Think of it as an exclusive golf club if you like. If you have problems with exclusive clubs - go communist. We all lived happily, and we traded our baseball cards, our stories, drank brandy and smoked big cigars (well you get the point). Except one member went rogue, lied, stole and cheated and broke the rules. Sh*t happens. So what? We all breath the same air, the Mono Lisa keeps on smiling - again so what. I am proud to be an Aberdeen supporter. I am proud to own an XJS, I am proud to be a millionaire, I am proud to be a FANTHOLOGIST! Any one want to join? Form an orderly queue, the admission "fee"? For the XJS club = 1 XJS. The Red Special Club = 1 x red special. An antiques collectors club = 1 x antique. To join an exclusive records club = (well you go figure). A priviledged elete perhaps, but conspiracy... So there it is all bare, all public. We are not Freemasons, the Vatican, CIA or MI5. We are a few good friends who trade with each other. Is that really so mind boggling or unforgiving? Remember, we did not kick this off. We have took losses before and will again, but to be called a "C*nt" on a public forum... and for what? |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 01.04.2012 09:40 |
YourValentine wrote:Eeuuhhh their are 5 full sc shows outthere. The guy who posted this ownes 5 complete shows! They were even on hv his sales list for a short while. Even QPL is hunting down these recordings.Holly2003 wrote:Okay, since you asked I answer: If some fan had obtained the Sun City gig we would surely have heard about it - at least rumours. In fact, there are usually more rumours than actual recordings. Of course it is much better to blame it on "elite traders" - whoever they may be. Like 9/11 was an "inside job" and men never flew to the moon. Conspiracy theories have the advantage that you can blame anyone - not even someone specific - without the slightest proof. "someone" "made an offer", some "underhand deal", omg - I don't believe it. If you knew ANYTHING about collecting you would know that any collector would have been too happy to download Sun City for free because exclusiveness is not the aim of collecting - completeness is.Holly2003 wrote: I'm not involved in any of these trades so I have no inside knowledge. However it strikes me that some underhand deal was done whenever Sun City was offered here for free. The guy uploaded one part but not the other (as he promised to do). Now I'm willing to bet there's a few people on here know what happened to the second part and have kept quiet about it. My guess is that someone here made the guy an offer in return for exclusive owndership of the whole Sun City gig. I could be wrong of course -- maybe the guy just cleared off, or maybe he was using the partial upload as a bargaining ploy and wasn't the rather naive roadie figure he made himself out to be -- but if I'm right how does that sit with the idea that the "elite" traders are doing us all a favour? In this case surely they are keeping material out of the public domain? Should they be praised for this?No takers on this one? lol As been told numerous times before ; this isn't a queen soundboard recording ! It was recorded by someone working at the venue. |
| brians wig 01.04.2012 10:09 |
Pierre wrote: Elite suckers i will say bloodsuckers...who F cares give it away free & its F stolen stuff anyway.I think you'll find that if someone has an original acetate of the Reaction demos because he was a band member and then sells his copy in auction and someone buys it: that's NOT stealing. So. When are YOU going to give something back to the Queen community Pierre? Taped any concerts yourself that you'd like to share or do you plan on taking for the rest of your life? Your kind of attitude only ever seems to come from people who take... It's like being paid an income without actually having gone to work for it and then complaining when it's taken off you. |
| Holly2003 01.04.2012 10:25 |
John S Stuart wrote: Grateful Fan: This is getting quite silly. All sorts of groups exist. "Red Special" collectors meet in Italy. The mini-cooper club exists, The Aberdeen supporters club exists, the mile-high club, the millionaires club etc. Queenzone is a club. So a few Queen fans (I myself included) are fed up with Queenzone. The bitching, the moaning, the back-stabbing, the death-threats etc, and decide - "you know what let's start our own wee club - free from all of that hassles and trolls - and lets live happy ever after". So we did - for a while. This was a private exclusive club. Now before I hear talk about conspiracy or revolutions - there was an admission price. That is capitalism for you. Think of it as an exclusive golf club if you like. If you have problems with exclusive clubs - go communist. We all lived happily, and we traded our baseball cards, our stories, drank brandy and smoked big cigars (well you get the point). Except one member went rogue, lied, stole and cheated and broke the rules. Sh*t happens. So what? We all breath the same air, the Mono Lisa keeps on smiling - again so what. I am proud to be an Aberdeen supporter. I am proud to own an XJS, I am proud to be a millionaire, I am proud to be a FANTHOLOGIST! Any one want to join? Form an orderly queue, the admission "fee"? For the XJS club = 1 XJS. The Red Special Club = 1 x red special. An antiques collectors club = 1 x antique. To join an exclusive records club = (well you go figure). A priviledged elete perhaps, but conspiracy... So there it is all bare, all public. We are not Freemasons, the Vatican, CIA or MI5. We are a few good friends who trade with each other. Is that really so mind boggling or unforgiving? Remember, we did not kick this off. We have took losses before and will again, but to be called a "C*nt" on a public forum... and for what? Yep capitalism at its ugliest. You pay for and trade music that you didn't create, keep and exploit it until it has no value, and then (sometimes, not always) share it when -- to you -- it has no more value. You mirror the worst aspects of record companies who basically do the same thing. And then when you lose control over something (as when Fuller leaked The Reaction stuff) you expect sympathy from everyone who doesn't have access to these recordings, and yet is expected to express sympathy otherwise we won't get any more scraps from the table lol! Sorry, I'm too old to play that game. So, once again, thanks for what you've shared, I respect that you've paid for material that you own, and it's a bit shit that someone betrayed your trust and that you are being insulted in the way you claim, but .... let's not have any more of these self-pitying threads please. |
| GratefulFan 01.04.2012 10:40 |
John S Stuart wrote: Grateful Fan: This is getting quite silly. All sorts of groups exist. "Red Special" collectors meet in Italy. The mini-cooper club exists, The Aberdeen supporters club exists, the mile-high club, the millionaires club etc. Queenzone is a club. So a few Queen fans (I myself included) are fed up with Queenzone. The bitching, the moaning, the back-stabbing, the death-threats etc, and decide - "you know what let's start our own wee club - free from all of that hassles and trolls - and lets live happy ever after". So we did - for a while. This was a private exclusive club. Now before I hear talk about conspiracy or revolutions - there was an admission price. That is capitalism for you. Think of it as an exclusive golf club if you like. If you have problems with exclusive clubs - go communist. We all lived happily, and we traded our baseball cards, our stories, drank brandy and smoked big cigars (well you get the point). Except one member went rogue, lied, stole and cheated and broke the rules. Sh*t happens. So what? We all breath the same air, the Mono Lisa keeps on smiling - again so what. I am proud to be an Aberdeen supporter. I am proud to own an XJS, I am proud to be a millionaire, I am proud to be a FANTHOLOGIST! Any one want to join? Form an orderly queue, the admission "fee"? For the XJS club = 1 XJS. The Red Special Club = 1 x red special. An antiques collectors club = 1 x antique. To join an exclusive records club = (well you go figure). A priviledged elete perhaps, but conspiracy... So there it is all bare, all public. We are not Freemasons, the Vatican, CIA or MI5. We are a few good friends who trade with each other. Is that really so mind boggling or unforgiving? Remember, we did not kick this off. We have took losses before and will again, but to be called a "C*nt" on a public forum... and for what? Well I can google 'Mile High Club". Until yesterday nobody could say that about Others may be like me: When I listened to the Taylor track this morning I did so twice, with my eyes closed, appreciating that unique, incredible rock voice in a new configuration. Not his most remarkable track ever of course, yet It was an unanticipated pleasure, a small joy all the same. Like discovering a book by your favourite author that you didn't know he'd written. That 1000 plus others had been there before me didn't reduce the feeling of a private, special experience. For the enrichment of your own private experiences, you keep some of that from people. From me. I understand that art dealers exist, and that they facilitate the amassing of private collections for themselves and people who have one way or another worked to create opportunities for themselves that others have not. I understand that and accept it's role in capitalism and life. But I have more admiration and respect for the man who spends his treasure for something and then donates it to a museum for the public good and collective enrichment for it's own sake, not just once the value to him has evolved, if ever. I think most people probably do. I'm afraid you're stuck with that, just like we're stuck on this side. |
| Serry... 01.04.2012 10:42 |
Cunts, worthless cocksuckers, fucks... This place still rocks. |
| Holly2003 01.04.2012 10:49 |
brians wig wrote:Pierre wrote: Elite suckers i will say bloodsuckers...who F cares give it away free & its F stolen stuff anyway.I think you'll find that if someone has an original acetate of the Reaction demos because he was a band member and then sells his copy in auction and someone buys it: that's NOT stealing. So. When are YOU going to give something back to the Queen community Pierre? Taped any concerts yourself that you'd like to share or do you plan on taking for the rest of your life? Your kind of attitude only ever seems to come from people who take... It's like being paid an income without actually having gone to work for it and then complaining when it's taken off you. Wouldn't you need to ask the other members of the band whether or not the original band member had the right to sell the music in this way? Did the band member have sole ownership of the material? (maybe he did, but since you raise the point perhaps you know for certain?) As for your welfare analogy, it's competely wrong, but it does reveal that "superior attitude" some of you have, but claim not to. |
| brians wig 01.04.2012 11:04 |
|
| mooghead 01.04.2012 13:35 |
JSS.. Sorry but if you were a millionaire you would have a proper car ;-) Anyway.. at the end of the day what are we arguing about? The Reaction stuff was interesting for about 30 seconds... WHEN the Hangman recording becomes public we will be amazed for 5. After that there is nothing left. Sun City? Just listen to any other gig of the time. I will never understand the obsession for live stuff. |
| tcc 02.04.2012 01:49 |
Grateful Fan wrote: For the enrichment of your own private experiences, you keep some of that from people. From me. ______________________________ I think access to rare Queen music here for downloading is a privilege and not a right. While we admire those who donate their collection for the public to enjoy, we should not cast illwill to those who do not do it. Collecting usually stems from a love for the item. The fact that the collected item went up in value over time is a bonus and is a reflection of the collector's ability to judge the beauty of an item, especially when its creator was relatively not so well-known at that time. |
| john bodega 02.04.2012 01:54 |
This thread rocks. Really, there was only one thing done wrong here - Asshat Fuller leaked something he was asked not to, and then lied about it to try and look innocent. That is literally the only transgression, because the recordings do not belong to the collectors any more than they belong to me. I'm speaking morally, here - finders keepers doesn't apply because it's not even your music. It's sad, really sad if you paid money for these rare things and then watched as someone leaked them away for free - I'm sure it really hurts deep inside yo! - but really, it's your fault for buying them in the first place. The focus really ought to be on who you were dealing with, and how you ever conned yourself into thinking he was trustworthy. I knew he was a rat ages ago. He was nice to me in private (he wanted the excerpt of Face it Alone that was sent to me by the_hero, before the full thing came out). He was SO nice... it warms my heart. As soon as I didn't treat him like he was King Dick, he went into full-on lowercase retard mode and started sending me hatemail. Next time, don't be so eager to do business with such a two-faced asshole. |
| YourValentine 02.04.2012 02:11 |
Holly2003 wrote: Err.. 9/11? Okay ...The aim of collecting is completion, of course, but to be able to do that you need something to trade and the rarer the thing you have the more you have to trade with. Isn't Sun City rare? I find it very odd that the person uploaded 1/2 a concert for free then completely disappeared. Don't you? I suspect he was made an offer. That's the most likely explanation -- nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracies etc. Bit surprising to hear that from you YV.Honestly, I find it very hard to work up any sympathy for JSS or anyone else hanging onto rare recordings, be that Queen Productions or people here. The stuff recently leaked is nearly 50 years old ffs! How long are people going to hang onto this stuff? Until we're all dead and buried?Strangely, I find it extraordinary to assume that a collector would do that. Collecting Queen material is a hobby and not the mafia. It is fun like collecting football cards or car miniatures. We all have lives outside collecting Queen material and I never met someone who would pay a lot of money for something he could get for free, that simply does not make any sense. If QPL are after the Sun City material as ghostwithasmile says I find it hard to believe that a fan could possibly outbid them. GratefulFan - I was in Queen groups before, most notably the "Royal Rarities Request Society" on Audiogalaxy, remember that? It was also an invitation group and it was fun. I see many people here post how they do not care anymore and how very uninteresting all this rare stuff is. Some people do care and John invited some of them to join this group. The most important part was sharing material, information and knowlegde and it was all up to John whom he invited and and which rules he set. After accepting his invitation and accepting the rules it would be the most normal thing to follow these rules. Actually, it was not required to own rare material if the invited friend could add expertise, knowledge and information. Even in the hub we have rules, you need an invitation and approval by the hub owner and I never heard that we hubbies were accused of being elite fans who hold material back and even buy it off the "market" to keep it from the public. |
| tcc 02.04.2012 03:41 |
Zebonka12 wrote: This thread rocks. Really, there was only one thing done wrong here - Asshat Fuller leaked something he was asked not to, and then lied about it to try and look innocent. That is literally the only transgression, because the recordings do not belong to the collectors any more than they belong to me. I'm speaking morally, here - finders keepers doesn't apply because it's not even your music. It's sad, really sad if you paid money for these rare things and then watched as someone leaked them away for free - I'm sure it really hurts deep inside yo! - but really, it's your fault for buying them in the first place. The focus really ought to be on who you were dealing with, and how you ever conned yourself into thinking he was trustworthy. I knew he was a rat ages ago. He was nice to me in private (he wanted the excerpt of Face it Alone that was sent to me by the_hero, before the full thing came out). He was SO nice... it warms my heart. As soon as I didn't treat him like he was King Dick, he went into full-on lowercase retard mode and started sending me hatemail. Next time, don't be so eager to do business with such a two-faced asshole. DF leaked something, lied about it to try to look innocent AND called the person who gave the piece of music to him a c*nt. How can you tell if a person will turn out to be a two-faced bad guy ? We have a saying - if you doubt a person don't use him, if you use a person don't doubt him. |
| john bodega 02.04.2012 07:26 |
"How can you tell if a person will turn out to be a two-faced bad guy ?" Spend some time dealing with him piecemeal before you go and do anything that might bite you on the arse... like I said, from a couple of trivial communications with him, I could've given the guys an accurate and reliable character reference before they went and gave him their precious recordings. It's too bad they didn't ask me first! Hahaha. |
| 4 x Vision 02.04.2012 09:05 |
Zebonka12 wrote: There is literally no actual reason for someone to charge money for these things, so I have limited (read : NO) sympathy for these people who say they've spent thousands of dollars on their collections. Commiserations to you guys ... you got fucked. It happens when you're too loose with your money.Before the net it was one of the easiest and quickest ways to get hard to get Queen material. Trade shows were expensive, but the selection was massive. Without sounding hypocrtical, my current self probably wishes I hadn't been so hasty.... but I was a young kid back then with an unhealthy infatuation with my favourite band. I earned that money and spent it on something I enjoyed so don't know how "i got fucked". I'm surprised someone with over 10000 posts on a Queen fan site doesn't understand why someone would pay for Queen material?!? I wish you were about though back then to show me how to get the same items so easily for "free", like the way you claim you would have done? I'm guessing your a financial wizkid the way you've got your head on so straight with money and spending it correctly. |
| 4 x Vision 02.04.2012 09:11 |
John S Stuart wrote: I think that I may be being stupid here - but this thread is not about Queen, music, traders, hoarders or even myself per se, but about personal troll abuse. Maybe you shouldn't have started a thread in the Queen Serious Discussion section then? If your post is nothing to do with Queen or music, then it should maybe have been put in the Personal section? Maybe I'm being stupid though. |
| 4 x Vision 02.04.2012 09:21 |
John S Stuart wrote:Fireplace wrote:Good point, succinctly made and I totally agree with you. My only defence is that this rant was generically aimed at a very few on Queenzone, the board, and the community in general - and that's why I said it. It may be the wrong forum (I appologise for that) but I still think it's the right place. I far prefer it over here in QZ than on the other channel - but that is my preference. I also don't believe that the abuse should be accepted, tollerated or comes with the territory. I don't think I can see myself calling anyone a "c*nt" on any public forum, so perhaps I am being over-sensitive, but remember my mum, my kids, my friends, and their friends read this! I am not after sympathy, support, kudos or anything like that. However, I did politely request the poster to "refine" his post (not delete or censorship) but my request has been declined. Seeing as how my request has not been granted; I still ask in my own awkward way - while you may agree with the poster - does anyone actually accept that anyone needs this abuse, especially in a forum that is supposed to be fun? I am not a cry baby, or bleeding heart liberal, but my final point is - should such abuse be tollerated in here (in real life one can always walk away); or by ignoring or just accepting this as the norm - are we are actually approving via inaction? Again; sorry for the rant. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, but the printed word is a lot more permanant and unforgiving than an off-the-cuff oral remark. I agree, we may never play happilly together, one can not please all the people all the time, (so someone is always offended) but the least we can do is show some respect towards each other - or am I really that much out of touch?John S Stuart wrote: I think that I may be being stupid here - but this thread is not about Queen, music, traders, hoarders or even myself per se, but about personal troll abuse.Perhaps I'm the one being stupid here, but I clearly remember this board being about Queen and music when i joined. When did that change and why wasn't I notified? I'm genuinely shocked at how much you've lost the plot here. You are still ranting about losing your track. The 'abuse' is all secondary and you know it. You're upset because you were duped, it happens to us all, but don't pretend it's to do with the abuse you've had to endure... I reckon you're far thicker skinned than that? "I am not after sympathy - support, kudos". But that's how it reads. You're friends may say it isn't , but if they were unbiased they'd agree. |
| 4 x Vision 02.04.2012 09:29 |
Holly2003 wrote: Yep capitalism at its ugliest. You pay for and trade music that you didn't create, keep and exploit it until it has no value, and then (sometimes, not always) share it when -- to you -- it has no more value. You mirror the worst aspects of record companies who basically do the same thing. And then when you lose controlover something (as when Fuller leaked The Reaction stuff) you expect sympathy from everyone who doesn't have access to these recordings, and yet is expected to express sympathy otherwise we won't get any more scraps from the table lol! Sorry, I'm too old to play that game. So, once again, thanks for what you've shared, I respect that you've paid for material that you own, and it's a bit shit that someone betrayed your trust and that you are being insulted in the way you claim, but .... let's not have any more of these self-pitying threads please. ----------------------- Very good reply. |
| john bodega 02.04.2012 11:19 |
" I'm surprised someone with over 10000 posts on a Queen fan site doesn't understand why someone would pay for Queen material?!?" Starting your post with the words 'Before the net' was a pretty good way to undermine the rest of it. It might've made sense once upon a time to put money into these things, but now it's different. The actual music industry had to wake up to the internet in order to keep making money; why should the bootleg community expect anything else? The chief difference is that they really shouldn't be making any money in the first place. "I'm guessing your a financial wizkid the way you've got your head on so straight with money and spending it correctly." Well apart from some rules I have about never paying for stolen goods, I'm pretty regular with my expenditure. |
| GratefulFan 02.04.2012 11:55 |
tcc wrote: Grateful Fan wrote: For the enrichment of your own private experiences, you keep some of that from people. From me. ______________________________ I think access to rare Queen music here for downloading is a privilege and not a right. While we admire those who donate their collection for the public to enjoy, we should not cast illwill to those who do not do it. Collecting usually stems from a love for the item. The fact that the collected item went up in value over time is a bonus and is a reflection of the collector's ability to judge the beauty of an item, especially when its creator was relatively not so well-known at that time. Back up there in context where my words belong there was no implication that having access to rare Queen music is a right, right? Part of my point is that this is all an exceedingly predictable dynamic. The havers and the wanters and all the other actors, the villains, the heros - all playing their parts. People should stop being so pitiably aggrieved and trolling for sympathy and righteous outrage. I don't think it's either nice or acceptable that JSS was called a c*nt. It's unpleasant. I know as I've been addressed that way probably a dozen times by American men on QZ - who given the word's connotations in the society both they and I understand - are bringing an eight inch knife to a nerf ball fight. And yet I've never moaned about it, and I've certainly never indicated I was going to 'call my solicitor'. People understand having and wanting and trust and betrayal. They also understand nonsense, silliness, inflated heads and bullshit. All part of an aforementioned 'human element'. Plenty of 'humanity' going around just lately. |
| john bodega 02.04.2012 12:10 |
"If your post is nothing to do with Queen or music, then it should maybe have been put in the Personal section?" *thumbs up* |
| mooghead 02.04.2012 12:12 |
I used to dabble with collecting but since the internet theres no point. Its all only a matter of time.... Rare vinyl is the only REAL collector items out there. |
| GratefulFan 02.04.2012 12:31 |
mooghead wrote: I used to dabble with collecting but since the internet theres no point. Its all only a matter of time.... There was a previous point about ethical similarities with record companies made. A second similarity might be the failure to adequately adapt to a new medium, to refashion goals and expectations and instead cling to draconian rules as a means of control. In the case of sharing perhaps that means a shift in the value to original physical copies of things, or the uncompressed and early gen versions of things rather than the exclusivity of who has laid their ears on any given piece of music. Maybe Fuller has an idea of sorts here...maybe it's okay if hyper compressed YouTube videos and crappy mp3s are out there as a matter of policy given the inevitability of the pressure to leak, and the instant and irreversible and exponential nature of an internet leak, along with the inevitability of emergent and divergent views on what it means to be a collector and a contributor for a generation what was raised on Pirate Bay. |
| Micrówave 02.04.2012 15:48 |
1. This thread would sure make a hell of a better movie than a Freddie Mercury movie starring BORAT Robert De Niro as John S Stuart and Woody Allen as David Fuller. Taylor Lautner as Hangman Acetate. Let's get it done. 2. What is the difference than this "collector's group" and say what Napster was doing? They got shut down because the artists made no money, right? 3. Someone needs to blow the whistle on the secret society. I want to know if they wear special robes, have rings, etc. There's got to be some great conspiracy type stuff. Perhaps it was a juicy elite club like Eyes Wide Shut. Now that would be awesome. 4. Nothing's gonna change as a result of this happening right? We're still gonna get leaks, Freddie Boxes, etc? I really don't have a problem with either. 5. It's nice to hear some of that rare stuff surface, but are there really people that want to hear EVERY live Queen gig? And then listen to them again and talk about it at Holiday Inn banquet rooms? That's insane. 6. There's some person trying to sell a box that Freddie sat on for $10,000.00. Hey if someone will buy it, then good for the seller!!! |
| brians wig 02.04.2012 16:09 |
|
| GratefulFan 02.04.2012 16:37 |
This is in no way intended to support David Fuller because I am simply nowhere near involved enough to make a proper judgement, but have I missed something in the way of proof of the allegations? Just from a logic standpoint, how does an upload with his watermark disprove his stand that he received the work from somebody else? IF true, it's 50/50 whether he'd have uploaded his original or the one he received. It's even possible, though less likely, that he received the trade in a virtual sense - the intent of some other trader to pass it to him - but ultimately not needed as all he was seeking was the 'right' - by his logic - to leak stuff that was circulating outside of the group. If he was as selfishly inclined as is being claimed, why did he decline JSS's invitation to rejoin the group for further benefit? Is it possible we have a competing pair of potentially valid streams of ethical reasoning? Or, once again, have I missed something? |
| Micrówave 02.04.2012 17:13 |
it pretty much forces those of us who do have some rarities to hold onto them for a while 35 years is a long time. As long as your kids will keep your high standards of protocol, then I'm happy my grandson may one day hear Hangman. Perhaps they can have a seance and recall my spirit from the other side so that I to can hear a crappy song that didn't make the cut. I mean is it really that "sought after" after all these years? And what's the statute of limitations on these recordings? I know on music recordings it's "50 years from their initial release". Would these rare recordings be public domain in the next 10-15 years? I, in no way, mean disrepect to the traders participating in this thread. Like I said earlier, I bought the Freddie box and smiled a bit when I saw a few of your names in there. Without you, that box would not have been possible. But aren't we crossing a line a bit here when the artists have no say in what is going on with their recordings? They performed the material... aren't they entitled to anything? If someone bought a recording from the sound board from a live engineer, no matter how much they paid, why do they feel they have exclusive rights to it? Why does QPL have to buy a Hangman Acetate... if that indeed happened? Just because John S Stuart (an example here) paid good money for a recording made by a band, why is the band not entitled to that? I just ask out of curiousity... this is one aspect of the business that I'm not very familiar with but it is very interesting. |
| joesilvey 02.04.2012 22:34 |
*munches popcorn* *awaits next post* |
| Ray D O'Gaga 02.04.2012 23:44 |
I've come late to this controversy and have spent a half hour reading threads and getting up to speed. Not that anyone cares what I think, nor should they, but this whole thing is just bizarre to read from the outside. I don't know the personalities involved and I don't know the facts. Speaking generally, anyone who gives his word and intentionally breaks it is pathetic. And all this stuff about the "elites" meeting in secret to catalogue and trade their treasures, away from the eyes of the unwashed little people, and then add to that the whole "oh, well we were just gathering it and cataloging it so we could release it to you when we felt like it, and by the way, please don't feel obliged to thank us for all the stuff we've seen fit to funnel to you through the years - we don't need your praise" - its just bizarre. I don't remember who it was up thread that said they don't care anymore, but I agree - I don't care about the rarities anymore. If they're ever officially released, and if I'm still alive then, I'll buy them and listen to them. As for what you "elites" are buying and trading and keeping or leaking or whatever you're doing, have fun. Release them, leak them, trade them in secret, hoard them, piss on them, burn them, have yourselves buried with them like an Egyptian pharoah - I really don't care anymore. Its a very low priority in my life. If its a high priority for you - the finding, the keeping, the sequestration - enjoy. Its your precious life you're spending on the endeavor. Speaking as a collector myself - of Queen memorabilia and many other things - the point of my having my collections is the pleasure and joy they bring me, and that has nothing to do with their monetary value, their scarcity, or how much control I have over who gets to enjoy my treasures with me. That's not how I get my jollies. Your mileage obviously will vary. |
| john bodega 03.04.2012 01:19 |
"Why does QPL have to buy a Hangman Acetate... if that indeed happened? Just because John S Stuart (an example here) paid good money for a recording made by a band, why is the band not entitled to that?" It's like that time that George Harrison's red Les Paul was stolen from his house, sold to a guy from Mexico* at Guitar Center - at which point Harrison was made to swap it for another expensive Les Paul and a Precision bass. The chap had absolutely *zero* legal entitlement to that guitar, but he had the balls to assume that A) just because he'd paid money for it, it was his, and B) he was cheeky enough to try and rip the original owner off. If I'd been George Harrison, I would've arranged the swap and then had 50 strong men turn up at his house and kick the shit out of him. *This is why I hate Mexicans, re: the thread about Brian hating them. |
| Back2TheLight 03.04.2012 01:59 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "Got to laugh here, you're being so hyopocritcal it's laughable" I don't see how. I'm making an observation on the behaviour of fans, and furthermore it's a behaviour I'm not a fuckin' party to. I won't kiss anyone's arse on this forum with the assumption that I'm going to get something out of it. Either they upload stuff or they don't; I'm not about to grovel. No hypocrisy there. I can only assume that you mean to say that you think I'm somehow talking up JSS at the expense of Dave Fuller, which I assure you was not my intention. I find Fuller's "I'm the 5th member of Queen" act a little galling at times, but ultimately I don't care about him or any collector. The umbrage you see being taken with his actions in the past couple of days purely comes down to him being untrustworthy and self interested. He is a duplicitous sod; friendly when he has something to gain, dishonest when he's been caught out, and illiterate in the extreme if he thinks you've insulted him (I have the emails to prove it, ha ha).Agreed...however I don't know Dave Fuller well enough to make assumptions on him one way or another. If the collectors decide to share or not to, that's their business and their's alone! The sun will come up tomorrow regardless...or it won't. Either way...tomorrow is another day! Be thankful for what you have, and quit your crying over what you don't...I taught my 4 year old the same thing...he gets it! Alot of the 'trolls' on here don't, which is fairly sad! |
| Togg 03.04.2012 08:11 |
I do find it interesting here...consider this, Why are two collectors arguing over who leaked 'their' property... Surely it wasnt theirs in the first place? as much of their collections are 'taken' from someone elses 'private' collection. As I said in the other thread, copies of concerts are one thing you can't claim to own a performance, but surely studio tracks count as something totally different. What is the difference between someone stealing a copy of an unreleased track from the studio cupboard locked away, or someone going into john Stuarts house and stealing something out of his collection? isnt it the same thing? And likewise if it has been obtained without the permission of the artist how can someone claim it unfair when a third party releases it out to the wider community. I respect Johns knowledge as a collector, and he has indeed added a lot to this forum over the years, but I have never sat too comfortably with how these 'collections' are obtained, and then in many cases sold leaving the artist who actually owns it out of pocket... |
| The Real Wizard 03.04.2012 08:38 |
Not all of these things are stolen. In fact, very few are. Things that could be classified as "stolen," like the four multi-track songs, had nothing to do with Queen collectors. Suppose a band throws away an acetate after they've made their use of it. Some studio engineer keeps the copy, and it ends up at an auction decades later, and a collector buys it. Is the collector a thief? Suppose it's a concert recording that was taped from the audience, and a collector buys the master tape. Is the collector a thief? |
| The Real Wizard 03.04.2012 08:45 |
Togg wrote: I do find it interesting here...consider this, Why are two collectors arguing over who leaked 'their' property...This discussion is not about the property itself. Your quotation marks are in the wrong place: Why are two collectors arguing over "who" leaked their property... ? Because someone decided to back-stab a group of people who treated them like gold. It's not about "what" was leaked - but "how" it was leaked. Once again - it's people with no experience in the field who are the most opinionated. Without collectors, there would be no Hyde Park 76, Earls Court 77 and Houston 77 videos. No complete BBC sessions. Very few audience tapes. Very few studio demos. So go ahead and keep slamming collectors. Without them, most of the people complaining in these threads would have collections that are pretty bare. The ignorance really is astounding, in the face of people explaining everything in great detail. Or have all of these people never once downloaded an unreleased Queen song or watched an unreleased video on youtube? I think not. Carry on.. |
| Donna13 03.04.2012 09:08 |
I keep wondering why it was brought up here. What are the advantages of discussing a secret group on a public forum? Also I wonder why DRF does not leak all he had access to in the group. |
| Fireplace 03.04.2012 09:14 |
Micrówave wrote: 1. This thread would sure make a hell of a better movie than a Freddie Mercury movie starring BORAT Robert De Niro as John S Stuart and Woody Allen as David Fuller. Taylor Lautner as Hangman Acetate. Let's get it done.I'm not seeing this movie unless Mahler is cast as Borat's sister. |
| Togg 03.04.2012 09:19 |
No, this discussion IS about the property if you take it back to how it landed in these guys hands. As I stated, recording a concert and then sharing it is totally different. But bands don't throw anything away trust me, that never happens, it is always leaked by means of someone removing it without permission. It is totally unbelievable that someone finds a recording in a bin. I work in a band and have been involved in many recording sessions, no band whether they are 40 years in the business or 10 mins ever throw away recorded material, it is all kept or wiped. No song writer wants their work unfinished spread around the world or even just their mates in the pub. You are the ignorant one if you seriously believe a good percentage of this isn't stolen in some form or other. I dont really care about whether these collectors are doing us all a favour..I dont collect, I dont have Houston, Hyde Park, BBC sessions or studio demos unless they have been released, I dont download concerts or buy leaked tracks. I have the new remasters and a few of the tracks are interesting, but to be honest a half finished track is only half interesting to me. No I dont trawl youtube for unreleased songs...I dont really care about them. But I do get amused at two collectors arguing over who is allowed to 'own' or leak a track, it laughable |
| The Real Wizard 03.04.2012 09:32 |
So in other words, you are completely ignorant of the process by which recordings get from the source to a listener's ears. That's fine. Most people are. But most people don't pretend to be knowledgeable of something they know nothing about. Or do they .. ? There are literally hundreds of possibilities of lineage from point A to point B. Theft is merely one of them. Let's put it another way.. Suppose a group of scientists have been working for years on a paper. It's 99% done, and one of the guys goes to the big science journal and gets the paper published under his name only. The rest of his group are naturally upset, and they are in the news speaking about their betrayal. And people respond with things like "damn scientists, always wanting credit!" a) they're completely missing the point b) anyone saying that takes advantage of modern science on a daily basis, completely unaware of the irony We're not talking about recordings here. It could be baseball cards or a recipe. |
| john bodega 03.04.2012 10:04 |
"Suppose a band throws away an acetate after they've made their use of it. Some studio engineer keeps the copy, and it ends up at an auction decades later, and a collector buys it." It wasn't really his to sell in the first place. There was a great show on British television about paintings - some famous prick's painting wound up in a dumpster. Someone rescued it, and was ready to auction it off for a tasty sum - at the last second, the family of the painter intervenes and the sale is blocked. No matter how 'discarded' one thinks a rare item is, it's still not theirs to fuck around with. "Suppose it's a concert recording that was taped from the audience, and a collector buys the master tape. Is the collector a thief?" It's not a legitimate recording. There definitely shouldn't have been an exchange of money. It'd probably make the collector a well-intentioned numpty who put down money on something that (legally speaking) he probably shouldn't have. But that's the grey market for you. Most of us accept it as a part of life, and this shit isn't worth getting 'legal' over. Still, for my part I have a hard time giving money to people who are not entitled to it. Collectors don't have that problem? Up to them! They can't have it both ways though. Hanging onto stuff that is not theirs (no matter what their hokey interpretation of the law), while saying 'if it weren't for us you'd never hear this stuff!'... I mean, seriously?? I don't buy the 'there are hundreds of ways you can obtain these rarities' routine. Unless the provenance begins and ends with 'this was given to me by Freddie/Brian/Roger/John/some other member of the organisation, and they said I could share it or sell it', then you are the recipient of something that you should not be the recipient of. Or, you've paid money to someone who was not legally entitled to it. How much this bothers you is subjective. Me, I don't care much. But people who jump to the defense of collectors really ought to keep the actual facts in mind when they do so. |
| Holly2003 03.04.2012 10:05 |
I suppose the "scientist" analogy might work -- if you add that the "scientists working on a paper" aren't actually working on it. It was in fact originally produced by someone else (Queen) and they somehow obtained a copy. Then one of them "leaked" the work that wasn't his or theirs to begin with. But there's no need for theseanalogies as they only muddy the waters. I get the impression some peole here don't know exactly what it is they are arguing for or against. There's just a general sense of frustration on one side that rare stuff is being held in the hands of both Queen productions AND private collectors and the majority of us may never see it in our lifetimes. On the other side are fans who are angry some of the stuff they've been trading has leaked, with dire warnings about how us mere mortals will suffer blah blah. I think you're going to have to accept that there's a bottom line -- we're all Queen junkies and we will thank collectors for (eventually) giving us our fix, but no one really likes the "dealer" and secretly we all get a kick when s/he takes a hit. |
| john bodega 03.04.2012 10:05 |
"The rest of his group are naturally upset" Indeed. I'm not sure how the conversation got onto collecting in the first place because really, the only thing that anyone should take issue with here is that retard Fuller, and the fact that his standing in the community is built upon him shafting other people. I mean, that's dodgy! |
| Togg 03.04.2012 10:19 |
"So in other words, you are completely ignorant of the process by which recordings get from the source to a listener's ears. That's fine. Most people are. But most people don't pretend to be knowledgeable of something they know nothing about. Or do they .. ?" You can call me ignorant as long as you like, it makes little difference. I suspect I have more knowledge than most here about the process of getting a source recording to the music buying public, I have spent many years in studios around the world in one form or another, but that's ok you can think otherwise. Let me put this as simply as i can so you understand. one way or another if a track is leaked from a studio, mixing session, record company, mastering session, pressing plant. if it is removed without the bands permission it is theft. Sure there are indeed hundreds of ways this can happen, and dozens of people, but the simple fact is the same, it's theft. If you sent your holiday photos to the processor and later discovered they had uploaded pictures of your children to the internet would you feel that's OK? no, I suspect not. If you record a band on tour and share it, personally I dont consider that to be theft, as it was a performance not a professional recording, however if you pinch the tape from the mixing team in the truck it is theft. Sure it could be baseball cards or whatever else you care to name, in fact that's my point! it is simply the property of someone else. I see you seem hell bent of defending this process and it's head in the sand time as to where ut came from, sure not all of it will be, be honest with yourself if not the rest of us, most of it has been obtained without the permission of the owner. Now what's that called again? |
| CM 03.04.2012 11:04 |
I must say something. Something is not right. We are here because we all LOVE Queen's music. That's what we got in common and the reason why some nice collectors share their rare stuff as well as many others enjoy it and feel happy and lucky. Now this forum is a place where some fans hate each other, and the "sorry, no more rare recordings" sentence makes fans feel punished. But all they do is enjoy every new piece as much as any other kind of collector would do. After years waiting for Face it Alone, once it was public, the excitement dissapeared after a few days listening to it. That even happens with every new album or release. That is why I always found strange collectors would never mention their rare stuff. I mean that stuff they say they got but can not even mention. Hectics? Smile concerts? Garden Lodge tapes? Is it all only gold if nobody knows it even exists? Is the way Dave shares rare stuff bad or good? I dont know. And maybe John or Dave know the answer. But I just know it was good to hear an Electric Fire demo, or Brian trying to find the chords for TMLWKY as well as listening the known BBC recordings with the much better quality. But is that noisy Brian tape recording or an old bunch of cover versions with Roger on drums a good reason to end like this? We must wonder what Brian would think if he knew about all this fight. Thanks for your time guys. |
| pma 03.04.2012 13:53 |
" It is totally unbelievable that someone finds a recording in a bin." Actually, the "bin" was given as an explanation for the leaked multitracks of several artists. This was said on the topic on the soundonsound forum: "There are rake loads of multi track tapes available..Doobie Bros... Long Train Running is one of the latest...Nothing more than studios dumping rake loads of 2inch tapes for nothing, for others to use as their want. People have been checking out what's on them and finding all sorts of gems.. I have all the roughs of the original version of "Take It easy" by the Eagles, found on a tape we bought for re-use" |
| Barry Durex 03.04.2012 13:56 |
Storm in a teacup |
| John S Stuart 03.04.2012 15:10 |
Just a couple of final points. 1: I am disapointed to read about theft. Nothing in Fanthology is stolen. That is a very degrading misconseption. For example Brian May is commisioned by a company to write say a TV theme. The TV company pay him to do this, but do not like the product. They then decide to dispose of the artifact and sell it. They offer it to Brian first, but he refuses. That is not theft. That is a legitimate purchase. 2: Similar and related. Some guy buys a butchered Bo Rhap French edit single from e-bay for £1,000. That is his choice, I can not be judgemental or critical - it's his money after all. He owns the artifact - not the music but the French 7" single. So he calls me and says - "If you want to buy this single I will sell it to you for £1,000". I reply "No Thanks - too expensive". "OK" says he; "I will swap you a digital copy of my edit for your digital copy of Freddie's "My Way". "DEAL". Is that theft - NO. Is that a secret trade yes. What the hell has this to do with anyone else? |
| John S Stuart 03.04.2012 15:15 |
How to get rarities: Go to ebay. Go to auctions. Go to Record fairs. SPEND MONEY! I bought all my stuff LEGITIMATELY from Bonhams and Christies auctions. These were public auctions, anyone could bid. Me, you, Brian May, QPL, John Deacon. I outbid them. If QPL wanted Hangman - they could have bought from the same ligitimate source. I subscribe to film and media auction rooms. But to do so I pay £25.00 per quarter just to recieve the catalogue. Sometimes the catalogues have nothing. Sometimes I see something coming up I would like - and set a limit and bid. Most times nothing comes up - so that's £100 per annum on a maybe... Final tip SPEND MONEY. Even in these internet days, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Do I own the rights - NO. Do I own the artifact - YES. But I am very disapointed that some in here compare me or the fanthology as thieves - and compare us to house-brakers. Send in the heavy mob. I have all my receipts. Lucky - yes. Priviledged yes. But thief - NO, and if I decide to share the contents of "my" tape with a select few - so be it. |
| John S Stuart 03.04.2012 15:21 |
Finally Fanthology: If I write about "Hangman" I am a c*nt and a pr*ck-tease. I still recieve threats and hate mail. So I uncover Freddie Mercury's "My Way" - it become "Hangman 2" - if I talk about it - I am a bigger c*nt. If I don't then it's a secret squirrel society. This is it - I trade baseball cards with others as artifacts. Sometimes we swap electronic data. That is why fanthology is an oasis of peace and quiet and troll free. |
| Wiley 04.04.2012 00:25 |
Hey John, you know how some Queen fans are and I'm sure you've run into plenty of assholes in your life. For some reason they seem to flock into the Internet but it's really just a matter of us being more connected now. Most of the sensible forums members know who did wrong in this recent event. All I can say is... Assholes will be assholes. You trusted one, you will not trust him again. End of story. Don't let it get to you more than it should. By the way, I can't help but asking if there's really a recording of Freddie singing "My Way" (which would be awesome) or you simply mentioned it to make a point. I usually don't trust anybody saying they have rare, unheard recordings but, considering your good record here, I really have to ask. Keep up the good work, man. |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 03:34 |
Wiley wrote: Hey John, you know how some Queen fans are and I'm sure you've run into plenty of assholes in your life. For some reason they seem to flock into the Internet but it's really just a matter of us being more connected now. Most of the sensible forums members know who did wrong in this recent event. All I can say is... Assholes will be assholes. You trusted one, you will not trust him again. End of story. Don't let it get to you more than it should. By the way, I can't help but asking if there's really a recording of Freddie singing "My Way" (which would be awesome) or you simply mentioned it to make a point. I usually don't trust anybody saying they have rare, unheard recordings but, considering your good record here, I really have to ask. Keep up the good work, man.NO: There is no Freddie singing "My Way" - someone else used it as an illustration in an earlier thread, and I just ran with it. There is NO "My Way" (but I now feel like Monty Python's Brian - the fact I have been honest and said no - will be interpreted as a "yes" by others!). |
| Togg 04.04.2012 03:43 |
I have no doubt that much of your collection is obtained in exactly that way John, you are a serious collector and as such I would expect you to do all of the above. However like serious collectors in every field your goal is to own as much as you can, so if someone calls you with an offer of Freddie singing Bo Rap in the studio prior to its final recording you will jump at the chance to obtain it (providing it doesnt cost you too much) but will you question how it was obtained? I am not for one moment sayiong you sneek into studios and try to pick the locks of the cupboards, or hang around outside Brian's house waiting to go through his bins...but as with all collectors your goal is to own, and I am 100% confident that a good selection of your collection was removed without the artists permission by someone. You then purchased it, either at auction or personal trade. My point is how the article fell into public hands in the first place? Everyone is aware that all auctions are stuffed full of stolen property, car auctions are a classic example, the auction house will of course seek the truth about the sellers story and history, however there are thousands of cases of this happening ranging from everything from Nazi memoribilia to famous works of art. As a collector you are simply trying to obtain every snippet of recorded material from the band, which is fine, but lets be honest here as long as you didnt steel it yourself you can feel comfortable about obtaining it. From my point of view this is the same as buying a stolen DVD player from a chap in the pub. I dont blame you for doing it, most would but for me it's all about how the track found it's way to public hands. If say Roger threw it out and someone picked it up, I guess that's fine, although I would still say before selling it that person should out of respect ask Roger if he is ok with that. If it has been obtained because someone in the marketing team leaked it...I think I have more of an issue. I come from this from the side of the artist, the person who created it and who really owns it, if they are ok with every track in your collection, fine, if however they would rather much of it is not in public hands you have to ask how it got there? if they didnt give permission it WAS taken from them in some form, and it's as simple as that People can give millions of ways the track arrived in there hands, but if it was not with the blessing of Freddie, Brian, Roger or John then it was stolen... If I found someones wallet on the ground I would return it to them. If someone offered to sell me the wallet in the pub I would not buy it, if I found that wallet in an auction I would question how it got there? And unless it had a credible history that could be checked I would seriously question it. As I say i dont collect so all this seems slightly weird to me, I do however collect guitars, but I buy them from shops, normally new, but occassionally vintage, and always with a full history. Dont get me wrong I am NOT saying you are stealing, but I do question how a large amount of your collection left the ownership of the band? because I bet if you asked Brian or Roger they would have a different view of how certain tapes got out. Fianlly for the record, yes I am confident a vast amount of what you have is legit, purchased in good faith, and I certainly understand your desire to own it. I am not accusing you personally of theft or indeed any wrong doing. Where I object is at the point someone felt the need to remove the track from the studio, cupboard, vault, or where ever they got hold of it. Simply put if they didnt ask permission to take it, surely that is wrong? |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 04:00 |
Togg: These are not drug deals. They are not conducted by two guys meeting in a street corner selling spliffs. ALL my material is legit. If Bonhams sells a stolen painting - that is not the buyers fault - it is the auction house's. Because of this, and because they sell paintings worth millions of pounds - it is the auction house's responsibility to check background and providance before selling and obtain and all legal rights to do so. Now: If I buy the French Bo Rhap 7" for £1,000, it is my single I own the artifact - not the content. For me to resell at £2,000 is not theft or illegal. (A bit of a rip-off but you get the point). Likewise acetates are artifacts, the sound engineer may well own a legal copy. Likewise; when I bought the De Lane Lea recordings the tape BELONGED to polydor - who were one of the companys Queen hocked the unsuccesful tape to. Legally Queen freely donated the property to Polydor. A retired polydor rep legitimately owned the tape. He sold on retirement. I bought. But I emphisise I only own the artifact - not the musical rights. This is how art works. Buy an early Dickens' manuscript. Buy an Andy Warhol painting. Buy a Reaction acetate. It's legal. |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 04:04 |
PS: I do not deal in bootlegs or live concerts. I am not a live expert. But if I have downloaded an "illegal" concert digitally, then yes, I guess that would make me as guilty as anyone else who downloaded. However; I only deal in artifacts. (People in UK - watch "4 Rooms"). |
| Togg 04.04.2012 05:40 |
I take your point, and indeed I am not saying you are doing anything illegal. What I am saying is if you were to ask the band how a number of these items got out they would say without my permission. Sure the rare singles etc you buy are yours pure and simple, I am taking about the stuff removed from the bands posession without their consent. Are you saying that has never happened? and no tracks/recordings excist that have not been taken by means which can be classed as illegal? I'm not talking about white lables or record company copies, or recordings the band gave to friends, you know the type of stuff I refer to here. And yes of course it's the auction houses duty to check, but again it happens. no it's not the buyers fault I never said it was, I am simply pointing out much of the hyper rare stuff you guys fight over and keep sectret is by it's very nature originally obtained by some form of theft or dishonesty |
| Ivo-1976 04.04.2012 06:03 |
Reading these topics with open mouth. This is a world I didn't even know it existed. 1. There is some super mega rare Queen stuff out there. 2. Because it is rare, it has value. 3. Because it has value, it will not be shared. Because if it is shared, it will lose value. Winners: Traders, that want to make money(?). Losers: Fans, that want to hear music. Or is this too bold? |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 06:12 |
Togg wrote: I take your point, and indeed I am not saying you are doing anything illegal. What I am saying is if you were to ask the band how a number of these items got out they would say without my permission. Sure the rare singles etc you buy are yours pure and simple, I am taking about the stuff removed from the bands posession without their consent. Are you saying that has never happened? and no tracks/recordings excist that have not been taken by means which can be classed as illegal? I'm not talking about white lables or record company copies, or recordings the band gave to friends, you know the type of stuff I refer to here. And yes of course it's the auction houses duty to check, but again it happens. no it's not the buyers fault I never said it was, I am simply pointing out much of the hyper rare stuff you guys fight over and keep sectret is by it's very nature originally obtained by some form of theft or dishonestySorry but we must agree to disagree. Freddie sent out Xmas cards to his friends. If you were one of those friends - that is now your card. If you decide to sell the card at a later date that is your choice. It's not theft or illegal. Freddie would be mortified, and I am not saying it's right or even moral - but it happens. If Bob Jones of "The Reaction" band - sells his personal acetate because he has hit hard times - would you deny him the right to sell his own disc? Suprisingly much of what the band "own" do not belong to the band at all. A gold disc for example would be the property of EMI, as indeed all Trident tapes belong to the Sheffield brothers. If I was a Russian bulti-billionaire - I would buy those tapes from the Sheffield's. (Brian can do the same - because they do not belong to the band). If I bought them I would own the tapes (and the songs on them). So if there was an unreleased "My Way", I do not own the song or the rights - just the physical tape. That is not theft. If I wanted to trade that track with others - that would be my choice - not Brian's. Ofcourse he could suit my ass-off for selling CD copies, but for private home use - it is legally mine. That is why McCartney does not own the Beatles music because Michael Jackson bought it under his nose. So again; sorry but we must agree to disagree. |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 06:22 |
Ivo-1976 wrote: Reading these topics with open mouth. This is a world I didn't even know it existed. 1. There is some super mega rare Queen stuff out there. 2. Because it is rare, it has value. 3. Because it has value, it will not be shared. Because if it is shared, it will lose value. Winners: Traders, that want to make money(?). Losers: Fans, that want to hear music. Or is this too bold?No: It is not like that at all. Quite the reverse. If I pay £5,000 for a tape - that is now my tape. It's NOT about the money. I bought it to hear the music on the tape. I did not wait for it to fall from a tree. I was proactive, searched it out, found it, and PAID out the money to do just that. It is never about making money - it is about the love of the music and wanting the artifact - ALWAYS. That is why I bought it. Not to make money. You can do that too. But I don't want to upload because it cost me £5,000 to hear the song. But mine is not the only £5,000 song out there. So someone else comes along and says I have a rare recording too - will you swap digital copies? And we agree. If I did upload Freddie's "My Way" - who would then swap with me. I too want to listen to the other track, but because mine has leaked... it trading terms it has become worthless. It's not rocket science. After a few trades, it becomes less rare and more likely to be shared. Then you guys get it for free. So why all the fuss and bother? It's not rocket science! |
| Holly2003 04.04.2012 06:29 |
It's really that simple John? A few trades? So .. how come so much of what we suspect to be in private collector's hands has never seen the light of day. |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 06:52 |
Holly to be frank; because you are all too impatient. In trading circles (my words) there are Gold items. These become Silver items. These become Bronze items. These become plastic items. It is never about monetary value - its all about musical trading value - first and foremost. When it becomes bronze (again my words) I (personally) would release. But the time it takes to downsize from gold - bronze may take a couple of years. The problem is - someone gets wind of the gold - and wants it now. That's the real reason for "secrecy" no conspiracy. Look over all the QZ posts. We are only one or two steps ahead of the game, thats all. That's why I annoyed at fuller. He uploaded a gold item (Is It me) for free. Now when another Gold item comes up - I can't trade anymore - because I have nothing to left to trade with. As I said - you can have my iphone 3 FREE, but please wait until I get an iPhone 4. You can get my iphone 4 FREE but please wait until I get my iphone 5. After all you are getting it free at my expense - and there is no such thing as a free lunch. It really is that crude and that simple. No conspiracies. But in here, people are after my iphone 5 NOW. It is their "right" now. Pity they did not see the cogs behind the machine. |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 06:56 |
Holly: There was a time I did not have "Face it Alone". I even pleaded on this site for someone to share it with me. No one did. The reason being; I had nothing to trade with them. Forget about all the stuff leaked yesterday, that's history. Keeping one step ahead - that's the game. As I also said - it's not rocket science. Because I had no "trading" material - I had to go start-up again. |
| Holly2003 04.04.2012 07:15 |
With respect John, you didn't address what I said. For example, since it's now out in the open I presume you won't mind discussing it, what's the history of the Reaction stuff? How long have you had it and how many trades did it take for that stuff to become so worthless to you and fellow traders that you were about to share it generally? Or are you willing to discuss Hangman? How long have you had it? Has it been traded? How many times etc? |
| Ivo-1976 04.04.2012 07:29 |
@John S Stuart. I get the point. Rare recordings are traded in order to obtain other rare recordings. Making money is not an issue. However, it seems we ended up with a "Queen Elite", a closed trading-circuit which makes sure nothing should get out in public. Therefore, general fans are the losers in this game. |
| cmsdrums 04.04.2012 08:07 |
JSS wrote: "No: It is not like that at all. Quite the reverse. If I pay £5,000 for a tape - that is now my tape. It's NOT about the money. I bought it to hear the music on the tape". Yes, you bought the tape - the physical tape - and you own that (if it was actually the vendor's legal right to sell it in the first place that is). However, if that tape contains music that was illegally taken, has copyright of the writer, performer, studio, record label etc... you are still handling stolen goods, and still don't own that music, no matter how much you paid out for the tape. I am curious as to your view, from a moral standpoint, towards buying tapes that, probably in most cases, contain material that you know is, in all probability, stolen? |
| Lord Fickle 04.04.2012 08:25 |
At the end of the day, does any of this actually matter? I don't see why JSS should have to explain himself to any of us - least not, how he came by trades, and how long he has had certain items. Surely that's his business, and his alone? If he has the ultimate Queen rarity, and has paid out of his own money for it, he has no obligation whatsoever to disclose it, or share it, until he is good and ready to do so. |
| Holly2003 04.04.2012 08:37 |
Lord Fickle wrote: At the end of the day, does any of this actually matter? I don't see why JSS should have to explain himself to any of us - least not, how he came by trades, and how long he has had certain items. Surely that's his business, and his alone? If he has the ultimate Queen rarity, and has paid out of his own money for it, he has no obligation whatsoever to disclose it, or share it, until he is good and ready to do so.Fair enough, I don't recall anyone *demanding* he should explain himself so that's a bit of a strawman argument, but anyway, take a look who started this topic (I'll give you a clue -- it wasn't me). Does it matter? This is a Queen forum ffs! And this is the most interesting topic that's been on here for a while. Or maybe you prefer reading yet another "queen's top 20 love songs" thread ... |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 08:43 |
Holly2003 wrote: With respect John, you didn't address what I said. For example, since it's now out in the open I presume you won't mind discussing it, what's the history of the Reaction stuff? How long have you had it and how many trades did it take for that stuff to become so worthless to you and fellow traders that you were about to share it generally? Or are you willing to discuss Hangman? How long have you had it? Has it been traded? How many times etc?Sorry Holly;I appreciate the interest but that is far too personal a topic to discuss in a public forum. With respect I have gone as far as I am willing to go with this - other than this is not an Elitist issue - anyone can do the same (even you) if you want to. I hope you apprecaite and understand. But there is nothing new here, it is the same in the world of art, stamps, antiques etc, etc. |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 08:51 |
cmsdrums wrote: JSS wrote: "No: It is not like that at all. Quite the reverse. If I pay £5,000 for a tape - that is now my tape. It's NOT about the money. I bought it to hear the music on the tape". Yes, you bought the tape - the physical tape - and you own that (if it was actually the vendor's legal right to sell it in the first place that is). However, if that tape contains music that was illegally taken, has copyright of the writer, performer, studio, record label etc... you are still handling stolen goods, and still don't own that music, no matter how much you paid out for the tape. I am curious as to your view, from a moral standpoint, towards buying tapes that, probably in most cases, contain material that you know is, in all probability, stolen?NO, no, no, no, no, no, no... Why are you so obsessed with theft? Why are you so hung-up on the word stolen. What are you trying to say here? Why the stereo thinking? You are old enough to know better. I have nothing which was recorded illegally. So your hypothtical argument is not valid. Musicians are a commodity. The make music to order for money. Bands such as the Stones and Queen (especially adverts) have all sold out for money. The Sheffield's paid for their first four albums. They own the albums - not Queen. You already KNOW that. If I bought the master tapes. I own the master tapes. End of. Why then are the contents stolen? I do not see your point. If you are saying would I buy something which was illegal off the back of a lorry - yes if it was a bootleg. But as for psst. "I have a syphoned copy of "My Way" - no I would not buy it. |
| Holly2003 04.04.2012 09:16 |
John S Stuart wrote:Ok fair enough. I don't understand the secrecy though: if as you say, you guys are all about sharing, then people surely need to know what you have so they can trade with you? To be honest, I don't buy your "after a few trades" comment at all. A concrete example might help, which is why I mentioned the Reaction stuff. But fair enough if you don't want to talk about it.Holly2003 wrote: With respect John, you didn't address what I said. For example, since it's now out in the open I presume you won't mind discussing it, what's the history of the Reaction stuff? How long have you had it and how many trades did it take for that stuff to become so worthless to you and fellow traders that you were about to share it generally? Or are you willing to discuss Hangman? How long have you had it? Has it been traded? How many times etc?Sorry Holly;I appreciate the interest but that is far too personal a topic to discuss in a public forum. With respect I have gone as far as I am willing to go with this - other than this is not an Elitist issue - anyone can do the same (even you) if you want to. I hope you apprecaite and understand. But there is nothing new here, it is the same in the world of art, stamps, antiques etc, etc. |
| Togg 04.04.2012 09:23 |
John, you keep failing to answer the question we are all asking, well me anyway. You imply that no music finds its way to collectors hands by means of being stolen from the band, record company, or whomsoever actually owns it. Seriously if you really believe that or are trying to convince us that is the case then I am afraid it blows a hole the size of the Albert Hall in your argument. I dont think anyone would argue if you buy a christmas card from someone who was sent it by Freddie it then becomes yours. But that is NOT what is being said here. It is simply implausable that none of the rare recordings out there are out there because the band simply threw them away or gave them to someone I am not having a pop at you just your argument, I respect you have a passion for collecting this stuff and are indeed very knowledgeable about the bands recordings, but the notion that every rare track traded by collectors is in their hands legitimately defys belief. |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 09:24 |
Ivo-1976 wrote: @John S Stuart. I get the point. Rare recordings are traded in order to obtain other rare recordings. Making money is not an issue. However, it seems we ended up with a "Queen Elite", a closed trading-circuit which makes sure nothing should get out in public. Therefore, general fans are the losers in this game.This happens in all walks of life. Not only Queen. There are Beatles, and Zeppelin rarities I would like - but I can't get them either. Why don't you go and get some rarities of your own? But I expect you will be part of the point-and-click generation? Also WHAT is with this "I am a Queen Fan - so I deserve this?" Go post to Brian May - he is the biggest hoarded - not me. |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 09:28 |
Holly2003 wrote:Your choice Holly - you pay's your money and takes your choice. You don't want to buy - don't buy. All I can say is that you are so far-off base it is unbelievable.John S Stuart wrote:Ok fair enough. I don't understand the secrecy though: if as you say, you guys are all about sharing, then people surely need to know what you have so they can trade with you? To be honest, I don't buy your "after a few trades" comment at all. A concrete example might help, which is why I mentioned the Reaction stuff. But fair enough if you don't want to talk about it.Holly2003 wrote: With respect John, you didn't address what I said. For example, since it's now out in the open I presume you won't mind discussing it, what's the history of the Reaction stuff? How long have you had it and how many trades did it take for that stuff to become so worthless to you and fellow traders that you were about to share it generally? Or are you willing to discuss Hangman? How long have you had it? Has it been traded? How many times etc?Sorry Holly;I appreciate the interest but that is far too personal a topic to discuss in a public forum. With respect I have gone as far as I am willing to go with this - other than this is not an Elitist issue - anyone can do the same (even you) if you want to. I hope you apprecaite and understand. But there is nothing new here, it is the same in the world of art, stamps, antiques etc, etc. I repect your choice to disbelieve - but you would need to be in it to understand it. Perhaps repositioning your thinking may be another way to look at it. You may not believe it anymore - but it may broaden your perspective. |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2012 09:38 |
Togg wrote: John, you keep failing to answer the question we are all asking, well me anyway. You imply that no music finds its way to collectors hands by means of being stolen from the band, record company, or whomsoever actually owns it. Seriously if you really believe that or are trying to convince us that is the case then I am afraid it blows a hole the size of the Albert Hall in your argument. I dont think anyone would argue if you buy a christmas card from someone who was sent it by Freddie it then becomes yours. But that is NOT what is being said here. It is simply implausable that none of the rare recordings out there are out there because the band simply threw them away or gave them to someone I am not having a pop at you just your argument, I respect you have a passion for collecting this stuff and are indeed very knowledgeable about the bands recordings, but the notion that every rare track traded by collectors is in their hands legitimately defys belief.It is simply implausable that none of the rare recordings out there are out there because the band simply threw them away or gave them to someone Sorry, but that IS the case! Sorry to burst your bubble! All I can say is that you would not believe how unprofessional and careless these companies can be. They need an archivist - really? What for? For me - my stuff would be clean and tidy and archived from the off. (Also: These are NOT rarites at the time - cast-offs would be more appropriate) You think they are organised and super efficient - they are not. Think about it - they needed an archivist to catalogue a dozen or so albums? My answer is that your beginning assumption is completely wrong. Hard to believe, hard to undersatnd fine, but believe me, you really do have a very wrong understanding of the record industry as a whole and QPL in particular. Other than that, I really, really, really can not add any more. |
| splicksplack 04.04.2012 09:59 |
JSS, this is the deal Unless you have something in writing from the originator of the music effectively giving you the rights then you do not own it. Master tapes, acetates, mini-discs etc etc are just the medium that carries the intellectual property (the music). You did not create the music. To buy the rights to any music connected with Queen would be extremely expensive and, reading between the lines, you're not in that bracket. I am aware that there are people that really want to hear this stuff (I couldn't give a toss) and I know it leaks out. So if you have something that people want you would probably feel better about yourself if you just shared it. But if you really are just a school kid then go ahead and jealously hoard away. But remember this... You are not the musician that created that music. Your imagined status is from the work of others. That makes you a parasite. |
| Holly2003 04.04.2012 10:16 |
John S Stuart wrote:Sorry I don't understand what you mean. Surely there's an example you can give to support your assertion that this stuff is more likely to be shared generally after a just a few private shares amongst collectors? And if you can't then how do you expect anyone to believe it's true? And again if, as you and a few others have stated, you want to be regarded as sharers rather than collectors only interested in hanging onto your goodies, then why all the secrecy about what you have?Holly2003 wrote:Your choice Holly - you pay's your money and takes your choice. You don't want to buy - don't buy. All I can say is that you are so far-off base it is unbelievable. I repect your choice to disbelieve - but you would need to be in it to understand it. Perhaps repositioning your thinking may be another way to look at it. You may not believe it anymore - but it may broaden your perspective.John S Stuart wrote:Ok fair enough. I don't understand the secrecy though: if as you say, you guys are all about sharing, then people surely need to know what you have so they can trade with you? To be honest, I don't buy your "after a few trades" comment at all. A concrete example might help, which is why I mentioned the Reaction stuff. But fair enough if you don't want to talk about it.Holly2003 wrote: With respect John, you didn't address what I said. For example, since it's now out in the open I presume you won't mind discussing it, what's the history of the Reaction stuff? How long have you had it and how many trades did it take for that stuff to become so worthless to you and fellow traders that you were about to share it generally? Or are you willing to discuss Hangman? How long have you had it? Has it been traded? How many times etc?Sorry Holly;I appreciate the interest but that is far too personal a topic to discuss in a public forum. With respect I have gone as far as I am willing to go with this - other than this is not an Elitist issue - anyone can do the same (even you) if you want to. I hope you apprecaite and understand. But there is nothing new here, it is the same in the world of art, stamps, antiques etc, etc. |
| Togg 04.04.2012 10:24 |
splicksplack, Look, that is a stupid statement, John simply collects the stuff he doesnt claim any imagined status other than that of a collector just because he collects rare items does not make him a parasite, but maybe those that seek to steal from the band are? John, as you say we will agree to disagree here, I am amazed at your claim, it is totally unbelievable, but I understand your desire to defend your pastime. But every well known band in the past 40 or so years have suffered at the hands of theives. Brian has commented on it in the past, the last time I heard him regarding items lost it included the blonde telecaster played by Freddie during the 86 tour, it apparently went missing from the warehouse and probably sits on someones wall somewhere. Sorry but even outside the collectors circle it is well known that items mysteriously dissappear from recording sessions only later to turn up online or in someones collection. Defend it if you must but dont try to claim everyone in the collecting community is whiter than white and everything just falls form the sky into their hands |
| GratefulFan 04.04.2012 10:38 |
John S Stuart wrote: I repect your choice to disbelieve - but you would need to be in it to understand it. Perhaps repositioning your thinking may be another way to look at it. You may not believe it anymore - but it may broaden your perspective. Speaking about perspectives and repositioning thinking, you know what bothers me the most about the savaging of David Fuller, which is increasing looking to be completely irresponsible? The degree to which alternative approaches and ideas are effectively suppressed in the interests of the status quo and the embedded power structures. It doesn't even have to have to happen at a level of conscious awareness, but happen it does in places like science and academia with unknowable effects on the sum of human knowledge and endeavour. I've learned now that it happens in music collecting too. The truth is that if every collector woke up tomorrow morning and decided to be David Fuller we'd arrive at exactly the same place, faster and together. The implication is not that that would or could or should happen, but the fact that the *idea* is not even allowed to rise, pinned down by contempt from the leaders of the collecting community and the unquestionable implication that the ONLY proper response is shunning and disgust. And people being people, you can always count on incurious and blind following from there. The standards for music collecting seem to me to be circa best practice 1974. It seems to me that trading then was a labourious hand to hand affair where the philosophy and mechanics described here were a simple matter of sheer necessity. And if substandard quality got circulated, that was a hard thing to pull back. A tainting of the pool redressable only very impractically. That is not the case today. Things can move at lightening speed and be distributed and redistributed as necessary, in a moment. The rules and standards of collecting are rules and standards that developed in the community of the collectors, and they belong to you. They are not various subsections of an 11th commandment delivered with a pyrotechnic lit burning bush. The process that sees the meek and weary wait for a white puff of smoke to signal the coming of 5 decade old music like 'The Reaction' stuff is your process. The collective you made that up, and as far as I can tell the collective you, like most established systems of power and having, are absolutely dug in. I don't 'need to be 'in it to understand it', I understand it just fine. |
| splicksplack 04.04.2012 10:46 |
Togg, I say "imagined status" because he clearly revels in the fact that he has access to recordings that other people do not. He lets out snippets in order to get people grovelling to find out what else he has. It's a power-trip thing that insecure people use a lot. When someone upsets the cart, as has happend here, the lid comes off. The fact that his bartering collateral is the artistic work of other people makes him a parasite. |
| Micrówave 04.04.2012 11:13 |
Unless you have something in writing from the originator of the music effectively giving you the rights then you do not own it. Surely, someone here has had some sort of contact with the band themselves. What is their "official" position on these leaked recordings? I mean, not that it matters that we "honor" their wishes. I'm not the law or anything. What I'm really curious about is if they bitch and complain about this process as much as the bitched and complained about the free Napster music and such. |
| Micrówave 04.04.2012 11:22 |
It's a power-trip thing that insecure people use a lot.That's not fair. This is a fan group that meets in secrecy. Oh wait... |
| Togg 04.04.2012 11:53 |
It will be interesting to see if any of the recently highly publicised theft of most of Micheal Jackson's recordings by hackers which includes his work with Freddie will find it's way into collectors hands... because that is one of the highly visable accounts of theft. Enclosed in this package will be rare recordings made with Freddie that a collector will definately want in his or her collection. As this is undenyably stolen property who amoungst our Queenzone 'Elite' will turn their back on it should it surface? |
| brians wig 04.04.2012 17:12 |
|
| brians wig 04.04.2012 17:12 |
|
| splicksplack 04.04.2012 17:28 |
|
| splicksplack 04.04.2012 17:30 |
|
| splicksplack 04.04.2012 17:30 |
|
| splicksplack 04.04.2012 17:38 |
"With two Worldwide tours in 2005 & 2008, there's absolutely no excuse for not recording anything." How about copyright law? And no I don't have anything to trade and have no interest in the stolen material offered. |
| Holly2003 04.04.2012 17:44 |
brians wig wrote:ha ha what a load of arrogant bullshit. So it's either total support or we're all leechers, beggars, parasites etc. You couldn't make it up. You're like the guy next door who lends you his lawnmower and then insists you say thanks for it every time he sees you for years afterwards. You aren't important, the music is. I think you've forgotten that. And to be honest, the music is gettin less important as the years go by. Something else for you to mull over maybe.splicksplack wrote: Togg, I say "imagined status" because he clearly revels in the fact that he has access to recordings that other people do not. He lets out snippets in order to get people grovelling to find out what else he has. It's a power-trip thing that insecure people use a lot. When someone upsets the cart, as has happend here, the lid comes off. The fact that his bartering collateral is the artistic work of other people makes him a parasite.And sitting on a forum making comments like these and downloading everything that's offered yet giving nothing back doesn't make someone a parasite? It's alright banging on about "power trips" and "insecure people" and getting "people grovelling", when you've obviously got fuck all to trade yourself. Surely if someone has something you want you ought to be a little nicer to him than you are. After all, if you didn't want anything you wouldn't be here in the first place! I also like Alice Cooper and I once had nothing to trade with a bunch of fans I found on the internet, but I got off my arse and recorded some concerts so that I DID have something to trade. Everyone here who has been to a concert where either Brian or Roger were involved this century (just to put a date on things) have had equal opportunity to record the concert, but 99+% of you all haven't, yet we still get people who whinge and moan when those that did take the risk of recording a concert don't share it and hold it back for trade with other like minded people who did. Sort yourselves out and if you don't have anything to trade with then you only have yourself to blame. With two Worldwide tours in 2005 & 2008, there's absolutely no excuse for not recording anything. I just can't believe all the negativity and abuse that the Fanthology group (and, for all intents and purposes, anyone else who has something that others want yet haven't shared) is STILL getting. All that's happening is that people are probably starting to get pissed off. I know I am: damned if you do, damned if you don't. It'd serve you all right if you were all told to Fuck Off and you never saw anything ever again. Sure, what the hell, who gives a toss some of you will shout, we never expected anything from this disgusting 'secret society' anyway. Well just think on that some of what has been leaked in the last decade or more has probably come from members of this group. John didn't have to leak his copy of the BBC sessions, but he did, and when he did that there was absolutely NO reason to believe that QPL would be releasing them themsleves at any point:as it happens there are still some tracks that are left unreleased by QPL. I followed that thread and Pittrek had even just finished working on cleaning up John's Reel to Reel copy (the one that was hiked around the record companies) that he bought in auction of the De Lane Lea demos when it was announced they'd be coming out with the first batch of remasters last year, so don't have a go at the guy. Yes, I know some of this is probably coming across as incoherant ramblings, but I'm just SO pissed off at the moment I'm venting steam. My final word is simply this: To those decent folks here, thanks for all your comments of support and understanding these last few days, it IS appreciated and to those "Leechers" who do nothing but whinge and moan and actually come across as arrogant, with 'up their own arses, better than anyone else attitudes' who are hypocritical enough to direct those very comments at 'The Elite' & 'The Hoarders' and anyone else who has 'unreleased recordings; FUCK YOU. You people are the lowest of the low and you deserve nothing but shit and contempt. It's people like you with your attitudes that keep the traders trading rather than sharing freely. Why SHOULD anyone share anything they spent either time, money or hard work on when all they get is shit if they do and shit if they don't. |
| Micrówave 04.04.2012 17:51 |
FUCK YOU. You people are the lowest of the low and you deserve nothing but shit and contempt. It's people like you with your attitudes that keep the traders trading rather than sharing freely. Nah... that's not "elitist" at all. Maybe you should quit riding John's coat-tails and step off your high horse. It's people like YOU that keep the traders trading rather than sharing freely... and give the secret society a bad reputation now. I'm soooo tired of the "do you know what I had to do to get this?" attitude. It's also people like YOU that keep Queen from releasing material that they, apparently, have no control of. As a performer, that would really piss me off. Have you ever thought about or acknowledged that fact? Do you know what I had to do to get to this point in my life? No? Well, then we're both content. I didn't realize that you were so high & mighty, but your ramblings are a but childish and immature... like the people that you complain about. If you would rather have your secret clubhouse, that's your call. But the shame of it all is that all you do is continue to stir the flames when a bit a humility would go a lot further. It's music that you had NO PART in creating anyways, yet you want to be the one who "shared" it with fans? That's outrageous... you, sir, have an agenda. You have to be "Brian's Wig" so I'm not sure what your relevance in the Queen world is. John, on the other hand, doesn't need to be anonymous. Whatever a select few may think, he is HIGHLY regarded in this community and I have never seen that "elitist" side to him which bothers you so. He is also HIGHLY regarded by the members of the band. I hope you can get over this. |
| Fireplace 04.04.2012 20:59 |
|
| Fireplace 04.04.2012 21:01 |
brians wig wrote: FUCK YOU. You people are the lowest of the low and you deserve nothing but shit and contempt. It's people like you with your attitudes that keep the traders trading rather than sharing freely. Why SHOULD anyone share anything they spent either time, money or hard work on when all they get is shit if they do and shit if they don't.Look matey, it's alright. Some people divide the world into the tradables and the untradables. Some divide it into black & white, still others into men & women. And of course the side you're on, in this case the tradables, is vastly superior to the rest. No problems so far. So naturally you huddle together, endeavour to become even more of a tradable, gloat at the unspeakable stupidity of the untradables and just generally enjoy your spot under the sun. And naturally, you keep veeeeery quiet about it. Can't have a sudden surge in the numbers of the tradables, now can we? That would make the tradables less tradable, and possibly shockingly bourgeois. But what's that? Do I hear a snake hissing in the tree of tradable knowledge? Is tradable paradise about to be seriously disrupted? Unfortunately, it is. Such is human nature. You win some, you lose some, etc. My condolences and commiserations. But do you go crying to the untradables about it? The needy and greedy, the beggars, the have-nots, the rabble, the riff raff in the streets? No, you don't. You use your own exclusive and undoubtedly watermarked stationery to send the culprit angry letters, you call your digitally earmarked lawyer and hold a seance to invoke the spirit of Freddie Mercury to hex the snake in your midst. Or you challenge your opponent to a duel, at fifty paces with a rubber Tommy water gun. I'm sure one of these suggestions will tickle your fancy. So kindly keep your snide and arrogant posts off this board, and let the rabble enjoy their irrational interest in this group called Queen in peace. Thank you. |
| A Word In Your Ear 04.04.2012 21:17 |
|
| tcc 04.04.2012 22:52 |
Micrówave wrote: Nah... that's not "elitist" at all. Maybe you should quit riding John's coat-tails and step off your high horse. It's people like YOU that keep the traders trading rather than sharing freely... and give the secret society a bad reputation now. I'm soooo tired ofthe "do you know what I had to do to get this?" attitude. It's also people like YOU that keep Queen from releasing material that they, apparently, have no control of. As a performer, that would really piss me off. Have you ever thought about or acknowledged that fact? Do you know what I had to do to get to this point in my life? No? Well, then we're both content. I didn't realize that you were so high & mighty, but your ramblings are a but childish and immature... like the people that you complain about. If you would rather have your secret clubhouse, that's your call. But the shame of it all is that all you do is continue to stir the flames when a bit a humility would go a lot further. It's music that you had NO PART in creating anyways, yet you want to be the one who "shared" it with fans? That's outrageous... you, sir, have an agenda. You have to be "Brian's Wig" so I'm not sure what your relevance in the Queen world is. John, on the other hand, doesn't need to be anonymous. Whatever a select few may think, he is HIGHLY regarded in this community and I have never seen that "elitist" side to him which bothers you so. He is also HIGHLY regarded by the members of the band. I hope you can get over this. Microwave - I rather deal with his straight-forward nature than people who want things from you and yet bad-mouth you and gloat over your mistake. |
| The Real Wizard 04.04.2012 22:54 |
Holly2003 wrote: It's really that simple John? A few trades? So .. how come so much of what we suspect to be in private collector's hands has never seen the light of day.How about this - instead of complaining, why don't you find a rare song, spend a few thousand dollars on it and share it here? Or is it easier to condemn others for not doing what you think they should be doing? |
| The Real Wizard 04.04.2012 22:57 |
John S Stuart wrote: Why don't you go and get some rarities of your own? But I expect you will be part of the point-and-click generation? Also WHAT is with this "I am a Queen Fan - so I deserve this?"Bang on. If one good thing has come from these threads, it's been exposing exactly who has a sense of entitlement and who doesn't. Enlightening, actually. |
| The Real Wizard 04.04.2012 23:06 |
This is what I find most interesting... Without exception, the people who are having a go at collectors have never ONCE contributed anything to this forum. Yet they have all benefited from said collectors. Or are they going to say they have never gone on to youtube to listen to an unreleased song or watched a clip from the Hyde Park, Earls Court or Houston shows? .... i.e. videos brought to you by collectors? If not, then what are you guys doing on a Queen forum if all you listen to is the official releases? Surely there must be some other band you're more interested in. The hypocrisy is just stunning. |
| 1sharppencil 05.04.2012 01:40 |
..."then what are you guys doing on a Queen forum if all you listen to is the official releases?" that's so stupid, I'm not even gonna comment - just think about what you typed Respectfully, |
| john bodega 05.04.2012 01:57 |
"You aren't important, the music is. I think you've forgotten that. And to be honest, the music is gettin less important as the years go by" +100. If that arrangement makes you guys uncomfortable, throw in the towel, because it will only be compounded by time. The actual music industry has had to wise up when looking for ways to stay relevant and keep their assets valuable ... why should collectors be immune? |
| john bodega 05.04.2012 01:57 |
Double post, but while I'm here - there isn't one of you guys that can say that you're in a situation you didn't create yourselves. This latest guff with that moron Fuller is what you get for dealing with a nimrod. Now that you've learned your lesson - onward and upward! Keep Calm and Carry On. Or whatever axiom appeals to you the most. |
| Holly2003 05.04.2012 02:11 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Complaining? Awkward questions maybe. I have other things to spend my "few thousand dollars" on. And of course not being part of your secret trading group doesn't preclude me from commenting on Queenzone. It's not one pr the other. Or are you suggesting that only total supporters are allowed to speak?Holly2003 wrote: It's really that simple John? A few trades? So .. how come so much of what we suspect to be in private collector's hands has never seen the light of day.How about this - instead of complaining, why don't you find a rare song, spend a few thousand dollars on it and share it here? Or is it easier to condemn others for not doing what you think they should be doing? |
| Holly2003 05.04.2012 02:13 |
The Real Wizard wrote: This is what I find most interesting... Without exception, the people who are having a go at collectors have never ONCE contributed anything to this forum. Yet they have all benefited from said collectors. Or are they going to say they have never gone on to youtube to listen to an unreleased song or watched a clip from the Hyde Park, Earls Court or Houston shows? .... i.e. videos brought to you by collectors? If not, then what are you guys doing on a Queen forum if all you listen to is the official releases? Surely there must be some other band you're more interested in. The hypocrisy is just stunning.There's that elitism coming to the fore again. But of course, you're not elitist, that's just a misconception lol. |
| tero! 48531 05.04.2012 02:27 |
The Real Wizard wrote: This is what I find most interesting... Without exception, the people who are having a go at collectors have never ONCE contributed anything to this forum. Yet they have all benefited from said collectors. Or are they going to say they have never gone on to youtube to listen to an unreleased song or watched a clip from the Hyde Park, Earls Court or Houston shows? .... i.e. videos brought to you by collectors? If not, then what are you guys doing on a Queen forum if all you listen to is the official releases? Surely there must be some other band you're more interested in. The hypocrisy is just stunning.What I find most interesting and most hypocritical is that traders (who by definition aren't going to share anything freely) are craving for recognition and praises for their hard work when something accidentally slips from the inner circle to the masses. You can either you keep trading with an ever decreasing inner circle and hoard all the material to a select few, or you can release it for the public and let people feel any way they want about it (and you). For all I care you can take your precious collection to the grave with you. You seem to have made it a larger than life issue for yourself, but it's not that important to the general population. |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 03:56 |
Zebonka12 wrote: " I'm surprised someone with over 10000 posts on a Queen fan site doesn't understand why someone would pay for Queen material?!?" Starting your post with the words 'Before the net' was a pretty good way to undermine the rest of it. It might've made sense once upon a time to put money into these things, but now it's different. .You'll need to explain this further please.... so you say "before the net" undermines my argument and then you say "it might have made sense once upon a time"??? So was spending money before the internet came around a waste of time or did it make sense? Are you actually agreeing with me then that it was easier to buy bootlegs/rare stuff BEFORE the internet made it a doddle to share easier and safer? You've got a good way of totally changing the theme of someone's arguments and questions to something totally that suits you're arguments btw. Don't think I've read you once actually saying "hey, you could be right and I'm wrong", usually you just try make a joke when the argument is running away from you. |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 04:00 |
YourValentine wrote:Holly2003 wrote: If QPL are after the Sun City material as ghostwithasmile says I find it hard to believe that a fan could possibly outbid them. .Maybe John S Stuart could cos he's a "millionaire" |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 04:07 |
brians wig wrote: Do you know what? I'd absolutely LOVE us all to live in a world where we all shared our collections freely, butThen why don't you BW? If I LOVE to do something, I just do it! Lifes too short to spend 17 years doing something you hate doing (it's the oppositie of 'love' so i'm taking some liberties here lol). |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 04:12 |
Can I ask a topic 'related' question to the elites? Do you own in your collections ANYTHING that was stolen from Brian May's house years ago? If I remember it was in the tabloids? That guy (or woman) didn't take that stuff to sit and listen to rare Queen tracks OR TRADE! So it's only natural deduction he'd sell it.... and who would buy it??? hmmm |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 04:20 |
The Real Wizard wrote:This discussion IS about the property itself... just as much as the original argument.Togg wrote: I do find it interesting here...consider this, Why are two collectors arguing over who leaked 'their' property...This discussion is not about the property itself. Once again - it's people with no experience in the field who are the most opinionated. Without collectors, there would be no Hyde Park 76, Earls Court 77 and Houston 77 videos. No complete BBC sessions. . Even having no experience it's pretty easy to guess how you go about collecting your material and beleive it or not, I actually respect that you have strong values.... I just think they are severely misplaced, but based on the same love of Queen that we all share so you are forgiven. Without collectors leaking these vids you mention we might have had them in MUCH better quality as QPL might see some value in it that you lot have taken away by making them widly available. |
| john bodega 05.04.2012 05:38 |
"So was spending money before the internet came around a waste of time or did it make sense?" Doesn't that depend on the discretion of the individual?? Since there's ample evidence of people seeing it both ways, I think you'll find it's a bit of a subjective issue. Sure, if you really want something, maybe it makes sense to buy it. I was only commenting on a certain variety of rarities with questionable origins (ie. the kind that really shouldn't be on sale) in saying that I, personally, would not be paying for them. It is, as I just said, my personal feeling that I shouldn't be paying someone for something that, at some stage in the past, probably changed hands for free and 'on the hush hush'. That's not an absolute - and JSS mentioned other scenarios where I'd probably think differently! "Are you actually agreeing with me then that it was easier to buy bootlegs/rare stuff BEFORE the internet made it a doddle to share easier and safer?" I think you're oversimplifying it. Consider that the internet makes it easier for everyone to find people to trade with, at the same time as making it a trivial matter to 'leak' something and have it available for everyone. "You've got a good way of totally changing the theme of someone's arguments and questions to something totally that suits you're arguments btw." What on earth are you even talking about? It's a group discussion. If you don't get varied input, all you have is a room full of people saying the exact same thing. Speaking of changing themes, why are you talking about me? "Don't think I've read you once actually saying "hey, you could be right and I'm wrong"" Technically speaking, that's because I haven't been flat-out 'wrong' yet! There's a few interesting things I've overlooked or didn't think of - as I've said, JSS made a couple of good points in that regard. I find it an interesting topic and I'd rather carry on disseminating than worry about the right and wrong of things. You'd rather talk about me - that's your problem. "usually you just try make a joke when the argument is running away from you." Yeah. What I should really do is rename myself after another user and troll him. It's worked for you in the past, haha! Is that really the tactic of someone with a strong argument? I don't think so. "(directed at the collectors) Do you own in your collections ANYTHING that was stolen from Brian May's house years ago?" I think anyone who's heard his version of "His Latest Flame" probably knows the answer to that one. I recall Brian was especially Soapbox Angry about that episode. |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 06:14 |
Sorry, I didn't mean for any of my replies to seem personal or attack you there Zebonka. They did on reading back so I apologise. I'm enjoying this thread as it's actually pretty civilised and a good read for the first time in a long while, with mnay good counter arguments running through it. I agree that buying Queen material is silly, but i stillsay that for a young guy (who made his money through graft), that before the advent of the internet it was the only way to get hold of items that were a must get. If I seen anything Queen related I HAD to buy it back then. That goes for bootlegs and rare demos, or hard to get studio songs. This was before amazon and ebay or sharing sites. (although I do remember Richard putting up a wealth of concerts here on QZ that you could stream, but that was before I spent a small fortune). Sharing the old fashioned way was too time consuming for me and at the time I had no idea where to even start, as I got into the group in 1991! I had no alliances with pals or access to elite groups. It's easy for you to say that buying Queen items is ridiculous as you can get them for free other ways just like the original thief, roadie, studio engineer, etc etc but how is that even possible... these people were either close to the band or record company or a stone cold thief. So.... i still ask.... how did we "get fucked"? We bought something that gave us countless entertainment or satisfaction (back then even a turd that said Queen would probably have been purchased by most of us young fans). I do agree that the sellers should be a shamed of themselves, but hey that's life.... there was a market for it and they exploited it. Can i ask, the consensus is that this elite group are greedy and out of touch (by my reading)... what's your thoughts on them? Do you agree with the hoarding, the monoplosing of hard to get Queen material? To me they are not real fans. A fan would know what this material meant to other fans and release it. Back then they had no way of doing this, but with the internet they have no excuses. |
| Holly2003 05.04.2012 06:31 |
4 x Vision wrote: Can i ask, the consensus is that this elite group are greedy and out of touch (by my reading)... .Just a quick point. That's not my view. At least that's not my complete view. There are many ways to look at those keeping material out of public view, and I include Queen Productions, Brian May etc., as well as collectors. What has me posting on these recent threads is that the collectors are telling one side of the story -- to summarise and simplify a little, they are sharers not hoarders, and that they aren't elitist, secretive, arrogant etc. But that's only one aspect of it. From another p.o.v, they are little different than Queen Productions and the record companies. When anyone points that out the insults start ("parasites, leechers" etc), and when anyone tries to get a straight answer then they start with the misdirections ("why don't you spend 1000s of pounds...", ridiculous analogies and daft metaphors "gold, silver, bronze".) Really, there's a debate to be had about their methods and another issue about freedom of speech on the forum. |
| Togg 05.04.2012 06:45 |
One a final note, I was so stunned by John's comments regarding his belief that tapes never get stolen I did a little digging, there are literally hundereds of news feeds relating to stolen recordings ending up on sale to collectors. The most recent was of course hackers breaking into Sony's computers and stealing ALL of Micheal Jackson's back catalogue, including of course the Mercury tapes... Now below is another of the highly publicised thefts... so please dont try to tell me it never happens... Beatles' final sessions 'stolen' The tapes were recorded during sessions for Let It Be Stolen tapes of The Beatles' last recording sessions were put up for sale for £250,000, a court has been told. The 504 tapes contain about 80 hours of material, including 200 cover versions, Southwark Crown Court has heard. Nigel Oliver, 55, from Slough, is on trial on charges of handling stolen goods. He is accused of trying to sell the tapes on behalf of two unknown men. He has been found unfit to plead. The lost 1969 recordings were recovered in an undercover operation in 2003. "These tapes have a huge commercial value," said Neil Aspinall, who manages The Beatles' Apple Corps label. The tapes were stacked up in boxes on the floor of the house Rachid Bourammani Dutch investigator "There's lots of very unknown stuff and music they wouldn't have recorded in a normal session," he told the court. "For example, they covered over 200 songs on these tapes. Songs of the day, such as Bob Dylan." The recordings were made for the band's final album, Let It Be. Undercover operation Oliver was arrested in January 2003 during an undercover operation set up by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). The court heard that he organised the transaction between two men in Amsterdam and two undercover officers in the UK, and was caught while waiting for his payment. The recordings were found during a search of a house in Lisse, Holland. "The tapes were stacked up in boxes on the floor of the house," Dutch investigator Rachid Bourammani said. "There were lots and lots of them." |
| john bodega 05.04.2012 06:45 |
"So.... i still ask.... how did we "get fucked"?" Perhaps it's a statement I should've elaborated on. If your only consideration in buying a piece of rare music is 'did I enjoy it', and you enjoyed it - then hell no! No one's fucked. Given that there's other reasons to collect this stuff, I can imagine a situation where someone has spent a lot of money on collectible stuff at a time when it made sense to do so, and now finds themselves in a situation where it doesn't have the worth they thought it might. Or, someone like Fuller comes along and outright leaks it in direct violation of whatever terms he obtained it under. Depending on one's motivations for having a rare item, they might feel a bit fucked over in those circumstances. "I agree that buying Queen material is silly" Well - it really depends on your outlook. To me (only really into non-album stuff since 2004) I've always weighed it up as being like this - is the thing I want likely to leak out eventually? I'd rather wait and possibly just go without. People like Bob like to frown upon that attitude as being somewhat leech-like but for me it's just prioritising. Rarities, while cool and interesting, aren't (to me) worth paying serious money for. Especially not stacked up against the fact that the person I'd be buying them from has nothing to do with Queen. So throwing down cash on rare items isn't always silly - someone wants that circular piece of rare blue vinyl, then go crazy! - but as far as this discussion goes (which started because of a leaked recording) it pays to evaluate all of the ins and outs before playing King Dick. Sorry if I've failed to do so (at least in writing). "what's your thoughts on them? Do you agree with the hoarding, the monoplosing of hard to get Queen material?" Again, it hinges on one's outlook! Is it hoarding? Are they to be believed when they say 'we'll share stuff later'? I've got no reason to doubt them. Cool stuff has come out before, and will come out again by hook or by crook. I don't have a lot of respect for their attitudes that come to the fore when things go wrong, though. Anyone remember that soundless late 70's MPG that showed up here a few years ago? BOY, that was a great thread! I can't speak of other fans' feelings of entitlement, but I have none - I can take or leave these rare things and be just as happy. Sincere gratitude for anyone who wakes up one day and says, "I'd like people to hear this", but I won't kiss arse to make it happen (read - any comment on any Dave Fuller upload, ever) and I certainly won't be talked down to for 'not contributing'. It'd do collectors some good to remember that we all got into this because we like a band, plain and simple. To muddy the waters unnecessarily is just boring. To invent a pecking order where one doesn't exist is silly. The pecking order goes: QPL > All Of Us. We're in the boat together - there is no separation. If you can see your way to sharing nice recordings, then thankyou. Otherwise, keep them to yourself and shut the hell up. "A fan would know what this material meant to other fans and release it" Aha! It's like I'm always saying, though - if everyone uploaded absolutely everything they had, then there would be no real problem. Everyone would have everything, everyone could analyse and discuss everything, everything would be (beyond a shadow of a doubt) safely preserved and with minimal risk of being lost forever. Now please God, no one run in here and tell me why that can't happen. I'm not a kid - I know that people simply don't behave that way, that 'someone' would hold out, or not play fair and upload his share - I know all that. JUST SAYIN' - hypothetically speaking, if fan enjoyment and consumption of music were really the prime consideration here, then the absolute best course of action would be to get as much out, onto as many hard drives as possible. You guys work out the details in your own time. In the end, you really cannot take this shit with you. We've got people like me and Microwave growing old and silver here, waiting for QPL to get their act together - we don't need collectors doing likewise. "Sorry, I didn't mean for any of my replies to seem personal or attack you there Zebonka" It's not a problem, I was just a little baffled by some of the seeming contradictions. All of this stuff is actually a very interesting little episode, at any rate. |
| Togg 05.04.2012 06:48 |
More from Brian May no less.... Queen's Brian May has appealed for the return of irreplaceable tapes of the band's original recordings. The famous guitarist used the pages of Record Collector magazine to launch his appeal.He also hinted that there might be something in it for anyone helping out. In a letter to the magazine, May said: "We're keen to remix the entire Queen back catalogue of albums in Surround Sound. "This entails going back to the original multi-track masters and carefully transferring everything to the new high-resolution digital format." Some of the missing tapes, he said, "almost certainly have been stolen and are in someone's private collection". He then appealed to "all friends of the band" to make an effort to locate them. Queen archivist Greg Brooks added that no one would be prosecuted for taking a tape. |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 06:51 |
Holly2003 wrote:Sorry Holly, but they shouldn't be put in the same sentence with QPL, they really are NOT alike in any ways. QPL are a business that keep things back until they reckon there is enough interest (that doesn't just mean Queen fans like us, but the whole public). The "elites" keep things back purposefully for their own entertainment and egos (imo), and in my mind should release nothing as it's not their place to decide what Queen material gets issued, THAT is QPL's decision ALONE.4 x Vision wrote: Can i ask, the consensus is that this elite group are greedy and out of touch (by my reading)... .Just a quick point. That's not my view. At least that's not my complete view. There are many ways to look at those keeping material out of public view, and I include Queen Productions, Brian May etc., as well as collectors. What has me posting on these recent threads is that the collectors are telling one side of the story -- to summarise and simplify a little, they are sharers not hoarders, and that they aren't elitist, secretive, arrogant etc. But that's only one aspect of it. From another p.o.v, they are little different than Queen Productions and the record companies. When anyone points that out the insults start ("parasites, leechers" etc), and when anyone tries to get a straight answer then they start with the misdirections ("why don't you spend 1000s of pounds...", ridiculous analogies and daft metaphors "gold, silver, bronze".) Really, there's a debate to be had about their methods and another issue about freedom of speech on the forum. How many things MIGHT we have had in the best quality, that these "elites" have released under the guise that they're giving something back to us.... BS. They release things to get the credit nothing else, John S Stuart has proved this by his rants in this thread. Sure I've watched these videos and listened to these tracks, and even thanked them for it, but at the end of the day it wasn't theirs to give. FACT. I truly believe they have forced QPL's hands in NOT releasing anthologies or Earls Courts or Houstons etc. Why should they, if someone is sitting with a pirate copy or can get it easy on YT, this is preventing them from a major slice of income and interest! |
| pittrek 05.04.2012 07:04 |
4 x Vision wrote: Can I ask a topic 'related' question to the elites? Do you own in your collections ANYTHING that was stolen from Brian May's house years ago? If I remember it was in the tabloids? That guy (or woman) didn't take that stuff to sit and listen to rare Queen tracks OR TRADE! So it's only natural deduction he'd sell it.... and who would buy it??? hmmmAre you serious ? |
| pittrek 05.04.2012 07:10 |
Togg wrote: One a final note, I was so stunned by John's comments regarding his belief that tapes never get stolen I did a little digging, there are literally hundereds of news feeds relating to stolen recordings ending up on sale to collectors. The most recent was of course hackers breaking into Sony's computers and stealing ALL of Micheal Jackson's back catalogue, including of course the Mercury tapes... Now below is another of the highly publicised thefts... so please dont try to tell me it never happens...I don't like what you are "hinting". Seriously. In some countries you could end up in a jail for writing something like that on a public forum without any proofs :-( |
| pittrek 05.04.2012 07:13 |
Togg wrote: More from Brian May no less.... Queen's Brian May has appealed for the return of irreplaceable tapes of the band's original recordings. The famous guitarist used the pages of Record Collector magazine to launch his appeal.He also hinted that there might be something in it for anyone helping out. In a letter to the magazine, May said: "We're keen to remix the entire Queen back catalogue of albums in Surround Sound. "This entails going back to the original multi-track masters and carefully transferring everything to the new high-resolution digital format." Some of the missing tapes, he said, "almost certainly have been stolen and are in someone's private collection". He then appealed to "all friends of the band" to make an effort to locate them. Queen archivist Greg Brooks added that no one would be prosecuted for taking a tape.People who do things like this are criminals and not traders. They are doing it for only one thing - MONEY. These things are not "tradeable" |
| Togg 05.04.2012 07:20 |
Agreed, they are criminals.. my point is this is how lots of this stuff gets into the collectors hands, it gets stolen and then sold over and over. the 'proof' you ask for is in the new articles, there is plenty of it if you look. I am not going to get thrown in jail for showing people news reports. John made a statement claiming this doesnt happen...err sorry but it does and it does a lot. This is one way in which rare recordings find there way to collector shelves. I am not saying the collectors themselves steal, although I'm sure that has happened as well somewhere in the world, but nobody with any once of sanity can say tracks never get stolen and then sold to collectors...read the news reports they are everywhere, countless numbers of them |
| ActionFletch 05.04.2012 07:21 |
Can anyone tell me what value there is in not discussing what rareties there are in your secret vaults? Is it because you expect a torrent of abuse from folks wanting you to share? Could you not just develop a thick skin and ignore that? I'd just love to know what exists and what doesn't ?? |
| Togg 05.04.2012 07:24 |
"These things are not tradeable" Stolen tapes of The Beatles' last recording sessions were put up for sale for £250,000, a court has been told. Thsi is how it starts and then it filters down through a trading community... why else do you think it gets stolen, it for money, the same money the serious collectors pay to 'own' this stuff. |
| pittrek 05.04.2012 07:26 |
Yes, that's what I wrote. The criminals who STEAL tapes from the band can only SELL them on the (black) market, they can't be "TRADED" |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 07:27 |
BUT hey, I still think they have the right to do as they please, and I respect the effort and investigating they must have went too get this material. It must have taken a lot of patience and time, but they should have kept this material to themselves, they had no rights of distribution, and I'm not talking about bootlegs... some shitty sounding concert from 1984 wont make them think twice, but the BBC Masters, the demos, only QPL have the right to decide if these should have surfaced... not an elite group. If they wanted to give something back, share EVERYTHING. That way they wont be so elite or secretive |
| Togg 05.04.2012 07:41 |
"Yes, that's what I wrote. The criminals who STEAL tapes from the band can only SELL them on the (black) market, they can't be "TRADED" No they don’t get traded at first, they are sold, but are you seriously saying if a collector heard of a rare track for sale somewhere he/she wouldn't try to buy it....come on get real. My point at the very start of this was the FACT the a good proportion of this rare stuff finds its way one way or another into collectors hands after initially being liberated from its rightful owner...this has been denied by John, but clearly that is rubbish, there are hundreds of news articles demonstrating my point. I am not talking about white labels or rare/limited edition pressings, but stolen copies of multitrack tapes, 1/4 inch mix downs etc. Of course traders trade dozens of white labels etc. that has never been my point, but I am staggered by intelligent people here claiming theft doesn’t happen and it will never find it's way to collector hands that way...err sorry but documented history says otherwise. |
| tomchristie22 05.04.2012 07:45 |
9 pages in 6 days or so.. Not bad |
| tcc 05.04.2012 08:11 |
4 x Vision wrote: BUT hey, I still think they have the right to do as they please, and I respect the effort and investigating they must have went too get this material. It must have taken a lot of patience and time, but they should have kept this material to themselves, they had no rights of distribution, and I'm not talking about bootlegs... some shitty sounding concert from 1984 wont make them think twice, but the BBC Masters, the demos, only QPL have the right to decide if these should have surfaced... not an elite group. If they wanted to give something back, share EVERYTHING. That way they wont be so elite or secretive I find contradictions in this post: 1. You say they should have kept the material to themselves, they had no rights of distribution but you ask them to share everything. 2. You say that only QPL have the right to decide if these should have surfaced but you ask them to share everything. I sense a slant in many other posts to put the group on the defensive to pressurize them to share everything. The crux of the resentment is jealousy that they possess something the rest do not have. People keep questioning the legal right of ownership and yet the underlying pressure is for the group to share everything. I don't understand how people can think that they are too smart to go about getting all these music but when other people do it, they owe the community a favour to share it. |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 08:22 |
Some good points here. Ultimately i agree with you that the rare studio demos, multis, videos, etc all come from a source who has stolen them (99% of the time anyway), and anyone that claims otherwise is kidding themselves for a clear conscience. I'm surprised with Holly233's claim that they are similar in nature to QPL.... MAYBE there is a strong possibility in their heads that they believe that they are? Even Robin Hood was ultimately a thief, no mattter how good his intentions though! These guys have contributed to the lack of "juicy" releases, not Queen Productions or the band, BUT the thieves and those who managed to pay for them and decide to distrubute them across the internet for tom dick and harry to get for £0. Sadly, all of us who have watched or listened to them are equally to blame though. |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 08:43 |
tcc wrote:No I haven't contradicted myself, I'd be a bit stupid if I said they had no rights to release it and then tell them to release everything.4 x Vision wrote:BUT hey, I still think they have the right to do as they please, and I respect the effort and investigating they must have went too get this material. It must have taken a lot of patience and time, but they should have kept this material to themselves, they had no rights of distribution, and I'm not talking about bootlegs... some shitty sounding concert from 1984 wont make them think twice, but the BBC Masters, the demos, only QPL have the right to decide if these should have surfaced... not an elite group. If they wanted to give something back, share EVERYTHING. That way they wont be so elite or secretiveI find contradictions in this post:1. You say they should have kept the material to themselves, they had no rights of distribution but you ask them to share everything.2. You say that only QPL have the right to decide if these should have surface but you ask them to share everything.I sense a slant in many other posts to put the group on the defensive to pressurize them to share everything. The crux of the resentment is jealously that they possess something the rest do not have. People keep questioning the legal right of ownership and yet the underlying pressure is for the group to share everything.I don't understand how people can think that they are too smart to go about getting all these music but when other people do it, they owe the community a favour to share it. My point is that they had no right to pick and choose what they distributed IF their intentions were noble. If they wanted to give something back and be completely transparent then they should have released everything they had traded/bought. My opinion is pretty clear I'd think in that I don't think they had ANY right to release anything that belonged to the band. Not sure if your trying to discredit what I'm saying by pointing this out, but if you read ALL my posts you probbly wouldn't have? But i can see why you'd think that by the wat I worded it though (so maybe i could have been clearer). |
| 4 x Vision 05.04.2012 08:45 |
tcc wrote:4 x Vision wrote:I sense a slant in many other posts to put the group on the defensive to pressurize them to share everything.I'm not one of them. I'm long past any "jealousy" in regards to Queen material, but there probably are some who have this as an intention in this thread, I agree there. |
| The Real Wizard 05.04.2012 11:01 |
Holly2003 wrote: And of course not being part of your secret trading group doesn't preclude me from commenting on Queenzone. It's not one pr the other. Or are you suggesting that only total supporters are allowed to speak?Obviously not. On both sides of this discussion, there's a whole lot of talking and not a whole lot of listening. But the difference between the two sides is - one of them is basing their comments on experience in the subject being discussed, whereas the other thinks they know what they're talking about despite having no experience. |
| The Real Wizard 05.04.2012 11:09 |
tero! 48531 wrote: What I find most interesting and most hypocritical is that traders (who by definition aren't going to share anything freely) are craving for recognition and praises for their hard work when something accidentally slips from the inner circle to the masses.a) The only person craving recognition was Fuller. The owner of the original acetate saying "it was mine" is not "craving recognition." It is merely an attempt to set the record straight. b) Have a look at how many threads there are in the 'announce' section of this forum. Thousands of them. Most of it is pure generosity, and 99% of them stem from... wait for it... collectors. Or did hours of studio sessions and hundreds of concert recordings suddenly drop from the sky? You seem to have made it a larger than life issue for yourselfThat is your interpretation. but it's not that important to the general population.There have been millions of views of the Hyde Park, Earls Court and Houston videos on youtube - all of which were brought to the public by collectors. I rest my case. |
| tero! 48531 05.04.2012 11:25 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Why would the owner of the original acetate want to "set the record straight" unless he wants the world to know it was HIS acetate people are hearing, and it's due to HIS effort that the music is out there to hear.tero! 48531 wrote: What I find most interesting and most hypocritical is that traders (who by definition aren't going to share anything freely) are craving for recognition and praises for their hard work when something accidentally slips from the inner circle to the masses.a) The only person craving recognition was Fuller. The owner of the original acetate saying "it was mine" is not "craving recognition." It is merely an attempt to set the record straight. b) Have a look at how many threads there are in the 'announce' section of this forum. Thousands of them. Most of it is pure generosity, and 99% of them stem from... wait for it... collectors. Or did hours of studio sessions and hundreds of concert recordings suddenly drop from the sky?You seem to have made it a larger than life issue for yourselfThat is your interpretation.but it's not that important to the general population.There have been millions of views of the Hyde Park, Earls Court and Houston videos on youtube - all of which were brought to the public by collectors. I rest my case. The music itself is already out there, and you (him) can either get on with your lives and concentrate trading the other stuff, or you can start a public discussion to get credit for the current tracks. If this is all about the number of views on YouTube (which actually has nothing to do with the topic) which you also want for YOUR release, you're even pettier than I thought. If, on the other hand, it's all about getting the music to the masses, it doesn't really matter who gets the credit. Right? |
| The Real Wizard 05.04.2012 11:33 |
tero! 48531 wrote: Why would the owner of the original acetate want to "set the record straight" unless he wants the world to know it was HIS acetate people are hearing, and it's due to HIS effort that the music is out there to hear.The next time someone takes credit for something you did, I'll be there with a camera while you're shaking the guy's hand. If this is all about the number of views on YouTube (which actually has nothing to do with the topic)You said music collecting isn't important to the general population. I cited something to refute that. Are you really that daft? If, on the other hand, it's all about getting the music to the masses, it doesn't really matter who gets the credit. Right?Right. That's normally what happens when a new recording is brought to the community. But here we have nine pages of people claiming that collectors are elitist parasites who do nothing good for anyone except themselves - despite the fact that most of these very naysayers benefit from the work collectors have done. In the light of such baseless vitriol, people are going to speak up to set the record straight. If I am an "elitist" for stating facts, then I guess I'm an elitist... an elitist who has been part of a movement that has brought music to the eyes and ears of millions of people. Shame on me for that. What exactly have you contributed to the Queen community again? |
| Sebastian 05.04.2012 11:44 |
IMO, money is not (or shouldn't be) *that* relevant for a case like this. The truth is, for some people, 'a few thousand quid/euros/dollars' is pocket money, for others it's a fortune, so for some people such a sacrifice/gift/whatever will undeniably be easier. There's a big difference between kindly requesting alleged 'hoarders' to share what they have (or even not 'kindly requesting' but 'annoyingly try to bully') and blatantly stealing from them. Yet, IMO, this thread hasn't got much use: those who like DRF will continue to like him (good for him and good for them!), those who don't, won't (good for them as well!), those who hate JSS or Bob or Barb, etc., will remain in that position. Secret groups have always existed (or at least for a while), I don't see anything wrong with that. If such an activity had actually broken any law, some of the many people who hate John et al would've put them behind bars a long time ago (same for DRF's YT channel). You may agree or disagree with what each part does, did, has done or will do, but there's not much to do about it. IMO, and that's just *my* perspective, some people are devoting way too much time to somebody who doesn't deserve it. |
| Holly2003 05.04.2012 12:04 |
The Real Wizard wrote:It's more like some people are asking questions and some are avoiding answering them. Whatever.Holly2003 wrote: And of course not being part of your secret trading group doesn't preclude me from commenting on Queenzone. It's not one pr the other. Or are you suggesting that only total supporters are allowed to speak?Obviously not. On both sides of this discussion, there's a whole lot of talking and not a whole lot of listening. But the difference between the two sides is - one of them is basing their comments on experience in the subject being discussed, whereas the other thinks they know what they're talking about despite having no experience. |
| Holly2003 05.04.2012 12:08 |
The Real Wizard wrote: But here we have nine pages of people claiming that collectors are elitist parasites who do nothing good for anyone except themselvesThat's bollocks and you know it lol. Just a tactic to avoid dealing with some of the points raised. As for the rest, how many times should we thank collectors until your collective ego is massaged enough to stop calling us all parasites, beggars or the dumbest fanbase in music? Ballpark figure is fine. |
| Fireplace 05.04.2012 12:10 |
"I sense a slant in many other posts to put the group on the defensive to pressurize them to share everything. The crux of the resentment is jealousy that they possess something the rest do not have. People keep questioning the legal right of ownership and yet the underlying pressure is for the group to share everything.I don't understand how people can think that they are too smart to go about getting all these music but when other people do it, they owe the community a favour to share it." You're forgetting the group of QZ-ers that is simply fed up with all this ego-nonsense hijacking just about every thread, all while being insulted in many different ways by the Fanthology-illuminati and their cronies. I can do without your downloads and your snide remarks. Is it too much to ask to read something about Queen evey now and then ON A FUCKING QUEEN FORUM???? BOOK A FUCKING CONFERENCE CENTER AND LEAVE THIS FORUM THE FUCK ALONE!!!!! |
| Barry Durex 05.04.2012 12:33 |
Thou shalt not.... Sorry, it's nearly Easter and I thought this was the ten commandments again |
| john bodega 05.04.2012 13:00 |
"an elitist who has been part of a movement that has brought music to the eyes and ears of millions of people" Hang on - which member of the band were you again? You guys are looking for gratitude and recognition in the wrong places, man. At the end of the day, listeners will mostly see a collector who shares something as just a conduit. I hate to say it, but they're probably right about that too. You picked a thankless hobby. If you're still feeling indignant about a situation you should already be used to, then maybe it's time to re-evaluate why you're doing it in the first place. You want thanks? You guys have mine! But if ingrates are getting you down, I have a pertinent news flash for you .. it's a big world with a lot of consumers in it that are probably a little busy consuming to think about where tidibt x came from. For my part, I think it's awesome when a 'new' piece of music gets out. It's fascinating and fun to discuss. But I can live without it quite easily. Stop acting like the sky has fallen in because y'all got shafted by a wanker that you shouldn't have been dealing with in the first place. ... I mean seriously. Dave R Fuller? What made you think that was a bright idea?? |
| The Real Wizard 05.04.2012 13:59 |
Holly2003 wrote: It's more like some people are asking questions and some are avoiding answering them. Whatever.Very clear answers have been given. It just seems some people aren't content with them. |
| cmsdrums 05.04.2012 14:02 |
I've read some really unbelievable stuff from some of the elitists here trying to justify ownership of the rare studio material in their collections as not being stolen property, simply because they got it second/third/fourth etc... down the line after it was 'liberated' from a studio or band member, and because they paid good money for it. If someone hacks into one of the QPL servers/takes something from Brian's studio or house, raids the archives etc.. and takes a rare item, passes this onto someone else, then to someone else and then I find out and offer hard cash for it, would I really be able to state in public that I believe it to never have been stolen property? On the arguments of the elitists, absolutely I would! In fact, If I broke into their place, found a rare tape and copied the content whilst leaving the tape there, I should be even less bothered about this - the music wasn't created by them and was never theirs to start with, their tape is left there and so no crime is committed. I don't mind what JSS says, or how innocent he FEELS or BELIEVES he is, the fact of the matter is that if he spends £5,000 on a rare studio tape, unless it was bought from QPL or EMI, or with their blessing, he still doesn't own the copyright to the music to do with as he feels - all he actually OWNS is a very expensive tape. |
| The Real Wizard 05.04.2012 14:06 |
Zebonka12 wrote: You guys are looking for gratitude and recognition in the wrong places, man. At the end of the day, listeners will mostly see a collector who shares something as just a conduit. I hate to say it, but they're probably right about that too. You picked a thankless hobby.As I stated above, I'm not looking for any recognition. And I fully realize that most people don't care who the middle man is. I'm fine with that, as are most collectors. I'm just looking for neutrality - a space where collectors aren't slammed by ignorant self-appointed experts who have no idea of what they're talking about. But we're not in a perfect world, so I certainly won't expect any miracles. So collectors will unearth new music, people will keep listening to it, and they'll be back in a few months or years to tell collectors what a bunch of attention-seeking whores they are. It seems it's a natural cycle now. Enjoy! |
| Sebastian 05.04.2012 14:10 |
Fair point, but if so, everybody who's watched/listened to DRF's recent leaks is also doing something wrong, as it was obtained immorally (even if it's not technically illegal in that case ... or is it?). Zeb: I fully agree. |
| Holly2003 05.04.2012 14:27 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Sure. Like the following exchange with JSS (I'm paraphrasing):Holly2003 wrote: It's more like some people are asking questions and some are avoiding answering them. Whatever.Very clear answers have been given. It just seems some people aren't content with them. JSS: After a few shares between private collectors, rare stuff is more likely to be shared on Queenzone. Me: Just a few shares? So how many times were the Reaction songs shared and how long were were you sitting on them? JSS; I'm not saying. Me: Has Hangman ever been shared? JSS: I;m not saying. Yes very open and clear :) You guys keep rare stuff out of Queen fans' hands until you've got every last bit of value out of it. Why bother denying it? You've already bloody admitted it a few times! lol. And that's fine. And if JSS doesn't want to talk about his collection fair enough. I could care less really. But let's not pretend you're all angels and let's not have any more talk about leechers, parasites, beggars etc. You are asking for balance while giving only one side of the story yourself. |
| mooghead 05.04.2012 14:34 |
This is boring now... ultimately everyone is arguing about stolen property. You can have it. Put your ego's in the safe with it. Keep it to yourselves. We don't want it. End of thread. |
| Gaabiizz 05.04.2012 14:36 |
Okay , have a private collection, so you can also get new material . No private collection, no trade , so there is NOTHING NEW. The collecting world will not end ever , but it would be good from time to time that of disclosed at least one demo . Is only an opinion, after all, is your material |
| john bodega 05.04.2012 15:43 |
"I'm just looking for neutrality" Neutrality is a little different from a one-size-fits-all way of looking at where rarities come from, which is what JSS would probably prefer. Maybe he doesn't like to think that anything he has or has owned in the past came to him (somewhere along the line) through dubious means, but it's a distinct possibility. I mean, I don't know any collectors names, but who was it that leaked Brian's Elvis track a few years ago? Judging by Brian's reaction, that plainly was NOT an authorised bit of trading. We're supposed to trust a collector's opinion of what was rightfully purchased or obtained over that of the guy *in the band*?? That's just one issue where 'neutrality' sounds like a license to let people do what they want without any kind of criticism. Might not be what you're suggesting, but if it gets construed that way then you might want to rephrase what it is you really want. "ignorant self-appointed experts" In other words, collectors! In some cases they're ignorant of the legal and moral implications of what they're holding (perhaps willfully ignorant? Or some kind of denial?). Self-appointed? You bet! 'Experts'? Who knows. What I'm probably failing to get across to you guys is that it's not always clear cut. JSS can't just waltz around saying "I bought all this stuff and it's all ok". Some of it probably isn't ok, and it irks me that he'd rather not confront that possibility - just the same as it irks me when Dave Fuller does something wrong. Am I too hung up on the ethics here? The very least y'all can do is acknowledge the greyness of the domain you're wandering around in and accept that really - VERY LITTLE separates you and the rest of us. If anything at all. 'Gold, silver, bronze'. Seriously? Reminds me of that episode of Frasier where Niles kicks him out of the wine club. If you guys want any kind of remotely neutral environment where you're judged on your merits, you had better start displaying some merits. What makes a listener a parasite, exactly, but a collector noble? The money spent?? Give me a break. That's a flimsy justification at best. Tell yourselves whatever you have to in order to be comfortable with your purchases, but don't treat the rest of the world like shit just because they like the same band as you. I mean really, I see that 'parasite' word thrown around and it makes me laugh. Reminds me of someone - oh wait, Brian May. Said of His Latest Flame: ' I'm not at all happy that it should be out there earning money for some parasite as a bootleg.' I'm fairly sure he's not aiming that solely at us casual fans. |
| john bodega 05.04.2012 15:44 |
PS. I'm only saying this because I love you all. |
| brians wig 05.04.2012 16:58 |
4 x Vision wrote:Well, quite simply if someone gives me a recording (whether it be a concert they've taped themselves or a 'rarity') and asks me not to trade it or share it, my own morals tell me not to break that promise and that brings us full circle to the whole thing that started off this last week of discussion: Mr Fuller pure and simply broke his promise.brians wig wrote: Do you know what? I'd absolutely LOVE us all to live in a world where we all shared our collections freely, butThen why don't you BW? If I LOVE to do something, I just do it! Lifes too short to spend 17 years doing something you hate doing (it's the oppositie of 'love' so i'm taking some liberties here lol). |
| GratefulFan 05.04.2012 17:20 |
The Real Wizard wrote: But the difference between the two sides is - one of them is basing their comments on experience in the subject being discussed, whereas the other thinks they know what they're talking about despite having no experience. Being close to something sacrifices the perspective of distance. So everybody is a bit blind. And you don't need to work in the Department of Intergovernmental Waste or whatever to have an informed opinion on the effectiveness of a system of management. People can look at results and make inferences about process. |
| tcc 06.04.2012 02:30 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "I'm just looking for neutrality" Neutrality is a little different from a one-size-fits-all way of looking at where rarities come from, which is what JSS would probably prefer. Maybe he doesn't like to think that anything he has or has owned in the past came to him (somewhere along the line) through dubious means, but it's a distinct possibility. I mean, I don't know any collectors names, but who was it that leaked Brian's Elvis track a few years ago? Judging by Brian's reaction, that plainly was NOT an authorised bit of trading. We're supposed to trust a collector's opinion of what was rightfully purchased or obtained over that of the guy *in the band*?? That's just one issue where 'neutrality' sounds like a license to let people do what they want without any kind of criticism. Might not be what you're suggesting, but if it gets construed that way then you might want to rephrase what it is you really want. "ignorant self-appointed experts" In other words, collectors! In some cases they're ignorant of the legal and moral implications of what they're holding (perhaps willfully ignorant? Or some kind of denial?). Self-appointed? You bet! 'Experts'? Who knows. What I'm probably failing to get across to you guys is that it's not always clear cut. JSS can't just waltz around saying "I bought all this stuff and it's all ok". Some of it probably isn't ok, and it irks me that he'd rather not confront that possibility - just the same as it irks me when Dave Fuller does something wrong. Am I too hung up on the ethics here? The very least y'all can do is acknowledge the greyness of the domain you're wandering around in and accept that really - VERY LITTLE separates you and the rest of us. If anything at all. 'Gold, silver, bronze'. Seriously? Reminds me of that episode of Frasier where Niles kicks him out of the wine club. If you guys want any kind of remotely neutral environment where you're judged on your merits, you had better start displaying some merits. What makes a listener a parasite, exactly, but a collector noble? The money spent?? Give me a break. That's a flimsy justification at best. Tell yourselves whatever you have to in order to be comfortable with your purchases, but don't treat the rest of the world like shit just because they like the same band as you. I mean really, I see that 'parasite' word thrown around and it makes me laugh. Reminds me of someone - oh wait, Brian May. Said of His Latest Flame: ' I'm not at all happy that it should be out there earning money for some parasite as a bootleg.' I'm fairly sure he's not aiming that solely at us casual fans. In view of what you have said, are you recommending that the collectors should just keep everything to themselves and not share it at all ? |
| john bodega 06.04.2012 02:35 |
I wouldn't like that, but it would not be the end of the world if they did. If they're hung up on releasing things in a time and manner of their own choosing, then they should be more careful about the friends they make. |
| tero! 48531 06.04.2012 02:53 |
tcc wrote: In view of what you have said, are you recommending that the collectors should just keep everything to themselves and not share it at all ?I know you weren't asking me, but they way I see it there are really only two possibilities: You can either share the material and accept the possibility of it ending to people you didn't want, or you can just keep it all to yourself. If you also want to take the credit for any subsequent public appearance of the material, you're going to have to release it yourself directly from the orignal tape/acetate before anybody else has the chance to do the same. |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 06.04.2012 04:31 |
4 x Vision wrote:YourValentine wrote:Well Queen either didn't record the SC shows... or they have it inferior sound... The bootleg release was also noticed by the band...Holly2003 wrote: If QPL are after the Sun City material as ghostwithasmile says I find it hard to believe that a fan could possibly outbid them. .Maybe John S Stuart could cos he's a "millionaire" |
| YAFF 06.04.2012 10:19 |
Not a collector. Just a lifelong fan of Queen. The way I see it is that the Robin Hood-approach of this Fuller guy is a lesser of two evils compared to hoarders of audio they don't own the rights to anyway- those who do not turn it over to the band so they can possibly release it. Firstly, you're a fool for spending hundreds let alone thousands on music, Especially in the digital age. If so and so has a copy of the so-called "Hangman" and the band members do not and they want the audio they are entitled to it. Now mind you I find most of this leaked material "pretty crappy" anyway. "The Reaction"? My reaction is that is garbage I will never listen to again. A soundboard show is great. Audience recordings are frustrating. Lossy studio demo or rare tracks by Brian May and Roger Taylor are of no interest to me. Even the half-finished Queen demos I only listened to once. I'm hoping the band finishes some of them. This Fuller guy may be ethically-challenged but so are the "elitist" collectors who have unheard Queen and/or Freddie material and plan to take it to the grave with them but have the gall to boast about it in an ultimate c*ck tease. |
| tero! 48531 06.04.2012 10:31 |
The Real Wizard wrote:The next time someone takes credit for something you did, I'll be there with a camera while you're shaking the guy's hand. You said music collecting isn't important to the general population. I cited something to refute that. Are you really that daft? Right. That's normally what happens when a new recording is brought to the community. But here we have nine pages of people claiming that collectors are elitist parasites who do nothing good for anyone except themselves - despite the fact that most of these very naysayers benefit from the work collectors have done. In the light of such baseless vitriol, people are going to speak up to set the record straight. If I am an "elitist" for stating facts, then I guess I'm an elitist... an elitist who has been part of a movement that has brought music to the eyes and ears of millions of people. Shame on me for that. What exactly have you contributed to the Queen community again?The bottom line here is that you can either be a trader and accept the possibility of the material ending up to people you didn't want, or you can just keep it all to yourself. If you also want to take the credit for any public appearance of the material, you're going to have to release it yourself directly from the orignal tape/acetate before anybody else has the chance to do the same. If you try to be a trader AND the hero who publishes the material, you have to take the chance that someboody gets there before you. Now that it's happened, you can either suck it up and get on with your life, or you moan about it for another nine pages. My contribution to the Queen community (which has nothing to do with the topic and is only used as a cheap putdown by yourself) is to provide neutral commentary. |
| john bodega 06.04.2012 10:53 |
"The way I see it is that the Robin Hood-approach of this Fuller guy is a lesser of two evils compared to hoarders of audio they don't own the rights to anyway" That's more or less how I feel, but with the added caveat that it shouldn't be obtained for the fans through more lying or dishonesty, which is what appears to have taken place here. If it's going to get released, let it be done amicably - dramas like this only make unnecessary trouble for everyone. |
| inu-liger 06.04.2012 12:56 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "The way I see it is that the Robin Hood-approach of this Fuller guy is a lesser of two evils compared to hoarders of audio they don't own the rights to anyway" That's more or less how I feel, but with the added caveat that it shouldn't be obtained for the fans through morelying or dishonesty, which is what appears to have taken place here. If it's going to get released, let it be done amicably - dramas like this only make unnecessary trouble for everyone. +1 Like I've said elsewhere, if we can give the collectors their space and time to get the Fanthology project out the window, it would actually benefit everyone a hell of a lot more than you think as opposed to bitching nonstop. Wouldn't you want to have the time taken to ensure the highest quality rarities make their way to you rather than rushing out some 3rd generation tape (for example) that later down the line has a 2nd gen upgrade discovered? |