QueenZone discussion #1306743

RMTaylorBest wrote: THAT'S IT. LOVE FOR QUEEN, IS LOVE FOR SHARING THEIR HIDDEN GEMS AND STUFF IN GENERAL.

inu-liger wrote: You sir are a class act moron. Your choice of wording is only going to have the exact opposite effect of what you think is going to happen by throwing negative labels around.

Gaabiizz wrote: Okay!

inu-liger wrote: I'm not saying that people SHOULD keep things to themselves, I don't advocate for that kind of hoarding by any means, and as a matter of fact there DOES seem to be a continued intention for Fanthology to continue their work and put things out eventually - don't forget Brian's Wig HAS already confirmed there will be two small releases in May and November this year.But attacking these collectors will only ENCOURAGE them to possibly hoard their wares further rather than releasing them out of pressure. That was a VERY poorly thought out measure on the topic op's part.

RMTaylorBest wrote: The value ofo your "acetates" does not change if you share the file sound with ppl who really love Queen and wait just to hear hidden gems, NOT TO POSSESS PRECIOUS PIECES OF PLASTIC

inu-liger wrote: So if say a rich car collector buys a prototype car originally belonging to one of the top line of car manufacturers, that has features unique to the prototypes and not to the final and more accessible product line, does that automatically give the poorer commoners the automatic right to take it for a drive against the owner's wish, nevermind keep it for themselves simply because they have some sort of entitlement owing to the fact they make much less money than the owner does?

tero! 48531 wrote: That's a pretty crappy analogy you have there. :P And then there's of course the nasty issue of ownership. If the prototype car has disappeared from the original manufacturer (with no legal documents for exchange of ownership) and appeared in the collector's garage, the manufacturer still owns the product.

brENsKi wrote: and so is yours. so let's make it more realistic. should ferrari gift an unused prototype to a designer, or should their warehouse security be so fuckign lax that someone working in the final stages of assembly "steals" a car out of the factory...then THAT'S THEIR FUCKING FAULT. they should be more bothered in the first place.

tero! 48531 wrote:

brENsKi wrote: and so is yours. so let's make it more realistic. should ferrari gift an unused prototype to a designer, or should their warehouse security be so fuckign lax that someone working in the final stages of assembly "steals" a car out of the factory...then THAT'S THEIR FUCKING FAULT. they should be more bothered in the first place.

You never did actually question my expansion on the analogy of the product, you merely try to cloud the issue by concentrating on the ownership... But using your own analogy, doesn't the fanthology deserve all of their rarities to be freely distributed to the whole world for being so lax? Isn't it THEIR FUCKING FAULT, to quote your words?

brENsKi wrote: didn't cloud any issues, and certainly didn't lessen the strength of my own argument. in fact. if anything..you just helped reinforce it. because, regardless of whether we're actually talking about; an EMI engineer, EMI receptionist, contracted motorcyle courier, one of freddie/brian/roger/john's nearest and dearest or in fact the lately (not so great) DavidRFuller....all, i repeat ALL were the one's in a poisition of trust...and by consequence THEY are the one's committing the cuntish act of cheapskate betrayal can ANY of us here honestly say we'd stay friends with anyone who did something like that to us?

tero! 48531 wrote: Err.. Your entire argument for supporting all the actions of the fanthology was based on the "lax sexurity" of the Queen camp, and that was shot to million pieces by pointing out the fanthology has been just as lax. And that was something we all already knew! Now how about if you try to explain to me what is the extent of damages suffered by the fanthology, and why their losses are greater than the losses they have caused to Queen?

Battler wrote: Now, I do agree about the breach of trust, it's a serious issue. However it should be dealth with maturely, professionally and without lynching. The fact the guys from Fanthology responded to David's post by outright lynching him with shaky allegations, shows that they're not much more mature than him.

Battler wrote: I just wanted to say, that I know a person who, albeit not a Queen or music collector, who is a collector of old operating systems, that bought a version of Microsoft Windows (Premiere Edition, basically the last version before the publicly released 1.01) for I think $10k, and then shared it for free. In my opinion, it's a noble gest that you spend your own money to make sure others won't have to spend the same amount to get the same thing. If I had $600 to spend on a rare record, I'd spend it, make a lossless rip of the record, then spread the lossless rip around, expecting nothing in return. Because I'd care to do a good act for others before I'd care about how much I spent for it.

Battler wrote: If I had $600 to spend on a rare record, I'd spend it, make a lossless rip of the record, then spread the lossless rip around, expecting nothing in return. Because I'd care to do a good act for others before I'd care about how much I spent for it.