QueenZone discussion #1341608

princetom wrote: nice one reminds me of "happiness?" (which i love, btw). but i hope there will be some fresh stuff on the new album aswell.

Holly2003 wrote: So how did this source originally leak out then? Anyone know exactly?

Lostman wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: So how did this source originally leak out then? Anyone know exactly?

Perhaps some people weren't good enough at keeping their promises...? As usual.

inu-liger wrote:

Lostman wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: So how did this source originally leak out then? Anyone know exactly?

Perhaps some people weren't good enough at keeping their promises...? As usual.

And further giving QPL more reason not to trust convention attendees with special A/V treats. Typical. PS. Fuller can once again go fuck himself. What an arrogant prick, doing his own voice-over on the preview!

The Real Wizard wrote: Without needing to resort to labels..

GratefulFan wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: Without needing to resort to labels..

Laugh. Out. Loud. Beyond that, the point still remains: if David received this in a trade some time ago, with the track having then presumably benefited traders for an extended period prior to this, there appears to be a certain level of comfort with that relative to any enjoyment by the rest of us. We're just listening. The traders who passed this around were seeking and gaining benefit as well, not just Fuller doing what Fuller does. If you yourself make some kind of distinction tween two levels of public with a separate set of privileges and expectations for each, don't complain about 'labels'.

GratefulFan wrote: If you yourself make some kind of distinction tween two levels of public with a separate set of privileges and expectations for each, don't complain about 'labels'.

The Real Wizard wrote: Well at least I have some consistency :-) I'll just never understand why people who aren't collectors feel like they understand how these things work. It's like people without vaginas with double-digit IQs who feel like they have all the necessary information when voting on legislation related to abortions and birth control.

Holly2003 wrote: If it's no one; business except the collecting clique, pleae keep ALL your petty arguments off the forum. Collectors don't own Queenzone: you are guests here like everyone else.

The Real Wizard wrote: I respect your position, but I disagree. Again - no person who has spent time actively seeking new music would ever come to that position. It only comes from people with absolutely no first hand knowledge or experience. The only reasonable response when a new piece of music comes is to graciously thank the person who taped, bought, transferred and/or liberated the recording. To vilify the people who do these things is the most ludicrous thing to do, as it will not encourage these people from wanting to make more music available. Nobody is looking to get their arse kissed. A simple thanks is all that's needed, as would be the case when any service is provided. When you get your car fixed, you don't tell the mechanic that you're not happy with the way that he and his fellow mechanic friends are able to go out after work for a nice meal with the profits they made. You simply say thanks because they did something for you that you couldn't do yourself. Hasn't anyone noticed that the announce section of the forum has been pretty quiet for about the last year?

Holly2003 wrote: That's hilarious. Did you "graciously thank" the guy who shared the RT recording on this thread? Did you "graciously thank" the guy show shared the KYA acetate?

Your model went out of date a decade ago when we enetered the digital age.

As you have stated clearly on numerous occasions, we get your discards, when all trading value has been exhausted.

The Real Wizard wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: That's hilarious. Did you "graciously thank" the guy who shared the RT recording on this thread? Did you "graciously thank" the guy show shared the KYA acetate?

Why would I thank someone for things I already have?

Your model went out of date a decade ago when we enetered the digital age.

Then why don't you share all your rarities that you've acquired by other means and effectively prove that the current model is no longer viable?

As you have stated clearly on numerous occasions, we get your discards, when all trading value has been exhausted.

If you think this is a problem, then let's change roles. You do the work and share everything you accumulate. As soon as you do that, I'll graciously thank you and apologize for how wrong I've been for all these years.

The Real Wizard wrote: You don't go into an established bowling league to tell them that you wish they did ten pin bowling instead of five. You start your own ten pin bowling league.

GratefulFan wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: You don't go into an established bowling league to tell them that you wish they did ten pin bowling instead of five. You start your own ten pin bowling league.

Which is exactly what, in essence, David Fuller has done. Same pins, bigger balls.

The Real Wizard wrote: It absolutely does. I'm not being pointless and nonsensical - I'm being completely practical. If you don't like the way collectors currently do their business, then I invite you to be the change you wish to see in the world. How else will you know first hand that the current process is categorically wrong unless you experience it yourself? Step 1 - go to a music auction and be the highest bidder (be sure to bring four figures of banknotes with you) Step 2 - transfer the recording to digital to see whether or not you're lucky enough it actually is something uncirculated (this often isn't the case) Step 3 - decide whether you'd like to trade this item for something else which will eventually result in two new things for everyone to enjoy (skip step 3 if you wish to change the existing model) Step 4 - share your one new thing and everyone rejoices You don't go into an established bowling league to tell them that you wish they did ten pin bowling instead of five. You start your own ten pin bowling league.

The Real Wizard wrote: Absolutely. Except he did it while holding up a sign that said "I learned how to do five pin bowling from these guys, and I'm going to run a bulldozer over their bowling alley to create my own." What happened was he crashed into the wall and was sent off running. If he wants to start his own league, then he can do so without stealing from others who were generous enough to help him and asked for nothing in return. Taking all the credit for someone else's work is never an honourable thing to do.

TRS-Romania wrote: Maybe it would be time for me to release some of my other rarities. Just to name two: Queen Out of Luck (1:43 min 1985 demo , drum track , guitar, lead vocal Roger) Brian May Supernatural (3:14, 1991, instrumental complete demo, no vocals)

Holly2003 wrote: If this is very sensitive (I assume that's what you meant) material that Brian May is concerned about, what are you doing with it in the first instance?

Wilki Amieva wrote: I don't have to explain myself. And I'm asking no-one to explain herself/himself. I'm just telling some facts. If you don't want to aknowledge them, Holly, there's nothing I can do to help it. And it's OK. If you want to understand what I've stated, just read again my first post in this topic, all of it. I've nothing to add.

Wilki Amieva wrote: Then some of us conformed the Fanthology, and we decided to open the game to some people beyond the realms of collecting, to gather the best sourced material and all the accessory info available, with the aim of making the best fan-made anthology (hence the name) we could, and eventually SHARE it for FREE and ANONYMOUSLY. And it was very good. We were really trying to change things for the better. The ONLY bad thing about that group was -strangely enough- one member who exposed very sensitive (Brian May was concerned about it) material to gain personal fame and then lied to us. And -strangely enough- he left the group without never contributing anything. Nada. Nothing. Zip. Zero. To be fair, we didn't expect him to contribute much material - after all, he was not a collector. He was invited because he was proficient in YouTube affairs, and we thought he might be able to offer some expertise at the sharing stage. But it seems he didn't want to share (no pun intended) the credit.

Wilki Amieva wrote: We, the Fanthology, were the change. We wanted to get stuff from people not inclined to share, provided they would benefit with a lot of rarities for a while, and then share most of them with everyone for free. He has made that task virtually impossible now - for several reasons. We wanted to do it right. Using the best transfers (some still in the making) from the most original sources we could gather (we are still working on this, but it's getting more difficult as we speak) and with all the researched information, properly compiled (that implies a lot of time). (There were of course some things -I'm guessing here- we wouldn't have shared nor traded: Private/intimate stuff and also stuff from forthcoming releases - as they would have affected the artists.) After all this, I believe 'hoarding' would become a standard practice in the near future.

brians wig wrote: Of course, the people who will benefit most will be the bootleg companies who will release it on CD at extortionate prices...

TenementFunster91 wrote: So my question is why don't you release everything that was intended so Dave gets no profit or further attention and gets lost?

inu-liger wrote: This is a problem with Queen fans really, they want it all, and they want it NOW, quality control be damned!

Wilki Amieva wrote: It seems that everyone here wants to ask me questions, so let's reciprocate: Which amongst you would be willing to pay for that stuff? Would you be so kind to make a donation to the Mercury Phoenix Trust in the name of the Fanthology if we release some of it? Perhaps a nice gesture some of you could change some minds...

Wilki Amieva wrote: I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there's also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow.

tcc wrote: The group of collectors has the best intentions to gather the best versions etc before they share.  However, when they have listened to each other's "rarities", they have satisfied their curiosity.  Thereafter, what incentive do they have to spend time quickly to put out the best share, especially if they have to work for a living.

scallyuk wrote:

Wilki Amieva wrote: I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there's also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow.

There are actually 2 legal issues here Wilki. Whoever has the originals of these tracks - note I said has not owns because they only own the item(tape/cd/acetate - whatever) they have the recordng as a by product of owning the item has broken copyright law by copying and then sharing whether for profit or not. The fact that David is attempting to profit from his is neither here nor there, both he and the person who initially leaked the items are equally guilty of breach of copyright . There's no moral high ground , once it's out there we become guilty under the law the moment we contribute to sharing.

Zebonka12 wrote: "which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science" It's absolutely different, actually. Creationists are bogged down in their own irrelevant beliefs on a strictly scientific and evidentiary topic. A lot of the hooplah on collecting and collectors, on the other hand, comes down to moral considerations (or the lack thereof) and I'm sorry to say that is almost completely a subjective discussion. Waaaaaay different from the creationism thing - I'd refrain from using them as a crutch in unrelated debates to be honest, because it undermines your point. Now, you can debate until you're blue in the face on whether or not the subjective opinions being offered here are Educated - that's a whole different can of worms, and usually a pretty entertaining one. Bottom line - this whole thing is a massive grey area and I don't see too many discussions wherein a One Size Fits All approach would really work. (I do maintain that Dave R Fuller is a knob-end and a mouthbreather, but I knew all about that before he pissed off his fellow collectors, and am surprised it took so long for the rest of the world to cotton on). But seriously, the "You're not a collector, you wouldn't understand!" is not only off-base, but it's also a bit of an insultingly low estimation of the imagination of others. I can well imagine the factors at play here, because they've been explained by collectors a million times. Just because you disagree with the evaluation that other people have made of your plight doesn't really invalidate their opinion. It comes down (as I intimated earlier) to how well educated that opinion is. If you have an issue with that, then educate everyone - serve as an example. *shrug*

ferdy wrote:

scallyuk wrote:

Wilki Amieva wrote: I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there's also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow.

There are actually 2 legal issues here Wilki. Whoever has the originals of these tracks - note I said has not owns because they only own the item(tape/cd/acetate - whatever) they have the recordng as a by product of owning the item has broken copyright law by copying and then sharing whether for profit or not. The fact that David is attempting to profit from his is neither here nor there, both he and the person who initially leaked the items are equally guilty of breach of copyright . There's no moral high ground , once it's out there we become guilty under the law the moment we contribute to sharing.

No, it's not the same in a legal aspect. If I let you listen my acetate, even if in a modern way (audio file) and I ask you please not to leak, you can call me imprudent but as I don't want to have any legal problems, you should respect my will. Then if you break this accord and also try to make profit from it, I call this theft and receivership. Hope these are the correct terms but the two figures are light years distant.

shannaschaffer wrote: I'm one of those lurkers who is ignorant of how this all works and I am trying to educate myself. But one thing keeps me from wrapping my head around this whole process - and that is: How do these unreleased rarities and demos get "out there" in the first place? I'm sure that's a naive question to most of you (and please don't bite my head off if it is), but I am just wondering how it all starts. Maybe it is just my type-A nature and not everyone else's, but if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.

Wilki Amieva wrote: tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.

shannaschaffer wrote: if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.

The Real Wizard wrote: Actually, not entirely. If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.

Wilki Amieva wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: Actually, not entirely. If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.

Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved.

The Real Wizard wrote:

shannaschaffer wrote: if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.

And most do nowadays !

The Real Wizard wrote: Once again, a non collector suggests listening to a non collector on matters of collecting. ...which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science. If you want to learn about Paris, do you listen to the person who lived there for 20 years or someone who has skimmed two chapters of a picture book? You are no doubt very intelligent and mean well, but you have no experience in these matters and therefore no first hand perspective. Nobody on the outside can possibly understand the irreparable damage that has been done. And that's perfectly acceptable. But effectively saying your ignorance knows more than others' actual experience is a pretty shortsighted stance to take. TRS - feel free to share the tracks !

Wilki Amieva wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: Actually, not entirely. If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.

Yes, the contents might be licensed and published, but the actual owner of the item still retains the right to listen/watch the contents, copy them, alter them, etc. without the need of any consent - as long as is for 'personal use'. And the owner can also do a LOT of other things including third parties under the 'fair use' legal figure. The legality issue arises when broad public or profit is involved.

The Real Wizard wrote:

Wilki Amieva wrote: tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.

Actually, not entirely. If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner. But to say collectors seek monetary gain is just plain foolish. The post was actually largely accurate up to that point.

Wilki Amieva wrote: tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.

ParisNair wrote:This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.

The Real Wizard wrote: I appreciate the character judgement (and now apparently the trolling of my forum activity - flattering), but the process is actually the opposite - I realize there's ultimately no point in making it personal. You just rack your brain a bit too much. My apologies for not being fully Buddhist yet - I'm working on it. One of my points remains - when are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread? Have you actually read through it and gained some new insight into what's going on, or are you still convinced that music collectors are the scourge of the earth?

John S Stuart wrote: I have listened to such type material in the privacy of my own home (I have never broadcast publically - even when invited to do so at conventions) and when meeting up with like-minded friends who own similar type rarities - we "may" have swapped electronic copies on the understanding of "personal use only", but this has always been based upon the strict understanding of a "gentleman's agreement" that this material is for private use only and cannot be "sold" or "released" because the contents are not mine/ours to do so.

Wilki Amieva wrote:Once again, the legality issues arises when broad public or profit is involved, so publishing the contents in the internet for anybody to hear/see/download... well, that's VERY DIFFERENT to 'fair use' or 'personal use'.

ParisNair wrote: Breach of trust is really shameful. It affects my enjoyment of a share, when I come to know that promises and trust was broken while sharing the music. This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.

tero! 48531 wrote: If you had the consent from the artist you would have a true gentleman's agreement, but now you're left with nothing more than honor among thieves.

inu-liger wrote: Not at all splicksplack, it's most certainly not off "Happiness?" at least as far as recording goes. Roger's vocal quality is definitely much more aged now and it matches that in the sample recording as opposed to his vocal quality of the Happiness/Electric Fire era, studio effects withstanding. Whether it was written or not in the 90's is certainly up for debate, but my dollar is on it being written sometime in the past decade.

The Real Wizard wrote:So if someone legitimately purchases an acetate at an auction and does not distribute the musical content he is still a thief? Why aren't you a professor of copyright law? They're clearly missing out. Seriously - stop with the labels. You have no idea of the context in which any of these pieces of music were obtained. If you assume by default that all acquisitions of unreleased music are synonymous with theft, then there is no thinking twice - you are a complete idiot.

Wilki Amieva wrote: I don't agree with YOUR opinions about what the average Joe thinks. I believe you're wrong. And I cannot be less interested in what YOU (under a Joe disguise) regard as moral or not, as it seems that YOU really have no idea what you're writing about. Anyway, I'd like to remind you that morality (unlike ethics) is defined by a social agreement. The Fanthology a mutual agreement, which was discussed and accepted by all its members -collectors and non-collectors- on an equal-rights basis. Again, there was no 'business' involved. It benefited us all; it did no harm to anybody. As a matter of fact, it was both moral and ethical. But, if my memory does not fail me, we were discussing law here... So I'd like to establish that the Fanthology was 100% legal. Benefit is not the same as profit. What David Randolph Fuller is doing is NOT. Once again, you can like it or not. But that's the way it is.

Wilki Amieva wrote: I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online.

tero! 48531 wrote:

Wilki Amieva wrote: I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online.

And I suppose at that time you also asked him "Can I trade with these unrelesed Queen songs with a few hundred other people, to receive other unreleased Queen songs?" If Brian May had at any publicly endorsed the trading of unreleased Queen material, the fanthology argument would be a lot more credible.

The Real Wizard wrote: I appreciate the character judgement (and now apparently the trolling of my forum activity - flattering), but the process is actually the opposite - I realize there's ultimately no point in making it personal. You just rack your brain a bit too much. My apologies for not being fully Buddhist yet - I'm working on it. One of my points remains - when are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread? Have you actually read through it and gained some new insight into what's going on, or are you still convinced that music collectors are the scourge of the earth?

Sebastian wrote: As for non-collectors not having a say in that because they don't know how it is, I can see Bob's point of 'the person who's lived in Paris all their life knows more about Paris than the person who's just read some pages about it,' but this isn't a B/W issue. The person who's read about Paris may not be the top expert about it, but they're not necessarily entirely ignorant about it.

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: after 6 pages of this, I believe I can sum up by saying that GratefulFan and The Real Wizard were jamming at one time and had the mother of all bad break ups :)

tcc wrote:

tero! 48531 wrote:

Wilki Amieva wrote: I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online.

And I suppose at that time you also asked him "Can I trade with these unrelesed Queen songs with a few hundred other people, to receive other unreleased Queen songs?" If Brian May had at any publicly endorsed the trading of unreleased Queen material, the fanthology argument would be a lot more credible.

You have stated your point of view and the group of collectors are comfortable that they have acted legally. To date, QPL had not acted against the people who put up the acetetes for sale in the auctions and who have sold them accordingly, and the people here whom we know have listened to them. I cannot see the objective for the persistent drilling of your point of view.

The Real Wizard wrote:

ParisNair wrote: Breach of trust is really shameful. It affects my enjoyment of a share, when I come to know that promises and trust was broken while sharing the music. This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.

And look at all the mp3 threads here now... ...you're welcome :-)

tero! 48531 wrote:  And I suppose at that time you also asked him "Can I trade with these unrelesed Queen songs with a few hundred other people, to receive other unreleased Queen songs?" If Brian May had at any publicly endorsed the trading of unreleased Queen material, the fanthology argument would be a lot more credible.