| GB: Queen Archivist 04.04.2013 19:15 |
Hello. I've not been here for ages. I had a quick look last night... I was interested to see general outrage, for the most part, on this site, in relation to David R Fuller selling what are effectively stolen rare Queen (officially unreleased) studio out-take recordings, to other Queen fans - to the highest bidder, basically. What a nasty little individual he must be! A lot of you are rightly irritated, offended in some cases, that people like this are seemingly getting away with it, with (apparently) no interest from QPL, and nothing in the way of a deterrent. I can assure you this is NOT the case. The band and its management hates the fact that these recordings are 'out there' in the public domain at all, in any form, because they are were never intended to be heard. Such things are unfinished generally rough works in progress, intended for the bands' ears only. It's really a matter of "How dare you steal our property and then have the audacity to SELL it on!" I wonder how Mr Fuller would like it if somebody stole HIS private unfinished work (be it an early draft book manuscript, rough song demo, or half finished oil painting) and then set up 'shop' on the internet selling these things for their own selfish gain. I'm sure he'd be equally put out! Too often these days, and to most peoples bewilderment, there suddenly emerges weasley little money-grabbing individuals like David R Fuller-crap, who crawl out from the shadows and offer up other people's property, in this case QUEEN recordings, for their own personal financial gain. It is, as many of you rightly say, about as despicable and lowlife as it is possible to get. QPL definitely does take this seriously. It looks to have all and every such example removed from places like YouTube, and where possible accounts suspended so that they can't simply set up again a day or two later and carry on. QPL does not turn a blind eye to this type of illegal profiteering and ripping off of unsuspecting Queen fans. I personally find it incredible how blatant and in-your-face these people mostly are... though Fuller seems a good deal more brazen than most of them. This guy is about as subtle as a sledge hammer in the dangly bits!!! Anyway... you'll notice that he's gone from YouTube, hopefully for good, and that he and others like him will be removed as soon as we're aware of any such instances as those I've described. Has anyone here, just out of interest, sent this guy any money? What does he have that isn't available from elsewhere on the net for free? And where the hell does he get it from?? I'm very intrigued. Regards GB |
| AdamMethos 04.04.2013 22:18 |
I haven't sent him any money but I'm curious, if Fuller wasn't selling the recordings but just releasing them to share with fans, would that make it OK? By OK, I mean that while QPL would prefer that the recordings hadn't got out in the first place (understandably so!), QPL would still turn a blind eye as long as no one is profiting from the releases? |
| dowens 05.04.2013 00:12 |
QPL should release this stuff and make money from it, that will solve a lot of issues! While it wasn't intended to be released, it'd be great to hear these demos, etc from a band who can no longer release studio albums with the original line up. |
| inu-liger 05.04.2013 02:35 |
GB: Queen Archivist wrote:Anyway... you'll notice that he's gone from YouTube, hopefully for good, and that he and others like him will be removed as soon as we're aware of any such instances as those I've described.I wouldn't be so sure of that, Greg... His account is still very well up and running par his course: http://www.youtube.com/daverfuller QPL will have to file enough copyright claims again to really get his account shut down. |
| cmsdrums 05.04.2013 04:28 |
Fair enough points made Greg, and I do understand the band's feelings and position on this. You have also asked the most pertinent question, which is 'where does he get the stuff from?', which has always been intruging to me. Although Queen may well 'shut him down', to me the analogy can be made to the Police seizing the stash of a local drug user, but not making much effort to find out who is actually running the drug ring higher up the chain; in this case that would be finding out exactly who is suppying the leaked tracks to start with. It's all well and good shutting down the immediate public link, but if the person/people who leak the stuff are still able to, they will most likely just leak it to someone else. There does seem to be a 'magic circle' of collectors that gather here, of which Fuller was, for a time, a member. They are known to trade amongst themselves, and it seems that Fuller broke rank and starting sharing the material with us 'mere mortal fans' - and now has clearly overstepped an already dubious line by selling it off to the highest bidder. However, it's a fair guess that the stolen/leaked Queen tracks that Fuller has been shut down for originated from this group, so I would point QPL in their direction - they are as guilty as Fuller in that they are knowingly trading in 'dubiously' obtained material, albeit they are not openly selling it for profit. I suppose it depends on whether the band has any motivation to want to stop the leaks altogether, or are ok with them being 'out there' but just want to stop them being sold? Do the leaks come from Justin Shirley-Smith?, from Josh MacRae?, from some bitter ex-engineer or studio hand at EMI?!, from John Deacon?!! It would be lovely to find out wouldn't it? |
| pittrek 05.04.2013 04:58 |
GB - a quick question - what do QPL think about fans sharing unreleased live recordings here FOR FREE ? |
| Holly2003 05.04.2013 05:25 |
GB said: I was interested to see general outrage, for the most part, on this site, in relation to David R Fuller selling what are effectively stolen rare Queen (officially unreleased) studio out-take recordings, to other Queen fans - to the highest bidder, basically. What a nasty little individual he must be! Well SOME people are outraged -- those collectors who have most to gain by keeping these things under wraps. Most others could care less it seems. It's the usual suspects complaining the most. I can assure you this is NOT the case. The band and its management hates the fact that these recordings are 'out there' in the public domain at all, in any form, because they are were never intended to be heard. lol! Some of those doing the most complaining are up to their necks in trading this stuff between them. It was only when Fuller publicly released this stuff to a wider audience that the hate campaign against him started here. Too often these days, and to most peoples bewilderment, there suddenly emerges weasley little money-grabbing individuals like David R Fuller-crap, who crawl out from the shadows and offer up other people's property, in this case QUEEN recordings, for their own personal financial gain. It is, as many of you rightly say, about as despicable and lowlife as it is possible to get. Well murder, child abuse etc is of course more despicable and lowlife but disregardng the hyperbole, the only evidence presented here on Queenzone that Fuller is selling rather than just trading is a single Tumblr webpage message that has since disappeared. Given the hatred SOME collectors have for him it wouldn't surprise me at all if that webpage was fake, to draw attention of the "authorities" to Fuller. QPL definitely does take this seriously. It looks to have all and every such example removed from places like YouTube, and where possible accounts suspended so that they can't simply set up again a day or two later and carry on. I don't see the problem with his Youtube account. He is sharing unreleased poor quality demos, live recordings etc, no different to the sharing forum on Queenzone. QP are hardly likely to lose any money from this because it doesn't compete with already-released official releases. And of course most of this stuff will never be released. QPL does not turn a blind eye to this type of illegal profiteering and ripping off of unsuspecting Queen fans. I personally find it incredible how blatant and in-your-face these people mostly are... though Fuller seems a good deal more brazen than most of them. This guy is about as subtle as a sledge hammer in the dangly bits!!! Who is being "ripped off"? "Unsuspecting Queen fans"? Really? Even if he is selling stuff, he's doing a better job of getting rare stuff to the fans than QP. And -- ffs! -- do you honestly expect us to be sympathetic to Queen about cash? They are among the wealthiest people in the UK and we're in the middle of the biggest recession since the 1930s? Get real. Has anyone here, just out of interest, sent this guy any money? What does he have that isn't available from elsewhere on the net for free? And where the hell does he get it from?? I'm very intrigued. lol! Anyone who supplies this info to you is a total idiot. Besides, I'm pretty sure some of those doing the most moaning on this website could let you know where a lot of this material comes from. |
| RMTaylorBest 05.04.2013 05:56 |
You don't let us hear Queen rarities, so You are stealing that music to us who spent all the money for Queen stuff !! I gave queen all my childhood money and i am still giving...so i have the right to be given some rare stuff, in any way !!! And the band can be sure that we understand that mistakes or strange songs are due to good reasons. Give us Queen bits, c'mon c'mon c'mon !! |
| Jam Monkey 05.04.2013 06:15 |
cmsdrums wrote: There does seem to be a 'magic circle' of collectors that gather here, of which Fuller was, for a time, a member. They are known to trade amongst themselves, and it seems that Fuller broke rank and starting sharing the material with us 'mere mortal fans'.Seriously, it's a small group of fans who came together out of a mutual love of Queen. Where is the harm in that? |
| Ouzy 05.04.2013 06:39 |
Hi Greg... You are right, no one should be profiteering from someone else's intellectual property its unscrupulous and wrong, but in the real world, and sadly that is what we live in, this happens all the time as I am sure you are aware. QPL could spend loads of money on top barristers trying to stop it, but it will continue either in full view or hidden, the selling of such things in the music business has gone on for years and years, top artists cant even release anything these days without it being leaked on to the internet days before. As you know in the UK trading standards/police are pretty hot on these sorts of things so you struggle to find such things mainstream other than car boot sales, but you can go to most European countries and buy a cd of out-takes for many different groups, I bought 'rare out-takes ' of Queen on various CD's years ago in France. However, with regard to the person that you are talking about, all I have ever seen is that you can listen to out-takes for free on youtube, ive never seen anything offered for sale by him, so its really heresay to say that about him. Theres only one way to beat them isn't there, produce your own 'Official' CD/DVD of such out-takes/demos...how mad will these people be then...its up to QPL now. Why get upset/mad about something you are never going to stop, its just a waste of energy/money in the end. Thanks for listening and I look forward to that Big Box Set you mentioned some years ago, put me down for a copy. :) Mark |
| queenboot 05.04.2013 08:34 |
....maybe the demos came directly from the queen archive. But I can not remember who has access there .... :-) |
| splicksplack 05.04.2013 09:04 |
Jesus, what a load of bollocks. Firstly, while I agree that an artist should have control over his product and what gets out, I am certainly not going to weep buckets for the financial position of May, Taylor, Deacon, Beach and Austin. And for GB to say, in the week that that Phillpot twat is convicted for killing his children, that Fuller is "about as despicable and lowlife as it is possible to get" suggests that he needs to re-examine his own ethical codes and moral compass. This stuff has fuck-all effect on the sales of Queen's official releases. And if they are officialy released in the future you can be sure that 99.99% of people with the bootleg versions will snap them up. i can't see the argument. This is on a microscopic scale. Is GB the voice of QPL here? Because if he is then they are presenting themselves as an unsavoury company of nasty, bullying, money-grabbing individuals who seem to be happy to turn on the mouths that originally fed them. Bob Geldof once got all worked up because people were selling copies of Live Aid on Ebay. But there was no official release. For years he pratted on about contractual problems for not releasing it. But suddenly he appeared to becomes aware of the fact that when people really want something they will take it upon themselves to get it and, voila, the contractual issues suddenly disappear. We got a decent copy of the gig and the charity got the money. So GB, pass on some rocket science to your masters. If you don't want the 'collectors' or 'fanthology' or whatever the fuck they call themselves, to trade this stuff - RELEASE IT. And line your miserable fat-bastard pockets a bit more at the same time. , |
| IanR 05.04.2013 09:40 |
Well said, splickspak |
| pittrek 05.04.2013 10:06 |
splicksplack wrote: So GB, pass on some rocket science to your masters. If you don't want the 'collectors' or 'fanthology' or whatever the fuck they call themselves, to trade this stuff - RELEASE IT.AMEN |
| people on streets 05.04.2013 11:54 |
GB: Queen Archivist wrote: And where the hell does he get it from?? I'm very intrigued. Regards GBI think your good friend John S Stuart gave a clear answer overhere: link |
| john bodega 05.04.2013 12:42 |
I was under the impression that Dave R Fuller performed on all of these tracks. I mean they always had his name plastered all over them, right? |
| GratefulFan 05.04.2013 13:14 |
The argument from the perspective of QPL is completely understandable. Yes, this is their intellectual product that was never supposed to have left the studio door or wherever else it came from, and they resent it and I get it. For anybody who sees this as the only perspective or the best perspective it's inarguable that any one of us who seek or enjoy these kinds of materials are doing so with a certain self interest that is in direct opposition to the perceived interests of the people we mean to honour with our passion for their history and creative process. But it also must be noted that it's clear by now that unlike some of their contemporaries the remaining members of Queen have little connection to or sympathy for the value of this stuff to dedicated fans. Being too close to something is just another way to have poor perspective. Every career has advantages and disadvantages and while I will likely never have occasion to fret that someone has stolen my half finished web application and is selling it on eBay, neither will I ever be in the position to register such a complaint from atop my millions at my estate in the country. The reality is that people who accept their wealth or influence from what are effectively direct and often adulatory relationships with the public have a few tolls to pay. There will always be public demands on their private arenas that range from egregious to completely predictable and ultimately reasonable. The public interest in hearing these bits of musical history seems to me to fall in the latter category. The unofficial circulation of these works is a bit like ignoring Charles Dickens' last wishes and interring him in Poet's Corner and publishing things he didn't want published posthumously anyway. On the one hand it's a rather blatant disregard for his rights and autonomy and deadness, but on the other hand it serves what can be argued to be a greater public purpose. Queen being largely alive certainly have legal and procedural mechanisms to fight these things if they choose, but when there is a product and a demand and shifting means, prohibitionist endeavours rarely amount to much more than obstacle courses that will draw certain personalities that in part simply relish a challenge. Criticize Fuller all you like but on one level he is the only one who is acknowledging and facing the potential consequences of his circumstances and decisions in an undissembled way. Queen want to be protected from the consequences of their great achievements and popularity just because and without ever offering their own solution. The collectors really take the cake, while telling the rest of us to eat it, by spinning capitalist arguments while simultaneously attempting to exempt themselves from the rules that govern the accumulation and use of power in business under cover of howls of outrage about nebulous concepts like trust and broken gentleman's agreements. They are at one level protectionist monopolists who seem to have invested their time and money and expertise under the expectation that any buffeting of their insular hobby by a changing world or changing market forces would simply be universally accepted as an outrage. Did they think they were investing in Canada Savings Bonds or the like? Nobody invests without risk. It is the collectors that failed to creatively anticipate and respond to the effect of mushrooming demand and the free sharing mentality of a generation raised on the internet and they are now paying a price of sorts. Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into. Seeking financial compensation for the work of somebody else obviously presents ethical and moral problems. I don't want to minimize that in any way. I'm going to say that again: I don't want to minimize that in any way. But neither is it completely that simple. The philosophy of bringing rare music in a reasonably timely manner to a wider populace is certainly new and revolutionary given current elite practices. It presents some logistical challenges and in a country where the pursuit of individuals has moved to the dot com players it may be most prudent and reliable to attempt your coup as an individual rather than leveraging a product like rapidshare etc. If you're going to do it as an individual you need some buffer between you and a few thousand people who would be happy to inundate one man with requests for his free stuff. Willingness to pay also guarantees a certain respect for the product that I don't find completely unappealing. And as splicksplack noted there are so few among us that wouldn't buy it again if officially released that any financial loss arguments are simply dead in the water. Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever. |
| Kacio 05.04.2013 13:40 |
Mr. Brooks, for me, this is ridiculous. Because Queen will NEVER publish ANTHOLOGY OF DEMOS AND UNKNOWN/UNRELEASED RECORDING. This is a mockery on you! In your archives for sure is a lot of good recordings, but you don't want to do anything about it. Many legendary bands publish the great unknown recordings, and for me as the Queen Fan is a shame. |
| dowens 05.04.2013 15:27 |
Glad people seem to agree with me on the issue of releasing the demo's, out-takes, etc. Honestly, this website has kept my interest (and in many ways rekindled my interest) in Queen for the past 4-5 years. Fuller SHOULD NOT be selling this stuff, but as was mentioned by splicksplack, release this stuff! What would it hurt? If it's a financial issue, just donate all of the proceeds to the box sets to the Phoenix Trust Fund??? |
| Fireplace 05.04.2013 15:31 |
Just out of interest Greg, why ask the people here where David R. Fuller got his recordings from? Wouldn't asking HIM be the more logical choice? |
| GratefulFan 05.04.2013 15:52 |
dowens wrote: Glad people seem to agree with me on the issue of releasing the demo's, out-takes, etc. Honestly, this website has kept my interest (and in many ways rekindled my interest) in Queen for the past 4-5 years. Fuller SHOULD NOT be selling this stuff, but as was mentioned by splicksplack, release this stuff! What would it hurt? If it's a financial issue, just donate all of the proceeds to the box sets to the Phoenix Trust Fund???It seems to have been made very clear though that they simply don't want the stuff 'out there'. Releasing it would seem a rather poor solution for that. It's an argument if they want to have control as the lesser of two evils, but the tack they seem to be on now is to sweep it all up. |
| dowens 05.04.2013 16:53 |
I mean, it's up to Brian and Roger whether to release stuff or not, it belongs to them. I get that. I just don't understand the reasoning. It would make perfect sense if Queen were still making albums (and I mean the original line-up). But that stopped over 20 years ago. The last box set (FM Solo Collection) was released 13 years ago. I don't understand the reasoning to release a fantastic Freddie Mercury box set, but not a Queen set? Of course, there was hope in 2011 with the bonus discs on the remasters. Other bands, probably more iconic than Queen, seem to be fine with letting their fans have access to such things. Why not Queen? If Brian and Roger wonder why in the world they should release it, I say go ahead, it wouldn't hurt anything. Money really isn't a problem for them and as I said, donate the proceeds to a charity. May seem far-fetched, but I just don't see the risk factor in releasing the stuff. You could only make the die-hard Queen fans happy, which should be a priority for QPL. |
| cobohall 05.04.2013 17:16 |
Is it possible that QPL aren't as concerned with this seller as much as GB is? How did Fuller get these recordings? Through fellow fans, right? Is it possible that some of them originally came from GB and eventually to Fuller and now GB is a bit concerned QPL might put the pieces together? Just asking. People have been selling bootlegs for years, suddenly QPL are concerned? Seems odd. |
| GratefulFan 05.04.2013 17:34 |
dowens wrote: I mean, it's up to Brian and Roger whether to release stuff or not, it belongs to them. I get that. I just don't understand the reasoning. It would make perfect sense if Queen were still making albums (and I mean the original line-up). But that stopped over 20 years ago. The last box set (FM Solo Collection) was released 13 years ago. I don't understand the reasoning to release a fantastic Freddie Mercury box set, but not a Queen set? Of course, there was hope in 2011 with the bonus discs on the remasters. Other bands, probably more iconic than Queen, seem to be fine with letting their fans have access to such things. Why not Queen? If Brian and Roger wonder why in the world they should release it, I say go ahead, it wouldn't hurt anything. Money really isn't a problem for them and as I said, donate the proceeds to a charity. May seem far-fetched, but I just don't see the risk factor in releasing the stuff. You could only make the die-hard Queen fans happy, which should be a priority for QPL.Like everybody else I certainly would love to have this stuff properly and respectfully compiled and released. I don't see any downside for the band either, other than the fact that it would demand time on a project there is clearly little enthusiasm for. Brian is stubborn and somewhat rigid and seems to be unable to connect to the fan desire for this stuff. Roger's past statements seem to indicate that he sees any future anthology project as something some record company obligation might make them do but for which he has little enthusiasm for personally, saying "it just sounds like a lot of work to me". With no release guaranteed, ever, there seems to me to be more value in deciding if you can make the ethics fit in calling 1-800-DFULLER than there is in advocating for an official release nobody with any power seems to want. |
| The Real Wizard 05.04.2013 19:05 |
GratefulFan wrote: Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever.He has but a mere few scraps. But on second thought, since you're the expert - yes, Fuller is the only person who has ever been keen to share anything of value to the collecting community. Everyone bet all their chips on double zero. One spin only. Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into.You could not be more wrong. Plenty of Queen rarities come from acetates that were made years before Jim Beach was their manager. And they were legally acquired. Seriously - you need to stop writing novels about topics you know nothing about. You are so, so, so completely wrong. |
| GratefulFan 05.04.2013 19:14 |
I don't doubt for a moment that collectors take immense pleasure and pride in sharing when it eventually winds around to that. But the process is slow and arbitrary and irritatingly self righteous. That Dave has a well more than I do is all I know. And how is it that he robbed JSS to the very quick of his bleeding soul, gutting both Fanthology's vast riches and your very reason to go on if he only has "mere scraps"? Can you really have it both ways? |
| GratefulFan 05.04.2013 19:23 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Oh go take a flying leap and stop splitting hairs. And try to keep a post stable long enough so I know what the hell I'm supposed to be replying to. Clearly at this point I mean Queen management right down to collectors have made decisions that have created the space for David Fuller, which has nothing to do with when acetates were created or acquired. Go stuff your cheeks with some more rarities and don't worry about my long posts. My brain works in a given way and that is how I express myself. Maybe my lack of pithiness is partly gender related but either way I'm stuck with it. You don't have to be.GratefulFan wrote: Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever.He has but a mere few scraps. But on second thought, since you're the expert - yes, Fuller is the only person who has ever been keen to share anything of value to the collecting community. Everyone bet all their chips on double zero. One spin only.Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into.You could not be more wrong. Plenty of Queen rarities come from acetates that were made years before Jim Beach was their manager. And they were legally acquired. Seriously - you need to stop writing novels about topics you know nothing about. You are so, so, so completely wrong. |
| The Real Wizard 05.04.2013 19:24 |
GratefulFan wrote: I don't doubt for a moment that collectors take immense pleasure and pride in sharing when it eventually winds around to that. But the process is slow and arbitrary and irritatingly self righteous. That Dave has a well more than I do is all I know. And how is it that he robbed JSS to the very quick of his bleeding soul, gutting both Fanthology's vast riches and your very reason to go on if he only has "mere scraps"? Can you really have it both ways?You make the assumptions that: a) everything was shared in there and b) nothing has emerged since his timely exit Please continue with your never-ending well-informed relevance. |
| GratefulFan 05.04.2013 19:28 |
I am not assuming anything. I'm pointing out that apparently JSS was robbed of scraps. Thanks for that clarification that I think we can all appreciate. |
| John S Stuart 05.04.2013 21:16 |
(Un)GratefulFan; Please let me pull you up on a few your points: First: Please play fair and do not put words into my mouth. You are of course free to quote me at will, but please do not cite me as saying (or assume that you can interpret what I am saying to suit your own ends). If I did not say it - please do not assume some other unreasonable meaning on my behalf. I find your "cutting to the quick" comment not only melodramatic but innacurate to the most ridiculous extreme. Second: "Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into." Are you being serious? If I am a cocaine dealer; you would still argue it was the Prime Minister's, The Home Secretary's, or the Chief of Police's responsibility for "the gap I step into"? Is there no such thing as criminal or indeed personal responsibility in that fairy tale world you live in? What a really ill-thought out and half-baked counter argument you present. Fankly; I think better of you than this... "the gap David Fuller has stepped into..." as if a) that was a noble enough cause... and b) you have just justified every crime ever committed as (paraphrased): "someone else's fault". Maybe you are correct. Maybe there is a gap in the market, but does that make Fuller's actions any more justified or legal (rehtorically); Nor does it make it his right to "fill it" with material he does not own or have the rights to disseminate. For such an excellent mind, you certainly have a very skewed vision of the real world we live in. Finally; Please do not paint Mr Fuller as some sort of victimised Communistic altruistic Robin Hood, who is playing Santa Claus to the masses. If he really was philanthropically inclinded he could have quietly divided his ill-gotten booty without any fuss or fanfare and in quiet anonymity, but, David Fuller is only interested in David Fuller and in the glorification of his own reputation. He has only "shared" this for the "fame", the "glory" the one-upmanship, the massaging of that giant ego of his, the "Copyright of David R Fuller stunt" and now finally - the money. Oh so noble indeed... yet no one gives a damn about him now, and he hasn't even tasted his full fifteen minutes yet... It all sounds a bit megalomaniacal to me (but perhaps I am wrong; perhaps he really was the fifth member of Queen and has the right to wave to the masses in his home made videos and overcharging for inferior lossy copies). The bottom line is David has lied, cheated and stolen for his own personal ends; not for the good of Queen fans in general or the betterment of the Queen community, not for Queenzone, and certainly not for you. But let's forget all that, because this is not about you or me; and somewhere in your smoke and mirrors routine you keep evading the fact that David Fuller's actions are illegal. It is for those actions that he must stand up and face his own consequences for - which is something you just cannot seem (or want to) take onboard, and thrown every silly little excuse to defend him. This story is not about David and Goliath, it is about a small-time crook who has only acted from his own greedy selfish ends. Everything else is just more smoke and even more mirrors... and shame on you for suggesting otherwise. |
| waunakonor 05.04.2013 21:51 |
I'm still going to visit DRF's YouTube channel regularly and these gigantic discussions that get no one anywhere are not going to stop me. |
| splicksplack 06.04.2013 05:05 |
I think it's hysterical that John S Stuart etc get so self righteous about the illegal nature of Fuller's behaviour. I mean, illegal or not, the only people supposedly losing out financially are QPL. And, as we all know, they receive a lorry load of notes on the hour, every hour. And as I've mentioned earlier, the money QPL lose must be minuscule. The other reason for the attack on Fuller is taking away control from the artist. I may have more sympathy for that if it was a new maturing artist but, bloody hell, Queen have had their moment. The best work is done, in the can, sold, money made, thank you very much. To get precious now about a few off-cuts is, frankly, laughable (and, to be honest, probably why we haven't seen a huge crackdown or an 'example' made of any individual as it's been going on for years). Laws are put in place to prevent injustices and frequently over-reach the wrong they were intended to right. So while Fullers actions are technically illegal I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone (outside of QPL themselves) that agrees that a great moral or financial wrong has been committed against QPL. No, the real reason that these arguments are used are because these collectors have had their noses put out of joint. One of there own has broken ranks and there's no honour amongst thieves ('thieves' used in the proverbial sense in that they are all in the same business of obtaining recordings that they were not supposed to have access to in the first place). The collectors can be as evasive as they want about the source of these tracks but the fact is QPL did not and do not want these recordings ANYWHERE outside of the Company. So it really doesn't befit the collectors to try to isolate Fuller on technical legal grounds. And the argument about "legally" obtaining acetates containing Queen recordings etc in auction is fatuous. Either however they got out and into auction in the first place was illegal, or they were gifted to someone by QPL and then illegally sold or traded on. Whatever the route, they should not be out there and to pick on one person because he's making money out of the whole sorry enterprise is just daft. |
| John S Stuart 06.04.2013 06:18 |
slicksplack wrote: "No, the real reason that these arguments are used are because these collectors have had their noses put out of joint. One of there own has broken ranks and there's no honour amongst thieves ('thieves' used in the proverbial sense in that they are all in the same business of obtaining recordings that they were not supposed to have access to in the first place)." John S Stuart: You know - I am so fed up of hearing this bullplop! I have been a Queen collector since the early 1970's and anyone who knows me personally, who knows me by post, has known me in or through the Queen collecting world or collecting circles - or even knows me by reputation knows that this is complete nonsense. The funny thing is - even David Fuller knows that! In fact, I am very generous (and especially so in the Queen arena), but like all quiet contributers - there is a respected etiquette one is expected to follow. Oh; I do not expect any glowing testimonials, but I have given so much over the years - in time, in knowledge in money - and even in music - all without the need to crow about from the rooftops. I have never let my own ego corrupt my personality; Furthermore, I always try to see the best in people, So again we now have another expert who knows absolutely nothing about which they speak. The point is whether one collects antiques; stamps; book; clocks - or even Queen discs - like minded collectors will always hang out together. That is part of the enjoyment. The thrill of the chase as it were. No one has villied or sacrificed David Fuller. (For the record David was actually treated with equality dignity and respect - but he kind of forgets that bit).No one has forced a gun to his head before or after his releases. He has not burst the bank - and I personally have taken a hit of about 10% and the Fanthology less; so it may not be scraps in one sense; but it's certainly not the meat of my collection either. So I have moved on quite significantly. (Remember all this occured about last Xmas - so it's not a news story by a long shot - and I have been awaiting this fall-out for quite a while now). But you know what? I have a life. I have a family. I have grandkids. I love to travel the world. I have a few health problems, but I still get laid often and regular! My point is life is good. Enjoy it while you can, but all I read in here is more and more bitterness - which to me comes over as spiteful envy, and there really is no need for it because life is too short and precious to waste. I really do not care about Mr. Fuller. I have never met the man. Wouldn't speak to him if I did. So it's not my nose that is out of joint, but my foolish pride for trusting in such a petty, arrogant and stupid little boy (but hindsight as aforementioned is 20/20). OK stupidity rant over. David caught me (us) with our trousers down. Good for him. But let's not pretend he is some Pink Panther type hero, and that my "educational" type informative replies for the edification of the community make the slightest bit of difference either. But you know what; you do someone a favour, and they take advantage. I even suggested - "look David, your idea to broadcast is a bad one because it will come back to haunt you", but somehow again, that was perceived as my negativity; when in fact it was supposed to be helpful advice to help him avoid the hot waters he now travels in. There is only so much faith we can have in humanity, the rest is up to the individual. That is why I contribute in here far less frequently now; because it really isn't worth it, and I have so much to do, and so little time left to do it in. |
| splicksplack 06.04.2013 07:21 |
You say "No one has villied or sacrificed David Fuller" but you talk of him as "a petty, arrogant and stupid little boy" and "a small-time crook". And as I said earlier the whole illegal argument is dead in the water when you're in possession yourself of music you have no right to. So it is quite obvious that this is a personal crusade and you have an axe to grind (BTW thanks for your riveting biography above). |
| John S Stuart 06.04.2013 08:40 |
splicksplack wrote: And as I said earlier the whole illegal argument is dead in the water when you're in possession yourself of music you have no right to. Another line of complete and utter rubbish. Of course I have a "right to it". that is the whole point! Why not read up on your copyright law before coming on here and planting your home spun magic beans. I guess you would burn me as a witch because I have flown in an aircraft or get moving pictures on a flat screen! Here is a bit of advice. It is better to be thought a fool, and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. (Not being vindictive - just offering up some more good advice to Jude Dredd 2013 style).; |
| splicksplack 06.04.2013 10:46 |
The un-released recordings in question have not been granted a 'right to distribute' by the band. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, a copyright owner has the sole right to issue copies of work to the public (distribution right). You are therefore in possession of recordings distributed unlawfully. As a Queen fan you will have been aware that these recording were not official releases and therefore by buying at auction, trading etc you are coming into ownership of items you know should not be in your hands. Without QPL giving written consent for you to own copies of these recordings then you, or any other 'collector', should not have access to that work. As the material that is on whatever format you hold is copyrighted then it could be argued that you may be handling stolen property even though you may have bought it in good faith and ignorance of the law. I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this. |
| John S Stuart 06.04.2013 11:10 |
splicksplack wrote: The un-released recordings in question have not been granted a 'right to distribute' by the band. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, a copyright owner has the sole right to issue copies of work to the public (distribution right). You are therefore in possession of recordings distributed unlawfully. As a Queen fan you will have been aware that these recording were not official releases and therefore by buying at auction, trading etc you are coming into ownership of items you know should not be in your hands. Without QPL giving written consent for you to own copies of these recordings then you, or any other 'collector', should not have access to that work. As the material that is on whatever format you hold is copyrighted then it could be argued that you may be handling stolen property even though you may have bought it in good faith and ignorance of the law. I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this. As I said earlier; (with respect) you are talking complete bollox; and have no idea of what you write. Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself, as you are only making youself look more stupid than you really are. Without full possessions of all facts you are pissing against the wind. Hey; I don't mind if you wish to continue. You believe what you want to believe, but you are the one smelling of piss - not me. |
| splicksplack 06.04.2013 12:12 |
It's unfortunate that you resort to insults rather than offer any clear counter argument. But that probably says it all. |
| john bodega 06.04.2013 12:54 |
"Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever" It's part of the reason I barely bother looking for rare Queen stuff anymore. In the 80's, my sister nearly died from appendicitis. Afterwards, the doctor walks into the recovery room and says to her "Shake my hand - I'm the man that just -saved your life-". It's not that he uploads these things that bothers me - I don't give a fuck about QPL since they're too lazy to put this stuff on shelves for me to buy. It's his attitude that's the problem. He actually equates the sausage factory of sharing other people's work as a meaningful creative endeavour instead of some kind of simple service - it ain't. It'd be like my postman wanting credit for every video I ever shoot with my DSLR. Fuck you, postman - you're just the system of delivery. The logic probably goes that since these people offer us Queen rarities for free that we should be thankful. Makes sense on paper, but I am never (ever) thanking anyone for being a dick. Sorry - it's just not how it works. |
| tero! 48531 06.04.2013 12:59 |
So... How many members of the fanthology (or anybode else in here) is in possession of tracks recorded at a Queen convention? You know, the ones that were forbidden to be recorded, and have copyright announcements over them? Anybody in possession of such a track is really in no position to critisise David Fuller for breaking an agreement or for distributing material without the artist's consent. |
| John S Stuart 06.04.2013 14:14 |
tero! 48531 wrote: So... How many members of the fanthology (or anybode else in here) is in possession of tracks recorded at a Queen convention? You know, the ones that were forbidden to be recorded, and have copyright announcements over them? Anybody in possession of such a track is really in no position to critisise David Fuller for breaking an agreement or for distributing material without the artist's consent. Not me bud; I've never been! |
| The Real Wizard 06.04.2013 17:29 |
splicksplack wrote: I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.One thing most people don't realize is that not every unreleased recording is obtained illegally. Many are, yes - but not all. Therefore in many cases the *physical product* is legally owned by someone, while the music contained therein may not be. And if it contains a song that was never released, there is no licensing and no publishing deal in place - therefore the physical product and the art contained therein can be owned by someone who did not create it, and perfectly legally. So, in short - not all unreleased recordings circumvent law. As soon as this piece of binary thinking is removed from the equation, only then can an actual discussion begin. Until then, there are two completely different languages being spoken here. |
| kosimodo 06.04.2013 17:30 |
David against goliath... Our provider rules! GB, odd that david is selling his stuff. He is the one publishing. I didnt know he is selling. PS. How about the rainbow concert? Any news?;) |
| inu-liger 06.04.2013 19:45 |
kosimodo wrote: PS. How about the rainbow concert? Any news?;)Check the Rainbow threads. GB posted something a few days ago |
| tero! 48531 07.04.2013 01:02 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Speaking of binary thinking, I have some hypothetical questions for you.splicksplack wrote: I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.One thing most people don't realize is that not every unreleased recording is obtained illegally. Many are, yes - but not all. Therefore in many cases the *physical product* is legally owned by someone, while the music contained therein may not be. And if it contains a song that was never released, there is no licensing and no publishing deal in place - therefore the physical product and the art contained therein can be owned by someone who did not create it, and perfectly legally. So, in short - not all unreleased recordings circumvent law. As soon as this piece of binary thinking is removed from the equation, only then can an actual discussion begin. Until then, there are two completely different languages being spoken here. Is somebody trading with material recorded at a Queen convention (which was asked not to be recorded by the representative of the artist) acting in any way immorally? What if that trader has obtained that same song from another source, but still knows the artist doesn't want it to be availble? Is it moral to keep distributing this material? |
| splicksplack 07.04.2013 02:54 |
The Real Wizard wrote:splicksplack wrote: I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.One thing most people don't realize is that not every unreleased recording is obtained illegally. Many are, yes - but not all. Therefore in many cases the *physical product* is legally owned by someone, while the music contained therein may not be. And if it contains a song that was never released, there is no licensing and no publishing deal in place - therefore the physical product and the art contained therein can be owned by someone who did not create it, and perfectly legally. So, in short - not all unreleased recordings circumvent law. As soon as this piece of binary thinking is removed from the equation, only then can an actual discussion begin. Until then, there are two completely different languages being spoken here. You say "the art contained therein can be owned by someone who did not create it, and perfectly legally". No it can not. "The art' is automatically copyrighted to the creator the second it has been created, published or not. From that point on they only have to prove that it is their copyright if the need arises - e.g. in court. Now, as one of the biggest music concerns on the planet I would imagine that Queen (and J Beach) would have all those bases adequately covered including any unreleased, unpublished and unlicensed material emanating from the studio (and quite possibly anywhere else including there mouths, fingers, instruments etc). They then have a claim on whoever is using that work, especially when a value is attached to it - e.g. in a trading transaction. The only thing that would make this legal would be express consent from (in this case) QPL to trade or share. Because they own the copyright on the material, published or not. Even if it was a legal copy of a Sheer Heart Attack CD you are not at liberty to trade it if you retain your own copy, say as an mp3. So what makes you think that it's OK to trade/share unreleased private copyrighted material even if it was just within your closed group? |
| splicksplack 07.04.2013 04:58 |
John S Stuart wrote:tero! 48531 wrote: So... How many members of the fanthology (or anybode else in here) is in possession of tracks recorded at a Queen convention? You know, the ones that were forbidden to be recorded, and have copyright announcements over them? Anybody in possession of such a track is really in no position to critisise David Fuller for breaking an agreement or for distributing material without the artist's consent. Not me bud; I've never been! Tero clearly asks who is in "possession" of such tracks. You do not have to have attended a convention to be in possession of the tracks in question. Yet another example of evading the crux of the argument |
| John S Stuart 07.04.2013 10:20 |
splicksplack wrote:John S Stuart wrote:Tero clearly asks who is in "possession" of such tracks. You do not have to have attended a convention to be in possession of the tracks in question. Yet another example of evading the crux of the argument I thought I had answered tero's question: but obviously you seem to be itching for some sort of argumentaive stance. So just for you - I do not own such material because I prefer quality over quantity. But yes; I do know where to get it - if I wanted it. There are many in here who will vouch for the fact that such stuff does not interest me; and every time I have been offered such material, I have graciously declined. The reason I say that; is that you obviously do not agree with anything that is outside your limited sphere of knowledge. Now then to bat back at you: Do you own such material? Do you possess any musical tracks or AVI movies which were illegally downloaded (By any I mean exactly that - any - not just Queen)? I just wonder if you are coming from a purely puritanical angle?tero! 48531 wrote: So... How many members of the fanthology (or anybode else in here) is in possession of tracks recorded at a Queen convention? You know, the ones that were forbidden to be recorded, and have copyright announcements over them? Anybody in possession of such a track is really in no position to critisise David Fuller for breaking an agreement or for distributing material without the artist's consent. Not me bud; I've never been! |
| john bodega 07.04.2013 10:31 |
I dunno. I can't keep up with this topic, not even remotely. If QPL didn't want Dave R Fuller's channel around anymore, it'd have to be an epic tale of ineptitude on their part that it's still live. My guess is GB was just trying to be funny. |
| splicksplack 07.04.2013 11:27 |
The reason I entered this discussion is because it appeared to me (and still does) that there are double standards at work. Some people are accusing Fuller of illegality when, by their trading of unreleased copyrighted work, are involved in illegal acts themselves. As I said, without the express consent of QPL, this activity is illegal. The degree of illegality is immaterial. I think Mr. Stuart may now be tacitly accepting this since he has changed tact from calling my view "bollox" to "puritanical". And, for the record, as I have no idea what Mr. Stuart or anyone else has in their collection, I am not personally accusing anyone. I'm saying that IF you trade unreleased copyrighted material then it is illegal. That is not puritanical, it is fact. Have I ever downloaded music illegally? Yes, but I'm not throwing stones in glass houses. (BTW, I am not interested in unreleased material and do not have or want any. And I don't know what AVI means). The reason I picked up on the Tero comment was to illustrate Mr. Stuarts failure to clearly engage in discussion but rather to give an answer to suit his own ends. That and his fondness for arbitrary insults is a kind of pinball strategy for evading and confusing the issue at hand. So I'll leave this topic now and let Mr. Stuart rip me apart to his heart's content. I have to get back to my studies (did I mention that I'm a mature student over half way through a law degree? If anyone wants to check the Copyright law, just ask a lawyer friend to access LexisLaw or some other law library and they can look it up for you, and please, if you find I am wrong then let me know quoting the relevant Statute and section ;) ). |
| John S Stuart 07.04.2013 11:56 |
splicksplack wrote: The reason I entered this discussion is because it appeared to me (and still does) that there are double standards at work. Some people are accusing Fuller of illegality when, by their trading of unreleased copyrighted work, are involved in illegal acts themselves. As I said, without the express consent of QPL, this activity is illegal. The degree of illegality is immaterial. I think Mr. Stuart may now be tacitly be accepting this since he has changed tact from calling my view "bollox" to "puritanical". And, for the record, as I have no idea what Mr. Stuart or anyone else has in their collection, I am not personally accusing anyone. I'm saying that IF you trade unreleased copyrighted material then it is illegal. That is not puritanical, it is fact. Have I ever downloaded music illegally? Yes, but I'm not throwing stones in glass houses. (BTW, I am not interested in unreleased material and do not have or want any. And I don't know what AVI means). The reason I picked up on the Tero comment was to illustrate Mr. Stuarts failure to clearly engage in discussion but rather to give an answer to suit his own ends. That and his fondness for arbitrary insults is a kind of pinball strategy for evading and confusing the issue at hand. So I'll leave this topic now and let Mr. Stuart rip me apart to his heart's content. I have to get back to my studies (did I mention that I'm a mature student over half way through a law degree?). John S. Stuart: If you are half-way through a law degree - and you hope to graduate - DO NOT put words (or illusionary meanings) into the mouths of other people. I was asking if your stance was puritanical - because I thought you were being self-righteous and hypocritical - and were indeed throwing stones while living in a glass house. But this does not mean I have changed my mind in the slightest. I still think your view is bollox - as you really have no idea what you talk of. But for the record, I wanted to know why you are talking bollox. Is it... A: You do indeed have a puritanical view of life and live hoiler than the rest of us? B: You - yourself are hypocritical - ie " you are indeed the pot who calls the kettle black"? C: You are ignorant of things you do not know about? D: You are misinformed - (that is partially informed - but not as informed as you think you are). But please do not string bits of phrases to suit your own binary thinking; and make it look like I may be changing tact, because that as you know, is unfair and does not reflect the truth of the situation. PS: My own personal reasons for arbitary insults has nothing to do with "pinball strateg(ies) or confusing issues": Rather it is because I am getting older and grumpier and I have very little tolerance for stupid people. It is nothing personal - so for that I wish to apologise. But there is only so much twisted logic one can endure before saying "enough is enough - and which part of "No" - or "that there are no double standards at work here"; is it that someone fails to understand? |
| Fat Lizzy 07.04.2013 17:14 |
One thing I would like to mention about the whole selling recordings and stuff... This has been happening for decades! I'm not trying to justify it, nor do I pick a side. I just want to make clear that this is nothing new. Only, because David posts this on a public website, people go all crazy and shit. There are 1000s of people selling this kind of stuff of every band worth collecting. You think this didn't happen in the 70s or 80s? Wrong... Just my two cents... |
| Queen fan 07.04.2013 17:51 |
|
| Queen fan 07.04.2013 17:51 |
"Listen to them. Creatures of the night. What music they make..." Is this sig u use meant to insinuate you have a recording of Freddie singing creatures of the night from phantom of the opera in a cupboard recorded secretly with a leg horn? |
| GB: Queen Archivist 07.04.2013 18:09 |
AdamMethos wrote: I haven't sent him any money but I'm curious, if Fuller wasn't selling the recordings but just releasing them to share with fans, would that make it OK? By OK, I mean that while QPL would prefer that the recordings hadn't got out in the first place (understandably so!), QPL would still turn a blind eye as long as no one is profiting from the releases? NO. Let me make myself clear... though I thought I already had. Never mind: I'm happy to labour the point. QPL would like all such examples of stolen Queen property illegally uploaded anywhere at all, to be removed. ALL examples. It doesn't matter if fans pay for them or not, that's irrelevant. David Fuller just happens to be the guy who's most blatantly, most non-subtly, and most 'in-your-face-ally' ripping the fans off with most frequency - as if he somehow thinks himself insulated from prosecution, and like it's HIS property. QPL is removing ALL such examples of this from YouTube, and elsewhere, regardless of who has uploaded it. There is no turning a blind eye to anyone. David Fuller is just one of many people whose youtube account has been, or will be, terminated - through their own selfish and illegal acts. |
| GB: Queen Archivist 07.04.2013 18:15 |
RMTaylorBest wrote: You don't let us hear Queen rarities, so You are stealing that music to us who spent all the money for Queen stuff !! I gave queen all my childhood money and i am still giving...so i have the right to be given some rare stuff, in any way !!! And the band can be sure that we understand that mistakes or strange songs are due to good reasons. Give us Queen bits, c'mon c'mon c'mon !! IMBECILE! |
| Missreclusive 07.04.2013 20:39 |
Is this really remaining Queens choice for representation??? |
| john bodega 08.04.2013 00:31 |
"QPL is removing ALL such examples of this from YouTube, and elsewhere, regardless of who has uploaded it. There is no turning a blind eye to anyone. David Fuller is just one of many people whose youtube account has been, or will be, terminated - through their own selfish and illegal acts" Assuming you get around to this (knowing QPL it might take a few years), I hope you don't do what most copyright owners do after a takedown. Usually they slap their hands together and go "We sure showed HIM!", and then a month later the guy skulks back and reuploads everything without any punishment at all. If you're going to nuke the guy, make sure you nuke any roaches that scuttle out afterwards too. |
| rocknrolllover 08.04.2013 01:14 |
QPL position- as I see it: What sense release the concerts 70th if they do have bootlegs and they're happy with it? What sense now release long promised box set demos, it will not pay off? Better 100 times reissue studio discography, because the fans anyway will buy everything and they will ask supplements. Better 100 times sell Wembley. No headaches, because with concerts 70th such confusion and unnecessary headache. |
| rocknrolllover 08.04.2013 01:23 |
rocknrolllover wrote: QPL position- as I see it: What sense release the concerts 70th if they do have bootlegs and they're happy with it? What sense now release long promised box set demos, it will not pay off? Better 100 times reissue studio discography, because the fans anyway will buy everything and they will ask supplements. Better 100 times sell Wembley. No headaches, because with concerts 70th such confusion and unnecessary headache.Dave Fuller is hero.. Thanks to him, we heard face it alone and etc...... |
| cmsdrums 08.04.2013 06:56 |
John S Stuart wrote: I thought I had answered tero's question: but obviously you seem to be itching for some sort of argumentaive stance. So just for you - I do not own such materialAs this this whole debate seems to revolve around semantics: Absolutely true - you (and others) cannot possibly "own" such material, even if you have it in your collection - QPL are the only ones who "own" it, unless they decide to do something such as sell off the rights and you buy it (akin to Michael Jackson actually owning the rights to some of The Beatles tracks for a while). |
| Rick 08.04.2013 08:10 |
Disgusting. That's basically all I have to say about this. |
| john bodega 08.04.2013 10:23 |
GB, have you shut his channel down yet?? I want to see him cry. |
| rocknrolllover 08.04.2013 10:24 |
Zebonka12 wrote: GB, have you shut his channel down yet?? I want to see him cry. :-) |
| borap13 08.04.2013 11:32 |
Greg - if you're going to ask these questions then you should respond to our responses as well. We were told we'd get a Queen box of rarities years ago. In fact, Brian May personally told me (no lie as I'm a journalist) that it was something being worked on. Yes it's a shame that we have to hear these first on YouTube because most of us would gladly pay for them. But I see why Fuller does it. Queen fans have been waiting and waiting for these rarities and are told they're being worked on then we hear nothing. So he's releasing them because he's filling a need. Bottom line - are they coming out? We got the Freddie box which featured stuff he likely didn't want released. Why not Queen stuff? And where's the Freddie - Michael Jackson stuff stand? Thanks for your time |
| Benn 08.04.2013 12:12 |
Got any illegally 'obtained' material yourself Greggy boy? Hmmm....... QPL KNOW and ought to understand that by you taking material to convetions, tapers have and WILL make their own copies - thi in supply and demand terms, ramps up the demand for such material and keeps the band's name and material at the forefront. If QPL were so outraged, you'd have thought they'd be wise enough NOT to allow you to take material for public airing. But they know the game as well as anyone and its a necessary evil for them. "Don't try to frighten us with your sorcer's ways Lord Vader." |
| GonnaUseMyPrisoners 08.04.2013 13:26 |
borap13 wrote: We got the Freddie box which featured stuff he likely didn't want released. Why not Queen stuff?Now THAT one's obvious - he's dead. People then presume to act on the deceased's behalf. Given that, I don't think it's difficult to predict when we will see Queen rarities (boxed set or otherwise) in a more comprehensive form... but we older fans may not live to see the day if Brian keeps eating vegan, etc. ;-) |
| brENsKi 08.04.2013 13:40 |
borap13 wrote: Greg - if you're going to ask these questions then you should respond to our responses as well. Queen fans have been waiting and waiting for these rarities and are told they're being worked on then we hear nothing. So he's releasing them because he's filling a need. Bottom line - are they coming out? We got the Freddie box which featured stuff he likely didn't want released. Why not Queen stuff? you got much greater chance of getting into "Freddie's box" now, than those anthologies coming out |
| Sheffwed4 08.04.2013 14:45 |
The only people ripping us off are the band themselves. The 40th anniversary two cd specials were atrocious stopgaps, instrumental versions, acapella versions live versions that were readily available. The unreleased tracks were welcome but there were such a tiny number it was clearly to make us buy them again when the 50th anniversary appear. we will then see the jackson tracks, the bowie extras, play the game with the beegees, the religious quadralogy, the rod stewart collaboration. The many unreleased songs that do exist because i have them all. All you that bought the 40th special editions are really gonna be pissed when you see what actually will be released. So please leave the sanctamonious bollocks for the band who have been ripping us off with piss poor remastered versions left right and centre |
| Sheffwed4 08.04.2013 15:00 |
Apparently a huge amount of queen recordings were 'stolen' from the vaults during the making of the rock band console games. Multitracks of all queens hits were leaked including all drum guitar vocal piano and bass parts for most songs. I have also heard and can access totally different ? Early versions of bo rap and killer queen etc. the tracks are separated individually into stems and seeds so they could be a remixes dream. |
| mooghead 08.04.2013 15:22 |
Where the hell have you been sherlock?? link |
| Sheffwed4 08.04.2013 15:47 |
Fab, well done holmes but they are the standard multitracks not the unreleased versions. Try harder sunbeam |
| inu-liger 08.04.2013 16:14 |
Zebonka12 wrote: GB, have you shut his channel down yet?? I want to see him cry.They're working on it. The matter has been referred to QPL's legal reps as far as I know. |
| OwenSmith 08.04.2013 16:30 |
This is all so sad. I too was underwhelmed by the 2CD 40th Anniversary stuff. The only disc 2 worth anything is Queen I with all the De Lane Lea tracks, the rest are very disappointing. Didn't even include all the BBC studio tracks, which seemed to me to be a minimum requirement. Session 6 with the News of the World tracks is totally awesome especially We Will Rock You, but it's not on the CDs. |
| samanthalovesqueen 08.04.2013 17:48 |
Personally, as a young Queen fan, even I don't appreciate what he is doing. He has made his rarities a thing of merely profit and not acknowledgement of the actual composer's creation. His position amongst fans seems questionable and I wouldn't trust him. Too many times does he slander Queen Productions, and whilst they haven't got their shit together, it's not his place to comment. He seems to be disrespecting the band more than anything and I don't think any of us should tolerate that. |
| samanthalovesqueen 08.04.2013 17:50 |
sorry, I shouldn't really class them as 'his rarities' considering he took them irresponsibly. |
| inu-liger 08.04.2013 18:20 |
OwenSmith wrote: This is all so sad. I too was underwhelmed by the 2CD 40th Anniversary stuff. The only disc 2 worth anything is Queen I with all the De Lane Lea tracks, the rest are very disappointing.Surely you jest?? Previously unreleased demos like "Feelings, Feelings" & "It's A Beautiful Day" are disappointing?? If everyone had an attitude like yours, it's no wonder the band would have zero encouragement to be motivated to get off their aging butts and cull a full boxset of rarities. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 08.04.2013 21:43 |
inu-liger wrote: Surely you jest?? Previously unreleased demos like "Feelings, Feelings" & "It's A Beautiful Day" are disappointing??Yep. Shitty songs that didn't make the grade for an album = disappointing. |
| inu-liger 08.04.2013 23:05 |
link |
| Sheffwed4 09.04.2013 14:51 |
totally agree, queen 1 the only good one. you jest know at some stage there will be a whole load of stuff released but before then they will milk the back catalogue for all its worth, i wonder how many more remasters, anniversaries etc before we get the lot. feeling feelings etc were ok but wait till you hear whats coming, you will realise what we are talking about then |
| Queen fan 09.04.2013 15:43 |
Sheffwed4 wrote: The only people ripping us off are the band themselves. The 40th anniversary two cd specials were atrocious stopgaps, instrumental versions, acapella versions live versions that were readily available. The unreleased tracks were welcome but there were such a tiny number it was clearly to make us buy them again when the 50th anniversary appear. we will then see the jackson tracks, the bowie extras, play the game with the beegees, the religious quadralogy, the rod stewart collaboration. The many unreleased songs that do exist because i have them all. All you that bought the 40th special editions are really gonna be pissed when you see what actually will be released. So please leave the sanctamonious bollocks for the band who have been ripping us off with piss poor remastered versions left right and centreIs that real, the bee gees ? The religious qaudralogy. What's that? And what bowie extras? You mean cool at? And is that is? Is there more? Whole albums? |
| brENsKi 09.04.2013 17:35 |
Sheffwed4 wrote: we will then see the jackson tracks, the bowie extras, play the game with the beegees, the religious quadralogy, the rod stewart collaboration. The many unreleased songs that do exist because i have them all.easily (far and away) the single most self-satisfied, conceited, arrogant bullshittingist blagtastic post made this year - anywhere in the known universe. if you were telling the truth, you'd have won the pissing-contest - but you're not - so put yer cock away and piss yer pants. well done - you can collect your prize by logging onto link you have fuck all - so shut up |
| Queen fan 09.04.2013 18:27 |
brENsKi wrote:So, there is no Bee Gees singing Play The Game?Sheffwed4 wrote: we will then see the jackson tracks, the bowie extras, play the game with the beegees, the religious quadralogy, the rod stewart collaboration. The many unreleased songs that do exist because i have them all.easily (far and away) the single most self-satisfied, conceited, arrogant bullshittingist blagtastic post made this year - anywhere in the known universe. if you were telling the truth, you'd have won the pissingt-contest - but you're not - so put yer cock away and piss yer pants. well done - you can collect your prize by logging onto link you have fuck all - so shut up And no religious quadrology? I can't imagine the Bee Gees singing Play The Game anyway, it would sound really strange. All those stops and start vocalisations on single words in a high pitch harmony like they do.... p- l - a - a - y t - --h---e. g-g g --a. ----m Could be code for plate of egg and ham Just notices that. |
| john bodega 09.04.2013 22:49 |
Shit, this might be a good time to ask : GB, how does QPL feel about people who do song covers on Youtube? I mean I know Brian digs them from time to time, but all the same I don't want to get shit deleted by surprise. |
| inu-liger 09.04.2013 23:25 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Shit, this might be a good time to ask : GB, how does QPL feel about people who do song covers on Youtube? I mean I know Brian digs them from time to time, but all the same I don't want to get shit deleted by surprise.Honestly Zeb, I don't think QPL give a shit about YouTube fan covers. As long as people aren't illegally profiting off the covers (barring those who license the songs for sale), which is usually the case, QPL have no reason to go after people who just want to have fun paying tribute to their favourite band(s). I've had our live cover of FBG from the Breakthru 2011 convention "Innuendo" show up on my YT account since 2011/08/11, and I've had zero issues having it here. If we're talking fan made remixes of the Queen songs themselves, THAT could be a different issue, but I've yet to hear of QPL restricting or taking those down. That would be a better question to pose to QPL's reps, if you ask me. |
| Sheffwed4 12.04.2013 16:18 |
what an offensive twerp you are, it is well known about Play the game with one of the Gibb brothers, the religion Quadralogy is also easily available. I have had al these songs for ages, now go back to listening to Dido prick |
| brENsKi 12.04.2013 16:47 |
you come in here with brand new claiming to have some of the "arc of the covenant" and expect people to believe? ok, well ordinarily i'd suspend disbelief...but in your case i won't can you guess why? because you're f**king lying about Play The Game...if you had it - you'd know EXACTLY which Gibb brother was on it - instead of saying "the BeeGees"... go drag your sorry arse back to blagsville |
| Queen fan 12.04.2013 19:00 |
Sheffwed4 wrote: what an offensive twerp you are, it is well known about Play the game with one of the Gibb brothers, the religion Quadralogy is also easily available. I have had al these songs for ages, now go back to listening to Dido prickI just looked up the meaning of quadrology, I knew it meant four of something, but exactly in music it refers to four operatic pieces. So are we talking about four related bohemian rhapsody style epics? When were these recorded? Could it be that Freddie used my idea? I sent him a follow up to bohemian rhapsody once. |
| john bodega 12.04.2013 19:07 |
"go back to listening to Dido prick" Post of the year. |
| Queen fan 12.04.2013 19:13 |
brENsKi wrote: you come in here with brand new claiming to have some of the "arc of the covenant" and expect people to believe? ok, well ordinarily i'd suspend disbelief...but in your case i won't can you guess why? because you're f**king lying about Play The Game...if you had it - you'd know EXACTLY which Gibb brother was on it - instead of saying "the BeeGees"... go drag your sorry arse back to blagsvilleI bet it was the middle one with the best hair. |
| inu-liger 13.04.2013 12:04 |
Hmm, interesting... Not that his Tumblr is back up officially, BUT there is now an 'enter password' on his Tumblr page. Think he locked it? |
| jrd1951 13.04.2013 12:29 |
Nice post Mr'Archivist' but I hope you were not responsible for the dreadful FM album or awful rehashes.Of course you know that Queen are one of just a few bands that have total control of their back catalogue, so perhaps you may converse with them? Perhaps use your power to get what the fans want released? or just sue everyone? JD |
| Saint Jiub 13.04.2013 12:38 |
inu-liger wrote: Hmm, interesting... Not that his Tumblr is back up officially, BUT there is now an 'enter password' on his Tumblr page. Think he locked it?He probably locked it to avoid harrassment by you ... or were you planning on buying some rarities? |
| inu-liger 13.04.2013 12:54 |
Panchgani wrote:Harassment....Hahahahaha.....Talk about pot calling the kettle black.....inu-liger wrote: Hmm, interesting... Not that his Tumblr is back up officially, BUT there is now an 'enter password' on his Tumblr page. Think he locked it?He probably locked it to avoid harrassment by you ... or were you planning on buying some rarities? Why would I have had him shut down by QPL if I wanted to buy rarities from DFR? Never mind he probably would never sell them to me. Funny logic, you little boy. |
| inu-liger 13.04.2013 13:05 |
jrd1951 wrote: Nice post Mr'Archivist' but I hope you were not responsible for the dreadful FM album or awful rehashes.Those were put out years before Greg even got involved with QPL. I think Freddie's management was entirely responsible for that, you should watch the last segment of "The Great Pretender" documentary Perhaps use your power to get what the fans want released? or just sue everyone? JDThere have been numerous attempts by Greg Brooks to convince the band to release the rarities over the years. Unfortunately the band and/or its management seem to be far too stubborn to give in. You're delusional if you think Greg has a ton of power or say in these kind of releases. |
| Saint Jiub 13.04.2013 13:11 |
inu-liger wrote: Why would I have had him shut down by QPL if I wanted to buy rarities from DFR? Never mind he probably would never sell them to me.Someone has a defective sarcasm filter. |
| inu-liger 13.04.2013 13:55 |
Panchgani wrote:Not my fault. Do your research on Asperger's, maybe you'll gain a little bit of insight as to why that is.inu-liger wrote: Why would I have had him shut down by QPL if I wanted to buy rarities from DFR? Never mind he probably would never sell them to me.Someone has a defective sarcasm filter. |
| inu-liger 13.04.2013 13:55 |
-double post- |
| Saint Jiub 13.04.2013 15:17 |
Asperger's does not exist anymore ... link |
| inu-liger 13.04.2013 17:16 |
Panchgani wrote: Asperger's does not exist anymore ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/02/aspergers-syndrome-dropped-psychiatric-dsmNot entirely true, please see below: http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-zones/learning-disability/aspergers-not-in-dsm-5-mental-health-manual/5052637.article The press release says that this is to help more accurately and consistently diagnose people with autism. This does not mean that Asperger’s syndrome is being removed from the DSM classification system, only that it is being placed under a single diagnostic category. |
| Sheffwed4 13.04.2013 17:31 |
sorry for the misunderstanding, Queen were doing a suite of four religious songs for the first album.Jesus was the only one of the 3 released on the album. Silver salmon and mad the swine being two of the others. I cant remember the name of the final one but its unreleased and i have it. (will look at tracks in my archive and let you know. I do indeed have a copy of Play the game with Andy gibb, i purchased it in argentina along with other game out takes and a huge number of hot space out takes. One of the most interesting CDs i managed to find is a load of Demos Freddie recorded at Garden lodge and in the studio and only a couple of which ended up on the freddie box set , none of these tracks include the rest of queen and are quite stunning |
| IanR 13.04.2013 17:41 |
Is one of 'The Game' outtakes called 'Happy Hour'? I believe there was also a demo called 'Gimme The Works', according to a *fairly* reliable source back on the old QueenRocker board. |
| Saint Jiub 13.04.2013 18:42 |
inu-liger wrote:Is the below a correct statement?Panchgani wrote: Asperger's does not exist anymore ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/02/aspergers-syndrome-dropped-psychiatric-dsmNot entirely true, please see below: http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-zones/learning-disability/aspergers-not-in-dsm-5-mental-health-manual/5052637.articleThe press release says that this is to help more accurately and consistently diagnose people with autism. This does not mean that Asperger’s syndrome is being removed from the DSM classification system, only that it is being placed under a single diagnostic category. Asperger's is considered a subcatagory of "autism spectral disorder" The following link from Forbes seems to think that Asperger's diagnois will drastically decrease in the future. Is this a mistake by Forbes? link |
| inu-liger 13.04.2013 20:23 |
Panchgani wrote:I won't doubt what Forbes are saying, given that this is a slightly unfortunate reality owing to the APA's move to generalize it. However, are Forbes making their prediction based on the US alone, or are they talking on a worldwide scale? Given that this was a decision made by American medical professionals whose guidebook I believe the rest of the world aren't legally obliged to follow anyways, I doubt this is going to completely end worldwide.inu-liger wrote:Is the below a correct statement? Asperger's is considered a subcatagory of "autism spectral disorder" The following link from Forbes seems to think that Asperger's diagnois will drastically decrease in the future. Is this a mistake by Forbes? linkPanchgani wrote: Asperger's does not exist anymore ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/02/aspergers-syndrome-dropped-psychiatric-dsmNot entirely true, please see below: http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-zones/learning-disability/aspergers-not-in-dsm-5-mental-health-manual/5052637.articleThe press release says that this is to help more accurately and consistently diagnose people with autism. This does not mean that Asperger’s syndrome is being removed from the DSM classification system, only that it is being placed under a single diagnostic category. Personally, I refuse to accept the change of definitions here brought about in the name of generalization. I don't have very good feelings about this in terms of the long run (especially when it concerns doctors and specialists who are more interested in dispensing drugs, and gov't-backed support groups & agencies potentially given budgetary cuts), given the social stigmas typically thrown at people who identify as Autistics rather than those who identify as Asperger's (and I have encountered these ignorant attitudes from time to time speaking from experience, hence my deep concerns) |
| inu-liger 13.04.2013 20:23 |
Anyways, let's get back on topic. If you wish to continue the discussion Panchgani, PM me. |
| Saint Jiub 13.04.2013 21:20 |
Ok PM sent |
| George Michael 14.04.2013 12:54 |
Sheffwed4 - please check your inbox. Thanks. |
| Togg 15.04.2013 06:24 |
To throw my thoughts in to this... i would have to say i am disgusted in anyone that feels they should have the right to sell unreleased material obtained by any means other than an official source. Speaking as a musician I can say I would throw every legal measure at them if it happened to me. I have long been very uncomfortable with a number of the 'serious' collectors here that profit from selling this stuff. Collecting is one thing, but selling is another. if they were collecting stolen paintings and selling them they would be thrown in jail...simple, just because it's a recording makes no difference to crime. |
| GB: Queen Archivist 05.05.2013 20:38 |
borap13 wrote: Greg - if you're going to ask these questions then you should respond to our responses as well. GB: ok We were told we'd get a Queen box of rarities years ago. In fact, Brian May personally told me (no lie as I'm a journalist) that it was something being worked on. GB: i've said many times that we've done lots of research preliminary work on it. That doesn't mean it will definitely happen though. It only means we did lots of research preliminary work on it. Yes it's a shame that we have to hear these first on YouTube because most of us would gladly pay for them. GB: I agree. But I see why Fuller does it. GB: He was SELLING stolen property to other Queen fans for financial gain. That's as LOW as it gets. Queen fans have been waiting and waiting for these rarities and are told they're being worked on then we hear nothing. GB: So that makes Fullers' antics ok does it? So he's releasing them because he's filling a need. GB: He's releasing them, SELLING them, because he's a lowlife greedy no-morals rip-off merchant... posing as a Do-Good Queen fan. And you have fallen for it. I bet he loves people like you. You probably pay his mortgage and for his holidays. Bottom line - are they coming out? GB: Your guess as good as mine. Probably yes, one day. We got the Freddie box which featured stuff he likely didn't want released. Why not Queen stuff? GB: You know very well why not. Don't ask silly questions you already know the answer to. I've answered this a hundred times. Nothing has changed borap13. And where's the Freddie - Michael Jackson stuff stand? GB: awaiting a suitable event to coincide with. Not within my control. May be sooner than you think! Thanks for your timeGB: ok |
| inu-liger 05.05.2013 21:50 |
GB: Queen Archivist wrote: Queen fans have been waiting and waiting for these rarities and are told they're being worked on then we hear nothing. GB: So that makes Fullers' antics ok does it?It doesn't. However, what's not OK on the flipside is the many lies, inconsistencies and deliberately vague scraps fed to the fans by QPL post-1991. The hype factor of QPL's press releases in the last few years have also added fuel to the fire, again promising things in various manners that they don't deliver on. Of course, some of these things were partly ignited by incorrect stories reported by the official fan club through their newsletters over the year, which doesn't help as it creates confusion over what "news" came directly from QPL or not. I know this does not directly apply to you, but I am trying to put some perspective into this matter that you can understand. After all, haven't you proclaimed yourself many times to also be a "fan" of the band?? :-) |
| shamar 06.05.2013 15:36 |
GB: Queen Archivist wrote: ... in relation to David R Fuller selling what are effectively stolen rare Queen (officially unreleased) studio out-take recordings, to other Queen fans - to the highest bidder, basically. What a nasty little individual he must be! Stolen things? Robberers (Coz they sells their copies?) That is how you called die hard fans and collectors,? People who spent their bloody money on bootlegs coz QP don't wanna release these things oifficialy? Poor QP and band members... It's time re-re-re-re-re-release another "best of..." ONE MORE THING - "because they are were never intended to be heard." Who was selling cheepy, shitty bootlegs on official site? Ibrahim Mustapha? Who putted out-takes on ,so called, bonus discs? So bootleg out-takes, from Fuller are "bad and never intended to be heard" but on offcial releases are "good and intended to be heard"? pathetic. |
| inu-liger 06.05.2013 16:13 |
ONE MORE THING - "because they are were never intended to be heard." Who the **** was selling cheepy, shitty bootlegs on official site? Ibrahim Mustapha? pathetic.Live bootlegs /= studio bootlegs QPL have never given as big of a shit so much towards the live bootlegs, so long as they weren't being sold. Their biggest concern is the STUDIO material, along with home made demos and the like. This was the material Dave R Fuller never had a legal license nor authorization to sell, which is precisely why QPL went after him! Try understanding the other party's logic next time before you jump the gun and make yourself like like an ass. |
| shamar 06.05.2013 16:17 |
borap13 wrote: And where's the Freddie - Michael Jackson stuff stand?They working on it. So U'll hear it... never. |
| shamar 06.05.2013 16:24 |
inu-liger wrote: Live bootlegs /= studio bootlegs (...) Try understanding the other party's logic next time before you jump the gun and make yourself like like an ass.So don't have problems with selling are "poor" quality live bootlegs? But have with good quality studio recordings? Coz... what? Coz "it's unfinished"? So what about "4, 5, 11 takes" on bonus discs? Read whole thing... "before you jump the gun and make yourself like like an ass". |
| inu-liger 06.05.2013 16:36 |
shamar wrote:Let me state for the record, I don't think the Top 100 Bootlegs project was executed very well - never mind it became another project in a string of half assed unfinished projects.inu-liger wrote: Live bootlegs /= studio bootlegs (...) Try understanding the other party's logic next time before you jump the gun and make yourself like like an ass.So don't have problems with selling are "poor" quality live bootlegs? But have with good quality studio recordings? Coz... what? Coz "it's unfinished"? So what about "4, 5, 11 takes" on bonus discs? Read whole thing... "before you jump the gun and make yourself like like an ass". I definitely disagree with the methods that went into it, especially considering that QPL could have put out their own soundboard sources especially for shows where multi-tracks don't exist thus saving them mixing work. Also, I recall at the time people were complaining that some of the bootlegs sold there were derived from lossy sources resulting in transcoded products, which was definitely another huge fail on QPL's part. |
| . 22.06.2013 13:51 |
Back again link |
| Saint Jiub 22.06.2013 23:44 |
The Kurgan wrote: Back again link... But everything is free to view, and nothing is for sale. |
| dysan 23.06.2013 03:05 |
Yeah to be fair, I had a nice evening browsing his channel and if anything, would want to track down most of the content if released officially - be it record fairs for old vinyl or issued on an anthology. One idea I'm not sure has been discussed is an official collection of 'featuring Queen' material. Bowie did a compilation called 'Oh You Pretty Things' that attempted to round up his work as producer and writer with other artists. link Flawed, but a great way to find stuff that ended up on bootleg. I could see a Queen one including recordings with Fox, Ian Hunter, Peter Straker, Eddie H, Eugene Walllace etc. |
| ChillRebel 31.07.2013 14:53 |
I SAY CUDO'S TO DAVID R FULLER !!!! WITHOUT HIM WE WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW MUCH OF WHAT HE HAS EXISTED !!! THERE'S "TORRENTS" TO PIRATE QUEEN MATERIAL ON THIS SITE ... WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE .... |
| musicland munich 08.09.2013 16:40 |
Fuller will never get his dirty hands on this one ! |
| inu-liger 08.09.2013 18:50 |
Hmm? |
| Thistle 08.09.2013 19:46 |
musiclandmunich......I'm confused!! Please tell us what that picture is in aid of :) |
| musicland munich 08.09.2013 22:10 |
Seems like John likes to throw bass guitars ( not only at Knebworth). A friend of mine worked in the mid 80's for a german band called "BAP". One day they were at the Musicland studios( just hang around) and noticed that one of the Studio owned Fender Precis got a nasty crack ( as you can see on the picture). The technican( not Mack) just said " It was the bass player of Queen" My friend ask to buy it and they had an agreement. I am only in posession of the broken Neck - the body is still in use ( as far as I know). |
| john bodega 09.09.2013 00:59 |
Now that his channel is gone, where do I go to hear his shitty and pointless remixes? Don't these companies think of who they're hurting? |
| tero! 48531 09.09.2013 09:04 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Now that his channel is gone, where do I go to hear his shitty and pointless remixes? Don't these companies think of who they're hurting?Don't worry. I'm sure Queen Productions will have their official shitty and pointless remixes for the Christmas market... ;) Perhaps that was QP's plan all along? They could never claim that posting demos was hurting their business, but shitty remixes is their bread and butter. |
| cmsdrums 09.09.2013 13:15 |
The fact that GB said the FM & MJ material, it would be released when a 'suitable event comes up to tie it in with', just about sums it up. Yes, I understand for purposes of a few more column inches this would be preferred, but surely something recorded by two of the most celebrated artists of all time, both now deceased, is an event in itself? They should stand by it as a release on its own merits, not wait so they can tag it on the end of yet another compilation album for the casual Xmas market buyers. For 'suitable event' read 'cash in opportunity'. |
