John S Stuart 09.04.2005 10:11 |
Hypothetical question: Could it happen here? link has (amongst others) been SHUT down, and it's "owners" arrested NOT for HOSTING "illegal" files - but for LINKING (or POINTING) to "illegal" files. Furthermore, the internet is littered with such dead bodies: link or link to name another couple. Those who say it can NOT happen HERE, should perhaps read the short transcript below, but before you do, I am no "Killjoy, badguy...", just someone who loves this 'zone and respects that it only takes one or two STUPID individuals to point to - or encourage ONE "Official" file too many - before they break the proverbial camel's back. Please, can I ask ever so nicely, let's stop the "begging culture", and the temptation to link to OFFICIAL product, as to do so MAY result in disaster for us all. Apart from the extract below, you can find the full version for yourselves at link (and before some smart-Alex starts with the legalities - the hard truth is - Shareconnector are STILL closed down - END OF STORY). "I'll explain in short what... happened the day... SC was taken down. Foundation BREIN (dutch anti-piracy) requested permission from the public prosecutor to take SC down. BREIN told the public prosecutor that SC is taking part in illegal activities such as copyright infringement. As we all know it's not illegal by Dutch law to put eD2k links on a webpage, it's just a hashcode which describes a file so it has nothing to do with localization. Without any (real) investigation they assumed BREIN was right and gave permission to FIOD-ECD (piracy tracing department) to seize the servers and take SC offline. That day only 1 person was arrested our SC ISP Zefanja, his computers etc. were seized and he was 2 days in jail... The so called experts at FIOD-ECD didn't have a clue on how SC and eDonkey2k operated, so what the hell is their job then... They are now stretching time, doing nothing and calling it an investigation." Hey, I only wrote this because I care about this place - but I accept that others may feel that I am pissing in the wind - and it is as much their 'zone - as it is mine. |
thankstogravity 09.04.2005 10:51 |
John, I couldn't agree with you more. With the amount of officially released material being tossed around QZ (including full albums by The Cross), it's only a matter of time before someone takes notice and then takes action. |
jericho05 09.04.2005 11:18 |
I'm thinking perhaps a ban should be imposed on those who post links to official material. Begging for mp3s of officially released material has to stop. And those who openly trade it thru MSN need to stop as well. If you must trade or post these songs please do it in another forum. |
agneepath! 11994 09.04.2005 12:35 |
We would be naive to be not concerned. The recent EZT situation has proven one thing: no one is safe! Richard needs to lay down some ground rules about offering links / torrents on QZ. For most of us Queenzone is "home" on the net... and no one would want others to jeapordise that. |
Jjeroen 09.04.2005 13:27 |
Agreed! Too much officially released material lately. And we all know that Queenproductions is keeping an eye on these website offering music! (There have been Queen websites closed in the past that did not even have OFFICIALLY released stuff -just boots- on them and got closed for that. Rules should be set indeed. |
Mr Mercury 09.04.2005 14:30 |
Now that would be ideal but unfortunately there will a few idiots who will still post official stuff even after they have been told otherwise. |
Serry... 09.04.2005 18:30 |
Agree. If someone REALLY needs in some official tracks it's more easy to ask someone over e-mail than post requests and links here. |
kyassor 09.04.2005 18:54 |
Serry Funster wrote: Agree. If someone REALLY needs in some official tracks it's more easy to ask someone over e-mail than post requests and links here.If someone really NEEDS some official tracks then it is better for them to buy them. In the case of Queen and other big bands they might not miss the money on a few illegal 'sales' but for a new band trying to breakthough then every sale is crucial - every unoffical download of a new/up & coming band kills off the grass roots of the industry. As for bootlegs of gigs never to be released, share them with as many as you can for free - get rid of the e-bay traders and give the recordings away |
TieYourMotherDown 09.04.2005 19:34 |
I agree something needs to be done. I think it's great we trade bootlegs, unreleased tracks, demos, interviews, remixes, etc ... but I think the torrenting of ENTIRE albums should be TOTALLY banned. Full albums are a definante no-no, as well as album cuts. |
Fat Lizzy 09.04.2005 19:42 |
TieYourMotherDown wrote: I agree something needs to be done. I think it's great we trade bootlegs, unreleased tracks, demos, interviews, remixes, etc ... but I think the torrenting of ENTIRE albums should be TOTALLY banned. Full albums are a definante no-no, as well as album cuts.I dont know anything to add to that... Amen. |
deleted user 09.04.2005 20:03 |
Rev wrote:Edited - see below. SorryTieYourMotherDown wrote: I agree something needs to be done. I think it's great we trade bootlegs, unreleased tracks, demos, interviews, remixes, etc ... but I think the torrenting of ENTIRE albums should be TOTALLY banned. Full albums are a definante no-no, as well as album cuts.I dont know anything to add to that... Amen. |
Ian R 09.04.2005 23:32 |
There's nothing wrong with sharing the Cross material on here, for crying out loud - the albums have been out of print for years and years. |
Megamike The GREAT 10.04.2005 00:03 |
Let them come.. I alone will destroy any threat to our community.. they are no match for the power of the Dark side of the Force.. |
Serry... 10.04.2005 14:21 |
kyassor wrote:You didn't get my point - in some cases it's impossible to find a record (you CAN'T buy a legal copy of Mad, Bad And Dangerous To Know now for instance), so in this case I think you may ask for a couple of tracks but not in public place like this.Serry Funster wrote: Agree. If someone REALLY needs in some official tracks it's more easy to ask someone over e-mail than post requests and links here.If someone really NEEDS some official tracks then it is better for them to buy them. |
trustno1 11.04.2005 05:38 |
Ian R wrote: There's nothing wrong with sharing the Cross material on here, for crying out loud - the albums have been out of print for years and years.I would advise anyone against paying for any Cross album - don't waste you're money, they're bloody awful. |
neeuqfonafamai 11.04.2005 05:46 |
Serry Funster wrote:I totally agree. No officially-released material should be shared on here. If it is out of print (and therefore unavailable) then it is acceptable to share a few tracks through e-mail (but not in a public place like this). After all, what is the point in going to all the trouble of sourcing out such hard-to-find material if it turns out you don't like it after-all ('cos no-body would let you listen to a few songs to see if you did).kyassor wrote:You didn't get my point - in some cases it's impossible to find a record (you CAN'T buy a legal copy of Mad, Bad And Dangerous To Know now for instance), so in this case I think you may ask for a couple of tracks but not in public place like this.Serry Funster wrote: Agree. If someone REALLY needs in some official tracks it's more easy to ask someone over e-mail than post requests and links here.If someone really NEEDS some official tracks then it is better for them to buy them. |
Mr Mercury 11.04.2005 06:29 |
neeuqfonafamai wrote:The arguments for aquiring the Cross stuff is well argued, but unfortunately I dont think QP or the record company, in this case Virgin (I think thats who the Cross are were with) would see it that way. They would probably see it as either "theft" or lost revenue.Serry Funster wrote:I totally agree. No officially-released material should be shared on here. If it is out of print (and therefore unavailable) then it is acceptable to share a few tracks through e-mail (but not in a public place like this). After all, what is the point in going to all the trouble of sourcing out such hard-to-find material if it turns out you don't like it after-all ('cos no-body would let you listen to a few songs to see if you did).kyassor wrote:You didn't get my point - in some cases it's impossible to find a record (you CAN'T buy a legal copy of Mad, Bad And Dangerous To Know now for instance), so in this case I think you may ask for a couple of tracks but not in public place like this.Serry Funster wrote: Agree. If someone REALLY needs in some official tracks it's more easy to ask someone over e-mail than post requests and links here.If someone really NEEDS some official tracks then it is better for them to buy them. |
neeuqfonafamai 11.04.2005 07:04 |
Mr Mercury wrote:Didn't say they would like it! But maybe they might get the point and make it available, after all they can't make revenue from something they are not selling.neeuqfonafamai wrote:The arguments for aquiring the Cross stuff is well argued, but unfortunately I dont think QP or the record company, in this case Virgin (I think thats who the Cross are were with) would see it that way. They would probably see it as either "theft" or lost revenue.Serry Funster wrote:I totally agree. No officially-released material should be shared on here. If it is out of print (and therefore unavailable) then it is acceptable to share a few tracks through e-mail (but not in a public place like this). After all, what is the point in going to all the trouble of sourcing out such hard-to-find material if it turns out you don't like it after-all ('cos no-body would let you listen to a few songs to see if you did).kyassor wrote:You didn't get my point - in some cases it's impossible to find a record (you CAN'T buy a legal copy of Mad, Bad And Dangerous To Know now for instance), so in this case I think you may ask for a couple of tracks but not in public place like this.Serry Funster wrote: Agree. If someone REALLY needs in some official tracks it's more easy to ask someone over e-mail than post requests and links here.If someone really NEEDS some official tracks then it is better for them to buy them. |
Serry... 11.04.2005 07:20 |
MBADTK was released by Parlophone. Just take a look at 'Rating' of this album (seems as it's impossible to get even if you're in UK): link I don't know how young and new fans have to buy legal copy of this record! But when someone asks for stuff like 'Thank God It's Christmas' because they don' want to buy GHIII (which still is available everywhere) - that's wrong... |
onevsion 11.04.2005 08:52 |
I Agree with you John! Please stop sharing official products! I think Queenproductions is tollerating the situation on queenzone (downloading from concerts etc) because they know that it's sharing the music (among fans who buy all official queen products, or most of them do) and it will happen anyway (swapping bootlegs) Let's not spoil this by putting official material online! btw.. i think the cross has some good songs! I like the blue rock album! |
inu-liger 11.04.2005 21:16 |
Serry Funster wrote: MBADTK was released by Parlophone. I don't know how young and new fans have to buy legal copy of this record!...One word: eBay |
The Real Wizard 12.04.2005 16:35 |
Inu Yasha<h6>a.k.a. Lum's Stormtrooper wrote:Agreed. If you want something that badly, then keep searching for it, and one day it will be there.Serry Funster wrote: MBADTK was released by Parlophone. I don't know how young and new fans have to buy legal copy of this record!...One word: eBay Can't say anything else that's already been said here. Keep official things official by buying them, and spread only unofficial things, because (if I may paraphrase your old signature, Mike) an artist cannot claim lost revenue from an item that isn't in their catalogue. |
Carrots Of The Piratebean 12.04.2005 16:42 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Now that would be ideal but unfortunately there will a few idiots who will still post official stuff even after they have been told otherwise.And they are at it again. Check this thread link |
deleted user 12.04.2005 22:45 |
Mr Mercury wrote:Agreed. No one ever said they were very practical or reasonable about that sort of thing. If a case were ever broghut for it, I would like to challange them to find a legal non-secondhand copy.neeuqfonafamai wrote:The arguments for aquiring the Cross stuff is well argued, but unfortunately I dont think QP or the record company, in this case Virgin (I think thats who the Cross are were with) would see it that way. They would probably see it as either "theft" or lost revenue.Serry Funster wrote:I totally agree. No officially-released material should be shared on here. If it is out of print (and therefore unavailable) then it is acceptable to share a few tracks through e-mail (but not in a public place like this). After all, what is the point in going to all the trouble of sourcing out such hard-to-find material if it turns out you don't like it after-all ('cos no-body would let you listen to a few songs to see if you did).kyassor wrote:You didn't get my point - in some cases it's impossible to find a record (you CAN'T buy a legal copy of Mad, Bad And Dangerous To Know now for instance), so in this case I think you may ask for a couple of tracks but not in public place like this.Serry Funster wrote: Agree. If someone REALLY needs in some official tracks it's more easy to ask someone over e-mail than post requests and links here.If someone really NEEDS some official tracks then it is better for them to buy them. |
deleted user 12.04.2005 22:46 |
Inu Yasha<h6>a.k.a. Lum's Stormtrooper wrote:eBay is the same for the record company as illegal downloads, they don't get money either way.Serry Funster wrote: MBADTK was released by Parlophone. I don't know how young and new fans have to buy legal copy of this record!...One word: eBay |
Megamike The GREAT 12.04.2005 23:24 |
Ms. Farenheit wrote:exactly.. what if I buy the MB&DTK cd rip it, and then sell the original on Ebay.. I have the songs, got my money back and someone has an official CD.. to me it is no different than actually downloading it.. I am not FOR the downloading of official stuff.. IF it can be bought.. but I have not seen much in the line of Cross or Rogers solo stuff EXCEPT on EBay..Inu Yasha<h6>a.k.a. Lum's Stormtrooper wrote:eBay is the same for the record company as illegal downloads, they don't get money either way.Serry Funster wrote: MBADTK was released by Parlophone. I don't know how young and new fans have to buy legal copy of this record!...One word: eBay I think these record company's are making too big a deal out of this. I mean lets be HONEST here.. How many people bought a cassette tape.. and dubbed it for a friend back in the day.. its the same FREAKING thing.. copyright infringment, MOvies recorded off the TV.. who has recorded the Superbowl game, the baseball game.. it is the same thing... I think the ONLY way to stop it is to BAN VCRs, DVD players, computers, tape recorders.. ect.. it is NOT going to go away.. and neither is the person that wants to download official stuff.. as long as there is a demand there will be a supply.. Sorry for that... I get all worked up with this issue. |
John S Stuart 13.04.2005 11:41 |
Lord Darth Mike: Please (re)READ the opening post. Whether it is wrong, right or even justified - the sad TRUTH is that illegal downloading CAN SHUT Queenzone DOWN. End of Story. Copying discs or tapes WILL NOT. And WHEN it does close - where will we all go then? I know that the leechers won't really bother, as they will just ship-out and encamp elsewhere. But for the rest of us, it will be a very sad day indeed. Just a very sad case of the very selfish few, spoiling it for the vast majority of others. |
The Real Wizard 13.04.2005 23:48 |
Ms. Farenheit wrote: eBay is the same for the record company as illegal downloads, they don't get money either way.Disagree... the company has already made money off the original because it was once bought. If the original purchaser chooses to sell it off, then that's their choice. If they choose to copy the material before-hand, that's also their choice. But how does it harm the record company or whoever if it was already bought once? |