QueenZone discussion #704470

TheGame wrote: I just wonder how on earth they can do bootlegs official when they haven't recorded it themself??

bitesthedust<br><h6>The QZ gentleman... wrote: Apparently the quality of concerts they are offering is average, so I've been told.... Surely a better way of "outdoing the bootleggers" would be to release proper cds and dvds? For example - anyone here that has downloaded Hammersmith 1975 in FLAC is not going to want the official version...

teleman wrote:

TheGame wrote: I just wonder how on earth they can do bootlegs official when they haven't recorded it themself??

They wrote the songs. They performed the songs. The songs were recorded without permission. I think legally they are entitled to their intellectual property(the songs) and performance royalties. Since the recordings weren't authorized they can take it as their own.

<font type="verdana">_Tatterdemalion_ wrote: QOL is doing something illegal, selling bootlegs recorded by fans. Things they should do instead is: 1. Sell the things lossless. 2. Sell the soundboard recording. Then I should maybe buy it.

Sithmarauder wrote: Well recording concerts is illegal.

zuzumu wrote:

Sithmarauder wrote: Well recording concerts is illegal.

Of course, but tell that to the security people checking your bags before the venue ;-). As I can tell from the Queen concerts I have visited e.g. last year nobody was really "checked" for the camera, digicam or whatever. No security asked what the cam can do or took it away. You saw huge informations in front of the entrances saying: no cameras allowed no video recording allowed no audio recording allowed ...but no-one really cared. And on the other hand people shall send in e.g. pics to QP, Q+PR, PR to be published on their websites to remember a great show. I just think the whole problem starts right there. On one hand you should take pics and send them in and actually it is forbidden and it is no difference with the audio/video recordings. Due to different laws from country to country, I don't think that any fan knows what's definitely right or wrong.

Sithmarauder wrote: I respect that you are sticking to what you beleive in and I agree with you about FREE sharing. But if QOL went out of their way to issue licences that allow PC limits to 3 and burn to CD, I'd have to believe we cannot share these show freely.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Illegal or not, QP are currently making money off recordings they didn't produce themselves. Secondly, they are not beating the bootleggers by selling a recording of equal, or even LESS (since it's compressed) quality. They should offer recordings that bootleggers cannot offer. But why are they trying to "beat the bootleggers", anyway? There are very few factory-pressed Queen bootlegs being sold these days. The bands in highest demand usually are the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, and the Grateful Dead. Even so, bootlegs these days are usually limited to a few hundred copies, so these companies aren't making that much money, anyway. QP doesn't need the money, so I can't see what's holding them back from releasing uncut soundboard recordings instead of bootlegs.

Sithmarauder wrote: I respect that you are sticking to what you beleive in and I agree with you about FREE sharing. But if QOL went out of their way to issue licences that allow PC limits to 3 and burn to CD, I'd have to believe we cannot share these show freely.

Then people who have this belief can find another way to get the shows. There is always a way!

Sithmarauder wrote: They're only doing this because they realize what they are losing out on. They should have just put a red flag on certain concerts that they plan to release in the future and leave the rest for the bootleggers.

Kaybowser wrote: For me I really don't care too much for queen live bootlegs they don't thrill me. Truly I only listened to Live Killers or Wembley about a handful times each and just not to impressed to have alot of queen live. They are much better in the studio.