QueenZone discussion #754716

TRS-Romania wrote: Hello all, I just read the thread about the "Teo Torriate" uploading/sharing or sending...which was condemned Up to a point i easily agreed with this "Queenzone " policy ... but the average comment here is: don't upload/link/share official material which is fine with me But now lets get a little bit more to the point. As some of you know I started the hub using a disclaimer, but looking at the real "legal" issue of sharing live recordings it should be put in retrospective. Please read the following carefully and then research yourself ... Definitions Here are the proper definitions of the terms according to American Heritage dictionary: Copy: a reproduction of the original Pirate: the use of stolen intellectual property of another Counterfeit: an inferior duplication made to defraud Bootleg: Product produced without permission source: link " Bootleg recordings are musical recordings that have not been officially released by the artist or their associated management or production companies. They may consist of demos, outtakes or other studio material, or of illicit recordings of live performances. Music enthusiasts may use the term "bootleg" to difsupidferentiate these otherwise unavailable recordings from "pirated" copies of commercially released material, but these recordings are still protected by copyright despite their lack of formal release, and their disstupidtribution is still against the law" source : link and: "The slang term bootleg (derived from the use of the shank of a boot for the purposes of smuggling) is often used to describe illicitly copied material. "In December, 1994, Congress changed the law of unrecorded music performances when it passed The Uruguay Round Agreements Act. This act included a new provision, which prohibited the recording of live musical performances (that is, bootleg copies) even when there was no other "fixation" of the work. This provision includes separate prohibitions against the distribution and transmission of bootleg copies. In fact, the prohibition against transmission does not even require that a physical copy of the performance ever be made. While this act appears to create an exception to the fixation requirement for copyright, it is probably best understood as an independent right that is similar to copyright, but is not copyright." source : link So from a real "legal" point of view , are we not all wrong anyway by also allowing "bootleg live recordings" to be downloaded? It is so easy to say "Hey that is offical stuff, remove the link" ... but looking at this closely even sharing/distributing "bootlegs" of live recordings is a copyright infringment ... I would like to see someone to have counter arguments to let us see what is indeed legal or illegal Stefan

Wilki wrote: The truth is that copyright infringement it is not the problem here. Even a record company such as EMI would have trouble trying to close this site on that basis, as there are a lot of legal allowances and every place in the world has its own view about them. Also there are a lot of restrictions which simply are never applied because they are not considered legitimate by most of the population (e.g: it can be "illegal" even to use the I Want It All picture on the QUEENZone banner, but who cares?). The bottom line is that if there is no harm that could be stablished, there is no case.

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: Although the law prohibits the recording and spreading of bootlegs, an unwritten agreement states that as long as no profit and no officially released material are involved, no action whatsoever will be undertaken. All but a few artists support this policy.

Jamaleni wrote: Actually there is a pretty easy way to stop bootleggers (at least for concerts from current and future tours). Look what Metallica did, they simply created a web site from which you can download a soundboard copy of any concert from that tour the day after it has been played. You can even choose between mp3 and flac version.

Haystacks Calhoun wrote:

Jamaleni wrote: Actually there is a pretty easy way to stop bootleggers (at least for concerts from current and future tours). Look what Metallica did, they simply created a web site from which you can download a soundboard copy of any concert from that tour the day after it has been played. You can even choose between mp3 and flac version.

It boggles my mind why ALL artists don't do this. I would gladly pay $10 or $15 for the soundboard copy of Queen's Cleveland show, versus $25 for a t-shirt that will fit my dog after the first wash.... With today's technology, it is a breeze for the artist to do.

Sithmarauder wrote:

Wilki wrote: The truth is that copyright infringement it is not the problem here. Even a record company such as EMI would have trouble trying to close this site on that basis, as there are a lot of legal allowances and every place in the world has its own view about them. Also there are a lot of restrictions which simply are never applied because they are not considered legitimate by most of the population (e.g: it can be "illegal" even to use the I Want It All picture on the QUEENZone banner, but who cares?). The bottom line is that if there is no harm that could be stablished, there is no case.

Harm is established when recordings are released for the purpose of making money and someone uploads it here in QZ for free sharing. Richard's rule are extremely simple and no further issues should be made of them. As far as bootlegs from Queen productions is concerned, their purpose of releasing those concerts are to stop bootleggers from ripping people off by selling "Better Quality" recordings AHEM COUGH. Richard doesn't have problems with those shows being share on HIS site. Also remember, Queen benefits from popular sites such as this one so they will have a certain level of tolerance when it comes to sharing here. Just stick to the rules and we'll all be fine here. =)

ponkine wrote: Why? I mean WHY?... I really can't believe and can't stand what's going on here. This site is the most disgusting and annoying "trading/sharing" site I've ever found. Let me explain it: I'm a huge fan of classic and progressive Rock, mainly bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes and Queen, of course. And sadly this is THE ONLY ONE site on which I've found such annoying posts related to OFFICIAL stuff as every little snippet, show, broadcast, video, etc recorded by the Band of record companies... no matter if such stuff were released or not?. I still don't understand such harsh attitude presented here all the time, we can share, for example, the highly requested Rock In Rio nights, despite the only "officially" released stuff was a VHS compiled from both nights and it's even out of print now. SO HOW the hell some fan will get the show, given it isn't available anymore?.

Zebonka12 wrote: I talked to a copyright lawyer and he said upload everything. Including Face it Alone.

Wilki wrote:

Sithmarauder wrote:

Wilki wrote: The truth is that copyright infringement it is not the problem here. Even a record company such as EMI would have trouble trying to close this site on that basis, as there are a lot of legal allowances and every place in the world has its own view about them. Also there are a lot of restrictions which simply are never applied because they are not considered legitimate by most of the population (e.g: it can be "illegal" even to use the I Want It All picture on the QUEENZone banner, but who cares?). The bottom line is that if there is no harm that could be stablished, there is no case.

Harm is established when recordings are released for the purpose of making money and someone uploads it here in QZ for free sharing. Richard's rule are extremely simple and no further issues should be made of them. As far as bootlegs from Queen productions is concerned, their purpose of releasing those concerts are to stop bootleggers from ripping people off by selling "Better Quality" recordings AHEM COUGH. Richard doesn't have problems with those shows being share on HIS site. Also remember, Queen benefits from popular sites such as this one so they will have a certain level of tolerance when it comes to sharing here. Just stick to the rules and we'll all be fine here. =)

Well, I am just defending that point, just as usual. I was answering in the original spirit of this thread (that is, discussing the copyright infringement). Please read again my comments in the context of the earlier posts.

ponkine wrote: Why? I mean WHY?... I really can't believe and can't stand what's going on here. This site is the most disgusting and annoying "trading/sharing" site I've ever found. Let me explain it: I'm a huge fan of classic and progressive Rock, mainly bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes and Queen, of course. And sadly this is THE ONLY ONE site on which I've found such annoying posts related to OFFICIAL stuff as every little snippet, show, broadcast, video, etc recorded by the Band of record companies... no matter if such stuff were released or not?. I still don't understand such harsh attitude presented here all the time, we can share, for example, the highly requested Rock In Rio nights, despite the only "officially" released stuff was a VHS compiled from both nights and it's even out of print now. SO HOW the hell some fan will get the show, given it isn't available anymore?. The dissapointment grows on me every time I go to other sites as link (Led Zeppelin), link, link, etc. ALL those sites are far more friendly than in here, and you can share stuff without any problem, for example, you can share all the ORIGINAL (unedited, without overdubs) concerts from Madison Square Garden 1973, Earls Court 1975 and Knebworth 1979... here in queenzone that would be banned at the spot right?. From Genesis, another great example, you can share and download the original Genesis Live - Test Pressing from Vynil, containing Supper's Ready. This is the most clear example of freedom in sharing that is banned here, the Test Pressing contains THE SAME 5 songs finally released on Genesis Live, plus the unreleased Supper's Ready and Old Michael Story, with a different mix and with more crowd space between songs... here in queenzone you can't share any original documents (unedited) from VHS, DVD and CD, as Budapest 1986, Milton Keynes 1982, etc. My humble question is, WHY?... all we know that loyal fans wants to buy official CD's and DVD's, but when a concert is out of print - as Budapest 1986, or when the original concerts and recordings - Finally not released - are unavailable by the record companies... how the fans will get that stuff?. It seems that all the owners are afraid of record companies here, while the bands don't even care about bootlegs anymore, provided that they won't sell the stuff. With that jealous attitude you are just supporting eBay and other sites on which they sell bootlegs and other stuff. I really hope you'll see my way and please (in the same way you ban any "official" stuff)... DO NOT POST HARSH REPLIES GRACIAS. KEEP THE SHARING SPIRIT ALIVE

Elessar wrote: Bootlegs aren't available elsewhere. Album tracks are. While sharing both is illegal, the Queen community are far happier to trade bootlegs, which do not harm Queen's profits in any way. Similarly, QP are far less likely to get upset about sharing bootlegs than official material.