| Roger's Beard 13.05.2006 18:37 |
A lot of people are constantly both requesting and posting copies of "official" items and everyone seems to have their own ideas of what is deemed "official". I think it's about time the moderators posted a "sticky" on both the request and announce forums to prevent further confusion - though I think a discussion should take place first to decide the contents of said "sticky". On a black and white basis - anything that has had an official release should be neither requested nor posted in the announce section - BUT there are problems. 1. There are many items that are only available in foreign countries, and NOT obtainable by the majority of people, and this eventually leads to: 2. There are many items that are no longer available for sale ANYWHERE in the world and therefore QUEEN are NOT earning any royalties whatsover. Take for example the recent announcement that the german release of "The Eye" computer game held a track not available in most (any?) other countries. As the game is now 'deleted' and therefore unavailable to buy in any shops - should this 'unique track' be banned from the announcement section because it's classed as "official"? I'm sure there are more examples of the above scenario that can be thought of (the Anita Dobson album perhaps?) Time to discuss... |
| PieterMC 13.05.2006 19:00 |
I would say anything that has been released commercially is offical. |
| Daburcor? 13.05.2006 20:03 |
PieterMC wrote: I would say anything that has been released commercially is offical.That can't be right, Pieter. It's too logical. ;) |
| rhyeking 13.05.2006 20:51 |
What of Videos? The original Freddie videos are all currently available, as are most of the original Queen videos. What about Roger and Brian and The Immortals and The Cross videos. Were they released on a format that was purchasable by the public? Does simply having them broadcast on TV disqualify them from being shared here? |
| Wilki Amieva 13.05.2006 22:25 |
Not (at least most of them) and definetely not. |
| chefman5150 13.05.2006 23:51 |
I agree in the sense that a discussion should take place...I've posted things on here, in the hopes that maybe I didn't have to be selfish in just downloading, but giving back to those who don't have, and I mean in the regard of 'unofficial' items. I would never in my right mind go out of my way to upload anything from a CD deliberately, but certain things that I was sure was unofficial and that I've posted I've been yelled at for, so I absolutely point blank refuse to post anything ever again on this site, and it sucks because there are alot of things that people are looking for that I have, and vice versa. So yes, a discussion would be nice to have. |
| Serry... 14.05.2006 00:03 |
In our days you can buy on allofmp3.com and other sites like that - anything you want to (I mean officially available tracks including "rare" A and B-sides), on the case if you don't want to buy original LP or CD. If I could buy it here - in Russia - behing the Iron Curtain, the Cold War, economic troubles (for the last 20 years) etc. - how you - who live in Western Europe, USA can't buy those items?! How is it possible?!
And if you don't want to buy - you can search over other Queen fan sites.
There are no any problems to find rare officially released track in our days, but there are other problems - like laziness, greed... and rules of QZ perhaps (for some guys!).
chefman5150 wrote: that I've posted I've been yelled at for, so I absolutely point blank refuse to post anything ever again on this site, and it sucks because there are alot of things that people are looking for that I have, and vice versa.How long are you gonna to go on to complain? If you want to help someone - send the track via e-mail. If you need in something - post request and give your e-mail. What's the problem? |
| Mr Faron Hyte 14.05.2006 00:37 |
^Nicely said. |
| chefman5150 14.05.2006 01:03 |
Very classy Serry...that wasn't aimed towards you and you took it personal. Very well...I don't have any problems following the guidelines of Queenzone...I've been on this site for quite a few years, and never had a problem. When i make a mistake, I'm the first one to admit it and say I'm sorry. What I DO have a problem with is people like you who like to beat things into the ground. Listen...I made a statement, and it had ZERO to do with you...get over your damn self and move on. |
| Serry... 14.05.2006 01:34 |
chefman5150 wrote: Listen...I made a statement, and it had ZERO to do with you...get over your damn self and move on.For the last week you've made about 3 or 4 statements how people yelled at you, but you won't mention names (I can read between lines), that you'll leave the board etc. Isn't it complaining? And my "statement" wasn't for you - except the first 4 sentences (I re-edit my original reply especially for you!), it was my reply to the discussion. You've posted wrong track, you've made a fault with that PISCTP - not me, calm down and... Get over your damn self and move on! |
| Penetration_Guru 14.05.2006 11:12 |
PieterMC wrote: I would say anything that has been released commercially is offical.I find it incredulous to think that a) the original geezer couldn't figure this part out. b) the discussion has continued past this perfect answer. |
| freddie lives 28817 15.05.2006 04:28 |
To Penetration Guru - Read my original post again and you'll see that PieterMC just re-iterated what I wrote in the second paragraph ie, on a black and white basis.....etc. However, everyone seems to be missing the point about my posting - maybe I wasn't blunt enough! If it is an official release BUT has been deleted and is no longer available and therefore Queen are NOT losing any royalties on it - should it be allowed on QZ and if not, why not? There. Is that blunt enough? Finally, Penetetration Guru - you are right about the way this posting has become a fight between two people over something else! Don't you just get sick of the bitchiness? |
| PieterMC 15.05.2006 08:17 |
I doubt EMI, Hollywood Records, RIAA etc. would care if something was now deleted or not. They would still deem it official. In the days when people are sued left, right and center it is best to not share anything that has been commercially released. |
| YourValentine 15.05.2006 09:16 |
Someone has an identity crisis:) As to the topic: I think the safest bet is not to post anything that was released. Of course, if someone posts a song that was released on some remote compilation, we might not know it and in that case it would be nice if the sharer is not yelled at but politely notified that the file in question is official. If nobody notices, it's probably okay, anyway. |
| Penetration_Guru 15.05.2006 16:29 |
freddie lives wrote: If it is an official release BUT has been deleted and is no longer available and therefore Queen are NOT losing any royalties on it - should it be allowed on QZ and if not, why not? There. Is that blunt enough?I understood it perfectly, and it's already been answered. Obviously it wasn't blunt enough... No, it should not be allowed on QZ. Because the copyright still resides with the record company whether or not they have a current release on catalogue. |
| teleman 15.05.2006 19:56 |
Consider this, if there is the remotest possibility that material posted will result in QZ running into trouble and/or being shut down, then maybe you shouldn't post it. It's pretty clear from previous posters what is considered official. |
| Roger's Beard 16.05.2006 05:01 |
Identity crisis indeed! I think someone's helping me out here! Is that YOU Mike??? |
| Cwazy little thing 16.05.2006 12:20 |
Heres an interesting one though; What about poorer quality bootlegs of live shows; a good example; There are shows like the tribute concert where some tracks were overdubbed, sometimes extensively on the official release. Should we be allowed to share the original tracks from a bootleg out of curiosity? Some of these boots are nowhere near official quality, but its nice to hear the original sound before dubbing - the chances are, if you want to download the boot, youre probably the type of person who already owns the original - why settle for lower quality when you can have higher? I can predict some responses to that, and Im fully aware of the legal position, but Im asking "should we be able", not "can we legally". |
| Penetration_Guru 16.05.2006 15:39 |
You can't separate the two questions, they are intertwined. It is illegal, irrespective of whether you feel it should be. |
| Cwazy little thing 17.05.2006 16:25 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: You can't separate the two questions, they are intertwined. It is illegal, irrespective of whether you feel it should be.I bet thats what they said in Nazi Germany.... Just cos something is illegal, or for that matter not illegal, doesnt mean you should just accept it as so - until the early 90's it wasnt illegal in England to commit rape within marriage. Im way off track here anyway. And please dont think Im arguing in favour of something stupid like making all music free to share, cos god knows Im not, lol. Thought it was an interesting point though, although this probably isnt the place for the discussion. |
| Penetration_Guru 17.05.2006 18:03 |
NAZI GERMANY???? Sorry, I didn't read the rest. |