| John S Stuart 02.09.2006 20:31 |
(It is safe to read-on this is NOT an anti-Greg thread!)
Yesterday afternoon I was somewhat surprised by Greg Brooks’ revelation that "The fan who PROVIDED the bootlegs for QOL. He was paid."
link
Queen Archivist wrote: ...The fan who provided the bootlegs for QOL. He was paid.Now, although I have not, and will not change my stance against downloading illegal official material, this revelation has certainly made me sit-up, and rethink my stance as far as bootleg downloads are concerned. First; given the timeframe and geographical extent of QOL’s ‘100 Greatest Bootlegs’ project, it is a given that this paid fan (or fans) could not possibly attend all these gigs. Therefore, the poor sods who physically recorded this material have been by-passed, and the first generation masters have not been employed. So why is it illegal to record and share these bootlegs – when middle-men are paid – simply for supplying a copy? If the original owner of such tapes could prove that QOL are purchasing his (or her) wares from an illegal middle representative, could they counter-suit QPL for reproduction without permission? Certainly, if middle men can be rewarded for this service, why not the original owners also? Second; although QOL claim that the fees from this project are donated to charity, it seems that some fees have been spent up-front to secure some kind of bootleg brokerage deal. This I personally find morally abhorrent, particularly when it flies in the face of both UK copyright laws – and a sense of ‘British fair play’. Either what QOL is doing is illegal, and they should be hoisted upon their own petards, or it is perfectly legal, in which case, it must be open season for all - as they do not own the original tapes, in which case anyone who supplies these must be protected by the very same laws which allow QPL’s suppliers to be remunerated – they can not have it both ways. Would I therefore be wrong to conclude that this revelation breaks the strangle-hold of QPL – and that better sourced, better quality bootlegs could be freely downloaded WITHOUT the fear of reprisal, and finally sound the death-knell for such a backward looking exercise anyways? |
| Adam Baboolal 02.09.2006 20:58 |
I think of it like this... There are sites with gigs of illegal material on them. You're someone who wants that material, but don't have the time to spend on finding/getting them, so you pay someone who has them all, to pass them to you quickly and easily. A convenience, if you will. Since bootleg making (the recording) is seen to be frowned upon and always warned against at the place of performance, what do you do when your recording shows up on a site being sold for charity? Now, this payment thing... I don't think you could say the person who provided the material was paid with the cash from the downloads. That's a strange order to put things in. They (QOL) paid with what THEY had. We all know where most of that comes from, I guess. And the eventual sale of these bootlegs online doesn't go back to them, it seems. So, I don't see a problem. They had to get them somewhere, how else? You can't expect them to track down the originals. Nobody does that unless you're an experienced trader. And we ain't all in those circles or have the will to try that route. Peace, Adam. |
| John S Stuart 02.09.2006 21:03 |
Adam this is a multi-billion pound business we are talking about here, not a one-manned cottage industry. Where the money comes for such fees is NOT important - the fact exists - they were STILL paid for this service. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. However, would you be willing to pay someone else the same price if they came up with an alternative site - but with better sourced and a wider variety of materials? Furthermore, if you decided upon such alternative convenience shopping, what could QPL do about it - now that we know they too use fan-based suppliers? |
| Adam Baboolal 02.09.2006 21:13 |
As long as it's for charity, I don't mind either way. Peace, Adam. |
| John S Stuart 02.09.2006 21:15 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: As long as it's for charity, I don't mind either way.But you still miss the point. Charity or profit - the point is still the same. Either what QOL is doing is illegal, and they should be hoisted upon their own petards, or it is perfectly legal, in which case, it must be open season for all - as they do not own the original tapes, in which case anyone who supplies these must be protected by the very same laws which allow QPL’s suppliers to be remunerated – they can not have it both ways. |
| Adam Baboolal 02.09.2006 21:20 |
Sorry, I just don't see it. Someone recorded it > it came up on a bootleg > a fan buys it > then it gets to QOL. Tell us how you would've liked it to be done cause I'm interested to hear how. Peace, Adam. |
| John S Stuart 02.09.2006 21:20 |
I'll leave it to others... |
| Smitty 02.09.2006 21:28 |
I remember once (when I was foolish) I actually bought one of their bootlegs, it seemed shady to me that the provider of the credit card's credit card company called and said that the payment was going to the Cayman Islands. I don't think this will prove a thing, I just thought I'd bring it up. |
| Crezchi 03.09.2006 00:16 |
If you think about it, everything shared on QZ is ILLEGAL! I see both sides, but in fact everything NOT endorsed by the artist is ILLEGAL! |
| Saint Jiub 04.09.2006 00:00 |
I leave it in the lap of the lawyers ... unfortunately The record industry has the $$$$ and will ultimately prevail - justice or not. |
| cmsdrums 04.09.2006 15:26 |
I agree with John S Stuart - the principle is (I think) what he is arguing, and I concur, especially when EMI, as part of the record industry, has been at the forefront of trying to stop bootlegs for years, it's rich for them to now endorse this method of things. |
| ern2150 04.09.2006 15:52 |
John S Stuart wrote: Would I therefore be wrong to conclude that this revelation breaks the strangle-hold of QPL – and that better sourced, better quality bootlegs could be freely downloaded WITHOUT the fear of reprisal, and finally sound the death-knell for such a backward looking exercise anyways?Are you just asking if we can post higher-quality versions of the "official" bootlegs in the ANNOUNCE section? Has this been a problem? I'm sorry I'm not entirely up on this. I totally undertand your crusade to hold QP responsible, the rest of us just aren't as vigilant. Basically Greg made a leap of faith by volunteering information he didn't have to, and you've picked at it. The contradiction is important to point out, I'll grant you that. I'm just saying I understand his frustration with you now. Having said all that...yes, at its root, it is SHADY that someone got paid for those bootlegs. |
| John S Stuart 04.09.2006 16:28 |
cmsdrums wrote: I agree with John S Stuart - the principle is (I think) what he is arguing, and I concur, especially when EMI, as part of the record industry, has been at the forefront of trying to stop bootlegs for years, it's rich for them to now endorse this method of things.This is what I was saying all along, I disagree with the principle. Ern2150: Why should that point lead to frustration? |
| ern2150 04.09.2006 17:27 |
John S Stuart wrote: Ern2150: Why should that point lead to frustration?Because I think you'd be just as frustrated if you said "I don't have to volunteer this information, but I have a 'Doing All Right' demo sung beautifully by John Deacon before his well-hidden secret throat accident", and then someone called back, totally within the bounds of logic and taste, with "you're hoarding rarities, elitist!" Lemme clarify. People in a position of authority realize they are not perfect, but would prefer not to be reminded of all the imperfections, least of all when they've just volunteered priveledged information. So I totally agree with you, the deal is shady. But I'd also like to point out that GB is probably going to be more reluctant with sharing priveledged information in the future, if every time you're going to be there to pick some of it apart. Don't get me wrong, I would have done the same in your shoes, but I can see how it would frustrate him, and potentially discourage him from volunteering again. It may seem like I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth here, but I hope you understand. |