Eactly Brenski, and hopefully all you collectors will take notice of this topic and when the call comes for a "Live Anthology Release" and QP want to 'borrow' your tapes etc., Tell 'em to Fuck Off, or suggest to them that you go along with them to the copying/mastering place and stand over them while they do it!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me."
If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....
[/QUOTE]
"If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner?[/QUOTE]
Donna13 Can I remind you these posts are NOT of my making. What should I do while these tirades are still made against me? Keep silent?
More to the point, what should my fellow members of QZ do when they witness such behaviour? Keep silent also?
Tyrany and freedom of thought are poles apart, and whether you agree or disagree with what is taking place - ultimately you have a choice - like a bad television station you can refuse to tune in.
However, for some of us, this is more about 'bear-bating' and I do not think that such sport should be tolerated anywhere - and especially not in a forum which exist primarily to discuss the music of a rock band.[/QUOTE]
My understanding of things:
Greg read your comment about your experience with QP in the "Open Letter" thread, and that is what he decided to respond to in this incidence. You did not intend to open up the argument by your comment to this person who had not heard your story, but Greg interpreted the comment by you to be an opening of the same (unsolved) dispute again.
Instead of replying to your post to discuss it in the thread in which your post occured, he started multiple threads, first starting with humor to cover his frustration, then getting defensive after reading some of the more serious (and nasty) comments that always accompany a QZ "discussion".
I think most here do take his comments for what they are - humor to cover his frustration. But nobody here should be trying to hurt another person. If humor and poking fun here is hurting someone, then it should stop. Likewise, if telling the same story of a personal disappointment is hurting someone here, that too should stop.
I think that if the two of you could solve the problem it would be good for you two, and also good for all those here who have gotten "involved". I don't mind somebody defending somebody here, but I do think if they try to escalate the matter beyond what it should be, by berating others, it does not help to solve the problem in the short term.
I'm not sure if anyone here has the power to make Greg stop stating his side of things in multiple threads and poking fun. We can only ask him to stop. I hope we can all get past this and be friends. And I think YV is your friend. Sorry I could not be of any help in this matter.
If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....
[/QUOTE]
"If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner?[/QUOTE]
Donna13 Can I remind you these posts are NOT of my making. What should I do while these tirades are still made against me? Keep silent?
More to the point, what should my fellow members of QZ do when they witness such behaviour? Keep silent also?
Tyrany and freedom of thought are poles apart, and whether you agree or disagree with what is taking place - ultimately you have a choice - like a bad television station you can refuse to tune in.
However, for some of us, this is more about 'bear-bating' and I do not think that such sport should be tolerated anywhere - and especially not in a forum which exist primarily to discuss the music of a rock band.[/QUOTE]
My understanding of things:
Greg read your comment about your experience with QP in the "Open Letter" thread, and that is what he decided to respond to in this incidence. You did not intend to open up the argument by your comment to this person who had not heard your story, but Greg interpreted the comment by you to be an opening of the same (unsolved) dispute again.
Instead of replying to your post to discuss it in the thread in which your post occured, he started multiple threads, first starting with humor to cover his frustration, then getting defensive after reading some of the more serious (and nasty) comments that always accompany a QZ "discussion".
I think most here do take his comments for what they are - humor to cover his frustration. But nobody here should be trying to hurt another person. If humor and poking fun here is hurting someone, then it should stop. Likewise, if telling the same story of a personal disappointment is hurting someone here, that too should stop.
I think that if the two of you could solve the problem it would be good for you two, and also good for all those here who have gotten "involved". I don't mind somebody defending somebody here, but I do think if they try to escalate the matter beyond what it should be, by berating others, it does not help to solve the problem in the short term.
I'm not sure if anyone here has the power to make Greg stop stating his side of things in multiple threads and poking fun. We can only ask him to stop. I hope we can all get past this and be friends. And I think YV is your friend. Sorry I could not be of any help in this matter.
Greg
if i send you a load of my most cherished photos of my son when he was newborn - will you promise me that you will ensure they get shredded or burned ?
when it comes to a task of this magnitude it's reassuring to know that QPL and Greg are the only reliable option when - it's important to know that irreplaceable items can be disposed of safely, never to be seen again. - ;-)
if i send you a load of my most cherished photos of my son when he was newborn - will you promise me that you will ensure they get shredded or burned ?
when it comes to a task of this magnitude it's reassuring to know that QPL and Greg are the only reliable option when - it's important to know that irreplaceable items can be disposed of safely, never to be seen again. - ;-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?[/QUOTE]
In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later.
[/QUOTE]
John, you're not using a fair comparison. So let me try to use one.
Think about a Picasso painting, which Picasso decides it ain't that great so he puts it in his storage shed. 20 years later someone has broken into that storage shed and stolen the painting. He sells it to Bob. Bob sells it to Joe. And then Joe sells it to you.
Is it right for you to profit off the sale of the painting, one that was never intended to be released?
Is it right that you sent it to the estate of picasso because they wanted to release a picture of it in a tribute book to Picasso fans and don't feel obligated to send back their stolen painting even though you weren't the one who stole it?
Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?[/QUOTE]
In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later.
[/QUOTE]
John, you're not using a fair comparison. So let me try to use one.
Think about a Picasso painting, which Picasso decides it ain't that great so he puts it in his storage shed. 20 years later someone has broken into that storage shed and stolen the painting. He sells it to Bob. Bob sells it to Joe. And then Joe sells it to you.
Is it right for you to profit off the sale of the painting, one that was never intended to be released?
Is it right that you sent it to the estate of picasso because they wanted to release a picture of it in a tribute book to Picasso fans and don't feel obligated to send back their stolen painting even though you weren't the one who stole it?
"I don't mind somebody defending somebody here, but I do think if they try to escalate the matter beyond what it should be, by berating others, it does not help to solve the problem in the short term.
I'm not sure if anyone here has the power to make Greg stop stating his side of things in multiple threads and poking fun. We can only ask him to stop. I hope we can all get past this and be friends. And I think YV is your friend. Sorry I could not be of any help in this matter."
Donna13 - to make it crystal clear: I do not have a problem with you and I am not into any fights here. If you think that my comments are "escalating matters" I want to remind you that I answered this thread because Greg asked for my opinion in two threads. Escalating or not - I do have an opinion in this matter and I will repeat it whenever the topic will come up.
I don't understand why it is so hard to see the unfairness in this incident. On the one hand you have a collector who spends thousands on rare tapes because it's the passion of his life. He is not rich but he is patient, determined, spends a lot of time in researching and tracking down rare material.
On the other hand you have a multi million organisation who apparently is not so determined and passionate about their past recordings. They borrow an old tape from the collector, lose it and tell him "oh, just bad luck". Instead of paying a compensation and apologise they allow their bully of an archivist to offend the collector on a public message board. There is no humour in Greg's attacks, they are mean and childish.
You think I am John's friend. Well, I am sure if I ever come near his house I might ring up and spend some time listening to some Queen tapes. A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)
I'm not sure if anyone here has the power to make Greg stop stating his side of things in multiple threads and poking fun. We can only ask him to stop. I hope we can all get past this and be friends. And I think YV is your friend. Sorry I could not be of any help in this matter."
Donna13 - to make it crystal clear: I do not have a problem with you and I am not into any fights here. If you think that my comments are "escalating matters" I want to remind you that I answered this thread because Greg asked for my opinion in two threads. Escalating or not - I do have an opinion in this matter and I will repeat it whenever the topic will come up.
I don't understand why it is so hard to see the unfairness in this incident. On the one hand you have a collector who spends thousands on rare tapes because it's the passion of his life. He is not rich but he is patient, determined, spends a lot of time in researching and tracking down rare material.
On the other hand you have a multi million organisation who apparently is not so determined and passionate about their past recordings. They borrow an old tape from the collector, lose it and tell him "oh, just bad luck". Instead of paying a compensation and apologise they allow their bully of an archivist to offend the collector on a public message board. There is no humour in Greg's attacks, they are mean and childish.
You think I am John's friend. Well, I am sure if I ever come near his house I might ring up and spend some time listening to some Queen tapes. A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?[/QUOTE]
In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later.
[/QUOTE]
John, you're not using a fair comparison. So let me try to use one.
Think about a Picasso painting, which Picasso decides it ain't that great so he puts it in his storage shed. 20 years later someone has broken into that storage shed and stolen the painting. He sells it to Bob. Bob sells it to Joe. And then Joe sells it to you.
Is it right for you to profit off the sale of the painting, one that was never intended to be released?
Is it right that you sent it to the estate of picasso because they wanted to release a picture of it in a tribute book to Picasso fans and don't feel obligated to send back their stolen painting even though you weren't the one who stole it?
[/QUOTE]
But that is NOT what happened.
Rather, if someone OWNS a personal painting, photograph or even a cassette tape - and THEY decide to put up THEIR artefact for sale as an auction lot, it is not exactly theft - is it!
Now I know that I may be subjected to some sort of ridicule for this simple belief, but, if rare Queen memorabillia comes up for sale at Sotheby's or Christie's (or even e-bay) as part of a public auction - why should my bid be different from any other collectors?
And if I happen to win that bid, why is it that it is NOT my property to do with what I like?
Once ownership has been exchanged, as I stated above, then it legally becomes the property of the purchaser. If this was not the case, why have auctions in the first place?
Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?[/QUOTE]
In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later.
[/QUOTE]
John, you're not using a fair comparison. So let me try to use one.
Think about a Picasso painting, which Picasso decides it ain't that great so he puts it in his storage shed. 20 years later someone has broken into that storage shed and stolen the painting. He sells it to Bob. Bob sells it to Joe. And then Joe sells it to you.
Is it right for you to profit off the sale of the painting, one that was never intended to be released?
Is it right that you sent it to the estate of picasso because they wanted to release a picture of it in a tribute book to Picasso fans and don't feel obligated to send back their stolen painting even though you weren't the one who stole it?
[/QUOTE]
But that is NOT what happened.
Rather, if someone OWNS a personal painting, photograph or even a cassette tape - and THEY decide to put up THEIR artefact for sale as an auction lot, it is not exactly theft - is it!
Now I know that I may be subjected to some sort of ridicule for this simple belief, but, if rare Queen memorabillia comes up for sale at Sotheby's or Christie's (or even e-bay) as part of a public auction - why should my bid be different from any other collectors?
And if I happen to win that bid, why is it that it is NOT my property to do with what I like?
Once ownership has been exchanged, as I stated above, then it legally becomes the property of the purchaser. If this was not the case, why have auctions in the first place?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't understand why it is so hard to see the unfairness in this incident. [/QUOTE]
Indeed.
Indeed.
"I am sure if I ever come near his house I might ring up and spend some time listening to some Queen tapes. A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)"
I agree. And I must say - that is sweet.
I agree. And I must say - that is sweet.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And if I happen to win that bid, why is it that it is NOT my property to do with what I like?
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes John. That's fair. So you bought a bootleg that hadn't become a bootleg. You made sure it didn't become a bootleg. That's what I understand is reasonable ownership.
I don't think that entitles you to ownership of the recording, though. Just the actual tape. The sound recordings are still property of the artist.
I do feel for you, but I also think that you should have expected this. I have no way of knowing if Greg was personally responsible for the loss, but maybe you have no one else to point the finger at.
I think a fair question for Greg would be has he specifically talked to Jim Beach or someone who could do something or take responsibility. Not a letter, a phone call, but a face to face conversation? After all this time? Or maybe he has and their stance is "tough luck, pal." Now if Greg couriered that message to you, that certainly wouldn't help things either.
And if I happen to win that bid, why is it that it is NOT my property to do with what I like?
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes John. That's fair. So you bought a bootleg that hadn't become a bootleg. You made sure it didn't become a bootleg. That's what I understand is reasonable ownership.
I don't think that entitles you to ownership of the recording, though. Just the actual tape. The sound recordings are still property of the artist.
I do feel for you, but I also think that you should have expected this. I have no way of knowing if Greg was personally responsible for the loss, but maybe you have no one else to point the finger at.
I think a fair question for Greg would be has he specifically talked to Jim Beach or someone who could do something or take responsibility. Not a letter, a phone call, but a face to face conversation? After all this time? Or maybe he has and their stance is "tough luck, pal." Now if Greg couriered that message to you, that certainly wouldn't help things either.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"I don't mind somebody defending somebody here, but I do think if they try to escalate the matter beyond what it should be, by berating others, it does not help to solve the problem in the short term.
I'm not sure if anyone here has the power to make Greg stop stating his side of things in multiple threads and poking fun. We can only ask him to stop. I hope we can all get past this and be friends. And I think YV is your friend. Sorry I could not be of any help in this matter."
Donna13 - to make it crystal clear: I do not have a problem with you and I am not into any fights here. If you think that my comments are "escalating matters" I want to remind you that I answered this thread because Greg asked for my opinion in two threads. Escalating or not - I do have an opinion in this matter and I will repeat it whenever the topic will come up.
I don't understand why it is so hard to see the unfairness in this incident. On the one hand you have a collector who spends thousands on rare tapes because it's the passion of his life. He is not rich but he is patient, determined, spends a lot of time in researching and tracking down rare material.
On the other hand you have a multi million organisation who apparently is not so determined and passionate about their past recordings. They borrow an old tape from the collector, lose it and tell him "oh, just bad luck". Instead of paying a compensation and apologise they allow their bully of an archivist to offend the collector on a public message board. There is no humour in Greg's attacks, they are mean and childish.
You think I am John's friend. Well, I am sure if I ever come near his house I might ring up and spend some time listening to some Queen tapes. A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)[/QUOTE]
Best post on this entire thread. Here here, Barb.
I'm not sure if anyone here has the power to make Greg stop stating his side of things in multiple threads and poking fun. We can only ask him to stop. I hope we can all get past this and be friends. And I think YV is your friend. Sorry I could not be of any help in this matter."
Donna13 - to make it crystal clear: I do not have a problem with you and I am not into any fights here. If you think that my comments are "escalating matters" I want to remind you that I answered this thread because Greg asked for my opinion in two threads. Escalating or not - I do have an opinion in this matter and I will repeat it whenever the topic will come up.
I don't understand why it is so hard to see the unfairness in this incident. On the one hand you have a collector who spends thousands on rare tapes because it's the passion of his life. He is not rich but he is patient, determined, spends a lot of time in researching and tracking down rare material.
On the other hand you have a multi million organisation who apparently is not so determined and passionate about their past recordings. They borrow an old tape from the collector, lose it and tell him "oh, just bad luck". Instead of paying a compensation and apologise they allow their bully of an archivist to offend the collector on a public message board. There is no humour in Greg's attacks, they are mean and childish.
You think I am John's friend. Well, I am sure if I ever come near his house I might ring up and spend some time listening to some Queen tapes. A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)[/QUOTE]
Best post on this entire thread. Here here, Barb.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)[/QUOTE]
You haven't met Pieter yet. What a FREAK!
You gotta watch those Scots, I tell ya...
You haven't met Pieter yet. What a FREAK!
You gotta watch those Scots, I tell ya...
Indeed, I agree with John's comment. Should a TV programme give all royalties to the relatives of who invented the idiot box?
About YV's insights, I agree too: the fact that QP are a multi-millionaire company matters, since it wouldn't hurt them (economically) to at least try to make up for their blunder, especially since it's offending a loyal customer. The fact they can't even accept they did something wrong (except for Greg, whose mum comment was indeed funny IMO) is more disappointing than the physical side (i.e. the cassette) of the whole experience.
About YV's insights, I agree too: the fact that QP are a multi-millionaire company matters, since it wouldn't hurt them (economically) to at least try to make up for their blunder, especially since it's offending a loyal customer. The fact they can't even accept they did something wrong (except for Greg, whose mum comment was indeed funny IMO) is more disappointing than the physical side (i.e. the cassette) of the whole experience.
Just wondering Greg. have you apologised yet?
This is getting annoyingly boring
Welcome to JSS and GB zone!
Welcome to JSS and GB zone!
Greg, did you lose JSS' Ibex tape?