Er, Someone else just explained in detail their position, so th eleast you could do is but a little flesh on the bones of that statement for us.
You know, to enhance the cut & thrust of debate...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I just bought Queen / Live in Rio - at the "Rock in Rio" Festival, 1985 DVD
Black and white cover with Freddie in the front.
1. Tie your mother down
2. Seven seas of Rhye
3. Keep Yourself Alive
4. Liar
5. It's a hard life
6. Now I'm here
7. Is this the world we created?
8. Love of my life
9. Brighton Rock
10. Hammer to fall
11. Bohemian Rhapsody
12. Radio Ga Ga
13. I Want to break free
14. We will rock you
15. We are the champions
16. God save the Queen
Total Running time: 59:25
Is the running time longer on the VHS, with more tracks?
I don't have the VHS here with me...
Black and white cover with Freddie in the front.
1. Tie your mother down
2. Seven seas of Rhye
3. Keep Yourself Alive
4. Liar
5. It's a hard life
6. Now I'm here
7. Is this the world we created?
8. Love of my life
9. Brighton Rock
10. Hammer to fall
11. Bohemian Rhapsody
12. Radio Ga Ga
13. I Want to break free
14. We will rock you
15. We are the champions
16. God save the Queen
Total Running time: 59:25
Is the running time longer on the VHS, with more tracks?
I don't have the VHS here with me...
Do you know what you should do?
Email me:Topgear1990@hotmail.com
I can send you a vhs rip from the full first show from Rio 117minutes as a torent.
Downloading just turned just over 2days
Email me:Topgear1990@hotmail.com
I can send you a vhs rip from the full first show from Rio 117minutes as a torent.
Downloading just turned just over 2days
Sorry to disagree. But no-one from the so-called MP editions is official. This Japanese label has released a lot of DVDs from other bands, including well-known bootlegs. They even have produced stuff in DVD-Rs. Granted, a lot of small labels from around the world are releasing MP stuff with a (bogus) "sub-license" from them, but IMHO a counterfeit from a counterfeit is still a counterfeit.
Something more: WE WILL ROCK YOU copyright and publishing rights were never owned by QUEEN until last year, while the rights of the japanese stuff were bought by QUEEN Films in 1992 - so the analogy is not good enough.
And I remember seeing unofficial material "legally" sold in major stores: QUEEN IN NUCE, PRE-ORDAINED, etc. It has happened before.
And I remember seeing unofficial material "legally" sold in major stores: QUEEN IN NUCE, PRE-ORDAINED, etc. It has happened before.
Technically, I think Yellowbill only had the rights to distribute We Will Rock You in the continent of North America, didn't they? The small print on the box says the rights of the show were co-owned by Queen from it's very first VHS release in the UK on Peppermint Home Video. But I suppose if you sub-licence something out for a certain period of time, then you have to get used to the idea that the people putting up the money, are going to try to make some money out of it.
By the same token, I think Live In Budapest was co-owned by Mafilm, which if I rembember the news report correctly, they said was a part of Hungary's state owned film company.
By the same token, I think Live In Budapest was co-owned by Mafilm, which if I rembember the news report correctly, they said was a part of Hungary's state owned film company.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kestrel101 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... But I suppose if you sub-licence something out for a certain period of time, then you have to get used to the idea that the people putting up the money, are going to try to make some money out of it.[/QUOTE]
So to answer the original question Kes, I believe this DVD to be a 'genuine (kosher) product' - ie NOT a pirate or a bootleg - EXACTLY for the reason you outline above.
However, being recognised as an 'Officially Stamped QPL Authorised' product is a completely different question.
Then again, I am open for correction if someone comes up with a good enough rebuttal.
So to answer the original question Kes, I believe this DVD to be a 'genuine (kosher) product' - ie NOT a pirate or a bootleg - EXACTLY for the reason you outline above.
However, being recognised as an 'Officially Stamped QPL Authorised' product is a completely different question.
Then again, I am open for correction if someone comes up with a good enough rebuttal.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]my point is that the Japanese VHS license rights ran out (around 2 - 3 years ago) and Queen missed the ball yet again.
So the rights to distribute and republish were legally snapped up by a samll independent company. The problem is that - as no one buys VHS anymore - the VHS master (which was essentially sold) was transferred to DVD.[/QUOTE]
I don't doubt this as a potential explanation, but why would the rights of a VHS license include the rights to sell DVDs?
I don't believe for a second that as late as 2005 any serious company (which I don't believe QPL to be...) selling their VHS rights wouldn't explicitly forbid any DVD release.
So the rights to distribute and republish were legally snapped up by a samll independent company. The problem is that - as no one buys VHS anymore - the VHS master (which was essentially sold) was transferred to DVD.[/QUOTE]
I don't doubt this as a potential explanation, but why would the rights of a VHS license include the rights to sell DVDs?
I don't believe for a second that as late as 2005 any serious company (which I don't believe QPL to be...) selling their VHS rights wouldn't explicitly forbid any DVD release.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]my point is that the Japanese VHS license rights ran out (around 2 - 3 years ago) and Queen missed the ball yet again.
So the rights to distribute and republish were legally snapped up by a samll independent company. The problem is that - as no one buys VHS anymore - the VHS master (which was essentially sold) was transferred to DVD.[/QUOTE]
I don't doubt this as a potential explanation, but why would the rights of a VHS license include the rights to sell DVDs?[/QUOTE]
No: You miss the point.It is NOT the right to sell VHS or DVD's that is up for sale, it is the right to sell product made from the 'master mould'.
Let me try to uncomplicate it:
As far as CD's are concerned CBS own the rights to all Roy Orbison's 'Studio masters'.
When companies like Monument, Virgin, K-Tel, or Charlie Records buy the rights to stamp Orbison CD's - they do not stamp these discs from the original CBS 'master tapes'.
Rather, they are stamped from inferior 'safety masters' - or COPIES.
The safety master used to stamp this Queen VHS/DVD - was NOT the 'master - master tape' but a safety or degenerated copy.
It is these 'rights' we are disputing.
Therefore, it is the safety master (or copy) which is hawked - not the 'real thing'.
Once you own the rights to that then you can release it on any format you like (even Blu-ray if you want to).
The problem is that these commerial copies can only be as good as the masters they are leased from, and as can bee seen from this product, the mould used to create these idscs are not up to DVD standard.
Nevertheless, the rights to stamp out the tape, disc or CD even is what is at stake.
If they have purchased a licensed to reproduce - it is an OFFICIAL product!
So the rights to distribute and republish were legally snapped up by a samll independent company. The problem is that - as no one buys VHS anymore - the VHS master (which was essentially sold) was transferred to DVD.[/QUOTE]
I don't doubt this as a potential explanation, but why would the rights of a VHS license include the rights to sell DVDs?[/QUOTE]
No: You miss the point.It is NOT the right to sell VHS or DVD's that is up for sale, it is the right to sell product made from the 'master mould'.
Let me try to uncomplicate it:
As far as CD's are concerned CBS own the rights to all Roy Orbison's 'Studio masters'.
When companies like Monument, Virgin, K-Tel, or Charlie Records buy the rights to stamp Orbison CD's - they do not stamp these discs from the original CBS 'master tapes'.
Rather, they are stamped from inferior 'safety masters' - or COPIES.
The safety master used to stamp this Queen VHS/DVD - was NOT the 'master - master tape' but a safety or degenerated copy.
It is these 'rights' we are disputing.
Therefore, it is the safety master (or copy) which is hawked - not the 'real thing'.
Once you own the rights to that then you can release it on any format you like (even Blu-ray if you want to).
The problem is that these commerial copies can only be as good as the masters they are leased from, and as can bee seen from this product, the mould used to create these idscs are not up to DVD standard.
Nevertheless, the rights to stamp out the tape, disc or CD even is what is at stake.
If they have purchased a licensed to reproduce - it is an OFFICIAL product!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]No: You miss the point.It is NOT the right to sell VHS or DVD's that is up for sale, it is the right to sell product made from the 'master mould'.[/QUOTE]
I must really be missing the point, because I just can't get my head around that.
Would I have the right to manufacture and sell copies of the Japanese dvd release just because I'm not using a "master" of any sort, or would I need to make a saparate contract with the owner of the distribution rights to sell the copies I make?
I must really be missing the point, because I just can't get my head around that.
Would I have the right to manufacture and sell copies of the Japanese dvd release just because I'm not using a "master" of any sort, or would I need to make a saparate contract with the owner of the distribution rights to sell the copies I make?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]No: You miss the point.It is NOT the right to sell VHS or DVD's that is up for sale, it is the right to sell product made from the 'master mould'.[/QUOTE]
I must really be missing the point, because I just can't get my head around that.[/QUOTE]
Try this:
First: The Original 'Queen' LP is now c35 years old.
If that license came up to reproduce the product, and I buy into that license, then I can sell that product quite legitimately.
I can now sell that product on the 'John S. Stuart' label - provided I make it clear that it is under license from QPL.
I can even buy (according to my finances) a 'limited license'. This limitation may be a territory (eg: UK only) or for a limited run (eg: 5000 copies in total).
But this license is NOT for the 'Queen' master-tapes. So I would not have access to 'Polar Bear' or 'Silver Salmon'. Rather I have bought the rights to reproduce the 'safety master' of the 'Queen' LP only.
Second: However, if I wish to reproduce these as a run 5000 12" coloured vinyls - then under the terms of the license I could. The same is true for 12" picture discs, CDS, DVD-A, mini-discs or any other format as - so long as I do not exceed that run of 5000.
Whether I can release 2,500 CDs and 2,500 DVD-A's I do not know - but I would guess that should be fine under the licensing agreement.
Third: Because Queen have been paid up-front, I can charge as little or as much as I like for my product. I can even give them away free in a Sunday newspaper - if I so desire, because I paid for a license to distribute.
Finally: It is this license which seperates an official product from an unofficial product.
However, I am still open to persuasion.
[/QUOTE]
I'm starting to get a bit confused here, so maybe it's better to start from the beginning... What we have is
1a) The physical ownership of musical recordings. (Queen Archives)
1b) The copyright of the music, including the rights to decide who can use the material and where. (Queen Productions Ltd.)
2a) The physical ownership of the original video recordings for Final Live in Japan. (JEC International?)
2b) The copyright of the finished and edited concert video. (p&c 1992 Queen Films Ltd. under exclusive license Watanabe Music Publishing Co., Ltd. to JEC International Corp., Japan)
3) The right to reproduce the concert video (Wowow Inc)
Without further knowledge on the subject one would assume that this concert video is treated as an original "work of art" dated in 1992, and as such would be subject to the same limitations as any other release from 1992 (ie. you require the permission of the copyright holder to re-release that same product). This permission can naturally be bought and sold with or without any master recordings, but it should be illegal to release the product without this permission?
The way I interpret the back of the official DVD is that Queen Films owns the copyright of this programme, and have leased it exclusively to Watanabe, which in turn has sold it to Wowow Inc for a release.
Unfortunately that's as far as I can reason it without knowing the contracts... The copyright should still be in place for the product, but for a regular consumer it's impossible to know who is authorised to release the product.
Is it QP's decision?
Is it Watanabe's decision?
Is it Wowow's decision?
Have they sold the rights on to yet another party?
My personal gut feeling is that any company who says the rights are licensed from "Queen Film" (sp) should not be trusted.
I must really be missing the point, because I just can't get my head around that.[/QUOTE]
Try this:
First: The Original 'Queen' LP is now c35 years old.
If that license came up to reproduce the product, and I buy into that license, then I can sell that product quite legitimately.
I can now sell that product on the 'John S. Stuart' label - provided I make it clear that it is under license from QPL.
I can even buy (according to my finances) a 'limited license'. This limitation may be a territory (eg: UK only) or for a limited run (eg: 5000 copies in total).
But this license is NOT for the 'Queen' master-tapes. So I would not have access to 'Polar Bear' or 'Silver Salmon'. Rather I have bought the rights to reproduce the 'safety master' of the 'Queen' LP only.
Second: However, if I wish to reproduce these as a run 5000 12" coloured vinyls - then under the terms of the license I could. The same is true for 12" picture discs, CDS, DVD-A, mini-discs or any other format as - so long as I do not exceed that run of 5000.
Whether I can release 2,500 CDs and 2,500 DVD-A's I do not know - but I would guess that should be fine under the licensing agreement.
Third: Because Queen have been paid up-front, I can charge as little or as much as I like for my product. I can even give them away free in a Sunday newspaper - if I so desire, because I paid for a license to distribute.
Finally: It is this license which seperates an official product from an unofficial product.
However, I am still open to persuasion.
[/QUOTE]
I'm starting to get a bit confused here, so maybe it's better to start from the beginning... What we have is
1a) The physical ownership of musical recordings. (Queen Archives)
1b) The copyright of the music, including the rights to decide who can use the material and where. (Queen Productions Ltd.)
2a) The physical ownership of the original video recordings for Final Live in Japan. (JEC International?)
2b) The copyright of the finished and edited concert video. (p&c 1992 Queen Films Ltd. under exclusive license Watanabe Music Publishing Co., Ltd. to JEC International Corp., Japan)
3) The right to reproduce the concert video (Wowow Inc)
Without further knowledge on the subject one would assume that this concert video is treated as an original "work of art" dated in 1992, and as such would be subject to the same limitations as any other release from 1992 (ie. you require the permission of the copyright holder to re-release that same product). This permission can naturally be bought and sold with or without any master recordings, but it should be illegal to release the product without this permission?
The way I interpret the back of the official DVD is that Queen Films owns the copyright of this programme, and have leased it exclusively to Watanabe, which in turn has sold it to Wowow Inc for a release.
Unfortunately that's as far as I can reason it without knowing the contracts... The copyright should still be in place for the product, but for a regular consumer it's impossible to know who is authorised to release the product.
Is it QP's decision?
Is it Watanabe's decision?
Is it Wowow's decision?
Have they sold the rights on to yet another party?
My personal gut feeling is that any company who says the rights are licensed from "Queen Film" (sp) should not be trusted.
Tero: The way I interpret the back of the official DVD is that Queen Films owns the copyright of this programme, and have leased it exclusively to Watanabe, which in turn has sold it to Wowow Inc for a release.
That is an exactly correct interpretation.
Except, 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' have a license to sell exclusively in Japan ONLY.
That is why 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' can NOT sell this product in the US or Europe, because under the terms of their lease - they are NOT licensed to do so.
Ofcourse you may pick up the odd import, (or like me - buy directly from a Japanese internet site), but the 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' license is specificallly designed for that territory only.
This means that the licenses for the USA and Europe can be picked up by someone else other than 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' to distribute in their home territories, and that is what has happened here in the UK.
I guess Queen Productions still own the copyright - but have leased that copyright to a UK firm other than the Japanese 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow'. I also feel that the European versions are UK imports rather than 'home grown' product.
That is an exactly correct interpretation.
Except, 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' have a license to sell exclusively in Japan ONLY.
That is why 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' can NOT sell this product in the US or Europe, because under the terms of their lease - they are NOT licensed to do so.
Ofcourse you may pick up the odd import, (or like me - buy directly from a Japanese internet site), but the 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' license is specificallly designed for that territory only.
This means that the licenses for the USA and Europe can be picked up by someone else other than 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' to distribute in their home territories, and that is what has happened here in the UK.
I guess Queen Productions still own the copyright - but have leased that copyright to a UK firm other than the Japanese 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow'. I also feel that the European versions are UK imports rather than 'home grown' product.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Tero: The way I interpret the back of the official DVD is that Queen Films owns the copyright of this programme, and have leased it exclusively to Watanabe, which in turn has sold it to Wowow Inc for a release.
That is an exactly correct interpretation.
Except, 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' have a license to sell exclusively in Japan ONLY. [/QUOTE]
Yes, that sounds reasonable.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I guess Queen Productions still own the copyright - but have leased that copyright to a UK firm other than the Japanese 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow'. I also feel that the European versions are UK imports rather than 'home grown' product.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about the policies of QP, but it would be really, REALLY stupid of them to license one of their products to an outside company after complaining about WWRY for years... They couldn't be that stupid, could they?
So... If QP owns the copyright, and has only leased it to authorise the Japanese release(s), the European releases must by illegal (because of the copyright infringement), regardless of any master tapes or safety masters which have exchanged hands. Masterplan could have legally bought the tape, but not have a right to release its contents.
That is an exactly correct interpretation.
Except, 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' have a license to sell exclusively in Japan ONLY. [/QUOTE]
Yes, that sounds reasonable.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I guess Queen Productions still own the copyright - but have leased that copyright to a UK firm other than the Japanese 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow'. I also feel that the European versions are UK imports rather than 'home grown' product.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about the policies of QP, but it would be really, REALLY stupid of them to license one of their products to an outside company after complaining about WWRY for years... They couldn't be that stupid, could they?
So... If QP owns the copyright, and has only leased it to authorise the Japanese release(s), the European releases must by illegal (because of the copyright infringement), regardless of any master tapes or safety masters which have exchanged hands. Masterplan could have legally bought the tape, but not have a right to release its contents.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Tero: The way I interpret the back of the official DVD is that Queen Films owns the copyright of this programme, and have leased it exclusively to Watanabe, which in turn has sold it to Wowow Inc for a release.
That is an exactly correct interpretation.
Except, 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' have a license to sell exclusively in Japan ONLY. [/QUOTE]
1: I don't know about the policies of QP, but it would be really, REALLY stupid of them to license one of their products to an outside company after complaining about WWRY for years... They couldn't be that stupid, could they?
2: If QP owns the copyright, and has only leased it to authorise the Japanese release(s), the European releases must by illegal (because of the copyright infringement), regardless of any master tapes or safety masters which have exchanged hands. Masterplan could have legally bought the tape, but not have a right to release its contents.[/QUOTE]
First answer: YES - QPL are that stupid. Remember they are a business interested first and foremost in making lots of MONEY - NOT the quality of the product.
So from their point of view - big bucks for miniumum effort. Perhaps then QPL are not so stupid after all!
Second answer: I have no idea. You have lost me.
Why MUST the European releases be illegal if they too have been licensed under the copyright holder?
Just because 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' have a license to sell exclusively in Japan ONLY - why does that make 'other territory licencees' (such as the UK) illegal?
Surely QPL can sell the license to reproduce to as many different companies as they see fit?
So if they sell a license to reproduce in Asia, and another (different license) for Europe, a third and yet another different license for the USA market - but have leased these licenses to three different companies - wherein lies the problem?
Frankly - I really don't care anymore and lost the will to live about three or four replies ago.
That is an exactly correct interpretation.
Except, 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' have a license to sell exclusively in Japan ONLY. [/QUOTE]
1: I don't know about the policies of QP, but it would be really, REALLY stupid of them to license one of their products to an outside company after complaining about WWRY for years... They couldn't be that stupid, could they?
2: If QP owns the copyright, and has only leased it to authorise the Japanese release(s), the European releases must by illegal (because of the copyright infringement), regardless of any master tapes or safety masters which have exchanged hands. Masterplan could have legally bought the tape, but not have a right to release its contents.[/QUOTE]
First answer: YES - QPL are that stupid. Remember they are a business interested first and foremost in making lots of MONEY - NOT the quality of the product.
So from their point of view - big bucks for miniumum effort. Perhaps then QPL are not so stupid after all!
Second answer: I have no idea. You have lost me.
Why MUST the European releases be illegal if they too have been licensed under the copyright holder?
Just because 'Watanabe' and 'Wowow' have a license to sell exclusively in Japan ONLY - why does that make 'other territory licencees' (such as the UK) illegal?
Surely QPL can sell the license to reproduce to as many different companies as they see fit?
So if they sell a license to reproduce in Asia, and another (different license) for Europe, a third and yet another different license for the USA market - but have leased these licenses to three different companies - wherein lies the problem?
Frankly - I really don't care anymore and lost the will to live about three or four replies ago.