You're not a collector, and that's totally fine. Nobody's condemning you for it. Just don't condemn people who do choose to collect, and want to hear the things that are out there. It's as simple as that. :-)
>If it weren't for the bootleggers, we'd probably have access to all of that by now.
Not exactly sure what you mean by that... can you elaborate?
[/QUOTE]
I think he meant [b][i]elitist collectors[/i][/b]
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
If it weren't for the bootleggers, we'd probably have access to all of that by now.
[/QUOTE]
Do I detect an RIAA shill?
Traders, collectors and bootleggers have nothing to do with archive material not being released.
If it weren't for bootleggers, collectors and traders, none of this unreleased material would be readily available.
Need I remind you that Wembley 96, Live Aid 85, Milton Keynes 82, Montreal 81 and Rainbow Nov 74 were all bootlegged before they were ultimately officially released.
Queen are too busy re-releasing their back catalog time and time again, and ignoring their most loyal customers who have seen vitually no released archive material since 2004 when Milton Keynes was released.
Winter Land Man · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
If it weren't for the bootleggers, we'd probably have access to all of that by now.
[/QUOTE]
Do I detect an RIAA shill?
Traders, collectors and bootleggers have nothing to do with archive material not being released.
If it weren't for bootleggers, collectors and traders, none of this unreleased material would be readily available.
Need I remind you that Wembley 96, Live Aid 85, Milton Keynes 82, Montreal 81 and Rainbow Nov 74 were all bootlegged before they were ultimately officially released.
Queen are too busy re-releasing their back catalog time and time again, and ignoring their most loyal customers who have seen vitually no released archive material since 2004 when Milton Keynes was released.
[/QUOTE]
Wembly 96 rocks.
Saint Jiub · Member since
Yeah - Freddie was so impressed with the efforts of Brian, Roger and John on Made in Heaven that he rejoined his bandmates for one final concert one the first day of April in 1996.
YourValentine · Member since
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
I am not pointing the finger at anyone (except the one who knows I'm talking about him!!! :) ) but I can't see why Queen would approve of someone recording their performance without permission. That should be a crime. Unfortunately it's a grey area and not too prosecuteable, but it is still WRONG. If you put your heart and soul into a project and someone was copying or using that for their own use, I think you'd agree.
Kinda like stealing a radio. And then two weeks later selling it for cash cause you need your fix. The person who buys the radio from Mr. Crack has just received stolen goods and is highly prosecuteable.
Now I don't think that Sanyo should receive a 10% fix commission, but clearly an offense has occurred. How can me trading my illegal copy of Berlin - Live in Belfast for the ultra-rare Alan Parsons 1978 impromptu in Hyannis MA? That bootleg is very hard to find, but I've found someone who needs to hear Take My Breath Away in it's original Slovenic. We didn't exchange cash, but we both profitted from the transaction. Berlin and Alan Parsons didn't get a penny. Why is this OK?
You have to make a difference between released material and unreleased material. Released material is sold in an official market and the profit is shared by the record company and the artist. Unreleased naterial is not the property of the record company, the "only" offense is harming the ownership of the artists who wrote and performed the concert. It's only the artist who can take action against such bootlegging, not the record industry. Many artists think it's very uncool to prosecute their own fanbase and turn a blind eye - mainly when the fans take great care not to distibute any released material like we do on Queenzone. People who collect audience recordings are usually people who also buy released material and concert tickets. Bands like Metallica were already heavily bootlegged before they even had a record contract - it's safe to say that Metallica actually own their carreer to the fans who recorded and distributed the concerts on cassettes in big numbers. Therefore they lost a lot of respect in their original fanbase when they took Napster to court.
Selling bootlegs is a different subject. If you sell unreleased material it's also only the writer/performer who can take action because of copyright infringement and most artists simply do not bother. But in addition you have other offenses like for example not telling your customer that you are selling a bootleg (that is why ebay forbids the sales of CD-R and DVD-R media) and maybe tax evasion or other offenses.
Pirate bay was not taken to court for distributing some old obscure live recordings, they were taken to court for distributing brand new movies, computer games and records.
As to the connection between bootlegs and unreleased archive stuff - there is none. Quite a considerable number of demos and outtakes "leaked" from the archives but that has nothing to do with bootlegging. The best way to stop such leaks is to release the material.
