Sharing official material

That "Newbie" and "third class musical guitar player" is Sir GH: One of the most respected members on Queenzone. That share is perfectly fine, because the "official" concert can't be bought legit.

If the concert was still available for purchase, then that would be a different story.

......
1. I know :-)
2. I can not recognize the difference between live in Rio and champion of the world. you can not acquire both officially. 
    then you can also share all other audio sounds from Queen rocks and other

YourValentine wrote: I think the DVD should not be shared on QZ for the moment. The material was specificly sent to the FC by Brian and Roger and it the members pay quite a lot for it. It would be unfair for everybody involved if we shared it  - to the fan club and to its members who paid in advance and are still waiting to get it.
I think that official releases should be the only limitation for sharing.

Anything else should be shared here as long as somebody is willing to share.
I mean, most shares were initially paid or traded for by somebody.

By the way, i found Princes Trust 1988 on a old VHS i recorded from TV; there are some excellent Brian May solos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8CefyvKcFY- Joe Cocker - The Letter
Can it be shared here ?

Keep QZone alive and sharing

Ciao, Stefano

It had an official release so that would be a no.

I think the rules are quite clear. And the Rock In Rio shares are not legit according to the them. The availability of the official material does not matter. I respect Bob and I certainly appreciate his work, but the rules are the rules, and they are for everybody.

I can not recognize the difference between live in Rio and champion of the world. you can not acquire both officially.
then you can also share all other audio sounds from Queen rocks and other
======================================
The difference is simple, Sir GH's share is classed as "fan stuff" it's altered from it's official state, you could ever buy what he has shared.
It's no different to pittrek Patching up a missing song on a DVD using an official source (an old documentary, bonus footage from live at the bowl ETC.)

Queen rocks could be posted, IF you remix all the tracks, understand?

....never hear such a bullshit......emrabt

Copyright Implications
Because remixes may borrow heavily from an existing piece of music (possibly more than one), the issue of intellectual property becomes a concern. The most important question is whether a remixer is free to redistribute his or her work, or whether the remix falls under the category of a derivative work according to, for example, United States copyright law. Of note are open questions concerning the legality of visual works, like the art form of collage, which can be plagued with licensing issues.
There are two obvious extremes with regard to derivative works. If the song is substantively dissimilar in form (for example, it might only borrow a motif which is modified, and be completely different in all other respects), then it may not necessarily be a derivative work (depending on how heavily modified the melody and chord progressions were). On the other hand, if the remixer only changes a few things (for example, the instrument and tempo), then it is clearly a derivative work and subject to the copyrights of the original work's copyright holder.

Queenboot, you are a fool.  This thread has nothing to do with copyright.  It's about money.  QP wants people to pay for things that have been released - nothing more, nothing less.  If this discussion were about copyright, then this entire section of the forum wouldn't exist.  Now stop picking fights with people on the forum and do something constructive here for once.

queenboot thank you for that copy and pasted copyright information. you seem to misunderstand, this isn't about copyrights, if it was nothing could be shared here, we couldn't listen to covers on the stage of champions, fan mixes in the fan mix section, download audience recordings, DVD covers or write out song lyrics from queen songs.
It’s about respect for queen productions / other companies who release things through official channels.
The only person misunderstanding copyrights is you I’m afraid, you seem to have jumped in right out of your depth and started talking about something you know NOTHING about, next time, think, could the person I’m talking to know more than me about this subject.
Just like fan mixes in the fan mix section, Sir GH’s stuff is altered from the product you can buy, so it's fine to share. THAT IS THE SITE RULES.
BY DOWNLOADING ANYTHING ON THIS FORUM YOU ARE VOIDING COPYRIGHTS, but the goodwill of Queen Productions let us share things, "good WILL" because they haven't sent a cease-and-desist letter. Push that good will by releasing stuff they used to / still get money from and they won't be so nice. And in all honesty if Richard was taken to court about this site, he wouldn't stand a chance.

"Respect for QP" was no.1 on my "most unlikely to ever hear sentences" top.
How about "QP having respect for a huge artistic heritage" ?
Releasing a few hours of live material in almost 40 years, from an archive of hundreds of hrs, is not an attitude deserving much respect.

"Respect for QP" was no.1 on my "most unlikely to ever hear sentences" top.
How about "QP having respect for a huge artistic heritage" ?
Releasing a few hours of live material in almost 40 years, from an archive of hundreds of hrs, is not an attitude deserving much respect.
=========================

1) this has very little to do with the argument
2. you don’t know how many hours are in the queen archive
3: the rules of the forum are clear, whether YOU or I respect Queen productions or not is irrelevant, the forum does, and as such does not want to upset them by sharing unaltered official material.
The respect is created as such: they turn a blind eye to sharing unofficial bootlegs and TV broadcasts, we don’t share the stuff they release through official channels.

It’s really not hard to understand. When official companies are involved we don't touch the stuff, when only the bootleggers profit we give it all free.
It's still infringing copyright, but we're less likely to be sent any letters from QP's lawyers this way.

This has very much to do with the argument.
Browsing QUEEN live catalog, the words "criminally neglected" comes to my mind. This forum is the only entity trying to balance this absurd situation.
.

"They've been taking my music and bootlegging my shows for ages.I know all the sites that have my bootlegs and all my MP3s. Actually, I don't give a flying fuck. I like the internet and I like the community. I think, to understand your presence on the net, you have to be a part of it and work within it. I thought it just looked so reactionary, for instance, of someone like Prince to clamp down on everything in terms of the lawsuits. You can't stop the sea from coming forward." DAVID BOWIE

his has very much to do with the argument.
Browsing QUEEN live catalog, the words "criminally neglected" comes to my mind. This forum is the only entity trying to balance this absurd situation.
========================

Yes but it has nothing to do with this thread, neither does the David Bowie Quote. We all Know Queen productions doesn't release good stuff, But what has that got to do with not sharing official stuff on Queenzone? Nothing. Queenzone is Allowed to operate and share things Because there’s no official stuff shared, what don’t you get?
Queen turn a blind eye, as long as we don't share stuff they have released.

As for your quote, I can post random Quotes too,

"Murder is an insidious thing. Once a man has dipped his Fingures in blood, sooner or later he'll feel the urge to kill again."
Basil Rathbone - The House Of Fear.

Why post a random quote ?
Post your favorite quote: "Property of Queen Productions !"

aristide1 wrote: Why post a random quote ?
Post your favorite quote: "Property of Queen Productions !"
==============

Bored of this, remember when queenzone trolls used to be good at what they did, nowadays everyone attempts it.