Thistleboy 1980 wrote: Djdownsy wrote: Was this topic not up like..2-3 weeks ago? =============================================================================================
Yeah, but that him just finding out :)
True. I am a little bit late on some things...
MadTheSwine73 · Member since
Sir GH wrote: Isle0fRed wrote:
Define "real job"
=====================
As an artist, at countless times in my life people have looked at me and told me to get a "real job," as if doing one's passion and enriching culture with art is not a real job. Bullocks to them - most of them are just jealous because they work so-called "real jobs," i.e. paying the bills via exchanging their time for money whilst doing something they hate. But I'm not condemning them for their choices - to each their own.
So I used the "real job" statement here because the "yay, free music" mentality usually comes from people who have so-called "real jobs" - those people who feel like their work is somehow more valuable to society than people who create art, and that they should somehow be entitled to said art/services for free. It isn't. Just about every job helps keep the wonderfully complex machine of life going, and that includes art.
Back to topic. The music in question is QP's property. They can do what they want to do with it, full stop. Websites, blogs and youtube channels will be shut down because someone is not getting paid for their work. Who wouldn't be pissed off if they worked on something for X amount of time and weren't compensated when someone made use of it? I sure would. I realize the cocksuckers at the record companies make much more money than they should, but the artists and their management are still very much entitled to have their say.
I love this thread. So very much.
Dude, don't make a fight out of this. Plus, you're arguing with people most probably younger than you anyways. It's a discussion page, not an argument page.
emrabt · Member since
I think-slash-fear you might be right about a lot of this. Especially the portions-as-opposed-to-full works question. One wrinkle might be we don't actually know if some are the full versions.
===============================
These are not a few second samples, it doesn’t matter if he is selling them or not, they are not his to distribute. The reason they are up is to get people to hear them, for them to fall under fair use there would have to be a better reason than that. I think Fair use is something like 90 seconds, only the smallest amount of official works possible to demonstrate the point.
Posting Demos on the internet = not fair use
Posting 20 seconds from a demo on the internet WITH the purpose of demonstrating something that can’t be explained easily with words. = fair use
====================================
Samples of officially released works don't apply here as a comparison. My argument, such as it is, is limited to not officially released stuff--for the most part, correct me if I am wrong, Fuller has put up not-officially released.
=======================================
He has put up both, both are equally copyrighted, the same rules apply, none fall under fair use.
=================================================
Research is research, whether partial or impartial, with liner notes or not.
====================================================
You may claim to use them for research, but it doesn’t make what he’s doing any less illegal.
I might go and kill people for research about my serial killer book, it won’t make killing any less illegal.
=========================================
The biggest wrinkle, of course, is that all this is taking place on a for-profit site and it's the users who suffer the consequences while The Man makes money.
================
Still doesn’t make it fair use. In the grand scheme of things, It’s not fair, especially when it seems the artists and record companies don’t want these demos, but it’s still illegal to post them.
Saint Jiub · Member since
Get a haircut ... and get a real job ... gotta love George ...
Dude, don't make a fight out of this. Plus, you're arguing with people most probably younger than you anyways. It's a discussion page, not an argument page.
===========
Fight? Someone asked me a question so I answered them. If this thread looks like a fight, it's because some newbie decided to tell a long-standing member that he's not allowed to express himself when he was asked to. Forums are places for people to express themselves and learn. People are always free to skip over posts if their contents don't apply to them.
And if anyone didn't like my answer... well, if nobody said anything to challenge conventional thought, we'd all still be cavemen.
This forum is full of people of all ages. Nobody should have to stifle themselves because a few people reading are still in high school. Or have the maturity of someone in high school.
Thistle · Member since
@ mad the swine
I wouldn't have said that Bob's answer looked anything remotely like fighting talk, tbh. He has clearly put his opinion over in a non-aggressive manner. I would have said a couple of my posts in this thread were more heated, but still by no means in "fight" mode. Take it easy man :)
emrabt · Member since
Take it easy man :)
======================
THOSE ARE FIGHTING WORDS!!!
Go fer ya gun!
MadTheSwine73 · Member since
Thistleboy 1980 wrote: @ mad the swine
I wouldn't have said that Bob's answer looked anything remotely like fighting talk, tbh. He has clearly put his opinion over in a non-aggressive manner. I would have said a couple of my posts in this thread were more heated, but still by no means in "fight" mode. Take it easy man :) I know. Now I'm re-reading the whole discussion, and I realized I overreacted (?) Don't know if that would be a great word to use in this situation, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
MadTheSwine73 · Member since
Sir GH wrote: MadTheSwine73 wrote:
Dude, don't make a fight out of this. Plus, you're arguing with people most probably younger than you anyways. It's a discussion page, not an argument page.
===========
Fight? Someone asked me a question so I answered them. If this thread looks like a fight, it's because some newbie decided to tell a long-standing member that he's not allowed to express himself when he was asked to. Forums are places for people to express themselves and learn. People are always free to skip over posts if their contents don't apply to them.
And if anyone didn't like my answer... well, if nobody said anything to challenge conventional thought, we'd all still be cavemen.
This forum is full of people of all ages. Nobody should have to stifle themselves because a few people reading are still in high school. Or have the maturity of someone in high school. Funny thing is, I'm a newbie. LOL Now I've been re-reading the whole discussion, and I realized I did overreact a bit on the replies. Sorry about that.
Sebastian · Member since
Gr8! Drink a beer together and celebrate. Friends will be friends.
MadTheSwine73 · Member since
Thistleboy 1980 wrote: In what way does it "suck" that his account is gone? Does it affect you physically, mentally, emotionally or even financially? You already say you have the stuff of interest, so what's the gripe? His account was terminated because he was the most popular? Bollocks! His account was terminated because it was wrong. And what's this crap some are saying about less fortunate fans? FFS, nobody is meant to have the unreleased stuff, whether you like QP for it or not. Yeah, it might be exciting to have it or to have heard it, but what's the need to do so? It doesn't make or break our day to day functioning. So somebody has something you've not heard - oooh, time to slit the wrists. FFS. OK, it doesn't LITERALLY suck, but it's a shame. It actually does effect me mentally because... OK maybe not. His account IS (well, was) the most popular Queen account, other than the official. I just figured out what FFS means. Geeze dude, be gentle, I'm a newbie. ;) It wasn't me who said that he was "planting seeds in lesser Queen fans." I realize now that I might have overreacted, and I'm sorry if you took any offense to it.
madprofessorus · Member since
When I found out that Dave's channel was deleted I said "Fuck!I should download those songs...." My opinion is,at first,surely Dave had some official material on his channel,but for me,I believe that only die hard fans like me and you,would be interested in having those songs,some cooperations of Queen guys with other artists for example,so I don't think that the copyright owner would lose a large amount of money,of course those suckers want it all,that's why the record industry has gone down. For demos,they are in the same category,fans like me who would like to have in their collection even the...soundchecks before concerts,would be interested in that material.And I believe this,if Queen Productions had those demos available in lossless format,because we forget here that Tube's videos,even if you download and convert them,you still don't get the real thing,just an mp3.So if QP had those demos in a page where you could buy each track separately,personally I would have bought a lot of stuff.But I guess they aren't that interested in earning money the easy way... As for the TV shows,well,since they are in public tv channels,anyone can record them and keep an archive,if it's legal to upload them in youtube,from my point of view it's good,I live in Greece and except a couple of documentaries back in 1992 when Freddie wasn't with us Greek TV channels never interested in Queen...so this is a treasure for me and Fuller's channel was the promise land for me. I am sure that Fuller has an archive of his material,and is better for him I think to post his material here,we will respect it more that those stupid guys on youtube
Daniel Nester · Member since
@embt
To use your parlance: Copyrighted works can be used for research and in other works, period. Full stop. It doesn't matter if the work is copyright someone else. The serial killer example is a straw man argument. Or a red herring. Not applicable or helpful here.
It is about using only part of a work, sure. Most of the time. Also the format. You could easily make the argument that a copywritten work--a demo of "I Go Crazy," for example--used to accompany a fan's slide show of other copywritten photographs of Queen is fair use. Others have, and that's why these videos remain on YouTube. The works have been transformed into something else, and no one has profited from it. That's only part of what fair use covers.
Bottom line: Copyright isn't as completely drum-tight as some people think. There's criteria in support of fair use, and I've outlined them. And it isn't just for not-officially released stuff: If an out-of-print John Deacon Immortals clip lands online--It's a recording put onto a video--one could easily make the argument that posting of it is perfectly fair use. No one has lost any money, and no one has made any money.
Thistle · Member since
MadTheSwine73 wrote: Thistleboy 1980 wrote: In what way does it "suck" that his account is gone? Does it affect you physically, mentally, emotionally or even financially? You already say you have the stuff of interest, so what's the gripe? His account was terminated because he was the most popular? Bollocks! His account was terminated because it was wrong. And what's this crap some are saying about less fortunate fans? FFS, nobody is meant to have the unreleased stuff, whether you like QP for it or not. Yeah, it might be exciting to have it or to have heard it, but what's the need to do so? It doesn't make or break our day to day functioning. So somebody has something you've not heard - oooh, time to slit the wrists. FFS.
OK, it doesn't LITERALLY suck, but it's a shame. It actually does effect me mentally because... OK maybe not. His account IS (well, was) the most popular Queen account, other than the official. I just figured out what FFS means. Geeze dude, be gentle, I'm a newbie. ;) It wasn't me who said that he was "planting seeds in lesser Queen fans." I realize now that I might have overreacted, and I'm sorry if you took any offense to it. =============================================================================================
LOL, that is me being gentle :) No worries bud, you didn't say anything I would take offence to, you don't have to apologise! You have survived your baptism of fire hehe
The Real Wizard · Member since
MadTheSwine73 wrote:
Now I've been re-reading the whole discussion, and I realized I did overreact a bit on the replies. Sorry about that.
