ANNOUNCE: The Reaction - Complete Acetate Collection

[QUOTE] [b]people on streets wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
As always, the most opinionated people are those who have zero hands-on experience in the subject at hand. In this case, it is those who have never lifted a finger to obtain an uncirculated recording. They have no idea of how difficult and how expensive it can be to obtain certain recordings.
Sharing a bootleg that was sold by a Japanese company is not the same as backstabbing collectors for without whom this section of the forum would be nearly empty. You people obviously have little idea of how most of the recordings get from the source to your pointing and clicking.
David Fuller, you have all but killed the sharing spirit of the Queen community with your complete disregard for the people who have spent decades and tens of thousands to obtain the material that you are treating like a dime-a-dozen viral youtube video.
Your bounty will soon be dry, and the Queen community will never know how much deeper it may have been, because people will certainly hold back from sharing purely so that you cannot reap the rewards of their work.
You should be proud of yourself.[/QUOTE]
Is this the same Bob most so called 'elite traders' know?
Wow! You sure changed your opinion 180 degrees on this matter.
[/QUOTE]

Well I don't agree. If I remember correctly Bob always only tried to persuade people who have / had rare stuff to share it, which is something different from this case

It's okay guys. It comes with a readme that explains that it's remastered by Dave R Fuller. God only knows what that means. I'm assuming he mouth-breathed at the computer screen for a couple of minutes while uploading it, which probably counts as remastering in his book.

Im sure the original sources for everything shared here were at some point given on a "never to be shared" basis.While I dont particularly agree with whats happened here,surely without some underhand methods nothing would ever have seen the light of day and be lost in the vaults forever

[QUOTE] [b]Fireplace wrote:[/b]
though 99% of the Queenzoners have not been made privy to this KGB-elite-super-top-secret whatchamcallit we get to enjoy all the ensuing dirt and are told off for not contributing to something we didn't know existed in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Clearly there is a misunderstanding here.

Collectors have been chasing after rare music for decades. It has nothing to do with one particular small group of people.

Anyone is welcome to start trying.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Fireplace wrote:[/b]
though 99% of the Queenzoners have not been made privy to this KGB-elite-super-top-secret whatchamcallit we get to enjoy all the ensuing dirt and are told off for not contributing to something we didn't know existed in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Clearly there is a misunderstanding here.
Collectors have been chasing after rare music for decades. It has nothing to do with one particular small group of people.
Anyone is welcome to start trying.[/QUOTE]

I was referring to the top-secret Facebook summit group conference thingie, Mr. Wizard. I am obviously aware of collectors, but what started as something that had nothing to do with QZ should perhaps have remained there. The 99% I was referring to are now being made part of a private feud that should have stayed outside QZ. And yes, so should the download link. I hope the people involved manage to resolve their differences so we can go back to the most interesting exchanges of information we have all grown used to. Well, sometimes that is.

As far as I can see, the outside group would have remained outside of QZ, were it not for the upload that started this thread. You can only blame one person for that.

nice share - thank you

[QUOTE] [b]Dodger Taylor wrote:[/b]
surely without some underhand methods nothing would ever have seen the light of day and be lost in the vaults forever[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, as per Brian's Wig's post above.

I did not download this However, this thread itself was surprisingly interesting. As a former trader (quit in 2004) of unauthorized live recordings, I have always been baffled by the trading community's concept of ownership.
When discussing the and by this I mean, someone acting "without the permission of the owner", I highly doubt that purchasing an acetate has in these cases meant that the actual copyright (intellectual property) of the master recording, and the copyrights of the original songwriters and performers were also transferred to the person who made the purchase. Therefore, I would steer clear of using terms like "ownership" in these cases, unless you refer to physical property. Then again, are digital files an extension of this property? What are their legal status? Nevertheless, in terms of physical property, the owner of the acetate clearly "owns" the acetate itself and can do whatever he/she pleases with it (like give/borrow it to trusty ol' QProd)
When talking about the distribution rights of copyrighted content, we all know who actually owns this material. If you want something to remain as your "property", the only sure way to achieve this is by keeping it to yourself.
No, the previous was not a defense of the topic starter. Just an observation.

[QUOTE] [b]Gregsynth wrote:[/b]
This had to happen on my birthday!
Despite the bad circumstances that happened, me and a small group of people will post an audience recording of a show in the very near future. I won't reveal it yet, but to give a hint, it's a show well known by Queen fans![/QUOTE]
Hyde Park I guess?

This is going to be one of the most saddest days on QZ.

All I can say is that it all is very disappointing.

Mr Fuller, you have disappointed me.

[QUOTE] [b]pma wrote:[/b]
I did not download this However, this thread itself was surprisingly interesting. As a former trader (quit in 2004) of unauthorized live recordings, I have always been baffled by the trading community's concept of ownership.
When discussing the and by this I mean, someone acting "without the permission of the owner", I highly doubt that purchasing an acetate has in these cases meant that the actual copyright (intellectual property) of the master recording, and the copyrights of the original songwriters and performers were also transferred to the person who made the purchase. Therefore, I would steer clear of using terms like "ownership" in these cases, unless you refer to physical property. Then again, are digital files an extension of this property? What are their legal status? Nevertheless, in terms of physical property, the owner of the acetate clearly "owns" the acetate itself and can do whatever he/she pleases with it (like give/borrow it to trusty ol' QProd)
When talking about the distribution rights of copyrighted content, we all know who actually owns this material. If you want something to remain as your "property", the only sure way to achieve this is by keeping it to yourself.
No, the previous was not a defense of the topic starter. Just an observation. [/QUOTE]
A very valid standpoint.

But in the case of these tracks - it was a cover band in the 1960s. It has nothing to do with Queen Productions, even if one of the members of the cover band later ended up being a member of Queen.