ANNOUNCE: The Reaction - Complete Acetate Collection

[QUOTE]

[b]Lostman wrote: [/b] [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?[/QUOTE]
http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1304667/announce-hyde-park-1976-new-source-gary-taylor-jim-jenkins-series.aspx

You guessed right!

On the one hand I'm happy this got released - I've been waiting for this release for years.

But it's kinda bittersweet... I could have waited a couple of years more if it meant that more rarities would see the light of day. Now we can forget about The Opposition acetates and so on.

Anyway, I'm going to sleep in the midnight hour.

Yes, I am!

V.

Now we know who "Death On Two Legs" should have been dedicated to!

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[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.[/QUOTE]

Even with cover bands, the performers have a claim on the recording they created, whereas the respective songwriters have their claim on the actual songs they created (their intellectual property), no matter who performed them. Just to make sure, I was not suggesting QProd has any claim on this material as intellectual/physical property, the people who wrote the music (plus the performers present on the recording) do have their claim on the intellectual property.

But let's not forget that even if QProd obtained all the acetates that only exist in the hands of collectors, there would be zero guarantee that we'd ever hear any of them on official releases. Come to think of it, Queen itself is the biggest "hoarding elite trader" around, but as they are the authors, they can sit on their material without offending anyone. However, if they ever released a complete anthology, wouldn't it also diminish the value of several private collections (rare tracks etc.).

And one more point I would like to throw in the ring: By breaking the trust and progress that WAS coming along in the higher ups' circle in order to become a 'hero' for the greedy many, David has not only reinforced the severe mistrust that was ONLY starting to be overcome, but now has made it even MORE impossible for the real fans to expect any new rarities to enjoy and this will now only serve to increase the stressload that will come from the greedy people's increasing demanding bitchfest.

Thanks a lot Dave. You REALLY thought this through!

PS. For anyone wondering, I'm pretty sure his actions won't have any effect on future projects from Gary Taylor and ourselves. However we WILL have to really exercise caution in any case, and stick to our established team.

This is not about copyrights or about intellectual property (although I can see that point). Some newbies here see the "elite collectors" as people living in some sort of castle with walls and masturbating every evening while listening to their unique rarities. But this project was about joining forces of some experiences Queen fans and putting together an ultimate collection of both live and studio tracks, using their knowledge and contacts while respecting each other (incl. wishes and promises). I have a huge respect for all (current) members of that group although I'm not really a friend of some of them. But it was too obvious one group member didn't fit there. First leak was possibly a misunderstanding, second leak was suspicious and suddenly this twat breaks all the promises he has ever given to anybody. I just can't understand it. Theoretically I couldn't give a f*ck, there was no harm done to me at all and I really don't care what is or isn't "out". But this is a betrayal of extreme extent and THAT's what's driving me mad. And when I read his lies and false explanations, I just can't believe my eyes.

IF anyone here has him on Facebook, now would be a good time to remove him and shame him through our collective protest, make him REALLY realize just how much he's wronged the fan community big time!

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1365810048

Collectors are a special brand of species

It is a pity to see all those hate and jealousy, about people using material that somehow is spread.
When you wwant things to keep it your own property, than keep it away from open forums and fan pages

A group secret depends on the weakest links.

I wonder what the real owners of the material have as opinion about this, rather than a few frustred collectors

[QUOTE]
ghostwithasmile wrote:
This messageboard doesn't really add anything for a real collector... 99% are beggers... the remaining 1% are spending time money and efforts to put once in while something exciting online...
[/QUOTE]
I must belong to the beggar's population..but what exactly is my fault? Am I supposed to feel guilty of downloading the stuff that you share?

[QUOTE]
The Real Wizard wrote:
but the list of people who contribute new things in collecting communities is very small compared to the people who simply come to eat and run. And these people, whose sense of entitlement is bigger than their common sense, are always the ones who are loudest in their criticism of those who seek out the new stuff and thereby have an informed opinion on the matter.
[/QUOTE]

Do you think file sharin forums can survive without downloaders? Yeah, we eat and run. What would you have us do?
Why bash the downloaders? This site has such a huge number of members who just download and don't share...some of us are content with what they get and post a "thanks", some don't post but are probably grateful for the shares. Then there are those who keep demanding more and more. This last group is surely the smallest in proportion, and their attitude can be termed as immaurity or unawareness of the "collection process".

Its unfair to classify all downloaders into a single negative catagory and make it out like we are the pain in the asses.

As for the inside story...looks like a clear case of betrayal, and like someone else said, I don't feel like thankng DRF. But please don't mis-direct your frustration on the wrong people.

Years ago we had these discussions about lossy sharing Vs lossless sharing. Things got emotional then too, and terms like Nazi was being used against FLACers by those who preferred mp3s. Its the same situation I think...spread awareness about how our actions affect availability of future shares, and we may see a change in attitude fro those who leak "unauthorised" stuff.

... if someone tells you to protect something you protect it... you don't throw it out to the public...
I hope the collectors involved realise that most Queen fans are appalled by the way this was shared -- yes, its great to get material, but not when it's essentially stolen.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr. Scully wrote:[/b]
This is not about copyrights or about intellectual property (although I can see that point). Some newbies here see the "elite collectors" as people living in some sort of castle with walls and masturbating every evening while listening to their unique rarities. [/QUOTE]

These wouldn't be the same people who are put down in this thread as "beggars" and "the greedy many" by those same collectors, would they?

Funny how you try to negate notions about "elite collectors' while at the same time confirming them. No matter whether David Fuller was in his rights to do this, and I really can't judge that, this is more and more becoming a superiority laden us-against-them-minnows thread. If you, the unsung fifth members of Queen, look down on the majority of board dwellers here that much, why not start your own board restricted to just the nobility among traders?

[QUOTE] [b]ParisNair wrote:[/b]

I must belong to the beggar's population..but what exactly is my fault? Am I supposed to feel guilty of downloading the stuff that you share?
[/QUOTE]

Nope, you're sorely needed here to make a few extremely righteous people on this board look good compared to greedy beggars such as yourself. Please don't leave!

Personal mileage may vary. The distribution wasn't approved, so approach with caution and download at your own risk.