What REALLY happened

[QUOTE]

[b]Vocal harmony wrote: [/b] If you knowingly buy stolen property you are as guilty as the person who stole it. There is no question of doubt that JSS, in paying for what he has in his rareties collection, is guilty. And for his stupid elite group of collectors to make a fuss about an ex member posting stuff is just plain idiotic.

As far as a kangaroo court is concerned. If your talking about principles amounts a bunch of bootlegging thieves and whether one is guilty because he has posted something that legally is not theirs in the first place, then I guess that is where the kangaroo court is operating. Not out here in the real world where I am saying that these guys are a bunch of thieving bootleggers. Whether they've payed for what they have or not.[/QUOTE]
I think the second line in your first paragraph is not in order.  Your latest post has too many ifs and buts to acknowledge that this sentence is defective.

[QUOTE]

[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]inu-liger wrote:[/b]
Vocal Harmony, you do realize that posts like yours making unfounded posts accusing JSS & co. of knowingly dealing on stolen goods without solid factual evidence constitutes libel and can seriously land you in court, or in jail if found guilty and convicted.
If Google can be successfully subpoenaed into handing over user info and IP addresses (and they have!), then there's nothing stopping QZ from being forced by law to do the same.
Govern yourself accordingly[/QUOTE]
Are you legal councel or owner of Queenzone? I thought not.[/QUOTE]
Did I ever for one second say I was? I was merely trying to give some fair advice, as they DO take online slander / libel very seriously in the U.K., and JSS has every right to ask that V.H. remove his slanderous comments.
There was a cricketer who just won a libel case stemming from comments made on Twitter, I believe.

What really happend... i dunno:) but.. i cant see the problem.
(If it is stolen or not: i think it is a kinda grey area. i cant picture the elite as an ocean 14 getting the rare stuff:)
)

A digital copy is to share with everybody.. The actual acetate or whatever is the collectors item to hang on your wall or so.. Thats to cherise.. Share the music to everybody and show proudly on your own youtubechannel that it is yours.

A big thank you to David for bringing the music to the masses. Being a lifelong fan of Queen is for sure fun with him. (and Gregsynth ofcourse!!!)

To the elite.. share a copy digitally what you have of whatever. And keep the original hanging on the wall and be proud of the original collection you have. I bet it is more fun to show off and let the world envy you.

I see those youtubechannels coming.

So, in a summary... this issue was all about breaking trust. Nothing more. It's not about the material that has leaked as John pointed out. Most, if not all, stuff will see the light of day one day anyway.
And all the bashers who think that the Fanthology are fools or freaks... deep inside they just want to be part of it and are now calling names simply because they can't and never will be ;)

[QUOTE] [b]pow wow wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]brians wig wrote:[/b]
Fuller leaked something whilst he was still a group member: something which John owns the one and only copy of and says he has NEVER done copies for anyone else.
[/QUOTE]
Are you referring to the Reaction stuff or Is It Me because I can tell you with 100% certainty that John is not the sole owner of either of these recordings? If you mean original acetate or reel maybe, but digital/cassette, no.
[/QUOTE]

No, not those.

I am not saying that JSS or his group of collectors have physically stolen, as in walked in too a building and picked up a cd or acetate and anything else.

What I have said through all of my posts is that I think it is questionable whether what they have in their collection is legal because of it's rare and unreleased nature (a presumption because all we know for certain is that the collection is rare and some at least is unreleased) that no copy write or royalties have been payed to the writers and performers and in that respect those performances have been stolen. Not the actual physical medium they appear on.

I branded the group fools, as someone else did too, because if an ex member has posted something on line that no royalties have been payed for then it should be the artist who kicks up a fuss about it, not the person or people who have the track in their possession, because the song is still the property of the artists, even though you may legitimately claim ownership of the medium it appears on.

If on the other hand the track was released through a record company and their for royalties payed to the artist then you have every right to complain about your copy of the recording being posted without your permission.

The if's and buts in my posts have been there from the beginning of this thread

"that no copy write or royalties have been payed to the writers and performers and in that respect those performances have been stolen"

So by your logic, should it apply too that the band should also be paid royalties whenever their official products are sold 2nd-hand (eg. eBay, Amazon Market), particularly when some rarer items fetch a pretty penny? Because these unreleased recordings ARE practically 2nd hand purchases once they've been sold off once already by the original owner, and that's nothing the band can do about it, unfortunately.

Also, please learn to spell. I can't take you seriously if you can't keep your spelling consistent.

Once a legitimate product has been sold, and their for the royalty payed, it's up to the owner what they choose to do with that item.

There are plenty of secondhand outlets that sell on CD's etc.
Some things drop in value other rise.

Once royalties have been payed they do not get payed again each time something changes hands.

My point was, and I'll say it again because you obviously don't understand how royalty payments work, if an unreleased songs appear on the open market, because it is unreleased, it earns the artist who wrote and recorded it nothing. In effect it is stolen. The medium that it appears on, IE CD for instance, may well have been bought and payed for, but if a song appears on that CD that has not been officially released it has been stolen from the people who wrote and recorded it. Yes some collectable items have been sold and resold many times, but that doesn't change the fact that if they weren't official releases then they contain stolen or bootlegged material

[QUOTE] [b]inu-liger wrote:[/b]
"that no copy write or royalties have been payed to the writers and performers and in that respect those performances have been stolen"
So by your logic, should it apply too that the band should also be paid royalties whenever their official products are sold 2nd-hand (eg. eBay, Amazon Market), particularly when some rarer items fetch a pretty penny? Because these unreleased recordings ARE practically 2nd hand purchases once they've been sold off once already by the original owner, and that's nothing the band can do about it, unfortunately.
Also, please learn to spell. I can't take you seriously if you can't keep your spelling consistent.[/QUOTE]

I would take VH seriously if I were you. His / her point is absolutely correct. And you risk losing any credibility you have by taking cheap shots at spelling.

Vocal Harmony, let me ask you this...if you think Queen are ever SO concerned about losing money on all these leaked rarities, then why aren't they taking back what's theirs (assuming there are rarities NOT immediately in their own archive) and start releasing them themselves? What with the digital iTunes age and all, there's really nothing STOPPING them from doing it.

Heck, Pink Floyd did it with one of the bonus features on the PULSE DVD, "Bootlegging The Bootleggers", and I'm sure there are also other major bands out there that have used bootlegged sources for their own official releases.

Explain your expert views on that matter, please.

I am not an expert, and have never claimed to be.
It's up to the band to do as they see fit with their work. If something is sitting on a shelf, unreleased, then it is there because of a decision the band have made. It's not up to you or me or anyone to decide otherwise

If you were a musician or an artist and created a piece of work that you were not happy with and decided that you didn't want it released to the public, how would you feel if it was suddenly made available without you knowledge or consent.

Pink Floyd's bootlegging the bootleggers was interesting but only scratched the serface.

Queen's bootleg download thing seemed to fade away.
They did however offer downloads from the Q+PR live era which had an impact on live bootlegging of that tour.
Metallica also have offered a simlar service.

As regards to Queen choosing not to release studio rarities or making them available for download, that really is up to them. Why not Email Brian May, Roger Taylor or Jim Beach and ask them to explain

The problem with contacting the latter two is that I've yet to see public e-mail addresses for either of them that can be easily used to correspond to them with, without requiring privileged media/PR connections to get the contact info.