REAL FANS UPLOAD RARITIES, BAD PPL KEEP THEM FOR THEMSELVES

So if say a rich car collector buys a prototype car originally belonging to one of the top line of car manufacturers, that has features unique to the prototypes and not to the final and more accessible product line, does that automatically give the poorer commoners the automatic right to take it for a drive against the owner's wish, nevermind keep it for themselves simply because they have some sort of entitlement owing to the fact they make much less money than the owner does?

The procedure in QZ is to request politely in the Sharing The Music - Request section, and not to shout and demand in the Queen - Serious Discussion section.  Must warn you though that not all requests are granted.

[QUOTE] [b]inu-liger wrote:[/b]
So if say a rich car collector buys a prototype car originally belonging to one of the top line of car manufacturers, that has features unique to the prototypes and not to the final and more accessible product line, does that automatically give the poorer commoners the automatic right to take it for a drive against the owner's wish, nevermind keep it for themselves simply because they have some sort of entitlement owing to the fact they make much less money than the owner does?[/QUOTE]


That's a pretty crappy analogy you have there. :P

For starters this prototype car will remain in the possession of the collector all the time, with no danger of physical damage. This collector himself has scanned a 3D model of his car which he has willingly passed on, only to later find out it has been used to make a replica of the car. It most certainly makes the product more accessible to the masses, but we don't even know if this will decrease or increase the value of the car... After all, it's still the genuine article, but now there are more people with better knowledge about it.


And then there's of course the nasty issue of ownership.
If the prototype car has disappeared from the original manufacturer (with no legal documents for exchange of ownership) and appeared in the collector's garage, the manufacturer still owns the product.

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
That's a pretty crappy analogy you have there. :P
And then there's of course the nasty issue of ownership.
If the prototype car has disappeared from the original manufacturer (with no legal documents for exchange of ownership) and appeared in the collector's garage, the manufacturer still owns the product.[/QUOTE]
and so is yours. so let's make it more realistic.
should ferrari gift an unused prototype to a designer, or should their warehouse security be so fuckign lax that someone working in the final stages of assembly "steals" a car out of the factory...then THAT'S THEIR FUCKING FAULT. they should be more bothered in the first place.
when people talk about acetates, and tapes and shit they make is sound like someone did a fucking "raffles" and broke in under cover of darkness.

no such thing, EMI/queen had no accurate records and consquently had no idea what was where and who they had loaned or given things to. want proof of this? look no further than "hangman" - the archivist denied it's existence for a long while - QPL may know exactly what they have, but they have no idea what they SHOULD have.

so more fool them...more money than sense, and they get what they derserve.

now, it may have consequently fallen into the hands of a collector - for hard-earned cash. yes it's owenership is questionable, but this gives no freeloading c*nt on here a divine right to insist a collector uploads it

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
and so is yours. so let's make it more realistic.
should ferrari gift an unused prototype to a designer, or should their warehouse security be so fuckign lax that someone working in the final stages of assembly "steals" a car out of the factory...then THAT'S THEIR FUCKING FAULT. they should be more bothered in the first place.
[/QUOTE]

You never did actually question my expansion on the analogy of the product, you merely try to cloud the issue by concentrating on the ownership...

But using your own analogy, doesn't the fanthology deserve all of their rarities to be freely distributed to the whole world for being so lax? Isn't it THEIR FUCKING FAULT, to quote your words?

I just wanted to say, that I know a person who, albeit not a Queen or music collector, who is a collector of old operating systems, that bought a version of Microsoft Windows (Premiere Edition, basically the last version before the publicly released 1.01) for I think $10k, and then shared it for free.
In my opinion, it's a noble gest that you spend your own money to make sure others won't have to spend the same amount to get the same thing. If I had $600 to spend on a rare record, I'd spend it, make a lossless rip of the record, then spread the lossless rip around, expecting nothing in return. Because I'd care to do a good act for others before I'd care about how much I spent for it.

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
and so is yours. so let's make it more realistic.
should ferrari gift an unused prototype to a designer, or should their warehouse security be so fuckign lax that someone working in the final stages of assembly "steals" a car out of the factory...then THAT'S THEIR FUCKING FAULT. they should be more bothered in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
You never did actually question my expansion on the analogy of the product, you merely try to cloud the issue by concentrating on the ownership...
But using your own analogy, doesn't the fanthology deserve all of their rarities to be freely distributed to the whole world for being so lax? Isn't it THEIR FUCKING FAULT, to quote your words?[/QUOTE]
didn't cloud any issues, and certainly didn't lessen the strength of my own argument. in fact. if anything..you just helped reinforce it.
because, regardless of whether we're actually talking about; an EMI engineer, EMI receptionist, contracted motorcyle courier, one of freddie/brian/roger/john's nearest and dearest or in fact the lately (not so great) DavidRFuller....all, i repeat ALL were the one's in a poisition of trust...and by consequence THEY are the one's committing the cuntish act of cheapskate betrayal
can ANY of us here honestly say we'd stay friends with anyone who did something like that to us?
of course the freeloaders love DRF, but they would wouldn't they. as regards the anti-fanthology brigade and fuller: to quote a band i don't like:
The handshake seals the contract
From the contract there's no turning back
....
The grabbing hands grab all they can
All for themselves - after all
.....
Picture it now
See just how The lies and deceit
gained a little More a power Confidence -
taken inBy a suntan and a grin
Everything counts in large amounts

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

didn't cloud any issues, and certainly didn't lessen the strength of my own argument. in fact. if anything..you just helped reinforce it.
because, regardless of whether we're actually talking about; an EMI engineer, EMI receptionist, contracted motorcyle courier, one of freddie/brian/roger/john's nearest and dearest or in fact the lately (not so great) DavidRFuller....all, i repeat ALL were the one's in a poisition of trust...and by consequence THEY are the one's committing the cuntish act of cheapskate betrayal
can ANY of us here honestly say we'd stay friends with anyone who did something like that to us?
[/QUOTE]

Err.. Your entire argument for supporting all the actions of the fanthology was based on the "lax sexurity" of the Queen camp, and that was shot to million pieces by pointing out the fanthology has been just as lax.
And that was something we all already knew!


Now how about if you try to explain to me what is the extent of damages suffered by the fanthology, and why their losses are greater than the losses they have caused to Queen?

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
Err.. Your entire argument for supporting all the actions of the fanthology was based on the "lax sexurity" of the Queen camp, and that was shot to million pieces by pointing out the fanthology has been just as lax.
And that was something we all already knew!
Now how about if you try to explain to me what is the extent of damages suffered by the fanthology, and why their losses are greater than the losses they have caused to Queen?[/QUOTE]
"my entire argument" ???????
i have argued against the breach of trust - in various threads - arguing against whatever new and preposterous angle is given
and their losses are relative. and possibly greater than queen's.
consider it. the loss of maybe a £5000 investment in a rare track when you maybe earn 40k p/a
against queen's losses of a track they never wanted in the first place.
even a very low-level functioning brain can work that out...well except for those freeloaders who demand that collectors give it all away for free
don't want to argue this anymore, suffice to say, i hope JSS and fantology leak nothing more to teach the "grabbing hands" a lesson or two about patience and generally being nasty c*nts

>>the loss of maybe a £5000 investment in a rare track when you maybe earn 40k p/a<<
It's not a loss of investment. It's the lack of profitability of an investment. He has no right to demand profiting from an investment - he either profits if he invested in the right thing, or he does not. It's called capitalism.
This kind of logic is the same kind the MAFIAA use when demanding stricter and stricter anti-piracy laws. They think making huge loads of profit is a right rather than a privilege and as such they demand laws to enforce that self-given right.

Now, I do agree about the breach of trust, it's a serious issue. However it should be dealth with maturely, professionally and without lynching. The fact the guys from Fanthology responded to David's post by outright lynching him with shaky allegations, shows that they're not much more mature than him.

Believe me, my friends and I collect old and pre-release versions of computer software, and I know some of them spend even $10k on pieces of it. Then it got leaked to the public. They either didn't care or if they did care, handled it maturely.
I don't believe I've ever publicly lynched any of my members for leaking things out. I've banned them from my community, that yes but I've never sunk that low as to publicly lynch them and spew allegations based on evidence that might be interpreted another way.

Also I do agree some people in this thread were just as childish by yelling and demanding leaks, when I absolutely agree people should be patient and wait for things to become available.

This thread should be locked, honestly speaking

[QUOTE]

[b]Battler wrote:
[/b] Now, I do agree about the breach of trust, it's a serious issue. However it should be dealth with maturely, professionally and without lynching. The fact the guys from Fanthology responded to David's post by outright lynching him with shaky allegations, shows that they're not much more mature than him.

[/QUOTE]

Lynch = to execute or punish violently without a lawful trial.

According to you, the guys from Fanthololgy are lynching DRF.  The way I see it, in this thread and the other related threads, the collectors' group have also been subject to lynching by the supporters of DRF and those who are jealous of what is still in the collectors' hands and not released.

Only DRF and the collectors' group know exactly what was going on.  The rest of us were not in the picture and there was effort to fish or dig for information about it, so how could you or anyone confidently say those are "shaky allegations"  ?  Is this not lynching also ?

[QUOTE]

[b]Battler wrote: [/b] I just wanted to say, that I know a person who, albeit not a Queen or music collector, who is a collector of old operating systems, that bought a version of Microsoft Windows (Premiere Edition, basically the last version before the publicly released 1.01) for I think $10k, and then shared it for free.
In my opinion, it's a noble gest that you spend your own money to make sure others won't have to spend the same amount to get the same thing. If I had $600 to spend on a rare record, I'd spend it, make a lossless rip of the record, then spread the lossless rip around, expecting nothing in return. Because I'd care to do a good act for others before I'd care about how much I spent for it.[/QUOTE]

When people are happy they post happy comments.  The same applies to sharing of music.  When a person is happy with what he has, he may feel good to share it.  So when he posts the sharing of music, he does it with a smile on his face.  Can you picture a person sharing music when he is full of anger at being pushed to share ?

[QUOTE] [b]Battler wrote:[/b]
If I had $600 to spend on a rare record, I'd spend it, make a lossless rip of the record, then spread the lossless rip around, expecting nothing in return. Because I'd care to do a good act for others before I'd care about how much I spent for it.[/QUOTE]
Then good luck to you. I truly hope you find such a record, and we will all reap the rewards of your generosity.

But some of us would prefer to hang onto the audio and trade it for something of equal value, and eventually two great things will be shared. I hope you understand this method as well.