Roger´s new album - "Smile" preview

Once again, a non collector suggests listening to a non collector on matters of collecting.

...which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science.

If you want to learn about Paris, do you listen to the person who lived there for 20 years or someone who has skimmed two chapters of a picture book?

You are no doubt very intelligent and mean well, but you have no experience in these matters and therefore no first hand perspective. Nobody on the outside can possibly understand the irreparable damage that has been done. And that's perfectly acceptable. But effectively saying your ignorance knows more than others' actual experience is a pretty shortsighted stance to take.


TRS - feel free to share the tracks !

"which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science"

It's absolutely different, actually. Creationists are bogged down in their own irrelevant beliefs on a strictly scientific and evidentiary topic.

A lot of the hooplah on collecting and collectors, on the other hand, comes down to moral considerations (or the lack thereof) and I'm sorry to say that is almost completely a subjective discussion. Waaaaaay different from the creationism thing - I'd refrain from using them as a crutch in unrelated debates to be honest, because it undermines your point.

Now, you can debate until you're blue in the face on whether or not the subjective opinions being offered here are Educated - that's a whole different can of worms, and usually a pretty entertaining one.

Bottom line - this whole thing is a massive grey area and I don't see too many discussions wherein a One Size Fits All approach would really work.

(I do maintain that Dave R Fuller is a knob-end and a mouthbreather, but I knew all about that before he pissed off his fellow collectors, and am surprised it took so long for the rest of the world to cotton on).

But seriously, the "You're not a collector, you wouldn't understand!" is not only off-base, but it's also a bit of an insultingly low estimation of the imagination of others. I can well imagine the factors at play here, because they've been explained by collectors a million times. Just because you disagree with the evaluation that other people have made of your plight doesn't really invalidate their opinion. It comes down (as I intimated earlier) to how well educated that opinion is. If you have an issue with that, then educate everyone - serve as an example.

*shrug*

I think the whole thing to blame here is human nature. 

The group of collectors has the best intentions to gather the best versions etc before they share.  However, when they have listened to each other's "rarities", they have satisfied their curiosity.  Thereafter, what incentive do they have to spend time quickly to put out the best share, especially if they have to work for a living.

The people who are outside the "elite" group are anxious to listen to the "rarities".  They are told to wait but how long do they have to wait ?  So whatever the elite group says, they will not see the point.

Yeah - from the outside looking in, people are obviously going to lack an immediate or intrinsic understanding of what's going on (for my part, I don't give much of a shit). But we've had these things explained to us now (in muddled fashion) and honestly it just sounds like a lot of bullshit. I think any collector with issues about the way non-collectors are talking should move on from "You don't know what you're talking about!" to "You guys are assholes". At least it'd be more honest.

Y'know, I get that some people sunk money into their rarities, but I'd just call it a bad investment at this point. Life's full of those. Take a deep breath, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and staaaaaaaart all over again.

I think a couple of you COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD the bit about the minds that need some changing...

I wasn't referring to the Fanthology - nor to David. I am referring to the ones that could be in control of the situation - should they ever be bothered to be. Come on! I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow. Do you remember that this very site was at risk at some stage? That we've been following certain rules since then? Does any of this sound familiar to you?

Sometimes the level of ALIENATION here surprises me!!!

[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]

I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there's also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow.

[/QUOTE]

There are actually 2 legal issues here Wilki. Whoever has the originals of these tracks - note I said has not owns because they only own the item(tape/cd/acetate - whatever) they have the recordng as a by product of owning the item has broken copyright law by copying and then sharing whether for profit or not. The fact that David is attempting to profit from his is neither here nor there, both he and the person who initially leaked the items are equally guilty of breach of copyright .

There's no moral high ground , once it's out there we become guilty under the law the moment we contribute to sharing.

[QUOTE] [b]tcc wrote:[/b]
The group of collectors has the best intentions to gather the best versions etc before they share.  However, when they have listened to each other's "rarities", they have satisfied their curiosity.  Thereafter, what incentive do they have to spend time quickly to put out the best share, especially if they have to work for a living.[/QUOTE]

I believe you're understimating the work load, or overstimating our work force. The thing is that the Fanthology was working VERY HARDLY until David started to leak stuff for personal gain, and he left in the first stage of gathering stuff. Since then, the group spirits were kind of lost. It fragmentated, and everyone started to focus again in their specific field, instead of keeping also with each other's work as it used to. I think it's understandable. Yes, you could blame human nature, I guess...

As simple as it might appear, 'copyright' it's a difficult concept, which sets several levels of rights to authors, intellectual property holders and publishers and means different things in different territories and also depending on the time of creation and registration of the copyrighted work. All in all, most jurisprudences wouldn't make anybody accountable unless there's loss of profits [lucrum cesans] or a break of privacy. I've been working in music production for 15 years now, so I am well aware of local and international laws, agreements and sentences. Thanks, Scallyuk, but I will take my own advice on this.

So... making a transfer from an owned acetate/tape/VHS/reference CD-R/etc. to a digital media is labeled as 'personal use' and it's allowed. Sharing that between a very limited group of researchers working together (and a moron) could be regarded as 'fair use' - allowed, again. Publishing that in the internet for anybody to hear/see/download... well, that's entirely a different thing, believe me. Of course, I am making no apologies for the fact that the Fanthology originally intended to break the law - that's why it also intended to remain anonymous. Strangely enough, that seems to be perfectly OK with most (if not all) of you.

Anyway... Surely this MPT donation thing would open an umbrella over these legal considerations (and other subjects), as we ALL would be doing something GOOD. A GOOD thing, beyond discussion. This is a simple idea. It's only an idea, and perhaps a naive one. If you like it, fine - if you don't, fine again. If buying the stuff from David makes things easier to any of you, go ahead. That's your walk of life, not mine.

[QUOTE] [b]scallyuk wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]

I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there's also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow.

[/QUOTE]

There are actually 2 legal issues here Wilki. Whoever has the originals of these tracks - note I said has not owns because they only own the item(tape/cd/acetate - whatever) they have the recordng as a by product of owning the item has broken copyright law by copying and then sharing whether for profit or not. The fact that David is attempting to profit from his is neither here nor there, both he and the person who initially leaked the items are equally guilty of breach of copyright .

There's no moral high ground , once it's out there we become guilty under the law the moment we contribute to sharing.



[/QUOTE]

No, it's not the same in a legal aspect. If I let you listen my acetate, even if in a modern way (audio file) and I ask you please not to leak, you can call me imprudent but as I don't want to have any legal problems, you should respect my will.
Then if you break this accord and also try to make profit from it, I call this theft and receivership.
Hope these are the correct terms but the two figures are light years distant.

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]

"which is no different from a creationist recommending a creationist on matters of science"

It's absolutely different, actually. Creationists are bogged down in their own irrelevant beliefs on a strictly scientific and evidentiary topic.

A lot of the hooplah on collecting and collectors, on the other hand, comes down to moral considerations (or the lack thereof) and I'm sorry to say that is almost completely a subjective discussion. Waaaaaay different from the creationism thing - I'd refrain from using them as a crutch in unrelated debates to be honest, because it undermines your point.

Now, you can debate until you're blue in the face on whether or not the subjective opinions being offered here are Educated - that's a whole different can of worms, and usually a pretty entertaining one.

Bottom line - this whole thing is a massive grey area and I don't see too many discussions wherein a One Size Fits All approach would really work.

(I do maintain that Dave R Fuller is a knob-end and a mouthbreather, but I knew all about that before he pissed off his fellow collectors, and am surprised it took so long for the rest of the world to cotton on).

But seriously, the "You're not a collector, you wouldn't understand!" is not only off-base, but it's also a bit of an insultingly low estimation of the imagination of others. I can well imagine the factors at play here, because they've been explained by collectors a million times. Just because you disagree with the evaluation that other people have made of your plight doesn't really invalidate their opinion. It comes down (as I intimated earlier) to how well educated that opinion is. If you have an issue with that, then educate everyone - serve as an example.

*shrug* [/QUOTE]

Good post.

I'd like to think I've done a decent job educating people, and having spent years tracking down tapers, master recordings, upgrades and various other things and sharing 99% of them here, I'd like to think those who have done none of the above would understand that collectors like me don't owe them anything. I truly would like to think that the couple outspoken people in this thread speak for an extreme minority.

Either way, we don't live in a utopia, so there will always be someone to vilify collectors for keeping 1% to themselves so that they can accumulate more for everyone's eventual benefit. When someone circumvents this process, there are consequences. But somehow they get praised, and the people who have done all (yes, literally ALL) the work get chastised for simply explaining.

^ Some people are just too thick to understand this, and I'm effectively wasting my breath and bandwidth on them. But I'd like to think there are lurkers reading with an actual interest in putting their ignorance and seemingly biological need to shoot the messenger aside and instead learn how this all works.

[QUOTE] [b]ferdy wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]scallyuk wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]

I don't think that you have to be a collector to actually understand that there's also a LEGAL ASPECT here, that should not be put aside. We must address this somehow.

[/QUOTE]

There are actually 2 legal issues here Wilki. Whoever has the originals of these tracks - note I said has not owns because they only own the item(tape/cd/acetate - whatever) they have the recordng as a by product of owning the item has broken copyright law by copying and then sharing whether for profit or not. The fact that David is attempting to profit from his is neither here nor there, both he and the person who initially leaked the items are equally guilty of breach of copyright .

There's no moral high ground , once it's out there we become guilty under the law the moment we contribute to sharing.



[/QUOTE]

No, it's not the same in a legal aspect. If I let you listen my acetate, even if in a modern way (audio file) and I ask you please not to leak, you can call me imprudent but as I don't want to have any legal problems, you should respect my will.
Then if you break this accord and also try to make profit from it, I call this theft and receivership.
Hope these are the correct terms but the two figures are light years distant.
[/QUOTE]

If you are merely an owner of an acetate as opposed to the artist performing on an acetate, you have absolutely no rights for the content of the disc. You can ask for the listener for whatever you want, but you don't have any legal say over what he does.

Secondly, unless you have received the acetate directly from the artist, you have already bought stolen property (=music on which the previous owner has no rights), which means you have no better morals than the person(s) you are discrediting.

Thirdly, if traders are making any profit from products on which they do not own legal rights, they are also thieves. If you have at any time received any compensation (even a 1$ donation for your website) for your trading, you are also a thief profiting from other people's work.


And to get back to this topic...

Any trader in possession of an unreleased Roger Taylor track, with full awareness of RT's wishes to not record the song, has commited an intentional theft and breach of his intellectual copyright.
If you recorded it with a cell phone to listen again the next day, you're a thief.
If you recorded it with a minidisc player to trade it with your friends, you're a thief.
If you traded it for a rare Queen concert, you have knowingly received stolen (intellectual) property.
If you bought it from David Fuller, you have knowingly received stolen (intellectual) property.

What it really comes down to is that some people are trying to paint their own actions as somehow more righteous than other people's, but they aren't really fooling anyone. Deep down not even themselves.

You said it yourself: You know you have stolen the contents of the acetate, and the only repercussion you want from it is profit. How moral of you!

I'm one of those lurkers who is ignorant of how this all works and I am trying to educate myself. But one thing keeps me from wrapping my head around this whole process - and that is: How do these unreleased rarities and demos get "out there" in the first place? I'm sure that's a naive question to most of you (and please don't bite my head off if it is), but I am just wondering how it all starts. Maybe it is just my type-A nature and not everyone else's, but if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.

tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.

[QUOTE] [b]shannaschaffer wrote:[/b]

I'm one of those lurkers who is ignorant of how this all works and I am trying to educate myself. But one thing keeps me from wrapping my head around this whole process - and that is: How do these unreleased rarities and demos get "out there" in the first place? I'm sure that's a naive question to most of you (and please don't bite my head off if it is), but I am just wondering how it all starts. Maybe it is just my type-A nature and not everyone else's, but if I were a famous musician or band I would keep every scrap under lock and key.[/QUOTE]

Good question! As you know, the music business is a collaborative effort. So artists/producers/engineers have to cut recordings for other artists/producers/engineers, labels, managers, PR people, media, agents, etc. or just for themselves, for whatever reason (promotion or review purposes, to assess work progress, sound testing, etc.). Sometimes (just sometimes) those cuts would contain different songs/versions to those that finally get released. Most of those recordings get lost or destroyed - some survive. And some of them are given/auctioned/sold to 'outside' people, like most collectors are. That's how it usually starts.

[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]

tero! 48531: Most of what you have scribbled above, from a legal perspective, is nonsense... And the rest is just nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Actually, not entirely.

If the songs themselves are licensed and published, then the contents of the disc are indeed owned by someone else. The disc itself is the property of the owner.

But to say collectors seek monetary gain is just plain foolish. The post was actually largely accurate up to that point.