You know, we ought to have a get-together on Skype for a Gregsynth-style debate on this whole collectors issue. Really interesting seeing how the divisive mindsets play out on the boards here, I wonder how well that would translate over into a live realtime realm!
Anyone up for the idea?
Gregsynth · Member since
LOL. I would love to part a part of this.
John S Stuart · Member since
Preface: What I have written below is a generic response to the generalised presentation of this thread. However, I know nothing about the above track. It's source, it's leak etc are all outside my ken; but even though I have nothing specific to contribute to that particular discussion; I still feel that I would like to add my thoughts to this particular thread.
I am not going to be dragged into a long drawn out argument - especially when everyone knows that 99% of this material was stolen from me in the first place. So allow me to make a statement if I may:
"IF" I do own an acetate - I only own a 12" plastic disc. Nothing more.
I do not own the music on that disc. I do not own the copyright to that music. The content is not my intellectual property to do with as I please; and I have always respected that.
Because to do otherwise would be to break the law, and that can mean very steep penalties such as huge fines and/or long jail sentences (or both), and I am not prepared to pay the price of either of those options.
I have listened to such type material in the privacy of my own home (I have never broadcast publically - even when invited to do so at conventions) and when meeting up with like-minded friends who own similar type rarities - we "may" have swapped electronic copies on the understanding of "personal use only", but this has always been based upon the strict understanding of a "gentleman's agreement" that this material is for private use only and cannot be "sold" or "released" because the contents are not mine/ours to do so.
You can scream, shout, threaten and beg for "Hangman" as long as you like you like, but the fact is - it is not mine to offer or distribute - so I cannot do so.
David R Fuller has in essence stolen and published tracks without permission which means Queen PLC CAN and MAY directly suit for Loss of earnings and/or including the loss of potential future earnings, and that is a bill which can run into hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars!
So for those who have just written to me saying "Pre-empt... release and be damned", forgive me for being a coward - but I will not be damned for the "sins" of others. Likewise any thoughts of financial donations or compensations towards the MPT charity - is a good idea, but I cannot do so. That is not my call to make.
So far, my only "crime" in all of this stupid affair was to trust someone whom was essentially untrustworthy - but hey even Jesus trusted Judas - so it can't be that big a sin!
As for David R Fuller - breaking his part his of a gentlemanly agreement is the very least of his worries...
He has now both distrubuted and broadcast (do you really think Radio 1 is actually free?), very sensitive material, and if that is not enough; he now also claims that he owns the copyright to these tracks too!
Does he honestly believe that he can just upload a (for example) unreleased Roger Taylor track on YouTube with a Copright by David R Fuller and that magically makes the consequences of his actions go away?
DISCLAIMER: I want it made perfectly clear to everyone; that these turn of events have nothing to do with me whatsoever, and that any electroniic copies which "may" have originally originate from me - were infact STOLEN, and I do not accept any responsibility or liabilty for his wantonly stupid and wreckless criminal behaviour.
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]John S Stuart wrote:[/b]
I have listened to such type material in the privacy of my own home (I have never broadcast publically - even when invited to do so at conventions) and when meeting up with like-minded friends who own similar type rarities - we "may" have swapped electronic copies on the understanding of "personal use only", but this has always been based upon the strict understanding of a "gentleman's agreement" that this material is for private use only and cannot be "sold" or "released" because the contents are not mine/ours to do so.[/QUOTE]
This isn't meant personally (as I don't know you), but that kind of "gentleman's agreement" is nothing more than an excuse to ease your conscience.
You know the song wasn't meant to be heard by outsiders, you know the artist isn't profiting from it in any way, and you know YOU are profiting from it by "maybe" receiving other dubious material in exchange.
If you had the consent from the artist you would have a true gentleman's agreement, but now you're left with nothing more than honor among thieves.
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]Once again, the legality issues arises when broad public or profit is involved, so publishing the contents in the internet for anybody to hear/see/download... well, that's VERY DIFFERENT to 'fair use' or 'personal use'.[/QUOTE]
(See also the above reply to JSS.)
From the viewpoint of the average Joe, your moral is no better than David Fuller's. And in some ways he's more honest than you are.
It's like the difference between a regular thief who works for himself (like you) and a mercenary who works for anybody who pays him (like David appears). With a mercenary you at least know what your paying for, and know not to trust him too much.
tcc · Member since
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]ParisNair wrote:[/b]
Breach of trust is really shameful. It affects my enjoyment of a share, when I come to know that promises and trust was broken while sharing the music.
This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.[/QUOTE]
And look at all the mp3 threads here now...
...you're welcome :-)
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
If you had the consent from the artist you would have a true gentleman's agreement, but now you're left with nothing more than honor among thieves.[/QUOTE]
So if someone legitimately purchases an acetate at an auction and does not distribute the musical content he is still a thief?
Why aren't you a professor of copyright law? They're clearly missing out.
Seriously - stop with the labels. You have no idea of the context in which any of these pieces of music were obtained.
If you assume by default that all acquisitions of unreleased music are synonymous with theft, then there is no thinking twice - you are a complete idiot.
Wilki Amieva · Member since
tero! 38531: I don't agree with YOUR opinions about what the average Joe thinks. I believe you're wrong. And I cannot be less interested in what YOU (under a Joe disguise) regard as moral or not, as it seems that YOU really have no idea what you're writing about.
Anyway, I'd like to remind you that morality (unlike ethics) is defined by a social agreement. The Fanthology has a mutual agreement, which was discussed and accepted by all its members -collectors and non-collectors- on an equal-rights basis. Again, there was no 'business' involved. It benefited us all; it did no harm to anybody. As a matter of fact, it was both moral and ethical.
But, if my memory does not fail me, we were discussing law here... So I'd like to establish that the Fanthology was 100% legal. Benefit is not the same as profit. What David Randolph Fuller is doing is NOT. Once again, you can like it or not. But that's the way it is.
john bodega · Member since
I'm sure the scumsucker laughs his arse off whenever a thread like this gets started because of his antics.
splicksplack · Member since
Listening to the little 'Smile' clip (which is obviously from a verse) it sounds like he's treading water.
Same 'up' title as 'Happiness?' juxtaposed against a melancholy piano-led backing. Then cue the drums.
It could be off 'Happiness?'.
If this is anything to go by we can only expect a rich old man's indulgent wank. Nothing new to see here.
I think Roger should pay David R Fuller and use the 'David R Fuller' bit all the way through. Really high up in the mix. That would be more interesting.
inu-liger · Member since
Not at all splicksplack, it's most certainly not off "Happiness?" at least as far as recording goes. Roger's vocal quality is definitely much more aged now and it matches that in the sample recording as opposed to his vocal quality of the Happiness/Electric Fire era, studio effects withstanding.
Whether it was written or not in the 90's is certainly up for debate, but my dollar is on it being written sometime in the past decade.
splicksplack · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]inu-liger wrote: [/b] Not at all splicksplack, it's most certainly not off "Happiness?" at least as far as recording goes. Roger's vocal quality is definitely much more aged now and it matches that in the sample recording as opposed to his vocal quality of the Happiness/Electric Fire era, studio effects withstanding.
Whether it was [i]written[/i] or not in the 90's is certainly up for debate, but my dollar is on it being written sometime in the past decade.[/QUOTE] What I meant to say (and didn't write it properly) was that it sounds like it [i]could[/i] have come off 'Happiness?' in terms of songwriting. I know it's a limited sample but I think we can get the idea.
I think (obviously without hearing the finished song) it sounds like he hasn't progressed. It's just more of the same and you could never say that of Queen pre '91. I honestly don't think Roger will better 'Happiness?'.
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]So if someone legitimately purchases an acetate at an auction and does not distribute the musical content he is still a thief?
Why aren't you a professor of copyright law? They're clearly missing out.
Seriously - stop with the labels. You have no idea of the context in which any of these pieces of music were obtained.
If you assume by default that all acquisitions of unreleased music are synonymous with theft, then there is no thinking twice - you are a complete idiot.[/QUOTE]
You can dress it up as nicely as you want, but it still comes down to the fact that you are making a personal gain from somebody else's work, and the only reason why the collectors get all worked up about David Fuller is because they are losing that personal gain.
An analogy in the financial world would be an investment banker loaning his customer's portfolio to make a personal profit on insider tips, and then getting a bit crossed when his colleague tells it all to the public.
The individual actions are perfectly legal, but the combination is dubious to say the least.
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]
I don't agree with YOUR opinions about what the average Joe thinks. I believe you're wrong. And I cannot be less interested in what YOU (under a Joe disguise) regard as moral or not, as it seems that YOU really have no idea what you're writing about.
Anyway, I'd like to remind you that morality (unlike ethics) is defined by a social agreement. The Fanthology a mutual agreement, which was discussed and accepted by all its members -collectors and non-collectors- on an equal-rights basis. Again, there was no 'business' involved. It benefited us all; it did no harm to anybody. As a matter of fact, it was both moral and ethical.
But, if my memory does not fail me, we were discussing law here... So I'd like to establish that the Fanthology was 100% legal. Benefit is not the same as profit. What David Randolph Fuller is doing is NOT. Once again, you can like it or not. But that's the way it is.[/QUOTE]
There's a simple test to the morality of your actions:
Send a letter to Brian's soapbox telling him that you have been trading with unreleased Queen material (detailing that you have demos, unreleased songs, rehearsals, etc.), say that you have started to second guess the morality of your actions, and agree to delete/destroy all the material if the original artist (Brian) says that he doesn't want it spreading around.
