Selling Queen Demoes & Rarities (David R Fuller, and the like)

[QUOTE]

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

I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.[/QUOTE]

One thing most people don't realize is that not every unreleased recording is obtained illegally.

Many are, yes - but not all.

Therefore in many cases the *physical product* is legally owned by someone, while the music contained therein may not be. And if it contains a song that was never released, there is no licensing and no publishing deal in place - therefore the physical product and the art contained therein can be owned by someone who did not create it, and perfectly legally.

So, in short - not all unreleased recordings circumvent law.

As soon as this piece of binary thinking is removed from the equation, only then can an actual discussion begin.

Until then, there are two completely different languages being spoken here.[/QUOTE]

You say "the art contained therein can be owned by someone who did not create it, and perfectly legally".

No it can not. "The art' is automatically copyrighted to the creator the second it has been created, published or not. From that point on they only have to prove that it is their copyright if the need arises - e.g. in court.

Now, as one of the biggest music concerns on the planet I would imagine that Queen (and J Beach) would have all those bases adequately covered including any unreleased, unpublished and unlicensed material emanating from the studio (and quite possibly anywhere else including there mouths, fingers, instruments etc).

They then have a claim on whoever is using that work, especially when a value is attached to it - e.g. in a trading transaction.

[b][i]The only thing that would make this legal would be express consent from (in this case) QPL to trade or share. Because they own the copyright on the material, published or not.[/i][/b]

Even if it was a legal copy of a Sheer Heart Attack CD you are not at liberty to trade it if you retain your own copy, say as an mp3. So what makes you think that it's OK to trade/share unreleased private copyrighted material even if it was just within your closed group?

[QUOTE]

[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]tero! 48531 wrote: [/b] So... How many members of the fanthology (or anybode else in here) is in possession of tracks recorded at a Queen convention? You know, the ones that were forbidden to be recorded, and have copyright announcements over them?

Anybody in possession of such a track is really in no position to critisise David Fuller for breaking an agreement or for distributing material without the artist's consent.

Not me bud; I've never been![/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Tero clearly asks who is in "possession" of such tracks. You do not have to have attended a convention to be in possession of the tracks in question.

Yet another example of evading the crux of the argument

[QUOTE]

[b]splicksplack wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]tero! 48531 wrote: [/b] So... How many members of the fanthology (or anybode else in here) is in possession of tracks recorded at a Queen convention? You know, the ones that were forbidden to be recorded, and have copyright announcements over them?

Anybody in possession of such a track is really in no position to critisise David Fuller for breaking an agreement or for distributing material without the artist's consent.

Not me bud; I've never been![/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Tero clearly asks who is in "possession" of such tracks. You do not have to have attended a convention to be in possession of the tracks in question.

Yet another example of evading the crux of the argument

I thought I had answered tero's question: but obviously you seem to be itching for some sort of argumentaive stance. So  just for [b]you[/b] - I do [b][i]not[/i][/b] own such material because I prefer quality over quantity. But yes; I do know where to get it - if I wanted it.

  There are many in here who will vouch for the fact that such stuff does not interest me; and every time I have been offered such material, I have graciously declined. The reason I say that; is that you obviously do not agree with anything that is outside your limited sphere of knowledge.

Now then to bat back at you: Do you own such material? Do you possess any musical tracks or AVI movies which were illegally downloaded (By any I mean exactly that - [b]any[/b] - not just Queen)? I just wonder if you are coming from a purely puritanical angle?[/QUOTE]

I dunno. I can't keep up with this topic, not even remotely.

If QPL didn't want Dave R Fuller's channel around anymore, it'd have to be an epic tale of ineptitude on their part that it's still live. My guess is GB was just trying to be funny.

The reason I entered this discussion is because it appeared to me (and still does) that there are double standards at work.

Some people are accusing Fuller of illegality when, by their trading of unreleased copyrighted work, are involved in illegal acts themselves.

As I said, without the express consent of QPL, this activity is illegal. The degree of illegality is immaterial.

I think Mr. Stuart may now be tacitly accepting this since he has changed tact from calling my view "bollox" to "puritanical".

And, for the record, as I have no idea what Mr. Stuart or anyone else has in their collection, I am not personally accusing anyone. I'm saying that IF you trade unreleased copyrighted material then it is illegal.

That is not puritanical, it is fact.

Have I ever downloaded music illegally? Yes, but I'm not throwing stones in glass houses. (BTW, I am not interested in unreleased material and do not have or want any. And I don't know what AVI means).

The reason I picked up on the Tero comment was to illustrate Mr. Stuarts failure to clearly engage in discussion but rather to give an answer to suit his own ends.

That and his fondness for arbitrary insults is a kind of pinball strategy for evading and confusing the issue at hand.

So I'll leave this topic now and let Mr. Stuart rip me apart to his heart's content.

I have to get back to my studies (did I mention that I'm a mature student over half way through a law degree? If anyone wants to check the Copyright law, just ask a lawyer friend to access LexisLaw or some other law library and they can look it up for you, and please, if you find I am wrong then let me know quoting the relevant Statute and section ;) ).

[QUOTE]

[b]splicksplack wrote: [/b] The reason I entered this discussion is because it appeared to me (and still does) that there are double standards at work.

Some people are accusing Fuller of illegality when, by their trading of unreleased copyrighted work, are involved in illegal acts themselves.

As I said, without the express consent of QPL, this activity is illegal. The degree of illegality is immaterial.

I think Mr. Stuart may now be tacitly be accepting this since he has changed tact from calling my view "bollox" to "puritanical".

And, for the record, as I have no idea what Mr. Stuart or anyone else has in their collection, I am not personally accusing anyone. I'm saying that IF you trade unreleased copyrighted material then it is illegal.

That is not puritanical, it is fact.

Have I ever downloaded music illegally? Yes, but I'm not throwing stones in glass houses. (BTW, I am not interested in unreleased material and do not have or want any. And I don't know what AVI means).

The reason I picked up on the Tero comment was to illustrate Mr. Stuarts failure to clearly engage in discussion but rather to give an answer to suit his own ends.

That and his fondness for arbitrary insults is a kind of pinball strategy for evading and confusing the issue at hand.

So I'll leave this topic now and let Mr. Stuart rip me apart to his heart's content.

I have to get back to my studies (did I mention that I'm a mature student over half way through a law degree?). 

[b]John S. Stuart:[/b]  If you are half-way through a law degree - and you hope to graduate - [b]DO NOT[/b] put words (or illusionary meanings) into the mouths of other people. I was asking if your stance was puritanical - because I thought you were being self-righteous and hypocritical  - and were indeed throwing stones while living in a glass house. But this does not mean I have changed my mind in the slightest. I still think your view is bollox - as you really have no idea what you talk of.

But for the record, I wanted to know [i][b]why[/b][/i] you are talking bollox. Is it...

A:  You do indeed have a puritanical view of life and live hoiler than the rest of us?
B:  You - yourself are hypocritical - ie " you are indeed the pot who calls the kettle black"?
C:  You are ignorant of things you do not know about?
D:  You are misinformed - (that is partially informed - but not as informed as you think you are).

But please do not string bits of phrases to suit your own binary thinking; and make it look like I may be changing tact, because that as you know, is unfair and does not reflect the truth of the situation.

PS: My own personal reasons for arbitary insults has nothing to do with "pinball strateg(ies) or confusing issues": Rather it is because I am getting older and grumpier and I [i]have very little tolerance for stupid people.

It is nothing personal - so for that I wish to apologise.

[b]But there is only so much twisted logic one can endure before saying "enough is enough - and which part of "No" - or "that there are no double standards at work here"; is it that someone fails to understand?[/b]
[/i]
[/QUOTE]

One thing I would like to mention about the whole selling recordings and stuff... This has been happening for decades!

I'm not trying to justify it, nor do I pick a side. I just want to make clear that this is nothing new. Only, because David posts this on a public website, people go all crazy and shit.

There are 1000s of people selling this kind of stuff of every band worth collecting. You think this didn't happen in the 70s or 80s? Wrong...

Just my two cents...

"Listen to them. Creatures of the night. What music they make..."

Is this sig u use meant to insinuate you have a recording of Freddie singing creatures of the night from phantom of the opera in a cupboard recorded secretly with a leg horn?

[QUOTE]

[b]AdamMethos wrote: [/b] I haven't sent him any money but I'm curious, if Fuller wasn't selling the recordings but just releasing them to share with fans, would that make it OK? By OK, I mean that while QPL would prefer that the recordings hadn't got out in the first place (understandably so!), QPL would still turn a blind eye as long as no one is profiting from the releases?[/QUOTE]

NO. Let me make myself clear... though I thought I already had. Never mind: I'm happy to labour the point.

QPL would like all such examples of stolen Queen property illegally uploaded anywhere at all, to be removed.  ALL examples.  It doesn't matter if fans pay for them or not, that's irrelevant. 

David Fuller just happens to be the guy who's most blatantly, most non-subtly, and most 'in-your-face-ally' ripping the fans off with most frequency - as if he somehow thinks himself insulated from prosecution, and like it's HIS property. 

QPL is removing ALL such examples of this from YouTube, and elsewhere, regardless of who has uploaded it. There is no turning a blind eye to anyone. David Fuller is just one of many people whose youtube account has been, or will be, terminated - through their own selfish and illegal acts.

[QUOTE]

[b]RMTaylorBest wrote: [/b] You don't let us hear Queen rarities, so You are stealing that music to us who spent all the money for Queen stuff !!
I gave queen all my childhood money and i am still giving...so i have the right to be given some rare stuff, in any way !!!

And the band can be sure that we understand that mistakes or strange songs are due to good reasons.

Give us Queen bits, c'mon c'mon c'mon !![/QUOTE]

IMBECILE!

Is this really remaining Queens choice for representation???

"QPL is removing ALL such examples of this from YouTube, and elsewhere, regardless of who has uploaded it. There is no turning a blind eye to anyone. David Fuller is just one of many people whose youtube account has been, or will be, terminated - through their own selfish and illegal acts"

Assuming you get around to this (knowing QPL it might take a few years), I hope you don't do what most copyright owners do after a takedown. Usually they slap their hands together and go "We sure showed HIM!", and then a month later the guy skulks back and reuploads everything without any punishment at all.

If you're going to nuke the guy, make sure you nuke any roaches that scuttle out afterwards too.

QPL position- as I see it:
What sense release the concerts 70th if they do have bootlegs and they`re happy with it?
What sense now release long promised box set demos, it will not pay off?
Better 100 times reissue studio discography, because the fans anyway will buy everything and they will ask supplements.
Better 100 times sell Wembley. No headaches, because with concerts 70th such confusion and unnecessary headache.

[QUOTE]

[b]rocknrolllover wrote: [/b] QPL position- as I see it:
What sense release the concerts 70th if they do have bootlegs and they`re happy with it?
What sense now release long promised box set demos, it will not pay off?
Better 100 times reissue studio discography, because the fans anyway will buy everything and they will ask supplements.
Better 100 times sell Wembley. No headaches, because with concerts 70th such confusion and unnecessary headache.[/QUOTE] Dave Fuller is hero.. Thanks to him, we heard face it alone[/b] and etc......