I just wanted to say I have truly enjoyed reading John's posts over the years on Queenzone--let alone his quotes in Record Collector, etc.--and I have always thought they were factually true. I also wanted to say if we were all taken to task over the years for delivery or style on these boards, we would never exchange any information at all. It would be a shame to see Jphn holding back because it offends others' sensibilities.
And I also find it hard to believe that is Greg Brooks in those other threads.
Daniel Nester
http://www.godsavemyqueen.com
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I am not a member of Queen On-line. Far too prohibitive and Stepford for my tastes - but then again each to his. (Better to stick with Queenzone!)
That moderator - Kes: In reply to my answer answer:
"The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive."
Has come up with this wonderful bit of "Stepfordism"...
"His (notice he can't even bring himself to mention my name) argument falls flat on it's face by the inclusion on the boxset of f*ck knows how many tracks that also aren't written by Freddie, and especially those ones that are already written by Dave Clark. He owns the rights to his songs, not Cliff Richard, end of chat. And Dave Clark WAS active in remixing those tracks of his which did appear on the boxset. This guy @ QZ has good Queen knowledge, but not so good legal knowledge, and even less tact and diplomacy.
Could someone please inform him, or post over there (Jeffery) that the law works like this:
Dave Clark - It's his song. His writes. He would be allowed the cut of these profits.
Freddie Mercury: It's his voice. He would have to be paid a cut in accordance to his performing rights. Needless to say, Freddie (or his estate) would be also entitled to a one-off fee and royalties.
QP: Freddie was leased through both QP and EMI (or Hollywood in the USA), thus credits like "Freddie Mercury appears coutesy of EMI. Here EMI are being payed for the permission to use their star.
Cliff Richard: As above It's Cliff's voice. He would have to be paid a cut in accordance to his performing rights. Needless to say, Cliff (or his estate) would be also entitled to a one-off fee and royalties.
Cliff Richard's Recording company. (As with EMI above).
Now that's for starters. What happens next is a big fight between legal represntatives. Dave Clark's lawyers would want so much, Freddie's lawyers would want so much, Cliff's Lawyers would want so much - each fighting their own corner. Then the record companies argue about rights and who can play what where and they wrangle over things like territories and limitations and reprints and so on.
In the end - these parties could not agree with each other. Each left the table feeling it was a bad deal for them, and that the other guy was getting a bigger slice of the pie. Therefore legally no release.
That seems simple enough.
I have never met, spoken or known this KES guy, but could someone please let him know how it is (just keepin' it real) and that over on THIS station we are not sheep and are allowed to discuss such topics without being scolded for breaching the party line!
(Heavens above even GB could not argue the above - hence the spate of name-calling!).
That moderator - Kes: In reply to my answer answer:
"The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive."
Has come up with this wonderful bit of "Stepfordism"...
"His (notice he can't even bring himself to mention my name) argument falls flat on it's face by the inclusion on the boxset of f*ck knows how many tracks that also aren't written by Freddie, and especially those ones that are already written by Dave Clark. He owns the rights to his songs, not Cliff Richard, end of chat. And Dave Clark WAS active in remixing those tracks of his which did appear on the boxset. This guy @ QZ has good Queen knowledge, but not so good legal knowledge, and even less tact and diplomacy.
Could someone please inform him, or post over there (Jeffery) that the law works like this:
Dave Clark - It's his song. His writes. He would be allowed the cut of these profits.
Freddie Mercury: It's his voice. He would have to be paid a cut in accordance to his performing rights. Needless to say, Freddie (or his estate) would be also entitled to a one-off fee and royalties.
QP: Freddie was leased through both QP and EMI (or Hollywood in the USA), thus credits like "Freddie Mercury appears coutesy of EMI. Here EMI are being payed for the permission to use their star.
Cliff Richard: As above It's Cliff's voice. He would have to be paid a cut in accordance to his performing rights. Needless to say, Cliff (or his estate) would be also entitled to a one-off fee and royalties.
Cliff Richard's Recording company. (As with EMI above).
Now that's for starters. What happens next is a big fight between legal represntatives. Dave Clark's lawyers would want so much, Freddie's lawyers would want so much, Cliff's Lawyers would want so much - each fighting their own corner. Then the record companies argue about rights and who can play what where and they wrangle over things like territories and limitations and reprints and so on.
In the end - these parties could not agree with each other. Each left the table feeling it was a bad deal for them, and that the other guy was getting a bigger slice of the pie. Therefore legally no release.
That seems simple enough.
I have never met, spoken or known this KES guy, but could someone please let him know how it is (just keepin' it real) and that over on THIS station we are not sheep and are allowed to discuss such topics without being scolded for breaching the party line!
(Heavens above even GB could not argue the above - hence the spate of name-calling!).
I am not a member of Queen On-line. Far too prohibitive and Stepford for my tastes - but then again each to his. (Better to stick with Queenzone!)
Your opinion that QOL is "prohibitive and stepford" is complete and utter bollocks.
The opinions over there are as balanced and diverse as they are on here, there is little or no difference. The only thing that is prohibited, is the posting of links that lead to illegal downloads of copyrighted material (be fair, it is the official site)but that doesn't mean that we don't own them all, or don't talk about them.
To say that it is "stepford" is a bit odd too. Just about every Queen product and venture has been criticised in the past, as it has on here...no difference at all. Heaven knows where you get this idea that we have a "party line", but it is simply totally inaccurate.
I read somewhere that QZ has banned five people, but to my knowledge only one has ever been banned from QOL...so which site is it that is prohibitive exactly?
I read somewhere that QZ has banned five people, but to my knowledge only one has ever been banned from QOL...so which site is it that is prohibitive exactly?
Banned is different from having you speech censored, here you ca nspeak and what you truly feel, on QOL you risk the chance of it being mod, they simply give up since everything they post will be changed, here you dont have that, and only thing that takes effect is by banning, if we were able to chagne and mod what is being post, banned count would be lower.
Banned is different from having you speech censored, here you ca nspeak and what you truly feel, on QOL you risk the chance of it being mod, they simply give up since everything they post will be changed, here you dont have that, and only thing that takes effect is by banning, if we were able to chagne and mod what is being post, banned count would be lower.
I read somewhere that QZ has banned five people, but to my knowledge only one has ever been banned from QOL...so which site is it that is prohibitive exactly?
Banned is different from having you speech censored, here you ca nspeak and what you truly feel, on QOL you risk the chance of it being mod, they simply give up since everything they post will be changed, here you dont have that, and only thing that takes effect is by banning, if we were able to chagne and mod what is being post, banned count would be lower.
I'm sorry wstüssyb but you are wrong. I think this myth that QOL is heavily moderated is just that...a myth.
I think the only posts that are moderated are those that contain personal details of other posters. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do.
I've personally witnessed QOL moderation /censorship a while back on at least one occasion, but I forget the details. I recall Ming abusing his authority, and Kes appears to be another Ming Clone.
Was not one of Fatty's poems recently censored? (concerning Jake?)
I also recall that YV and Flashman have tales of censorship, although they may not rehash details.
Was not one of Fatty's poems recently censored? (concerning Jake?)
I also recall that YV and Flashman have tales of censorship, although they may not rehash details.
I've personally witnessed QOL moderation /censorship a while back on at least one occasion, but I forget the details. I recall Ming abusing his authority, and Kes appears to be another Ming Clone.
Was not one of Fatty's poems recently censored? (concerning Jake?)
I also recall that YV and Flashman have tales of censorship, although they may not rehash details.
Ming was never a moderator. In fact Ming was the person that was banned for alledgedly abusing personal details and posting them!
Kes has some strong opinions for sure, and he is sometimes criticised for his behaviour and attitude, (aren't we all) but abusing his authority? Do you have evidence of this?
I wasn't aware that any of Fatty's material had been censored, in fact Fatty is always made welcome at QOL. Perhaps the post that was supposedly deleted contained personal details?
I actually think QOL is quite good on freedom of speech for an official board, and the mods are held accountable for what they moderate. I believe it is policy to put the deleted material into a separate place so that a further decision can be taken on it. Honestly I think you guys have this wrong....but I am prepared to change my opinion if someone can provide recent evidence of something that was deleted for no apparent reason. I say recent, because in the beginning there might have some evidence of over-moderating...but that is to be expected on a new board.
Here are the QOL guidelines for anyone that is interested. I would be very interested in hearing of deleted or moderated posts that were not outside of these guidelines.
http://forums.queenonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=2096
http://forums.queenonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=2096
FD: Two points:
First: address the issue. It is wonderful how these issues are deflected by rubbish The issue is: "The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive. Yet, no one from seems to be able to address this to discssus it seriously. It's either hushed or trivialised.
Second: You are correct. I am NOT the one to say that Queen-on-line is over-rated - I "borrowed" that from the Queen-on-line clientelle...
http://forums.queenonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=14519&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=john+stuart&start=15
SParker: "Theres a lot of very interesting topics going on over there... more so than here I think. The "powers that be" don't have any control over there!"
(Nice to see that you have since deleted your OWN postings on that very thread!)
I can keep going if you like, but my point is that does not address the issue discussed, and such trivialisation is a smokescreen.
So there you have it - if Queen-on-line customers feel over-moderated - why take it out on me?
First: address the issue. It is wonderful how these issues are deflected by rubbish The issue is: "The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive. Yet, no one from seems to be able to address this to discssus it seriously. It's either hushed or trivialised.
Second: You are correct. I am NOT the one to say that Queen-on-line is over-rated - I "borrowed" that from the Queen-on-line clientelle...
http://forums.queenonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=14519&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=john+stuart&start=15
SParker: "Theres a lot of very interesting topics going on over there... more so than here I think. The "powers that be" don't have any control over there!"
(Nice to see that you have since deleted your OWN postings on that very thread!)
I can keep going if you like, but my point is that does not address the issue discussed, and such trivialisation is a smokescreen.
So there you have it - if Queen-on-line customers feel over-moderated - why take it out on me?
FD: Two points:
First: address the issue. It is wonderful how these issues are deflected by rubbish The issue is: "The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive. Yet, no one seems to be able to address this or seriously. It's either hushed or trivialised.
Second: You are correct. I am NOT the one to say that Queen-on-line is over-rated - I "borrowed" that from the Queen-on-line clientelle...
http://forums.queenonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=14519&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=john+stuart&start=15
SParker: "Theres a lot of very interesting topics going on over there... more so than here I think. The "powers that be" don't have any control over there!"
(Nice to see that you have since deleted your OWN postings on that very thread!)
I can keep going if you like, but my point is that does not address the issue discussed, and such trivialisation is a smokescreen.
So there you have it - if Queen-on-line customers feel over-moderated - why take it out on me?
John, you brought it up, not me. I have no reason to defend QOL, and certainly not in this topic until YOU mentioned it.
I can't comment on the other points you raised as I simply do not know who owns the tracks. I will say that I find the 'cost' issue of such tracks to be bizarre...who the hell wants them apart from us anyway! Surely this supergroup with their vast fortunes could get these if they so wanted?
I have NOT deleted any of my posts, and I do NOT feel we are over moderated at QOL, I hope I don't have to keep pressing these points to you. You feel that, not me...oh and I thought you were that poster known as S Parker (strange that he appeared on QOL to slam Greg just after this topic started, also strange that he rarely posts there...and it's even stranger that his Queen knowledge is huge just like yours, don't you agree?)
You have rightly got your support, from many at QZ, so don't go spoiling it by over doing it with the sympathy pleas, and false accusations that I am "taking it out on you" please.
You seem intent on now starting to divide the two boards by raising this topic again tonight (with the additional QOL put downs)...that's fine, if it makes you feel better, but don't try reverse the blame for it, if it does happen on to me.
Never heard of S Parker - and why would I use an alias? It is my "TRADEMARK" and the only thing that people know me by. I am proud of my name and never denied it.
I took this over to another thread because it does not fit in here.
Also - if you see other threads - I am all for "uniting" the boards and joing our resources together.
Edit: Just been to QOL FD and I disagree - that SParker seems a very decent chap! He wrote "That John Stuart character definitely knows his onions... and I think Greg Brooks resents it, hence his childish posts there"
http://forums.queenonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=14591
It definately is not me - but I like his thinking!
Why not invite him over here for a chat?
I took this over to another thread because it does not fit in here.
Also - if you see other threads - I am all for "uniting" the boards and joing our resources together.
Edit: Just been to QOL FD and I disagree - that SParker seems a very decent chap! He wrote "That John Stuart character definitely knows his onions... and I think Greg Brooks resents it, hence his childish posts there"
http://forums.queenonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=14591
It definately is not me - but I like his thinking!
Why not invite him over here for a chat?
Never heard of S Parker - and why would I use an alias? I am proud of my name and never denied it. It is the only thing that people know me by.
I took this over to another thread because it does not fit in here.
Also - if you see other threads - I am all for "uniting" the boards and joing our resources together.
John, so I am wrong, it happens. I honestly thought that S Parker was you. I thought it a long time ago too, not just because of this incident.
Anyway, can we bury this QOL part of the discussion (that you started) as I really don't want to get into it either.
Can I ask what your signature is? Is it part of a lyric?