Hello all,
I just read the thread about the "Teo Torriate" uploading/sharing or sending...which was condemned
Up to a point i easily agreed with this "Queenzone " policy ... but the average comment here is: don't upload/link/share official material which is fine with me
But now lets get a little bit more to the point.
As some of you know I started the hub using a disclaimer, but looking at the real "legal" issue of sharing live recordings it should be put in retrospective. Please read the following carefully and then research yourself ...
Definitions
Here are the proper definitions of the terms according to American Heritage dictionary:
Copy: a reproduction of the original
Pirate: the use of stolen intellectual property of another
Counterfeit: an inferior duplication made to defraud
Bootleg: Product produced without permission
source: http://www.bobsboots.com/boot.html
" Bootleg recordings are musical recordings that have not been officially released by the artist or their associated management or production companies. They may consist of demos, outtakes or other studio material, or of illicit recordings of live performances. Music enthusiasts may use the term "bootleg" to difsupidferentiate these otherwise unavailable recordings from "pirated" copies of commercially released material, but these recordings are still protected by copyright despite their lack of formal release, and their disstupidtribution is still against the law"
source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
and:
"The slang term bootleg (derived from the use of the shank of a boot for the purposes of smuggling) is often used to describe illicitly copied material.
"In December, 1994, Congress changed the law of unrecorded music performances when it passed The Uruguay Round Agreements Act. This act included a new provision, which prohibited the recording of live musical performances (that is, bootleg copies) even when there was no other "fixation" of the work. This provision includes separate prohibitions against the distribution and transmission of bootleg copies. In fact, the prohibition against transmission does not even require that a physical copy of the performance ever be made. While this act appears to create an exception to the fixation requirement for copyright, it is probably best understood as an independent right that is similar to copyright, but is not copyright."
source : http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html
So from a real "legal" point of view , are we not all wrong anyway by also allowing "bootleg live recordings" to be downloaded?
It is so easy to say "Hey that is offical stuff, remove the link" ... but looking at this closely even sharing/distributing "bootlegs" of live recordings is a copyright infringment ...
I would like to see someone to have counter arguments to let us see what is indeed legal or illegal
Stefan
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Good point... about the legal stuff, probably a lawyer, expert in music stuff will be helpfull.
Sometimes it's better not to look too closely, not discuss too much and not to wake the "sleeping lion". Personally, I trust Richard's judgement and his years of experience in dealing with the issue.
the thing is that most of the people are "dishing" on the people who are sharing "offical" material, while in fact any "bootleg" material of Queen (and related) is subject to copyright infringment...
I am only concerned that legally Queenzone is over the edge, and in due time someone/some organisation might complain ... And what do or can we say then?
YV ... it is ok for me to keep things quiet, but why
stop people from sharing official material now, while bootleg stuff can be seen in the same light ...
Instead of keeping it quiet, wouldnt it be more wise to find out how to protect Queenzone? One day, this site might or will be shut down due to the legal stuff I presented in my first post... To avoid this, it is better to discuss this!
And concerning the people who share official material , why would we deny them to upload/share or trade official material then?
Just wondering what are the arguments to judge the people who upload "official" material, while the bootlegs are being considered (according to copyright law) as the same?
Stefan
I am only concerned that legally Queenzone is over the edge, and in due time someone/some organisation might complain ... And what do or can we say then?
YV ... it is ok for me to keep things quiet, but why
stop people from sharing official material now, while bootleg stuff can be seen in the same light ...
Instead of keeping it quiet, wouldnt it be more wise to find out how to protect Queenzone? One day, this site might or will be shut down due to the legal stuff I presented in my first post... To avoid this, it is better to discuss this!
And concerning the people who share official material , why would we deny them to upload/share or trade official material then?
Just wondering what are the arguments to judge the people who upload "official" material, while the bootlegs are being considered (according to copyright law) as the same?
Stefan
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]TRS-Romania wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hello all,
I just read the thread about the "Teo Torriate" uploading/sharing or sending...which was condemned
Up to a point i easily agreed with this "Queenzone " policy ... but the average comment here is: don't upload/link/share official material which is fine with me
But now lets get a little bit more to the point.
As some of you know I started the hub using a disclaimer, but looking at the real "legal" issue of sharing live recordings it should be put in retrospective. Please read the following carefully and then research yourself ...
Definitions
Here are the proper definitions of the terms according to American Heritage dictionary:
Copy: a reproduction of the original
Pirate: the use of stolen intellectual property of another
Counterfeit: an inferior duplication made to defraud
Bootleg: Product produced without permission
source: http://www.bobsboots.com/boot.html
" Bootleg recordings are musical recordings that have not been officially released by the artist or their associated management or production companies. They may consist of demos, outtakes or other studio material, or of illicit recordings of live performances. Music enthusiasts may use the term "bootleg" to difsupidferentiate these otherwise unavailable recordings from "pirated" copies of commercially released material, but these recordings are still protected by copyright despite their lack of formal release, and their disstupidtribution is still against the law"
source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
and:
"The slang term bootleg (derived from the use of the shank of a boot for the purposes of smuggling) is often used to describe illicitly copied material.
"In December, 1994, Congress changed the law of unrecorded music performances when it passed The Uruguay Round Agreements Act. This act included a new provision, which prohibited the recording of live musical performances (that is, bootleg copies) even when there was no other "fixation" of the work. This provision includes separate prohibitions against the distribution and transmission of bootleg copies. In fact, the prohibition against transmission does not even require that a physical copy of the performance ever be made. While this act appears to create an exception to the fixation requirement for copyright, it is probably best understood as an independent right that is similar to copyright, but is not copyright."
source : http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html
So from a real "legal" point of view , are we not all wrong anyway by also allowing "bootleg live recordings" to be downloaded?
It is so easy to say "Hey that is offical stuff, remove the link" ... but looking at this closely even sharing/distributing "bootlegs" of live recordings is a copyright infringment ...
I would like to see someone to have counter arguments to let us see what is indeed legal or illegal
Stefan
[/QUOTE]
While technically correct, trading and allowing fans to download boots from concerts without making a profit is brushed under the rug with a wink and a nod.
However, doing that on a website such as ours with copyrighted, officially released material in a completely different matter, and a thing that simply cannot happen here.
IE, if I record the next Q+PR show, and share it here, there are no problems, in fact, it is probably enouraged. If I did the same with Live At Wembley, it opens us up for legal problems.
I just read the thread about the "Teo Torriate" uploading/sharing or sending...which was condemned
Up to a point i easily agreed with this "Queenzone " policy ... but the average comment here is: don't upload/link/share official material which is fine with me
But now lets get a little bit more to the point.
As some of you know I started the hub using a disclaimer, but looking at the real "legal" issue of sharing live recordings it should be put in retrospective. Please read the following carefully and then research yourself ...
Definitions
Here are the proper definitions of the terms according to American Heritage dictionary:
Copy: a reproduction of the original
Pirate: the use of stolen intellectual property of another
Counterfeit: an inferior duplication made to defraud
Bootleg: Product produced without permission
source: http://www.bobsboots.com/boot.html
" Bootleg recordings are musical recordings that have not been officially released by the artist or their associated management or production companies. They may consist of demos, outtakes or other studio material, or of illicit recordings of live performances. Music enthusiasts may use the term "bootleg" to difsupidferentiate these otherwise unavailable recordings from "pirated" copies of commercially released material, but these recordings are still protected by copyright despite their lack of formal release, and their disstupidtribution is still against the law"
source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
and:
"The slang term bootleg (derived from the use of the shank of a boot for the purposes of smuggling) is often used to describe illicitly copied material.
"In December, 1994, Congress changed the law of unrecorded music performances when it passed The Uruguay Round Agreements Act. This act included a new provision, which prohibited the recording of live musical performances (that is, bootleg copies) even when there was no other "fixation" of the work. This provision includes separate prohibitions against the distribution and transmission of bootleg copies. In fact, the prohibition against transmission does not even require that a physical copy of the performance ever be made. While this act appears to create an exception to the fixation requirement for copyright, it is probably best understood as an independent right that is similar to copyright, but is not copyright."
source : http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html
So from a real "legal" point of view , are we not all wrong anyway by also allowing "bootleg live recordings" to be downloaded?
It is so easy to say "Hey that is offical stuff, remove the link" ... but looking at this closely even sharing/distributing "bootlegs" of live recordings is a copyright infringment ...
I would like to see someone to have counter arguments to let us see what is indeed legal or illegal
Stefan
[/QUOTE]
While technically correct, trading and allowing fans to download boots from concerts without making a profit is brushed under the rug with a wink and a nod.
However, doing that on a website such as ours with copyrighted, officially released material in a completely different matter, and a thing that simply cannot happen here.
IE, if I record the next Q+PR show, and share it here, there are no problems, in fact, it is probably enouraged. If I did the same with Live At Wembley, it opens us up for legal problems.
to respond to your quote
"IE, if I record the next Q+PR show, and share it here, there are no problems, in fact, it is probably enouraged. If I did the same with Live At Wembley, it opens us up for legal problems"
You might try it , or do it or have done it, there are legally still problems. Of course in general the artists won't mind. I am only pointing out (again) to be careful with how we express what is "legal" and "illegal" ...
Just my point of view!
"IE, if I record the next Q+PR show, and share it here, there are no problems, in fact, it is probably enouraged. If I did the same with Live At Wembley, it opens us up for legal problems"
You might try it , or do it or have done it, there are legally still problems. Of course in general the artists won't mind. I am only pointing out (again) to be careful with how we express what is "legal" and "illegal" ...
Just my point of view!
You will also know then that a "copyright" can only exist on FIXED work.
i.e,books ,studio recorded work & officially released live recordings etc.
If a "live version" is recorded & is different to the fixed work,it carries NO copyright.....the taper will have more rights to it than the actual artist even though i doubt the taper would jump in the air for royalties.
That is from a September 04 US court ruling on a company selling live recordings in NY
i.e,books ,studio recorded work & officially released live recordings etc.
If a "live version" is recorded & is different to the fixed work,it carries NO copyright.....the taper will have more rights to it than the actual artist even though i doubt the taper would jump in the air for royalties.
That is from a September 04 US court ruling on a company selling live recordings in NY
The truth is that copyright infringement it is not the problem here. Even a record company such as EMI would have trouble trying to close this site on that basis, as there are a lot of legal allowances and every place in the world has its own view about them. Also there are a lot of restrictions which simply are never applied because they are not considered legitimate by most of the population (e.g: it can be "illegal" even to use the I Want It All picture on the QUEENZone banner, but who cares?). The bottom line is that if there is no harm that could be stablished, there is no case.
P.S. edited-in for the reverse-readers:
QUEENZone rules are not made to assure the legality of the material here. Thay are handy to prevent the harm. But we are pretty safe if we commit to just that.
P.S. edited-in for the reverse-readers:
QUEENZone rules are not made to assure the legality of the material here. Thay are handy to prevent the harm. But we are pretty safe if we commit to just that.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wilki wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The truth is that copyright infringement it is not the problem here. Even a record company such as EMI would have trouble trying to close this site on that basis, as there are a lot of legal allowances and every place in the world has its own view about them. Also there are a lot of restrictions which simply are never applied because they are not considered legitimate by most of the population (e.g: it can be "illegal" even to use the I Want It All picture on the QUEENZone banner, but who cares?). The bottom line is that if there is no harm that could be stablished, there is no case.[/QUOTE]Harm is established when recordings are released for the purpose of making money and someone uploads it here in QZ for free sharing. Richard's rule are extremely simple and no further issues should be made of them. As far as bootlegs from Queen productions is concerned, their purpose of releasing those concerts are to stop bootleggers from ripping people off by selling "Better Quality" recordings AHEM COUGH. Richard doesn't have problems with those shows being share on HIS site.
Also remember, Queen benefits from popular sites such as this one so they will have a certain level of tolerance when it comes to sharing here.
Just stick to the rules and we'll all be fine here. =)
Also remember, Queen benefits from popular sites such as this one so they will have a certain level of tolerance when it comes to sharing here.
Just stick to the rules and we'll all be fine here. =)
I'm pretty sure that in the USA at least, courts have upheld the right to legally distribute illegally recorded live concerts as long as they are traded or given freely, not sold for profit
additionally, with all the industry's piracy worries, they dont have time, resources, or desire to go after bootlegs
additionally, with all the industry's piracy worries, they dont have time, resources, or desire to go after bootlegs
I think one thing we may be missing here is the band's attitude to bootlegs (the live stuff).
The Grateful Dead used to have a bootlegger's enclosure. U2 actively encourage bootleggers. A friend of mine is into the Damned (yeah, them, yeah you remember...) and has helped compile a gig history for the band based on his bootleg collection.
Whereas a few months ago, I put a Tom Waits bootleg on ebay and his representatives "the Reed Group" had it removed that day.
I understand the difference - I was selling something that believe it or not, I had actually bought off ebay a few months previously.
But I think unless a band puts its virtual rottweilers on to sites like this and others, you're going to pretty safe as long as you stay away from the official stuff.
I mean lets be honest - I'm sure Brian (geek that he appears to be) has browsed this site. And if not he, then someone close to him. If the shows you have on here are so offensive, the site would have been closed ages ago.
And if worse comes to worst, and the site DOES have to stop the trading end of things, sure, what odds?
At least it'll keep the "don't you dare post that really rare 8 seconds of Super 8 from Khazakstan 74" freaks happy.
The Grateful Dead used to have a bootlegger's enclosure. U2 actively encourage bootleggers. A friend of mine is into the Damned (yeah, them, yeah you remember...) and has helped compile a gig history for the band based on his bootleg collection.
Whereas a few months ago, I put a Tom Waits bootleg on ebay and his representatives "the Reed Group" had it removed that day.
I understand the difference - I was selling something that believe it or not, I had actually bought off ebay a few months previously.
But I think unless a band puts its virtual rottweilers on to sites like this and others, you're going to pretty safe as long as you stay away from the official stuff.
I mean lets be honest - I'm sure Brian (geek that he appears to be) has browsed this site. And if not he, then someone close to him. If the shows you have on here are so offensive, the site would have been closed ages ago.
And if worse comes to worst, and the site DOES have to stop the trading end of things, sure, what odds?
At least it'll keep the "don't you dare post that really rare 8 seconds of Super 8 from Khazakstan 74" freaks happy.
We may be legally wrong for obtaining bootlegs, but the lazy bloated music industry ignores many of their customers. Bootleg sharing fills the gaping hole left by the music industry without hurting (but maybe helping??) the overall bottom line of the music industry.
I think (hope) that if the music industry takes a hard line, they will instead get tougher on those who partake in pirated official product. Thus, Queenzone probably should get some warning if the music industry takes a hardline, BUT only if people refrain from sharing official material. The fact that Queenzone also does not allow sharing of out of print official material should also offer some "insurance" against the music industry taking a hard line on bootlegs.
I think (hope) that if the music industry takes a hard line, they will instead get tougher on those who partake in pirated official product. Thus, Queenzone probably should get some warning if the music industry takes a hardline, BUT only if people refrain from sharing official material. The fact that Queenzone also does not allow sharing of out of print official material should also offer some "insurance" against the music industry taking a hard line on bootlegs.
Actually there is a pretty easy way to stop bootleggers (at least for concerts from current and future tours).
Look what Metallica did, they simply created a web site from which you can download a soundboard copy of any concert from that tour the day after it has been played. You can even choose between mp3 and flac version.
Look what Metallica did, they simply created a web site from which you can download a soundboard copy of any concert from that tour the day after it has been played. You can even choose between mp3 and flac version.
My opinion is most of the live bootlegs put up here break the law due to the inclusion of the God Save The Queen track played at the end of each show. This track is official so should really be deleted from whatever is being uploaded. Having said this, if you didn't include this particular track then it's not the full show.
I talked to a copyright lawyer and he said upload everything. Including Face it Alone.