[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's all illegal. Bootlegs are the property of the artists, no matter who recorded them. At least - that's how it is here.
Most artists turn a blind eye unless money is being made. Shit, Live Aid wasn't going to be released ever until Bob Geldof saw the amount of profit being made off it.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. EVERYTHING shared here on QZ is ILLEGAL. EVERYTHING. The only difference between sharing Hammersmith 75 and sharing 'A night at the opera' is that the first one can be tollerated by the artist / record company, the second one is not.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pittrek wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's all illegal. Bootlegs are the property of the artists, no matter who recorded them. At least - that's how it is here.
Most artists turn a blind eye unless money is being made. Shit, Live Aid wasn't going to be released ever until Bob Geldof saw the amount of profit being made off it.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. EVERYTHING shared here on QZ is ILLEGAL. EVERYTHING. The only difference between sharing Hammersmith 75 and sharing 'A night at the opera' is that the first one can be tollerated by the artist / record company, the second one is not.[/QUOTE]
Crap...if it dont have a copyright its not illegal & copyright can only exist on FIXED works....that was the cloak for the artists.
LIVE is NOT a fixed work unless it is officially released & even then it would only be THAT live performance.
Any other live performance that differs in any way to the FIXED work is basically up for grabs.
The owner is the holder.
Here's one for you.......The Pink Floyd PULSE DVD has a bonus section called bootlegging the bootleggers.
Now a particular song,namly "Marooned" ,is on that & David Gilmour had to get permission from the taper to put it on the DVD...yet he played it...lol
It wasn't copyright work you see.
The old saying is that if you do not own the masters....then the masters own you.
Most artists turn a blind eye unless money is being made. Shit, Live Aid wasn't going to be released ever until Bob Geldof saw the amount of profit being made off it.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. EVERYTHING shared here on QZ is ILLEGAL. EVERYTHING. The only difference between sharing Hammersmith 75 and sharing 'A night at the opera' is that the first one can be tollerated by the artist / record company, the second one is not.[/QUOTE]
Crap...if it dont have a copyright its not illegal & copyright can only exist on FIXED works....that was the cloak for the artists.
LIVE is NOT a fixed work unless it is officially released & even then it would only be THAT live performance.
Any other live performance that differs in any way to the FIXED work is basically up for grabs.
The owner is the holder.
Here's one for you.......The Pink Floyd PULSE DVD has a bonus section called bootlegging the bootleggers.
Now a particular song,namly "Marooned" ,is on that & David Gilmour had to get permission from the taper to put it on the DVD...yet he played it...lol
It wasn't copyright work you see.
The old saying is that if you do not own the masters....then the masters own you.
A big website like QZ is a promotion for a band and there is not really an antagonism between QP and Queenzone, it's quite the contrary. Queen are not a band who persecute their fans, in fact they are quite liberal, just look at queencollector.com, for example. If they allow us to share unreleased material here on Queenzone, it's our turn to not hurt their interests and share official stuff. It's true that "official" is not the same as "available" but it's better to not share any official material than to risk the ability to share non-official material.
The hub is not a part of Queenzone at all. The hub owner is responsible for its content. However, official material is not allowed in the hub, either. It's easier to monitor a forum like this than the sharing lists of hub users but they are monitored and official stuff must be removed.
The hub is not a part of Queenzone at all. The hub owner is responsible for its content. However, official material is not allowed in the hub, either. It's easier to monitor a forum like this than the sharing lists of hub users but they are monitored and official stuff must be removed.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]928 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pittrek wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's all illegal. Bootlegs are the property of the artists, no matter who recorded them. At least - that's how it is here.
Most artists turn a blind eye unless money is being made. Shit, Live Aid wasn't going to be released ever until Bob Geldof saw the amount of profit being made off it.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. EVERYTHING shared here on QZ is ILLEGAL. EVERYTHING. The only difference between sharing Hammersmith 75 and sharing 'A night at the opera' is that the first one can be tollerated by the artist / record company, the second one is not.[/QUOTE]
Crap...if it dont have a copyright its not illegal & copyright can only exist on FIXED works....that was the cloak for the artists.
LIVE is NOT a fixed work unless it is officially released & even then it would only be THAT live performance.
Any other live performance that differs in any way to the FIXED work is basically up for grabs.
The owner is the holder.
Here's one for you.......The Pink Floyd PULSE DVD has a bonus section called bootlegging the bootleggers.
Now a particular song,namly "Marooned" ,is on that & David Gilmour had to get permission from the taper to put it on the DVD...yet he played it...lol
It wasn't copyright work you see.
The old saying is that if you do not own the masters....then the masters own you.[/QUOTE]
Must be a regional thing - I did copyright last year and the law says otherwise. Hmmm!!
Most artists turn a blind eye unless money is being made. Shit, Live Aid wasn't going to be released ever until Bob Geldof saw the amount of profit being made off it.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. EVERYTHING shared here on QZ is ILLEGAL. EVERYTHING. The only difference between sharing Hammersmith 75 and sharing 'A night at the opera' is that the first one can be tollerated by the artist / record company, the second one is not.[/QUOTE]
Crap...if it dont have a copyright its not illegal & copyright can only exist on FIXED works....that was the cloak for the artists.
LIVE is NOT a fixed work unless it is officially released & even then it would only be THAT live performance.
Any other live performance that differs in any way to the FIXED work is basically up for grabs.
The owner is the holder.
Here's one for you.......The Pink Floyd PULSE DVD has a bonus section called bootlegging the bootleggers.
Now a particular song,namly "Marooned" ,is on that & David Gilmour had to get permission from the taper to put it on the DVD...yet he played it...lol
It wasn't copyright work you see.
The old saying is that if you do not own the masters....then the masters own you.[/QUOTE]
Must be a regional thing - I did copyright last year and the law says otherwise. Hmmm!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]928 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Crap...if it dont have a copyright its not illegal & copyright can only exist on FIXED works....that was the cloak for the artists.
LIVE is NOT a fixed work unless it is officially released & even then it would only be THAT live performance.
Any other live performance that differs in any way to the FIXED work is basically up for grabs.
The owner is the holder.
Here's one for you.......The Pink Floyd PULSE DVD has a bonus section called bootlegging the bootleggers.
Now a particular song,namly "Marooned" ,is on that & David Gilmour had to get permission from the taper to put it on the DVD...yet he played it...lol
It wasn't copyright work you see.
The old saying is that if you do not own the masters....then the masters own you.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I want to live in a country with such nice laws :-) But for example czechs have it worse, as I've heard according to new czech laws it is illegal even to listen a bootleg, or even talking about having it publicly. The worst law ever
Crap...if it dont have a copyright its not illegal & copyright can only exist on FIXED works....that was the cloak for the artists.
LIVE is NOT a fixed work unless it is officially released & even then it would only be THAT live performance.
Any other live performance that differs in any way to the FIXED work is basically up for grabs.
The owner is the holder.
Here's one for you.......The Pink Floyd PULSE DVD has a bonus section called bootlegging the bootleggers.
Now a particular song,namly "Marooned" ,is on that & David Gilmour had to get permission from the taper to put it on the DVD...yet he played it...lol
It wasn't copyright work you see.
The old saying is that if you do not own the masters....then the masters own you.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I want to live in a country with such nice laws :-) But for example czechs have it worse, as I've heard according to new czech laws it is illegal even to listen a bootleg, or even talking about having it publicly. The worst law ever
Oh, but official stuff IS shared in the hub. Not the big worldwide releases or main albums, but stuff like Live in Rio, Final Live in Japan, vinyl single recordings, The Eye. It's not really a secret. Not only my own sources have told me and even shown me search results, but people mention it all the time around here.. the most recent example I can think of is someone mentioning finding The Eye there and it not being in the format they wanted.
And I never said it was part of Queenzone, but it's promoted here heavily.
I'm only trying to counter the harshness of replies when someone asks for a b-side or something.. they get their heads ripped off on the forum, when they could easily find it on the hub, probably shared by the same people who rip the heads off of people. I don't like seeing people treated so badly, especially when it's two-faced.
And I never said it was part of Queenzone, but it's promoted here heavily.
I'm only trying to counter the harshness of replies when someone asks for a b-side or something.. they get their heads ripped off on the forum, when they could easily find it on the hub, probably shared by the same people who rip the heads off of people. I don't like seeing people treated so badly, especially when it's two-faced.
I am not in favour of ripping peoples' heads off :) We are all in the same boat, so why not be polite to each other. I do not believe that hub users are more outspoken in this forum than non-users, so I do not see any hypocrisy there.
I do not think it's very friendly to criticise the hub in public when you are not a user yourself. The hub is a much smaller group of people and they have rules that are in accordance with the laws of the hub owner's country.
I do not think it's very friendly to criticise the hub in public when you are not a user yourself. The hub is a much smaller group of people and they have rules that are in accordance with the laws of the hub owner's country.
pittrek - that is bullshit :-) Our laws are very similar to the rest of Europe.
Downloading bootlegs = legal
Listening to bootlegs = legal (of course!)
Sharing bootlegs = illegal (but who cares...)
Owning bootlegs = technically illegal but you can't be punished for that (how can you know it's a bootleg?)
In fact police in this country don't care about bootlegs at all. I'd say it's much worse in Holland or Finland.
Downloading bootlegs = legal
Listening to bootlegs = legal (of course!)
Sharing bootlegs = illegal (but who cares...)
Owning bootlegs = technically illegal but you can't be punished for that (how can you know it's a bootleg?)
In fact police in this country don't care about bootlegs at all. I'd say it's much worse in Holland or Finland.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr. Scully wrote: [/QUOTENAME]pittrek - that is bullshit :-) Our laws are very similar to the rest of Europe.
Downloading bootlegs = legal
Listening to bootlegs = legal (of course!)
Sharing bootlegs = illegal (but who cares...)
Owning bootlegs = technically illegal but you can't be punished for that (how can you know it's a bootleg?)
In fact police in this country don't care about bootlegs at all. I'd say it's much worse in Holland or Finland.[/QUOTE]
That's what the guys from tvfreak.cz wrote as an explanation for the fact that they butchered their once great forum about "backup" of DVDs and distributing bootlegs. I'm glad if that's not true :-) At least our policemen here don't know what a bootleg is :)
Downloading bootlegs = legal
Listening to bootlegs = legal (of course!)
Sharing bootlegs = illegal (but who cares...)
Owning bootlegs = technically illegal but you can't be punished for that (how can you know it's a bootleg?)
In fact police in this country don't care about bootlegs at all. I'd say it's much worse in Holland or Finland.[/QUOTE]
That's what the guys from tvfreak.cz wrote as an explanation for the fact that they butchered their once great forum about "backup" of DVDs and distributing bootlegs. I'm glad if that's not true :-) At least our policemen here don't know what a bootleg is :)
Regarding Bootlegs, QUEEN themselves seem to turn a bit of a blind eye, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, i.e. Brian got a bit pissed off when the cozy powell session track "His Latest Flame (Maries the name)" surfaced.
Even the official QUEEN + Paul Rodgers web site gives a link to this site, so Queen must approve to some extent.
http://www.queenpluspaulrodgers.com/ click on Links
But as already said, This site would get shut down pretty quickly if people started sharing official material. QUEEN would get a bit upset, but the Record companies are the ones who would "flip their lids, big time" Even if Queen OK'd it to share what you want, Queen Have signed contracts with these record companies.
Anyway, Even if Brian & Roger themselves said it was alright to share, or give links to official material. This is NOT THEIR site, this is Richard's & QZ states that we CAN'T!!! so that should really be the end to it.
Even the official QUEEN + Paul Rodgers web site gives a link to this site, so Queen must approve to some extent.
http://www.queenpluspaulrodgers.com/ click on Links
But as already said, This site would get shut down pretty quickly if people started sharing official material. QUEEN would get a bit upset, but the Record companies are the ones who would "flip their lids, big time" Even if Queen OK'd it to share what you want, Queen Have signed contracts with these record companies.
Anyway, Even if Brian & Roger themselves said it was alright to share, or give links to official material. This is NOT THEIR site, this is Richard's & QZ states that we CAN'T!!! so that should really be the end to it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=olive>A Word In Your Ear wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Anyway, Even if Brian & Roger themselves said it was alright to share, or give links to official material. This is NOT THEIR site, this is Richard's & QZ states that we CAN'T!!! so that should really be the end to it.[/QUOTE]
What many of us seem to forget or simply do not realize is that to some extent Brian and Roger are employees of EMI and as such they could not say that it's alright to share official material, because it would be against company policy. Indeed, a couple of years ago, when Brian May posted the original backing track of "Last Horizon" on his website he wrote that he had to get permission. You'd think that because it's his song he could just give it away for free to his fans, but it obviously doesn't work that way.
Talk about food for thought.
V.
What many of us seem to forget or simply do not realize is that to some extent Brian and Roger are employees of EMI and as such they could not say that it's alright to share official material, because it would be against company policy. Indeed, a couple of years ago, when Brian May posted the original backing track of "Last Horizon" on his website he wrote that he had to get permission. You'd think that because it's his song he could just give it away for free to his fans, but it obviously doesn't work that way.
Talk about food for thought.
V.
Well said BigV
BigV wrote:- "What many of us seem to forget or simply do not realize is that to some extent Brian and Roger are employees of EMI"
"Hollywood Records" or whatever other record lables in other terrorties.
BigV wrote:- "What many of us seem to forget or simply do not realize is that to some extent Brian and Roger are employees of EMI"
"Hollywood Records" or whatever other record lables in other terrorties.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pittrek wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mike Label wrote: [/QUOTENAME]WWRY from the 77 Sessions HAS been released officially![/QUOTE]
No, it wasn't. Only the second half ('fast') was released on some single to promote the musical.[/QUOTE]
The whole version was apparently released on a US vinyl compilation years ago.
No, it wasn't. Only the second half ('fast') was released on some single to promote the musical.[/QUOTE]
The whole version was apparently released on a US vinyl compilation years ago.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Luftblasen the bunny, superstar! wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I'm not saying that easily available official stuff should be shared, but things like out of print vinyl-only tracks and such could be treated with a bit more leniency, as they used to be.
From a legal standpoint, Queenzone wouldn't be safe at any given time anyway. Practically once a day a link is given to something official which later is removed.
But unless Richard wants to modify the rule and specify that certain rarer releases could be shared, we should respect the rule because we are guests here.[/QUOTE]
Due diligence. By taking all reasonable steps to prevent non-compliance, an individual should be safe from prosecution.
I'm not saying that easily available official stuff should be shared, but things like out of print vinyl-only tracks and such could be treated with a bit more leniency, as they used to be.
From a legal standpoint, Queenzone wouldn't be safe at any given time anyway. Practically once a day a link is given to something official which later is removed.
But unless Richard wants to modify the rule and specify that certain rarer releases could be shared, we should respect the rule because we are guests here.[/QUOTE]
Due diligence. By taking all reasonable steps to prevent non-compliance, an individual should be safe from prosecution.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Penetration_Guru wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Luftblasen the bunny, superstar! wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I'm not saying that easily available official stuff should be shared, but things like out of print vinyl-only tracks and such could be treated with a bit more leniency, as they used to be.
From a legal standpoint, Queenzone wouldn't be safe at any given time anyway. Practically once a day a link is given to something official which later is removed.
But unless Richard wants to modify the rule and specify that certain rarer releases could be shared, we should respect the rule because we are guests here.[/QUOTE]
Due diligence. By taking all reasonable steps to prevent non-compliance, an individual should be safe from prosecution.[/QUOTE]
Too true! And surely there's a much better way to procure rare tracks.
V.
I'm not saying that easily available official stuff should be shared, but things like out of print vinyl-only tracks and such could be treated with a bit more leniency, as they used to be.
From a legal standpoint, Queenzone wouldn't be safe at any given time anyway. Practically once a day a link is given to something official which later is removed.
But unless Richard wants to modify the rule and specify that certain rarer releases could be shared, we should respect the rule because we are guests here.[/QUOTE]
Due diligence. By taking all reasonable steps to prevent non-compliance, an individual should be safe from prosecution.[/QUOTE]
Too true! And surely there's a much better way to procure rare tracks.
V.