Forums > Sharing The Music - Announce > Copyright infringement (bootleg material) aren't we all wrong?

forum rss feed
Author

TRS-Romania user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 650 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 12:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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


Maruga user not visiting Queenzone.com
Maruga
Royalty: 1705 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 16:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Good point... about the legal stuff, probably a lawyer, expert in music stuff will be helpfull.


Life Is A Bitch...

YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 16:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


I do not want any google ads here.

TRS-Romania user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 650 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 17:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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

Haystacks Calhoun user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1550 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 17:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

TRS-Romania wrote:

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


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.




"Not a fan of the ladies, are you Trebek?"



Sean Connery
TRS-Romania user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 650 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 17:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote


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!

928 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 404 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 17:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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

Wilki Amieva user not visiting Queenzone.com
We must all HEAR to believe
Wilki Amieva
Royalty: 1422 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 18:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.

Sithmarauder user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1082 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 19:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wilki wrote:

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.
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. =)


"If we look half as good to you as you do to me, we must look good" Brian May

"No, Innuendo is not an Italian suppository, it's a Queen album."
Shadowlands user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 46 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 21:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.

Panchgani user not visiting Queenzone.com
St Peter's Burnt Piano
Panchgani
Deity: 6375 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Apr 06, 00:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.



Roger: I like it. If you don't. Sod you!



Queen song poll: http://home.comcast.net/~vantricers/index.html



B-52's: I, I, I'm lookin for some fun - waitin for the REAL Queen Box Sets to come
Jamaleni user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Apr 06, 02:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.

KidKashmir user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 18 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Apr 06, 02:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12703 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Apr 06, 03:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I talked to a copyright lawyer and he said upload everything. Including Face it Alone.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Sithmarauder user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1082 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Apr 06, 09:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

Although the law prohibits the recording and spreading of bootlegs, an unwritten agreement states that as long as no profit and no officially released material are involved, no action whatsoever will be undertaken. All but a few artists support this policy.

Thank you TQ
In a nutshell!


"If we look half as good to you as you do to me, we must look good" Brian May

"No, Innuendo is not an Italian suppository, it's a Queen album."
coops user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 403 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Apr 06, 09:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think that something would have been done long ago if distributing boots was that big of a deal. You know that Brian May and other Queen prod. people regularly scour these web sites and know exactly what is going on. I agree that continuing to not allow official material is the right thing to do though.
I read a while ago that Ringo Starr collects Beatle bootlegs, and I would imagine that most musicians do the same thing. Who knows, perhaps Brian downloads stuff from here all the time, lol.

Haystacks Calhoun user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1550 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Apr 06, 10:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Jamaleni wrote:

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.


It boggles my mind why ALL artists don't do this. I would gladly pay $10 or $15 for the soundboard copy of Queen's Cleveland show, versus $25 for a t-shirt that will fit my dog after the first wash....

With today's technology, it is a breeze for the artist to do.


"Not a fan of the ladies, are you Trebek?"



Sean Connery
coops user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 403 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Apr 06, 10:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Haystacks Calhoun wrote:

Jamaleni wrote:

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.


It boggles my mind why ALL artists don't do this. I would gladly pay $10 or $15 for the soundboard copy of Queen's Cleveland show, versus $25 for a t-shirt that will fit my dog after the first wash....

With today's technology, it is a breeze for the artist to do.

It's an intersting idea. In this world of digital, there would be no need to press cd's etc, and once it becomes a legit release, we would not be circulating the shows around here. Perhaps the amount of work involved here still does not justify the returns. How many people want to buy more than one show?
Great idea though and would like to know why this is not done.

ponkine user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 37 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Apr 06, 11:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Why? I mean WHY?...

I really can't believe and can't stand what's going on here.

This site is the most disgusting and annoying "trading/sharing" site I've ever found. Let me explain it:

I'm a huge fan of classic and progressive Rock, mainly bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes and Queen, of course.

And sadly this is THE ONLY ONE site on which I've found such annoying posts related to OFFICIAL stuff as every little snippet, show, broadcast, video, etc recorded by the Band of record companies... no matter if such stuff were released or not?. I still don't understand such harsh attitude presented here all the time, we can share, for example, the highly requested Rock In Rio nights, despite the only "officially" released stuff was a VHS compiled from both nights and it's even out of print now. SO HOW the hell some fan will get the show, given it isn't available anymore?.

The dissapointment grows on me every time I go to other sites as www.royal-orleans.com (Led Zeppelin), www.genesis-movement.org, www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk, etc. ALL those sites are far more friendly than in here, and you can share stuff without any problem, for example, you can share all the ORIGINAL (unedited, without overdubs) concerts from Madison Square Garden 1973, Earls Court 1975 and Knebworth 1979... here in queenzone that would be banned at the spot right?.

From Genesis, another great example, you can share and download the original Genesis Live - Test Pressing from Vynil, containing Supper's Ready. This is the most clear example of freedom in sharing that is banned here, the Test Pressing contains THE SAME 5 songs finally released on Genesis Live, plus the unreleased Supper's Ready and Old Michael Story, with a different mix and with more crowd space between songs... here in queenzone you can't share any original documents (unedited) from VHS, DVD and CD, as Budapest 1986, Milton Keynes 1982, etc.

My humble question is, WHY?... all we know that loyal fans wants to buy official CD's and DVD's, but when a concert is out of print - as Budapest 1986, or when the original concerts and recordings - Finally not released - are unavailable by the record companies... how the fans will get that stuff?.

It seems that all the owners are afraid of record companies here, while the bands don't even care about bootlegs anymore, provided that they won't sell the stuff. With that jealous attitude you are just supporting eBay and other sites on which they sell bootlegs and other stuff.

I really hope you'll see my way and please (in the same way you ban any "official" stuff)... DO NOT POST HARSH REPLIES

GRACIAS.

KEEP THE SHARING SPIRIT ALIVE


Saludos a todos desde Chile amigos
Wilki Amieva user not visiting Queenzone.com
We must all HEAR to believe
Wilki Amieva
Royalty: 1422 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Apr 06, 11:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sithmarauder wrote:

Wilki wrote:

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.
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. =)


Well, I am just defending that point, just as usual. I was answering in the original spirit of this thread (that is, discussing the copyright infringement). Please read again my comments in the context of the earlier posts.