DavidRFuller 31.03.2012 20:48 |
As a few people have messaged me concerning my leak of the Reaction stuff, I need to lay out the facts for you all... I was a part of a group on Facebook called the "Fanthology", a dozen of us 'elites' (I hate that word) pooled out our collections together for us and ONLY us to have as a group. After I leaked the recording of the TMLWKY writing session, I was kicked out because John Stuart thought it was from the Fanthology, yet I obtained it from another American collector years before. If others from the group were trading beforehand, so be it, what could I do about that? I was offered back in, but I knew if this kind of distrust was happening, there was no point in rejoining. The majority of the uploading was being done by me and a select few anyways. Why do all the hard work? Why be blamed for something I didn't do? So now after the Reaction leaks, Stuart and his cronies are apparently starting to say things like "I would've leaked Hangman" blah blah. BS. He sold his Hangman acetate to Queen Productions and is obligated not to EVER leak it. They just want to rile up fans against me, which is pretty low, I must say. All I did was leak 2 things I got outside the Fanthology - that - yes, were in the Fanthology as well. Everything is archived in it... well... except Hangman. So now the paranoid Fanthologists are flipping out because I leaked something rare, and trying to make me look bad. Enjoy the complete Reaction collection, because without me, you would have never heard it. I'm not gonna scroll through the forums and I'm not gonna scroll through this thread. I don't have the time and frankly I don't care what others think if they believe the lying paranoid hoarders in the first place. And a big thanks to everyone who have messaged me their support, I appreciate you not jumping the gun and hearing both sides of the story. I'll let the crazies have the last word, even though they fucked up the whole Fanthology in the first place. I'll take the high road... down the highway !! Cheers |
inu-liger 31.03.2012 21:15 |
The "Hangman" / QPL bit is a lie, and you know it! Please explain, if they were IN possession of the Hangman acetate from JSS, why GT would tell me and other convention attendees in person that the "owner who claimed to have the Hangman acetate" has not even to date provided sufficient proof of ownership?? * (* Personal Disclaimer: As a friend of both GT and JSS, I just want to make clear that this was for conversational purposes and I normally do not want to tread on this topic out of respect and to maintain a neutral position on the matter!) |
pittrek 01.04.2012 06:28 |
So David, you're basically breaking ANOTHER promise which is not talking about the existence of the group ? Very mature |
John S Stuart 01.04.2012 07:31 |
|
John S Stuart 01.04.2012 07:44 |
|
Queenrockyou 01.04.2012 08:54 |
|
brians wig 01.04.2012 09:19 |
|
Jam Monkey 01.04.2012 11:32 |
Seriously David, just show a little humility would you? To be caught with your hands in the till is one thing, but to then seek to blame others is quite another. |
inu-liger 01.04.2012 11:40 |
Again, I would encourage anyone who has him on Facebook or any other network to cut him off of their contacts and block him. I don't think he'll "get it" until he sees the number of "friends" drop himself. And I know several of my friends here have already taken him off. |
freddiefan91 01.04.2012 12:32 |
So basically this is all about people having queen stuff rare so it may be and being all secretive about it? |
brENsKi 01.04.2012 13:09 |
no. that's not what it's about. i'm not a trader and never have been but i can grasp it so i am sure those who quesiton it can also. a group of traders get together to compile a list of known rarities and also cross trade so that they all know who has what and - more importantly, what hasn't leaked yet. now this is the bit that people are having issues with understanding: if YOU pay £1,000 for a rare tarck, album, acetate then why should you share it. and if you trade it with someone in the fanthology for soemthing they have that cost them a vast sum also - then it makes perfect sense that neither track should be shared. if you enter into a group understand - as DavidRfullofhimself did, then anything that you trade within that group is sacred - ie not for leaking. if on the other hand you have soemthing that you haven't traded with anyone then that is yours to do as you please - ie uploads to mediafire etc he didn't - so he shouldnt |
Kacio 01.04.2012 13:46 |
You fucking collectors you should help QUEEN! Queen doesn't want anything to spend you should share materials to know how much they will lose money! Take to work! Arrogant pedals! Stuart Especially you because you only write what you have you don't share anything to ridicule Brian and Roger, to awaken them in the end they knew what to do, they seem archival audio and video recordings, everything! Think it, really ... |
AugustRush 01.04.2012 13:55 |
Kacio wrote: You fucking collectors you should help QUEEN! Queen doesn't want anything to spend you should share materials to know how much they will lose money! Take to work! Arrogant pedals! Stuart Especially you because you only write what you have you don't share anything to ridicule Brian and Roger, to awaken them in the end they knew what to do, they seem archival audio and video recordings, everything! Think it, really ...Precious words! |
AugustRush 01.04.2012 13:56 |
This is a great mess |
mooghead 01.04.2012 14:23 |
David is just David Brent. Confusing popularity with respect. Sad really.. |
mooghead 01.04.2012 14:23 |
Double post. |
Fireplace 01.04.2012 15:05 |
Yes, you are all arrogant pedals. Not to mention obnoxious bicycles too. |
vicspec 01.04.2012 15:07 |
How much did JSS sell the Hangman acetate to QP for? Surely over £10,000 ? |
pietrek 01.04.2012 15:15 |
You all rare collectors, imagine yourself as a "normal" Queen fans who want to hear something new, checking Queen forums and sites everyday and waiting for a redemptive message. The reality is that the only man who was providing us with rare previously unheard material in last 3 years was D Fuller and without it my love to Queen would probably die a natural death. |
Kacio 01.04.2012 15:26 |
I speak for all collectors! Do it for the fans! Help the Queen legend! Queen fans are the worst, as usual. Collector is cunning he has and nothing will make available, plain fan can do nothing ... |
kthrss5 01.04.2012 16:13 |
Kacio wrote: You fucking collectors you should help QUEEN! Queen doesn't want anything to spend you should share materials to know how much they will lose money! Take to work! Arrogant pedals! Stuart Especially you because you only write what you have you don't share anything to ridicule Brian and Roger, to awaken them in the end they knew what to do, they seem archival audio and video recordings, everything! Think it, really ...1. learn english first 2. grow up, kid 3. then start posting |
Kacio 01.04.2012 16:18 |
kthrss5 wrote: 1. learn english first 2. grow up, kid 3. then start postingFuck off! Apparently you don't know what's going on, it's about good of Queen fans. Some collectors have all about what we can dreaming and nothing to disclose. Queen does nothing and collectors ... |
Gaabiizz 01.04.2012 16:27 |
kthrss5 wrote: 1. learn english first 2. grow up, kid 3. then start postingFuck YOU darling! |
brENsKi 01.04.2012 16:34 |
AugustRush wrote:definitely!, and put so well too. pity nobody can understand a word of it.Kacio wrote: You fucking collectors you should help QUEEN! Queen doesn't want anything to spend you should share materials to know how much they will lose money! Take to work! Arrogant pedals! Stuart Especially you because you only write what you have you don't share anything to ridicule Brian and Roger, to awaken them in the end they knew what to do, they seem archival audio and video recordings, everything! Think it, really ...Precious words! here's some advice Kacio - 1. don't use link in future 2. keep conceited cyclists and bicycles in general out of it - they only tend to confuse things 3. you come across as a greedy needy fucker. if you want JSS to give you his precious copy of hangman - why don't you just say it, instead of hiding behind crapology and whatnot 4. don't question the sexlives of collectors - some may be celibate, and some may actually be "flying solo" |
ole-the-first 01.04.2012 16:39 |
I just read these discussions, and you know? Go fuck yourself everybody! The main thing every major collector should accept that everything that is avaiable to more than 1 person will leak one day. You can't keep something in closet forever. It's not a big tragedy if a couple of new tracks were shared, with permission or without it. And the person who owns the real acetate is still owns this acetate. He can sell it, 'cos it's still a valuable rarity. I don't know if anyone can call me a 'major' rarities collector or not, but I do own some unshared stuff and I very quiet about the leaks. Because they will happen one day anyway. And please, dear John and everybody else, don't reply me. I don't want to maintain this crap-fighting. |
Gaabiizz 01.04.2012 16:56 |
ole-the-first wrote: I just read these discussions, and you know? Go fuck yourself everybody! The main thing every major collector should accept that everything that is avaiable to more than 1 person will leak one day. You can't keep something in closet forever. It's not a big tragedy if a couple of new tracks were shared, with permission or without it. And the person who owns the real acetate is still owns this acetate. He can sell it, 'cos it's still a valuable rarity. I don't know if anyone can call me a 'major' rarities collector or not, but I do own some unshared stuff and I very quiet about the leaks. Because they will happen one day anyway. And please, dear John and everybody else, don't reply me. I don't want to maintain this crap-fighting.He is right! |
Flash Jazz 01.04.2012 17:29 |
I completely understand if you are hateful about his dishonesty, which is a bitch. But if you guys are angry at the fact they got released, you saying you would release it all anyway sounds very weird, and I do not believe that is true. |
The Real Wizard 01.04.2012 17:49 |
ole-the-first wrote: It's not a big tragedy if a couple of new tracks were shared, with permission or without it.Yet another person whom the concepts of "trust" and "integrity" are lost on. |
The Real Wizard 01.04.2012 17:50 |
Flash Jazz wrote: But if you guys are angry at the fact they got released, you saying you would release it all anyway sounds very weird, and I do not believe that is true.Yet again, the self-proclaimed experts are the ones who have no idea of what's going on. Carry on.. |
The Real Wizard 01.04.2012 17:55 |
pietrek1994 wrote: The reality is that the only man who was providing us with rare previously unheard material in last 3 years was D FullerOh really? Fuller shared the complete BBC sessions from the masters in 2010? Look through the last 3 years of the announce forum. They're all threads started by Fuller? Reality check - if it weren't for collectors, there would be very few items in your collection. If I may make a conservative estimate, I'd say about 95% of it. Fuller is just a guy at the end of the line who does none of the heavy lifting. He just plays Robinhood and reaps the rewards off the hard work of others. Never underestimate the hard work that is done behind the scenes. Are the actors the only people involved in making a movie? Or are there directors, stagehands, crew members, makeup artists, dressers, carpenters and business people? Food for thought, I hope.. ? |
ole-the-first 01.04.2012 17:57 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Yet another person whom the concepts of "trust" and "integrity" are lost on.No, I'm not that person. If somebody trusts me and asks me to keep something for myself, I personally don't leak it. But I just don't panic if something has leaked. Thare's too much problems in my personal life fot that. |
The Real Wizard 01.04.2012 17:58 |
As for Fuller's post in this thread.. It is complete and utter bullshit. He is in full damage control mode, trying to save face. Nothing more, nothing less. But it's far too late. All credibility has been lost. The files were watermarked. He broke promises for his fifteen minutes of fame. He completely betrayed the trust of people who put good faith in him. And as a result, many projects are now off the table. The only people who support him have absolutely no understanding of how recordings get from the source to their computer. But they sure think they do. As the old saying goes - it's better for people to think you're a complete fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. |
The Real Wizard 01.04.2012 18:07 |
ole-the-first wrote:Then we agree.The Real Wizard wrote: Yet another person whom the concepts of "trust" and "integrity" are lost on.No, I'm not that person. If somebody trusts me and asks me to keep something for myself, I personally don't leak it. But I just don't panic if something has leaked. Thare's too much problems in my personal life fot that. This isn't about the material itself. It's about the way it was leaked. |
Gaabiizz 01.04.2012 19:18 |
You have every reason bob |
JacquesDaniels 01.04.2012 21:03 |
I'm gonna go a bit meditative about this whole rarity collecting fandom and the stuff that's been going on. Sorry for the long post, but bear with me. First off, I'm not a fan of bootlegs and rare material in general, because there's most likely some good reason(s) the material hasn't had an official release. This stuff shouldn't be in circulation in the first place, because in all likelyhood, someone still might own a copyright to those recordings, if there ever was. As a fan, I understand the need to hear the rare stuff can be superlatively deep, and I'd rather go the official way, if possible. As a (not so serious) collector, I kind of understand a need to possess something rare and valuable, but I really wouldn't put more than maybe 30 euros on a single album's worth of music, unless it was truly something majestically good (or the vinyl artwork was worth it). As a musician, I understand the need to keep stuff from circulation where they don't belong - I wouldn't want people to have and hear stuff I was uncomfortable with. Not that I know for certain that Roger Taylor or any of the others who were in The Reaction would mind that this stuff is shared on the internet, but to be honest it's really not all that good. Secondly, while I don't completely agree with the method, I kind of have to support digital/online piracy in that it allows us to browse through history in a way that no libraries in the world would ever be able to. It's a different thing trying to preserve stuff for posterity than collecting stuff just to own something valuable. In any case, there's too much wrongdoing involved in this whole business that you shouldn't really be pointing out at anybody for doing something they didn't like to happen. The person to blame the most could be the one who didn't think it was good enough for a release in the first place. Besides, there's always more than one way to go about this business. This "preserving for posterity"-business has been going on for many years now in the retro gaming world, for instance. I've come across a few instances, where a preserver has managed to buy a game on ebay for several hundred pounds, and soon afterwards released a perfectly working image of the product in question for the internet community to enjoy, just because he felt it was the right thing to do. It might not be completely the same thing here, but as I said, there's more than one way to go about it. As suggested, you COULD get in contact with QPL... |
MERQRY 01.04.2012 22:07 |
Gaabiizz wrote: You have every reason bobChe... igual tiene un poco de razon el tipo ese... te imaginas que vos "garpes" como 5 mil mangos en una cinta de Queen, confies en una persona para que la guarde para algun otro momento (porque JSS compartió muchas de sus cosas raras) y ese tipo te traicione como el mejor, metiendola aca... es como para enojarse un poco ¿no? ... ahh y lo que quisite decir seguro es "Bob, you're always right" pero con sarcasmo... "every" no es una buena palabra para decir "siempre" en este contexto... y "right" queda mas lindo que "reason"... aunque de ultima por mas que quede medio feo tambien podes decir "Bob,you always have reason"... Ojo, que igual te entiendo... eso de que anden "amarreteando" cintas medias raras es medio feo... pero bue, el que las pagò sabe lo que hace... Sorry for the spanish... |
inu-liger 02.04.2012 00:00 |
English, please |
ActionFletch 02.04.2012 01:47 |
Lol! As a casual fan, I feel like I'm reading the next Dan Brown novel. Does your elite group have John Deacon locked away playing bass in a dungeon? |
john bodega 02.04.2012 01:48 |
What I can't understand is why you aren't hitting this ridiculous mouth-breather where it hurts. There's more than enough official material on his channel to get him yanked. Start writing some emails for shit's sake. There comes a time when old noodle-dick won't be able to appeal his way out of trouble anymore. |
Dodger Taylor 02.04.2012 02:23 |
I for one am now bored of this argument,yeah maybe he did share something that he was told not to or maybe another member of the fanthology secretly shared it and it got back to him.Either way its out,Iv listened n to be honest I cant see what the fuss is about.Most people here are casual collectors not completest collectors so doubt that many will be bothered either way.If you two have fallen out over it fair enough but why fight in public.Keep it from the sight of us ordinary people like you do your highly secret record collections |
inu-liger 02.04.2012 03:05 |
ActionFletch wrote: Lol! As a casual fan, I feel like I'm reading the next Dan Brown novel. Does your elite group have John Deacon locked away playing bass in a dungeon? No, he's been forced to work as a security cargo van driver, smuggling people back and fro' |
Togg 02.04.2012 03:36 |
John Stuart wrote... "Think about it; since you left Fanthology has updated a huge range of studio rarities - which will never be discussed in public" Now this is where I find all this secret squirrel fan shit pathetic and in many ways immoral, to my way of thinking if you are in posession of something that was taken from a recording studio or private collection of the artist, you are in posession of stolen property. pure and simple. If you have a limited edition or out of print copy then fine, but why not talk about it and put it on display in the same way a collector of say rare guitars would for example. To my way of thinking a lot of this secret stuff is simply a collection of stolen property Am I wrong? |
Mr Prime Jive 02.04.2012 04:00 |
Message to you all, 'Elite Collectors' as you call yourself. I know from a close source that everything "shared" will be put out real soon. So my advice to you is to quick sell what still can be sold until the "fortune" you're sitting on just ends as a pile of useless second-hand magnetic supports. Enjoy the end of life as you know it. MR PRIME JIVE. |
Back2TheLight 02.04.2012 04:20 |
I guess I'll be the greedy American who replies here haha! This thread has gotten soooo far out of hand, as do alot of others on this site...it really is hilarious. I haven't posted in a very long time, and for good reason, as I'd be up in arms...le sigh I see both sides of the fence for what they are...the collectors, and the dreamers, to which I'm happy to say I'm neither. I'm a fan of the band, the music, just like anyone here. Do I get obsessive? Nah...some of you do, and that's great, all the power to you! Am I gonna consider it a life and death issue if I do or don't hear the 'Hangman' acetate on FLAC or mp3 or WAV, or OGG? Not exactly... The 'collectors' can have it. Are you gonna see me shell out 1000 anything to hear Freddie fart into the microphone in some studio out take? Well, it would be funny to hear, but nah...I have a 4 year old son that is well more worth deserving of my money. Especially in a fucked up economy that the world is apparently in. Continue to say I'm rambling, be my guest. My point is here is that it's music ffs, and to see everyone get buttsore about it, is kinda funny. I remember seeing the post above me saying 'stolen goods that don't belong to us blah blah blah' (ok, slightly off on my quote, but it got the point across). How many songs do YOU have on your computer that were never released? I have a handful, yes, but you do too! Probably more than I, and it's all good! I, the greedy American, really am not so greedy after all! My other point being...are any of you going to live or die without hearing some of these rarities? Well...I guess it depends on how much value you place upon it...if you're going to pull a hamstring and have a heart attack over hearing the 'Hangman' acetate for example, well, I wish you luck my friend. Start writing your will now! It's music...great music. But sometimes ignorance is bliss! Nothing I write here is going to change anything, and neither is anything you're going to write either. I will still continue to be the 'greedy American', the dumbass, or whatever you want to label me as. The collectors will hoarde or share whatever they like, and that's just it! You, the fan, are owed nothing, and nobody has to share anything with you...or me! Two words I will express...WHO CARES!! There's my rant...chew me up to bits people! You're all quite good at it! :D |
Gaabiizz 02.04.2012 06:44 |
MERQRY wrote:Si , te entiendo , bob tiene razon , pasa que mi ingles no es de los mejores capo xDGaabiizz wrote: You have every reason bobChe... igual tiene un poco de razon el tipo ese... te imaginas que vos "garpes" como 5 mil mangos en una cinta de Queen, confies en una persona para que la guarde para algun otro momento (porque JSS compartió muchas de sus cosas raras) y ese tipo te traicione como el mejor, metiendola aca... es como para enojarse un poco ¿no? ... ahh y lo que quisite decir seguro es "Bob, you're always right" pero con sarcasmo... "every" no es una buena palabra para decir "siempre" en este contexto... y "right" queda mas lindo que "reason"... aunque de ultima por mas que quede medio feo tambien podes decir "Bob,you always have reason"... Ojo, que igual te entiendo... eso de que anden "amarreteando" cintas medias raras es medio feo... pero bue, el que las pagò sabe lo que hace... Sorry for the spanish... Seria feo que a uno le suceda lo sucedito , mas si gasto demasiado dinero |
Dane 02.04.2012 06:53 |
Haha.. lol this! And I thought Soccer fans were crazy! |
Toon_86 02.04.2012 07:01 |
Fanthology - you gotta laugh. Hangman - shit song live, not interested in the acetate which no-one has ever proven exists anyway, but to be fair, probably does. Roger Taylor was in a crap band 50 years ago and some stuff was released by a guy who should now be hung drawn and quartered cos he didn't stay in the brotherhood. Really? Get over yourselves. Other 'rare studio' work? Who cares, it'll all come out sometime anyway when the money starts to run out. Enjoy your days in the sun 'fanthology' you really have made yourseleves look like a bunch of gormless twats. |
john bodega 02.04.2012 07:24 |
It probably would've been smart to just upload everything before he had a chance to. |
pittrek 02.04.2012 07:36 |
Toon_86 wrote: Fanthology - you gotta laugh. Hangman - shit song live, not interested in the acetate which no-one has ever proven exists anyway, but to be fair, probably does. Roger Taylor was in a crap band 50 years ago and some stuff was released by a guy who should now be hung drawn and quartered cos he didn't stay in the brotherhood. Really? Get over yourselves. Other 'rare studio' work? Who cares, it'll all come out sometime anyway when the money starts to run out. Enjoy your days in the sun 'fanthology' you really have made yourseleves look like a bunch of gormless twats.Gormless twats - sounds like a name of a punk band |
Michael Allred 02.04.2012 08:18 |
This is some funny shit. "elite" collectors? Well poor poor them, some of their precious material was leaked sorry uploaded for others to enjoy and now they no longer have that to obsess over. Excuse me while I cry a solemn tear for their loss. |
Back2TheLight 02.04.2012 09:43 |
Michael Allred wrote: This is some funny shit. "elite" collectors? Well poor poor them, some of their precious material was leaked sorry uploaded for others to enjoy and now they no longer have that to obsess over. Excuse me while I cry a solemn tear for their loss.Bahahahahaha!! Couldn't agree more!! Wish I could hit the like button on some of these responses :) |
4 x Vision 02.04.2012 10:02 |
John S Stuart wrote: |
4 x Vision 02.04.2012 10:17 |
Zebonka12 wrote: What I can't understand is why you aren't hitting this ridiculous mouth-breather where it hurts. There's more than enough official material on his channel to get him yanked. Start writing some emails for shit's sake. There comes a time when old noodle-dick won't be able to appeal his way out of trouble anymore.So because some guy sent you a nasty email, nobody should get to listen to the material he shares? Must be great being a saint? Bet you've never went to YT and watched or listened to something official! Grass. |
Senna 02.04.2012 10:25 |
This is all a bit nerdy. |
greaserkat 02.04.2012 10:28 |
This is why I stick to collecting vinyl. |
john bodega 02.04.2012 11:11 |
"So because some guy sent you a nasty email", (followed by some other crap I didn't say). This whole thing is a conversation on his character (or lack thereof). I really do think people should just leak stuff (and yes, for free!) before someone's collection goes up in smoke and we lose it all forever. That doesn't make it cool for him to obtain material from people and then share it when they asked him not to. I mean, that's the condition of him having owned it. Don't you have any kind of morals? Someone says 'please don't share this', it's decent to tell them 'well, if you give me this I'm going to share it' so that they have opportunity to say 'on second thought, I will not give you this thing'. Don't get me wrong, I think these collectors are daft (especially the ones who forked out cash to buy stuff that shouldn't even be on sale) but that's not really the topic. The topic here started with Dave Fuller lying to people and being a general douche. I believe I was on topic. To reiterate, I really think this shit should all be public domain because (as I've said a dozen fuckin' times) no one's collection is safe enough. A hundred copies of a song beats having one in a cupboard somewhere. But, I don't think screwing people is the answer. |
Lord Fickle 02.04.2012 11:27 |
But surely, if everything was in the public domain, it would be worthless as a collection? Isn't the whole idea of being a 'collector', to have something unique, that no one, or few other people have? If there were thousands of copies of the Mona Lisa, wouldn't it be rendered worthless? If someone has sought out a rare item, and it has cost them time, effort, and perhaps, a lot of money, isn't it their right to decide whether to share it or not, and if so, who with? Some of the comments here seem to be suggesting that no one has the right to a private and personal collection, without sharing it freely with the rest of the community. Surely that's not entirely reasonable? |
john bodega 02.04.2012 11:46 |
"But surely, if everything was in the public domain, it would be worthless as a collection?" FINALLY, someone gets it. Yes. It should be worthless. If you want to make money, go and collect stamps, or baseball cards, or Lamborghini's, or some other fuckin' thing. Hell - collect the physical tapes or discs that the music came on! Collectors have got to understand that whatever one's moral position on collecting bootlegs, they will always and forever be coming up against the fact that there are people out there that just want to hear stuff. When I speak of having it in the public domain as a means of preservation, what I'm getting at is that the music itself (even if it's as boring as the Reaction shit) stands a much better chance of being enjoyed (or at least acknowledged) in years to come if more people can get a crack at it. |
john bodega 02.04.2012 11:46 |
"If there were thousands of copies of the Mona Lisa, wouldn't it be rendered worthless?" Is it worthless because I can look up a lossy JPG image of it for free? |
john bodega 02.04.2012 11:57 |
"isn't it their right to decide whether to share it or not, and if so, who with?" I don't even know what the legalities are of owning something that you're not supposed to, when it comes to musical rarities. I know that there isn't really a moral highground on any side of the issue though. I mean really, figure that one out. Some guy has an item that he came upon by dodgy means (if not him personally, then someone he got it from - if it was a bigscreen TV, you'd have cops at your front door). Not only do they not really own the physical item, they sure as hell don't hold copyright on the recording (that goes to whoever paid for the session) and they don't have copyright on whatever music is on there. I'm not a collector, so I don't know what the mentality is that drives the idea that one person who doesn't have a right to own the thing, can somehow (because he bought it from another collector) be more entitled to it than other people who also do not technically have any legal right to it. I must admit that inside, I do have a kind of grudging empathy for people who have paid money on an item and not really thought through the ramifications of it. That really does not change the situation any, though. One asks, 'but why should the collector share freely that which he paid for?'. Simple - because it's not really his. My sympathies. You're free to simply sit on the thing and pretend you don't have it, I guess. *sigh* It's not a pleasant topic because there are many opinions of it, but I think they all sit downstream from the fact that people are exchanging goods of dubious origin. One has to live by their principles I suppose. I filmed a Who gig a couple of years ago, I uploaded it for free on Youtube - no watermarks, no real editing (except for some banter that no one needs to hear) and basically as many of the songs as there was room for on my tape. Doing it that way was in line with my way of thinking. 'I have this somewhat rare thing, I'd like to share it'. |
john bodega 02.04.2012 12:03 |
Admittedly I do approach this topic from a mostly musical perspective. I just enjoy listening to stuff. Random acts of altruism don't hurt anyone. I just think that, with QPL taking their sweet time to get good stuff out the door, it doesn't make sense to have the fan community doing the same thing. The collectors that are griping, to me, are akin to people who made a bad decision on the stock market. Dust yourself off and be wiser next time. |
mooghead 02.04.2012 12:39 |
Actually.. to expand on a post above... Hangman, from what I have heard of it.. is fucking shit. Ever wondered why it never appeared on an album and the band never spoke of it? Either.. put everyone out of their misery and share the crap or keep it to yourselves. No one cares. Its awful. |
john bodega 02.04.2012 13:02 |
"Hangman, from what I have heard of it.. is fucking shit" It's not high art, that's for sure. I love shit like "Feelings, Feelings" and "You Are The Only One" - ok, they weren't really complete or fleshed out, but they were a lot more impassioned than bloody filler Hangman. |
Lord Fickle 02.04.2012 15:23 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "But surely, if everything was in the public domain, it would be worthless as a collection?" FINALLY, someone gets it. Yes. It should be worthless. If you want to make money, go and collect stamps, or baseball cards, or Lamborghini's, or some other fuckin' thing.But the same could be said then, of stamp collectors, baseball card collectors, or Chris Evans. Whatever one 'collects', surely one hopes it will retain some value? That's just human nature. Hell - collect the physical tapes or discs that the music came on!I believe some have, and do, and those are what costs money - hence, it's perhaps unsurprising that maybe some acetates haven't seen the light of day. Collectors have got to understand that whatever one's moral position on collecting bootlegs, they will always and forever be coming up against the fact that there are people out there that just want to hear stuff.I can fully understand that, and can see it from both sides. Not being a collector myself, I'm not all that interested in bootlegs, as most of them are of pretty poor sound quality (when compared to an official release), but I've downloaded plenty, just to listen to, in the hope of a decent live version of It's Late. However, if a collector had paid for a one-off tape / CD / LP, that doesn't exist elsewhere, I wouldn't expect them to simply upload it for general consumption, as, to a collector, it would not only hold personal value, but would be tradeworthy as well. I think that's partly the issue with the Reaction stuff - the trading value has gone, now that it's been 'released'. When I speak of having it in the public domain as a means of preservation, what I'm getting at is that the music itself (even if it's as boring as the Reaction shit) stands a much better chance of being enjoyed (or at least acknowledged) in years to come if more people can get a crack at it.I see that point, and agree, in part, but I think it's arguable with my point above. That said, if someone had, hypothetically, an acetate studio outtake of Freddie singing Long Away, and put it out in low grade MP3 quality, just so people could hear it, I don't see how that would impact on the overall value of the original. I've just realised, and I have to apologise, but we're in danger of having a reasonably civilised debate in this thread - LOL!! |
Lord Fickle 02.04.2012 15:29 |
mooghead wrote: Actually.. to expand on a post above... Hangman, from what I have heard of it.. is fucking shit. Ever wondered why it never appeared on an album and the band never spoke of it? Either.. put everyone out of their misery and share the crap or keep it to yourselves. No one cares. Its awful.I think most of the 'demo' stuff that didn't make it to completion is pretty crap, isn't it? I haven't heard anything yet, where I thought, "Christ, why didn't that make the album?" |
john bodega 02.04.2012 15:40 |
"I've just realised, and I have to apologise, but we're in danger of having a reasonably civilised debate in this thread - LOL!!" Quick, one of us will have to call the other a rude name. Think of something! "But the same could be said then, of stamp collectors, baseball card collectors, or Chris Evans. Whatever one 'collects', surely one hopes it will retain some value?" Indeed, but like I said in the other thread - the Mona Lisa hasn't been even remotely devalued by my being able to look it up on Google Images. I'm not sure where the happy middle ground might exist as far as Queen rarities go, but there really ought to be one. I think low quality copies is more than an okay compromise. |
Lord Fickle 02.04.2012 16:29 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Quick, one of us will have to call the other a rude name. Think of something!Err... umm... ooh... BIG EARS!! Indeed, but like I said in the other thread - the Mona Lisa hasn't been even remotely devalued by my being able to look it up on Google Images. I'm not sure where the happy middle ground might exist as far as Queen rarities go, but there really ought to be one. I think low quality copies is more than an okay compromise.The Mona Lisa probably wasn't the best analogy. :) The digital age has a lot to answer for, and therein lies much of the problem. Now, a first generation tape can be digitally copied a million times, and retain it's original sound quality, as can an acetate. Hence, the value of such original recordings immediately diminishes, once they've been digitally shared, as the only 'value' then remains in the actual physical item. As you've been saying, Zeb, all most people want is to hear stuff, so once it's 'out', they would then have no interest in obtaining the original copy, as it would be no better quality than the digital replica. A low grade MP3 would allow non-collectors to hear what's around, but, presumably, wouldn't impact on the trading (or collectable) value of the original. |
brENsKi 02.04.2012 16:38 |
i quite like dog with a bone think it woulda made a good album track who wrote it>? it's got a distinct "roger" feel about it lyrically, but i'm inclined towards "brian" because of some fat bottomed girls similarities |
Lord Fickle 02.04.2012 16:44 |
Yeah, that's probably one of the better ones. Face It Alone, for all the pre-release drama it created, is just a monotonous drone, in my opinion. |
cmsdrums 02.04.2012 17:02 |
Whilst not agreeing with how Dave Fuller has acted, I do agree with the poster here who said that the 'elitist' group surely have double standards when they are openly talking of having rare studio tracks which, unless they were handed them directly by QPL or band members, they know are absolutely 100% stolen property. Now, if those who actually own the material went after them to recover these, that would be interesting. I couldn't take possession of, say, a stolen painting from a gallery and then say "but unpaid thousands for this so it's mine", so I'm not sure how it can be right in the instance of the tracks being talked about here. |
Micrówave 02.04.2012 17:26 |
I couldn't take possession of, say, a stolen painting from a gallery and then say "but I paid thousands for this so it's mine", so I'm not sure how it can be right in the instance of the tracks being talked about here.That's exactly what I was thinking. Again, no disrespect to anyone in the threads, this is just out of curiousity. |
Micrówave 02.04.2012 17:29 |
A low grade MP3 would allow non-collectors to hear what's around, but, presumably, wouldn't impact on the trading (or collectable) value of the original I disagree. I'm one of those non-collectors. While my officially released collection would rival some here, I have never paid for any rare recording of anyone. But if I were a Queenie (like a Trekkie only a bit more sensitive and better dressed), perhaps I would make the jump to paying $200 for a nice digital copy of Hangman. But if I heard a low quality recording of it, then I would realize I like Body Language better and decide not to pay the $200. The value just dropped. |
Lord Fickle 02.04.2012 17:38 |
Micrówave wrote:Valid point. But most of us probably know what Hangman kind of sounds like, given that we've heard the live versions - it's not a great track, but still a bit of a Holy Grail.A low grade MP3 would allow non-collectors to hear what's around, but, presumably, wouldn't impact on the trading (or collectable) value of the originalI disagree. I'm one of those non-collectors. While my officially released collection would rival some here, I have never paid for any rare recording of anyone. But if I were a Queenie (like a Trekkie only a bit more sensitive and better dressed), perhaps I would make the jump to paying $200 for a nice digital copy of Hangman. But if I heard a low quality recording of it, then I would realize I like Body Language better and decide not to pay the $200.The value just dropped. |
Flash Jazz 02.04.2012 17:42 |
Micrówave wrote:Well that's not really how it works is it. Because the value to these guys is in the item itself, not if the material on it is good or bad. Most of it is very bad, but it's rare, so hey.A low grade MP3 would allow non-collectors to hear what's around, but, presumably, wouldn't impact on the trading (or collectable) value of the originalI disagree. I'm one of those non-collectors. While my officially released collection would rival some here, I have never paid for any rare recording of anyone. But if I were a Queenie (like a Trekkie only a bit more sensitive and better dressed), perhaps I would make the jump to paying $200 for a nice digital copy of Hangman. But if I heard a low quality recording of it, then I would realize I like Body Language better and decide not to pay the $200.The value just dropped. |
Micrówave 02.04.2012 17:45 |
Oh, I know. I just don't think that releasing any of it would be "harmless"... no matter who's doing the releasing or the quality. Once it's out, the value drops. But I, for one, still have no idea what it sounds like. |
Lord Fickle 02.04.2012 17:53 |
I've heard live bootlegs of it, and the best way I could describe it is that it's loosely in a similar sort of vein to Son and Daughter. A sort of heavy, slow plodder, with a fast bit in the middle. |
Micrówave 02.04.2012 17:54 |
Because the value to these guys is in the item itselfYes, I see, but I'm sure if it is also unreleased that only increases the value. But I believe it was said earlier in the thread that this secret society wants to keep some thing unknown to the general public. So if the rare item is not known to the general public, is it really THAT in demand? I have, for example, a studio out-take of "Hamster With A Roll Of Tape"... an unreleased demo from the Sheer Heart Attack sessions. It was something John, Brian, and Freddie worked on while Roger was at the clinic for that week in January 73. It got shelved for years until Freddie bought his drum machine. He doodled around but later decided to keep it hidden. Then I introduce him to Jim Hutton and he gives me the cassette (which only John and Brian know about) in exchange for the introduction and tells me not to tell anybody. Do I have a hot rarity? No one knows about it. How do you determine a price for that? Is it worth $200 or $20,000? And if it turns out years later that Freddie was handing out "Hamster" cassettes in exchange for hookups, did we all get fooled? Damn, this is an interesting FINE LINE topic.... |
Lord Fickle 02.04.2012 17:55 |
Duplicate post. |
Micrówave 02.04.2012 17:57 |
Lord Fickle wrote: I've heard live bootlegs of it, and the best way I could describe it is that it's loosely in a similar sort of vein to Son and Daughter. A sort of heavy, slow plodder, with a fast bit in the middle. See? Now this is exactly what I think makes this all worth while. If you had sent me 20 seconds of it, I probably would have been disappointed. But now, the legend continues and I do want to hear it one day. I'm glad there's something still out there that may see the light of day. I won't pay top dollar for it, but I'll continue to follow this band and buy the new releases for the studio version of Human Body, etc. This damn internet has taken a lot of the fun out of being a "non-collector" collector. |
Lord Fickle 02.04.2012 18:01 |
That "Hamster With a Roll of Tape" demo was actually from years earlier. They wrapped so much tape around the hamster, it eventually became Great King Rat. :) |
Micrówave 02.04.2012 18:07 |
hahahaha |
DaveyLane 02.04.2012 20:12 |
Well I'm glad the Reaction stuff leaked. I think it's rubbish that this nerdy "Fanthology" clique only let each other hear this stuff that we all should be able to hear as fans of this band. Hell, if I had the money I'd be buying up every acetate I could find and share it with one and all. |
bigV 02.04.2012 21:03 |
Why can't people understand this simple logic? Hypothetically speaking: - I have a rare recording of Freddie Mercury singing "My Way" - A guy in Johannesburg has soundboard recordings of all of the Sun City shows - I want his recordings so I trade him my recording in exchange for a couple of his shows - He then trades another show with inu-liger (for example) - And then he trades another with John S. Stuart - Eventually he's got everything he needs or can get from us so he allows us to distribute the recordings of all Johannesburg shows That's how the Houston DVD got leaked. That's how Drammen got leaked. That's how many more rarities got leaked. Now, if I gave away the aforementioned tape of "My Way" for free on QueenZone the guy in Johannesburg would have no incentive to share his recordings, would he? That's why John S. Stuart is holding on to the "Hangman" acetate - not because he paid a gazillion dollars for it, but because he can LIBERATE many more recordings (live and studio) thanks to that one song! Which he has done in the past, but it all happens behind the scenes so most of you (us!) don't know what the fuck we're talking about here. So, pretty please, put a sock in it, will ya? And enjoy the BBC sessions master tapes. God knows that you won't be getting those in complete form from QPL in this decade either! V. |
bigV 02.04.2012 21:08 |
And for the record - I am not a member of Fanthology. I have never been a member of Fanthology and in fact I only heard about the group a couple of days ago, even though at least two of my friends on Facebook are members. Nor would I have anything to offer the group if I were invited. Nor do I want to be invited - I prefer to get my downloads the old-fashioned way: on QueenZone or on the Hub. V. |
Biggzy10 02.04.2012 21:22 |
Its a fucking song. Really guys, we're all Queen fans here and deserve to listen to it. |
The Real Wizard 02.04.2012 23:41 |
DaveyLane wrote: Hell, if I had the money I'd be buying up every acetate I could find and share it with one and all.Or perhaps you could try and trade its contents for contents of another acetate, and again, and again, and have several things to eventually share? Sharing your first one is a very silly idea, as you close doors to opportunities to obtain more - for everyone's benefit. |
inu-liger 03.04.2012 00:00 |
Despite all that's gone on thanks to Fuller, I just hope some day soon, JSS will get the Fanthology group to agree to reconvene and continue to assemble their work together, since the intention WAS to release it to all the fans eventually. It does look rather bad on the group in a way that they've U-Turned themselves back into Locker Village and essentially flippedthe collective bird to the fan community, so to speak (no offense intended to anyone involved in the group). And people will surely realize this once the dust settles on the DF controversy. |
Back2TheLight 03.04.2012 01:37 |
Biggzy10 wrote: Its a fucking song. Really guys, we're all Queen fans here and deserve to listen to it.Ah yes, 'it's a fucking song'. Though I'm not sure if I'd be knocking boots so to speak while listening to it... This being said...who exactly 'deserves' to listen to it? Because you're a fan? I'm a fan too...does this mean I DESERVE to listen to it? I love how some (not all) on this forum swear that they are deserving to hear this or that...I could honestly care less if I hear it! I bought the CD's (minus the countless GH compilations lol), I deserve to hear those because...well...I bought the fucking things lol! |
pittrek 03.04.2012 02:28 |
bigV wrote: Why can't people understand this simple logic? Hypothetically speaking: - I have a rare recording of Freddie Mercury singing "My Way" - A guy in Johannesburg has soundboard recordings of all of the Sun City shows - I want his recordings so I trade him my recording in exchange for a couple of his shows - He then trades another show with inu-liger (for example) - And then he trades another with John S. Stuart - Eventually he's got everything he needs or can get from us so he allows us to distribute the recordings of all Johannesburg shows That's how the Houston DVD got leaked. That's how Drammen got leaked. That's how many more rarities got leaked. Now, if I gave away the aforementioned tape of "My Way" for free on QueenZone the guy in Johannesburg would have no incentive to share his recordings, would he? That's why John S. Stuart is holding on to the "Hangman" acetate - not because he paid a gazillion dollars for it, but because he can LIBERATE many more recordings (live and studio) thanks to that one song! Which he has done in the past, but it all happens behind the scenes so most of you (us!) don't know what the fuck we're talking about here. So, pretty please, put a sock in it, will ya? And enjoy the BBC sessions master tapes. God knows that you won't be getting those in complete form from QPL in this decade either! V.Perfectly written |
tero! 48531 03.04.2012 03:54 |
bigV wrote: Why can't people understand this simple logic? Hypothetically speaking: - I have a rare recording of Freddie Mercury singing "My Way" - A guy in Johannesburg has soundboard recordings of all of the Sun City shows - I want his recordings so I trade him my recording in exchange for a couple of his shows - He then trades another show with inu-liger (for example) - And then he trades another with John S. Stuart - Eventually he's got everything he needs or can get from us so he allows us to distribute the recordings of all Johannesburg showsIt's simple alright... A bit too simple in fact. How does a trader know when he's got everything? There's always the possibility of finding a new contact who doesn't have all the material, and that's why a serious trader will never let ANYTHING be distributed freely. Houston or Drammen didn't arrive into public domain because everybody already had them, they arrived because somebody got tired of sitting on these recordings for decadeas and wanted people to actually hear them. I'm not against trading material (as long as there's no money involved), and it's every trader's right to sit on any recording for as long as he wants, but let's not think they're generous when one of them gets tired of the waiting game. |
john bodega 03.04.2012 04:38 |
"Perfectly written" Not really. It hinges on a flawed premise - that people don't understand the principle of collecting and trading. We understand it - it's just that it's outdated and irrelevant to the community at large. They'd do well to keep this stuff strictly on the down low. If they aren't going to disclose a recording, then keep it to them fucking selves. In the end, you can't take it with you. |
plumrach 03.04.2012 04:50 |
Where do the traders get the original material from anyway? |
Lord Fickle 03.04.2012 05:24 |
plumrach wrote: Where do the traders get the original material from anyway?Just guessing, but ex-studio technicians, ex-roadies, etc? Anyone closely connected with the band could have potentially had access to material that was never released. Hell, tapes have been found in skips before (not necessarily Queen, just in general), or people's lofts, as in the recently discovered old episodes of Dr. Who or Dad's Army. They can surface anywhere, and then, presumably, the 'finder' either holds onto them, or tries to achieve the best price he can get for them. I wonder how much the finder of the 'missing' Dr. Who tapes got for them, assuming he didn't just give them to the BBC for nothing? |
Togg 03.04.2012 06:50 |
Doesn't make much of a difference how they got hold of something, if it wasn't meant for release it's not anyone's property except the band...therefore stolen. If I find a car with the door open, it doesnt mean it's mine, likewise if I buy the same car from some chap who found the door open, I am still in posession of stolen property. I understand the desire to collect, I collect guitars, and I understand the enjoyment of hearing rare recordings, but I dont really like the idea of sneeking them out from under the owners nose, once you have paid for something you are effectively complicite in the theft, just as if you buy a stolen dvd player from a guy in the pub... I think the recording of concerts is a different thing, they are performances and I dont think you can claim ownership of a performance, however studio tracks are a totally different thing, if they are meant to be under lock and key in Rogers studio then that's where they should remain until he decides to release them. I record many tracks myself, and particularly if the tracks are going on a cd that will be sold I dont want outtakes or unfinished work getting out. Not that anyone would be that interested I am not Brian May...however the point is I have made a choice what i want to put out and the rest sits at home...if I found someone selling my work that was not intended for release I would without doubt go after them with the help of my lawyer. Thins do get leaked from studios but... it's still stolen, pure and simple. |
ActionFletch 03.04.2012 07:08 |
" Posted: 02 Apr 12, 12:03 Admittedly I do approach this topic from a mostly musical perspective. I just enjoy listening to stuff. Random acts of altruism don't hurt anyone. I just think that, with QPL taking their sweet time to get good stuff out the door, it doesn't make sense to have the fan community doing the same thing. The collectors that are griping, to me, are akin to people who made a bad decision on the stock market. Dust yourself off and be wiser next time. " - Zebonka12 ^ This sums up all these threads. It's fascinating for an outsider like myself to read about the feelings and emotions of hard core business/collectors. |
pow wow 03.04.2012 08:23 |
Can a member of this Fanthology post a list of what they have? NOT who's got what, just what theyve got between them? Or is there another QOL like rule preventing this? Specifically concert footage. This way I maybe be able to add to the list. Cheers |
Dane 03.04.2012 08:43 |
The system BigV describes works a whole lot better when you're dealing cassettetapes, i.e. music on physical data carriers. When dealing with digital rarities which can be shared with thousands of people with the click of a button, the actual music inherently decreases in value and only the original analog data carrier remains valuable. |
John S Stuart 03.04.2012 15:02 |
|
GratefulFan 03.04.2012 15:44 |
In a nutshell, Fuller is Wikileaks and the collective you are the American government. Character assassination, accusations without trial, efforts to influence through fear - all in the name of a process and a greater good. It's interesting to have debated issues around Wikileaks and even organized religion - which also works as an analogy - with some of the more outspoken on this issue and see the moral and ethical inconsistencies. I don't mean that in a snarky way, I mean it's genuinely interesting. Just as with Julian Assange v The United States of America I have no fixed position on who is right, and in fact distrust elements of both hero complex driven recklessness and entrenched power. |
brians wig 03.04.2012 16:37 |
|
John S Stuart 03.04.2012 17:34 |
|
John S Stuart 03.04.2012 20:41 |
|
PieterMC 03.04.2012 21:52 |
I must admit that I've never understood why people think that David Fuller is something wonderful. Yeah he has a Youtube channel with a lot of things on there. However, most of it widely available elsewhere in better quality. People act like he is doing something magical and wonderful by posting the stuff. I don't blame John for being highly pissed off. |
inu-liger 03.04.2012 22:04 |
Pieter, I suspect a lot of his fans don't even post on Queenzone, therefore they don't realize his slimy cheerful ways. I never mentioned this before, but even prior to the Reaction Acetate controversy, I had high suspicions about his character, and that was because a year or two ago I asked him in private for a copy of the "We Believe" promo edit specifically in the original format and quality that he would have received it in. Fucking guy sends me a WAVE file that sounds like a slightly shittier copy of his 320p YouTube upload!! Sounded wet and lossy like hell! But I didn't bother to raise a stink of it, and eventually a better quality MP3 made it's way to the Hub anyways. Did anyone else have that happen to them?? |
GratefulFan 03.04.2012 22:18 |
John S Stuart wrote: Grateful fan: no I did not say that. Please do not put wordsin my mouth. I feel I have too many either misquoting or misunderstanding. I'm not sure what you're referring to. If it's the Wikileaks reference *I* am drawing that analogy, not attributing it to you. |
GratefulFan 03.04.2012 22:27 |
John S Stuart wrote: Yet he admits in May 2011 he was blown away (paraphrased) by the track - but by April 2012 - he claims that he never downloaded it. That's not what the email you quoted said. Perhaps you have some other correspondence that indicates that, or perhaps I have misunderstood something, but all he says is in the second email is that he got it from another person, not that he had never gotten it from you. This is completely consistent with his story: an acknowledgement that he had access to the material within the group but eventually learned that it was circulating outside the group as well. Where is the proof that not only is he the most despicable person alive, but that he is so despicable and the crime so grave that there is truly no other reasonable explanation? Where? A watermark that tracks back to Fuller and a note that he was blown away by a song isn't it. |
GratefulFan 03.04.2012 22:54 |
I have no idea if David is 'guilty' or not, but I question the willingness of so many people to pile on as they are. Unless I misunderstand the 'evidence' nobody can be any more certain than I am because the facts are limited. Perhaps a trip to the library for Camus' 'The Stranger' is in order for some. I have a story I'd like to share as well. When I was 17 I got a job at a family owned donut shop. As I always have in my work life I gave 110%, taking great pride in my work and often going over and above. They noticed and made a point to let me know my work was really appreciated. One day I showed up for my shift and was greeted by the owner's daughter with the news that I wouldn't have to work that day and I would no longer be scheduled in the future. They didn't need me anymore, she said. I was shocked and devastated, and her explanation didn't feel right but that was all I could get out of her. It hurt a lot. About ten years later I was in a bar one night and ran into her brother, who had been the baker there. We got to chatting about the business and what he was doing now, and the fact that I had been let go eventually came up. He revealed to me that I had been fired for stealing money. Stealing money! Long story short there had been opportunity for only me and a long time employee to have taken the missing funds and an automatic assumption was made that the long time employee could not have done it, that her trustworthiness was beyond question, and that left me. Great figuring, other than part where I didn't actually steal any money. It was a valuable lesson I have never forgotten. Sometimes things simply aren't how they look, and people can be very vulnerable to assumptions and a flash mob mentality. May have nothing to do with David Fuller, but I am simply not content to swallow this stuff on such flimsy evidence that only works if you ascribe meaning to an email communication that it seems to me simply isn't objectively there. |
tcc 04.04.2012 00:04 |
GratefulFan wrote: That's not what the email you quoted said. Perhaps you have some other correspondence that indicates that, or perhaps I have misunderstood something, butall he says is in the second email is that he got it from another person, not that he had never gotten it from you. This is completely consistent with his story: an acknowledgement that he had access to the material within the group but eventually learned that it was circulating outside the group as well. Where is the proof that not only is he the most despicable person alive, but that he is so despicable and the crime so grave that there is truly no other reasonable explanation? Where? A watermark that tracks back to Fuller and a note that he was blown away by a song isn't it.The proof is in the pudding, my dear. They said that his watermark was showing. They know how the watermark security system works, so they know what they are saying. How much knowledge do you have on the area of watermark security in digital matters to question their conclusion on this matter ? :-) |
john bodega 04.04.2012 00:18 |
"I must admit that I've never understood why people think that David Fuller is something wonderful" Because people like to take pity on the disabled (see Keenan Cahill). It's borne from good intentions I imagine, but the problem is that we don't encourage them to reach the same standards as able folk. I mention Keenan Cahill because he's crappy at lip-syncing. That's miming - one of the easiest damn things in the world, and he's crap at it - yet that is his claim to fame. Isn't it a little demeaning and patronising to apply such low standards to someone just because he's got an unfortunate condition? His affliction doesn't even preclude him from miming, but he *still* sucks at it! |
Wiley 04.04.2012 00:39 |
PieterMC wrote: I must admit that I've never understood why people think that David Fuller is something wonderful. Yeah he has a Youtube channel with a lot of things on there. However, most of it widely available elsewhere in better quality. People act like he is doing something magical and wonderful by posting the stuff. I don't blame John for being highly pissed off.I second Pieter's comment. Never understood how this guy is seen as a modern day Robin Hood by some internet losers. I remember people freaking out when his YouTube channel got shot down and I didn't really see what the big fuss was. So, he put all the content in there. I see (some) value in that, but there's a lot of other people doing the same, aren't they? Why this guy in particular? |
John S Stuart 04.04.2012 03:40 |
|
GratefulFan 04.04.2012 09:50 |
tcc wrote: The proof is in the pudding, my dear. They said that his watermark was showing. They know how the watermark security system works, so they know what they are saying. How much knowledge do you have on the area of watermark security in digital matters to question their conclusion on thismatter ? :-) Tcc, this is how witches got burnt at the stake. Though it's not relevant to this issue, I've been in IT for 25 years and am a senior computer programmer and analyst with a medium sized organization. I am more than aware of the management of security features on electronic files. I have no doubt that Fuller has files watermarked with his credentials. That would be expected as he participated in the group and presumably removed material from it just like everybody else. However, one does not need to know anything about watermarks other than accepting that they do identify the initial ownership to see the gaping hole in the logic being presented here to justify the savaging of David Fuller. They have enough to indict him, maybe even enough to get a small civil judgement from some sympathetic virtual jury, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would justify the things that have been said and implied? Not even close. Yesterday I had mild curiousity about all this. Today, noting that the only answer JSS has been willing to give other than none at all is one couched in faintly condescending Freudian riddles and other nonsense, for the first time I might actually tend to credit Fuller's explanation a little more than that of the others. He at least laid out a logical, clear narrative that is completely consistent with the 'evidence' and unlike JSS's interpretation doesn't require any (possibly bad) assumptions. Hell, I'm even starting to credit the possibility that the file watermark story is utter bullshit given the avoidance and general sloppiness. At this point, really, shame on anybody who continues to partake in the David bashing on this evidence alone. |
Micrówave 04.04.2012 11:02 |
At this point, really, shame on anybody who continues to partake in the David bashing on this evidence alone.Interesting stance on this topic, GF. Usually facts arent required for the "pile-on" of few of you like to participate on here at Queenzone. In this case, it seems quite clear that whether we approve of them or not, these Fanthology people have a valid point. Now they really should have come up with a less "nerdy" clubhouse name. For that, they are GUILTY AS CHARGED. But I, for one, would like to see stuff continue to be leaked as it was, with Fanthology having some sort of control as to not flood the market with garbage. If they do reconvene, the only change I would recommend is a name change. |
GratefulFan 04.04.2012 11:05 |
What is quite clear to you Microwave? Tcc? Anybody? The specific assertion that Fuller has been proved to have lied about the material circulating outside of the Fanthology group has NOT BEEN PROVED OR EVEN REASONABLY SUPPORTED. Again, UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING. Always willing to be missing something. |
Holly2003 04.04.2012 11:15 |
Name change? I would suggest "The not-Secret and Completely Open to everyone Society for Sharing of Rarities on Queenzone, We're Not Hoarding Them, Honest Guv, Me Bruvver found it in a skip, it's a fair cop, it was all David Fuller's fault" (no press, no questions, you ain't heard of me, roight?). Or SMERSH for short. |
Rubbersuit 04.04.2012 11:49 |
I'd love to be in possession of a rare recording that's not in general population but I'd also love to be the one to eventually bring that rare recording out for fellow fans. I know I'd be pissed if someone betrayed my trust and got to take that joy away from me. My only hope is that these private collectors please please please make clear wills so that these recordings don't get thrown out if you die. I've seen apartments get literally dumped into bins when the tenant dies and nobody cares enough to sort through the items. Let your collecting be your joy, let your sharing be your legacy. |
Micrówave 04.04.2012 12:03 |
GratefulFan wrote: What is quite clear to you Microwave? Tcc? Anybody? The specific assertion that Fuller has been proved to have lied about the material circulating outside of the Fanthology group has NOT BEEN PROVED OR EVEN REASONABLY SUPPORTED. Again, UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING. Always willing to be missing something. Oh no, GF, I completely see that side. I'm just surprised to see you arguing on the side of fact and heresay. That is not the usual forte here on Queenzone... or recent threads that you've participated in. I've always said BOTH SIDES should be fairly presented and have been barbequed myself a few times. But in this case, it appears that FACTUAL EVIDENCE has been presented and the person commiting the breach has admitted responsibility for it. Here is what I am taking from these threads: 1. Someone obtained something in what seems a legal and resonable way. 2. That person agreed to share it with a select few 3. One of those select few decided to break a verbal agreement... not a legal agreement 4. A lot of Queenzoners got to hear some pretty shitty music 5. Some people are upset that they no longer are exclusive holders of said shitty music. 6. Some people like shitty music... especially if it's rare 7. John Deacon could care less about all that has just transpired 8. Now a select few are less likely to share more shitty music 9. I kinda wanted to hear some of that shitty music to make my own assessment 10. Queen will continue to re-release recording and will still have plenty of rare gems to last me for the next ten years I think the real problem in all of this was #2. Everything went downhill from there. If you have something REALLY RARE... Just don't share. Then we'd never be upset about it. And we might get another release like the Freddie Mercury 10 CD set one day. If we do, great! I'm buying. If not, oh well. |
Micrówave 04.04.2012 12:06 |
My only hope is that these private collectors please please please make clear wills so that these recordings don't get thrown out if you die. I've seen apartments get literally dumped into bins when the tenant dies and nobody cares enough to sort through the items.And someone said this wasn't the Queen Mafia!!!! |
MERQRY 04.04.2012 12:48 |
Micrówave wrote:My replyMy only hope is that these private collectors please please please make clear wills so that these recordings don't get thrown out if you die. I've seen apartments get literally dumped into bins when the tenant dies and nobody cares enough to sort through the items.And someone said this wasn't the Queen Mafia!!!! |
John S Stuart 04.04.2012 12:54 |
|
MERQRY 04.04.2012 13:00 |
John S Stuart wrote: Gf: I partly agree with you - except I have additional inside info I am not willing to place on a public forum. Indeed I am torn between two minds. I did not begin this thread I only replied. My point was to answer - not air more dirty laundry in public. Now you ask to much. Although David has unface-booked me - I still have him on mine and all his correspondence. So do I release all this personal mail to make a point - or do I release my personal mail to demonstrate an Internet discussion?Now you won't trust in anybody anymore?? |
John S Stuart 04.04.2012 13:02 |
|
MERQRY 04.04.2012 13:10 |
John S Stuart wrote: I meant "too" my iPhone predictive text can be a pain! Ps: my argument is in my experience Mr. Fuller is a thief and a liar. Am I the only one who has ever had this experience? Of course; being a thief and liar elsewhere does not prove that he is in this case - but it does demonstrate a character trait and statistical past track record.Well at least you know what freddie felt when he wrote Death On Two Legs... Thanks anyway for what you have shared here in the past (i mean the bbc sessions, the quality was OUTSTANDING) |
John S Stuart 04.04.2012 13:12 |
|
Fireplace 04.04.2012 14:28 |
John S Stuart wrote: .....So do I release all this personal mail to make a point - am I willing to release my personal mail to demonstrate an Internet discussion?Please don't. I have the strange habit of returning here a few times a day for some news tidbits about a british band called Queen. Maybe an admin on QZ can create a special forum called "Legal Cases"? It could be placed right under "Badger Mating Habits". |
ParisNair 04.04.2012 15:07 |
After Fuller joined the group, he should have followed the rules set by the members. If it was decided that nothing would be leaked in this way, then he should not have done it. Set aside whether the stuff was stolen in the first place or not. Set aside the matter of ownership. In a mutual agreement, man to man, a promise should be a promise. If Fuller broke that promise, then he did betray his group and let them down. |
brians wig 04.04.2012 17:31 |
ParisNair wrote: After Fuller joined the group, he should have followed the rules set by the members. If it was decided that nothing would be leaked in this way, then he should not have done it. Set aside whether the stuff was stolen in the first place or not. Set aside the matter of ownership. In a mutual agreement, man to man, a promise should be a promise. If Fuller broke that promise, then he did betray his group and let them down.And it's as succinct as that, yet look how much it has blown out of all proportion. |
MERQRY 04.04.2012 17:47 |
John S Stuart wrote:No... it doesnt surprise me at all... i admit it was a stupid questionMERQRY wrote:That is correct. Once bitten twice shy. Dos that surprise you?John S Stuart wrote: Gf: I partly agree with you - except I have additional inside info I am not willing to place on a public forum. Indeed I am torn between two minds. I did not begin this thread I only replied. My point was to answer - not air more dirty laundry in public. Now you ask to much. Although David has unface-booked me - I still have him on mine and all his correspondence. So do I release all this personal mail to make a point - or do I release my personal mail to demonstrate an Internet discussion?Now you won't trust in anybody anymore?? |
sjgiaco 04.04.2012 19:57 |
Would someone be willing to post a tracklist for this proposed Fanthology? I've enjoyed the reissues for the most part, but thought the bonus track selection was anaemic...I'd be very curious to know what else is "out there". |
Vocal harmony 04.04.2012 20:02 |
WTF is this group of dicks The Illuminati of Queen Bootlegs or something? Don't tell them what we've got. What a bunch of horse crap. Everyone who has ever owned any music which has not been officially released is in procession of stolen art, but it's so wide spread that most bands and record companies turn a blind eye to it. However these dicks are acting like they've got a bunch of never seen before Di Vinci master pieces. In the the real world ( out side of your elitist Illuminati type secret coven ) you don't even legally have any rights of ownership to these recordings. |
Sebastian 05.04.2012 11:55 |
Jealousy has spoken. |
ronson 05.04.2012 11:59 |
Fuck I only thought this happened in David Bowie land !!!!! |
Vocal harmony 05.04.2012 12:06 |
Sebastian wrote: Jealousy has spoken.You haven't got a clue, but I'm guessing your one of the Dick head, horse crap elitist bootleg group. Are you sure you won't end up swinging from a bridge somewhere, having broken your vow of total elitism, and posted your name and inner most thoughts on a public forum. . . . . . |
john bodega 05.04.2012 15:46 |
"my argument is in my experience Mr. Fuller is a thief and a liar. Am I the only one who has ever had this experience?" Not like he's ever stolen from me or really lied to me, but in private communication he's a little ... dim. And somewhat quick to change his opinion of you, depending on what he can get from you. I just like hamming it up a bit and calling him a moron. He probably isn't. After all, he did that really wicked Photoshop where he's like, IN Queen. How the hell did he do that?? |
GratefulFan 05.04.2012 16:03 |
John S Stuart wrote: Gf: I partly agree with you - except I have additional inside info I am not willing to place on a public forum. Indeed I am torn between two minds. I did not begin this thread I only replied. My point was to answer - not air more dirty laundry in public. Now you ask too much. Although David has unface-booked me - I still have him on mine and all his correspondence. So do I release all this personal mail to make a point - am I willing to release my personal mail to demonstrate an Internet discussion? I'm not asking anything. I'm pointing out how fundamentally dishonest - intentionally or unintentionally - your initial post on this thread was. It purports to be a 'gotcha' and is nothing of the kind. It doesn't address Fuller's defense in any way, and yet you sit idly - literally idly, either ignoring points to the contrary or blowing proverbs or whatever at them - allowing people actively posting to think you proved something with the digital security information. (lookin' at you tcc) You proved nothing, and the effect of whipping up frenzy over David and his alleged 'lies' means the debate stays at how treacherous he is instead of where it should be: David claims he kept the letter of law as it related to expectations within Fanthology and only leaked material he obtained elsewhere. Is this justifiable? Is it something like civil disobedience? Or is it actually harmful to the overall cause, and not just harmful to an artificially rigid system of control. The guy could be a complete douche bag - which he may be - and that debate should still be happening. But instead we have a disingenuous and completely over the top smear campaign that clearly feels no obligation to justify itself in any real way when it can just coast on indifference that grows from David not being an insider or seemingly a very likable guy, and gullibility, because you speak with a mantle of authority. I really couldn't be more skeeved by this use of the bully pulpit by many of you. Fortunately for you, few seem to care. If the position of the collecting community is correct you should not be afraid of taking the debate where it belongs. Maybe the thing you fear most is having people sit up and notice that David, massive douchebag or no, is the only one who actually seems to think of the fan community as a stakeholder with interests rather than a great unwashed charity case. PS. I don't care about your private email problems. Anybody prepared to make a public accusation and reap the rewards of the public response should be prepared to be able to publicly prove it. I wouldn't publish private correspondence myself, under any circumstances, and I wouldn't make an unsupportable public accusation either. If those two things worked against each other, I'd keep my silence on the matter in the first place and deal with the larger issues. |
brENsKi 05.04.2012 16:33 |
is this thread really...7 pages long? get over it people davidr = cunt fantology = conned by a cunt |
GratefulFan 05.04.2012 17:48 |
brENsKi wrote: davidr = cunt fantology = conned by a cunt Again, at this time there is no proof that David conned anybody out of any music. There is no proof that he took something he obtained exclusively through his membership in Fanthology. They may feel conned because he presented himself as somebody who initially shared the philosophy of the group and then ultimately acted alone, but that's not really being conned. That's having somebody quitting your group and being off the reservation and not liking it one bit. The leaks were limited to two or three items - I think it's two or three, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong - not inconsistent with somebody who is only leaking items available elsewhere, as claimed. Again, where is the proof of the conning? Really, where is even the suggestion of conning? Truthfully, Fuller's story makes more sense. We have no mass leaks of Fanthology material from the time he was in the group, just a couple of things. He left Fanthology, and all the future access it would have provided of his own accord. Then he does his own thing, unsanctioned by the group whose methods and motives we can assume he didn't fully support, because he left. Was he wrong? Maybe so. Con artist though? Again, maybe so. I don't understand though - I despair really - at how so many are so willing to pile on without questioning what has been presented to you. |
The Real Wizard 05.04.2012 18:51 |
ronson wrote: Fuck I only thought this happened in David Bowie land !!!!!Nope - it happens just about everywhere. Welcome! I'm curious, did you come here by coincidence, or did a fellow Bowie collector tell you about all the fireworks happening over here? |
Gaabiizz 05.04.2012 22:15 |
Okay , have a private collection, so you can also get new material . No private collection, no trade , so there is NOTHING NEW. The collecting world will not end ever , but it would be good from time to time that of disclosed at least one demo . Is only an opinion, after all, is your material |
YourValentine 06.04.2012 02:49 |
|
Holly2003 06.04.2012 04:09 |
Asking a question isn't an allegation it's err... asking a question. It's not GF's fault if you guys don't like the questions. |
Fireplace 06.04.2012 07:44 |
brENsKi wrote: is this thread really...7 pages long? get over it people davidr = cunt fantology = conned by a cunt The rest of QZ = having to read the resulting shit for ages |
greaserkat 06.04.2012 09:42 |
What I don't get is why collectors are trying to let eveyone know that they have been betrayed by a specific person, but cannot answer questions that relate to the very thing that was done to betray them |
Serry... 06.04.2012 09:55 |
Whoa, guys, you have second thread about it, my weekend is ruined! Agree with Pieter here. I just came back from my eternal oblivion and - bam! - Fuller = Elite! You're kidding me... Join The Hub! |
YAFF 06.04.2012 10:10 |
Not a collector. Just a lifelong fan of Queen. The way I see it is that the Robin Hood-approach of this Fuller guy is a lesser of two evils compared to hoarders of audio they don't own the rights to anyway- those who do not turn it over to the band so they can possibly release it. Firstly, you're a fool for spending hundreds let alone thousands on music, Especially in the digital age. If so and so has a copy of the so-called "Hangman" and the band members do not and they want the audio they are entitled to it. Now mind you I find most of this leaked material "pretty crappy" anyway. "The Reaction"? My reaction is that is garbage I will never listen to again. A soundboard show is great. Audience recordings are frustrating. Lossy studio demo or rare tracks by Brian May and Roger Taylor are of no interest to me. Even the half-finished Queen demos I only listened to once. I'm hoping the band finishes some of them. This Fuller guy may be ethically-challenged but so are the "elitist" collectors who have unheard Queen and/or Freddie material and plan to take it to the grave with them but have the gall to boast about it in an ultimate c*ck tease. |
Vocal harmony 06.04.2012 16:06 |
How can Fuller be guilty of stealing something that doesn't legally belong to any of these secretive bootleg hoarding dick splashes in the first place. None of you have a leg to stand on. Why don't you just STFU, if someone wants to post stuff on the internet their is nothing you can do to stop them, and that's really what is pissing your little society off, the fact that your a powerless bunch of little kids. Crying. . . someone posted a song from my collection with out my permission, well the fact is they're not your songs and their is nothing you can do. |
_Bijou_ 06.04.2012 16:57 |
Vocal harmony wrote: How can Fuller be guilty of stealing something that doesn't legally belong to any of these secretive bootleg hoarding dick splashes in the first place. None of you have a leg to stand on. Why don't you just STFU, if someone wants to post stuff on the internet their is nothing you can do to stop them, and that's really what is pissing your little society off, the fact that your a powerless bunch of little kids. Crying. . . someone posted a song from my collection with out my permission, well the fact is they're not your songs and their is nothing you can do.I agree on that point. |
brENsKi 06.04.2012 17:07 |
i never heard some of the sh*t as round here lately. think about it, people collect all kinds of things, art, stamps, music etc. it's the fact that stuff is of interest to collectors that gives it any worth. someone pointed out that they only lsiten to demos etc once and the reaction stuff was shite. so what's your beef exactly? it's not as if something intrinsicly vital is being kept form you is it? get over yourself. final point, the fact that collectors exist and this stuff takes ages to get to the proles makes good sense. if it was all available to all immediately, then queen would be of little interest to anyone round here since about 8 years ago. the talk of "houston" fo four years before it leaked mainatained an interest in an otherwise dead band. let's get some reality eh? |
Vocal harmony 06.04.2012 18:36 |
brENsKi there is a huge difference between genuine collectors, like the ones you've listed, and a bunch of low life thief's that collect stolen pieces of music. A band like Queen who have well into 200 million record sales don't need some nameless turd telling the world that they've got a sub standard recording of a studio out take to keep interest in the band going.. Your mention of Houston is a joke, if you knew anything about the subject you'd know that Houston was available in the late 80's or early 90's on VHS if you knew where to look. You wouldn't know reality if you were living in it. Stay in fantasy land along with the rest of this stupid bunch of pirating goons It's a joke that you believe that the only reason their is any interest in Queen is because of a bunch of no marks dealing in stolen music. Why don't you and the self important secret bootleg organization get some reality eh? |
GratefulFan 06.04.2012 18:48 |
YourValentine wrote: GratefulFan, please do not let facts or common sense come in your way posting these unbelievable double standard allegations. I've been asking for three days for somebody to point out where my understanding of the facts was wrong. As of yet, no takers. Common sense tells me that any potentially unjust destruction of a person's reputation and character in fact or degree is at least as important as releasing wav copies of the equivalent of a 50 year old bar band. What does it tell you? That you should stick up for your friends? Common sense also tells me that leaking material you acquired through an independent trade to the consternation of the person who would have rather leaked it himself in his own time is a completely different crime than stealing the music away like a thief in the night and breaking your word and the trust of others depending on you, and then lying about it while you stick your thumb in the eye of your victim. If a reasonable interpretation of the facts supports Fuller's story adequately, as well or better than it supports the accusations that have been made, how does anybody justify what has happened here? I have never seen anybody savaged on the internet like I've seen here in the last few days. It's really gotten under my skin. Last time, and in more plodding detail that I'm sure anybody wants or cares about, here are the facts as I understand them. I'm sorry I probably won't be more succinct. David was initially part of a collecting group that agreed to pool their recordings with the expectation that the recordings would stay within the group. David contributed to the group by uploading a substantial amount of material, and also downloaded material, some or all of which we've learned was watermarked with his credentials or some other information identifying him as the downloader. While part of this group he leaked a recording that, according to David, he had previously though it was also archived in the shared assets of Fanthology. The fact that he leaked it under his own name while still active in the group would suggest that he didn't anticipate the reaction he got: a hostile accusation of leaking it from the group's materials. Fuller's actions and position on his right to act autonomously with material he obtained from outside the group has been consistent from this initial incident through to today. After some combination of being dismissed and/or quitting, Fuller was invited back into the group by JSS. David declined, according to him, due to the bad taste the accusation and group reaction had left. I'd suspect he also left to maintain his own view of his autonomy on trading outside the group. Traders trade, and declining to be constrained in all his other trading activities by the contents of Fanthology and the constant threat of suspicion is a credible response for a person who focuses much of his efforts on getting things out to people on his YouTube channel. By leaving the group he forfeited access to any future group exclusives or near exclusives, so it was not an inconsequential decision. David leaked an unreleased version of Roger Taylor's 'Is it Me' in February to his YouTube channel. The song was part of the Fanthology assets. David claims he got it from another trader subsequent to leaving the group, and as had been his position all along he indicated he felt free to make autonomous decisions on anything that was not available exclusively in the Fanthology group. In any scenario like this, David could end up with two electronic copies of the song. One of those copies would have his credentials watermarked identifying it as an asset of Fanthology downloaded by him. The other would not. In theory, it's 50/50 which version would have ended up on his YouTube channel. But in practice, since he hadn't traded for a song he actually needed, but only for the 'rights' as he saw them, it might be more likely that he would source it from the existing file collection on his own computer which would be more likely to contain his own watermarked copy. A similar scenario is claimed by David to have happened for the recent Reaction leak. As above it would not be unrealistic for the watermarked copies to be the ones David uploaded despite aquiring another copy or the theoretical 'rights' in an independent trade. As mentioned previously the Fanthology group were not all well known to each other and trust was an issue. That atmosphere, as well as plain old self interest, and uncertain future guarantees may have indeed seen Fanthology members trading on the down low outside the group. It can't be ruled out. At least some of the material they had was almost certainly circulating before as they did not become collectors with the wave of a wand when they joined Fanthology, they were already collectors. In short, it is possible/credible that material in the Fathology cupboard might have been available outside the group. The leaks in question have been few in number and staggered over weeks/months. This is consistent with David's claim of acquiring them in trades over time. Those are David's claims. Whatever one thinks about him it seems to me the fact remains that all the known evidence that has been made public in the various threads is simply not inconsistent with this scenario. The fact that the watermarked Fanthology assets are the ones that were ultimately leaked means the facts are also consistent with the Fanthology position that David was the sole transactor in the leaks and that he effectively stole the material and broke his word to the group and then lied about it. To support this accusation JSS posted a short series of messages between he and David that purported to show that "Yet he admits in May 2011 he was blown away (paraphrased) by the track - but by April 2012 - he claims that he never downloaded it." But the message doesn't claim he never downloaded it. That meaning comes from an assumption by JSS. Fuller simply said he got the song from another collector. Again, "getting it from another collector" is Fuller's claimed prerequisite for releasing material also in Fanthology. So Fuller might be thinking he's communicating something like "I got it from another collector so I was clear to upload a copy to YouTube" where John might process the same words as "I got the material I posted on the YouTube channel from another collector". John at that point would believe he'd caught David in a lie. But you can't get there without assumptions that may not be accurate. Reasonable doubt. No matter what your gut says, no matter who your friends are, when a set of facts supports innocence adequately, what court in what land would convict Fuller on this evidence? Other than the flaky, ever unreliable court of public opinion? Some vague sense of "he's shifty!" does not begin to justify the things that have been said here and in other places. A collector can live or die on his reputation. The only people that have been well served here are those that seek the status quo. And I think we can all agree that David if nothing else, right or wrong, is a menace to the status quo. |
GratefulFan 06.04.2012 19:11 |
YourValentine wrote: Blaming John for unfounded accusations while you are the master uf unfounded accusations yourself is really incredible to see. You seem to love to fuel the fire when you are not in the line yourself. To me you look like the bystander of an accident who does not help but stands in the waywhen help comes. I decided not get involved here anymore days ago but I could not help myself - I simply have to defend a good and decent person against such drivel. I have said everything I have to say, so as far as I am concerned you can spare your time, I am not interested in a long and winding pseudo-moral lecture, thank you. Somehow this reminds me of the thread in which you kept asking for "proof" that there was a bad accident in Fukushima. I gave that up at some point and I am not getting into such a ghost debate with you again. As for the rest of your post, the only similarity between this and the Fukushima discussion is that I'm dealing in the knowable facts and you're splattering emotion. As such, then as now, despite any affection I have for you I neither need your approval or care about your disapproval. The threads I'm reminded of are the ones where you've spoken about the unjustness and incivility of conviction and punishment without trial and about "authorities" who "believe", "implicate" or "consider". I have no doubt those are your true principles, but apparently they're easier to apply when you're looking down on the United States than in your own life when you would have to apply them in a distasteful and unpleasant situation. Did you use your position here to appeal for calm and patience and balance while the facts were sorted? No. You were the first person of reputation to step in and savage him in an over the top display of contempt. It was so snappy it got read out loud on a YouTube video called something like "Dave R. Fuller is a liar and a thief". What if he's not a liar and a thief Barb? Well done, freedom fighter. |
GratefulFan 07.04.2012 00:00 |
I just noticed what I thought might possibly be a telling choice of words by David on another thread. He said. "I brought a ton to the table in that group and still haven't leaked anything that I only obtained in that group". He does not say that he hasn't leaked anything obtained in that group, but that he hasn't leaked anything only obtained in the group. May add further support to the scenario of using his own files for upload, but only if the material could be obtained elsewhere through trading. He wrote that two days before the watermark information was revealed, I believe, so it is unlikely to be a post-hoc explanation to cover the facts. May be nothing but it caught my eye. |
Donna13 07.04.2012 00:23 |
Am I missing something, or would it be very easy for DRF to prove that he has two watermarked copies? And if he doesn't have both on his computer, he could request the copy that is "out there" from the other trader he was referring to. Anyway, I think we should stop with personal criticisms (nobody is perfect) and just deal with the facts, even if all we can say (as non group members) is that we have no evidence to deal with, therefore we cannot draw an independent conclusion about what happened. I'm sure there are huge amounts of room for error in the reasoning on this problem. |
Donna13 07.04.2012 00:33 |
And ..... I don't approve of the way things went on here - the personal insults and crude/rude comments on both sides. But some of the points made about trading in general were interesting to me. And such good writers we have here on Queenzone. If there are recordings out there that the band is requesting, as fans, hopefully the collectors/traders will try to accommodate the band's wishes for the benefit of the most people. I am not one of those who believes that things will stay in the archives on dusty shelves for eternity. Ha. I think we will see some interesting releases in our lifetimes. Maybe even some free downloads from Queen. |
YourValentine 07.04.2012 03:47 |
|
YourValentine 07.04.2012 04:11 |
|
brians wig 07.04.2012 05:58 |
|
Vocal harmony 07.04.2012 06:35 |
Fuller made a fool out of the group, because they are fools. Think about it. They are a "secret" group who collect rare stolen material. They've agreed amongst them selves not to talk, in public, about what they have, unless they all agree too. They seem, stupidly, to believe that by doing this they are keeping interest going in one of the biggest bands in the world. Because they are secret the stuff they are hiding is not for public consumption. Then David R Fuller posts something that these idiots are claiming ownership of, that they have no legal right too, and they start jumping up and down like a bunch of clock work monkeys. It's easy to make fools look like fools |
GratefulFan 07.04.2012 07:32 |
YourValentine wrote: GratefulFan- you are dilusional - I have no other word for it. There is a group of people who apparently does know zero about what happened and what was the deal while you, who were never a part of the group, are the only person in the world who knows what happened. Just think about that. If you were a judge and 20 citizens would testify against a thief you would definitely believe the thief- just for the heck of it. Certainly the 20 citizens must be in the wrong. You know those trial thingies you like in theory for people in Guantanamo Bay but not for people right under your nose? Well they have people in roles that advocate for fairness in the process for accused. It's got nothing to do with delusion, I'm not claiming to know what happened and I'm not being contrarian for it's own sake. Fuller could be a full on psychopath and done all he's been accused of and more for all I know. I'd still be troubled by the mob response relative to the holes in what has been presented as evidence. Separate from whether or not he's 'guilty' it bothers me that more people didn't stop and question more things. I don't "believe the thief", I distrust the mob. |
GratefulFan 07.04.2012 07:52 |
YourValentine wrote: Oh yes - I did see all the log files and Fuller's contribution was zero - as opposed to "tons". So he is a liar and he can sue me if he has a problem with me calling him a liar in public. Despite Fuller claiming at least twice on two separate threads that he was asignificant contributor I believe this is the first claim that he uploaded nothing. This is precisely the kind of evidence that should be questioned. It would be a bit delusional *not* to question it. Can somebody in the group clarify if David uploaded any material? Somebody up thread said "You say you did all the uploading with a few others, it is totally wrong (you participated, but just as everyone did)", but I don't know if that poster was a member of the group. Also didn't JSS say that some members served in roles that didn't require them to provide audio or video material? So a person could have brought "a ton to the table" in some way that would never be reflected in a log file, and the log file could not help you in determining that they were "liars". These are precisely the kinds of leaps I'm talking about. Leaps that start with a premise of guilt and drag the evidence behind it. |
GratefulFan 07.04.2012 08:33 |
OMFG. Just lost a huge post to brian's wig. I'll put it back together later if I can find the will. For now I'll just say quickly that I appreciated the additional detail provided and look forward to further discussion on some of it. |
tcc 07.04.2012 08:41 |
Why do people keep harping on "stolen" music ? Why do we need to worry for them ? Being a millionaire, surely JSS has the money to get legal advice on the legal aspects of collecting and sharing of music, and to buy expertise on the security aspects of keeping track of the copies. |
brENsKi 07.04.2012 09:02 |
Vocal harmony wrote: Fuller made a fool out of the group, because they are fools. Think about it. They are a "secret" group who collect rare stolen material. They've agreed amongst them selves not to talk, in public, about what they have, unless they all agree too. They seem, stupidly, to believe that by doing this they are keeping interest going in one of the biggest bands in the world. Because they are secret the stuff they are hiding is not for public consumption. Then David R Fuller posts something that these idiots are claiming ownership of, that they have no legal right too, and they start jumping up and down like a bunch of clock work monkeys. It's easy to make fools look like foolsbefore i continue - I AM NOT A COLLECTOR calling people who have provided invaluable research and factoids to this site really doesn't help. think you've got a damned cheek calling JSS a fool. you clearly never read his detailed series on each and every queen release. all listed on this site for free. you and your cronies would know fuck-all about this band without people like JSS who have bothered to give up their time doing projects like that and the next time you bemoan the fact that someone heard a new rare track at a convention - but no-one can get hold of it - well that'll be down to what happens when you call fools - the people who invest their time and money into rare collectibles |
MadTheSwine73 07.04.2012 11:05 |
Wow, nine pages in a week. |
Vocal harmony 07.04.2012 13:38 |
brENsKi wrote:Vocal harmony wrote: Fuller made a fool out of the group, because they are fools. Think about it. They are a "secret" group who collect rare stolen material. They've agreed amongst them selves not to talk, in public, about what they have, unless they all agree too. They seem, stupidly, to believe that by doing this they are keeping interest going in one of the biggest bands in the world. Because they are secret the stuff they are hiding is not for public consumption. Then David R Fuller posts something that these idiots are claiming ownership of, that they have no legal right too, and they start jumping up and down like a bunch of clock work monkeys. It's easy to make fools look like foolsbefore i continue - I AM NOT A COLLECTOR calling people who have provided invaluable research and factoids to this site really doesn't help. think you've got a damned cheek calling JSS a fool. you clearly never read his detailed series on each and every queen release. all listed on this site for free. you and your cronies would know fuck-all about this band without people like JSS who have bothered to give up their time doing projects like that and the next time you bemoan the fact that someone heard a new rare track at a convention - but no-one can get hold of it - well that'll be down to what happens when you call fools - the people who invest their time and money into rare collectibles |
Saint Jiub 07.04.2012 14:10 |
GratefulFan wrote:I am in agreement with GF, and am disappointed with the mob mentality of many hardcore collectors.YourValentine wrote: GratefulFan- you are dilusional - I have no other word for it. There is a group of people who apparently does know zero about what happened and what was the deal while you, who were never a part of the group, are the only person in the world who knows what happened. Just think about that. If you were a judge and 20 citizens would testify against a thief you would definitely believe the thief- just for the heck of it. Certainly the 20 citizens must be in the wrong.You know those trial thingies you like in theory for people in Guantanamo Bay but not for people right under your nose? Well they have people in roles that advocate for fairness in the process for accused. It's got nothing to do with delusion, I'm not claiming to know what happened and I'm not being contrarian for it's own sake. Fuller could be a full on psychopath and done all he's been accused of and more for all I know. I'd still be troubled by the mob response relative to the holes in what has been presented as evidence. Separate from whether or not he's 'guilty' it bothers me that more people didn't stop and question more things. I don't "believe the thief", I distrust the mob. However, I do feel that John Stuart has a right to be upset concerning Fuller's actions. I always admired John and I still admire him. Years ago I was subjected to the same mob vindictiveness for sharing mp3's. However there were a few hardcore collectors that defended me despite my own very hostile attitude. That being said, I am encouraged by BMW's evenhanded reply to GF. Perhaps QZ can now return to normal and a certain ethically challenged ex-Fanthology member can be forgotten (or his rants ignored) |
Vocal harmony 07.04.2012 14:55 |
You may not be a collector brENsKi, but you certainly post like your one of them. "you and your cronies". . . . . . Sorry do I know you? JSS and his secret group are fools, for the reasons I've already listed. Whether a professional artist has 100 million in the bank or nothing, it is still illegal to take and use whatever they have created without either paying for it or asking pemission. The fact that JSS and his coven are jumping about an ex member posting material that they have no legal right too is a joke. As for you saying that what they are doing is increasing interest in a band with a 40 year history and almost 300 million sales is just plane utter stupidity. By the way I have never bemoaned someone hearing a rare item played at a convention. . . . Blah blah blah Maybe you're talking about your self or your cronies. So JSS has spent all his spare time writing about the history of Queen releases, and for that reason I can't call him a fool. Well it's his time to do what he wants with, if he wants to portray him self as the last word on Queen releases and rarities that's up to him. Well here's a carrot to dangle in front of JSS and his coven. Mid 70's live album mixed down onto one inch reel to reel. Never got to the planning for release stage because EMI thought it was the wrong time for such a project. The 24 track is stored safely . JSS has a copy of it and the art work. . . . . Does he hell, that goof and his secret society don't even know of it's existence, or where and when it was recorded. Funny, he's the expert in all of this but in reality he knows less than he thinks. The fact remains he deals in stolen music and operates in some kind of illuminate wannabe organization. He and his group are a thieving joke |
brENsKi 07.04.2012 16:51 |
btw - "the traders" did not thieve anything. they paid for items. you can argue the merits of people within the inner sanctum of QPL leaking/stealing/borrowing things, by all means. but don't blame people for wanting to buy the stuff once it's out there. the princple here is not about what they did. because people like you were not moaning what collectors do when houston etc got uploaded, and all of the bbc sessions. the arument is whether or not someone inside the group broke and agreement. and as regards principles - he's the one to be judged. although i have to say, the way you seem to see the justice scales "dishing out what the collectors deserve this time" - i'd hate to be a victim of crime in your fucking kangaroo court. you're a thieving joke, because you expect everything for free. |
agneepath! 11994 07.04.2012 17:09 |
anyone who calls JSS a fool/thief/selfish is either completely ignorant or is an attention seeker. |
Saint Jiub 07.04.2012 17:27 |
dbl post |
Vocal harmony 07.04.2012 17:45 |
If you knowingly buy stolen property you are as guilty as the person who stole it. There is no question of doubt that JSS, in paying for what he has in his rareties collection, is guilty. And for his stupid elite group of collectors to make a fuss about an ex member posting stuff is just plain idiotic. As far as a kangaroo court is concerned. If your talking about principles amounts a bunch of bootlegging thieves and whether one is guilty because he has posted something that legally is not theirs in the first place, then I guess that is where the kangaroo court is operating. Not out here in the real world where I am saying that these guys are a bunch of thieving bootleggers. Whether they've payed for what they have or not. |
pow wow 07.04.2012 18:21 |
brians wig wrote: Fuller leaked something whilst he was still a group member: something which John owns the one and only copy of and says he has NEVER done copies for anyone else.Are you referring to the Reaction stuff or Is It Me because I can tell you with 100% certainty that John is not the sole owner of either of these recordings? If you mean original acetate or reel maybe, but digital/cassette, no. |
inu-liger 07.04.2012 19:22 |
This thread is getting beyond ridiculous... |
John S Stuart 07.04.2012 19:22 |
|
Saint Jiub 07.04.2012 20:09 |
Vocal harmony - What was stolen???? A discarded Hangman acetate? Audience recorded Hectics tapes? "Bell Boy" home recordings given freely by Peter Freestone? BBC sessions erased by the BBC? Audience recordings of concerts the band was to lazy to record themselves? If you are to make accusations, you should provide evidence. If John Stuart is as guilty as you say he is, why is he a respected musical journalist and not rotting in a jail? |
inu-liger 07.04.2012 20:43 |
Vocal Harmony, you do realize that posts like yours making unfounded posts accusing JSS & co. of knowingly dealing on stolen goods without solid factual evidence constitutes libel and can seriously land you in court, or in jail if found guilty and convicted. If Google can be successfully subpoenaed into handing over user info and IP addresses (and they have!), then there's nothing stopping QZ from being forced by law to do the same. Govern yourself accordingly |
Vocal harmony 07.04.2012 21:04 |
Artists are payed publishing and royalty fees for what is sold with their names on it. If someone buys a product which has not been officially released, then the artist receives nothing by way of payment. Whether it's an acetate, an unofficial live recording or a rare demo, makes no difference. I very much doubt that any of these rare items have found their way onto the market with the bands seal of approval. If that is the case, the person selling them is at best operating on the fringes of legality as is anyone who buys such items. As I said earlier if a ex member of your elitist group of collectors has posted something on the internet that has been bought outside the realms of copyright then I don't think anyone can do or say much about it, after all the legal owner is the person who wrote it, because no royalties have been payed for it's use you are not in a position to complain. It's been pointed out in this thread that your reasoning behind your secret collection group is to keep peoples interest in an otherwise largely forgotten band. . . . Really? Interesting that you have felt the need to mention that you think you may have some Disney art. Why mention that in a Queen forum. And why are you not sure that you have, or is that another secret group? If like you've said you have nothing in your secret group collection that you shouldn't have then all is well and good. But if you have unreleased, or live, or demo material then I stand by what I have said. That you have songs that have been stolen and then sold on and if that's the case then you are as guilty as the person the bought them from, because saying you didnt realize won't wash with your apparent knowledge of the subject. If that isn't the case and the rare material you and your group have hidden only amounts to rare low numbers of officially released product that anyone could have bought at the time of release then I'm sorry for suggesting otherwise |
Saint Jiub 07.04.2012 21:20 |
vh - So, you are vociferously accusing some of theft without a shred of evidence based on your flimsy opinion that the items he has might fall into a legally gray area. Brilliant |
Saint Jiub 07.04.2012 21:22 |
inu-liger wrote: Vocal Harmony, you do realize that posts like yours making unfounded posts accusing JSS & co. of knowingly dealing on stolen goods without solid factual evidence constitutes libel and can seriously land you in court, or in jail if found guilty and convicted. If Google can be successfully subpoenaed into handing over user info and IP addresses (and they have!), then there's nothing stopping QZ from being forced by law to do the same. Govern yourself accordinglyAre you legal councel or owner of Queenzone? I thought not. |
tcc 07.04.2012 21:56 |
Vocal harmony wrote: You may not be a collector brENsKi, but you certainly post like your one of them. "you and your cronies". . . . . . Sorry do I know you? JSS and his secret group are fools, for the reasons I've already listed. Whether a professional artist has 100 million in the bank or nothing, it is still illegal to take and use whatever they have created without either paying for it or asking pemission. The fact that JSS and his coven are jumping about an ex member posting material that they have no legal right too is a joke. As for you saying that what they are doing is increasing interest in a band with a 40 year history and almost 300 million sales is just plane utter stupidity. By the way I have never bemoaned someone hearing a rare item played at a convention. . . . Blah blah blah Maybe you're talking about your self or your cronies. So JSS has spent all his spare time writing about the history of Queen releases, and for that reason I can't call him a fool. Well it's his time to do what he wants with, if he wants to portray him self as the last word on Queen releases and rarities that's up to him. Well here's a carrot to dangle in front of JSS and his coven. Mid 70's live album mixed down onto one inch reel to reel. Never got to the planning for release stage because EMI thought it was the wrong time for such a project. The 24 track is stored safely . JSS has a copy of it and the art work. . . . . Does he hell, that goof and his secret society don't even know of it's existence, or where and when it was recorded. Funny, he's the expert in all of this but in reality he knows less than he thinks. The fact remains he deals in stolen music and operates in some kind of illuminate wannabe organization. He and his group are a thieving joke I think the second last line of this post is not in order. Your latest post has too many ifs and buts to constitute an acknowledgement that your iniital allegations are defective thinking. |
tcc 07.04.2012 21:58 |
Vocal harmony wrote: If you knowingly buy stolen property you are as guilty as the person who stole it. There is no question of doubt that JSS, in paying for what he has in his rareties collection, is guilty. And for his stupid elite group of collectors to make a fuss about an ex member posting stuff is just plain idiotic. As far as a kangaroo court is concerned. If your talking about principles amounts a bunch of bootlegging thieves and whether one is guilty because he has posted something that legally is not theirs in the first place, then I guess that is where the kangaroo court is operating. Not out here in the real world where I am saying that these guys are a bunch of thieving bootleggers. Whether they've payed for what they have or not. I think the second line in your first paragraph is not in order. Your latest post has too many ifs and buts to acknowledge that this sentence is defective. |
inu-liger 08.04.2012 00:47 |
Panchgani wrote:inu-liger wrote: Vocal Harmony, you do realize that posts like yours making unfounded posts accusing JSS & co. of knowingly dealing on stolen goods without solid factual evidence constitutes libel and can seriously land you in court, or in jail if found guilty and convicted. If Google can be successfully subpoenaed into handing over user info and IP addresses (and they have!), then there's nothing stopping QZ from being forced by law to do the same. Govern yourself accordinglyAre you legal councel or owner of Queenzone? I thought not. Did I ever for one second say I was? I was merely trying to give some fair advice, as they DO take online slander / libel very seriously in the U.K., and JSS has every right to ask that V.H. remove his slanderous comments. There was a cricketer who just won a libel case stemming from comments made on Twitter, I believe. |
kosimodo 08.04.2012 04:00 |
What really happend... i dunno:) but.. i cant see the problem. (If it is stolen or not: i think it is a kinda grey area. i cant picture the elite as an ocean 14 getting the rare stuff:) ) A digital copy is to share with everybody.. The actual acetate or whatever is the collectors item to hang on your wall or so.. Thats to cherise.. Share the music to everybody and show proudly on your own youtubechannel that it is yours. A big thank you to David for bringing the music to the masses. Being a lifelong fan of Queen is for sure fun with him. (and Gregsynth ofcourse!!!) To the elite.. share a copy digitally what you have of whatever. And keep the original hanging on the wall and be proud of the original collection you have. I bet it is more fun to show off and let the world envy you. I see those youtubechannels coming. |
Ron 08.04.2012 04:22 |
So, in a summary... this issue was all about breaking trust. Nothing more. It's not about the material that has leaked as John pointed out. Most, if not all, stuff will see the light of day one day anyway. And all the bashers who think that the Fanthology are fools or freaks... deep inside they just want to be part of it and are now calling names simply because they can't and never will be ;) |
brians wig 08.04.2012 04:48 |
pow wow wrote:No, not those.brians wig wrote: Fuller leaked something whilst he was still a group member: something which John owns the one and only copy of and says he has NEVER done copies for anyone else.Are you referring to the Reaction stuff or Is It Me because I can tell you with 100% certainty that John is not the sole owner of either of these recordings? If you mean original acetate or reel maybe, but digital/cassette, no. |
Vocal harmony 08.04.2012 05:08 |
I am not saying that JSS or his group of collectors have physically stolen, as in walked in too a building and picked up a cd or acetate and anything else. What I have said through all of my posts is that I think it is questionable whether what they have in their collection is legal because of it's rare and unreleased nature (a presumption because all we know for certain is that the collection is rare and some at least is unreleased) that no copy write or royalties have been payed to the writers and performers and in that respect those performances have been stolen. Not the actual physical medium they appear on. I branded the group fools, as someone else did too, because if an ex member has posted something on line that no royalties have been payed for then it should be the artist who kicks up a fuss about it, not the person or people who have the track in their possession, because the song is still the property of the artists, even though you may legitimately claim ownership of the medium it appears on. If on the other hand the track was released through a record company and their for royalties payed to the artist then you have every right to complain about your copy of the recording being posted without your permission. The if's and buts in my posts have been there from the beginning of this thread |
inu-liger 08.04.2012 05:33 |
"that no copy write or royalties have been payed to the writers and performers and in that respect those performances have been stolen" So by your logic, should it apply too that the band should also be paid royalties whenever their official products are sold 2nd-hand (eg. eBay, Amazon Market), particularly when some rarer items fetch a pretty penny? Because these unreleased recordings ARE practically 2nd hand purchases once they've been sold off once already by the original owner, and that's nothing the band can do about it, unfortunately. Also, please learn to spell. I can't take you seriously if you can't keep your spelling consistent. |
Vocal harmony 08.04.2012 06:02 |
Once a legitimate product has been sold, and their for the royalty payed, it's up to the owner what they choose to do with that item. There are plenty of secondhand outlets that sell on CD's etc. Some things drop in value other rise. Once royalties have been payed they do not get payed again each time something changes hands. My point was, and I'll say it again because you obviously don't understand how royalty payments work, if an unreleased songs appear on the open market, because it is unreleased, it earns the artist who wrote and recorded it nothing. In effect it is stolen. The medium that it appears on, IE CD for instance, may well have been bought and payed for, but if a song appears on that CD that has not been officially released it has been stolen from the people who wrote and recorded it. Yes some collectable items have been sold and resold many times, but that doesn't change the fact that if they weren't official releases then they contain stolen or bootlegged material |
splicksplack 08.04.2012 06:42 |
inu-liger wrote: "that no copy write or royalties have been payed to the writers and performers and in that respect those performances have been stolen" So by your logic, should it apply too that the band should also be paid royalties whenever their official products are sold 2nd-hand (eg. eBay, Amazon Market), particularly when some rarer items fetch a pretty penny? Because these unreleased recordings ARE practically 2nd hand purchases once they've been sold off once already by the original owner, and that's nothing the band can do about it, unfortunately. Also, please learn to spell. I can't take you seriously if you can't keep your spelling consistent.I would take VH seriously if I were you. His / her point is absolutely correct. And you risk losing any credibility you have by taking cheap shots at spelling. |
inu-liger 08.04.2012 06:53 |
Vocal Harmony, let me ask you this...if you think Queen are ever SO concerned about losing money on all these leaked rarities, then why aren't they taking back what's theirs (assuming there are rarities NOT immediately in their own archive) and start releasing them themselves? What with the digital iTunes age and all, there's really nothing STOPPING them from doing it. Heck, Pink Floyd did it with one of the bonus features on the PULSE DVD, "Bootlegging The Bootleggers", and I'm sure there are also other major bands out there that have used bootlegged sources for their own official releases. Explain your expert views on that matter, please. |
Vocal harmony 08.04.2012 08:04 |
I am not an expert, and have never claimed to be. It's up to the band to do as they see fit with their work. If something is sitting on a shelf, unreleased, then it is there because of a decision the band have made. It's not up to you or me or anyone to decide otherwise If you were a musician or an artist and created a piece of work that you were not happy with and decided that you didn't want it released to the public, how would you feel if it was suddenly made available without you knowledge or consent. Pink Floyd's bootlegging the bootleggers was interesting but only scratched the serface. Queen's bootleg download thing seemed to fade away. They did however offer downloads from the Q+PR live era which had an impact on live bootlegging of that tour. Metallica also have offered a simlar service. As regards to Queen choosing not to release studio rarities or making them available for download, that really is up to them. Why not Email Brian May, Roger Taylor or Jim Beach and ask them to explain |
inu-liger 08.04.2012 08:10 |
The problem with contacting the latter two is that I've yet to see public e-mail addresses for either of them that can be easily used to correspond to them with, without requiring privileged media/PR connections to get the contact info. |
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 10:50 |
|
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 10:55 |
|
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 12:03 |
|
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 12:03 |
|
Negative Creep 08.04.2012 12:14 |
John S Stuart wrote: It is the parent company (EMI, Sony, Hollywood etc) who owns the material. Not the artist.Likewise my acetates say "property of EMI" not property of Brian May.Wrong. EMI don't own the rights to ANY Queen sound recordings. A generic record company label slapped on an acetate means diddley squat. Have you transferred the Trident Sound reels you bought via Amiga Auctions last month yet? :) |
john bodega 08.04.2012 12:24 |
"I wanted a video expert who could work on some video restoration projects" .... HAHA. Oh God. You'd meet better video experts hiding out in Tibetan monasteries. Being able to hit 'Upload' does not a video maker make. I shouldn't laugh though. How the hell did you make that mistake anyway?? |
john bodega 08.04.2012 12:27 |
"if I want to spend my hard earned cash on acetates, fast cars, drugs, alcohol or even hookers" You rock, sir. \m/ |
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 12:35 |
|
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 12:35 |
|
Vocal harmony 08.04.2012 12:54 |
No tax no royalty. How is it possible to pay tax on something you haven't earned? Royalty payments, in music, are of two types. Mechanical and publishing. Mechanical royalties are payed to an artist or band for each album sold. The amount is a percentage of what you pay over the counter. The percentage differs greatly from act to act. And the advance that is payed to a band/artist is repaid out of mechanical royalties. Publishing royalties are payed to the writers of songs, so as the old story goes, Freddie and Roger make more out of the single sales of Bo Rhap because they are the writers of the two songs on the single Artists are taxed on their earnings, not directly on the sales of each album. EMI, Sony or whoever pay sales tax on everything they sell. As does any type of bussiness selling products. To say that an artist pays tax on an album before he gets payed is crazy, what is that tax rate based on. . . .0% sales? You can't compare George Michael's contract or court case with other artists. Everyones contract is slightly different. As for record companies being in ownership of music over the people who have recorded it, that is entirely accurate either. Michael Jackson bought ownership of the Beatles back catalogue. He owned it, not the record company. Frank Zappa owned his publishing rights, hence his songs have stayed in his families control and Queen are the same, they have ownership of their songs. Their deal gives them control over what Island can do at the end of the day. As for old acetates having property of EMI and not Brian May written on them. they were the company who payed for and released the albums and up until John Read became the bands manager Queen had a lot less control over their recordings. |
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 12:57 |
|
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 13:07 |
|
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 13:07 |
|
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 13:09 |
|
inu-liger 08.04.2012 13:28 |
V.H., please learn to spell. It's paid, not "payed". |
soxtalon 08.04.2012 13:49 |
The bottom line is that really the only people who know every bit of what happened are DRF and JSS (and the group). A. I don't know why this has devolved into an argument over what IS ownership. It really doesn't matter. Unless you know for a fact that how they got the recordings was illicit you are making unsubstantiated accusations and thus unnecessarily clouding the situation. B. With that being said, some hard working collectors have amassed a collection that people would love to hear. With what is being said I have no reason to doubt that they do want to leak the material as they have done over the past few years. Where would we be without those leaks? And how did those leaks happen? Over time and by collectors acquiring them...using other rare collectible tracks or what not at times. C. Sure I would love a crack at getting all of the Fanthology stuff at once...BUT at the same time once it is out there - that's it. Once the hardest working collectors out there release all of their stuff - THAT'S IT. There will be little way to get any other stuff that hasn't quite made it out there yet. So I am certainly content to wait a bit - considering I'm doing nothing for the material (with that being said - the problem is that there's not much we can do to help and most of us would help if we could). D. At the end - the real bottom line - if a promise was made during a trade not to publicly leak. The leak happened. It's wrong. |
inu-liger 08.04.2012 15:14 |
"A. I don't know why this has devolved into an argument over what IS ownership. It really doesn't matter. Unless you know for a fact that how they got the recordings was illicit you are making unsubstantiated accusations and thus unnecessarily clouding the situation." Because unfortunately, as one of my friends pointed out, people LOVE to sensationalize things here (I think in the name of self-serving convenience, whatever that may be). Hence why this place tends to earn it's unofficial label "MOANzone" "B. With that being said, some hard working collectors have amassed a collection that people would love to hear. With what is being said I have no reason to doubt that they do want to leak the material as they have done over the past few years" PRECISELY. Me and Brian's Wig have been trying to clarify this from the beginning, the intent of the group WAS to put out the rarities that have only seen dim cellar lights so far. Why the hell would a group get together otherwise to amass their collection and filter out the higher-generation duplicates in order to bring out the best quality material! Surely, that would defeat the purpose of trading?? "D. At the end - the real bottom line - if a promise was made during a trade not to publicly leak. The leak happened. It's wrong" Bingo! This is the CORE issue at hand, NOT the far-away tangent that was the separate issue of bootleg sources and morals! |
Vocal harmony 08.04.2012 15:15 |
JSS your comments were not generic. You named artists, songs, albums record companies and a court case to illustrate your point. You however chose not to present a broader view, and indeed with regard to the fact that their are artists, Queen included who do have ownership of their songs. Licensing songs to EMI or Sony does not give them ownership. As far as me going back and changing past posts. Please read the 17th post on page 9 of this thread. Again I will explain. I did not accuse you of stealing any of the records, Cd's DVD or what ever you have. What I said was that the contents of these items could easily be viewed as stolen material, because if certain tracks were not released then no royalty has been paid for them, and the reason they are collectable is because they were never released. If that's the case I stand by what I've said, that the contents of some of the mediums you have amount to stolen music. If that's not the case, and all you have in your collection is rare hard to obtain official releases then I apologize. |
John S Stuart 08.04.2012 15:39 |
|
bryony 09.04.2012 02:09 |
THIS IS GETTING SO BORING NOW! |
inu-liger 09.04.2012 02:14 |
Agreed ^ |
tcc 09.04.2012 03:20 |
Vocal harmony wrote:
The fact remains he deals in stolen music and operates in some kind of illuminate wannabe organization.
He and his group are a thieving joke
Vocal harmony wrote:
If you knowingly buy stolen property you are as guilty as the person who stole it. There is no question of doubt that JSS, in
paying for what he has in his rareties collection, is guilty. And for his stupid elite group of collectors to make a fuss about an ex member posting stuff is just plain idiotic.
Vocal harmony wrote:
If like you've said you have nothing in your secret group collection that you shouldn't have then all is well and good. But
if you have unreleased, or live, or demo material then I stand by what I have said. That you have songs that have been stolen and then sold on and if that's the case then you are as guilty as the person the bought them from, because
saying you didnt realize won't wash with your apparent knowledge of the subject. If that isn't the case and the rare material you and your group have hidden only amounts to rare low numbers of officially released product that anyone could
have bought at the time of release then I'm sorry for suggesting otherwise
Vocal harmony wrote:
As far as me going back and changing past posts. Please read the 17th post on page 9 of this thread.
Again I will explain. I did not accuse you of stealing any of the records, Cd's DVD or what ever you have. What I said was that the contents of these items could easily be viewed as stolen material, because if certain tracks were not released then no
royalty has been paid for them, and the reason they are collectable is because they were never released. If that's the case I stand by what I've said, that the contents of some of the mediums you have amount to stolen music. If that's not
the case, and all you have in your collection is rare hard to obtain official releases then I apologize. The apologies as shown in the last two quotes were couched in “ifs”. “If that is not the case....I apologize.” However, as shown in the first two quotes, the statements were very positive that it was the case. These are the two instances I could find where the words were sensitive - the parties concerned have to sort it out if there are more. |
Holly2003 09.04.2012 05:28 |
Vocal harmony wrote: No tax no royalty. How is it possible to pay tax on something you haven't earned? Royalty payments, in music, are of two types. Mechanical and publishing. Mechanical royalties are payed to an artist or band for each album sold. The amount is a percentage of what you pay over the counter. The percentage differs greatly from act to act. And the advance that is payed to a band/artist is repaid out of mechanical royalties. Publishing royalties are payed to the writers of songs, so as the old story goes, Freddie and Roger make more out of the single sales of Bo Rhap because they are the writers of the two songs on the single Artists are taxed on their earnings, not directly on the sales of each album. EMI, Sony or whoever pay sales tax on everything they sell. As does any type of bussiness selling products. To say that an artist pays tax on an album before he gets payed is crazy, what is that tax rate based on. . . .0% sales? You can't compare George Michael's contract or court case with other artists. Everyones contract is slightly different. As for record companies being in ownership of music over the people who have recorded it, that is entirely accurate either. Michael Jackson bought ownership of the Beatles back catalogue. He owned it, not the record company.Spot on. |
Vocal harmony 09.04.2012 06:32 |
tcc, your post is redundant. JSS has accepted my apology. . . You appear to be trying to stir up something that has been settled. Why? |
tcc 09.04.2012 07:21 |
VH - He asked for some modification to your statements but to date you did not do it. Perhaps you do not see the need to do it but think of this example. Suppose someone puts up a big neon advertisment over times square in new york or picadilly circus in london that you have done such and such a wrong thing. He later gave you an apology that if that was not the case, he apologise but he still kept the neon advertisment going for everybody to see. How would you feel ? In JSS's case, supposing your statement was quoted out of context, what would happen to him ? |
oh-ja 09.04.2012 07:44 |
people, don't feed the trolls ... that so-called vocal harmony and some others are trying to talk about things they don't know about. so what? people like them act only for the sake of other people's re-action; they have nothing substantial to say. john, in my opinion it's a pity that you seem to feel like defending yourself. furthermore, there is no use! those people won't stop. best wishes ha-jo |
GratefulFan 09.04.2012 10:44 |
John S Stuart wrote: As for your second point; you really expect me to answer this here after all that has gone before? Many will assume you continue to refer to the Dave R. Fuller situation, at least in part. I'd note that in that case what had 'gone before' was the secret coven. Forthcomingness is not typically a hallmark of secret covens. It continues to strike me that you want to squeeze a lot more out of these events than you feel obliged to put in. You, and the collective you. If you can't answer NC, could you not have answered me? I asked several posts ago if someone could confirm YV's late allegation that David had contributed no material to the group, in effect getting to call him a leech and, once again, a liar without any burden of clearly and credibly resolving the conflicting information. Something perhaps in the form of "As you can imagine the fact that David had stolen from me/us was particularly galling given the fact that he himself contributed no material to the group. When he brazenly claimed that he and a select few were doing all the uploading I forgot to mention it my follow up posts where I went in to some detail on how and why he was a liar, a thief, and one of the bassest human beings I have ever come across. I was just about to get to it when my cat jumped on my head and I got distracted. Same goes for the other thread when nobody mentioned it there either. But yes, YV is correct. David did not contribute any material to the group." (The collective) You want to claim the high mindedness of this not being about principle, not the material, while pointing to David and intimating that his actions are responsible for the future squeezing off of information and material. Of course your concerns extend to protecting the material. Suggesting otherwise on any level is disingenuous and self serving. You want us to register that David is further pond scum for revealing the existence of the secret coven - "David this should never have been made public", or "So David, you're basically breaking ANOTHER promise which is not talking about the existence of the group ?" while asserting the dubious privilege of flying onto the announce thread with every manner of cryptic character assassination, exponentially magnified by the melodrama of multiple participants. As an aside, if you couldn't respect Fuller's fundamental rights to a coherent accusation and an opportunity to defend himself in an atmosphere of fairness and objectivity, you might have respected the rest of the forum. Nobody knew what the hell was going on and it was confusing and uncomfortable. This whole thing smacks of people stewing in a back room, seeing an awful lot of smoke, and working themselves up into a frenzy of being certain there was fire, and in that certainty abandoning any sense of responsiblity for anything other than avenging their own sense of outrage. Back to point: THE COLLECTIVE YOU left Fuller little choice but to give your over the top contempt the context of Fanthology in order to defend himself. You don't get to blame that on him. You want to draw on your well earned excellent reputation in the collecting community and allow others to do the same for as a panacea for any doubts anybody might foolishly - that is the implication - have. Rather than feeling any real responsibility to justify your serious allegations when challenged we mostly got Freud and Chief Wiggum and my youthful inexperience and my state of delusion. Just answer the f*ing questions! They were neither hard nor unreasonable. After two full days of Fuller defending himself on the announce threads by saying he got the material from other collectors, saying "I still haven't leaked anything that I only obtained in that group", he never once claimed innoncence because he didn't have access to the material or that the hadn't downloaded it. Somehow you still made a big deal of "I got it from another collector" and asserted it as proof that he was now claiming never to have downloaded it. That was not a remotely reasonable inference. Your well deserved reputation in the community does not make you immune from a breakdown of objectivity and perspective in upsetting situations. You hadn't earned the right to have your judgment in this situation trusted implicity and shouldn't have carried on as though you had. On objectivity: although he appears to have removed a lengthy post up thread, brian's wig recently said that the proof would be in the pudding when it was seen whether or not anything leaked post Fuller. Really? You've just publicly revealed that downloads are effectively stamped with the identity of the downloader. You don't think that would have a chilling effect on Fanthonlogy members leaking had that been happening? The fact that anybody would suggest that anything that followed, or didn't follow, could be laid at the feet of David Fuller is an utter breakdown of objectiviety and responsibility to fairness. Of course the other possibility is that that was a Freudian slip and there is in fact no watermarking system. That like a rogue cop who is 'sure' someone is guilty you fudged the evidence on Fuller to get the criminal off the streets. I don't find that likely, and it's certainly not an accusation, but given your collective behaviour I unfortunately find it in the realm of remote possibility. Goes without saying that would also be a breakdown of objectivity and responsibility to fairness. Either way - there has been a breakdown of objectivity and repsonsibilty to fairness. And in another aside, why was brian's wig's lengthy post removed in the first place? The original announce thread is full of empty holes now too from multiple posters. You people sure know how to end up looking shifty in situations where it wouldn't seem to be necessary. David has not emerged from this well. I don't think anybody on Queenzone, including me, would send him to the store for beer with their bank card. But whoever wrote up thread that only DRF and JSS know what happened for sure is wrong. Only DRF knows what happened for sure. At the heart of this is that as much as you might like it to be so you can't entirely eliminate the fact that it is possible that people were leaking from Fanthology. As long as that remains possible, you can't get to certainly of guilt. Given that, you all have not emerged from this well either in my eyes. You never had the strength of evidence to behave as if you didn't owe David some kind of a responsible objective process untainted by your melodrama. No one ever does in a fair society. You never had the strength of evidence to behave as if a watermark solved the whole thing. Though I've posted more extensively with some of you than others I feel completely comfortable saying that as individuals you are not arrogant people and you are not bullies. But in this group action that seems to have held itself accountable for little to nothing there have been elements of both these things. To me, it was simply wrong. I may be alone, but I hope never to witness it on Queenzone again. |
GratefulFan 09.04.2012 10:45 |
Finally, somebody in the original announce thread said they questioned the lack of proportionality in the community. As they pointed out, in the end all this was about the wav versions of some already circulating mp3s. Put that way, it's a bit sobering. Everybody understands the current paradigm of the trading community and why this matters. But that's the current paradigm. You can supress resistance for a while with these kind of tactics that have been unleashed on Fuller - the comtempt, the shunning, the righteous disgust and outrage and the like, but you can't supress it forever. More and more people are perceiving that parts of your rules of engagement have become dogmatic and outdated and do not adequately see the fan community as a true stakeholder that can factor into decisions . And things like the secret squirrel cabal do not read well however they are cast. That you will eventually lose control if you don't adapt seems inevitable. History is littered with insurrections that changed systems that needed changing. It was said that this was an issue of whether Fuller was a hero or a tyrant, but he doesn't have to be either entirely and he can be a bit of both. |
oh-ja 09.04.2012 11:24 |
yawn ... |
Vocal harmony 09.04.2012 11:32 |
tcc this is a forum, only of interest to Queen fans, it's nothing like a neon sign I a city centre. I have made my points clearer on two occasions in this thread and apologized to JSS each time. At the moment I am not going to change anything in my posts, because the opologies and accompanying explanations cover any editing. And if I did edit them, to anyone reading them, the opologies would make little sense. oh-ja I know a lot more than you can imagine. |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 12:06 |
|
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 12:25 |
|
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 12:32 |
|
GratefulFan 09.04.2012 12:36 |
I'm not questioning your integrity John. I want to make that clear. I'm questioning your logic. Where does he claim he did NOT download the track? "I got it from another collector" is not equivalent to "I didn't download the track from Fanthology". Can you not see that? |
Micrówave 09.04.2012 12:39 |
I've been in IT for 25 yearsImpressive... but not really relevant. Unless your punch cards look counterfeit. I'm pretty confident there's not one school of thought on security at medium sized institutions. John has presented his information and even David has admitted to doing it. Why are we still questioning procedure here... move along counselor. |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 12:42 |
|
GratefulFan 09.04.2012 12:45 |
You're right Microwave, it's not relevant, except to illustrate that I understand watermarking and it's not some impenetrable rocket science that has the potential to muddy anything here. David has not admitted to doing what John has alleged i.e. uploaded Fanthology material without having received from an alternate source. |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 12:46 |
|
GratefulFan 09.04.2012 12:46 |
And you are a poor logician John. Jesus Christ I feel like I'm trying to shout through water to no one. |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 12:47 |
|
Micrówave 09.04.2012 12:48 |
Perhaps there was a 2nd trader in the grassy knoll??? |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 12:49 |
|
GratefulFan 09.04.2012 12:52 |
Where did he tell you he didn't download it? Do you feel you've demonstrated that with the correspondence you've posted? |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 12:53 |
|
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 12:58 |
|
Micrówave 09.04.2012 12:58 |
Has the "other trader" been identified by David or has that "other trader" come forward to corroborate David's claim? |
Micrówave 09.04.2012 12:58 |
You want to see the pimples on my ass too?That was leaked years ago. We want the rare stuff!!!!! |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 13:00 |
|
GratefulFan 09.04.2012 13:02 |
I am a logician for a living. Your problem is that you are making the unsubstantiated assumption that David did not have his own track from his download as well as a second one from a trader. Recall I'm not arguing David's innocence, or the relative likelihood of any scenario, just that everybody gets a presumption of innocence and all reasonable scenarios should be considered. My problem is that you don't seem to ever have considered the scenario even to reject it. |
Micrówave 09.04.2012 13:03 |
Never mind that. So ARE you sleeping with David Fuller? And would you be willing to sneak in a Flash Drive next time? |
GratefulFan 09.04.2012 13:05 |
Micrówave wrote: Has the "other trader" been identified by David or has that "other trader" come forward to corroborate David's claim?No. But the defendant never has to take the stand. I'm not arguing David's innocence. I'm arguing that this was a lynching and thus something that should be called out. |
Micrówave 09.04.2012 13:12 |
David would be the defendant in this case. We're treating Trader X as a hostile witness. The defendant has referenced Trader X to JSS directly and to Queenzone has a whole. He introduced the witness, so that witness CANNOT take the fifth. Of course, if he were being tried in Canada they would have executed him already. |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 13:15 |
|
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 13:22 |
|
oh-ja 09.04.2012 13:31 |
GratefulFan wrote: I am a logician for a living.sure ... you're just a poor minded advocatus diaboli, nothing more. why don't you stop this? it's simply none of your business. this is neither your forum, nor your facebook-group, nor your acetates. you (and the other big mouths) should go out and purchase every officially released record, buy tickets and record some concerts (and share them for free), buy some merchandising and so on. not to mention trade some rare stuff ... after that, you discuss several musical items with different but like-minded people and question your own thoughts and opinions. then come back, approximately in ten years. |
Holly2003 09.04.2012 13:35 |
John S Stuart wrote:That's a bit rich after the complete load of bollocks you posted about taxes and copyright law -- the stuff that Vocal Harmony went through like a shortcut. And after you bitched and moaned about being called a "c**t". One set of standards for you and one for everyone else I guess. Now let's hear some more of your pathetic "Christ on the Cross" whining about how you've been betrayed. It is the time of the year for after all...GratefulFan wrote:What you are a lawyer as well now? YV was right - you are like a ghoul at an accident. You get off on trying to wind me up so I will crucify David in public to satisfy your morbid curiosity? On second thoughts YV was wrong; you are NOT a ghoul but a sh*tebag who enjoys clouding the issue with psuedo intellectual goobledook. David Fuller IS a thief, a liar, a bad-trader and an ungrateful coward, and all your psuedo-philosophical reasoning can not save him now. He will steal for you - he will steal from you. Now unless David has the balls to face the music himself, I suggest you enjoy his alleged sexual favours, while I refuse to say anything else on the subject. Deal?Micrówave wrote: Has the "other trader" been identified by David or has that "other trader" come forward to corroborate David's claim?No. But the defendant never has to take the stand. I'm not arguing David's innocence. I'm arguing that this was a lynching and thus something that should be called out. |
Holly2003 09.04.2012 13:38 |
oh-ja wrote:Better idea. If you don't like stuff being discussed on a forum, piss off to China or North Korea. You guys are more than happy to divulge what you think us mere mortals will swallow, but now the conversation's taken a route you don't like you''re trying desperatley to close down the discussion. Nice try. Piss off.GratefulFan wrote: I am a logician for a living.sure ... you're just a poor minded advocatus diaboli, nothing more. why don't you stop this? it's simply none of your business. this is neither your forum, nor your facebook-group, nor your acetates. you (and the other big mouths) should go out and purchase every officially released record, buy tickets and record some concerts (and share them for free), buy some merchandising and so on. not to mention trade some rare stuff ... after that, you discuss several musical items with different but like-minded people and question your own thoughts and opinions. then come back, approximately in ten years. |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 13:46 |
|
GratefulFan 09.04.2012 13:56 |
John S Stuart wrote: What you are a lawyer as well now? YV was right - you are like a ghoul at an accident. You get off on trying to wind me up so I will crucify David in public to satisfy your morbid curiosity? On second thoughts YV was wrong; you are NOT a ghoul but a sh*tebag who enjoys clouding the issue with psuedo intellectual goobledook. David Fuller IS a thief, a liar, a bad-trader and an ungrateful coward, and all your psuedo-philosophical reasoning can not save him now. He will steal for you - he will steal from you. Now unless David has the balls to face the music himself, I suggest you enjoy his alleged sexual favours, while I refuse to say anything else on the subject. Deal?What bullshit. Given the chance to answer the simple question implicit in my post above you invoke more backroom voodoo and attack me sexually. You're really on an even keel with this. Totally objective. Somebody whose judgement we should completely trust. I have nothing left to say. Anybody who cared to see my point will have seen it long ago. Anybody who is able to see what is going on here doesn't need me to narrate. The rest of you are shockingly entitled to think yourselves above processes every last one of us is guaranteed in any decent society, QZ included. I have no idea what Fuller did or didn't do. Guilty people can be lynched too, and we shouldn't stand for it, ever, because the next person might be innocent. Or you. Fuck all of you who could have been better, should have been better, and still arrived at the same place. |
GratefulFan 09.04.2012 14:05 |
Holly2003 wrote:And thank god for you. In the middle of a sea of people trying to overwhelm by the force of authority I'm grateful for somebody with a spine and a sense of the completely absurd.oh-ja wrote:Better idea. If you don't like stuff being discussed on a forum, piss off to China or North Korea. You guys are more than happy to divulge what you think us mere mortals will swallow, but now the conversation's taken a route you don't like you''re trying desperatley to close down the discussion. Nice try. Piss off.GratefulFan wrote: I am a logician for a living.sure ... you're just a poor minded advocatus diaboli, nothing more. why don't you stop this? it's simply none of your business. this is neither your forum, nor your facebook-group, nor your acetates. you (and the other big mouths) should go out and purchase every officially released record, buy tickets and record some concerts (and share them for free), buy some merchandising and so on. not to mention trade some rare stuff ... after that, you discuss several musical items with different but like-minded people and question your own thoughts and opinions. then come back, approximately in ten years. |
ludwigs 09.04.2012 14:06 |
Eastenders has just come on.....and I thought that was a downer..... |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 14:24 |
|
mooghead 09.04.2012 14:46 |
"But I find this thread so irritating and infuriating. " Me too. JSS, I respect you a lot (real mooghead coming out here!), your knowledge and insight far outweighs any of the other 'fans' here who create websites to tell us what we can all hear, and people fawn over them like they are some sort of demi god. But I am starting to think that opening this can of worms was a mistake. It DOES sound like sour grapes, just as much as DRF released stuff to court popularity - which is a bit pathetic. Who is the better person and who is worse? I really don't know. Trust has been broken/other people's property is being touted as if it has been created by the person who holds a physical object in their hand. Much as I am uncomfortable saying this, I reckon JSS actually comes out of this worse. You may well be sitting on a pile of tape the world would give its right bollock to hear/I may be well off the mark BUT what is the alternative? Take it to the grave with you? Get it all out there.. bring an end to this once and for all. Or keep it. No one has lost and no one has won. No one cares. |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 15:00 |
|
cmsdrums 09.04.2012 15:02 |
I have commented earlier on my thoughts as to the double standards of collectors blindly stating that 'none of their collections contain any stolen material', at the same time as confirming that they own unreleased studio tracks, home demos etc which most likely DID get 'lifted' by someone at some point. Now, I think that the argument from Fuller is 'yes, I have the elitists version but I also got a version from someone else which is the one I shared'. However, I think JSS has clearly shown (as clearly as is possible anyway without Dave Fuller providing contradictory evidence) that the version of Is It Me? uploaded by Fuller IS the copy he got from the elitists. Fuller seems to have privately said to JSS that he didn't download from the elitists but that doesn't seem to be the case, so he seems to have been caught lying there. Also If he had, then would he make such a mistake as to upload the wrong version to his YouTube site? Probably not. I DO think that Fuller has been found to be untrustworthy and not capable of sticking to an agreement/understanding, and I can totally see why JSS would be aggrieved at this, whether it were relating to sharing of rare Queen stuff or anything else going against a mutual word. Whilst I don't agree with the 'hoarding' of material, I think that is genuinely the side issue here. |
inu-liger 09.04.2012 15:03 |
Let me ask this: Prior to the Reactions acetate fiasco, did ANYONE other than myself find it highly suspicious when David recorded a video of himself introducing the "Is It Me? (Original Version)" track?? He'd never done that before for any of his uploads, and personally I thought it suggested a bout of arrogance as well as being cheese at the same time. Who seriously does that on their videos like that?! That, and there was his curious leak of the TMLWKY writing session which AFAIK was never publicly known to exist prior to his YouTube upload. |
inu-liger 09.04.2012 15:08 |
And WHY are we still digging up accusations of "stolen tapes" People, that has NOTHING to do with the main topic, if you lot had felt it was a big issue in itself, it would have beat to start a separate topic about it. Oh well too little too late. |
mooghead 09.04.2012 15:13 |
Yes.. Fuller appearing in his own uploads smacks of a massive ego. Quite a repulsive character trait.. Would probably shit on his own mother for a slap on the back. |
John S Stuart 09.04.2012 16:30 |
|
brENsKi 09.04.2012 16:32 |
he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy (keeping it topical) |
Micrówave 09.04.2012 16:38 |
I have a solution. Just leak all the stuff that David brought into the group and say that you got it from me during a handball tournament in Tulsa. |
brENsKi 09.04.2012 16:41 |
..or better still leak all the stuff the group gave to david fuller mission acomplished |
inu-liger 09.04.2012 17:35 |
"However, when I was accused of theft etc, I felt emotionally passionate enough to defend myself, why has David been so quiet - is it because he has not only been caught with his handing the till, but denied it and try to turn the tables by calling them "greedy c@nts etc... When in realitythe reverse is true." Actions are louder than words. And that David is acting silent speaks out a lot for his guilt. |
Fireplace 09.04.2012 17:37 |
Micrówave wrote: I have a solution. Just leak all the stuff that David brought into the group and say that you got it from me during a handball tournament in Tulsa. For a moment there I thought you said Tunisia. Sounds better somehow..... |
tcc 09.04.2012 18:51 |
mooghead wrote: Much as I am uncomfortable saying this, I reckon JSS actually comes out of this worse. You may well be sitting on a pile of tape the world would give its right bollock to hear/I may be well off the mark BUT what is the alternative? Take it to the grave with you? Get it all out there.. bring an end to this once and for all. Or keep it. No one has lost and no one has won. No one cares. "Get it all out there .......bring an end to this once and for all" - if this is the motive, I think attacking the group and piling pressure on them to share the collection is not the correct way of doing things. For those who do it this way, I really wonder how far they get on in the real business world. "Or keep it" - if people have something to share and had been attacked like this, it would not be surprising for them to think along this line and it would take a long time for them to rekindle the sharing spirit and come out from their shell. I would not blame them for thinking like this. |
pittrek 10.04.2012 02:01 |
Jesus Christ, this "discussion" is still ongoing ? Facts : 1. Dave Fuller was invited to be a part of a group of collectors, who have access to JSS's personal Queen archive. 2. Everybody including DF was asked not to share or trade the stuff without his permission 3. DF downloaded basically everything and started to upload the rare stuff on his youtube channel and later queenzone => he broke his promise 4. JSS gave DF a "second chance", instead of apologizing himself he blamed a different member of the group for leaking stuff So basically he broke his 2 promises and he is blaming other people for it. Conclusion for all traders - if you give DF your rare stuff, there is a pretty big chance he will share it online. Conclusion for everybody else - absolutely nothing. So why is this thread (and the other threads) full of personal attacks ? Why are suddenly the victims portrait as villains and the person who brakes promises is the hero ? Isn't it time to start a different discussion ? |
john bodega 10.04.2012 02:09 |
His remixes are shite. |
Michael Allred 10.04.2012 08:53 |
Share everything or shut the fuck up about it. |
GratefulFan 10.04.2012 09:06 |
pittrek wrote: Jesus Christ, this "discussion" is still ongoing ? Facts : 1. Dave Fuller was invited to be a part of a group of collectors, who have access to JSS's personal Queen archive. 2. Everybody including DF was asked not to share or trade the stuff without his permission 3. DF downloaded basically everything and started to upload the rare stuff on his youtube channel and later queenzone => he broke his promise 4. JSS gave DF a "second chance", instead of apologizing himself he blamed a different member of the group for leaking stuff So basically he broke his 2 promises and he is blaming other people for it. Conclusion for all traders - if you give DF your rare stuff, there is a pretty big chance he will share it online. Conclusion for everybody else - absolutely nothing. So why is this thread (and the other threads) full of personal attacks ? Why are suddenly the victims portrait as villains and the person who brakes promises is the hero ? Isn't it time to start a different discussion ?Every time somebody in a position of authority born from role, reputation or even post count comes in and behaves like there is the faintest validity in a knot of people with an investment in the outcome sitting down in a back room and convicting somebody and flying out with their announcement and death sentence they further snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Mooghead hit it on the head. Fuller comes out of this looking better. Really, how did you all manage that? He was handed that victory, and continues to be handed a little more each day because of the absolute refusal of anybody involved to step back and recognize that what they have is an allegation, not a conviction. |
tcc 10.04.2012 10:13 |
In my work experience I have come across people who want to learn from you but they pretend that they know. They adopt an aggressive stance and question you aggressively, to put you on the defensive and trap you into revealing information to educate them. To the person concerned in the matter, the watermark was the tell-tale sign and proof. However, it was persistently not accepted by another person. I think somebody wants to know more about the use of watermark security and therefore, the aggressive going-around-the-mulberry-bush exercise is to trap the person concerned to reveal more about the technical aspects of it. There are so many hidden agendas in this thread, and for this aggressive pursuit of proof etc, I can only think of this motivation. Going by somebody's definition in another thread, I am just a downloader who does not bay for blood, and have also learnt enough not to be trapped into a ghost-debate. |
John S Stuart 10.04.2012 10:45 |
|
John S Stuart 10.04.2012 10:53 |
|
uef 10.04.2012 11:18 |
Speaking as a relative outside to the whole 'scene' - it's only David Fuller that's put stuff online in an easily accessible format and, to me at least, asked for nothing in return. Whereas the secret squirrels... well.... |
brENsKi 10.04.2012 11:56 |
uef wrote: Speaking as a relative outside to the whole 'scene' - it's only David Fuller that's put stuff online in an easily accessible format and, to me at least, asked for nothing in return. Whereas the secret squirrels... well....right. so you didn't download the complete BBC sessions in lossless about two years ago then? think (correct me if wrong) it was one of the "secret squirrels" (JSS) that you seem to have issue with that uploaded those gems |
Vocal harmony 10.04.2012 11:56 |
UEF good point! |
GratefulFan 10.04.2012 18:55 |
tcc wrote: In my work experience I have come across people who want to learn from you but they pretend that they know. They adopt an aggressive stance and question you aggressively, to put you on the defensive and trap you into revealing information to educate them. To the person concerned in the matter, the watermark?was the tell-tale sign and proof. However, it was persistently not accepted by another person. I think somebody wants to know more about the use of watermark security and therefore, the aggressive going-around-the-mulberry-bush exercise is to trap the person concerned to reveal more about the technical aspects of it.There are so many hidden agendas in this thread, and for this aggressive pursuit of proof etc, I can only think of this motivation. Going by somebody's definition in another thread, I am just a downloader who does not bay for blood, and have also learnt enough not to be trapped into a ghost-debate. And I'm the conspiracy theorist. It's a miracle that half the prison population in the world is not wrongly convicted if this is the kind of completely substandard thinking that goes on in the head of your average citizen. You don't make a lick of sense. First, for the third time or so, watermarks are nothing mysterious. They are just a little smidge of data added to the file for various purposes. It's like if you wrote your mom a letter in a word processor and then saved it. Then you had a last minute thought and you opened it up again and added "P.S. Please send more pyjamas with feet. Love, tcc". We'd know that's your letter now. No big deal. Really, get over the idea that watermarks for the purposes described by the group are special. They're not. Second, as we've been told multiple times, the watermark is on the YouTube video. If I gave a poo about the intricacies of the Coven's seal I'd DOWNLOAD THE THING AND ANALYZE IT. I don't. FFS. Third, nobody is disputing that it's Fuller's watermark! I said pages ago that the watermark doesn't matter because all one needs to know about them is that they uniquely identify the downloader. Saying the watermark doesn't matter because we all accept that it's Fuller's and it's on the YouTube video is a pretty unusual way to force somebody to "reveal more about the technical aspects of it". I hope for the love of God above you've never sat on a jury. I really do. Unbelievable that you could be following this thread and come up these absolutely nonsensical and wholly unsupported conclusions. For the last time, the issue is not whether it's Fuller's watermark. I have no reason to doubt the assertion. I accept it completely. The problem is that the fact that David uploaded his own copy to the YouTube channel does not prove that he didn't get a copy from another collector, which is his defence for the most serious allegations of unilaterally leaking music he only got from Fanthology. I can't believe we're this many pages in and such a basic concept is proving so hard to communicate and to grasp. It shows at least in part the massive prejudice that can be engendered by the force of authority which is a fine illustration of what I'm complaining about in the first place. To see this you have to step into a position of complete objectivity just for a moment. You have to allow for the possibility that Fuller's story is true and see how it would fit with the known evidence if it were. For example: 1. David downloads 'Is it Me' from Fanthology. It's now on his computer, with his watermark. 2. Sometime later after he quits he gets a copy from another collector who has acquired it from a Fanthology leak. He now has a second copy on his computer. 3. In David's mind, per his words, he can leak whatever he wants as long as he didn't only get it from Fanthology. He uploads his own version either not knowing or not caring that it was his original download. He doesn't know about the watermarks so there's little reason for him to care. This guy is not precise. As Bob said, the kind of finds that are precious to his group are to David "material that you are treating like a dime-a-dozen viral youtube video". Dave is all about YouTube, about just getting it out there. The group is about maximizing and perfecting. The philosophies are almost diametrically opposed. So in this way the upload is his mark, but he's not lying about having gotten it from somebody else. It is an entirely possible scenario that does not conflict with an objective and flexible reading of his own words here, or those to John in the messages he sent. In short it is an alternative scenario that means guilt is not the only conclusion from the facts presented, and therefore people should not be presenting their scenario as if it exclusively supports guilt. It doesn't. End of. And, by the way, there are three accusations of guilt. Which means three separate burdens of proof. One more time: "Guilt is not the only conclusion from the facts presented, and therefore people should not be presenting their scenario as if it exclusively supports guilt." Why is that so hard to understand? Where do some of you come from that I have to justify pointing out that things need to be just and that lynching and effective abuse of power are wrong, destructive to communities and unacceptable regardless of David's guilt? People don't get a pass on ethics because they feel cheated. It's possible to be grievously wronged and yet wildly overstep in trying to redress that wrong. It's possible to incorrectly believe yourself grievously wronged and wildly overstep in trying redress that wrong. Since they both look about the same, we have to be vigilant. |
GratefulFan 10.04.2012 20:10 |
I'm going to quote myself from a PM I just replied to because having to say it made me recognize I'm being misunderstood in a way I hadn't anticipated. It may help put my thoughts here in a more accurate perspective for some. I said: You misunderstand me I think. I don't care about David particularly, or helping him specifically. I care about my online home not playing host to vigilantism and abuse of power, inadvertent or not. I care about people being numb to these things online and in life. Maybe that will help. Dunno. |
soxtalon 10.04.2012 21:35 |
I understand what you are trying to say but you are the like the juror who needs 110% conclusive proof. That ain't going to happen. Only David knows truly what happened. John (and the gang) know just slightly less. The rest of us only know what we've been told. And we have every right to form an opinion based on that. The fact is you are right - that scenario could have happened. But if that was the case, wouldn't Dave have mentioned that in his explanation? So while striving against internet rushing to judgment is admirable - I'm not certain it's the case here. Instead it's two people stated their case and people are going to come to a conclusion based on what's been said. Given what has been presented, it does seem that JSS' story does make more sense and David's story has inconsistencies. That's not rushing to judgement. It's simply concluding. Now if we want some positivisim to give 'em - if the fanthology project is moving forward and working still, how about a teaser of sorts? Even drop a few hints about what would possibly be included? |
John S Stuart 10.04.2012 21:44 |
|
uef 11.04.2012 02:40 |
All this fuss over some MP3s? Some perspective people, please. |
John S Stuart 11.04.2012 05:26 |
|
brENsKi 11.04.2012 11:22 |
you may want to change that to "cry wolf" John, rape is a little over-serious a comparison |
Vocal harmony 11.04.2012 15:34 |
brENsKi wrote: you may want to change that to "cry wolf" John, rape is a little over-serious a comparisonYeah but that's how journalist like to write. They think it's descriptive! |
GratefulFan 11.04.2012 17:12 |
soxtalon wrote: I understand what you are trying to say but you are the like the juror who needs 110% conclusive proof. That ain't going to happen. Only David knows truly what happened. John (and the gang) know just slightly less. The rest of us only know what we've been told. And we have every rightto form an opinion based on that. The fact is you are right - that scenario could have happened. Butif that was the case, wouldn't Dave have mentioned that in his explanation? So while striving against internet rushing to judgment is admirable - I'm not certain it's the case here. Instead it's two people stated their case and people are going to come to a conclusion based on what's been said. Given what has been presented, it does seem that JSS' story does make more sense and David's story has inconsistencies. That's not rushing to judgement. It's simply concluding. Now if we want some positivisim to give 'em - if the fanthology project is moving forward and working still, how about a teaser of sorts? Even drop a few hints about what would possibly be included? With respect, I don't think I've written anything that calls for You're absolutely right - assessing the merits of each stated case is exactly the mechanism of a fair procedure, and drawing reasonable conclusions the goal. It's all I ever argued for here. Want to know a secret? I think David probably did what JSS said he did. That may surprise some. But when I look at why I think that, I come up with this: I don't think Fanthology leaked. And I don't think Fanthology leaked because I find the expressions of brotherhood and pacts of trust compelling. Really it's a totally emotional response that romanticizes aspects of the coven, and it's shouldn't be confused with reasonable doubt. The actual 'testimony' is that the members of Fanthology were not all known to each other and trust was an issue. That's right from one of the horse's mouths. Probably deleted now, mind. So while I too have my beliefs I also recognize them as potentially flawed, and of limited power to rationally dispel the reasonable doubt that in my view is all over this thing. So following my own example, understanding why we think things is important. Without trying to move you off your position, I'd point out two things. First, David did mention some of the elements of my scenario in his explanation. That's where I got them. Recall that while he was still here participating in his own defense the only thing he was defending was that he had uploaded material that also existed in Fanthology, by claming he got them from an alternate source. The watermarks had not yet been revealed so there was no reason for him to go into any detail about uploading this copy or that. The watermarks were only revealed after he laid out his side at the beginning of the thread and told everybody he didn't care to participate further and that he wouldn't be reading and he wouldn't be back to comment. So I'm not sure whatever burden you're placing on Fuller to have mentioned something more than he did completely fits the facts. Second, regarding inconsistencies: There really aren't any of significance. I think that's one of the things that strikes me and makes me wonder if the possibility of a false 'conviction' is even more of a reality than even I credit. If you continue the thought experiment and imagine David's innocence and go back to the original announce thread and the beginning of this one and read his posts there are many things 'right' about the tone, the responses, even the timing of his exit and the sentiments expressed given what was going on at the time. If Fanthology leaked, it all fits. It's really is that simple. In the end this was definitely a rush to judgement, regardless of the truth of the matter. It was still destructive, vicious and utterly wrong. A bunch of people in line to benefit behaving like they didn't have to earn their 'conviction' like every other decent society on earth, they just had to ignore people long enough, or kick them hard enough. Once again, to me at least, absolutely shocking. |
GratefulFan 11.04.2012 17:17 |
John S Stuart wrote: GF: Reading your scenario about the two recordings of "Is It Me" on his hard drive - how about this for a scenario? Because the actetate was scratched and had a glitch at a certain point, that in itself acts as a Fanthology Hallmark - because as you know - that is an identifiable trait embedded in the master recording itself, and therefore inherited by every subsequent copy. So David downloads his own personal version (which is franked with his unique watermark). Later he trades with an independant trader, but he swaps one of his "rare" tracks in exchage for a song he already owns. (ie Is It Me). Furthermore, it's not even an upgrade, it's the same glitched version. Before trading surely he would have asked "does your copy have a glitch?" otherwise what would be the point?I think the implication here is that a weakness in my 'senario' is that any trade for a song he already had is not particularly believable. As mentioned previously, in important ways David is your polar opposite. He prizes publicly sharing where you prize different things about collecting. Given that, and noting Fuller's self professed ethical standard of honouring his view of his Fanthology committment by only publicly sharing things he got from somebody else, I find it perfectly credible that David would trade for 'rights' rather than exclusively valuing growing his collection. Putting public access at the forefront of decision making is foreign to you, but not to David. To answer your question, to David, that may very well have been the point. In the meantime, he could have contacted me (or anyone else) to say - "by the way did you know I have just been offered..", but he didn't. So something very shady was going on there anyway, and he now has two copies of the same glitched track on his hard drive. So we assume David has now TWO copies of the same track on his hard drive. You argue he uploaded the wrong version (that is his own and not the trader's) and that is the reason his watermarked version is on YOUTUBE. But hold on a minute - the trader's version had the same glitch - so he knew that by uploading the imposter - it would be assumed as his anyway, because as far as we knew - and because he had not informed anyone before-hand no-one knew it had been leaked in the first place - but would have latched onto the glitched version. Now if David was innocent all he need do would be to upload both versions and his case would be proven, but he did not take that option when it was presented. He just upped and slammed the door behind him. Also remember he had made a promise not to leak the Fanthology tracks, but the version on YOUTUBE IS A Fanthology track, whether it was his own copy or this mysterious "anothers". At the end of the day the source is immaterial because he still uploaded the Fanthology version wherever he got it from! So even if he did get it from someone else, he still should not have uploaded to YOUTUBE - because the glitch revealed the true Fanthology source. Now you try Occam's razor. Which is easier to believe? David doesn't care if you think he violated the trust of Fanthology by uploading tracks that he claims came from somewhere else. That couldn't be any clearer. His goals and philosophy are almost diametrically opposed to yours. Why would he worry about uploading a glitched copy that would be tracked back to Fanthology when, according to him, he's already met his own ethical standard by obtaining the identical track somewhere else? I don't understand your point. When was David presented an option to upload both versions? You've never mentioned that he was presented this option privately prior to his post beginning this thread, and in that post he up and slammed the door behind him BEFORE you publicly revealed the existence of the watermark. In David's mind he has two indistinguishable copies of one song. Why would he offer to upload them as proof of anthing before he knew about the watermarks? Regarding his promise not to leak Fanthology tracks: David quit Fantholgy over an allegation of leaking Fanthology material while still in the group. That supports an understanding of his commitments that was different than yours. His actions indicate that in his mind, if he got if from somewhere else, before during or after, he could leak it. It might be reasonably assumed that once the expectations were clarified he didn't like them, because he quit the group, and all future benefit. Your feelings of betrayal are based on your understanding of the committement, and David's actions, if they were as he described, are perhaps based on his understanding of that commitment, after voting on your version of it with his feet. If he understood it differently when he agreed, is there perhaps some argument that he shouldn't be bound to a set of rules he didn't understand? A small philosophical question really, and not important in the grand scheme, but worth some consideration maybe. |
GratefulFan 11.04.2012 18:40 |
John S Stuart wrote: NO; all this fuss is because someone lied, cheated, stole and broke their word, then had the audacity to begin this thread by saying "They just want to rile up fans against me, which is pretty low, I must say." Sorry; but if you falsely cry "rape" (or any other allegataion - it's just another example), you must be prepared to face the consequences of your actions. You can't expect the acused to sit back in silence? Does RIAA deal in men not being men and breaking their word? All the fuss is about the tracks. This doesn't negate your feelings, which everybody can understand and sympathize with, but don't insult the intelligence of the entire forum. |
tcc 11.04.2012 19:12 |
03/04/12 Grateful Fan wrote: That's not what the email you quoted said. Perhaps you have some other correspondence that indicates that, or perhaps I have misunderstood something, but all he says is in the second email is that he got it from another person, not that he had never gotten it from you. This is completely consistent with his story: an acknowledgement that he had access to the material within the group but eventually learned that it was circulating outside the group as well. Where is the proof that not only is he the most despicable person alive, but that he is so despicable and the crime so grave that there is truly no other reasonable explanation? Where? A watermark that tracks back to Fuller and a note that he was blown away by a song isn't it. 11/04/12 Grateful Fan wrote: With respect, I don't think I've written anything that calls for conclusive proof. The general standard for public punitive action is reasonable doubt, and that's all I've ever discussed here. Do you realize you are the first person in what was then 14 pages to acknowledge that there is more than one possibility here? That is absolutely shocking. People really should take a moment and absorb that. The idea that there might be a credible alternate scenario was effectively suppressed for 14 pages by people who directly benefit now and in the future from the shunning and isolation of David Fuller. Shocking. 10/04/12 Grateful Fan wrote: I'm going to quote myself from a PM I just replied to because having to say it made me recognize I'm being misunderstood in a way I hadn't anticipated. It may help put my thoughts here in a more accurate perspective for some. I said: You misunderstand me I think. I don't care about David particularly, or helping him specifically. I care about my online home not playing host to vigilantism and abuse of power, inadvertent or not. I care about people being numb to these things online and in life. Maybe that will help. Dunno. 11/04/12 Grateful Fan wrote: You're absolutely right - assessing the merits of each stated case is exactly the mechanism of a fair procedure, and drawing reasonable conclusions the goal. It's all I ever argued for here. Want to know a secret? I think David probably did what JSS said he did. That may surprise some. But when I look at why I think that, I come up with this: I don't think Fanthology leaked. And I don't think Fanthology leaked because I find the expressions of brotherhood and pacts of trust compelling. Really it's a totally emotional response that romanticizes aspects of the coven, and it's shouldn't be confused with reasonable doubt. The actual 'testimony' is that the members of Fanthology were not all known to each other and trust was an issue. That's right from one of the horse's mouths. Probably deleted now, mind. The very existence of the watermarking system proves they acknowledged the possibility of leaks. So while I too have my beliefs I also recognize them as potentially flawed, and of limited power to rationally dispel the reasonable doubt that in my view is all over this thing. I am putting up all these to show what an unproductive exercise this person has put other people through. |
Gregsynth 11.04.2012 19:50 |
This is STILL going on?!?!?! Here, this will help: |
GratefulFan 12.04.2012 00:11 |
tcc wrote: I am putting up all these to show what an unproductive exercise this person has put other people through. My fault for getting cute with the wording, but I should clarify that I went for a walk on Easter Monday evening and among all the things rolling around in my mind was the question "What DO I actually think about the Fuller situation at this point?", and came up with the conclusion I noted. It wasn't something I always thought. My whole point is that there wasn't enough information or balance to know. Also I'm going to change the word 'conclusive' you highlighted because it missed what I was trying to say and was the wrong word choice. Beyond that I don't really know what you're getting at, but on this topic I've come to anticipate whatever it is it's going to involve you being a bit thick. For everybody else, regarding the unproductive exercise: Fuller represents a little guy challenge to a status quo. Both he, and they, should be able to survive and thrive on merit, and good ideas need to have a way to rise to the top. For the common good any war of ideas has to be a fair fight. This was so far from a fair fight that I am still shocked at what went on. I could see clearly from from JSS's first couple of posts on this thread that there were real problems with the premises being used to support the conclusions. And it still took 14 pages of me being first ignored, then condescended to, called a ghoul at an accident scene, a ridiculous contrarian, delusional, poor thinking devil's advocate, a dishonest and underhanded seeker of privilged information and finally, the one that actually did shut me up momentarily, Dave Fuller's sex toy or whatever- to finally have somebody acknowledge that I had a point. The hammer came down so fast and hard on David from people that in one way or another are leaders in this community that everything was immediately and irrevokably poisoned. The posts have been deleted by the bushel, but the impact lingers. The possibility that their conclusions were wrong remains a fact in a real way, not a purely theoretical one, but regardless it is the chilling effect on an idea and the freedom to pursue it that is the real casualty, regardless of what David is or isn't guilty of. This isn't just about the Reaction stuff and a broken promise; it's an accmulation of frustration at a guy who thinks differently and doesn't play by the same rules. Who, witnessing this, would want to step out of the lines and challenge from within if this is the risk? That's real, and despite all the professed boredom with the subject, it is potentially consequential to what eventually become shared assets of our culture, and who gets to enjoy them. Perfectly good, well intentioned people convinced of their righteousness can be part of really ugly things without checks and balances and an outside perspective. Regardless of what David did or didn't do, this was a lynching. Look up the first bit about lynchings on Wikipedia and tell me differently. If this unproductive exercise can embolden even one person to challenge the old, fusty status quo in some small way in less than optimal conditions, well, good. If it can't, well, I tried. |
john bodega 12.04.2012 02:32 |
"Regardless of what David did or didn't do, this was a lynching" Lynchings *rock* and frankly the world would probably benefit from a few of them. |
dysan 12.04.2012 02:38 |
If someone needs lynching, it should be whoever came up with the name Fanthology. Grim. |
Holly2003 12.04.2012 02:41 |
tcc wrote: I am putting up all these to show what an unproductive exercise this person has put other people through.I think it's been very illustrative. The outcome was probably not what some collectors expected though. Perhaps you expected everyone to grovel to you to ensure the flow of material. That didn't happen. Bit of a wake-up call for collectors hopefully. Keep your superegos in check. |
VfLDOTL 12.04.2012 05:05 |
I think, JSS is right with his opinion. I understand his opinion and I know what he's talking about. A few years ago, I got the Macbeth-Recordings, which were recorded by Brian May long ago. It was my kind of rarest recording I had at this time. I traded it with some people and a few days later it went online on Youtube and my File got worthless. I know the feeling of beeing screwed... |
dysan 12.04.2012 05:11 |
Did you get a good trade for them? |
VfLDOTL 12.04.2012 05:28 |
I think yes. Nowadays my collection got nearly worthless, because of the large amount of leaks on Youtube. I understand all Fans who want to hear unrealeased material and I collected stuff because of the same reasons, but it's quite frustrating. You try to get good and rare stuff and work hard to get them. Sometimes you pay a lot of money to get it, and then? It's free on youtube because somebody leaked it... |
dysan 12.04.2012 05:43 |
It happens. I wouldn't worry about it. |
uef 12.04.2012 06:43 |
Out of interest what software was being used to embed the files with a 'personal watermark'? As this is neither a feature of facebook nor the common filehosts. Doubtless such software exists, but that smells like a red herring to me. Source: IT expert and good spotter of fibs on the net. |
ActionFletch 12.04.2012 06:49 |
Yeah, I've been finding the "watermark" argument hard to fathom as YouTube compress the sh!t out of everything uploaded. |
john bodega 12.04.2012 06:50 |
"You try to get good and rare stuff and work hard to get them. Sometimes you pay a lot of money to get it, and then? It's free on youtube because somebody leaked it.." Consider that there's a pecking order, though. While you're pissy when this stuff gets leaked for free and the fans can hear it, the artists themselves are just as pissy that you guys have the stuff in the first place. Brian May's version of His Latest Flame. Look up his post about that on his Soapbox, and tell me he's fine with the practice of trading stuff that the artist doesn't want you to hear. All I'm getting at is that if the artists feelings don't matter to you guys, then don't expect your feelings to matter to us normal people. |
GratefulFan 12.04.2012 08:03 |
uef wrote: Out of interest what software was being used to embed the files with a 'personal watermark'? As this is neither a feature of facebook nor the common filehosts. Doubtless such software exists, but that smells like a red herring to me. Source: IT expert and good spotter offibs on the net. There were a couple of things that made me raise an eyebrow on this. The announcement of it mid game after David said he was leaving rather than hitting David with it right away. The comments of brian's wig about being able to tell if it was Fuller by gauging if anything leaked among the things acquired after he left just seemed remarkably dumb given they'd just publicly announced the watermarking system. The fact that JSS first said somewhere that this was a indelible unalterable amazing super mark and then later chided David for being so dumb he didn't even remove it didn't quite tally either. And JSS talked about doing an audio analysis to prove the TMLWKY writing session leaked by David was from his mini disc which wouldn't seem necessary if you could prove it was downloaded from Fanthology with Fuller's mark. But I just elected to accept it because it's a completely neutral piece of evidence whether it exists or it doesn't. If it exists I don't think it matters for the reasons I've already outlined, and if it doesn't exist all that would mean is there was an irrational focus on convicting David, a fact already demonstrated by 14 pages of insisting that "I got if from another collector" meant David told him "I didn't download it from Fanthology". So in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary I'm happy to accept the claim. The most likely thing to me was writing the mark to the metadata. They said they had an IT technician set up the hub, and I've used a PHP extension called getid3 to read and write metadata to mp3s in the past and I know it can write FLAC comments as well. It wouldn't be hard to do if the tech wrote custom scripts for the ftp transfers or modified some open source third party thing.That would be my guess, though an educated guess is still a guess. Does conversion from FLAC to MP3 retain metadata? Does uploading to YouTube retain metadata? No idea on either of those, but if somebody was really curious I suppose they could download the video and see what metadata is there. I'm not remotely curious because as noted I don't think it matters. |
dysan 12.04.2012 08:30 |
I'm enjoying GratefulFan's post. Right or wrong, they are well constructed. |
GratefulFan 12.04.2012 13:11 |
Thanks for saying so dysan. I write all this stuff and fling it into the void and all I can usually think is how bad I am at being succinct. So good to know from you that in this instance at least it's not completely torturous. :) |
Battler 13.04.2012 15:41 |
I'm going to say I find the claims about the watermark suspicious to say the least. I seriously doubt YouTube preserves any metadata present in the source file (and considering YouTube doesn't accept audio files at all so it would have to be converted to a video with the song as its audio tracks, I'd say any metadata would be lost there already), and any audio watermarks would be difficult to be heard because of how much YouTube compressses audio. There'd be already audible audio loss when converting audio from the FLAC source to the video format that YouTube would access, add to it compression added by YouTube and I'd say any such embedded watermark would become impossible to analyze. But as GF said, it's really irrelevent whethere the watermark in question exists or not or is analyzable or not. David could have gotten the audio from someone else as well as from Fanthology and then simply decided to upload his own Fanthology copy, probably because there was no different between the two that he could even care about. Now to state it's proven without a doubt that David only had his own downloaded copy from Fanthology because that particular copy was the one uploaded would require it to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the only copy he ever had was the one downloaded by him directly from Fanthology. However, that's far from proven beyond reasonable doubt. Also, the allegations that David said he never downloaded the song from Fanthology while at the same time gave positive feedback about the song so therefore he lied about never having downloaded the song from Fanthology rest on shaky grounds too - they rely on an interpretation of "I got the song from another source" of also meaning "I never downloaded the song from Fanthology" which is however fallacious. It could just as well mean "I downloaded the song from another source as well as Fanthology". But from what I see here is, Fanthology members decided David is guilty, collected evidence/interpretations that supports that hypothesis and downplayed all evidence/interpretations that doesn't. Quite frankly, I've been myself where David is now - namely being accused based on fallacious logical jumps and refusal to acknowledge the "evidence" supporting the accusations might not be irrefutable. So I know how it feels and it's not pleasant. And while I can understand how Fanthology feel about the leak (I run a community collecting Beta versions of old software and I've had people leaking private Builds from my site to other sites in the past with the sole intent of harming my community and it wasn't pleasant) but I'm just saying that they should first prove it beyond reasonable doubt that David only had his Fanthology copy before publicly accusing him. |
tcc 13.04.2012 18:31 |
Plaintiff = DRF who accused the group of wrongly accusing him. Defendant = the group who had been accused of wrong accusing the plaintiff. Somebody said earlier in this thread that a defendant does not need to submit proof. Therefore DRF is the one who has to submit proof. I also do not know anything about watermark security but I do not think anyone is going to teach me here. This is a private "quarrel" which should not have been made public. The person who created the issue just threw a flame here and disappear from the scene. Let us not fall into a trap of ghost debate again because we are not in the picture and we should let the parties involved sort themselves out. |
Battler 14.04.2012 04:17 |
Plaintiff = the group who wrongly accused DRF. Defendant = DRF who said the group wrongly accused him. Saying the group wrongly accused him isn't an accusation. It's simply disputing their accusations against him. So it's the original accusers that have to submit proof. Also, a watermark as a means to distinguish the leaker is only reliable as long as it doesn't get distorted. And (re-)compression is the best way to distort it, thus making it very difficult to anaylze at best. But as GF and I have said, the watermark is really irrelevant here simply because noone is even disputing that the copy uploaded on YouTube was David's own Fanthology copy. What we're disputing is the allegation that the copy on YouTube being David's own Fanthology copy proves he never got the song from anyone else. And so far I haven't seen any good evidence corroborating said claim. What does David have to submit proof for? David never claimed that the copy he uploaded onto YouTuben wasn't his own Fanthology copy. All he said was he uploaded the song (without specifying which copy it was) because he got another copy from someone else (but never said it was the copy from someone else that he uploaded). The guys from Fanthology have jumped to a conclusion and accused him of betrayal. To prove that, they'd need to prove David never got a second (and from what I gather, audibly identical) copy of the song. However, you can't prove a negative. I do find it bad on David's part of not having informed Fanthology that external collectors were obtaining Fanthology material, but that's the only wrong thing he did. The uploading, unless proven conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt that he never got another copy, is pretty much not wrong because as soon as he got a copy from a non-Fanthology source, Fanthology can no longer claim exclusivity or control to it. And in my opinion, the guys at Fanthology know that very well but are just upset that they have one piece of exclusive material less in their collection. Believe me, I've seen this kind of attitude a lot of times on the Beta scene for example, when someone else leaks a particular Build of Windows to the public and then all the people who had it in their private collections and used it for trading get pissed off at that and demand the Build being removed from the public. I know it's frustrating when something from your collection becomes public but as long as it can't proven beyond reasonable doubt that it only existed in your collection, the best thing to do it just to get over it. And I'm talking from personal experience here. >>This is a private "quarrel" which should not have been made public. The person who created the issue just threw a flame here and disappear from the scene. Let us not fall into a trap of ghost debate again because we are not in the picture and we should let the parties involved sort themselves out.<< Well I'm fine with all that and I agree. I just don't like the public lynching that some people did against David simply based on their opinion that "JSS never lies". I know from personal experience just how bad it is to get lynched based on that kind of attitude. I've been lynched like that myself and believe me, it's NOT pleasant. And from personal experience I can tell you that stopping the discussion and doing nothing about the lynching will cause it to grow worse and worse. It happend to me when I came from being verbally lynched by 2 people to being subject of Denial of Service attacks by a group of more than 10 people. And I certainly do not want David to face the same. And if you think he doesn't risk that - please read this thread again. People already proposed to flag his account for copyright infringement as a vendetta for "his actions". And I think it's only a matter of time before some poor souls with no life that simply bought into Fanthology's allegations against David, will think of even worse way to "make David pay". So I think we should do our best to preven that from happening rather than doing nothing and then screaming in panic after shit has already hit the fan. |
john bodega 14.04.2012 05:47 |
"So I think we should do our best to preven that from happening rather than doing nothing and then screaming in panic after shit has already hit the fan." -1. I hope his channel tanks. I also hope that he starts a new one and this time sticks to uploading stuff that can't be purchased. He can also ditch the remixes - they're bloody awful. |
Indo77 14.04.2012 07:28 |
It's pretty obvious who the collectors are in this thread and the one over in the announce section. Their language is almost "cultish" because they are part of the "special" group. Seriously some of you need to get your minds adjusted. That trading model fell apart years ago at the dawn of the Internet. Once you create "special" groups among yourselves you will forever run the risk that your collection will leak. Fanthology have only themselves to blame, not David. |
QueenLing 16.04.2012 19:18 |
|
The Real Wizard 17.04.2012 13:50 |
uef wrote: Out of interest what software was being used to embed the files with a 'personal watermark'? As this is neither a feature of facebook nor the common filehosts. Doubtless such software exists, but that smells like a red herring to me. Source: IT expert and good spotter of fibs on the net.Any little thing can be inserted to a song with any audio editor. If nobody has ever heard the song before, they won't know the difference. But the person who inserted the little tick, made the slight edit, or customized the fade-out will know the difference. It is a very common practice, especially when letting numerous copies of a recording out. Make a small watermark on each version slightly different from the other, and if a copy circulates farther than it should have, you will know exactly who breached the trust. It's like getting junk mail in your mailbox. If you change your middle initial on mail order forms or whatever it may be - one for each company you deal with - you'll know who's been spreading your information without your consent. |
GratefulFan 17.04.2012 15:14 |
In fairness to the people who expressed doubt, JSS seemed to describe a process done by an IT tech which stamped a download id number on the file. He even identified David's number. Of course you'll have to count on my memory for that as the posts have all been wiped right out. What you're describing seems really unlikely to be done on the fly through programming, but instead require a manual editing process that creates a duplicate set of files for each person before they are even downloaded. If so, all that work? Twelve people times how many files? All that paranoia? Sounds like a fun hobby. |
john bodega 18.04.2012 02:19 |
Anyone watch the last episode of Game of Thrones? It's great. The dwarf tells a different lie to 3 people at court, and then when the gossip gets out he knows who's been ratting on him. Sure it's a lot of work, and it makes you seem paranoid, but it really is an 'aha' moment of vindication when you trip up on someone like Fuller and find out what he's up to. All of my experiences like that were by sheer accident - I've no experience with either file watermarks or lying dwarves - but it's a pretty rock solid way of catching out a bullshit artist. |
mooghead 18.04.2012 10:51 |
Fuck me is this thread still going? |
brENsKi 18.04.2012 11:01 |
...it is now |
Micrówave 18.04.2012 12:41 |
dysan wrote: I'm enjoying GratefulFan's post. Right or wrong, they are well constructed. Yes, I agree. This "watermark" is turning out to sound a lot like the JFK Oliver Stone Super Bullet. |
Micrówave 18.04.2012 12:42 |
Did John S Stuart really go back an edit out all of his posts? That almost sounds like an admission of guilt. |
pittrek 18.04.2012 13:02 |
Micrówave wrote: Did John S Stuart really go back an edit out all of his posts? That almost sounds like an admission of guilt.Nope. It sounds like "oh let's forget all this crap and let's start to do something useful" |
Micrówave 18.04.2012 14:43 |
That's not what it comes off to the "non-collectors" as. Sounds like someone doesn't want his comments read. And it took a lot of time to do that. I hardly think that's "something useful". You know what would be useful? David Fuller: I'm sorry John John Stuart: I'm sorry David |
Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 18.04.2012 16:11 |
Micrówave wrote:YEs great I think the fantholgy will upload the "Sapruder 8mm video" soon...the original is been missing for ages now!dysan wrote: I'm enjoying GratefulFan's post. Right or wrong, they are well constructed.Yes, I agree.This "watermark" is turning out to sound a lot like the JFK Oliver Stone Super Bullet. |
brENsKi 18.04.2012 16:59 |
i'm confident that if we all make a concerted effort, this thread can go from strength to strength - and maybe soon overtake the "what you're listening to" thread |
The Fonz 18.04.2012 17:11 |
hey guys what's going on in this thread? |
Micrówave 19.04.2012 16:30 |
Right now, the thread is out to lunch getting a Bacon Cheeseburger. It should be back shortly unless it went for seconds. |
GratefulFan 19.04.2012 16:56 |
Does this bacon cheeseburger lay it on real thick and then delete itself by any chance? Because I think then the thread might have gone for seconds. |
Vocal harmony 19.04.2012 18:09 |
Think it's more a case of the heat in the kitchen being to much for the chef to cope with! |
Togg 20.04.2012 06:28 |
Not having bothered to look at this for a while I am interested to see those to made the claims and said much of the initail rather provocative comments shall we say have deleted their comments now...hmmm This comment from seem to sum up a lot of my views ... "You try to get good and rare stuff and work hard to get them. Sometimes you pay a lot of money to get it, and then? It's free on youtube because somebody leaked it.." Consider that there's a pecking order, though. While you're pissy when this stuff gets leaked for free and the fans can hear it, the artists themselves are just as pissy that you guys have the stuff in the first place. Brian May's version of His Latest Flame. Look up his post about that on his Soapbox, and tell me he's fine with the practice of trading stuff that the artist doesn't want you to hear. All I'm getting at is that if the artists feelings don't matter to you guys, then don't expect your feelings to matter to us normal people. There can be no doubt that a significant amount of 'rare' stuff out there is out there because it was 'liberated' from the rightful owners. The fact that someone within the elite then leaks it does make me chuckle a little, I do understand the issue of having paid a significant price for it form whomever it would be gauling to have it leaked, however think about the artist, how do they feel about tracks they do not wnat out there being traded and put out for public consumption... Why is it any different when someone leaks it to the public? is that any different from having it taken from the artist in the first place? Now OK the acetates are different here because they obviously were intended to be heard in that form, but the whole collecting issue seems too often to stray into areas that are about getting hold of stuff that is not finished and certainly not intended for public release in that form. Here I believe the Artists wishes should be considered as paramount and those that dont are missing a big moral point. |
mooghead 20.04.2012 14:59 |
Wow.. is this still going? Anyone said anything new or the same old stuff? |
brENsKi 21.04.2012 02:08 |
Bahrain grand prix coul;d be interesting .....that's NEW |
ludwigs 21.04.2012 06:21 |
I've got a new pair of black Puma traners for work.... Size 9.5 (UK) I may add. |
brENsKi 21.04.2012 10:19 |
van halen's new album not as good as i expected it to be... |
Lord Fickle 21.04.2012 11:10 |
I've just had a really good shit... |
brENsKi 21.04.2012 11:25 |
^^^^^ isn't that what Queen would've called Hot Space? |
Lord Fickle 21.04.2012 11:29 |
Lol! |
mooghead 21.04.2012 15:01 |
Wow.. still top of the pile.... if people stopped adding to this thread it would go away for good.... |
brENsKi 21.04.2012 16:17 |
i like the way it's evolved into talking about why it still exists, rather than the actualy discussion per se. be nice if it could string out to 20 pages, then retire (dis)gracefully |
Fireplace 21.04.2012 18:39 |
People eat significantly more eggs around Easter. |
Vocal harmony 21.04.2012 20:30 |
As JSS has withdrawn all of his posts, As far as I'm concerned my apologies to him are now withdrawn, as I don't see the point of apologizing for coments I've made in answer to posts that no longer exist. |
brENsKi 22.04.2012 03:53 |
^^^^ way to go. get the thread back to what nobody wants to talk about. in an effort to refocus our need to achieve 20 pages for this thread, can i ask two questions? 1. does anyone know if the Deep Purple - Machine Head 40 CD is due out soon? 2. same question for Rainbow - Long Live Rock N Roll (deluxe edition) thanks |
Lord Fickle 22.04.2012 04:32 |
If the Rainbow one is imminent, I hope it's better than the other two Rainbow 'Deluxe' editions. They seemed to be struggling for extra content. I'd hope for a full album remix, this time including some bass. |
brENsKi 22.04.2012 04:46 |
i know what you mean about the previous deluxes - i had all of the rough mixes previously available before DTE and Rising were "deluxed" - but it was nice to hear those tracks cleaned up properly. and those three DTE, Rising and LLRNR are personal favourites of mine. I have the Cozy rough mix of LLRNR - hope they do do something with the bass. although as blackmore played most of the bass on that album, i think it wasn't a bad effort all told. really anticipating the machine head 40. there are rumoured to be some special things due in this |
Lord Fickle 22.04.2012 05:03 |
The new Dio deluxes of the first three albums are quite good. Some live stuff I didn't have. There seems very little unreleased studio material about though. |
brENsKi 22.04.2012 08:58 |
i think dio was one for getting it all out there initially. he had loads of post-rainbow/sabbs ideas and his own vehicle to accomodate it bit like harrison after the breakup of the fab four. he depended on the pixie/elf lyric a little too heavily, but good nonetheless |
e-man 24.04.2012 10:29 |
Lord Fickle wrote: The new Dio deluxes of the first three albums are quite good. Some live stuff I didn't have. There seems very little unreleased studio material about though.from a number of interviews, both concerning sabbath/dio, and initally, Heaven and Hell, I get the impression that Ronnie wrote what he needed to write and shaped the songs into what he wanted. in other words - if the album needed 10 tracks, he wrote 10 and that was it. I doubt there's alot of unused stuff around, certainly from the later years. the new deluxe version are very good indeed - I like them alot RIP RJD |
brENsKi 25.04.2012 10:56 |
thanks for confirming my thoughts. pity there's not much unused...cos there's always room for more stuff with his vocals on it suppose anything "extra" on the rainbow LLRnR deluxe would be nice |
The Real Wizard 25.04.2012 14:24 |
I knew this thread was going to get interesting. But of all the options I considered, Dio was probably the last thing on the list. Carry on .. this is great. |
Lord Fickle 25.04.2012 15:16 |
I guess this thread has turned into a Rainbow In The Dark. ;) |
The Real Wizard 25.04.2012 16:33 |
Ha, well played |
brENsKi 25.04.2012 16:50 |
Lord Fickle wrote: I guess this thread has turned into a Rainbow In The Dark. ;)wahay!!!! me ? i'm just a stargazer ps - did Dio write the lyrics to "stargazer" - cos if he did he's a genius.....alas i think there's a bit of Ritchie in there somewhere...even tho Ronnie gets the "lyric-writer" credits for the whole album funny how all these years later both "Rising" & "Heaven and Hell" are among my favourite albums....RJD definitely had something for bringing the best out of his bandmates |
Lord Fickle 25.04.2012 17:01 |
brENsKi wrote:I've always thought Dio wrote the lyrics and Blackmore the music. Dio continued to perform Stargazer in his live shows right through his career, and I don't think he would have done so had it not been his own.Lord Fickle wrote: I guess this thread has turned into a Rainbow In The Dark. ;)wahay!!!! me ? i'm just a stargazer ps - did Dio write the lyrics to "stargazer" - cos if he did he's a genius.....alas i think there's a bit of Ritchie in there somewhere...even tho Ronnie gets the "lyric-writer" credits for the whole album Another great Rainbow classic is Gates of Babylon, which I believe was never performed live by Rainbow, but was by Dio in his last tours. Dio was great at keeping those classic songs alive, and there were always surprises at his more recent live shows, such as Tarot Woman and Kill The King. It would have been great had he lived to one day perform the whole of Rainbow Rising on tour. |
Lord Fickle 25.04.2012 17:11 |
By the way, here's an interesting snippet - Dio was fired from Rainbow about the same time that Brian Connolly left The Sweet (1977/78), and Ronnie was asked to join Sweet, but signed up to Black Sabbath instead. Can you imagine Dio singing Hell Raiser? Awesome! |
brENsKi 25.04.2012 17:13 |
see, i'm with you on this, but perhaps it's my "oldschool" mentality they really don't make albums like those first four rainbow albums anymore, and the sabbath heaven & hell only reason i suggest ritchie may have had some "lyrical" influence on stargazer is his obsession with the arabic stuff. think you'd need a feel for what your writing music about to pen those lyrics howver, that whole "tower of babel" story is amazing anyway...and is right up there with Rush's Xanadu for imagery. absolutely one that i will always listen to all the way thru if it comes on radio |
Lord Fickle 25.04.2012 17:30 |
Indeed, I agree, they don't make them like that any more. That said, I do think Dio lost the plot a bit in later years, and his lyrics were never as fluent and wonderful as on the Rainbow albums, H&H and Holy Diver. I think he tried to move away from the fantasy stuff and become more contemporary, but sometimes you just have to stick to what you're good at. Dio did do some good stuff in recent years, but also some real shit. Perhaps he'd just grown out of dungeons and dragons? Lady of the Lake also had some great lines: There's a magical sound sliding over the ground Making' it shiver and shake And a permanent cry falling' out of the sky Slippery and sly like a snake With a delicate move kind of shifty and smooth A shadow has covered the light Then a beam in the shade from a silvery blade Has shattered the edge of the night |
brENsKi 26.04.2012 01:12 |
...and i still remember hearing "die young" for the first time 30+ years ago and thinking "that's as close to Freddie as I've heard anyone sing" |
Lord Fickle 26.04.2012 01:34 |
Funnily enough, I've never compared Dio to Freddie. Both excellent at what they do, but entirely different types of vocalist, in my opinion. |
john bodega 26.04.2012 01:40 |
"entirely different types of vocalist" Not really. I think they had different sorts of instruments, if you will, but in the mid 70's there was tons they had in common in their approach to certain kinds of songs. It still blows my head that Dio wasn't invited to the Tribute. He would've smoked everyone else there, bar none. |
Lord Fickle 26.04.2012 03:30 |
Interesting thought. It would have been great to hear Dio singing Innuendo. I'm just trying to think, were there any collaborations between Dio and Queen or perhaps May? I initially thought of the Hear 'n' Aid "Stars" record, but I don't think May was on that. |
brENsKi 26.04.2012 10:36 |
it was only really on Die Young that i saw it showed he had the other end of the vocal range too although there's also "slight" hints on the rainbow ballads and If You Don't Like Rock N Roll his vocals are very different elsewhere but a great rock vocalist nonetheless |
Marcos Napier 30.04.2012 17:04 |
bambams-paradise wrote: I guess I'll be the greedy American who replies here haha! This thread has gotten soooo far out of hand, as do alot of others on this site...it really is hilarious. I haven't posted in a very long time, and for good reason, as I'd be up in arms...le sigh I see both sides of the fence for what they are...the collectors, and the dreamers, to which I'm happy to say I'm neither. I'm a fan of the band, the music, just like anyone here. Do I get obsessive? Nah...some of you do, and that's great, all the power to you! Am I gonna consider it a life and death issue if I do or don't hear the 'Hangman' acetate on FLAC or mp3 or WAV, or OGG? Not exactly... The 'collectors' can have it. Are you gonna see me shell out 1000 anything to hear Freddie fart into the microphone in some studio out take? Well, it would be funny to hear, but nah...I have a 4 year old son that is well more worth deserving of my money. Especially in a fucked up economy that the world is apparently in. Continue to say I'm rambling, be my guest. My point is here is that it's music ffs, and to see everyone get buttsore about it, is kinda funny. I remember seeing the post above me saying 'stolen goods that don't belong to us blah blah blah' (ok, slightly off on my quote, but it got the point across). How many songs do YOU have on your computer that were never released? I have a handful, yes, but you do too! Probably more than I, and it's all good! I, the greedy American, really am not so greedy after all! My other point being...are any of you going to live or die without hearing some of these rarities? Well...I guess it depends on how much value you place upon it...if you're going to pull a hamstring and have a heart attack over hearing the 'Hangman' acetate for example, well, I wish you luck my friend. Start writing your will now! It's music...great music. But sometimes ignorance is bliss! Nothing I write here is going to change anything, and neither is anything you're going to write either. I will still continue to be the 'greedy American', the dumbass, or whatever you want to label me as. The collectors will hoarde or share whatever they like, and that's just it! You, the fan, are owed nothing, and nobody has to share anything with you...or me! Two words I will express...WHO CARES!! There's my rant...chew me up to bits people! You're all quite good at it! :DThe best post I've ever read here. Deserves to be quoted on and on forever. |
GoGoGo--LittleQueenie 09.07.2013 13:38 |
JacquesDaniels wrote: I'm gonna go a bit meditative about this whole rarity collecting fandom and the stuff that's been going on. Sorry for the long post, but bear with me. First off, I'm not a fan of bootlegs and rare material in general, because there's most likely some good reason(s) the material hasn't had an official release. This stuff shouldn't be in circulation in the first place, because in all likelyhood, someone still might own a copyright to those recordings, if there ever was. As a fan, I understand the need to hear the rare stuff can be superlatively deep, and I'd rather go the official way, if possible. As a (not so serious) collector, I kind of understand a need to possess something rare and valuable, but I really wouldn't put more than maybe 30 euros on a single album's worth of music, unless it was truly something majestically good (or the vinyl artwork was worth it). As a musician, I understand the need to keep stuff from circulation where they don't belong - I wouldn't want people to have and hear stuff I was uncomfortable with. Not that I know for certain that Roger Taylor or any of the others who were in The Reaction would mind that this stuff is shared on the internet, but to be honest it's really not all that good. Secondly, while I don't completely agree with the method, I kind of have to support digital/online piracy in that it allows us to browse through history in a way that no libraries in the world would ever be able to. It's a different thing trying to preserve stuff for posterity than collecting stuff just to own something valuable. In any case, there's too much wrongdoing involved in this whole business that you shouldn't really be pointing out at anybody for doing something they didn't like to happen. The person to blame the most could be the one who didn't think it was good enough for a release in the first place. Besides, there's always more than one way to go about this business. This "preserving for posterity"-business has been going on for many years now in the retro gaming world, for instance. I've come across a few instances, where a preserver has managed to buy a game on ebay for several hundred pounds, and soon afterwards released a perfectly working image of the product in question for the internet community to enjoy, just because he felt it was the right thing to do. It might not be completely the same thing here, but as I said, there's more than one way to go about it. As suggested, you COULD get in contact with QPL...This is simply a great post... I think that it's okay to keep the original acetates and tapes and whatnot, but just release the sounds that they make onto the web in FLAC, AIFF, WAV, or even the shitty lossy MP3 format! The larger fanbase, without the money or the resources to collect rare valuables, still wants to hear good music that they haven't already heard before millions of times. They keep the Mona Lisa in the Louvre behind a bulletproof glass case and security cameras all around it. Yet there are millions of reproductions and copies all around the world. Does the original painting lose its value somehow? No! It's the same way with music. |
dudeofqueen 10.07.2013 01:49 |
Re: >They keep the Mona Lisa in the Louvre behind a bulletproof glass case and security cameras all around it. Yet there are millions of reproductions and copies all around the world. Does the original painting lose its value somehow? No! It's the same way with music Aha! And, therein, lies the hypocrisy of the music industry. Trading and file sharing of unreleased material does not detract from a band's sales; piracy does. If a band releases a shitty LP commercially, its not going to sell, regardless of the amount of quality unreleased live or studio tracks are passed between fans. |
dysan 10.07.2013 03:07 |
How about stealing from other people's youtube channels and claiming as their own discovery? |
dudeofqueen 10.07.2013 06:57 |
dysan, re: >How about stealing from other people's youtube channels and claiming as their own discovery? If someone puts something up on YouTube, in the knowledge that it can be taken and re-posted, then they only have themselves to blame if they get upset by it. Simply, don't put it up somewhere that it can be taken from; that's what people (some) do and it's their perogative to do so if they want. |