| ole-the-first 23.05.2011 09:21 |
Say all your gratitude words to international faggots orgainsation called 'Web Sheriff". |
| Hangman_96 23.05.2011 10:01 |
I can't understand what was criminal in David's channel. Why did they do it? They should be punished. |
| ole-the-first 23.05.2011 10:16 |
Lostman wrote: I can't understand what was criminal in David's channel. Why did they do it? They should be punished. ========== I'm versed in copyright laws an only thing I can say that modern copyright practics are totally incorrect. Actually, according to laws, Dave's channel is very criminal. But according to common sense the only real bandits are copyright defenders. Queen Productions know about this channel, they just can't not to, but they don't need deletion of this account. But crazy organizations like Web Sheriff do need. I've always hated these copyright faggots. And only thing that I can say — artists, don't be greedy. Upload audio in Internet yourself, just like Trent Reznor and Radiohead do it. This is the only way to put these fucking copyright faggots into their places. |
| Adam Baboolal 23.05.2011 10:26 |
Sad times :( I hope his account on youtube is restored...again. Adam. |
| Dr Zoidberg 23.05.2011 10:27 |
You really do your argument a disservice by peppering it with the homophobic slur "faggot" - particularly on a message board for a band whose lead singer was gay. |
| david (galashiels) 23.05.2011 11:22 |
fred wasnt gay,he just enjoyed all aspects of life. some more to excess than others lol lol lol. |
| Djdownsy 23.05.2011 11:31 |
Ah for feck sake. :/ |
| john bodega 23.05.2011 11:48 |
I think the fairest way to deal with copyrighted material would be to ask this question : does this represent a viable alternative to buying the product? People who upload unaltered music, TV shows or movies to Youtube eventually get their arses kicked, and *rightly so*. If it's something that can be bought, then you are being a cheeky prat by offering it for free. BUT ... if you are using it in a manner that has been altered, then I think the copyright owners can just fuck off. I've had a lot of experience with Youtube Copyright, and they've got no business removing videos that don't represent an alternative to buying a product. Mashups, video-dubs, game walkthroughs, whatever - none of these represent a lost sale because none of them are an untouched work of art or whatever. They should be thankful for the free word-of-mouth advertising. And as far as I'm concerned, this ought to go for so-called bootleg stuff as well, or things that can't be bought. If I can buy a TV show, or a movie, or an album, then I will. But guess what - I had to get Seasons 3-5 of TJ Hooker off Demonoid, because the assholes don't sell it. I've downloaded a metric shit-tonne of Queen rarities, because the morons won't sell it to me legally. Things like that really piss me off. |
| john bodega 23.05.2011 11:51 |
Having said that, it really does suck that this channel was taken down, but hopefully he's learned a lesson. There were some great rare videos there and a lot of commercially unobtainable stuff - but there was also a few things that can be bought fairly easily. That's bound to cause trouble eventually. |
| Thistle 23.05.2011 12:04 |
With absolutely no disrespect intended to Dave, why is this such a big deal? We've all got the same stuff anyway! There's not a single thing on that channel that I didn't have already, and that's before I even knew what Queenzone or even YouTube was (and I'm sure most of us are the same). Yeah, I agree that this stuff should be made public one way or another, but would you have cared if it was just some random geezer with a glee clip? It's only news because it's Dave, but it's not really a major problem, is it? |
| ole-the-first 23.05.2011 12:19 |
Thistleboy 1980 wrote: With absolutely no disrespect intended to Dave, why is this such a big deal? We've all got the same stuff anyway! There's not a single thing on that channel that I didn't have already, and that's before I even knew what Queenzone or even YouTube was (and I'm sure most of us are the same). Yeah, I agree that this stuff should be made public one way or another, but would you have cared if it was just some random geezer with a glee clip? It's only news because it's Dave, but it's not really a major problem, is it? ======== These "we" are probably collectors of rarities. Of course for me this is not a problem, because I have good collection too, but there's a lot of less active (and lucky) fans for whom this channel was almost the only source of rare song versions. |
| Thistle 23.05.2011 12:27 |
ole-the-first wrote: These "we" are probably collectors of rarities. Of course for me this is not a problem, because I have good collection too, but there's a lot of less active (and lucky) fans for whom this channel was almost the only source of rare song versions. ============================================================================================= If these guys have access to Youtube then they have access to the plethora of sites where such material can be obtained. And if they can't be bothered with that, then there is a YouTube grabber thingy available. Like I say, it's no big deal. |
| emrabt 23.05.2011 14:56 |
David fuller account closed, volcano stopping air travel, hose pipe ban. It's last year all over again. |
| N0_Camping4U 23.05.2011 15:05 |
So.... Any chance he can just mass upload it for people on forums? I know it'd be a rather large download, but it's one worth sharing. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 23.05.2011 15:49 |
theres a previous post about youtube problems on the general discusion, youtube must be on its period due to how bitchy its being resently |
| Isle0fRed 23.05.2011 19:24 |
I don't blame YouTube (or other companies) removing peoples videos due to copyright claims. It clearly states when a person creates an account and uploads a video that the material must have beet created by themselves, and failure to comply will result in removal of video and possible termination of account. I'm doing a film course at my uni and will be heading into that industry. There is nothing more I hate than copyright theft. YouTube is a free source of access to millions (if not billions) and material such as Movies, Music, Video Game Playthru, etc would be costly to the company of creating respect, esspacilly if downloading from YouTube isn't a hard task. DaveRFuller's material was never his in the first place and rightly so he should be deleted. The only time I would accept downloading, or having videos on YouTube (or any video site) when the material isn't owned by the respectful owner is if the material is in the public domain. I also must add, putting a disclaimer on a video stating fair use or educational video doesn't stop a copyrighted material from being removed. |
| Gregsynth 24.05.2011 02:33 |
Isle0fRed wrote: I don't blame YouTube (or other companies) removing peoples videos due to copyright claims. It clearly states when a person creates an account and uploads a video that the material must have beet created by themselves, and failure to comply will result in removal of video and possible termination of account. I'm doing a film course at my uni and will be heading into that industry. There is nothing more I hate than copyright theft. YouTube is a free source of access to millions (if not billions) and material such as Movies, Music, Video Game Playthru, etc would be costly to the company of creating respect, esspacilly if downloading from YouTube isn't a hard task. DaveRFuller's material was never his in the first place and rightly so he should be deleted. The only time I would accept downloading, or having videos on YouTube (or any video site) when the material isn't owned by the respectful owner is if the material is in the public domain. I also must add, putting a disclaimer on a video stating fair use or educational video doesn't stop a copyrighted material from being removed. =================== You have copyrighted material on your Youtube channel as well--although your chances of getting strikes are extremely slim to none. Although I have a clean record, I'm always watching my back on Youtube--I've had some subscribers lose their Youtube channels due to copyright BS. |
| emrabt 24.05.2011 02:49 |
I had something removed from my channel that was actually 100% fair use / fair dealings, and would have held up as such, but i couldn't be bothered to Argue my case. At the end of the day david r fuller knows the risks of posting 100's of copyrighted works. |
| Isle0fRed 24.05.2011 07:01 |
Yep I Do have one copyrighted material on my channel link but unlike many other users on youtube, I never claim it to be my material, nor do I hide behind that fair use BS. That video has been allowed to stay on my channel providing the site places ads before hand. If anyone remembers Fuller's videos, his name was plastered all over those videos. In other words, he himself has claim those videos as his own. I reckon Greg would be fine providing his channel doesn't 1 gain the mass attention that Fuller's account got 2 he doesn't post material that is currently available on the retail market (the SNL, and Silver Salmon you may need to worry about, also some bootlegs QP do sell under Top 100 bootlegs name, those also you may need to worry about) I think your life partner has more chances of being deleted thou as I think he is one strike away from being deleted. |
| rhyeking 24.05.2011 10:02 |
When I post music on YouTube, it's all owned by others. Most get the "Third-party content match" notice, which places ads on it, and I'm fine with that. Some seem to slip by without that notice. The only trouble I've run into is occasionally getting blocked outright (worldwide) when I post something. It's only happened a few times and I've either not bothered posting it again or in the case of the Sheer Heart Attack cover versions album video, I had to take out the Dream Theatre SHA medley ("Tenement Funster," "Flick Of The Wrist" & "Lily Of The Valley") and replace each song with an alternate cover version. After I did that, all was fine. When the blocks and third-part matches occur, it's immediately after I post it, not weeks or months or years later. I list the writer, performer and album of each track, as well, so people know exactly what they're getting. Most of the time I note that the video is made purely for fun and that the content's rights belong to their respective copyright holders. I don't know all the details about Dave Fuller's account, whether he was exclusively Queen-related or not, but I myself post tracks by other artists too, so that might keep me under the radar, too. What really bothers me is that a third party, this Web Sheriff, has taken on what is a essentially vigilante attitude of enforcing change on their terms alone. On the surface, it's about the copyright, but they know perfectly that YouTube's policy is that of "If someone complains, we take it down. It's then up to the poster to convince us to put it back." And there in lies the danger of such groups. Even if a post is 100% legit, YouTube won't fight a complaint, they'll simply take it down. I've seen it happen! They don't want to be bothered with legal hassles of copyright, fair use or anything else. The potential is there for groups like Web Sheriff to seriously abuse this policy. It may start with, "We're just obeying the law,' but it has become a policing system by a group whose authority is self-imposed. They will argue that it's no different than walking down the street, seeing a guy rob a little old lady and calling the police. They are wrong! First, the copyright laws for bootlegs and recordings are varied and detailed, state to state and country to country, whereby certain things are not protected quite the way we'd think (and that's not even getting into legitimate "fair use," "parody" and other allowances). Second, if you witness a crime and call the police, the suspects are guaranteed due process, legal consul and their day in court. Watch-dog groups exploiting the policies of such a site as YouTube are effectively denying due process by evoking a summary judgement. Worse, they're placing the burden of proof on the account holder to justify why it's there, rather than the burden of proof being on the complainant to establish what offense has been committed, which is an inherent, fundamental principal of most (all?) free-world legal systems. |
| john bodega 24.05.2011 12:02 |
"but unlike many other users on youtube, I never claim it to be my material, nor do I hide behind that fair use BS" Aha, that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. It makes no difference if you do what the 'many other users' do; you're still breaking the terms of service. Although the funniest thing about the common "THIS IS NOT MY PROPERTY" disclaimer that so many people use is that it's actually admitting in writing that you know you are committing an offense. "There is nothing more I hate than copyright theft" Copyright theft ... hurrr. It is an extremely narrow mind that perceives it as such. I'll be sure to illegally download any movies you make in the future. It doesn't make any sense - if you didn't approve of 'copyright theft', then you wouldn't have that Queen video on there and you wouldn't have your 3 Wii videos; all of which could get taken down if the copyright owners cared enough. Luckily, they don't - but legally there's no difference between your Wii vids and Dave Fuller's Queen stuff. I'll admit that morally there's a difference, because Fuller liked to put his name on videos as if he recorded them himself - it'd be like you claiming that you are a Nintendo programmer :D Still, we're not talking about morals here - there is a huge gap between what is moral and legal. |
| kosimodo 24.05.2011 13:18 |
i will miss Daves channel.. I hope (and assume) he has a nice backup and i hope to see his channel soon on liveleak |
| NOTWMEDDLE 24.05.2011 14:19 |
FUCK YOUTUBE THOSE CUNTS. THEY WILL ALLOW VIDEOS FROM KATY PERRY (THE CUMGUZZLING GUTTERSLUT), BRITNEY (THE HEAD OF THE FILTHY, DIRTY, DISGUSTING, BRUTAL, BOTTOM FEEDING, TRASH BAGGED HOES), EMINEM (THE WHIGGER WHO CAN DISH IT BUT CAN'T TAKE IT) AND LADY GAG GAG (WHO SHOULD BE PUNCHED OUT AND SET ON FIRE TO DIE). YOU TUBE IS NOW BLOCKING ALOT OF CLASSIC ROCK SHIT AND WE'VE HAD ENOUGH. I BLAME YOUTUBE. NOTHING IS FREE ANYMORE. THEY FORGET WE ARE IN A DEPRESSION AND HALF THE VIDEOS REMOVED ARE BY BANDS WHO ARE NO LONGER ACTIVE (PINK FLOYD, GENESIS, QUEEN, LED ZEPPELIN AS EXAMPLES). I SAW YOUTUBE AS A MEANS OF PROMOTION TO GET NEW FANS EXPOSED. I WOULD NOT HAVE HEARD HALF OF THOSE RARITIES IF NOT FOR DAVID FULLER. FUCK UNIVERSAL (THEY CAN HAVE THEIR GAG GAG, WINEHOSE, HOERIAH SCARY AND HAIRY J BLAH). FUCK SONY (THEY CAN HAVE BRITARD, BRAYONCE AND PISSTINA RAGULERA), FUCK WMG AND FUCK EMI TOO! FUCK YOUTUBE AS WELL! FUCK THE CIA, FBI, POLITICIANS! FUCK THEM ALL! |
| Sebastian 24.05.2011 14:37 |
Why are now YouTube the bad guys? It's not their OBLIGATION to give us free videos. Without YouTube, a lot of us wouldn't even KNOW about their existence. Enjoying 5+ years of FREE videos is WAY better than enjoying none, isn't it? If YouTube are such fuckers for taking away videos, then here's a solution: get a server and open a videohosting website yourself. Hurry up! Wait. Why don't you do it? Oh, right: maybe because it's NOT that easy. Or maybe you're a bad guy too? |
| Gregsynth 24.05.2011 14:52 |
Isle0fRed wrote: Yep I Do have one copyrighted material on my channel link but unlike many other users on youtube, I never claim it to be my material, nor do I hide behind that fair use BS. That video has been allowed to stay on my channel providing the site places ads before hand. If anyone remembers Fuller's videos, his name was plastered all over those videos. In other words, he himself has claim those videos as his own. I reckon Greg would be fine providing his channel doesn't 1 gain the mass attention that Fuller's account got 2 he doesn't post material that is currently available on the retail market (the SNL, and Silver Salmon you may need to worry about, also some bootlegs QP do sell under Top 100 bootlegs name, those also you may need to worry about) I think your life partner has more chances of being deleted thou as I think he is one strike away from being deleted. ================ I did look through all my videos--and there's a few videos that are "official." I posted the audio from Queen's Live Aid set (audio was ripped from the Rock Montreal DVD), the SNL videos, and Silver Salmon (I don't know if that's official--but if it is--then I'm adding it to the list). My video hits are approaching 1 million--so it is going to be harder to stay under the radar. Lemonysnick123 is another excellent subscriber--I hope he doesn't get his account messed up (he told me on the SNL videos that he had to deal with copyright stuff before). As for thebiggestqueenfan, I know he's got one strike (because of the SNL stuff). I'm not aware of any others, but if so, he better be careful. |
| john bodega 25.05.2011 06:50 |
"FUCK YOUTUBE THOSE CUNTS. THEY WILL ALLOW VIDEOS FROM KATY PERRY (THE CUMGUZZLING GUTTERSLUT), BRITNEY (THE HEAD OF THE FILTHY, DIRTY, DISGUSTING, BRUTAL, BOTTOM FEEDING, TRASH BAGGED HOES), EMINEM (THE WHIGGER WHO CAN DISH IT BUT CAN'T TAKE IT) AND LADY GAG GAG (WHO SHOULD BE PUNCHED OUT AND SET ON FIRE TO DIE). YOU TUBE IS NOW BLOCKING ALOT OF CLASSIC ROCK SHIT AND WE'VE HAD ENOUGH." WOAH, woah ... slow the hell down. I agree that Youtube's Terms of Service are a joke, but the fact is that Katy Perry, Britney, Eminem and Lady GaGa all have their stuff on Youtube legally. It's on Youtube because it's allowed to be. Fuller's channel is gone because he broke the rules. Whether I agree 100% with those rules is another matter, because frankly they're screwy. "Why are now YouTube the bad guys?" Because it's a site that only exists thanks to the community that uses it. Now anyone with a brain would know that once a possibility for advertising revenue presented itself, the site would get bought and we'd have to put up with certain levels of bullshit in exchange for using the service. But these days, ordinary users are getting shafted in deference to the irrelevant desires of a bunch of people whose ideas about copyright are 50 fucking years out of date. One can't reasonably claim that Youtube 'just has to obey the rules or get sued' because they're now a big enough entity that they could put up a fight and win (depending on what their stance would be, obviously). It's ignorance to just say "it's the law", now. The laws need changing. I know that's desperately naive, and is as likely as an end to all war and famine, because there's too many vested interests involved, but I'm just saying how it should be. There is a way to prevent boldface piracy of intellectual property without screwing the wrong people - the ones who've really not done anything amoral. Having said all this ... Fuller had it coming though. There were a few tracks on his channel that I paid good money to get, and the last time I heard, they were still commercially available. It pissed me off when I saw that. |
| john bodega 25.05.2011 06:51 |
"Say all your gratitude words to international faggots orgainsation" I don't understand this. Are they in support of gay marriage or something? Personally, I'm all for that - I have a couple of gay friends who are having to go through all kinds of hurdles to get their relationship properly recognised, and it's totally not cool. Since I'm not finding a woman any time soon, I reckon they can just have the marriage that I (apparently) deserve, and I'll go without. |
| Soundfreak 25.05.2011 10:21 |
I think the basic idea of youtube was, that people spread their own selfmade videos. So no ones rights were harmed. But over the years it became a platform for spreading videos and clips made by professional people, who try to earn their living from doing so. It was probably tolerated, as long all those people still earned their living from their work. But this is no longer the case for many creative people. So it's no surprise that youtube is attacked from many sides now. I think it was nice to have been able to use Youtube for a while to find all those nice clips and stuff. But we should accept, that it's not okay, when people do not get paid for their work. Do you want to work for free ? |
| john bodega 25.05.2011 10:40 |
"But we should accept, that it's not okay, when people do not get paid for their work" But that's bunkum. A lot of the stuff we are talking about is not available for sale, and a lot of it does not represent lost revenue because it's not a viable alternative to buying the product. Say I've got a video that has a song in it, but that song has a metric shit-tonne of sound over the top of it. Alright, I'm a bit of a bumpkin for engaging in unauthorised broadcast, but there is 0 lost revenue here, because no one can take this video and say "I now have this song and do not have to pay for it". And considering how easy it is for people to simply wander over to bittorrent and get whatever music they want these days, Youtube artists represent bugger-all of a threat to the bottom line of these companies. I stress the word 'artists', though. I'm talking about people who actually do something creative with this stuff - not wankers who shamelessly upload whole discographies of bands, or seasons of TV shows; stuff that *can be bought*. To me, of course that's not okay. I absolutely hate seeing music or movies available for free when I know that I've paid for my copy. But when we're talking about channels like Dave Fuller's or Gregsynth's, there's a lot of stuff there that can't be bought. The artists (in this case, Queen) can thank themselves for creating this environment of 'piracy' (still a totally misapplied term) by not changing their business model. I've got money. If they want it, they can have it - but they will have to work for it. Until then, take all you can and give nothing back - and long live the Announce Forum! |
| john bodega 25.05.2011 10:42 |
"that people spread their own selfmade videos. So no ones rights were harmed" Youtube operates in direct contradiction with this flowery idea. Many of the biggest Partners on that site are getting what, 5-digit incomes, from uploading videos that use other people's content without prior authorisation, having misleading video thumbnails and text - you name it, they'll do it. How can you take a site seriously on its own Terms of Service when it does nothing to enforce them amongst the moneymaking channels, while punishing the hell out of Little Old Us? |
| Soundfreak 26.05.2011 10:18 |
Zebonka wrote: But that's bunkum <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I don't know what that means but I have an idea.... If you search for the perfect world you won't find it in the internet and especially in the copyright laws. I fully agree that it's a shame when things like rare clips and even historical recordings are kept away from people who are interested. And just gather dust in some archives instead. But still they are the property of some people. And we have these weird laws that come from a time before the internet. TV-stations today have big archives full of goodies they are no longer allowed to broadcast - and they have no rights anymore to show this stuff. They have to re-negotiate and sometimes this takes years to find the correct people. While these recordings can easily be found on youtube, where no one cares. It's frustrating - but it is like that. You may insult me if you like, but I just tell you what's going on..... |