DAVID R FULLER'S ACCOUNT TERMINATED

MadTheSwine73 13.06.2011 16:22	This is what it says on YouTube: YouTube account DaveRFuller has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including: Web Sheriff I hate copyright....
The Real Wizard 13.06.2011 19:21	Yeah, stupid copyrights... Why should artists be paid for what they do? Only people who work "real jobs" should get paid, right? He posted some officially released material, so his account was taken down. Sounds pretty straight-forward to me.
Adam Baboolal 13.06.2011 19:42	Official stuff aside, what now happens to all the videos he DID upload? Are they gone from Youtube? I also wonder if he had some kind of backup after the last time it happened. Adam.
pestgrid 13.06.2011 20:54	ask moog
MadTheSwine73 13.06.2011 21:09	Sir GH wrote: Yeah, stupid copyrights... Why should artists be paid for what they do? Only people who work "real jobs" should get paid, right? He posted some officially released material, so his account was taken down. Sounds pretty straight-forward to me. Dude, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that his account was taken down for posting SOME officially released material. More than half of the stuff he posted wasn't official. I'll give you another example: MsMamapapa. His account was taken down to, and I don't remember him posting ANY official material. Another example: Gregsynthbootlegs. His account is always getting warnings. I find it stupid that the copyright people take down the whole channel when there are only 4 or 5 videos. Instead, they take down all 500 videos he had for only a few videos. The only official ones I remember him having were the guest appearances, and the karaoke versions. None of the interviews or demos were official. Either way, I respect their objective, but I don't agree with it. But that's not the discussion. His account is gone, along with all his videos, subscribers and friends. I'm letting everyone know, and I want to know what people think of it.
guild93 13.06.2011 23:02	It's kinda like going to a supermarket and stealing a few items and telling the police officer "Only SOME of the things in my trolley are stolen, the rest I paid for!"
emrabt 14.06.2011 01:01	MadTheSwine73, whether officially released or not queen own the copyright on everything the members create, none of that stuff has fallen into the public domain, and probably never will, Gregs channel has 100's of songs performed and written by, yes you've guessed it, QUEEN, Daverfuller had 100's of things he didn't own, the interviews are owned by the radio or TV stations, the demos by whoever wrote / recorded them, live audience shot footage is owned by whoever filmed it, but the sound is technically owned by Queen. People are so thick when it comes to copyrights. Seriously, it’s not just you, but some of this stuff is simple logic that even an 8 year old can work out. And don’t get me started on people who think that posting movies and stuff on youtube counts as "private archiving" under the fair use / fair dealings act.
Jamie1977 14.06.2011 03:52	This topic is understandable, but yet again not. I've always watched the special songs/demos/other rarities on David's account with a lot of enthusiasm and surprise. Don't know how he does it, but he almost always amazes us. The fact that QP doesn't release a lot of these gems is a shame. But yet again, it's their call. They own the rights and to be honest we all have to respect that. Don't say that I like it, but it also amazes me that a lot of people find it normal to get access to material guarded by all sorts of rights these days. It really seems normal but it isn't. Although I have to admit that the people from YouTube are quite hypocrite too. They allowed it for so long, deleted his account several times but still every time he could eventually restore it. Again, I don't like the fact that David's account has been deleted because of all the special features. Let's just hope that QP wake up someday...........;)
Isle0fRed 14.06.2011 06:40	Sir GH wrote: Why should artists be paid for what they do? Only people who work "real jobs" should get paid, right? Define "real job"
thomasquinn 32989 14.06.2011 07:48	Sir GH wrote: Yeah, stupid copyrights... Why should artists be paid for what they do? Only people who work "real jobs" should get paid, right? He posted some officially released material, so his account was taken down. Sounds pretty straight-forward to me. ======== You're closing your eyes to some serious injustice here. Copyright as a system is defective. I will give you some very telling examples out of real life: Back in the 1960s, an idealistic artists' rights lawyer started a record label for avant-garde artists, the label being called ESP Disk'. Artists recorded for ESP, but were given a non-exclusive contract, meaning they were free to take the recordings they made for ESP to another label if they so desired. After a few years, a number of artists were given contracts with other labels, and these labels DID make them sign exclusive contracts. ESP records were re-released, and...during the 1970s these record companies started successfully suing ESP-Disk' over supposed 'copyright infringement': the original releases were now labelled PIRATED, with exclusive copyright going to the goddamn criminals who reissued them. Result: ESP-Disk' went bankrupt. This happened THREE TIMES. That is not justice, but it is copyright. Point two: artist dies, some years pass. Rights are about to expire - so unscrupulous corporate lawyer has rights extended under company name. Result: exclusive rights stretching out to infinity for some corporate machine with no ties to the original artist whatsoever. Point three: expensive lawsuits by multi-million dollar bands against bands just starting out. Some of these are truly idiotic: one, I forgot the name of the band, actually claimed exclusive rights to the use of the F7 chord. They would never win in court, but because of the prohibitively high costs of going to trial, they get what they want anyway. The system is broke. Copyright should be buried and replaced by something just. For starters, it should be impossible for copyright to reside in anything other than a flesh-and-blood person. No company or other anonymous structure should be able to exercise copyright.
Bad Seed 14.06.2011 09:03	Just like the majority or law's, copyright is not perfect, but in most circumstances it does its job. These tracks are not public property. If the band don't want these made public, then its up to Youtube to regulate itself properly and take them down. Otherwise Queen will be suing their arse off, and rightly so.
emrabt 14.06.2011 09:06	Point two: artist dies, some years pass. Rights are about to expire - so unscrupulous corporate lawyer has rights extended under company name. Result: exclusive rights stretching out to infinity for some corporate machine with no ties to the original artist whatsoever. The system is broke. Copyright should be buried and replaced by something just. For starters, it should be impossible for copyright to reside in anything other than a flesh-and-blood person. No company or other anonymous structure should be able to exercise copyright. ======================= The Disney corporation not only constantly renews expiring copyrights, but has also successfully lobbied and changed US law practically making it impossible for things to fall into the public domain; they keep creating / finding loopholes. The character of Popeye fell into the public domain in the UK a few years ago (from cigars original thimble theatre comics.), but because the image and name are trademarked by king features it’s still impossible to do anything with the character without permission. Copyright law really needs to be reviewed, re-written and updated, but get rid of copyright and the average man on the street will not be able to protect his work. Any way DaverFuller is still in the wrong.
Thistle 14.06.2011 09:20	This discussion again? FFS. Look, it's all simple - whether you like it or not, NONE of the stuff he posted on YouTube was his to do so. As emrabt says, it's all owned by Queen, radio stations, TV companies etc. And there was NOTHING that Dave Fuller had on YouTube that isn't available elsewhere. FFS, most of us have it all already anyway. I know that is not right legally, but it's fact. RE Thomas Quinn's point - that's ESP's fault. They opened the door to that, so the companies who latched on done nothing wrong.
N0_Camping4U 14.06.2011 09:31	It's a shame, really... I hope he has a back-up. I agree with the official stuff being deleted, but the whole channel sounds kind of absurd. There is/was quite a lot of interesting little stuff on his channel, some stuff I didn't even have, and stuff that a Queen fan would want to listen to, but might not know where to obtain it all. What he did - official stuff aside - was really generous in my eyes, he was planting the Queen seed to lesser Queen fans.
john bodega 14.06.2011 10:21	A lot of copyright law is bullshit - or at the very least, the implementation is. The measures that are taken to protect rights are usually counterproductive, short-sighted, and a massive pain in the arse to the WRONG people - the ones that really aren't doing anything wrong. If you approach this as a moral discussion, then yep - copyright lawyers should, en masse, be lined up and shot because they're good for nothing and they're costing more money than 'piracy' ever will. Spend five minutes looking at the fine print and you'll quickly realise that this shit isn't being done in the interests of the artists - copyright protection and anti-piracy is just an obscene, self-sustaining side effect of what the music industry has become; a sideshow to a sideshow. I feel like I'm being patronising by even saying this, though, because anyone with a brain stem could figure it out themselves. sigh However, even if you approach this from a purely moral standpoint, Dave R Fuller was still in the wrong. He was not just offering rarities that we can't buy on shelves, in some noble sacrifice of his spare time - he had things on his channel that can be easily bought. There were things on his channel that I for one have paid good money to listen to. Anyone viewing his videos could do the same. If you have internet, then you have the money to pay for music. He was, in very simple terms, asking to get his arse kicked. Regardless of how you feel on the subject, no one has any right to complain. If you liked his videos, you could have downloaded them. Sucks to be you for not looking up keepvid.com
MadTheSwine73 14.06.2011 10:56	Zebonka12 wrote: A lot of copyright law is bullshit - or at the very least, the implementation is. The measures that are taken to protect rights are usually counterproductive, short-sighted, and a massive pain in the arse to the WRONG people - the ones that really aren't doing anything wrong. If you approach this as a moral discussion, then yep - copyright lawyers should, en masse, be lined up and shot because they're good for nothing and they're costing more money than 'piracy' ever will. Spend five minutes looking at the fine print and you'll quickly realise that this shit isn't being done in the interests of the artists - copyright protection and anti-piracy is just an obscene, self-sustaining side effect of what the music industry has become; a sideshow to a sideshow. I feel like I'm being patronising by even saying this, though, because anyone with a brain stem could figure it out themselves. sigh However, even if you approach this from a purely moral standpoint, Dave R Fuller was still in the wrong. He was not just offering rarities that we can't buy on shelves, in some noble sacrifice of his spare time - he had things on his channel that can be easily bought. There were things on his channel that I for one have paid good money to listen to. Anyone viewing his videos could do the same. If you have internet, then you have the money to pay for music. He was, in very simple terms, asking to get his arse kicked. Regardless of how you feel on the subject, no one has any right to complain. If you liked his videos, you could have downloaded them. Sucks to be you for not looking up keepvid.com lol I downloaded all the videos I wanted from him already (since his account was previously banned), but all I'm saying is that it sucks his account is gone. I know that he was still in the wrong, but so is everyone who uploads stuff onto YouTube or any site (whose material they upload isn't theirs of course). The only reason his account was terminated was because he's the most popular for this type of stuff (bootlegs, guest appearances, etc..)
Thistle 14.06.2011 12:24	In what way does it "suck" that his account is gone? Does it affect you physically, mentally, emotionally or even financially? You already say you have the stuff of interest, so what's the gripe? His account was terminated because he was the most popular? Bollocks! His account was terminated because it was wrong. And what's this crap some are saying about less fortunate fans? FFS, nobody is meant to have the unreleased stuff, whether you like QP for it or not. Yeah, it might be exciting to have it or to have heard it, but what's the need to do so? It doesn't make or break our day to day functioning. So somebody has something you've not heard - oooh, time to slit the wrists. FFS.
Russian Headlong 14.06.2011 16:26	he did a great job bringing gems that many of us hadnt heard. pity but thats copyright i guess.
Daniel Nester 14.06.2011 16:58	I agree with Zebonka. IMHO, so much of what Fuller put up--the not officially available stuff--can be put up for fair use--checklist is here: link 1. Fuller isn't making money off of this. He isn't claiming authorship. Now. YouTube is making money off of him, so that's in the negative category. 2. As someone who writes about Queen and will continue to do so, Fuller's videos are invaluable for my research, as it is for a lot of other writers/researchers. You can't get them anywhere else. 3. The clips are all "portions" of a complete work (i.e., the mythical "boxed sets" everyone is still waiting for), and would only serve to promote the real deal when they are officially released. There's also no licensing mechanism for these unofficial clips. They land out in the ether, and Fuller's YouTube account is the one, central place where they are posted. If anything, Queen fans should band together and keep uploading the demos, rarities, and oddities he posts up in a decentralized fashion to prevent this valuable archive from being taken down again. And when the clips do get re-uploaded, I'm recording them to be safe!
john bodega 14.06.2011 18:55	"YouTube is making money off of him, so that's in the negative category" To me, that represents the single biggest problem with their current mode of operation, and it's also the thing that is least likely to change! They will tell you with a straight face about copyright infringement, which by extension is meant to be harming someone's rightful income - but in the same breath they will happily claim revenue on material that does not belong to them. The most popular bloggers on Youtube make a shitload of money for the little work they put it, and a lot of that stuff is 'infringing'. As I said folks - if you like something, download it right away. "Queen fans should band together and keep uploading the demos, rarities, and oddities he posts up in a decentralized fashion" I quite agree. I thought about starting a mirror channel of Fuller's stuff, but I didn't have the time to go through however many videos he had. If he starts again, it's something for people to think about.
The Real Wizard 14.06.2011 19:37	Isle0fRed wrote: Define "real job" ===================== As an artist, at countless times in my life people have looked at me and told me to get a "real job," as if doing one's passion and enriching culture with art is not a real job. Bullocks to them - most of them are just jealous because they work so-called "real jobs," i.e. paying the bills via exchanging their time for money whilst doing something they hate. But I'm not condemning them for their choices - to each their own. So I used the "real job" statement here because the "yay, free music" mentality usually comes from people who have so-called "real jobs" - those people who feel like their work is somehow more valuable to society than people who create art, and that they should somehow be entitled to said art/services for free. It isn't. Just about every job helps keep the wonderfully complex machine of life going, and that includes art. Back to topic. The music in question is QP's property. They can do what they want to do with it, full stop. Websites, blogs and youtube channels will be shut down because someone is not getting paid for their work. Who wouldn't be pissed off if they worked on something for X amount of time and weren't compensated when someone made use of it? I sure would. I realize the cocksuckers at the record companies make much more money than they should, but the artists and their management are still very much entitled to have their say. I love this thread. So very much.
emrabt 14.06.2011 21:06	Daniel, it wouldn't hold up as fair use, for a start they are not portions of full works, portions would be a few seconds, they ARE full works. It would be fair use if 20 seconds of the back chat demo were used on a webpage about the song, to give a demonstration of what can’t be described with words and to give a demonstrate how the track differs from the released version. Or, a better example would be if bob put a few seconds sample of a live killers track on his live killers page, with the purpose of demonstrating exactly what "jumping around the stereo field" means for people that don't know. Secondly they haven’t been put up for private archiving or research, If a whole bunch of history was put up with a small sample, when and where it was recorded and so fourth, it might pass, but as it was it's just a bunch of other peoples works uploaded to youtube.
john bodega 15.06.2011 00:32	Unfortunately, fair use doesn't really cover that fringe of intellectual property that is not available for sale, isn't public domain, but still has a decent audience that wants it. Band rarities, for example. Bands and record companies would like to have their cake and eat it too in this regard - they want to keep it out of the public domain, but they don't feel they have a business model wherein they can sell it to people without running at a loss... which is a somewhat antiquated way of looking at it. My overriding thought is that I would buy a lot of this shit, if only someone would sell it to me. Yes - I can just watch a lot of Queen stuff on Youtube, but I would be a lot happier if I had copies of it at home. RE: Music being a real job ... I'm always of two minds on this one. I can't help but chuckle at the people who work at the employment agency I have to go to. I've been dealing with these people on-and-off for 6 years, and they do ... very little. Yet, somewhere along the line they got the idea that they have a right to look down their nose at me for being a musician. Keeping in mind that music has brought in slightly more money than the work they've sent me on. As a musician I am not asking for a free lunch, and there may come a time where I really have to give it all a rest and go get one of those 'real jobs', but I like to think there's room for both in this life - certainly I have the right to do what I want to do without being looked at like a timewaster. I could possibly handle these scornful looks if they came from perhaps an astronaut, a firefighter, or someone who does immense amounts of volunteer work - someone with a genuinely enviable lifestyle - but I refuse to accept this attitude from people who are two clicks away from playing Solitaire while they should be reviewing my case history, which takes all of two minutes anyway.
emrabt 15.06.2011 00:44	but in the same breath they will happily claim revenue on material that does not belong to them. ========= I'm not sure what the small print is now, but when i signed up Youtube took ownership of everything uploaded, keeping in mind that the stuff uploaded SHOULD have been the property of the uploader before handing over to youtube, it means me, you and a tonne of other uploaders are committing fraud.
thomasquinn 32989 15.06.2011 04:34	Thistleboy 1980 wrote: RE Thomas Quinn's point - that's ESP's fault. They opened the door to that, so the companies who latched on done nothing wrong. ======= They did nothing illegal. What they did was highly unethical and it is illogical that this is even possible. "Wrong" is a subjective term. You obviously side with the corporate machine, I side with the artists.
Thistle 15.06.2011 05:05	ThomasQuinn wrote: Thistleboy 1980 wrote: RE Thomas Quinn's point - that's ESP's fault. They opened the door to that, so the companies who latched on done nothing wrong. ======= They did nothing illegal. What they did was highly unethical and it is illogical that this is even possible. "Wrong" is a subjective term. You obviously side with the corporate machine, I side with the artists. ============================================================================================= No Thomas, I'm not taking sides, and I don't think it's fair that you throw such judgements around. I'm merely stating that there was nothing wrong in that practice. This is a capitalist world, and if ESP were dumb enough to allow such a thing to happen, then hell mend them. Unethical? I don't think so. And maybe you should read back on what you wrote - the artists were "free" thanks to ESP to go to other companies. Therefore, it was the artists that allowed it to happen, taking financial gain from other companies rather than staying loyal to their original label. In other words, you are "siding" with the folk who effectively sold out in this instance.
Djdownsy 15.06.2011 08:21	Was this topic not up like..2-3 weeks ago?
Thistle 15.06.2011 08:52	Djdownsy wrote: Was this topic not up like..2-3 weeks ago? ============================================================================================= Yeah, but that him just finding out :)
Thoughtless51 15.06.2011 09:30	I watch most of my stuff on officialqueen, but i have watched alot of stuff from davidrfullers, but officialqueen rocks
Daniel Nester 15.06.2011 09:44	@ermbt I think-slash-fear you might be right about a lot of this. Especially the portions-as-opposed-to-full works question. One wrinkle might be we don't actually know if some are the full versions. Of the songs I mean. But--I still think you could make a decent argument that these are portions of the full work--and 10% is the rule, at least in education, when we talk about collections, books, etc.. Also: we are also not re-aggregating these works and making them another whole (i.e., it's not The David Fuller Queen Rarities Boxed Set, on sale now). Samples of officially released works don't apply here as a comparison. My argument, such as it is, is limited to not officially released stuff--for the most part, correct me if I am wrong, Fuller has put up not-officially released. Research is research, whether partial or impartial, with liner notes or not. I also don't see the difference between it being a private archive or a public one, as you say in "Secondly"; there's already plenty of public archives online that are used for research already, and that doesn't make any different vis a vis their fair use status. The biggest wrinkle, of course, is that all this is taking place on a for-profit site and it's the users who suffer the consequences while The Man makes money.
MadTheSwine73 15.06.2011 10:27	Thistleboy 1980 wrote: Djdownsy wrote: Was this topic not up like..2-3 weeks ago? ============================================================================================= Yeah, but that him just finding out :) True. I am a little bit late on some things...
MadTheSwine73 15.06.2011 10:28	Sir GH wrote: Isle0fRed wrote: Define "real job" ===================== As an artist, at countless times in my life people have looked at me and told me to get a "real job," as if doing one's passion and enriching culture with art is not a real job. Bullocks to them - most of them are just jealous because they work so-called "real jobs," i.e. paying the bills via exchanging their time for money whilst doing something they hate. But I'm not condemning them for their choices - to each their own. So I used the "real job" statement here because the "yay, free music" mentality usually comes from people who have so-called "real jobs" - those people who feel like their work is somehow more valuable to society than people who create art, and that they should somehow be entitled to said art/services for free. It isn't. Just about every job helps keep the wonderfully complex machine of life going, and that includes art. Back to topic. The music in question is QP's property. They can do what they want to do with it, full stop. Websites, blogs and youtube channels will be shut down because someone is not getting paid for their work. Who wouldn't be pissed off if they worked on something for X amount of time and weren't compensated when someone made use of it? I sure would. I realize the cocksuckers at the record companies make much more money than they should, but the artists and their management are still very much entitled to have their say. I love this thread. So very much. Dude, don't make a fight out of this. Plus, you're arguing with people most probably younger than you anyways. It's a discussion page, not an argument page.
emrabt 15.06.2011 11:16	I think-slash-fear you might be right about a lot of this. Especially the portions-as-opposed-to-full works question. One wrinkle might be we don't actually know if some are the full versions. =============================== These are not a few second samples, it doesn’t matter if he is selling them or not, they are not his to distribute. The reason they are up is to get people to hear them, for them to fall under fair use there would have to be a better reason than that. I think Fair use is something like 90 seconds, only the smallest amount of official works possible to demonstrate the point. Posting Demos on the internet = not fair use Posting 20 seconds from a demo on the internet WITH the purpose of demonstrating something that can’t be explained easily with words. = fair use ==================================== Samples of officially released works don't apply here as a comparison. My argument, such as it is, is limited to not officially released stuff--for the most part, correct me if I am wrong, Fuller has put up not-officially released. ======================================= He has put up both, both are equally copyrighted, the same rules apply, none fall under fair use. ================================================= Research is research, whether partial or impartial, with liner notes or not. ==================================================== You may claim to use them for research, but it doesn’t make what he’s doing any less illegal. I might go and kill people for research about my serial killer book, it won’t make killing any less illegal. ========================================= The biggest wrinkle, of course, is that all this is taking place on a for-profit site and it's the users who suffer the consequences while The Man makes money. ================ Still doesn’t make it fair use. In the grand scheme of things, It’s not fair, especially when it seems the artists and record companies don’t want these demos, but it’s still illegal to post them.
Saint Jiub 15.06.2011 18:06	Get a haircut ... and get a real job ... gotta love George ... Song is great, but the video sucks. Is Sir GH big brother Bob? ... I think not. link
The Real Wizard 15.06.2011 19:54	MadTheSwine73 wrote: Dude, don't make a fight out of this. Plus, you're arguing with people most probably younger than you anyways. It's a discussion page, not an argument page. =========== Fight? Someone asked me a question so I answered them. If this thread looks like a fight, it's because some newbie decided to tell a long-standing member that he's not allowed to express himself when he was asked to. Forums are places for people to express themselves and learn. People are always free to skip over posts if their contents don't apply to them. And if anyone didn't like my answer... well, if nobody said anything to challenge conventional thought, we'd all still be cavemen. This forum is full of people of all ages. Nobody should have to stifle themselves because a few people reading are still in high school. Or have the maturity of someone in high school.
Thistle 16.06.2011 06:44	@ mad the swine I wouldn't have said that Bob's answer looked anything remotely like fighting talk, tbh. He has clearly put his opinion over in a non-aggressive manner. I would have said a couple of my posts in this thread were more heated, but still by no means in "fight" mode. Take it easy man :)
emrabt 16.06.2011 10:37	Take it easy man :) ====================== THOSE ARE FIGHTING WORDS!!! Go fer ya gun!
MadTheSwine73 16.06.2011 11:22	Thistleboy 1980 wrote: @ mad the swine I wouldn't have said that Bob's answer looked anything remotely like fighting talk, tbh. He has clearly put his opinion over in a non-aggressive manner. I would have said a couple of my posts in this thread were more heated, but still by no means in "fight" mode. Take it easy man :) I know. Now I'm re-reading the whole discussion, and I realized I overreacted (?) Don't know if that would be a great word to use in this situation, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
MadTheSwine73 16.06.2011 11:24	Sir GH wrote: MadTheSwine73 wrote: Dude, don't make a fight out of this. Plus, you're arguing with people most probably younger than you anyways. It's a discussion page, not an argument page. =========== Fight? Someone asked me a question so I answered them. If this thread looks like a fight, it's because some newbie decided to tell a long-standing member that he's not allowed to express himself when he was asked to. Forums are places for people to express themselves and learn. People are always free to skip over posts if their contents don't apply to them. And if anyone didn't like my answer... well, if nobody said anything to challenge conventional thought, we'd all still be cavemen. This forum is full of people of all ages. Nobody should have to stifle themselves because a few people reading are still in high school. Or have the maturity of someone in high school. Funny thing is, I'm a newbie. LOL Now I've been re-reading the whole discussion, and I realized I did overreact a bit on the replies. Sorry about that.
Sebastian 16.06.2011 11:25	Gr8! Drink a beer together and celebrate. Friends will be friends.
MadTheSwine73 16.06.2011 11:33	Thistleboy 1980 wrote: In what way does it "suck" that his account is gone? Does it affect you physically, mentally, emotionally or even financially? You already say you have the stuff of interest, so what's the gripe? His account was terminated because he was the most popular? Bollocks! His account was terminated because it was wrong. And what's this crap some are saying about less fortunate fans? FFS, nobody is meant to have the unreleased stuff, whether you like QP for it or not. Yeah, it might be exciting to have it or to have heard it, but what's the need to do so? It doesn't make or break our day to day functioning. So somebody has something you've not heard - oooh, time to slit the wrists. FFS. OK, it doesn't LITERALLY suck, but it's a shame. It actually does effect me mentally because... OK maybe not. His account IS (well, was) the most popular Queen account, other than the official. I just figured out what FFS means. Geeze dude, be gentle, I'm a newbie. ;) It wasn't me who said that he was "planting seeds in lesser Queen fans." I realize now that I might have overreacted, and I'm sorry if you took any offense to it.
madprofessorus 16.06.2011 14:53	When I found out that Dave's channel was deleted I said "Fuck!I should download those songs...." My opinion is,at first,surely Dave had some official material on his channel,but for me,I believe that only die hard fans like me and you,would be interested in having those songs,some cooperations of Queen guys with other artists for example,so I don't think that the copyright owner would lose a large amount of money,of course those suckers want it all,that's why the record industry has gone down. For demos,they are in the same category,fans like me who would like to have in their collection even the...soundchecks before concerts,would be interested in that material.And I believe this,if Queen Productions had those demos available in lossless format,because we forget here that Tube's videos,even if you download and convert them,you still don't get the real thing,just an mp3.So if QP had those demos in a page where you could buy each track separately,personally I would have bought a lot of stuff.But I guess they aren't that interested in earning money the easy way... As for the TV shows,well,since they are in public tv channels,anyone can record them and keep an archive,if it's legal to upload them in youtube,from my point of view it's good,I live in Greece and except a couple of documentaries back in 1992 when Freddie wasn't with us Greek TV channels never interested in Queen...so this is a treasure for me and Fuller's channel was the promise land for me. I am sure that Fuller has an archive of his material,and is better for him I think to post his material here,we will respect it more that those stupid guys on youtube
Daniel Nester 16.06.2011 16:48	@embt To use your parlance: Copyrighted works can be used for research and in other works, period. Full stop. It doesn't matter if the work is copyright someone else. The serial killer example is a straw man argument. Or a red herring. Not applicable or helpful here. It is about using only part of a work, sure. Most of the time. Also the format. You could easily make the argument that a copywritten work--a demo of "I Go Crazy," for example--used to accompany a fan's slide show of other copywritten photographs of Queen is fair use. Others have, and that's why these videos remain on YouTube. The works have been transformed into something else, and no one has profited from it. That's only part of what fair use covers. Bottom line: Copyright isn't as completely drum-tight as some people think. There's criteria in support of fair use, and I've outlined them. And it isn't just for not-officially released stuff: If an out-of-print John Deacon Immortals clip lands online--It's a recording put onto a video--one could easily make the argument that posting of it is perfectly fair use. No one has lost any money, and no one has made any money.
Thistle 16.06.2011 18:01	MadTheSwine73 wrote: Thistleboy 1980 wrote: In what way does it "suck" that his account is gone? Does it affect you physically, mentally, emotionally or even financially? You already say you have the stuff of interest, so what's the gripe? His account was terminated because he was the most popular? Bollocks! His account was terminated because it was wrong. And what's this crap some are saying about less fortunate fans? FFS, nobody is meant to have the unreleased stuff, whether you like QP for it or not. Yeah, it might be exciting to have it or to have heard it, but what's the need to do so? It doesn't make or break our day to day functioning. So somebody has something you've not heard - oooh, time to slit the wrists. FFS. OK, it doesn't LITERALLY suck, but it's a shame. It actually does effect me mentally because... OK maybe not. His account IS (well, was) the most popular Queen account, other than the official. I just figured out what FFS means. Geeze dude, be gentle, I'm a newbie. ;) It wasn't me who said that he was "planting seeds in lesser Queen fans." I realize now that I might have overreacted, and I'm sorry if you took any offense to it. ============================================================================================= LOL, that is me being gentle :) No worries bud, you didn't say anything I would take offence to, you don't have to apologise! You have survived your baptism of fire hehe
The Real Wizard 16.06.2011 20:22	MadTheSwine73 wrote: Now I've been re-reading the whole discussion, and I realized I did overreact a bit on the replies. Sorry about that. ====================== No worries, my good man. Welcome aboard !
mooghead 17.06.2011 14:18	Surprised his account lasted as long as it did to be honest...
QueenLing 22.06.2011 00:14	That was a short lived termination. David's account is back up. Couldn't be happier since unlike Queen, who is just trying to sell us the same old CD's again and again (but wait, they're remastered!) - David is giving us the opportunity to hear UNOFFICIAL songs we otherwise would not have heard. I humbly kiss the hem of his garment. Don't get me wrong, Queen/Freddie Mercury always will be my favourite band no matter what. I just want to hear some new music for a change... even the same songs but sung slightly differently as Freddie tended to do. He breathed new life into his songs each and every time he played them life.
john bodega 22.06.2011 04:36	"I humbly kiss the hem of his garment." That is really disturbing.
MadTheSwine73 22.06.2011 09:42	Zebonka12 wrote: "I humbly kiss the hem of his garment." That is really disturbing. lol
King Of Rhye 22.06.2011 16:07	mmmmm clearly i have entered an alternative universe as in my world dave's channel is just fine. Great debate guys despite the usual mix of juvenile griping at one another though if you join the real world dave's channel is just fine
Thistle 22.06.2011 17:38	King Of Rhye wrote: mmmmm clearly i have entered an alternative universe as in my world dave's channel is just fine. Great debate guys despite the usual mix of juvenile griping at one another though if you join the real world dave's channel is just fine ============================================================================================= That's because he only JUST got it back up and running. If you had KEPT UP with the real world, you would've known that :) Welcome to QZ btw.
oh-ja 03.12.2011 06:55	it's gone, again. since he uploaded mostly official material, there should be no complaining. but even i have to admit it was great he digged out stuff like hilary hilary i had beenn searching for ages. then again he simply repeated bullsh*t like phenomena's "what about love" would feature brian – which simply is not true. so what? ha-jo
Gregsynth 03.12.2011 15:17	I can't believe he's gone (again)!
MadTheSwine73 03.12.2011 15:19	Damn, I was halfway done downloading his stuff!!
mooghead 03.12.2011 15:40	He has been sailing far too close to the wind lately... tried to warn him....
ole-the-first 03.12.2011 17:33	Again? I don't think so it's for a long time ;)
john bodega 04.12.2011 09:13	Meh, I downloaded Hot Patootie ages ago so I don't really care if his channel goes under. Fuck him for risking it by putting up seriously official content. The karaoke tracks? What did you think would happen?!
kosimodo 04.12.2011 13:21	I would have no idea where to buy those rarities legally... Cmon.. most of the stuff that was there, that was available in the shops, can be found 100 times elsewhere... I thank David bigtime.. And so should Queen for the spread of the love for Queens music.
mooghead 04.12.2011 14:00	"I would have no idea where to buy those rarities legally..." erm... nowhere....
DavidRFuller 20.12.2011 00:34	Thanks for the support. Moogheed, you didn't 'warn' me nor would I listen to you. It can be taken down but due to copyright laws in the US its always put back up. I swear I'm putting together a class-action lawsuit next time. If there is a next time...
emrabt 20.12.2011 06:58	Thanks for the support. Moogheed, you didn't 'warn' me nor would I listen to you. It can be taken down but due to copyright laws in the US its always put back up. I swear I'm putting together a class-action lawsuit next time. If there is a next time... =================================== You'll fail it, to be honest you don't have an argument. Offical stuff or not, it all still belongs to the peopel who made or filmed it.
andreas_mercury 20.12.2011 13:54	"I swear I'm putting together a class-action lawsuit next time." to warn you before hand, they will not pay attention if it is written with crayons...
GratefulFan 20.12.2011 14:15	link
MadTheSwine73 20.12.2011 15:21	GratefulFan, that Is absolute genius.
andreas_mercury 20.12.2011 21:52	not the genius i think this was link
The Real Wizard 21.12.2011 00:11	GratefulFan wrote: [img=link Brilliant !!
mooghead 21.12.2011 11:08	"Moogheed, you didn't 'warn' me nor would I listen to you." David, maybe I didnt 'warn' you as such but I did put a comment under the Breakthru remix you up'd that apart from the tiniest of differences at the start of the track the rest was just Breakthru in its entirity. When I first saw that I just knew you were, to quote myself, sailing far too close to the wind. Maybe perhaps you should start listening to people? In a way I hope the lawsuit happens, kudos to you for taking on QPL, will be interesting to follow. PS its Mooghead, although I am a Scot and Moogheed is fine with me :-)
kosimodo 21.01.2012 10:38	Brian is linking to davids account from his blog..
MadTheSwine73 08.07.2012 18:35	I just re-read all my old posts here. Wow. I was a moron.
MEDUSA-RULES 09.07.2012 07:08	i approve of david fuller but it seems his other persona doesnt approve of me

QueenZone discussion #1274532

DAVID R FULLER'S ACCOUNT TERMINATED