QueenZone discussion #1304726

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 ...

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 ...

kthrss5 wrote: 1. learn english first 2. grow up, kid 3. then start posting

kthrss5 wrote: 1. learn english first 2. grow up, kid 3. then start posting

AugustRush wrote:

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!

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.

ole-the-first wrote: It's not a big tragedy if a couple of new tracks were shared, with permission or without it.

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.

pietrek1994 wrote: The reality is that the only man who was providing us with rare previously unheard material in last 3 years was D Fuller

The Real Wizard wrote: Yet another person whom the concepts of "trust" and "integrity" are lost on.

ole-the-first wrote:

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.

Gaabiizz wrote: You have every reason bob

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?

MERQRY wrote:

Gaabiizz wrote: You have every reason bob

Che... 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...

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.

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.

John S Stuart wrote:
Think about it; since you left Fanthology has updated a huge range of studio rarities - which will never be discussed in public.

If this statement is true, then you lot are an absolute disgrace calling yourselves Queen fans?
You join in when everyone is having a pop at QPL for not releasing anthology based sets, but sit on rare material without even mentioning their existence. As mentioned by many others, enjoy trading amoung yourselves asnd keeping everything so secretive.... and a big thanks for the scraps you have deemed worthy of sharing to the little people.
You released the BBC masters for your own "fifteen minutes of fame".... which strangely enough was made redundant after Queen officially released some of them on the 2011 remasters bonus discs. Lucky you managed to get in their first out of the blue!!!
I'm pretty sickened that fellow Queen fans would sit on material like this, and not even make it public knowledge what's out there?
Your wee fanthology group is ridiculous in this day and age. You have no right having a go at Dave Fuller either, and under the guise of "he insulted you"! Yeah sure that's the reason you are so upset!!! I'm surprised you thought others would believe that too? Your trying to get sympathy and support for the 'abuse', when really you want to have a go at Dave F for breaking your secret society code. Be more honest and you might get some credibility back.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Zebonka12 wrote: Quick, one of us will have to call the other a rude name. Think of something!

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.

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.

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

Micrówave wrote:

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.

Micrówave wrote:

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.

Because the value to these guys is in the item itself

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.

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.

Biggzy10 wrote: Its a fucking song. Really guys, we're all Queen fans here and deserve to listen to it.

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.

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

plumrach wrote: Where do the traders get the original material from anyway?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?      :-)

At this point, really, shame on anybody who continues to partake in the David bashing on this evidence alone.

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.

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.

Micrówave wrote:

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!!!!

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?

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.

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?

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.

John S Stuart wrote:

MERQRY wrote:

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??

That is correct. Once bitten twice shy. Dos that surprise you?

Sebastian wrote: Jealousy has spoken.

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?

brENsKi wrote: davidr = cunt fantology = conned by a cunt

ronson wrote: Fuck I only thought this happened in David Bowie land !!!!!

brENsKi wrote: is this thread really...7 pages long? get over it people davidr = cunt fantology = conned by a cunt

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.

YourValentine wrote: GratefulFan, please do not let facts or common sense come in your way posting these unbelievable double standard allegations. 

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.

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.

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.

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 fools

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 fools

before 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

GratefulFan wrote:

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.

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.

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 accordingly

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

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.

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 accordingly

Are you legal councel or owner of Queenzone? I thought not.

pow wow wrote:

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 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.

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.

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.

John S Stuart wrote: As for your second point; you really expect me to answer this here after all that has gone before?

I've been in IT for 25 years

You want to see the pimples on my ass too?

Micrówave wrote: Has the "other trader" been identified by David or has that "other trader" come forward to corroborate David's claim?

GratefulFan wrote: I am a logician for a living.

John S Stuart wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

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.

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?

oh-ja wrote:

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 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?

Holly2003 wrote:

oh-ja wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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....

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.

brENsKi wrote: you may want to change that to "cry wolf" John, rape is a little over-serious a comparison

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?

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?

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?

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?

tcc wrote: I am putting up all these to show what an unproductive exercise this person has put other people through.

tcc wrote: I am putting up all these to show what an unproductive exercise this person has put other people through.

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.

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.

dysan wrote: I'm enjoying GratefulFan's post. Right or wrong, they are well constructed.

Micrówave wrote: Did John S Stuart really go back an edit out all of his posts? That almost sounds like an admission of guilt.

Micrówave wrote:

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.

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.

Lord Fickle wrote: I guess this thread has turned into a Rainbow In The Dark. ;)

brENsKi wrote:

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

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! :D

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...