QueenZone discussion #1344696

Gregsynth wrote: Now, the question is will the channel stay terminated?

pittrek wrote: Honestly, I can't believe that he's THAT stupid. I received ONE copyright complaint. ONE. And I stopped uploading immediately (and I'm not even using my real name online). He got copyright complaints so often that I can't even count, his channel got terminated so many many times ... And he's STILL provoking the authorities. What is trying to achieve, end in an prison ?

tero! 48531 wrote: Well, as long as the material is officially unreleased and he isn't profiting from it personally

Selling the material is another thing, but if all he's guilty of is one vague "for sale" advertisement, it's hardly worth a prison sentence, no matter how much he annoys you personally.

tero! 48531 wrote:

pittrek wrote: Honestly, I can't believe that he's THAT stupid. I received ONE copyright complaint. ONE. And I stopped uploading immediately (and I'm not even using my real name online). He got copyright complaints so often that I can't even count, his channel got terminated so many many times ... And he's STILL provoking the authorities. What is trying to achieve, end in an prison ?

Well, as long as the material is officially unreleased and he isn't profiting from it personally, it's pretty hard to charge him with any criminal offence.

inu-liger wrote: I take it you didn't review his uploads much then,

pittrek wrote: Are you sure ? Youtube or Google definitely think something different. When I tried to log in to youtube it didn't allow me to do it, I had to click on a form that I understand that I can end up in jail for uploading copyrighted material to youtube, no matter if I'm profitting from it or not

tero! 48531 wrote:

    It's easier to make a serious (albeit baseless) threat and let the uploaders be their own censors.

splicksplack wrote: That's a bit mong-ist.

brians wig wrote: Isn't it time QZ was policed again....

The Real Wizard wrote: Is there a way to empirically measure what the worst forum on the internet might be?

inu-liger wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: Is there a way to empirically measure what the worst forum on the internet might be?

Let's put it this way...If 4chan was a benchmark, how would QZ compare?

Nitroboy wrote:

inu-liger wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: Is there a way to empirically measure what the worst forum on the internet might be?

Let's put it this way...If 4chan was a benchmark, how would QZ compare?

Depends on what forum on 4chan you're using as benchmark ;)

DLCVinnuendo wrote: sad news...

Thistleboy1980 wrote: I know this is not exactly constructive, but I'm going to fart out my tuppenceworth anyways: who gives a flying fuck if his channel is deleted again? I have nothing personal against David (I don't know him, and this is in no way an attack on him), but I really don't see what the fuss is about - the notion that he was the "online rarity boxset" is laughable. All of the stuff on his channel is either officially available or easily found through other means. He's not the be all and end all, and, at the end of the day, it's QPs right to issue him with notice of complaint. End of, IMO.

tero! 48531 wrote: I wouldn't call him an "online rarity boxset" either, but he did serve as a remider to the general public that there IS material out there that could easily be released if somebody in QP was interested.

The Real Wizard wrote:

tero! 48531 wrote: I wouldn't call him an "online rarity boxset" either, but he did serve as a remider to the general public that there IS material out there that could easily be released if somebody in QP was interested.

There are plenty of "reminders" like him. Thousands of them. Most of them just don't slap their name on their uploads like a badge of honour and try to openly sell material that someone else owns copyright to.

The Real Wizard wrote: Collectors have shared thousands upon thousands of things over the years. Plenty of live material, studio outtakes, alt versions and BBC sessions, all for free. No new things need to be shared to prove this point, my friend. It's been happening for ages - long before you were around these quarters. But without a doubt new ones will come when they'll come.. If you want them to come at a different time, then you're welcome to search and put them out as you see fit :-)

tero! 48531 wrote: This was your chance to prove once and for all that David Fuller had absolutely no function at all, and you chose not to take it. Unless another fanthology member is willing to take up the challenge, we can safely say that David indeed had a unique role in serving the general public.

GratefulFan wrote:

tero! 48531 wrote: This was your chance to prove once and for all that David Fuller had absolutely no function at all, and you chose not to take it. Unless another fanthology member is willing to take up the challenge, we can safely say that David indeed had a unique role in serving the general public.

Still likely worth it for some to follow his tumblr page in the absence of YouTube for now. Interesting audio still pops up here and there. The content will likely be old news to many, but not all.

Gregsynth wrote: Now, the question is will the channel stay terminated?

Thistleboy1980 wrote: C'mon Saj, you've now been officially reported "missing" on the news. They say you're "at risk" without your meds and proper adult supervision.

GB: Queen Archivist wrote:

Gregsynth wrote: Now, the question is will the channel stay terminated?

It is certainly my understanding that YES his channel will remain terminated!!! He brought it on himself - and he was given ample fair warning first. He ignored it!! GB

inu-liger wrote:

Gregsynth wrote: Now, the question is will the channel stay terminated?

Depends how many videos he had claims filed against. If QPL were smart, they'd have claimed as many videos as possible that fell within their legal reach of copyrighted material. I'm sure DFR being the narcissistic he is, he'll probably try and file counterclaims as he's done in the past, but hopefully QPL made it extremely harder for him this time around.

FriedChicken wrote:

inu-liger wrote:

Gregsynth wrote: Now, the question is will the channel stay terminated?

Depends how many videos he had claims filed against. If QPL were smart, they'd have claimed as many videos as possible that fell within their legal reach of copyrighted material. I'm sure DFR being the narcissistic he is, he'll probably try and file counterclaims as he's done in the past, but hopefully QPL made it extremely harder for him this time around.

He'll probably say something like. "I had the material a couple of years before Queen had it, and I got it from a totally different source!!!!"

inu-liger wrote: Just look at the way he tried to weasel out of admitting being caught redhanded with the fanthology sources leaking out :-)

Thistleboy1980 wrote: ^ lol, thanks - but there's a slight tinge of irony in that statement: I'm a raving lunatic :p

inu-liger wrote: Hahahahahaha, yeah totally!! I wouldn't put it past him to come up with some lameass excuse like that. Just look at the way he tried to weasel out of admitting being caught redhanded with the fanthology sources leaking out :-)

tero! 48531 wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: Collectors have shared thousands upon thousands of things over the years. Plenty of live material, studio outtakes, alt versions and BBC sessions, all for free. No new things need to be shared to prove this point, my friend. It's been happening for ages - long before you were around these quarters. But without a doubt new ones will come when they'll come.. If you want them to come at a different time, then you're welcome to search and put them out as you see fit :-)

This was your chance to prove once and for all that David Fuller had absolutely no function at all, and you chose not to take it. Unless another fanthology member is willing to take up the challenge, we can safely say that David indeed had a unique role in serving the general public.

GratefulFan wrote:

inu-liger wrote: Hahahahahaha, yeah totally!! I wouldn't put it past him to come up with some lameass excuse like that. Just look at the way he tried to weasel out of admitting being caught redhanded with the fanthology sources leaking out :-)

Weren't you recently talking about being the victim of bullying Richard? Perhaps you might consider not making weak accusations against Fuller as if they've been proven..

inu-liger wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

inu-liger wrote: Hahahahahaha, yeah totally!! I wouldn't put it past him to come up with some lameass excuse like that. Just look at the way he tried to weasel out of admitting being caught redhanded with the fanthology sources leaking out :-)

Weren't you recently talking about being the victim of bullying Richard? Perhaps you might consider not making weak accusations against Fuller as if they've been proven..

I don't suppose you recall then that it was proven to be his copies leaking out because of the unique digital "glitch" watermark inserted into each fanthology member's copy then?

tero! 48531 wrote: Did you ever ask Brian what he felt about David leaking "your" material to the public despite your wishes?

inu-liger wrote: I don't suppose you recall then that it was proven to be his copies leaking out because of the unique digital "glitch" watermark inserted into each fanthology member's copy then?

GratefulFan wrote: What he claimed was was that he never publicly made anything available that he only received from Fanthology. His claim was that he also received the track in a separate trade and thus felt entitled to do whatever he wanted with it.

GratefulFan wrote: Do you have epilepsy?

The Real Wizard wrote: If I provided doctor records you'd say they were forged, so what's the point?

GratefulFan wrote: The watermark was never relevant to Fuller's explanation and it never will be.

The Real Wizard wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that Fuller is the only person who has ever shared any Queen of remote value at this place or elsewhere.. ?

Tero:I wouldn't call him an "online rarity boxset" either, but he did serve as a remider to the general public that there IS material out there that could easily be released if somebody in QP was interested. Of course it's available through "other means" as well (or David wouldn't have ended up with the material in the first place), but not as easily as a youtube channel. Even though QP is the moral winner when Fuller's channel is shut down, it's the bootleggers and traders who gain the most in reality. They are the "other means" that are most easily found.

inu-liger wrote:

tero! 48531 wrote: Did you ever ask Brian what he felt about David leaking "your" material to the public despite your wishes?

Have YOU even asked him that yourself? Or Roger for that matter? :) I was never a part of Fanthology, although I WAS invited initially but declined due to lack of free time, so your question is accordingly rendered invalid :-)

tero! 48531 wrote: It's all there, but I'll paraphrase it to you: He's not the online rarity box. He had rare material available for anyone. The same material is available elsewhere, but not as easily.

The trading community gains from Fuller's account being shut down.

The Real Wizard wrote: i.e. everyone benefits.

tero! 48531 wrote: If I were to write a letter to Brian's soapbox asking if he approved of me trading unreleased Queen material (which I promised to never put on a public website), would you take his answer as your moral guideline?

If Brian May said that he doesn't want any of his unreleased work passing hands, would you stop any and all trading and start publicly denouncing the actions of the fanthology as well?

The fanthology (and traders in general) isn't interested in asking Brian this question because that would mean losing their moral justification for discrediting David Fuller...

I on the other hand haven't really got anything to lose, do I?

inu-liger wrote: I would certainly place more significant weight per his views. - - - I would not stop any trading for certain important personal reasons

inu-liger wrote: WRONG. Again you are demonstrating the typical view towards me as a one-sided person. My opinion CAN be changed if the argument is compelling enough on EITHER side of the fence, as I have already hinted to as such above! Sometimes I wonder why I even BOTHER trying to argue with people like you on this waste of a site. I really need to make better productive use of my time elsewhere...

inu-liger wrote:I would not stop any trading for certain important personal reasons

tero! 48531 wrote:

inu-liger wrote: WRONG. Again you are demonstrating the typical view towards me as a one-sided person. My opinion CAN be changed if the argument is compelling enough on EITHER side of the fence, as I have already hinted to as such above! Sometimes I wonder why I even BOTHER trying to argue with people like you on this waste of a site. I really need to make better productive use of my time elsewhere...

If you come across as a one-sided person (who would keep on trading despite the wishes of the artist in question), you have no one else to blame but yourself. You sound pretty determined with your opinion about trading

GratefulFan wrote:

inu-liger wrote: I don't suppose you recall then that it was proven to be his copies leaking out because of the unique digital "glitch" watermark inserted into each fanthology member's copy then?

I recall the whole thing in great detail. Fuller never denied having a copy from Fanthology, and he never denied putting that copy online. What he claimed was was that he never publicly made anything available that he only received from Fanthology. His claim was that he also received the track in a separate trade and thus felt entitled to do whatever he wanted with it. If the 'market' had been suddenly flooded with Fanthology stuff, there might have been a strong case. As it was, with one or two tracks out several months apart, it was an extraordinarily weak case presented as 'redhanded' and 'proof' that was anything but. Even the whole 'watermark' claim started to look a little shaky by the end of that thread. Difficult to point you to anything now, as so many of the 'accusers' removed their posts once the self serving damage was done. Let me explain the difference between Action and motivation. I removed all my remarks re David Fuller - NOT because they were untrue. I still stand by what I said. But; my MOTIVE for writing at that time was an automatic response without any thought of future ramifications. However; afterwards, I thought better about the WAY I said it. What I wrote could have been perceived as way too personal and insulting, and was open to perhaps future misinterpretation; and could well have returned to haunt me in some way. That is why I first apologised then removed what I wrote. This is a public forum, and runs on the basis of social etiquette and decorum, and as such in the UK, is treated with the same respect as any other written medium. So for the last time; I did not retract what I said; but "how I said it", and I thought I made that very clear at the time. To use that retraction as some sort of back-peddling really is disingenuous. If that is still too ambiguous; David Fuller was indeed guilty of spreading material he should not have done; but the proof (as they say) is in the pudding, and so the same old cycle continues. (Or perhaps Queen PLC were also unjustified?).

John S Stuart wrote: If that is still too ambiguous; David Fuller was indeed guilty of spreading material he should not have done; but the proof (as they say) is in the pudding, and so the same old cycle continues. (Or perhaps Queen PLC were also unjustified?).

inu-liger wrote: Unfortunately, I have a complex mindset that most people will never understand, and with my condition I have a tendency to give off mixed messages without really meaning to. It's something I wish wasn't the case, but it's very difficult to change the way I communicate to match that of an 'average' person's! It's probably something better explained by voice rather than by text. I don't suppose you would be willing to engage in a one on one Skype conversation some time? As far as the trading thing is concerned, I have my reasons for keeping it open, but I don't wish to discuss it publicly.

John S Stuart wrote: Let me explain the difference between Action and motivation. I removed all my remarks re David Fuller - NOT because they were untrue. I still stand by what I said. But; my MOTIVE for writing at that time was an automatic response without any thought of future ramifications. However; afterwards, I thought better about the WAY I said it. What I wrote could have been perceived as way too personal and insulting, and was open to perhaps future misinterpretation; and could well have returned to haunt me in some way. That is why I first apologised then removed what I wrote. This is a public forum, and runs on the basis of social etiquette and decorum, and as such in the UK, is treated with the same respect as any other written medium. So for the last time; I did not retract what I said; but "how I said it", and I thought I made that very clear at the time. To use that retraction as some sort of back-peddling really is disingenuous. If that is still too ambiguous; David Fuller was indeed guilty of spreading material he should not have done; but the proof (as they say) is in the pudding, and so the same old cycle continues. (Or perhaps Queen PLC were also unjustified?).

inu-liger wrote: See, this is something I don't understand now; Why aren't people like GratefulFan and others who continually attack us collectors that were united against DFR, now attacking QPL for essentially (but quietly) doing the very same thing against DFR but legally taking a step further in taking down his outlets used for his illegal behaviour? Is this pack mob suddenly now very afraid of attacking QPL, who are clearly siding with us collectors, with the very same tar brush they used to attack us with?? Think about it.

Zebonka12 wrote: That's probably only because Rikers Island has great wifi.

GratefulFan wrote: On his tumblr yesterday (that's right inu...on his tumblr yesterday...lol)

GratefulFan wrote: he lives in a country that pretty much fetishizes freedom.

inu-liger wrote: See, this is something I don't understand now; Why aren't people like GratefulFan and others who continually attack us collectors that were united against DFR, now attacking QPL for essentially (but quietly) doing the very same thing against DFR but legally taking a step further in taking down his outlets used for his illegal behaviour? Is this pack mob suddenly now very afraid of attacking QPL, who are clearly siding with us collectors, with the very same tar brush they used to attack us with?? Think about it.

Zebonka12 wrote: "I have to respect his views" I don't. He's an overrated dwarf. Where the fuck did we get this idea that we have to respect people who are clearly batshit? Fuck them.