QueenZone discussion #1355591

Thistleboy1980 wrote: The last I heard, Fuller's YouTube channel was deleted again - and yet again, the fucker rises from the ashes, and blatantly promotes his "rarities for sale". When is this ass going to be taken down? link

tero! 48531 wrote: Was it actually deleted, or was it in fact only suspended? Some of the videos have been uploaded months ago, which seem to make it physically impossible for them to have been deleted... I would guess that QP cannot ask for ONE person's Queen videos to be deleted, they would have to ask for all of their videos and songs to be removed from youtube. I would also assume that there are no grounds for denying his "for sale / for trade" -advert, because it doesn't actully specify which products are in question. What I would suggest for the users of QueenZone is to NOT post about his return and advertisements on youtube, because that's only going to get him more attention and potential customers. If you want him to be forgotten, you have to publicly ignore him.

Thistleboy1980 wrote:1 - Suspended, deleted, whatever....YT shouldn't be allowing the majority of this content to be up and running. 2 - I'm sure QP are trying to crack down on ALL of this, not just DRF. The reason he's being singled out here is because he's advertising them for sale. Which brings me to...

3 - He may not mention the tracks specifically, but he is saying he's selling MP3/Flac etc - which he simply cannot do: therefore on copyright alone, there are grounds for denying his advert.

bootlegger wrote: DF for president....how much have QP done to get the cents out of the pockets of their devoted fans?...totally no respect....it started after the death of our beloved one..., remixes this , remixes that..hits this , hits that...and now this controverse about this guy.....and the concerts with the a......s as lead singer..just to make more money..LOOK IN THE MIRROR MY FRIENDS!!

Panchgani wrote: Yawn ... Let he who does not own bootleg material cast the first stone. Of course it is a witch hunt. Fuller is not the only one to sell bootleg Queen material, yet he gets nearly 100% of the negative attention.

inu-liger wrote: Don't even bother with what Panchghani says. Even with stated facts backed up by QPL rep Greg Brooks, he'll never change his tune at this rate.

Thistleboy1980 wrote: There's a difference between owning the stuff that was recorded at live shows by others fans, and circulated via trades and sharing - QP give us the freedom to do without reproach here on QZ - and selling stuff that THEY recorded and haven't yet released.

bootlegger wrote: DF for president....how much have QP done to get the cents out of the pockets of their devoted fans?...totally no respect....it started after the death of our beloved one..., remixes this , remixes that..hits this , hits that...and now this controverse about this guy.....and the concerts with the a......s as lead singer..just to make more money..LOOK IN THE MIRROR MY FRIENDS!!

Panchgani wrote: David Fuller has been around a long time, but only just happened to receive a spate of negative attention after he betrayed Fanthology.

Thistleboy1980 wrote: Tero, you are so full of guff, it's unbelievable: when I opened my YT account, and went to upload items, I got a message specifically stating that you are prohibited from uploading copyrighted material, unless you actually own the copyright. Yes, folk still do it, but videos are often pulled from YT due to copyright violation - and YOU KNOW THAT.

Thistleboy1980 wrote: You also know that the material he's selling ain't personally recorded interviews: you're just being awkward.

Panchgani wrote: David Fuller has been around a long time, but only just happened to receive a spate of negative attention after he betrayed Fanthology. But quit denying it is a witch hunt if that makes you feel better.

Thistleboy1980 wrote: Wrong. The first time his account was suspended (some 3 years ago) I was one of the first to say that such action was correct, because he had no rights to be sharing the stuff. (Now he's selling the stuff, which is worse)

kosimodo wrote: fuller, the man who keeps queen interesting:) Got to give him that. Queen owes him bigtime!

bootlegger wrote: DF for president....how much have QP done to get the cents out of the pockets of their devoted fans?...totally no respect....it started after the death of our beloved one..., remixes this , remixes that..hits this , hits that...and now this controverse about this guy.....and the concerts with the a......s as lead singer..just to make more money..LOOK IN THE MIRROR MY FRIENDS!!

people on streets wrote:

bootlegger wrote: DF for president....how much have QP done to get the cents out of the pockets of their devoted fans?...totally no respect....it started after the death of our beloved one..., remixes this , remixes that..hits this , hits that...and now this controverse about this guy.....and the concerts with the a......s as lead singer..just to make more money..LOOK IN THE MIRROR MY FRIENDS!!

No-one forced you to buy it. You sound very Dutch. Are you?

Thistleboy1980 wrote: OK, so someone I know bit the bait and asked him for his list, just out of interest. The list (which I'm sure has been posted somewhere before on QZ) is: - - - So.....nothing really OVER-interesting in the list. Even if under $30! And a few fakes in there, too.

tero! 48531 wrote: What's interesting here is that a list like this actually tells us why QP isn't interested in shutting him down. This is the kind of stuff that they would never release, so it isn't actually cutting in QP's profit in any way.

Thistleboy1980 wrote:

tero! 48531 wrote: What's interesting here is that a list like this actually tells us why QP isn't interested in shutting him down. This is the kind of stuff that they would never release, so it isn't actually cutting in QP's profit in any way.

You don't actually know that though, tero. I'd agree that some of the stuff on the list is not worth the hoo-ha, but there are still a good few items there that could have been released (and still might) as part of the supposed boxset. And, again, whether it's actually cutting into profits (or not), is still not the issue. I have to agree with Zeb's post above.

Zebonka12 wrote: "Queen - You Take My Life unreleased track (unconfirmed)" I hope the guy who originally posted it to the Remixes forum gets a cut. Seriously though, is Fuller that unable to identify a clear re-edit of existing songs? Or is it too noisy down in Pit Lane for him to pay proper attention to the stuff he sells?

splicksplack wrote: If other's are pissed off then tough shit.

Thistleboy1980 wrote: What makes it "tough shit"? Can't we express opinion on something, even if it doesn't directly affect us? Imagine this - millions of people in the UK are outraged at the news coming from operation Yewtree, and you come along and say "tough shit - it wasn't your children.....". Twat.

tero! 48531 wrote:

Thistleboy1980 wrote: What makes it "tough shit"? Can't we express opinion on something, even if it doesn't directly affect us? Imagine this - millions of people in the UK are outraged at the news coming from operation Yewtree, and you come along and say "tough shit - it wasn't your children.....". Twat.

The difference is that selling music is a victimless crime, and more importantly none of the parties involved are interested in resolving it. If you treated all the David Fullers of the world with the seriousness of operation Yewtree, it would be a bit excessive... For example here in Finland the police searched a house and confiscated a computer from a 9 year old girl because a private copyright organisation reported that she had downloaded one album (a new release which the organisation had been monitoring) from the internet. Is that the kind of copyright control we want?

Thistleboy1980 wrote: 1 - There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

Thistleboy1980 wrote:

splicksplack wrote: If other's are pissed off then tough shit.

What makes it "tough shit"? Can't we express opinion on something, even if it doesn't directly affect us? Imagine this - millions of people in the UK are outraged at the news coming from operation Yewtree, and you come along and say "tough shit - it wasn't your children.....". Twat.

dudeofqueen wrote: splicksplack, re: >It's a few quid being lifted from the pockets of millionaires. Queen are hardly struggling artists. That's the most ridiculous reply I've seen to any thead on here, ever. So you're advocating the "lifting" of money from the pockets of millionaires are you? Best hope that said millionaires don't come within arm's reach of you then, eh? You're a first rate clown.

splicksplack wrote: I didn't advocate stealing in any way. I pointed out that getting one's knickers in a twist, raising one's blood pressure,and burning the midnight oil to rant on this forum about flogging some bootlegs is potentially a waste of good living time. That is of course unless you have bugger all else to do.

Thistleboy1980 wrote:

splicksplack wrote: I didn't advocate stealing in any way. I pointed out that getting one's knickers in a twist, raising one's blood pressure,and burning the midnight oil to rant on this forum about flogging some bootlegs is potentially a waste of good living time. That is of course unless you have bugger all else to do.

So, let me see.....you are getting YOUR knickers in a twist, raising YOUR blood pressure and burning the midnight oil to rant on this forum about us discussing our opinions on something Queen related (on a Queen forum, of all things - how silly of us). And You tell us that we're wasting OUR good living time? Have you ever heard the phrase "practice what you preach"?......

dudeofqueen wrote: Thistleby 1980, re: >Have you ever heard the phrase "practice what you preach"?...... splicksplack is clearly a buffoon - he / she hasn't got any reasoned arguement at all and forgets the implication behind what was written in the first reply or simply isn't able to read to help jog the memory on. In fact I can imagine splicksplack as one of those irritating traders at a record fair who has a table fully of nicely packaged bootlegs promising great content, only for the poor buyer to find that they have a speeded up version of a BBC session with some audience noise inserted between the tracks.

Zebonka12 wrote: I really am sick of the overwhelming stench of cats piss in this discussion. "Fuller gave me free shit! He's okay in my book"- can there be anything sadder? I think we can (and should) adopt some higher standards for who we want to deal with in life, and use a bit of logic beyond vested interest and 'who cares if this guy is a cunt, I'll just go along with it for my free MP3s'. I like rare stuff as much as the next guy but I'll be damned if I have to suck up to his sort to get it - might as well be a meth head at that rate.

Zebonka12 wrote: "It's a few quid being lifted from the pockets of millionaires" Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit about the millionaires in this equation? Fuck them - the issue here is that Fuller's a known shitbag. I mean, can it be broadcast any more clearly to you? I'm sorry but that business with offering that fake rarity for sale really clinched it for me. (I bet he stops offering it soon, too - a good crook knows when to change the menu). Anyway, I don't understand the problem with criticising him. People are allowed to make these observations about Mr. Fuller, and (surprise surprise) I'm not really seeing any of them being refuted in any cogent or evidentiary way. What the hell's with that? I really am sick of the overwhelming stench of cats piss in this discussion. "Fuller gave me free shit! He's okay in my book"- can there be anything sadder? I think we can (and should) adopt some higher standards for who we want to deal with in life, and use a bit of logic beyond vested interest and 'who cares if this guy is a cunt, I'll just go along with it for my free MP3s'. I like rare stuff as much as the next guy but I'll be damned if I have to suck up to his sort to get it - might as well be a meth head at that rate. Probably overstating it here, but I've just had an epiphany of sorts and I'm trying to articulate these new depths of disgust I'm experiencing. Sorry about that.

splicksplack wrote: I don't recall ever denying anyone expression. And your grubby comparison is offensive and probably says something about the way your mind works...... ......If someone bangs on about it, as is their right, my equally rightful response is 'tough shit, go find a life'. i obviously don't need to respond to your concluding incredible insight.

Zebonka12 wrote: Another pillowfucker-grade comment, honestly. Waltzing onto a forum and saying 'hey, you're irrelevant in this discussion!' displays such a level of cognitive dissonance as to make me wonder whether or not I've actually woken up yet or if this is another one of those weird dreams that's going to end with Lauren Holly pouring hot wax on my balls.

Zebonka12 wrote: I quite imagine splicksplack had 'Too Late For Goodbyes' playing in the background when he decided I was so irrelevant that he needed to post two messages in response. Having said that, choosing which of your posts is more off-base or ridiculous is like choosing which one of my legs to cut off. "You are in no better position than Fuller to decide what happens with certain unreleased material" This is an utterly cretinous attitude. If this idea of asking that 'fans' not sell someone else's music (and in some cases, mislabelled fan mixes) is seen as meddling or overstepping my boundaries as a customer, then I don't know what to tell you. It should be common fucking sense. Missed the point love. I didn't accuse anyone of "meddling or overstepping my boundaries" I pointed out that you have no more right than Fuller to say what happens with Queen's property, not that you can't shout your views on this forum. The music is theirs, not yours or Fullers. Of course you can express your opinion on it just as I can point out that it's misguided. "He (Fuller) is as relevant in this as you are. i.e. zero" Another pillowfucker-grade comment, honestly. Waltzing onto a forum and saying 'hey, you're irrelevant in this discussion!' displays such a level of cognitive dissonance as to make me wonder whether or not I've actually woken up yet or if this is another one of those weird dreams that's going to end with Lauren Holly pouring hot wax on my balls. Does this concept really need explaining to you? This is a forum. If posting my opinion is redundant, then so is your post informing me so - and so on, and so on, and so on. Posts that insinuate 'heh, you sure write long posts, you have no life!' are also meaningless - you wouldn't be responding unless you were the same shit in the same bucket. And same goes for 'this topic just isn't that important!', largely because you're telling me something I already know - Dave R Fuller is not a huge deal. But I have this funny (some might call it sick) concern with the idea that the truth of his idiocy is being laughed down in this one instance because ... 'hey, he gave us free shit'. I find that disgusting. I'm allowed to comment on it, on an internet where it's okay for a site like Chimpout to exist. Know what I mean, jellybean? Cherry-picking lines out of context is the weapon of the someone in a corner isn't it (especially with added insults worthy of a 1970s comic)? So just to help you along... I was referring to  your relevance in what happens to Queen's property, not your relevance in discussions on a forum. I'm sure theirs something vital out their in your 12,000+ posts.  (jeeez, that's a lot of time isn't it? Isn't there a local food bank or something that you could help out with?) "As I said. it's only D. Fuller selling some crap out-takes etc. Get over it" I don't approve of him selling stuff that is falsely labelled to fans that don't know better. Fuck me for actually caring about people in this one, bizarre area. I've stated my opinion about it in the relevant thread. Where I differ from the collectors of the board is that I am sympathetic to the idea of just 'uploading everything', and I'm not into the idea of rare stuff being exchanged for money - but if these are serious folk who at least know the provenance of what it is they're exchanging money for, then it can at least be said that they're not being ripped off. That's their business. Fuller makes it my business, as far as I'm concerned, by openly targeting the same kind of idiot that'll post on his videos "YOU ARE MY HERO DAVE", all the while taking their money and having a good old fashioned chuckle when they buy something that's just a fan-edit from 2005 or whenever it was. And yeah, I get it - I'm one windbag here, my complaining isn't going to change, but it's a fucking forum and this is where the complaints go. I feel as though I've gotten this off my chest, in any case, other than to say I hope he gets what's coming to him from QPL - or at least changes his behaviour. Or (and this is my most sincere hope), he was never really offering a fake item for sale, and someone just posted that list of offerings to see me tilt at windmills, in which case - bravo, you gave me something to do while taking a break from cleaning my car. I understand your point of view here. Just baffled why it concerns you THAT much. "If someone bangs on about it, as is their right, my equally rightful response is 'tough shit, go find a life'" One of these days, you'll say that to someone with a better life than you. Depends on your definition of a better life. Having a private Brian May performance, a blue vinyl Bohemian Rhapsody with goblets and satisfied in the knowledge that Fuller is on death row or health, wealth and love. I won't find many that can beat me on the latter.  PS. I don't know of you splicksplack, and have no real issue with you as a forumite. I do find your attitudes unfortunate though, and hope fervently that they're just an internet thing and that you're a more moral person in the real world. No, I'm a cunt. Mis-quote that.

splicksplack wrote: I'm a cunt.

Zebonka12 wrote: "Only John Deacon had integrity when he retired when Freddie died" I dunno - he still cashes the cheques. Integrity would be to say 'this money comes from something I don't approve of - you can keep it'.

Zebonka12 wrote: If he wants to make money from music, he should write his own - or do what everyone else does, become an A&R guy and spend the next thirty years of his life awkwardly sucking up to garagebands and telling them that they're going to change the world while quietly signing deals that'll see them eating pizza while he finds out whether or not truffle goes with king prawn.

AssDudeRule wrote: Is it really such a bad thing that Dave shares these vids on YouTube? Separating the "sale" aspect of his approach, I enjoy listening to the rare works of queen.

Zebonka12 wrote: Now it's all well and good to be a good little sucker, download the stuff and say 'I don't care where it came from', but I think we can do better. For anyone who claims to care about Queen as a band or a community, this kind of behaviour should at least be acknowledged as a bit fucked.

Thistleboy1980 wrote: 1 - There is no such thing as a victimless crime. 2 - how do you know that no-one is willing to resolve it? 3 - At no point did I say I treated it the same as OYT. That remark was illustrative, but also tongue-in-cheek: imagine we took splick splack's stance on all things that didn't directly affect us. 4 - Your example may seem a tad much, but if she was intelligent enough to make the download, she was also intelligent enough to know it was wrong. Confiscation of a laptop is nothing - if they had jailed her, we might be talking. 5 - your deliberate awkwardness is becoming tiring. Like the majority of the discussion here, you know the point I'm making, but are taking pedantry to new levels. Don't take everything so bloody literally.

tero! 48531 wrote: 1) David Fuller selling shitty Queen mp3's is a victimless crime as when those same songs aren't going to be commercially available. It doesn't reduce a single penny of their royalties.

tero! 48531 wrote: 2) As long as the same person, with the same user name, and the same material keeps returning to the same video site every few months, it's blindingly obvious that QP isn't doing all the work they can to shut him down.

The Real Wizard wrote:

AssDudeRule wrote: Is it really such a bad thing that Dave shares these vids on YouTube? Separating the "sale" aspect of his approach, I enjoy listening to the rare works of queen.

So did other people before Fuller existed. What is it with people who think Fuller is the only person who has ever leaked rare music?

The Real Wizard wrote:

tero! 48531 wrote: 1) David Fuller selling shitty Queen mp3's is a victimless crime as when those same songs aren't going to be commercially available. It doesn't reduce a single penny of their royalties.

Whether or not they intend to release certain songs doesn't make them any less their property. Do you not think Stephen King would be pissed if someone was selling a few chapters of an unfinished book that's been on the back burner for a few years?

inu-liger wrote:

tero! 48531 wrote: 2) As long as the same person, with the same user name, and the same material keeps returning to the same video site every few months, it's blindingly obvious that QP isn't doing all the work they can to shut him down.

You're partly wrong there. QPL has followed proper procedure with YouTube to file multiple claims against DRF on numerous occasions. However, whoever's in charge of maintaining these claims on YouTube on QPL's behalf isn't doing a very good job rejecting DRF's counterclaims that he clearly keeps filing to get his account and videos back up. Maybe Universal/Island Records should be handling that instead, they're more effective at keeping videos off YouTube.

tero! 48531 wrote:

inu-liger wrote:

tero! 48531 wrote: 2) As long as the same person, with the same user name, and the same material keeps returning to the same video site every few months, it's blindingly obvious that QP isn't doing all the work they can to shut him down.

You're partly wrong there. QPL has followed proper procedure with YouTube to file multiple claims against DRF on numerous occasions. However, whoever's in charge of maintaining these claims on YouTube on QPL's behalf isn't doing a very good job rejecting DRF's counterclaims that he clearly keeps filing to get his account and videos back up. Maybe Universal/Island Records should be handling that instead, they're more effective at keeping videos off YouTube.

Partly wrong, but mostly right. ;) Doing a poor job equates to not doing everything you can, doesn't it?

AssDudeRule wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

AssDudeRule wrote: Is it really such a bad thing that Dave shares these vids on YouTube? Separating the "sale" aspect of his approach, I enjoy listening to the rare works of queen.

So did other people before Fuller existed. What is it with people who think Fuller is the only person who has ever leaked rare music?

If they got off their ass and released them officially Id buy them in a second,but all we are getting is fluff.

The Real Wizard wrote:

AssDudeRule wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

AssDudeRule wrote: Is it really such a bad thing that Dave shares these vids on YouTube? Separating the "sale" aspect of his approach, I enjoy listening to the rare works of queen.

So did other people before Fuller existed. What is it with people who think Fuller is the only person who has ever leaked rare music?

If they got off their ass and released them officially Id buy them in a second,but all we are getting is fluff.

In your opinion. And you still completely missed the point. Queen rarities have been leaking out since before Fuller was born. Read my post on page 1. The band has released plenty of great things in the last decade or so, including plenty of old live material and unheard studio outtakes ranging from 1977 to 1991. If you don't like this kind of stuff, then what in the world are you waiting for (and what are you doing on a Queen forum)?

The Real Wizard wrote: Indeed you were polite, but my inquiry remains - what kind of official release can you possibly be hoping for that wouldn't be "fluff" ? And what is it that Fuller has provided that hundreds (if not thousands) of other music collectors have not previously provided? A forum is a place for meaningful discussion about a particular subject, so I'm curious to know what has informed these views of yours.

AssDudeRule wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: Indeed you were polite, but my inquiry remains - what kind of official release can you possibly be hoping for that wouldn't be "fluff" ? And what is it that Fuller has provided that hundreds (if not thousands) of other music collectors have not previously provided? A forum is a place for meaningful discussion about a particular subject, so I'm curious to know what has informed these views of yours.

No, I dont want to discuss this with you. For as right now, you make me feel like I'm a shit person. I'v been dancing to Queen since I was 3. 30 years later I have to defend my self on a forum that is supposed to bring fan's together?

The Real Wizard wrote:

AssDudeRule wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: Indeed you were polite, but my inquiry remains - what kind of official release can you possibly be hoping for that wouldn't be "fluff" ? And what is it that Fuller has provided that hundreds (if not thousands) of other music collectors have not previously provided? A forum is a place for meaningful discussion about a particular subject, so I'm curious to know what has informed these views of yours.

No, I dont want to discuss this with you. For as right now, you make me feel like I'm a shit person. I'v been dancing to Queen since I was 3. 30 years later I have to defend my self on a forum that is supposed to bring fan's together?

Replace "defend" with "express" ... and then two fans on opposites sides of the globe will be brought together. :-)