RIP DaveRFuller's Youtube Account

So DaveRFuller has fanboys?
I seem to recall he got some flak in this forum for sharing all that material on YouTube. Someone even called him a 'leech' at that time, and now he's a C-lebrity?

lifetimefanofqueen wrote: what............hes.........hes..........hes gone?!?!............................NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! I BLAME MILEY CYRUS FOR THIS!!!!!!!!! SHES GONE TO FAR NOW!!!!!!!!
LETS STOP HER BEFORE SHE CAN DO ANYMORE DAMAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you leave miley cyrus alone, she's simply adorable!

> I seem to recall he got some flak in this forum for sharing all that material on YouTube. Someone even called him a 'leech' at that time, and now he's a C-lebrity?

QZ saves old threads. Can you find the one where such claims were made and post it?

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME] So DaveRFuller has fanboys?
I seem to recall he got some flak in this forum for sharing all that material on YouTube. Someone even called him a 'leech' at that time, and now he's a C-lebrity? [/QUOTE]

You know, funnily enough until you pointed that out, I forgot he got flak for that indeed! I remember people also got shit for spamming his videos here as well, again under the "OFFICIAL MATERIAL" umbrella.

I remember there were some negative comments about Dave sharing that material over on YouTube.
Doing a quick Queenzone search I only found a small Zebonka comment from 2009 at the end of this page http://www.queenzone.com/forums/976809/queen-on-youtube.aspx?page=8. It reads: "It's no big achievement to have a popular channel off the back of other people's hard work, Dave old boy ...."

But this is not that what I was refering to. I believe there were some negative comments around the time he shared some uncommon material because some of that material was only available to Queen fans over at the Queen Hub and in order to be part of it, you had to share at least 2GB (or was it 10GB?) of Queen related material (quid-pro-quo).
DaveRFuller took material off the Hub and shared it on YouTube where everybody could watch without having to contribute.

I don't believe there was an outrage or anything, I just remember some users seeing Dave's actions in a negative light and that's why I was surprised to see he is now Robin Hood - Prince of the Peer to peer Leechers.  :)

Indeed. I knew I wasn't the only one with that opinion. It strikes me as bizarre to praise someone for uploading other people's material and then also not giving the original uploaders their credit. I don't think he ever answered the question 'Where did you get this from, Dave?' on any of his videos, and many people asked him that.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME] I don't believe there was an outrage or anything, I just remember some users seeing Dave's actions in a negative light and that's why I was surprised to see he is now Robin Hood - Prince of the Peer to peer Leechers.  :) [/QUOTE]
What do you expect, old chum? This is QUEENZONE we're talking about, and Queenzoners are some of the most hypocritical bunch of Queen fans, you should know that! ;-)

"DaveRFuller took material off the Hub and shared it on YouTube where everybody could watch without having to contribute."

I'm of the 'upload everything' school of thought, but on the other side of the coin I simply do not remember ever seeing him say 'this is where I got this recording from' on any of his videos.  All I remember was his name at the start.  (shrug)  It's moot now, of course.  I'm just glad I was able to find Brian May singing Hot Patootie on another channel - I thought I'd lost that recording forever.

"Doing a quick Queenzone search I only found a small Zebonka comment from 2009 at the end of this page http://www.queenzone.com/forums/976809/queen-on-youtube.aspx?page=8. It reads: "It's no big achievement to have a popular channel off the back of other people's hard work, Dave old boy ....""

I'm sure the double meaning of the comment was lost on Dave.  I was referring to myself as well at the time (because my most viewed videos all use someone else's work as a component - granted the editing is usually worlds better than his, though).  It was bitchy of me to say it, admittedly, but he had done a bit of boasting in a private e-mail and the truth of it is that any one of us could knock out the work he did in between fart breaks.  I admire his patience - uploading is a lengthy job.  That's about it though.

I find no joy in his channel getting terminated though, because I completely disagree with the way that Youtube handles these situations.

"I think this part of the act is what people are using to upload full covers and things to youtube, right?"

Yep, looks like the one that I usually see.  There is another Fair Use clause somewhere (I'll have to dig it up) that makes allowance for non-profit uses.  That's basically the one I usually try to sneak in under.

I've been on Youtube for 4 years and my observation is that they basically don't give a shit what you do, until there's a few more 000's on the end of your view count.  When they get the feeling that you are trading off their name, or when they feel like you are getting enough attention that there could be lost revenue; or if someone simply hates you enough to impersonate a copyright owner and get you yanked from the site - then it'll happen, and there's not a lot of recourse unless there is a buttload of people willing to stick up for you and complain.  (See that wise bearded guy that anti-Scientology people love so much).

Hey Zebonka. I'm still on Youtube!

Indeed!  I was listening to some gig on your channel earlier.

It's interesting to note that purely from a copyright perspective, Greg's channel is just as infringing as Fuller's.  People forget that the "but I recorded it on my tape player" defense is actually meaningless.  Still, we're fortunate as viewers when the guys up top look the other way and let things like live gigs slip under the radar.

I admit that my channel is a target for copyright claims--but it's a risk I'm willing to take. I'm just letting everybody have a listen to Queen concerts.

Thanks to everyone who supported my channel and for all the kind replies. I may be getting it back, I've filed claims, but it could take up to 3 weeks for it to process. The copyright that gave me my 3rd "strike" was a claim by 'Air Productions' which does run some obscure French show 'Taratata' which Brian was on in 1993 and I posted his performance and interview. I haven't recieved any complaints from Queen Productions or EMI, I think they realize it is free advertisement. I didn't recieve any complaints from Universal, hopefully if the channel does come back, they will realize its good publicity too.

To set a few things straight, how can I give credit to hundereds of posts from around the web, some things of which I purchased myself. Do you know where you recieved each and everything in your collection from? Thought not.

Miley Cyrus had nothing to do with this. She is adorable I saw a pic of her sister in a Hot Space tee so they are ok in my book. :) 

I've never used the Queen Hub, I don't know how that works and don't care for it, and much less than half of the stuff in my collection came from Queenzone. Try and notice that most of my YouTube posts consisted of scarce 'official' material.

Again, thanks to all my supporters. I was surprised how many people were interested in the more obscure side of Queen and Queen related material.

Planting a seed of hope...

maybe the channel was taken offline due to the upcoming realease of a lot of this stuff.