DAVID R FULLER'S ACCOUNT TERMINATED

Zebonka12 wrote: A lot of copyright law is bullshit - or at the very least, the implementation is.  The measures that are taken to protect rights are usually counterproductive, short-sighted, and a massive pain in the arse to the WRONG people - the ones that really aren't doing anything wrong.  If you approach this as a moral discussion, then yep - copyright lawyers should, en masse, be lined up and shot because they're good for nothing and they're costing more money than 'piracy' ever will.  

Spend five minutes looking at the fine print and you'll quickly realise that this shit isn't being done in the interests of the artists - copyright protection and anti-piracy is just an obscene, self-sustaining side effect of what the music industry has become; a sideshow to a sideshow.  I feel like I'm being patronising by even saying this, though, because anyone with a brain stem could figure it out themselves.  *sigh*

However, even if you approach this from a purely moral standpoint, Dave R Fuller was still in the wrong.  He was not just offering rarities that we can't buy on shelves, in some noble sacrifice of his spare time - he had things on his channel that can be easily bought.  There were things on his channel that I for one have paid good money to listen to.  Anyone viewing his videos could do the same.  If you have internet, then you have the money to pay for music.  He was, in very simple terms, asking to get his arse kicked.

Regardless of how you feel on the subject, no one has any right to complain.  If you liked his videos, you could have downloaded them.  Sucks to be you for not looking up keepvid.com

lol

I downloaded all the videos I wanted from him already (since his account was previously banned), but all I'm saying is that it sucks his account is gone. I know that he was still in the wrong, but so is everyone who uploads stuff onto YouTube or any site (whose material they upload isn't theirs of course). The only reason his account was terminated was because he's the most popular for this type of stuff (bootlegs, guest appearances, etc..)

In what way does it "suck" that his account is gone?  Does it affect you physically, mentally, emotionally or even financially?  You already say you have the stuff of interest, so what's the gripe?  His account was terminated because he was the most popular?  Bollocks!  His account was terminated because it was wrong. And what's this crap some are saying about less fortunate fans?  FFS, nobody is meant to have the unreleased stuff, whether you like QP for it or not.  Yeah, it might be exciting to have it or to have heard it, but what's the need to do so?  It doesn't make or break our day to day functioning. So somebody has something you've not heard - oooh, time to slit the wrists.  FFS.

he did a great job bringing gems that many of us hadnt heard. pity but thats copyright i guess.

I agree with Zebonka. IMHO, so much of what Fuller put up--the not officially available stuff--can be put up for fair use--checklist is here: http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/files/2009/10/fairusechecklist.pdf

1. Fuller isn't making money off of this. He isn't claiming authorship. Now. YouTube is making money off of him, so that's in the negative category.

2. As someone who writes about Queen and will continue to do so, Fuller's videos are invaluable for my research, as it is for a lot of other writers/researchers. You can't get them anywhere else.  

3.  The clips are all "portions" of a complete work (i.e., the mythical "boxed sets" everyone is still waiting for), and would only serve to promote the real deal when they are officially released.

There's also no licensing mechanism for these unofficial clips.  They land out in the ether, and Fuller's YouTube account is the one, central place where they are posted. If anything, Queen fans should band together and keep uploading the demos, rarities, and oddities he posts up in a decentralized fashion to prevent this valuable archive from being taken down again.

And when the clips do get re-uploaded, I'm recording them to be safe!

"YouTube is making money off of him, so that's in the negative category"

To me, that represents the single biggest problem with their current mode of operation, and it's also the thing that is least likely to change!  They will tell you with a straight face about copyright infringement, which by extension is meant to be harming someone's rightful income - but in the same breath they will happily claim revenue on material that does not belong to them.  The most popular bloggers on Youtube make a shitload of money for the little work they put it, and a lot of that stuff is 'infringing'.

As I said folks - if you like something, download it right away.

"Queen fans should band together and keep uploading the demos, rarities, and oddities he posts up in a decentralized fashion"

I quite agree.  I thought about starting a mirror channel of Fuller's stuff, but I didn't have the time to go through however many videos he had.  If he starts again, it's something for people to think about.

Isle0fRed wrote:

Define "real job"

=====================

As an artist, at countless times in my life people have looked at me and told me to get a "real job," as if doing one's passion and enriching culture with art is not a real job.  Bullocks to them - most of them are just jealous because they work so-called "real jobs,"  i.e. paying the bills via exchanging their time for money whilst doing something they hate.  But I'm not condemning them for their choices - to each their own.

So I used the "real job" statement here because the "yay, free music" mentality usually comes from people who have so-called "real jobs" - those people who feel like their work is somehow more valuable to society than people who create art, and that they should somehow be entitled to said art/services for free.  It isn't.  Just about every job helps keep the wonderfully complex machine of life going, and that includes art.

Back to topic.  The music in question is QP's property.  They can do what they want to do with it, full stop.  Websites, blogs and youtube channels will be shut down because someone is not getting paid for their work.  Who wouldn't be pissed off if they worked on something for X amount of time and weren't compensated when someone made use of it?  I sure would.  I realize the cocksuckers at the record companies make much more money than they should, but the artists and their management are still very much entitled to have their say.

I love this thread.  So very much.

Daniel, it wouldn't hold up as fair use, for a start they are not portions of full works, portions would be a few seconds, they ARE full works.

It would be fair use if 20 seconds of the back chat demo were used on a webpage about the song, to give a demonstration of what can’t be described with words and to give a demonstrate how the track differs from the released version. Or, a better example would be if bob put a few seconds sample of a live killers track on his live killers page, with the purpose of demonstrating exactly what "jumping around the stereo field" means for people that don't know.

Secondly they haven’t been put up for private archiving or research, If a whole bunch of history was put up with a small sample, when and where it was recorded and so fourth, it might pass, but as it was it's just a bunch of other peoples works uploaded to youtube.

Unfortunately, fair use doesn't really cover that fringe of intellectual property that is not available for sale, isn't public domain, but still has a decent audience that wants it.  Band rarities, for example.  Bands and record companies would like to have their cake and eat it too in this regard - they want to keep it out of the public domain, but they don't feel they have a business model wherein they can sell it to people without running at a loss...  which is a somewhat antiquated way of looking at it.  My overriding thought is that I would buy a lot of this shit, if only someone would sell it to me.  Yes - I can just watch a lot of Queen stuff on Youtube, but I would be a lot happier if I had copies of it at home.  

RE: Music being a real job ...  I'm always of two minds on this one.  I can't help but chuckle at the people who work at the employment agency I have to go to.  I've been dealing with these people on-and-off for 6 years, and they do ... very little.  Yet, somewhere along the line they got the idea that they have a right to look down their nose at me for being a musician.  Keeping in mind that music has brought in slightly more money than the work they've sent me on.  As a musician I am not asking for a free lunch, and there may come a time where I really have to give it all a rest and go get one of those 'real jobs', but I like to think there's room for both in this life - certainly I have the right to do what I want to do without being looked at like a timewaster.  

I could possibly handle these scornful looks if they came from perhaps an astronaut, a firefighter, or someone who does immense amounts of volunteer work - someone with a genuinely enviable lifestyle - but I refuse to accept this attitude from people who are two clicks away from playing Solitaire while they should be reviewing my case history, which takes all of two minutes anyway.

but in the same breath they will happily claim revenue on material that does not belong to them.
=========

I'm not sure what the small print is now, but when i signed up Youtube took ownership of everything uploaded, keeping in mind that the stuff uploaded SHOULD have been the property of the uploader before handing over to youtube, it means me, you and a tonne of other uploaders are committing fraud.

Thistleboy 1980 wrote: RE Thomas Quinn's point - that's ESP's fault.  They opened the door to that, so the companies who latched on done nothing wrong. =======

They did nothing *illegal*. What they did was highly unethical and it is illogical that this is even possible. "Wrong" is a subjective term. You obviously side with the corporate machine, I side with the artists.

ThomasQuinn wrote: Thistleboy 1980 wrote: RE Thomas Quinn's point - that's ESP's fault.  They opened the door to that, so the companies who latched on done nothing wrong. =======

They did nothing *illegal*. What they did was highly unethical and it is illogical that this is even possible. "Wrong" is a subjective term. You obviously side with the corporate machine, I side with the artists.
=============================================================================================

No Thomas, I'm not taking sides, and I don't think it's fair that you throw such judgements around. I'm merely stating that there was nothing wrong in that practice. This is a capitalist world, and if ESP were dumb enough to allow such a thing to happen, then hell mend them.  Unethical? I don't think so. And maybe you should read back on what you wrote - the artists were "free" thanks to ESP to go to other companies.  Therefore, it was the artists that allowed it to happen, taking financial gain from other companies rather than staying loyal to their original label.  In other words, you are "siding" with the folk who effectively sold out in this instance.

Was this topic not up like..2-3 weeks ago?

Djdownsy wrote: Was this topic not up like..2-3 weeks ago?
=============================================================================================

Yeah, but that him just finding out :)

I watch most of my stuff on officialqueen, but i have watched alot of stuff from davidrfullers, but officialqueen rocks

@ermbt

I think-slash-fear you might be right about a lot of this. Especially the portions-as-opposed-to-full works question.  One wrinkle might be we don't actually know if some are the full versions.  Of the songs I mean.  But--I still think you could make a decent argument that these are *portions* of the full work--and 10% is the rule, at least in education, when we talk about collections, books, etc.. Also: we are also not re-aggregating these works and making them another whole (i.e., it's not The David Fuller Queen Rarities Boxed Set, on sale now).  

Samples of officially released works don't apply here as a comparison. My argument, such as it is, is limited to not officially released stuff--for the most part, correct me if I am wrong, Fuller has put up not-officially released.

Research is research, whether partial or impartial, with liner notes or not. I also don't see the difference between it being a private archive or a public one, as you say in "Secondly"; there's already plenty of public archives online that are used for research already, and that doesn't make any different vis a vis their fair use status. 

The biggest wrinkle, of course, is that all this is taking place on a for-profit site and it's the users who suffer the consequences while The Man makes money.