What REALLY happened

is this thread really...7 pages long?
get over it people

davidr = cunt
fantology = conned by a cunt

[QUOTE]

[b]brENsKi wrote: [/b] davidr = cunt
fantology = conned by a cunt[/QUOTE]
Again, at this time there is no proof that David conned anybody out of any music.  There is no proof that he took something he obtained exclusively through his membership in Fanthology. They may feel conned because he presented himself as somebody who initially shared the philosophy of the group and then ultimately acted alone, but that's not really being conned.  That's having somebody quitting your group and being off the reservation and not liking it one bit.  The leaks were limited to two or three items - I think it's two or three, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong - not inconsistent with somebody who is only leaking items available elsewhere, as claimed.  Again, where is the proof of the conning?  Really, where is even the suggestion of conning?  Truthfully, Fuller's story makes more sense.  We have no mass leaks of Fanthology material from the time he was in the group, just a couple of things. He left Fanthology, and all the future access it would have provided of his own accord.  Then he does his own thing, unsanctioned by the group whose methods and motives we can assume he didn't fully support, because he left.    Was he wrong?  Maybe so.  Con artist though?  Again, maybe so.   I don't understand though - I despair really - at how so many are so willing to pile on without questioning what has been presented to you.

[QUOTE] [b]ronson wrote:[/b]
Fuck I only thought this happened in David Bowie land !!!!![/QUOTE]
Nope - it happens just about everywhere. Welcome!

I'm curious, did you come here by coincidence, or did a fellow Bowie collector tell you about all the fireworks happening over here?

Okay , have a private collection, so you can also get new material . No private collection, no trade , so there is NOTHING NEW.
The collecting world will not end ever , but it would be good from time to time that of disclosed at least one demo . Is only an opinion, after all, is your material

Asking a question isn't an allegation it's err... asking a question. It's not GF's fault if you guys don't like the questions.

[QUOTE]

[b]brENsKi wrote: [/b] is this thread really...7 pages long?
get over it people

davidr = cunt
fantology = conned by a cunt[/QUOTE]

The rest of QZ = having to read the resulting shit for ages

What I don't get is why collectors are trying to let eveyone know that they have been betrayed by a specific person, but cannot answer questions that relate to the very thing that was done to betray them

Whoa, guys, you have second thread about it, my weekend is ruined!

Agree with Pieter here. I just came back from my eternal oblivion and - bam! - Fuller = Elite! You're kidding me... Join The Hub!

Not a collector. Just a lifelong fan of Queen. The way I see it is that the Robin Hood-approach of this Fuller guy is a lesser of two evils compared to hoarders of audio they don't own the rights to anyway- those who do not turn it over to the band so they can possibly release it. Firstly, you're a fool for spending hundreds let alone thousands on music, Especially in the digital age. If so and so has a copy of the so-called "Hangman" and the band members do not and they want the audio they are entitled to it.

Now mind you I find most of this leaked material "pretty crappy" anyway. "The Reaction"? My reaction is that is garbage I will never listen to again.

A soundboard show is great. Audience recordings are frustrating. Lossy studio demo or rare tracks by Brian May and Roger Taylor are of no interest to me. Even the half-finished Queen demos I only listened to once. I'm hoping the band finishes some of them.

This Fuller guy may be ethically-challenged but so are the "elitist" collectors who have unheard Queen and/or Freddie material and plan to take it to the grave with them but have the gall to boast about it in an ultimate c*ck tease.

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.

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]


I agree on that point.

i never heard some of the sh*t as round here lately.

think about it, people collect all kinds of things, art, stamps, music etc. it's the fact that stuff is of interest to collectors that gives it any worth.
someone pointed out that they only lsiten to demos etc once and the reaction stuff was shite. so what's your beef exactly? it's not as if something intrinsicly vital is being kept form you is it?
get over yourself.

final point, the fact that collectors exist and this stuff takes ages to get to the proles makes good sense. if it was all available to all immediately, then queen would be of little interest to anyone round here since about 8 years ago.

the talk of "houston" fo four years before it leaked mainatained an interest in an otherwise dead band. let's get some reality eh?

brENsKi there is a huge difference between genuine collectors, like the ones you've listed, and a bunch of low life thief's that collect stolen pieces of music.
A band like Queen who have well into 200 million record sales don't need some nameless turd telling the world that they've got a sub standard recording of a studio out take to keep interest in the band going..

Your mention of Houston is a joke, if you knew anything about the subject you'd know that Houston was available in the late 80's or early 90's on VHS if you knew where to look.

You wouldn't know reality if you were living in it. Stay in fantasy land along with the rest of this stupid bunch of pirating goons

It's a joke that you believe that the only reason their is any interest in Queen is because of a bunch of no marks dealing in stolen music.

Why don't you and the self important secret bootleg organization get some reality eh?

[QUOTE]

[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b] GratefulFan, please do not let facts or common sense come in your way posting these unbelievable double standard allegations. [/QUOTE]
I've been asking for three days for somebody to point out where my understanding of the facts was wrong.  As of yet, no takers.  Common sense tells me that any potentially unjust destruction of a person's reputation and character in fact or degree is at least as important as releasing wav copies of the equivalent of a 50 year old bar band. What does it tell you?  That you should stick up for your friends?

Common sense also tells me that leaking material you acquired through an independent trade to the consternation of the person who would have rather leaked it himself in his own time is a completely different crime than stealing the music away like a thief in the night and breaking your word and the trust of others depending on you, and then lying about it while you stick your thumb in the eye of your victim.  If a reasonable interpretation of the facts supports Fuller's story adequately, as well or better than it supports the accusations that have been made, how does anybody justify what has happened here? I have never seen anybody savaged on the internet like I've seen here in the last few days.  It's really gotten under my skin.

Last time, and in more plodding detail that I'm sure anybody wants or cares about, here are the facts as I understand them. I'm sorry I probably won't be more succinct.  

David was initially part of a collecting group that agreed to pool their recordings with the expectation that the recordings would stay within the group.  David contributed to the group by uploading a substantial amount of material, and also downloaded material, some or all of which we've learned was watermarked with his credentials or some other information identifying him as the downloader.

While part of this group he leaked a recording that, according to David, he had previously though it was also archived in the shared assets of Fanthology.   [b]The fact that he leaked it under his own name while still active in the group would suggest that he didn't anticipate the reaction he got: a hostile accusation of leaking it from the group's materials.  Fuller's actions and position on his right to act autonomously with material he obtained from outside the group has been consistent from this initial incident through to today.
[/b]
After some combination of being dismissed and/or quitting, Fuller was invited back into the group by JSS.  David declined, according to him, due to the bad taste the accusation and group reaction had left. I'd suspect he also left to maintain his own view of his autonomy on trading outside the group.  [b]Traders trade, and declining to be constrained in all his other trading activities by the contents of Fanthology and the constant threat of suspicion is a credible response for a person who focuses much of his efforts on getting things out to people on his YouTube channel.[/b]  By leaving the group he forfeited access to any future group exclusives or near exclusives, so it was not an inconsequential decision.

David leaked an unreleased version of Roger Taylor's 'Is it Me' in February to his YouTube channel.  The song was part of the Fanthology assets.  David claims he got it from another trader subsequent to leaving the group, and as had been his position all along he indicated he felt free to make autonomous decisions on anything that was not available exclusively in the Fanthology group.  In any scenario like this, David could end up with two electronic copies of the song.  One of those copies would have his credentials watermarked identifying it as an asset of Fanthology downloaded by him.  The other would not. In theory, it's 50/50 which version would have ended up on his YouTube channel. But in practice, since he hadn't traded for a song he actually needed, but only for the 'rights' as he saw them, it might be more likely that he would source it from the existing file collection on his own computer which would be more likely to contain his own watermarked copy.

A similar scenario is claimed by David to have happened for the recent Reaction leak.  As above it would not be unrealistic for the watermarked copies to be the ones David uploaded despite aquiring another copy or the theoretical 'rights' in an independent trade.

As mentioned previously the Fanthology group were not all well known to each other and trust was an issue.  That atmosphere, as well as plain old self interest, and uncertain future guarantees may have indeed seen Fanthology members trading on the down low outside the group.  It can't be ruled out. At least some of the material they had was almost certainly circulating before as they did not become collectors with the wave of a wand when they joined Fanthology, they were already collectors.  In short, it is possible/credible that material in the Fathology cupboard might have been available outside the group.

The leaks in question have been few in number and staggered over weeks/months. This is consistent with David's claim of acquiring them in trades over time.

Those are David's claims.  Whatever one thinks about him it seems to me the fact remains that all the known evidence that has been made public in the various threads is simply not inconsistent with this scenario.

The fact that the watermarked Fanthology assets are the ones that were ultimately leaked means the facts are also consistent with the Fanthology position that David was the sole transactor in the leaks and that he effectively stole the material and broke his word to the group and then lied about it.  To support this accusation JSS posted a short series of messages between he and David  that purported to show that "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."   But the message doesn't claim he never downloaded it.  That meaning comes from an assumption by JSS.   Fuller simply said he got the song from another collector.  Again, "getting it from another collector" is Fuller's claimed prerequisite for releasing material also in Fanthology.  So Fuller might be thinking he's communicating something like "I got it from another collector so I was clear to upload a copy to YouTube" where John might process the same words as "I got the material I posted on the YouTube channel from another collector".  John at that point would believe he'd caught David in a lie.  But you can't get there without assumptions that may not be accurate.

Reasonable doubt. No matter what your gut says, no matter who your friends are, when a set of facts supports innocence adequately, what court in what land would convict Fuller on this evidence?  Other than the flaky, ever unreliable court of public opinion?  Some vague sense of "he's shifty!" does not begin to justify the things that have been said here and in other places. A collector can live or die on his reputation. The only people that have been well served here are those that seek the status quo.  And I think we can all agree that David if nothing else, right or wrong,  is a menace to the status quo.