John S Stuart
Thread
Posts in chronological order
bryony
THIS IS GETTING SO BORING NOW!
inu-liger
Agreed ^
tcc
Vocal harmony wrote:
The fact remains he deals in stolen music and operates in some kind of illuminate wannabe organization.
He and his group are a thieving joke
[/QUOTE]
Vocal harmony wrote:
If you knowingly buy stolen property you are as guilty as the person who stole it. There is no question of doubt that JSS, in
paying for what he has in his rareties collection, is guilty. And for his stupid elite group of collectors to make a fuss about an ex member posting stuff is just plain idiotic.
[/QUOTE]
Vocal harmony wrote:
If like you've said you have nothing in your secret group collection that you shouldn't have then all is well and good. But
if you have unreleased, or live, or demo material then I stand by what I have said. That you have songs that have been stolen and then sold on and if that's the case then you are as guilty as the person the bought them from, because
saying you didnt realize won't wash with your apparent knowledge of the subject. If that isn't the case and the rare material you and your group have hidden only amounts to rare low numbers of officially released product that anyone could
have bought at the time of release then I'm sorry for suggesting otherwise
[/QUOTE]
Vocal harmony wrote:
As far as me going back and changing past posts. Please read the 17th post on page 9 of this thread.
Again I will explain. I did not accuse you of stealing any of the records, Cd's DVD or what ever you have. What I said was that the contents of these items could easily be viewed as stolen material, because if certain tracks were not released then no
royalty has been paid for them, and the reason they are collectable is because they were never released. If that's the case I stand by what I've said, that the contents of some of the mediums you have amount to stolen music. If that's not
the case, and all you have in your collection is rare hard to obtain official releases then I apologize.
[/QUOTE]
The apologies as shown in the last two quotes were couched in “ifs”. “If that is not the case....I apologize.” However, as
shown in the first two quotes, the statements were very positive that it was the case. These are the two instances I could find where the words were sensitive - the parties concerned have to sort it out if there are more.
Holly2003
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
No tax no royalty.
How is it possible to pay tax on something you haven't earned?
Royalty payments, in music, are of two types. Mechanical and publishing. Mechanical royalties are payed to an artist or band for each album sold. The amount is a percentage of what you pay over the counter. The percentage differs greatly from act to act. And the advance that is payed to a band/artist is repaid out of mechanical royalties. Publishing royalties are payed to the writers of songs, so as the old story goes, Freddie and Roger make more out of the single sales of Bo Rhap because they are the writers of the two songs on the single
Artists are taxed on their earnings, not directly on the sales of each album. EMI, Sony or whoever pay sales tax on everything they sell. As does any type of bussiness selling products.
To say that an artist pays tax on an album before he gets payed is crazy, what is that tax rate based on. . . .0% sales?
You can't compare George Michael's contract or court case with other artists. Everyones contract is slightly different. As for record companies being in ownership of music over the people who have recorded it, that is entirely accurate either. Michael Jackson bought ownership of the Beatles back catalogue. He owned it, not the record company.
[/QUOTE]
Spot on.
No tax no royalty.
How is it possible to pay tax on something you haven't earned?
Royalty payments, in music, are of two types. Mechanical and publishing. Mechanical royalties are payed to an artist or band for each album sold. The amount is a percentage of what you pay over the counter. The percentage differs greatly from act to act. And the advance that is payed to a band/artist is repaid out of mechanical royalties. Publishing royalties are payed to the writers of songs, so as the old story goes, Freddie and Roger make more out of the single sales of Bo Rhap because they are the writers of the two songs on the single
Artists are taxed on their earnings, not directly on the sales of each album. EMI, Sony or whoever pay sales tax on everything they sell. As does any type of bussiness selling products.
To say that an artist pays tax on an album before he gets payed is crazy, what is that tax rate based on. . . .0% sales?
You can't compare George Michael's contract or court case with other artists. Everyones contract is slightly different. As for record companies being in ownership of music over the people who have recorded it, that is entirely accurate either. Michael Jackson bought ownership of the Beatles back catalogue. He owned it, not the record company.
[/QUOTE]
Spot on.
Vocal harmony
tcc, your post is redundant.
JSS has accepted my apology. . .
You appear to be trying to stir up something that has been settled. Why?
JSS has accepted my apology. . .
You appear to be trying to stir up something that has been settled. Why?
tcc
VH - He asked for some modification to your statements but to date you did not do it. Perhaps you do not see the need to do it but think of this example. Suppose someone puts up a big neon advertisment over times square in new york or picadilly circus in london that you have done such and such a wrong thing. He later gave you an apology that if that was not the case, he apologise but he still kept the neon advertisment going for everybody to see. How would you feel ? In JSS's case, supposing your statement was quoted out of context, what would happen to him ?
oh-ja
people,
don't feed the trolls ... that so-called vocal harmony and some others are trying to talk about things they don't know about. so what? people like them act only for the sake of other people's re-action; they have nothing substantial to say.
john, in my opinion it's a pity that you seem to feel like defending yourself. furthermore, there is no use! those people won't stop.
best wishes
ha-jo
don't feed the trolls ... that so-called vocal harmony and some others are trying to talk about things they don't know about. so what? people like them act only for the sake of other people's re-action; they have nothing substantial to say.
john, in my opinion it's a pity that you seem to feel like defending yourself. furthermore, there is no use! those people won't stop.
best wishes
ha-jo
GratefulFan
[QUOTE]
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b] As for your second point; you really expect me to answer this here after all that has gone before?[/QUOTE]
Many will assume you continue to refer to the Dave R. Fuller situation, at least in part. I'd note that in that case what had 'gone before' was the secret coven. Forthcomingness is not typically a hallmark of secret covens. It continues to strike me that you want to squeeze a lot more out of these events than you feel obliged to put in. You, and the collective you.
If you can't answer NC, could you not have answered me? I asked several posts ago if someone could confirm YV's late allegation that David had contributed no material to the group, in effect getting to call him a leech and, once again, a liar without any burden of clearly and credibly resolving the conflicting information. Something perhaps in the form of "As you can imagine the fact that David had stolen from me/us was particularly galling given the fact that he himself contributed no material to the group. When he brazenly claimed that he and a select few were doing all the uploading I forgot to mention it my follow up posts where I went in to some detail on how and why he was a liar, a thief, and one of the bassest human beings I have ever come across. I was just about to get to it when my cat jumped on my head and I got distracted. Same goes for the other thread when nobody mentioned it there either. But yes, YV is correct. David did not contribute any material to the group."
(The collective) You want to claim the high mindedness of this not being about principle, not the material, while pointing to David and intimating that his actions are responsible for the future squeezing off of information and material. Of course your concerns extend to protecting the material. Suggesting otherwise on any level is disingenuous and self serving.
You want us to register that David is further pond scum for revealing the existence of the secret coven - "David this should never have been made public", or "So David, you're basically breaking ANOTHER promise which is not talking about the existence of the group ?" while asserting the dubious privilege of flying onto the announce thread with every manner of cryptic character assassination, exponentially magnified by the melodrama of multiple participants. As an aside, if you couldn't respect Fuller's fundamental rights to a coherent accusation and an opportunity to defend himself in an atmosphere of fairness and objectivity, you might have respected the rest of the forum. Nobody knew what the hell was going on and it was confusing and uncomfortable. This whole thing smacks of people stewing in a back room, seeing an awful lot of smoke, and working themselves up into a frenzy of being certain there was fire, and in that certainty abandoning any sense of responsiblity for anything other than avenging their own sense of outrage. Back to point: THE COLLECTIVE YOU left Fuller little choice but to give your over the top contempt the context of Fanthology in order to defend himself. You don't get to blame that on him.
You want to draw on your well earned excellent reputation in the collecting community and allow others to do the same for as a panacea for any doubts anybody might foolishly - that is the implication - have. Rather than feeling any real responsibility to justify your serious allegations when challenged we mostly got Freud and Chief Wiggum and my youthful inexperience and my state of delusion. Just answer the f*ing questions! They were neither hard nor unreasonable. After two full days of Fuller defending himself on the announce threads by saying he got the material from other collectors, saying "I still haven't leaked anything that I only obtained in that group", he never once claimed innoncence because he didn't have access to the material or that the hadn't downloaded it. Somehow you still made a big deal of "I got it from another collector" and asserted it as proof that he was now claiming never to have downloaded it. That was not a remotely reasonable inference. Your well deserved reputation in the community does not make you immune from a breakdown of objectivity and perspective in upsetting situations. You hadn't earned the right to have your judgment in this situation trusted implicity and shouldn't have carried on as though you had.
On objectivity: although he appears to have removed a lengthy post up thread, brian's wig recently said that the proof would be in the pudding when it was seen whether or not anything leaked post Fuller. Really? You've just publicly revealed that downloads are effectively stamped with the identity of the downloader. You don't think that would have a chilling effect on Fanthonlogy members leaking had that been happening? The fact that anybody would suggest that anything that followed, or didn't follow, could be laid at the feet of David Fuller is an utter breakdown of objectiviety and responsibility to fairness. Of course the other possibility is that that was a Freudian slip and there is in fact no watermarking system. That like a rogue cop who is 'sure' someone is guilty you fudged the evidence on Fuller to get the criminal off the streets. I don't find that likely, and it's certainly not an accusation, but given your collective behaviour I unfortunately find it in the realm of remote possibility. Goes without saying that would also be a breakdown of objectivity and responsibility to fairness. Either way - there has been a breakdown of objectivity and repsonsibilty to fairness.
And in another aside, why was brian's wig's lengthy post removed in the first place? The original announce thread is full of empty holes now too from multiple posters. You people sure know how to end up looking shifty in situations where it wouldn't seem to be necessary.
David has not emerged from this well. I don't think anybody on Queenzone, including me, would send him to the store for beer with their bank card. But whoever wrote up thread that only DRF and JSS know what happened for sure is wrong. Only DRF knows what happened for sure. At the heart of this is that as much as you might like it to be so you can't entirely eliminate the fact that it is possible that people were leaking from Fanthology. As long as that remains possible, you can't get to certainly of guilt. Given that, you all have not emerged from this well either in my eyes. You never had the strength of evidence to behave as if you didn't owe David some kind of a responsible objective process untainted by your melodrama. No one ever does in a fair society. You never had the strength of evidence to behave as if a watermark solved the whole thing. Though I've posted more extensively with some of you than others I feel completely comfortable saying that as individuals you are not arrogant people and you are not bullies. But in this group action that seems to have held itself accountable for little to nothing there have been elements of both these things. To me, it was simply wrong. I may be alone, but I hope never to witness it on Queenzone again.
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b] As for your second point; you really expect me to answer this here after all that has gone before?[/QUOTE]
Many will assume you continue to refer to the Dave R. Fuller situation, at least in part. I'd note that in that case what had 'gone before' was the secret coven. Forthcomingness is not typically a hallmark of secret covens. It continues to strike me that you want to squeeze a lot more out of these events than you feel obliged to put in. You, and the collective you.
If you can't answer NC, could you not have answered me? I asked several posts ago if someone could confirm YV's late allegation that David had contributed no material to the group, in effect getting to call him a leech and, once again, a liar without any burden of clearly and credibly resolving the conflicting information. Something perhaps in the form of "As you can imagine the fact that David had stolen from me/us was particularly galling given the fact that he himself contributed no material to the group. When he brazenly claimed that he and a select few were doing all the uploading I forgot to mention it my follow up posts where I went in to some detail on how and why he was a liar, a thief, and one of the bassest human beings I have ever come across. I was just about to get to it when my cat jumped on my head and I got distracted. Same goes for the other thread when nobody mentioned it there either. But yes, YV is correct. David did not contribute any material to the group."
(The collective) You want to claim the high mindedness of this not being about principle, not the material, while pointing to David and intimating that his actions are responsible for the future squeezing off of information and material. Of course your concerns extend to protecting the material. Suggesting otherwise on any level is disingenuous and self serving.
You want us to register that David is further pond scum for revealing the existence of the secret coven - "David this should never have been made public", or "So David, you're basically breaking ANOTHER promise which is not talking about the existence of the group ?" while asserting the dubious privilege of flying onto the announce thread with every manner of cryptic character assassination, exponentially magnified by the melodrama of multiple participants. As an aside, if you couldn't respect Fuller's fundamental rights to a coherent accusation and an opportunity to defend himself in an atmosphere of fairness and objectivity, you might have respected the rest of the forum. Nobody knew what the hell was going on and it was confusing and uncomfortable. This whole thing smacks of people stewing in a back room, seeing an awful lot of smoke, and working themselves up into a frenzy of being certain there was fire, and in that certainty abandoning any sense of responsiblity for anything other than avenging their own sense of outrage. Back to point: THE COLLECTIVE YOU left Fuller little choice but to give your over the top contempt the context of Fanthology in order to defend himself. You don't get to blame that on him.
You want to draw on your well earned excellent reputation in the collecting community and allow others to do the same for as a panacea for any doubts anybody might foolishly - that is the implication - have. Rather than feeling any real responsibility to justify your serious allegations when challenged we mostly got Freud and Chief Wiggum and my youthful inexperience and my state of delusion. Just answer the f*ing questions! They were neither hard nor unreasonable. After two full days of Fuller defending himself on the announce threads by saying he got the material from other collectors, saying "I still haven't leaked anything that I only obtained in that group", he never once claimed innoncence because he didn't have access to the material or that the hadn't downloaded it. Somehow you still made a big deal of "I got it from another collector" and asserted it as proof that he was now claiming never to have downloaded it. That was not a remotely reasonable inference. Your well deserved reputation in the community does not make you immune from a breakdown of objectivity and perspective in upsetting situations. You hadn't earned the right to have your judgment in this situation trusted implicity and shouldn't have carried on as though you had.
On objectivity: although he appears to have removed a lengthy post up thread, brian's wig recently said that the proof would be in the pudding when it was seen whether or not anything leaked post Fuller. Really? You've just publicly revealed that downloads are effectively stamped with the identity of the downloader. You don't think that would have a chilling effect on Fanthonlogy members leaking had that been happening? The fact that anybody would suggest that anything that followed, or didn't follow, could be laid at the feet of David Fuller is an utter breakdown of objectiviety and responsibility to fairness. Of course the other possibility is that that was a Freudian slip and there is in fact no watermarking system. That like a rogue cop who is 'sure' someone is guilty you fudged the evidence on Fuller to get the criminal off the streets. I don't find that likely, and it's certainly not an accusation, but given your collective behaviour I unfortunately find it in the realm of remote possibility. Goes without saying that would also be a breakdown of objectivity and responsibility to fairness. Either way - there has been a breakdown of objectivity and repsonsibilty to fairness.
And in another aside, why was brian's wig's lengthy post removed in the first place? The original announce thread is full of empty holes now too from multiple posters. You people sure know how to end up looking shifty in situations where it wouldn't seem to be necessary.
David has not emerged from this well. I don't think anybody on Queenzone, including me, would send him to the store for beer with their bank card. But whoever wrote up thread that only DRF and JSS know what happened for sure is wrong. Only DRF knows what happened for sure. At the heart of this is that as much as you might like it to be so you can't entirely eliminate the fact that it is possible that people were leaking from Fanthology. As long as that remains possible, you can't get to certainly of guilt. Given that, you all have not emerged from this well either in my eyes. You never had the strength of evidence to behave as if you didn't owe David some kind of a responsible objective process untainted by your melodrama. No one ever does in a fair society. You never had the strength of evidence to behave as if a watermark solved the whole thing. Though I've posted more extensively with some of you than others I feel completely comfortable saying that as individuals you are not arrogant people and you are not bullies. But in this group action that seems to have held itself accountable for little to nothing there have been elements of both these things. To me, it was simply wrong. I may be alone, but I hope never to witness it on Queenzone again.
GratefulFan
Finally, somebody in the original announce thread said they questioned the lack of proportionality in the community. As they pointed out, in the end all this was about the wav versions of some already circulating mp3s. Put that way, it's a bit sobering. Everybody understands the current paradigm of the trading community and why this matters. But that's the current paradigm. You can supress resistance for a while with these kind of tactics that have been unleashed on Fuller - the comtempt, the shunning, the righteous disgust and outrage and the like, but you can't supress it forever. More and more people are perceiving that parts of your rules of engagement have become dogmatic and outdated and do not adequately see the fan community as a true stakeholder that can factor into decisions . And things like the secret squirrel cabal do not read well however they are cast. That you will eventually lose control if you don't adapt seems inevitable. History is littered with insurrections that changed systems that needed changing. It was said that this was an issue of whether Fuller was a hero or a tyrant, but he doesn't have to be either entirely and he can be a bit of both.
oh-ja
yawn ...
Vocal harmony
tcc this is a forum, only of interest to Queen fans, it's nothing like a neon sign I a city centre.
I have made my points clearer on two occasions in this thread and apologized to JSS each time.
At the moment I am not going to change anything in my posts, because the opologies and accompanying explanations cover any editing. And if I did edit them, to anyone reading them, the opologies would make little sense.
oh-ja I know a lot more than you can imagine.
I have made my points clearer on two occasions in this thread and apologized to JSS each time.
At the moment I am not going to change anything in my posts, because the opologies and accompanying explanations cover any editing. And if I did edit them, to anyone reading them, the opologies would make little sense.
oh-ja I know a lot more than you can imagine.
John S Stuart
John S Stuart
John S Stuart