tcc wrote:
In my work experience I have come across people who want to learn from you but they pretend that they know. They adopt an aggressive stance and question you aggressively, to put you on the defensive and trap you into revealing information to educate them. To the person concerned in the matter, the watermark?was the tell-tale sign and proof. However, it was persistently not accepted by another person. I think somebody wants to know more about the use of watermark security and therefore, the aggressive going-around-the-mulberry-bush exercise is to trap the person concerned to reveal more about the technical aspects of it.There are so many hidden agendas in this thread, and for this aggressive pursuit of proof etc, I can only think of this motivation. Going by somebody's definition in another thread, I am just a downloader who does not bay for blood, and have also learnt enough not to be trapped into a ghost-debate.
And I'm the conspiracy theorist.
It's a miracle that half the prison population in the world is not wrongly convicted if this is the kind of completely substandard thinking that goes on in the head of your average citizen. You don't make a lick of sense. First, for the third time or so, watermarks are nothing mysterious. They are just a little smidge of data added to the file for various purposes. It's like if you wrote your mom a letter in a word processor and then saved it. Then you had a last minute thought and you opened it up again and added "P.S. Please send more pyjamas with feet. Love, tcc". We'd know that's your letter now. No big deal. Really, get over the idea that watermarks for the purposes described by the group are special. They're not. Second, as we've been told multiple times, the watermark is on the YouTube video. If I gave a poo about the intricacies of the Coven's seal I'd DOWNLOAD THE THING AND ANALYZE IT. I don't. FFS. Third, nobody is disputing that it's Fuller's watermark! I said pages ago that the watermark doesn't matter because all one needs to know about them is that they uniquely identify the downloader. Saying the watermark doesn't matter because we all accept that it's Fuller's and it's on the YouTube video is a pretty unusual way to force somebody to "reveal more about the technical aspects of it". I hope for the love of God above you've never sat on a jury. I really do. Unbelievable that you could be following this thread and come up these absolutely nonsensical and wholly unsupported conclusions.
For the last time, the issue is not whether it's Fuller's watermark. I have no reason to doubt the assertion. I accept it completely. The problem is that the fact that David uploaded his own copy to the YouTube channel does not prove that he didn't get a copy from another collector, which is his defence for the most serious allegations of unilaterally leaking music he only got from Fanthology. I can't believe we're this many pages in and such a basic concept is proving so hard to communicate and to grasp. It shows at least in part the massive prejudice that can be engendered by the force of authority which is a fine illustration of what I'm complaining about in the first place. To see this you have to step into a position of complete objectivity just for a moment. You have to allow for the possibility that Fuller's story is true and see how it would fit with the known evidence if it were. For example:
1. David downloads 'Is it Me' from Fanthology. It's now on his computer, with his watermark.
2. Sometime later after he quits he gets a copy from another collector who has acquired it from a Fanthology leak. He now has a second copy on his computer.
3. In David's mind, per his words, he can leak whatever he wants as long as he didn't only get it from Fanthology. He uploads his own version either not knowing or not caring that it was his original download. He doesn't know about the watermarks so there's little reason for him to care. This guy is not precise. As Bob said, the kind of finds that are precious to his group are to David "material that you are treating like a dime-a-dozen viral youtube video". Dave is all about YouTube, about just getting it out there. The group is about maximizing and perfecting. The philosophies are almost diametrically opposed.
So in this way the upload is his mark, but he's not lying about having gotten it from somebody else. It is an entirely possible scenario that does not conflict with an objective and flexible reading of his own words here, or those to John in the messages he sent. In short it is an alternative scenario that means guilt is not the only conclusion from the facts presented, and therefore people should not be presenting their scenario as if it exclusively supports guilt. It doesn't. End of. And, by the way, there are three accusations of guilt. Which means three separate burdens of proof.
One more time: "Guilt is not the only conclusion from the facts presented, and therefore people should not be presenting their scenario as if it exclusively supports guilt."
Why is that so hard to understand? Where do some of you come from that I have to justify pointing out that things need to be just and that lynching and effective abuse of power are wrong, destructive to communities and unacceptable regardless of David's guilt? People don't get a pass on ethics because they feel cheated. It's possible to be grievously wronged and yet wildly overstep in trying to redress that wrong. It's possible to incorrectly believe yourself grievously wronged and wildly overstep in trying redress that wrong. Since they both look about the same, we have to be vigilant.
