What REALLY happened

[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Jesus Christ, this "discussion" is still ongoing ?
Facts :
1. Dave Fuller was invited to be a part of a group of collectors, who have access to JSS's personal Queen archive.
2. Everybody including DF was asked not to share or trade the stuff without his permission
3. DF downloaded basically everything and started to upload the rare stuff on his youtube channel and later queenzone => he broke his promise
4. JSS gave DF a "second chance", instead of apologizing himself he blamed a different member of the group for leaking stuff
So basically he broke his 2 promises and he is blaming other people for it.
Conclusion for all traders - if you give DF your rare stuff, there is a pretty big chance he will share it online.
Conclusion for everybody else - absolutely nothing.
So why is this thread (and the other threads) full of personal attacks ? Why are suddenly the victims portrait as villains and the person who brakes promises is the hero ? Isn't it time to start a different discussion ?[/QUOTE]

Every time somebody in a position of authority born from role, reputation or even post count comes in and behaves like there is the faintest validity in a knot of people with an investment in the outcome sitting down in a back room and convicting somebody and flying out with their announcement and death sentence they further snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Mooghead hit it on the head. Fuller comes out of this looking better. Really, how did you all manage that? He was handed that victory, and continues to be handed a little more each day because of the absolute refusal of anybody involved to step back and recognize that what they have is an allegation, not a conviction.

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.

Speaking as a relative outside to the whole 'scene' - it's only David Fuller that's put stuff online in an easily accessible format and, to me at least, asked for nothing in return.

Whereas the secret squirrels... well....

[QUOTE] [b]uef wrote:[/b]
Speaking as a relative outside to the whole 'scene' - it's only David Fuller that's put stuff online in an easily accessible format and, to me at least, asked for nothing in return.
Whereas the secret squirrels... well....[/QUOTE]
right. so you didn't download the complete BBC sessions in lossless about two years ago then?

think (correct me if wrong) it was one of the "secret squirrels" (JSS) that you seem to have issue with that uploaded those gems

UEF good point!

[QUOTE] [b]tcc wrote:[/b]
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.[/QUOTE]

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.

I'm going to quote myself from a PM I just replied to because having to say it made me recognize I'm being misunderstood in a way I hadn't anticipated. It may help put my thoughts here in a more accurate perspective for some.  I said: You misunderstand me I think. I don't care about David particularly, or helping him specifically. I care about my online home not playing host to vigilantism and abuse of power, inadvertent or not. I care about people being numb to these things online and in life. Maybe that will help. Dunno.

I understand what you are trying to say but you are the like the juror who needs 110% conclusive proof. That ain't going to happen. Only David knows truly what happened. John (and the gang) know just slightly less. The rest of us only know what we've been told. And we have every right to form an opinion based on that.

The fact is you are right - that scenario could have happened. But if that was the case, wouldn't Dave have mentioned that in his explanation? So while striving against internet rushing to judgment is admirable - I'm not certain it's the case here. Instead it's two people stated their case and people are going to come to a conclusion based on what's been said.

Given what has been presented, it does seem that JSS' story does make more sense and David's story has inconsistencies.

That's not rushing to judgement. It's simply concluding.

Now if we want some positivisim to give 'em - if the fanthology project is moving forward and working still, how about a teaser of sorts? Even drop a few hints about what would possibly be included?

All this fuss over some MP3s?

Some perspective people, please.

you may want to change that to "cry wolf" John, rape is a little over-serious a comparison

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
you may want to change that to "cry wolf" John, rape is a little over-serious a comparison[/QUOTE]

Yeah but that's how journalist like to write. They think it's descriptive!