What REALLY happened

soxtalon wrote: 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 rightto form an opinion based on that.

The fact is you are right - that scenario could have happened. Butif 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?

With respect, I don't think I've written anything that calls for <del>conclusive</del> an unattainable or unreasonable level of proof.  The general standard for public punitive action is the removal of reasonable doubt,  and that's all I've ever discussed here.  Do you realize you are the first person in what was then 14 pages to acknowledge that there is more than one possibility here?  That is absolutely shocking.  People really should take a moment and absorb that.   The idea that there might be a credible alternate scenario was effectively suppressed for 14 pages by people who directly benefit now and in the future from the shunning and isolation of David Fuller. Shocking.

You're absolutely right - assessing the merits of each stated case is exactly the mechanism of a fair procedure, and drawing reasonable conclusions the goal.  It's all I ever argued for here.  Want to know a secret?  I think David probably did what JSS said he did.  That may surprise some.  But when I look at why I think that, I come up with this:  I don't think Fanthology leaked. And I don't think Fanthology leaked because I find the expressions of brotherhood and pacts of trust compelling. Really it's a totally emotional response that romanticizes aspects of the coven, and it's shouldn't be confused with reasonable doubt.  The actual 'testimony' is that the members of Fanthology were not all known to each other and trust was an issue.  That's right from one of the horse's mouths.  Probably deleted now, mind.  So while I too have my beliefs I also recognize them as potentially flawed, and of limited power to rationally dispel the reasonable doubt that in my view is all over this thing. 

So following my own example, understanding why we think things is important. Without trying to move you off your position, I'd point out two things.  First, David did mention some of the elements of my scenario in his explanation.  That's where I got them. Recall that while he was still here participating in his own defense the only thing he was defending was that he had uploaded material that also existed in Fanthology, by claming he got them from an alternate source. The watermarks had not yet been revealed so there was no reason for him to go into any detail about uploading this copy or that.  The watermarks were only revealed after he laid out his side at the beginning of the thread and told everybody he didn't care to participate further and that he wouldn't be reading and he wouldn't be back to comment.   So I'm not sure whatever burden you're placing on Fuller to have mentioned something more than he did completely fits the facts.

Second, regarding inconsistencies:  There really aren't any of significance.  I think that's one of the things that strikes me and makes me wonder if the possibility of a false 'conviction' is even more of a reality than even I credit.  If you continue the thought experiment and imagine David's innocence and go back to the original announce thread and the beginning of this one and read his posts there are many things 'right' about the tone, the responses, even the timing of his exit and the sentiments expressed given what was going on at the time.  If Fanthology leaked, it all fits.  It's really is that simple.

In the end this was definitely a rush to judgement, regardless of the truth of the matter.  It was still destructive, vicious and utterly wrong. A bunch of people in line to benefit behaving like they didn't have to earn their 'conviction' like every other decent society on earth, they just had to ignore people long enough, or kick them hard enough. Once again, to me at least, absolutely shocking.

John S Stuart wrote:
GF: Reading your scenario about the two recordings of "Is It Me" on his hard drive - how about this for a scenario?
Because the actetate was scratched and had a glitch at a certain point, that in itself acts as a Fanthology Hallmark - because as you know - that is an identifiable trait embedded in the master recording itself, and therefore inherited by every subsequent copy.
So David downloads his own personal version (which is franked with his unique watermark). Later he trades with an independant trader, but he swaps one of his "rare" tracks in exchage for a song he already owns. (ie Is It Me). Furthermore, it's not even an upgrade, it's the same glitched version. Before trading surely he would have asked "does your copy have a glitch?" otherwise what would be the point?

I think the implication here is that a weakness in my 'senario' is that any trade for a song he already had is not particularly believable. As mentioned previously, in important ways David is your polar opposite.  He prizes publicly sharing where you prize different things about collecting. Given that, and noting Fuller's self professed ethical standard of honouring his view of his Fanthology committment by only publicly sharing things he got from somebody else, I find it perfectly credible that David would trade for 'rights' rather than exclusively valuing growing his collection.  Putting public access at the forefront of decision making is foreign to you, but not to David. To answer your question, to David, that may very well have been the point.

In the meantime, he could have contacted me (or anyone else) to say - "by the way did you know I have just been offered..", but he didn't. So something very shady was going on there anyway, and he now has two copies of the same glitched track on his hard drive.
So we assume David has now TWO copies of the same track on his hard drive. You argue he uploaded the wrong version (that is his own and not the trader's) and that is the reason his watermarked version is on YOUTUBE.
But hold on a minute - the trader's version had the same glitch - so he knew that by uploading the imposter  - it would be assumed as his anyway, because as far as we knew - and because he had not informed anyone before-hand no-one knew it had been leaked in the first place - but would have latched onto the glitched version.
Now if David was innocent all he need do would be to upload both versions and his case would be proven, but he did not take that option when it was presented. He just upped and slammed the door behind him.
Also remember he had made a promise not to leak the Fanthology tracks, but the version on YOUTUBE IS A Fanthology track, whether it was his own copy or this mysterious "anothers". At the end of the day the source is immaterial because he still uploaded the Fanthology version wherever he got it from!
So even if he did get it from someone else, he still should not have uploaded to YOUTUBE - because the glitch revealed the true Fanthology source.
Now you try Occam's razor. Which is easier to believe?

David doesn't care if you think he violated the trust of Fanthology by uploading tracks that he claims came from somewhere else.  That couldn't be any clearer. His goals and philosophy are almost diametrically opposed to yours. Why would he worry about uploading a glitched copy that would be tracked back to Fanthology when, according to him, he's already met his own ethical standard by obtaining the identical track somewhere else? I don't understand your point. 

When was David presented an option to upload both versions?  You've never mentioned that he was presented this option privately prior to his post beginning this thread, and in that post he up and slammed the door behind him BEFORE you publicly revealed the existence of the watermark.  In David's mind he has two indistinguishable copies of one song.  Why would he offer to upload them as proof of anthing before he knew about the watermarks?

Regarding his promise not to leak Fanthology tracks: David quit Fantholgy over an allegation of leaking Fanthology material while still in the group. That supports an understanding of his commitments that was different than yours.  His actions indicate that in his mind, if he got if from somewhere else, before during or after, he could leak it.  It might be reasonably assumed that once the expectations were clarified he didn't like them, because he quit the group, and all future benefit.  Your feelings of betrayal are based on your understanding of the committement, and David's actions, if they were as he described, are perhaps based on his understanding of that commitment, after voting on your version of it with his feet.  If he understood it differently when he agreed, is there perhaps some argument that he shouldn't be bound to a set of rules he didn't understand?  A small philosophical question really, and not important in the grand scheme, but worth some consideration maybe.

John S Stuart wrote: NO; all this fuss is because someone lied, cheated, stole and broke their word, then had the audacity to begin this thread by saying "They just want to rile up fans against me, which is pretty low, I must say."

Sorry; but if you falsely cry "rape" (or any other allegataion - it's just another example), you must be prepared to face the consequences of your actions. You can't expect the acused to sit back in silence?

Does RIAA deal in men not being men and  breaking their word?  All the fuss is about the tracks.  This doesn't negate your feelings, which everybody can understand and sympathize with, but don't insult the intelligence of the entire forum.

<div class="quote">03/04/12
Grateful Fan wrote:

That's not what the email you quoted said. Perhaps you have some other correspondence that indicates that, or perhaps I
have misunderstood something, but all he says is in the second email is that he got it from another person, not that he had never gotten it from you. This is completely consistent with his story: an acknowledgement that he had access to
the material within the group but eventually learned that it was circulating outside the group as well. Where is the proof that not only is he the most despicable person alive, but that he is so despicable and the crime so grave that there is truly no other reasonable explanation? Where? A watermark that tracks back to Fuller and a note that he was blown away by a song isn't
it.</div>

<div class="quote">11/04/12
Grateful Fan wrote:

With respect, I don't think I've written anything that calls for conclusive proof. The general standard for public punitive action is reasonable doubt, and that's all I've ever discussed here. Do you realize you are the first person in what was then 14 pages to acknowledge that there is more than one possibility here? That is absolutely shocking. People really should take a moment and absorb that. The idea that there might be a credible alternate scenario was effectively suppressed for 14 pages by people who directly benefit now and in the future from the shunning and isolation of David Fuller. Shocking.</div>

<div class="quote">10/04/12
Grateful Fan wrote:

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.</div>

<div class="quote">11/04/12
Grateful Fan wrote:

You're absolutely right - assessing the merits of each stated case is exactly the mechanism of a fair procedure, and drawing
reasonable conclusions the goal. It's all I ever argued for here. Want to know a secret? I think David probably did what JSS said he did. That may surprise some. But when I look at why I think that, I come up with this: I don't think Fanthology leaked. And I don't think Fanthology leaked because I find the expressions of brotherhood and pacts of trust compelling. Really it's a totally emotional response that romanticizes aspects of the coven, and it's shouldn't be confused with reasonable doubt. The actual 'testimony' is that the members of Fanthology were not all known to each other and trust was an issue. That's right from one of the horse's mouths. Probably deleted now, mind. The very existence of the watermarking system proves they acknowledged the possibility of leaks. So while I too have my beliefs I also recognize them as potentially flawed, and of limited power to rationally dispel the reasonable doubt that in my view is all over this thing. </div>

I am putting up all these to show what an unproductive exercise this person has put other people through.

This is STILL going on?!?!?! Here, this will help:

tcc wrote:
I am putting up all these to show what an unproductive exercise this person has put other people through.

My fault for getting cute with the wording, but I should clarify that I went for a walk on Easter Monday evening and among all the things rolling around in my mind was the question "What DO I actually think about the Fuller situation at this point?", and came up with the conclusion I noted. It wasn't something I always thought.  My whole point is that there wasn't enough information or balance to know.  Also I'm going to change the word 'conclusive' you highlighted because it missed what I was trying to say and was the wrong word choice.  Beyond that I don't really know what you're getting at, but on this topic I've come to anticipate whatever it is it's going to involve you being a bit thick.

For everybody else, regarding the unproductive exercise:

Fuller represents a little guy challenge to a status quo.  Both he, and they, should be able to survive and thrive on merit, and good ideas need to have a way to rise to the top.  For the common good any war of ideas has to be a fair fight.  This was so far from a fair fight that I am still shocked at what went on.  I could see clearly from from JSS's first couple of posts on this thread that there were real problems with the premises being used to support the conclusions. And it still took 14 pages of me being first ignored, then condescended to, called a ghoul at an accident scene, a ridiculous contrarian, delusional, poor thinking devil's advocate, a dishonest and underhanded seeker of privilged information and finally, the one that actually did shut me up momentarily, Dave Fuller's sex toy or whatever- to finally have somebody acknowledge that I had a point.

The hammer came down so fast and hard on David from people that in one way or another are leaders in this community that everything was immediately and irrevokably poisoned.  The posts have been deleted by the bushel, but the impact lingers. The possibility that their conclusions were wrong remains a fact in a real way, not a purely theoretical one, but regardless it is the chilling effect on an idea and the freedom to pursue it that is the real casualty, regardless of what David is or isn't guilty of.  This isn't just about the Reaction stuff and a broken promise; it's an accmulation of frustration at a guy who thinks differently and doesn't play by the same rules. Who, witnessing this, would want to step out of the lines and challenge from within if this is the risk?   That's real, and despite all the professed boredom with the subject, it is potentially consequential to what eventually become shared assets of our culture, and who gets to enjoy them.

Perfectly good, well intentioned people convinced of their righteousness can be part of really ugly things without checks and balances and an outside perspective.  Regardless of what David did or didn't do, this was a lynching.  Look up the first bit about lynchings on Wikipedia and tell me differently.  If this unproductive exercise can embolden even one person to challenge the old, fusty status quo in some small way in less than optimal conditions, well, good.  If it can't, well, I tried.

"Regardless of what David did or didn't do, this was a lynching"

Lynchings *rock* and frankly the world would probably benefit from a few of them.

If someone needs lynching, it should be whoever came up with the name Fanthology.


Grim.

tcc wrote:
I am putting up all these to show what an unproductive exercise this person has put other people through.

I think it's been very illustrative. The outcome was probably not what some collectors expected though. Perhaps you expected everyone to grovel to you to ensure the flow of material. That didn't happen. Bit of a wake-up call for collectors hopefully. Keep your superegos in check.

I think, JSS is right with his opinion. I understand his opinion and I know what he's talking about.

A few years ago, I got the Macbeth-Recordings, which were recorded by Brian May long ago. It was my kind of rarest recording I had at this time. I traded it with some people and a few days later it went online on Youtube and my File got worthless.

I know the feeling of beeing screwed...

Did you get a good trade for them?

I think yes.

Nowadays my collection got nearly worthless, because of the large amount of leaks on Youtube.

I understand all Fans who want to hear unrealeased material and I collected stuff because of the same reasons, but it's quite frustrating. You try to get good and rare stuff and work hard to get them. Sometimes you pay a lot of money to get it, and then? It's free on youtube because somebody leaked it...

It happens. I wouldn't worry about it.

Out of interest what software was being used to embed the files with a 'personal watermark'? As this is neither a feature of facebook nor the common filehosts. Doubtless such software exists, but that smells like a red herring to me.

Source: IT expert and good spotter of fibs on the net.

Yeah, I've been finding the "watermark" argument hard to fathom as YouTube compress the sh!t out of everything uploaded.