What REALLY happened

[QUOTE]

[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b] 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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

I have no idea if David is 'guilty' or not, but I question the willingness of so many people to pile on as they are. Unless I misunderstand the 'evidence' nobody can be any more certain than I am because the facts are limited. Perhaps a trip to the library for Camus' 'The Stranger' is in order for some. I have a story I'd like to share as well.

When I was 17 I got a job at a family owned donut shop. As I always have in my work life I gave 110%, taking great pride in my work and often going over and above. They noticed and made a point to let me know my work was really appreciated. One day I showed up for my shift and was greeted by the owner's daughter with the news that I wouldn't have to work that day and I would no longer be scheduled in the future. They didn't need me anymore, she said. I was shocked and devastated, and her explanation didn't feel right but that was all I could get out of her. It hurt a lot.

About ten years later I was in a bar one night and ran into her brother, who had been the baker there. We got to chatting about the business and what he was doing now, and the fact that I had been let go eventually came up. He revealed to me that I had been fired for stealing money. Stealing money! Long story short there had been opportunity for only me and a long time employee to have taken the missing funds and an automatic assumption was made that the long time employee could not have done it, that her trustworthiness was beyond question, and that left me. Great figuring, other than part where I didn't actually steal any money. It was a valuable lesson I have never forgotten.

Sometimes things simply aren't how they look, and people can be very vulnerable to assumptions and a flash mob mentality. May have nothing to do with David Fuller, but I am simply not content to swallow this stuff on such flimsy evidence that only works if you ascribe meaning to an email communication that it seems to me simply isn't objectively there.

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b] That's not what the email you quoted said.  Perhaps you have some other correspondence that indicates that, or perhaps I have misunderstood something, butall 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.[/QUOTE] The proof is in the pudding, my dear.  They said that his watermark was showing.  They know how the watermark security system works, so they know what they are saying.  How much knowledge do you have on the area of watermark security in digital matters to question their conclusion on this matter ?      :-)

"I must admit that I've never understood why people think that David Fuller is something wonderful"

Because people like to take pity on the disabled (see Keenan Cahill).

It's borne from good intentions I imagine, but the problem is that we don't encourage them to reach the same standards as able folk. I mention Keenan Cahill because he's crappy at lip-syncing. That's miming - one of the easiest damn things in the world, and he's crap at it - yet that is his claim to fame.

Isn't it a little demeaning and patronising to apply such low standards to someone just because he's got an unfortunate condition? His affliction doesn't even preclude him from miming, but he *still* sucks at it!

[QUOTE] [b]PieterMC wrote:[/b]
I must admit that I've never understood why people think that David Fuller is something wonderful. Yeah he has a Youtube channel with a lot of things on there. However, most of it widely available elsewhere in better quality. People act like he is doing something magical and wonderful by posting the stuff.
I don't blame John for being highly pissed off.[/QUOTE]

I second Pieter's comment. Never understood how this guy is seen as a modern day Robin Hood by some internet losers.
I remember people freaking out when his YouTube channel got shot down and I didn't really see what the big fuss was.

So, he put all the content in there. I see (some) value in that, but there's a lot of other people doing the same, aren't they? Why this guy in particular?

[QUOTE]

[b]tcc wrote: [/b]  The proof is in the pudding, my dear.  They said that his watermark was showing.  They know how the watermark security system works, so they know what they are saying.  How much knowledge do you have on the area of watermark security in digital matters to question their conclusion on thismatter ?      :-)[/QUOTE]
Tcc, this is how witches got burnt at the stake. 

Though it's not relevant to this issue, I've been in IT for 25 years and am a senior computer programmer and analyst with a medium sized organization.  I am more than aware of the management of security features on electronic files. I have no doubt that Fuller has files watermarked with his credentials. That would be expected as he participated in the group and presumably removed material from it just like everybody else.

However, one does not need to know anything about watermarks other than accepting that they do identify the initial ownership to see the gaping hole in the logic being presented here to justify the savaging of David Fuller.  They have enough to indict him, maybe even enough to get a small civil judgement from some sympathetic virtual jury, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would justify the things that have been said and implied?  Not even close.  Yesterday I had mild curiousity about all this.  Today, noting that the only answer JSS has been willing to give other than none at all is one couched in faintly condescending Freudian riddles and other nonsense, for the first time I might actually tend to credit Fuller's explanation a little more than that of the others.  He at least laid out a logical, clear narrative that is completely consistent with the 'evidence'  and unlike JSS's interpretation doesn't require any (possibly bad) assumptions.  Hell, I'm even starting to credit the possibility that the file watermark story is utter bullshit given the avoidance and general sloppiness.

At this point, really, shame on anybody who continues to partake in the David bashing on this evidence alone.

[QUOTE]At this point, really, shame on anybody who continues to partake in the David bashing on this evidence alone.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting stance on this topic, GF.  Usually facts arent required for the "pile-on" of few of you like to participate on here at Queenzone.

In this case, it seems quite clear that whether we approve of them or not, these Fanthology people have a valid point.  Now they really should have come up with a less "nerdy" clubhouse name.  For that, they are GUILTY AS CHARGED.  But I, for one, would like to see stuff continue to be leaked as it was, with Fanthology having some sort of control as to not flood the market with garbage.

If they do reconvene, the only change I would recommend is a name change.

What is quite clear to you Microwave? Tcc? Anybody? The specific assertion that Fuller has been proved to have lied about the material circulating outside of the Fanthology group has NOT BEEN PROVED OR EVEN REASONABLY SUPPORTED. Again, UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING. Always willing to be missing something.

Name change? I would suggest "The not-Secret and Completely Open to everyone Society for Sharing of Rarities on Queenzone, We're Not Hoarding Them, Honest Guv, Me Bruvver found it in a skip, it's a fair cop, it was all David Fuller's fault" (no press, no questions, you ain't heard of me, roight?). Or SMERSH for short.

I'd love to be in possession of a rare recording that's not in general population but I'd also love to be the one to eventually bring that rare recording out for fellow fans. I know I'd be pissed if someone betrayed my trust and got to take that joy away from me.

My only hope is that these private collectors please please please make clear wills so that these recordings don't get thrown out if you die. I've seen apartments get literally dumped into bins when the tenant dies and nobody cares enough to sort through the items.

Let your collecting be your joy, let your sharing be your legacy.

[QUOTE]

[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b] What is quite clear to you Microwave? Tcc? Anybody? The specific assertion that Fuller has been proved to have lied about the material circulating outside of the Fanthology group has NOT BEEN PROVED OR EVEN REASONABLY SUPPORTED. Again, UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING. Always willing to be missing something.[/QUOTE]

Oh no, GF, I completely see that side.  I'm just surprised to see you arguing on the side of fact and heresay.  That is not the usual forte here on Queenzone... or recent threads that you've participated in.

I've always said BOTH SIDES should be fairly presented and have been barbequed myself a few times. 

But in this case, it appears that FACTUAL EVIDENCE has been presented and the person commiting the breach has admitted responsibility for it.

Here is what I am taking from these threads:

1.  Someone obtained something in what seems a legal and resonable way.
2.  That person agreed to share it with a select few
3.  One of those select few decided to break a verbal agreement... not a legal agreement
4.  A lot of Queenzoners got to hear some pretty shitty music
5.  Some people are upset that they no longer are exclusive holders of said shitty music.
6.  Some people like shitty music... especially if it's rare
7.  John Deacon could care less about all that has just transpired
8.  Now a select few are less likely to share more shitty music
9.  I kinda wanted to hear some of that shitty music to make my own assessment
10.  Queen will continue to re-release recording and will still have plenty of rare gems to last me for the next ten years

I think the real problem in all of this was #2.  Everything went downhill from there. 

If you have something REALLY RARE...  Just don't share.  Then we'd never be upset about it.  And we might get another release like the Freddie Mercury 10 CD set one day.  If we do, great!  I'm buying.  If not, oh well.

[QUOTE]My only hope is that these private collectors please please please make clear wills so that these recordings don't get thrown out if you die. I've seen apartments get literally dumped into bins when the tenant dies and nobody cares enough to sort through the items.[/QUOTE]

And someone said this wasn't the Queen Mafia!!!!

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]My only hope is that these private collectors please please please make clear wills so that these recordings don't get thrown out if you die. I've seen apartments get literally dumped into bins when the tenant dies and nobody cares enough to sort through the items.[/QUOTE]And someone said this wasn't the Queen Mafia!!!![/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.worldnewsinn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/the-godfather-brando.jpg]My reply[/url]