waunakonor
I'm still going to visit DRF's YouTube channel regularly and these gigantic discussions that get no one anywhere are not going to stop me.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
splicksplack
I think it's hysterical that John S Stuart etc get so self righteous about the illegal nature of Fuller's behaviour.
I mean, illegal or not, the only people supposedly losing out financially are QPL. And, as we all know, they receive a lorry load of notes on the hour, every hour.
And as I've mentioned earlier, the money QPL lose must be minuscule.
The other reason for the attack on Fuller is taking away control from the artist. I may have more sympathy for that if it was a new maturing artist but, bloody hell, Queen have had their moment. The best work is done, in the can, sold, money made, thank you very much.
To get precious now about a few off-cuts is, frankly, laughable (and, to be honest, probably why we haven't seen a huge crackdown or an 'example' made of any individual as it's been going on for years).
Laws are put in place to prevent injustices and frequently over-reach the wrong they were intended to right. So while Fullers actions are technically illegal I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone (outside of QPL themselves) that agrees that a great moral or financial wrong has been committed against QPL.
No, the real reason that these arguments are used are because these collectors have had their noses put out of joint. One of there own has broken ranks and there's no honour amongst thieves ('thieves' used in the proverbial sense in that they are all in the same business of obtaining recordings that they were not supposed to have access to in the first place).
The collectors can be as evasive as they want about the source of these tracks but the fact is QPL did not and do not want these recordings ANYWHERE outside of the Company. So it really doesn't befit the collectors to try to isolate Fuller on technical legal grounds.
And the argument about "legally" obtaining acetates containing Queen recordings etc in auction is fatuous. Either however they got out and into auction in the first place was illegal, or they were gifted to someone by QPL and then illegally sold or traded on.
Whatever the route, they should not be out there and to pick on one person because he's making money out of the whole sorry enterprise is just daft.
I mean, illegal or not, the only people supposedly losing out financially are QPL. And, as we all know, they receive a lorry load of notes on the hour, every hour.
And as I've mentioned earlier, the money QPL lose must be minuscule.
The other reason for the attack on Fuller is taking away control from the artist. I may have more sympathy for that if it was a new maturing artist but, bloody hell, Queen have had their moment. The best work is done, in the can, sold, money made, thank you very much.
To get precious now about a few off-cuts is, frankly, laughable (and, to be honest, probably why we haven't seen a huge crackdown or an 'example' made of any individual as it's been going on for years).
Laws are put in place to prevent injustices and frequently over-reach the wrong they were intended to right. So while Fullers actions are technically illegal I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone (outside of QPL themselves) that agrees that a great moral or financial wrong has been committed against QPL.
No, the real reason that these arguments are used are because these collectors have had their noses put out of joint. One of there own has broken ranks and there's no honour amongst thieves ('thieves' used in the proverbial sense in that they are all in the same business of obtaining recordings that they were not supposed to have access to in the first place).
The collectors can be as evasive as they want about the source of these tracks but the fact is QPL did not and do not want these recordings ANYWHERE outside of the Company. So it really doesn't befit the collectors to try to isolate Fuller on technical legal grounds.
And the argument about "legally" obtaining acetates containing Queen recordings etc in auction is fatuous. Either however they got out and into auction in the first place was illegal, or they were gifted to someone by QPL and then illegally sold or traded on.
Whatever the route, they should not be out there and to pick on one person because he's making money out of the whole sorry enterprise is just daft.
John S Stuart
[b]slicksplack wrote[/b]: "No, the real reason that these arguments are used are because these collectors have had their noses put out of joint. One of there own has broken ranks and there's no honour amongst thieves ('thieves' used in the proverbial sense in that they are all in the same business of obtaining recordings that they were not supposed to have access to in the first place)."
[b]John S Stuart:[/b] You know - I am so fed up of hearing this bullplop!
I have been a Queen collector since the early 1970's and anyone who knows me personally, who knows me by post, has known me in or through the Queen collecting world or collecting circles - or even knows me by reputation knows that this is complete nonsense. [i][b]The funny thing is - even David Fuller knows that![/b][/i]
In fact, I am very generous (and especially so in the Queen arena), but like all quiet contributers - there is a respected etiquette one is expected to follow.
Oh; I do not expect any glowing testimonials, but I have given so much over the years - in time, in knowledge in money - and even in music - all without the need to crow about from the rooftops. I have never let my own ego corrupt my personality; Furthermore, I always try to see the best in people, So again we now have another expert who knows absolutely nothing about which they speak.
The point is whether one collects antiques; stamps; book; clocks - or even Queen discs - like minded collectors will always hang out together. That is part of the enjoyment. The thrill of the chase as it were.
No one has villied or sacrificed David Fuller. (For the record David was actually treated with equality dignity and respect - but he kind of forgets that bit).No one has forced a gun to his head before or after his releases. He has not burst the bank - and I personally have taken a hit of about 10% and the Fanthology less; so it may not be scraps in one sense; but it's certainly not the meat of my collection either. So I have moved on quite significantly. (Remember all this occured about last Xmas - so it's not a news story by a long shot - and I have been awaiting this fall-out for quite a while now).
But you know what? I have a life. I have a family. I have grandkids. I love to travel the world. I have a few health problems, but I still get laid often and regular! My point is life is good. Enjoy it while you can, but all I read in here is more and more bitterness - which to me comes over as spiteful envy, and there really is no need for it because life is too short and precious to waste.
I really do not care about Mr. Fuller. I have never met the man. Wouldn't speak to him if I did. So it's not my nose that is out of joint, but my foolish pride for trusting in such a petty, arrogant and stupid little boy (but hindsight as aforementioned is 20/20).
OK stupidity rant over. David caught me (us) with our trousers down. Good for him. But let's not pretend he is some Pink Panther type hero, and that my "educational" type informative replies for the edification of the community make the slightest bit of difference either.
But you know what; you do someone a favour, and they take advantage. I even suggested - "look David, your idea to broadcast is a bad one because it will come back to haunt you", but somehow again, that was perceived as my negativity; when in fact it was supposed to be helpful advice to help him avoid the hot waters he now travels in. There is only so much faith we can have in humanity, the rest is up to the individual.
That is why I contribute in here far less frequently now; because it really isn't worth it, and I have so much to do, and so little time left to do it in.
[b]John S Stuart:[/b] You know - I am so fed up of hearing this bullplop!
I have been a Queen collector since the early 1970's and anyone who knows me personally, who knows me by post, has known me in or through the Queen collecting world or collecting circles - or even knows me by reputation knows that this is complete nonsense. [i][b]The funny thing is - even David Fuller knows that![/b][/i]
In fact, I am very generous (and especially so in the Queen arena), but like all quiet contributers - there is a respected etiquette one is expected to follow.
Oh; I do not expect any glowing testimonials, but I have given so much over the years - in time, in knowledge in money - and even in music - all without the need to crow about from the rooftops. I have never let my own ego corrupt my personality; Furthermore, I always try to see the best in people, So again we now have another expert who knows absolutely nothing about which they speak.
The point is whether one collects antiques; stamps; book; clocks - or even Queen discs - like minded collectors will always hang out together. That is part of the enjoyment. The thrill of the chase as it were.
No one has villied or sacrificed David Fuller. (For the record David was actually treated with equality dignity and respect - but he kind of forgets that bit).No one has forced a gun to his head before or after his releases. He has not burst the bank - and I personally have taken a hit of about 10% and the Fanthology less; so it may not be scraps in one sense; but it's certainly not the meat of my collection either. So I have moved on quite significantly. (Remember all this occured about last Xmas - so it's not a news story by a long shot - and I have been awaiting this fall-out for quite a while now).
But you know what? I have a life. I have a family. I have grandkids. I love to travel the world. I have a few health problems, but I still get laid often and regular! My point is life is good. Enjoy it while you can, but all I read in here is more and more bitterness - which to me comes over as spiteful envy, and there really is no need for it because life is too short and precious to waste.
I really do not care about Mr. Fuller. I have never met the man. Wouldn't speak to him if I did. So it's not my nose that is out of joint, but my foolish pride for trusting in such a petty, arrogant and stupid little boy (but hindsight as aforementioned is 20/20).
OK stupidity rant over. David caught me (us) with our trousers down. Good for him. But let's not pretend he is some Pink Panther type hero, and that my "educational" type informative replies for the edification of the community make the slightest bit of difference either.
But you know what; you do someone a favour, and they take advantage. I even suggested - "look David, your idea to broadcast is a bad one because it will come back to haunt you", but somehow again, that was perceived as my negativity; when in fact it was supposed to be helpful advice to help him avoid the hot waters he now travels in. There is only so much faith we can have in humanity, the rest is up to the individual.
That is why I contribute in here far less frequently now; because it really isn't worth it, and I have so much to do, and so little time left to do it in.
splicksplack
You say "No one has villied or sacrificed David Fuller" but you talk of him as "a petty, arrogant and stupid little boy" and "a small-time crook".
And as I said earlier the whole illegal argument is dead in the water when you're in possession yourself of music you have no right to.
So it is quite obvious that this is a personal crusade and you have an axe to grind (BTW thanks for your riveting biography above).
And as I said earlier the whole illegal argument is dead in the water when you're in possession yourself of music you have no right to.
So it is quite obvious that this is a personal crusade and you have an axe to grind (BTW thanks for your riveting biography above).
John S Stuart
[QUOTE]
[b]splicksplack wrote: [/b]
And as I said earlier the whole illegal argument is dead in the water when you're in possession yourself of music you have no right to.
Another line of complete and utter rubbish. Of course I have a "right to it". that is the whole point! Why not read up on your copyright law before coming on here and planting your home spun magic beans. I guess you would burn me as a witch because I have flown in an aircraft or get moving pictures on a flat screen!
Here is a bit of advice. It is better to be thought a fool, and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. (Not being vindictive - just offering up some more good advice to Jude Dredd 2013 style).;
[/QUOTE]
[b]splicksplack wrote: [/b]
And as I said earlier the whole illegal argument is dead in the water when you're in possession yourself of music you have no right to.
Another line of complete and utter rubbish. Of course I have a "right to it". that is the whole point! Why not read up on your copyright law before coming on here and planting your home spun magic beans. I guess you would burn me as a witch because I have flown in an aircraft or get moving pictures on a flat screen!
Here is a bit of advice. It is better to be thought a fool, and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. (Not being vindictive - just offering up some more good advice to Jude Dredd 2013 style).;
[/QUOTE]
splicksplack
The un-released recordings in question have not been granted a 'right to distribute' by the band. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, a copyright owner has the sole right to issue copies of work to the public (distribution right).
You are therefore in possession of recordings distributed unlawfully.
As a Queen fan you will have been aware that these recording were not official releases and therefore by buying at auction, trading etc you are coming into ownership of items you know should not be in your hands.
Without QPL giving written consent for you to own copies of these recordings then you, or any other 'collector', should not have access to that work.
As the material that is on whatever format you hold is copyrighted then it could be argued that you may be handling stolen property even though you may have bought it in good faith and ignorance of the law.
I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.
You are therefore in possession of recordings distributed unlawfully.
As a Queen fan you will have been aware that these recording were not official releases and therefore by buying at auction, trading etc you are coming into ownership of items you know should not be in your hands.
Without QPL giving written consent for you to own copies of these recordings then you, or any other 'collector', should not have access to that work.
As the material that is on whatever format you hold is copyrighted then it could be argued that you may be handling stolen property even though you may have bought it in good faith and ignorance of the law.
I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.
John S Stuart
[QUOTE]
[b]splicksplack wrote: [/b] The un-released recordings in question have not been granted a 'right to distribute' by the band. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, a copyright owner has the sole right to issue copies of work to the public (distribution right).
You are therefore in possession of recordings distributed unlawfully.
As a Queen fan you will have been aware that these recording were not official releases and therefore by buying at auction, trading etc you are coming into ownership of items you know should not be in your hands.
Without QPL giving written consent for you to own copies of these recordings then you, or any other 'collector', should not have access to that work.
As the material that is on whatever format you hold is copyrighted then it could be argued that you may be handling stolen property even though you may have bought it in good faith and ignorance of the law.
I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.
As I said earlier; (with respect) you are talking complete bollox; and have no idea of what you write. Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself, as you are only making youself look more stupid than you really are.
Without full possessions of all facts you are pissing against the wind.
Hey; I don't mind if you wish to continue. You believe what you want to believe, but you are the one smelling of piss - not me.[/QUOTE]
[b]splicksplack wrote: [/b] The un-released recordings in question have not been granted a 'right to distribute' by the band. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, a copyright owner has the sole right to issue copies of work to the public (distribution right).
You are therefore in possession of recordings distributed unlawfully.
As a Queen fan you will have been aware that these recording were not official releases and therefore by buying at auction, trading etc you are coming into ownership of items you know should not be in your hands.
Without QPL giving written consent for you to own copies of these recordings then you, or any other 'collector', should not have access to that work.
As the material that is on whatever format you hold is copyrighted then it could be argued that you may be handling stolen property even though you may have bought it in good faith and ignorance of the law.
I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.
As I said earlier; (with respect) you are talking complete bollox; and have no idea of what you write. Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself, as you are only making youself look more stupid than you really are.
Without full possessions of all facts you are pissing against the wind.
Hey; I don't mind if you wish to continue. You believe what you want to believe, but you are the one smelling of piss - not me.[/QUOTE]
splicksplack
It's unfortunate that you resort to insults rather than offer any clear counter argument.
But that probably says it all.
But that probably says it all.
john bodega
"Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever"
It's part of the reason I barely bother looking for rare Queen stuff anymore.
In the 80's, my sister nearly died from appendicitis. Afterwards, the doctor walks into the recovery room and says to her "Shake my hand - I'm the man that just -saved your life-".
It's not that he uploads these things that bothers me - I don't give a fuck about QPL since they're too lazy to put this stuff on shelves for me to buy.
It's his attitude that's the problem. He actually equates the sausage factory of sharing other people's work as a meaningful creative endeavour instead of some kind of simple service - it ain't. It'd be like my postman wanting credit for every video I ever shoot with my DSLR. Fuck you, postman - you're just the system of delivery.
The logic probably goes that since these people offer us Queen rarities for free that we should be thankful. Makes sense on paper, but I am never (ever) thanking anyone for being a dick. Sorry - it's just not how it works.
It's part of the reason I barely bother looking for rare Queen stuff anymore.
In the 80's, my sister nearly died from appendicitis. Afterwards, the doctor walks into the recovery room and says to her "Shake my hand - I'm the man that just -saved your life-".
It's not that he uploads these things that bothers me - I don't give a fuck about QPL since they're too lazy to put this stuff on shelves for me to buy.
It's his attitude that's the problem. He actually equates the sausage factory of sharing other people's work as a meaningful creative endeavour instead of some kind of simple service - it ain't. It'd be like my postman wanting credit for every video I ever shoot with my DSLR. Fuck you, postman - you're just the system of delivery.
The logic probably goes that since these people offer us Queen rarities for free that we should be thankful. Makes sense on paper, but I am never (ever) thanking anyone for being a dick. Sorry - it's just not how it works.
tero! 48531
So... How many members of the fanthology (or anybode else in here) is in possession of tracks recorded at a Queen convention? You know, the ones that were forbidden to be recorded, and have copyright announcements over them?
Anybody in possession of such a track is really in no position to critisise David Fuller for breaking an agreement or for distributing material without the artist's consent.
Anybody in possession of such a track is really in no position to critisise David Fuller for breaking an agreement or for distributing material without the artist's consent.
John S Stuart
[QUOTE]
[b]tero! 48531 wrote: [/b] So... How many members of the fanthology (or anybode else in here) is in possession of tracks recorded at a Queen convention? You know, the ones that were forbidden to be recorded, and have copyright announcements over them?
Anybody in possession of such a track is really in no position to critisise David Fuller for breaking an agreement or for distributing material without the artist's consent.
Not me bud; I've never been![/QUOTE]
[b]tero! 48531 wrote: [/b] So... How many members of the fanthology (or anybode else in here) is in possession of tracks recorded at a Queen convention? You know, the ones that were forbidden to be recorded, and have copyright announcements over them?
Anybody in possession of such a track is really in no position to critisise David Fuller for breaking an agreement or for distributing material without the artist's consent.
Not me bud; I've never been![/QUOTE]
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]splicksplack wrote:[/b]
I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.[/QUOTE]
One thing most people don't realize is that not every unreleased recording is obtained illegally.
Many are, yes - but not all.
Therefore in many cases the *physical product* is legally owned by someone, while the music contained therein may not be. And if it contains a song that was never released, there is no licensing and no publishing deal in place - therefore the physical product and the art contained therein can be owned by someone who did not create it, and perfectly legally.
So, in short - not all unreleased recordings circumvent law.
As soon as this piece of binary thinking is removed from the equation, only then can an actual discussion begin.
Until then, there are two completely different languages being spoken here.
I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.[/QUOTE]
One thing most people don't realize is that not every unreleased recording is obtained illegally.
Many are, yes - but not all.
Therefore in many cases the *physical product* is legally owned by someone, while the music contained therein may not be. And if it contains a song that was never released, there is no licensing and no publishing deal in place - therefore the physical product and the art contained therein can be owned by someone who did not create it, and perfectly legally.
So, in short - not all unreleased recordings circumvent law.
As soon as this piece of binary thinking is removed from the equation, only then can an actual discussion begin.
Until then, there are two completely different languages being spoken here.
kosimodo
David against goliath...
Our provider rules!
GB, odd that david is selling his stuff. He is the one publishing. I didnt know he is selling.
PS. How about the rainbow concert? Any news?;)
Our provider rules!
GB, odd that david is selling his stuff. He is the one publishing. I didnt know he is selling.
PS. How about the rainbow concert? Any news?;)
inu-liger
[QUOTE] [b]kosimodo wrote:[/b]
PS. How about the rainbow concert? Any news?;)[/QUOTE]
Check the Rainbow threads. GB posted something a few days ago
PS. How about the rainbow concert? Any news?;)[/QUOTE]
Check the Rainbow threads. GB posted something a few days ago
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]splicksplack wrote:[/b]
I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.[/QUOTE]
One thing most people don't realize is that not every unreleased recording is obtained illegally.
Many are, yes - but not all.
Therefore in many cases the *physical product* is legally owned by someone, while the music contained therein may not be. And if it contains a song that was never released, there is no licensing and no publishing deal in place - therefore the physical product and the art contained therein can be owned by someone who did not create it, and perfectly legally.
So, in short - not all unreleased recordings circumvent law.
As soon as this piece of binary thinking is removed from the equation, only then can an actual discussion begin.
Until then, there are two completely different languages being spoken here.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of binary thinking, I have some hypothetical questions for you.
Is somebody trading with material recorded at a Queen convention (which was asked not to be recorded by the representative of the artist) acting in any way immorally?
What if that trader has obtained that same song from another source, but still knows the artist doesn't want it to be availble? Is it moral to keep distributing this material?
[QUOTE] [b]splicksplack wrote:[/b]
I'm sure Jim Beach, who was a lawyer, will know the form on this.[/QUOTE]
One thing most people don't realize is that not every unreleased recording is obtained illegally.
Many are, yes - but not all.
Therefore in many cases the *physical product* is legally owned by someone, while the music contained therein may not be. And if it contains a song that was never released, there is no licensing and no publishing deal in place - therefore the physical product and the art contained therein can be owned by someone who did not create it, and perfectly legally.
So, in short - not all unreleased recordings circumvent law.
As soon as this piece of binary thinking is removed from the equation, only then can an actual discussion begin.
Until then, there are two completely different languages being spoken here.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of binary thinking, I have some hypothetical questions for you.
Is somebody trading with material recorded at a Queen convention (which was asked not to be recorded by the representative of the artist) acting in any way immorally?
What if that trader has obtained that same song from another source, but still knows the artist doesn't want it to be availble? Is it moral to keep distributing this material?