Fuller's channel terminated again

GratefulFan wrote:

Do you have epilepsy?

Likewise, do you have cataracts?

he provided much more music new material then the ol farts that are prequeen.i mean we do live in@democrcy dont we bri/rog/deacy dont feed us do they?we all have our part to say wether you/prequeen like it or not they can inc you muppetts can shove it.dave fuller provided true fans with the gear thats more i can say than you fartasses with your big words.

Excellent - then it's settled. All Queen collectors who read this thread pledge never to share another rare recording on this website or elsewhere ever again, since they all actually come from a single person who has done all the work. We'll stop wasting your time with things like the complete BBC sessions and uncirculated concert tapes from 1978.

Thank you for helping us all see the light instead of going to grammar school.

Where have you been all these years !? Please keep your brilliant posts coming.

The Real Wizard wrote:

If I provided doctor records you'd say they were forged, so what's the point?

The bigger problem with any doctor records from you is the likelihood that your idea of a 'gifted medical professional' is an arthritic one-armed blind masseuse who types with his missing hand.

The watermark was never relevant to Fuller's explanation and it never will be. I don't know whether you're disingenuous or dim, and at this point I don't particulaly care. Continuing to behave as if you proved anything relating to Fuller is sleazy. Knock it off.

GratefulFan wrote:
The watermark was never relevant to Fuller's explanation and it never will be.

Please explain the logic as to why it was never relevant, and why it never will be.

The Real Wizard wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that Fuller is the only person who has ever shared any Queen of remote value at this place or elsewhere.. ?

You are indeed wrong. What I said was

Tero:I wouldn't call him an "online rarity boxset" either, but he did serve as a remider to the general public that there IS material out there that could easily be released if somebody in QP was interested.

Of course it's available through "other means" as well (or David wouldn't have ended up with the material in the first place), but not as easily as a youtube channel.

Even though QP is the moral winner when Fuller's channel is shut down, it's the bootleggers and traders who gain the most in reality. They are the "other means" that are most easily found.

It's all there, but I'll paraphrase it to you:

He's not the online rarity box.
He had rare material available for anyone.
The same material is available elsewhere, but not as easily.
The trading community gains from Fuller's account being shut down.

inu-liger wrote:

tero! 48531 wrote:
Did you ever ask Brian what he felt about David leaking "your" material to the public despite your wishes?

Have YOU even asked him that yourself? Or Roger for that matter? :)

I was never a part of Fanthology, although I WAS invited initially but declined due to lack of free time, so your question is accordingly rendered invalid :-)

If I were to write a letter to Brian's soapbox asking if he approved of me trading unreleased Queen material (which I promised to never put on a public website), would you take his answer as your moral guideline?

If Brian May said that he doesn't want any of his unreleased work passing hands, would you stop any and all trading and start publicly denouncing the actions of the fanthology as well?

The fanthology (and traders in general) isn't interested in asking Brian this question because that would mean losing their moral justification for discrediting David Fuller...
I on the other hand haven't really got anything to lose, do I?

tero! 48531 wrote:

It's all there, but I'll paraphrase it to you:

He's not the online rarity box.
He had rare material available for anyone.
The same material is available elsewhere, but not as easily.

Fair play.

But I still think you're giving the guy way too much credit.

Especially since he's someone who rarely (likely never) credited the source of where his material came from, which made it look like he was the lone source. He wasn't. He just made a few mouse clicks and put things into one convenient place. He did none of the legwork, all of which happens behind the scenes.

It's unbelievable that he merits so much discussion. He's just a schmuck who had a youtube channel. The people who spent years upon years searching for (and often paying for) the material are the ones who should be getting the praise. But they don't ask for it. So Fuller just took it all. People remained quiet until he took things too far.

The trading community gains from Fuller's account being shut down.

i.e. everyone benefits. Things leak out at the rate they leak out for a very good reason. Rarities are needed to acquire more rarities. Recordings are like currency. When someone decides to leak everything out, there is a great bounty in the short term but major loss in the long term. How active has the announce forum been this year compared to any of the last 15 years? I've been here long enough - I know.

People who have never lifted a finger to find a rare song always seem to be the self-appointed experts on the matter. Cautiously hoping this trend begins to reverse one day soon..

The Real Wizard wrote:
i.e. everyone benefits.

Err... No, not really. Hopefully this analogy helps.


There's a guy handing out pot on the street for free. You don't know where it comes from, but you're happy to try it out for free to know what it's like.

He's arrested by the police, the papers write big headlines about a major drug bust, and the whole neighbourhood (including drug dealers) rejoice when justice finally happens.

Unfortunately the drugs are still there, and you can still get anything you want if you know the right connection. The only difference is that you aren't getting your product for free. That's why the shady dealers benefit.

tero! 48531 wrote:
If I were to write a letter to Brian's soapbox asking if he approved of me trading unreleased Queen material (which I promised to never put on a public website), would you take his answer as your moral guideline?

I would certainly place more significant weight per his views. However I am a person who does try, despite what some people may want to believe based on my online persona alone, to take an objective view from both sides of the fence wherever any issue is concerned before making any final judgments.
I'm not so easily one-sided like some binary-minded folk here would like to think :-P

If Brian May said that he doesn't want any of his unreleased work passing hands, would you stop any and all trading and start publicly denouncing the actions of the fanthology as well?

I would not stop any trading for certain important personal reasons (disclaimer: not that I have MUCH to trade with, but I will not elaborate any further), and I am not willing to alienate my contacts either.
The only thing I will denounce is the illegal sale of any product that is in a <i>verified</i> legal manner NOT authorized for sale, <u>especially</u> pertaining to digital sales.

I'm not so concerned personally when it comes to things like acetates or reel tapes since it is most often extremely difficult to prove how they got there unless provenance can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But unauthorized digital sales like the type DFR offered, I will not stand for, and I have already proven that by alerting QPL to his actions, so that is proof enough to my credit I can take a serious position where necessary.

The fanthology (and traders in general) isn't interested in asking Brian this question because that would mean losing their moral justification for discrediting David Fuller...

Not my call to echo your characteristic accusation towards them, since I wasn't IN the group to begin with, so I can't speak on their collective behalf as far as their mentality or reasoning is concerned on a personal level :-)

I on the other hand haven't really got anything to lose, do I?

Technically speaking, you don't :-)

inu-liger wrote:

I would certainly place more significant weight per his views.

- - -

I would not stop any trading for certain important personal reasons

That really says it all, doesn't it?

You would listen to his opinion, but you just wouldn't CARE about if it interfered with your opinion.


If you display this level of morality and still continue the relentless discrediting of your peer, you're guaranteed to be reminded of your double standards over and over again.

"You would listen to his opinion, but you just wouldn't CARE about if it interfered with your opinion. "

WRONG. Again you are demonstrating the typical view towards me as a one-sided person. My opinion CAN be changed if the argument is compelling enough on EITHER side of the fence, as I have already hinted to as such above!

Sometimes I wonder why I even BOTHER trying to argue with people like you on this waste of a site. I really need to make better productive use of my time elsewhere...

oh here we go again why dont you stick that guitar kneck rite up your crek@piss out of here you asslickers did bri/rog send you your weekly chq this week you lapdog,the truth hurts doesnt it@we live in times were the one who tells the truth is a liar@the one who is a liar is the realdeal.im@working class hero you hippocritte

inu-liger wrote:

WRONG. Again you are demonstrating the typical view towards me as a one-sided person. My opinion CAN be changed if the argument is compelling enough on EITHER side of the fence, as I have already hinted to as such above!

Sometimes I wonder why I even BOTHER trying to argue with people like you on this waste of a site. I really need to make better productive use of my time elsewhere...

If you come across as a one-sided person (who would keep on trading despite the wishes of the artist in question), you have no one else to blame but yourself.

You sound pretty determined with your opinion about trading:

inu-liger wrote:I would not stop any trading for certain important personal reasons

Whether you choose to continue arguing with me is your personal choice. Personally, I think you should have dropped the entire David Fuller subject last year...

tero! 48531 wrote:

inu-liger wrote:

WRONG. Again you are demonstrating the typical view towards me as a one-sided person. My opinion CAN be changed if the argument is compelling enough on EITHER side of the fence, as I have already hinted to as such above!

Sometimes I wonder why I even BOTHER trying to argue with people like you on this waste of a site. I really need to make better productive use of my time elsewhere...

If you come across as a one-sided person (who would keep on trading despite the wishes of the artist in question), you have no one else to blame but yourself.

You sound pretty determined with your opinion about trading

Unfortunately, I have a complex mindset that most people will never understand, and with my condition I have a tendency to give off mixed messages without really meaning to. It's something I wish wasn't the case, but it's very difficult to change the way I communicate to match that of an 'average' person's!
It's probably something better explained by voice rather than by text.

I don't suppose you would be willing to engage in a one on one Skype conversation some time?


As far as the trading thing is concerned, I have my reasons for keeping it open, but I don't wish to discuss it publicly.