Freddie Dearie doesn’t want Thor or Lee”s book read ignore her I wish I had

CHEVYMAN wrote:

How do you know what he talked with them about he took more pictures with them than he did anybody.

Because it's obvious they would've mentioned that by now.

CHEVYMAN wrote:

I’m so glad I got smart friends about copyright stuff

You’re not too smart about copyright stuff and neither is your friend. LOLOL.

CHEVYMAN wrote:

Freddie wouldn’t care he like to spend money too lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He sure as hell minded when Prenter betrayed him like this.

At least Prenter had the guts to do it whwn Freddie was still alive to speak up for himself if he so chose.

CHEVYMAN wrote:

Thor being the little stud he was didn’t know he was famous he just thought he was hot. Thor’s like a beagle he sniffs them good looking guys out lol!!!!!!!!

I agree Thor USED to be handsome. And SUUUUURRRE he didn't know who Freddie was when he stalked Freddie to his hotel. I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you too, LOL

But he and Freddie never had sex since neither one of them could ”rise to the occasion”. Freddie never bothered with THAT again. LOLOLOL

Chevy - What is the title of this thread?

@FreddieDearie, I'm afraid the "fair use doctrine" won't protect your friend "in publishing" from his/her actions of scanning someone else's copyrighted book and uploading it for all to read. That's not the intent of the "fair use doctrine." You spelled it out yourself. What are the "certain circumstances" it would be allowed in your friend's case? It would not stand up in the court of law.

Yes, I don't deny I frequently share YouTube videos.

Jo T. wrote:

@FreddieDearie, I'm afraid the "fair use doctrine" won't protect your friend "in publishing" from his/her actions of scanning someone else's copyrighted book and uploading it for all to read.

No one said anything about scanning it ”for all to read”, it would be for all to comment and critique, for research purposes etc...

Special circumstances include, but are not limited to, commentary, criticism, parody, news reporting, research and learning/teaching.

Now if they were to copy in order to profit, quite obviously Fair Use does not apply.

A reviewer may fairly cite LARGELY from the original work, to use the passages for the purposes of criticism. Facts and ideas are not protected by copyright.

So if we wish to discuss the veracity of lack thereof any portion of the book, we may do so.

In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair. However, using most or all of a work does not bar a finding of fair use.

No one here has mentioned copying the book in it's entirety. However many things may be posted in order to comment and critique.

Jo T. wrote:

You spelled it out yourself. What are the "certain circumstances" it would be allowed in your friend's case? It would not stand up in the court of law.

The burden of proof rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work.

When people post things, sometimes that SPURS ON more ”business” for the copyright owner. The supposed ’harm’ would need to be demonstrated and direct correlation found.

Good luck with that.

Saint Jiub wrote:

Chevy - What is the title of this thread?

You mean the title that puts my name on blast and draws attention to me, while telling people to do the opposite? ROTFLMAO

FreddieDearie wrote:
No one here has mentioned copying the book in it's entirety. However many things may be posted in order to comment and critique. The burden of proof rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work. When people post things, sometimes that SPURS ON more ”business” for the copyright owner. The supposed ’harm’ would need to be demonstrated and direct correlation found.

You originally wrote "For those who want to read it but don’t want to pay the money, I have a friend that is in publishing and is going to scan the book and it will be uploaded so people don't have to be scammed." Please, don't tell me you NEVER intended to scan the book IN ITS ENTIRETY, till I called you out on copyright violation. Your intent is venal, purely venal.

I don't have any objections to critiques of a book, like book reviewers who may cite PASSAGES. However, when YOU offer to upload somebody else's copyrighted book, how would it NOT negatively "impact the infringement on commercial use of the work" - by its very nature? It's like the saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" You want to freely give away the milk, so to speak, SOMEBODY ELSE'S milk, to deliberately deprive the owners of the cow (authors of the book) the potential to maximize their earnings (the price of the cow). That's how financial "harm" could be demonstrated in the court of law.

Freddiedearie why do you spend so much time bitching about people apparently betraying Freddie.
Freddie isn't here now and can't be affected by any of it, his parents are no longer alive either. What does it now matter who brought a book out first and who started this so called chain of events of books. Di dn't Freddie say to Jim B 'never make me boring'. We certainly know he wasn't boring and all he did in his life and all that has been written about him doesn't change my mind on what a fantastic musician he was, a true legend.
Actually I lie as the only thing that has tainted Freddie a little for me is if he knew he was HIV positive when he carried on sleeping around and entered a relationship. I felt so shocked when I heard Mary say this during a radio interview in 2011. If this is true, I really think it's something she should have kept to herself. Her words lowered my opinion of Freddie and no doubt had the same effect as many others

If Freddie found learned of his AIDs diagnosis in early 986 before the Magic Tour, Jim would have likely already been HIV infected. HIV tests were just starting to be used in 1985.and were not reliable. As I recall, Jim's relationship with Freddie started in March 1985 (St Pat's Day).

I've never bought into that line of Mary's (from a documentary, if I recall) about she and Freddie "knowing" that he had AIDS or was HIV positive as early as '86. That interview took place many years after the events and always sounded to me like a reinvention of the history and a desire by Mary to be the informed person. The people who lived with Freddie (those who survived him for any length of time), Jim Hutton and Peter Freestone, have said, with consistency, that Freddie was diagnosed in '87. Did he suspect before that? He would have been a moron not to have suspected, but knowing with certainty, is a bit different. If he did know well before '87, then that means that he engaged in sexual activity with several people, including his partner, while he knew he was passing on a lethal virus. Was he that awful a person? I'm not so sure about that. Jim mentions that after the diagnosis, they used condoms and that suggests that Freddie was responsible, though by then, Jim would have been infected--which he was.

I was thinking about my comment and realize that there's more of an inconsistency than I'd considered. I think what I'm remembering from the interview is Mary's version of the doctor telling her that Freddie has AIDS. I think that comes from 'The Untold Story' though it might have been from another documentary. While I don't think she gives a specific date during her interview, by the time of that documentary, it was commonly understood that he found out in '87.

It's in a different venue which I've read, that she mentions that she and Freddie "knew" at the end of the Magic Tour, fully a year-and-a-half before the April '87 diagnosis.

Again, he might have suspected, but it's only after the '87 date that he and Jim used condoms.

Mary was devastating by Freddie’s AIDS diagnoses I think she had always played his right hand man or woman. She wanted him back and wanted Garden lodge from the time she picked it out fort him. She wanted all the glory even to be the important one about his AIDS diagnosis. Miss perfect wasn’t so perfect she was in love with a gay man and would risk anything to even be his widow which she did.

Bottom line she shuttered at the word gay and Freddie’s lifestyle wasn’t pleasing to her. So she worked against everyone in it.Freadie dearie that books gonna happen how are you gonna republish a book nobody wants by the likes of you. To be able to be liked and nobody foes

Jo T. wrote:

You originally wrote "For those who want to read it but don’t want to pay the money, I have a friend that is in publishing and is going to scan the book and it will be uploaded so people don't have to be scammed."

I apologize for not saying ”and excerpts will be posted so people don't have to be scammed.”

But if it makes you feel better I’ll make sure to warn him to only post PASSAGES when he writes his critiques. Ok?

Jo T. wrote:

Please, don't tell me you NEVER intended to scan the book IN ITS ENTIRETY, till I called you out on copyright violation.

I have no intention to scan the book at all. Never said I would.

For the purposes of CRITIQUE, he may upload whatever and how many portions he deems necessary to critique.

Jo T. wrote:

Your intent is venal, purely venal.

IMO, What is VENAL would be Thor and Lee scamming people with their ”GoFundMe” page.

People have a right to be informed. A published work may be critiqued.

I'm just reminding people that they can review the contents of the book if they don't want to risk being scammed. That’s what reviews are FOR.

People shouldn't be spending money on a scam,

Chevyman was schlocking the book, and I merely let people know that they should investigate before spending their hard earned money.

Again, was it VENAL when YOU engaged in copyright violations?

Hypocrisy is corrupt. So please look in the mirror before making such accusations. Just sayin’.

Jo T. wrote:

I don't have any objections to critiques of a book, like book reviewers who may cite PASSAGES.

Oh, well if YOU don't have objections, mIm sure a court of law will find that convincing,

I already explained to you that using most or all of a work does not bar a finding of fair use. It simply makes it less favorable to the defendant. Passages are better, but using ALL of the work is not automatically prohibitive. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios.

Jo T. wrote:

However, when YOU offer to upload somebody else's copyrighted book,

I didn't say I was gonna upload anything.

Jo T. wrote:

how would it NOT negatively "impact the infringement on commercial use of the work" - by its very nature?

By it's very nature citing the contents is effectively ”Word-of-Mouth-Merketing”. Citing all or part of the work may POSITIVELY impact the commercial use of the work.

Secondly , it must be proven that there was SIGNIFICANT harm. They couldn’t claim we ”would’ve sold 10,000 books, but we only sold 9,980.” They would have to prove the harm was SIGNIFICANT.

Again, it would be their burden of proof to show SIGNIFICANT DIRECT HARM. There would be no such proof.

Jo T. wrote:

It's like the saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" You want to freely give away the milk, so to speak, SOMEBODY ELSE'S milk,

It wouldn't be someone else’s milk. It would be excerpts from a bought and paid for book.

Jo T. wrote:

...to deliberately deprive the owners of the cow (authors of the book) the potential to maximize their earnings (the price of the cow). That's how financial "harm" could be demonstrated in the court of law.

There’s no proof of such deliberate intent.

There would have to be proof of SIGNIFICANT harm. DIRECT cause ? effect.

”It probably happened this way because I personally don't like/trust the defendant” is not sufficient.

If I let someone taste the milk I bought, and they LIKE the milk, they are likely to buy some of their own and through word of mouth cause others to do the same.

A talented prostitute may give a customer a ”free sample”, which entices them costumer to come back for more if they like what they see,

In this case book would be owned by the poster, and if they give people excerpts, and that does negatively impact sales, the cause would be that people didn't like what they saw. It would be the deficiencies in the product that prevented better sales.

I am merely saying that if people don't want to waste money on something, they should be able to ”try before they buy”.

If the book is good, whatever is uploaded will HELP sales, not hurt them. If the book is of poor quality, or portions are probably false, that would be the cause of poor sales.

Petal wrote:

Freddiedearie why do you spend so much time bitching about people apparently betraying Freddie.

What’s it to you how I spend my time?

Petal wrote:

Freddie isn't here now and can't be affected by any of it, his parents are no longer alive either. What does it now matter who brought a book out first and who started this so called chain of events of books.

That Freddie is dead makes it MORE important to defend the truth of his life, not less.

If it doesn't matter to you, you are free to move along,

Petal wrote:

Didn't Freddie say to Jim B 'never make me boring'.

Freddie didn't say ”Let people lie about me”.

Petal wrote:

Actually I lie as the only thing that has tainted Freddie a little for me is if he knew he was HIV positive when he carried on sleeping around and entered a relationship. I felt so shocked when I heard Mary say this during a radio interview in 2011. If this is true, I really think it's something she should have kept to herself. Her words lowered my opinion of Freddie and no doubt had the same effect as many others

Well, that's the sort of capricious opinion of those who don’t fully understand what things were like back then. How easy it was for fear to cause people to lie to themselves and be in denial and not trust the tests because they were so horribly inaccurate at the time.

I’m sorry you hold such prejudice. But this is a good example of why things should be fully discussed, because sometimes a lack of full understanding leads to unfair censure.

Saint Jiub wrote:

If Freddie found learned of his AIDs diagnosis in early 986 before the Magic Tour,

She says he knew during the Magic Tour, not that he LEARNED of it during the Magic Tour .

Saint Jiub wrote:

Jim would have likely already been HIV infected.

Jim may have been infected before he ever slept with Freddie.

Saint Jiub wrote:

HIV tests were just starting to be used in 1985.and were not reliable. As I recall, Jim's relationship with Freddie started in March 1985 (St Pat's Day).

Agreed. There was a lot of confusion, fear and rational paranoia back then. For a while they didn't think it was sex that was transmitting the disease, but ”poppers”. (A drug that was used to enhance sexual activity)

Some gay men felt that society we're trying to punish and blame them. Using the fear of AIDS to keep gay men from having sex, like it was a way to stop them from being gay,

Many gay men didn't know what to think.

It's soooooo easy for people who didn't experience the AIDS epidemic first hand to make judgments.