Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > David Fuller's account on YouTube was deleted. Again.

forum rss feed
Author

ole-the-first user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 314 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 09:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Say all your gratitude words to international faggots orgainsation called 'Web Sheriff".


E-mail: oleggolubkin[AT]rambler.ru
Val Lurex user not visiting Queenzone.com
Val Lurex
Deity: 2714 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 10:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I can't understand what was criminal in David's channel.  Why did they do it?  They should be punished.


"I really feel like being evil tonight."
ole-the-first user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 314 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 10:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Lostman wrote: I can't understand what was criminal in David's channel.  Why did they do it?  They should be punished.

==========
I'm versed in copyright laws an only thing I can say that modern copyright practics are totally incorrect. Actually, according to laws, Dave's channel is very criminal. But according to common sense the only real bandits are copyright defenders. Queen Productions know about this channel, they just can't not to, but they don't need deletion of this account. But crazy organizations like Web Sheriff do need.

I've always hated these copyright faggots. And only thing that I can say — artists, don't be greedy. Upload audio in Internet yourself, just like Trent Reznor and Radiohead do it. This is the only way to put these fucking copyright faggots into their places.


E-mail: oleggolubkin[AT]rambler.ru
Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 10:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sad times :(

I hope his account on youtube is restored...again.

Adam.

Dr Zoidberg user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 39 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 10:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You really do your argument a disservice by peppering it with the homophobic slur "faggot" - particularly on a message board for a band whose lead singer was gay.


Hoo-RAY!
david (galashiels) user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2020 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 11:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

fred wasnt gay,he just enjoyed all aspects of life.
some more to excess than others lol lol lol.

Djdownsy user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mama Please
Djdownsy
Bohemian: 469 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 11:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Ah for feck sake. :/


Tá suil agam go bhuil tú go maith!



Arsebiscuits!!!!!
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 11:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think the fairest way to deal with copyrighted material would be to ask this question : does this represent a viable alternative to buying the product?

People who upload unaltered music, TV shows or movies to Youtube eventually get their arses kicked, and *rightly so*.  If it's something that can be bought, then you are being a cheeky prat by offering it for free.

BUT ... if you are using it in a manner that has been altered, then I think the copyright owners can just fuck off.  I've had a lot of experience with Youtube Copyright, and they've got no business removing videos that don't represent an alternative to buying a product.  Mashups, video-dubs, game walkthroughs, whatever - none of these represent a lost sale because none of them are an untouched work of art or whatever.  They should be thankful for the free word-of-mouth advertising.  

And as far as I'm concerned, this ought to go for so-called bootleg stuff as well, or things that can't be bought.  If I can buy a TV show, or a movie, or an album, then I will.  But guess what - I had to get Seasons 3-5 of TJ Hooker off Demonoid, because the assholes don't sell it.  I've downloaded a metric shit-tonne of Queen rarities, because the morons won't sell it to me legally.  Things like that really piss me off.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 11:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Having said that, it really does suck that this channel was taken down, but hopefully he's learned a lesson.  There were some great rare videos there and a lot of commercially unobtainable stuff - but there was also a few things that can be bought fairly easily.  That's bound to cause trouble eventually.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Thistleboy1980 user not visiting Queenzone.com
You wanna ring the bell?
Thistleboy1980
Deity: 3053 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 12:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

With absolutely no disrespect intended to Dave, why is this such a big deal?  We've all got the same stuff anyway!  There's not a single thing on that channel that I didn't have already, and that's before I even knew what Queenzone or even YouTube was (and I'm sure most of us are the same).  Yeah, I agree that this stuff should be made public one way or another, but would you have cared if it was just some random geezer with a glee clip?  It's only news because it's Dave, but it's not really a major problem, is it?


It ain't about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can get hit: how much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!
ole-the-first user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 314 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 12:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Thistleboy 1980 wrote: With absolutely no disrespect intended to Dave, why is this such a big deal?  We've all got the same stuff anyway!  There's not a single thing on that channel that I didn't have already, and that's before I even knew what Queenzone or even YouTube was (and I'm sure most of us are the same).  Yeah, I agree that this stuff should be made public one way or another, but would you have cared if it was just some random geezer with a glee clip?  It's only news because it's Dave, but it's not really a major problem, is it?

========
These "we" are probably collectors of rarities. Of course for me this is not a problem, because I have good collection too, but there's a lot of less active (and lucky) fans for whom this channel was almost the only source of rare song versions.


E-mail: oleggolubkin[AT]rambler.ru
Thistleboy1980 user not visiting Queenzone.com
You wanna ring the bell?
Thistleboy1980
Deity: 3053 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 12:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ole-the-first wrote:

These "we" are probably collectors of rarities. Of course for me this is not a problem, because I have good collection too, but there's a lot of less active (and lucky) fans for whom this channel was almost the only source of rare song versions. =============================================================================================

If these guys have access to Youtube then they have access to the plethora of sites where such material can be obtained.  And if they can't be bothered with that, then there is a YouTube grabber thingy available.  Like I say, it's no big deal.


It ain't about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can get hit: how much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!
emrabt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1118 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 14:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

David fuller account closed, volcano stopping air travel, hose pipe ban. It's last year all over again.

N0_Camping4U user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 97 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 15:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

So.... Any chance he can just mass upload it for people on forums? I know it'd be a rather large download, but it's one worth sharing.

lifetimefanofqueen user not visiting Queenzone.com
lifetimefanofqueen
Royalty: 1328 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 15:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

theres a previous post about youtube problems on the general discusion, youtube must be on its period due to how bitchy its being resently

Isle0fRed user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 143 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 May 11, 19:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't blame YouTube (or other companies) removing peoples videos due to copyright claims. It clearly states when a person creates an account and uploads a video that the material must have beet created by themselves, and failure to comply will result in removal of video and possible termination of account.

I'm doing a film course at my uni and will be heading into that industry. There is nothing more I hate than copyright theft. YouTube is a free source of access to millions (if not billions) and material such as Movies, Music, Video Game Playthru, etc would be costly to the company of creating respect, esspacilly if downloading from YouTube isn't a hard task. DaveRFuller's material was never his in the first place and rightly so he should be deleted.

The only time I would accept downloading, or having videos on YouTube (or any video site) when the material isn't owned by the respectful owner is if the material is in the public domain.

I also must add, putting a disclaimer on a video stating fair use or educational video doesn't stop a copyrighted material from being removed.

Gregsynth user not visiting Queenzone.com
Queen fan since 2005
Gregsynth
Deity: 3184 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 May 11, 02:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Isle0fRed wrote: I don't blame YouTube (or other companies) removing peoples videos due to copyright claims. It clearly states when a person creates an account and uploads a video that the material must have beet created by themselves, and failure to comply will result in removal of video and possible termination of account.

I'm doing a film course at my uni and will be heading into that industry. There is nothing more I hate than copyright theft. YouTube is a free source of access to millions (if not billions) and material such as Movies, Music, Video Game Playthru, etc would be costly to the company of creating respect, esspacilly if downloading from YouTube isn't a hard task. DaveRFuller's material was never his in the first place and rightly so he should be deleted.

The only time I would accept downloading, or having videos on YouTube (or any video site) when the material isn't owned by the respectful owner is if the material is in the public domain.

I also must add, putting a disclaimer on a video stating fair use or educational video doesn't stop a copyrighted material from being removed.

===================

You have copyrighted material on your Youtube channel as well--although your chances of getting strikes are extremely slim to none. 

Although I have a clean record, I'm always watching my back on Youtube--I've had some subscribers lose their Youtube channels due to copyright BS.


I always knew I was a star And now, the rest of the world seems to agree with me-Freddie Mercury
emrabt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1118 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 May 11, 02:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I had something removed from my channel that was actually 100% fair use / fair dealings, and would have held up as such, but i couldn't be bothered to Argue my case.

At the end of the day david r fuller knows the risks of posting 100's of copyrighted works.

Isle0fRed user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 143 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 May 11, 07:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yep I Do have one copyrighted material on my channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RAk1b4yRN4
but unlike many other users on youtube,  I never claim it to be my material, nor do I hide behind that fair use BS. That video has been allowed to stay on my channel providing the site places ads before hand. If anyone remembers Fuller's videos, his name was plastered all over those videos. In other words, he himself has claim those videos as his own.

I reckon Greg would be fine providing his channel doesn't
1 gain the mass attention that Fuller's account got
2 he doesn't post material that is currently available on the retail market (the SNL, and Silver Salmon you may need to worry about, also some bootlegs QP do sell under Top 100 bootlegs name, those also you may need to worry about)

I think your life partner has more chances of being deleted thou as I think he is one strike away from being deleted.

rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 May 11, 10:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

When I post music on YouTube, it's all owned by others. Most get the "Third-party content match" notice, which places ads on it, and I'm fine with that. Some seem to slip by without that notice.

The only trouble I've run into is occasionally getting blocked outright (worldwide) when I post something. It's only happened a few times and I've either not bothered posting it again or in the case of the Sheer Heart Attack cover versions album video, I had to take out the Dream Theatre SHA medley ("Tenement Funster," "Flick Of The Wrist" & "Lily Of The Valley") and replace each song with an alternate cover version. After I did that, all was fine. When the blocks and third-part matches occur, it's immediately after I post it, not weeks or months or years later.

I list the writer, performer and album of each track, as well, so people know exactly what they're getting. Most of the time I note that the video is made purely for fun and that the content's rights belong to their respective copyright holders.

I don't know all the details about Dave Fuller's account, whether he was exclusively Queen-related or not, but I myself post tracks by other artists too, so that might keep me under the radar, too. 

What really bothers me is that a third party, this Web Sheriff, has taken on what is a essentially vigilante attitude of enforcing change on their terms alone. On the surface, it's about the copyright, but they know perfectly that YouTube's policy is that of "If someone complains, we take it down. It's then up to the poster to convince us to put it back." And there in lies the danger of such groups. Even if a post is 100% legit, YouTube won't fight a complaint, they'll simply take it down. I've seen it happen! They don't want to be bothered with legal hassles of copyright, fair use or anything else.

The potential is there for groups like Web Sheriff to seriously abuse this policy. It may start with, "We're just obeying the law,' but it has become a policing system by a group whose authority is self-imposed.

They will argue that it's no different than walking down the street, seeing a guy rob a little old lady and calling the police.

They are wrong!

First, the copyright laws for bootlegs and recordings are varied and detailed, state to state and country to country, whereby certain things are not protected quite the way we'd think (and that's not even getting into legitimate "fair use," "parody" and other allowances). Second, if you witness a crime and call the police, the suspects are guaranteed due process, legal consul and their day in court. Watch-dog groups exploiting the policies of such a site as YouTube are effectively denying due process by evoking a summary judgement. Worse, they're placing the burden of proof on the account holder to justify why it's there, rather than the burden of proof being on the complainant to establish what offense has been committed, which is an inherent, fundamental principal of most (all?) free-world legal systems.