Crass do a Metalica: Copyright heavyness
- Thread starter Clint Iguana
- Start date
krink
I'll do it this afternoon
it's been going on for a while with both sides resorting to hyperbole. until everyone's had their say and the facts can be picked out i'm not going to pass my judgement (for what that's worth). from what i've seen so far, one thing is sure - crass/southern records have not handled it very well at all. Alot of people on that anarcho punk site are kids so you can excuse the hysteria a bit but crass/southern (probably steve ignorant/southern to be more accurate) should know better.
anyway, it's not looking good.
anyway, it's not looking good.
Moronik
roughly humanoid
well I think if you create music you should have the right to determine how it is distributed. I think if you are going to give away music you should ask permission first. I write a music blog, and give youtube links rather than a downloadable mp3 file, because as I say, it is not my music to give away.
Regarding the FB exchange between Crass and Anarcho-Punk.net, they both make very good cases. In my opinion it boils down to whether Crass did indeed request for the music to be taken down or not.
Since Anarcho-Punk.net posted the exchange, I'm sure they wouldn't have done so unless they were sure Crass hadn't.
So it does look pretty bad on Crass that they waded in with the law on their side as their first move.
Regarding the FB exchange between Crass and Anarcho-Punk.net, they both make very good cases. In my opinion it boils down to whether Crass did indeed request for the music to be taken down or not.
Since Anarcho-Punk.net posted the exchange, I'm sure they wouldn't have done so unless they were sure Crass hadn't.
So it does look pretty bad on Crass that they waded in with the law on their side as their first move.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
What's this, a punk band selling out?
Anyone would think that punk had become little more than a cheap sham used to sell incredibly boring records to incredibly boring people...
Anyone would think that punk had become little more than a cheap sham used to sell incredibly boring records to incredibly boring people...
ska invita
back on the other side
tbf youtube is in the same category.
i dont think it was The Law, they contact mediafire or whoever it was <thats a pretty standard way pf getting things taken down.
Agree about " it boils down to whether Crass (Steve) did indeed request for the music to be taken down or not."
And then theres the issue of hypocrisy...
...that said theres lots of musicians who grow old in relative poverty and i dont begrudge people who only ever had modest careers trying get some money for their old age, but there's ways of doing it i guess...
if that doesnt get this thread going nothing will
Moronik
roughly humanoid
I dont agree there. Youtube allows access to the music, it does not put it in your possession.
However I have just remembered i give mixes of music away for free, so I guess I am a hypocrite!! But I dont really mind though
Hypocrisy is pretty much part of modern day living unfortunately.
Anarcho-punk and Crass always had/has the highest ideals, very difficult to live by. As you get older its harder to live by a set of ideals you most likely formed as a teenager, and I'd like to see how many young anarcho-punks make it to Steve Ignorant's age without lapsing.
I'd also like to say that if you havent betrayed a principle/broken the law/ done something immoral because of poverty, than quite simply you havent been poor or desperate enough.
What im getting at is that we are all human, and the problem with Anarch-Punk's ideals is that it asks you to be pretty much perfect all of the time. No mean feat!
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
I'm not really sure that's a meaningful distinction any more tbh and I'm sure it definitely won't be in the not too distant future. If you purchase a record or CD you buy access to the track to listen to it whenever you want, and things like youtube and on-line streaming services provide the same thing. What does possession mean in that context? Having a physical object, or having a paid for MP3 on your hard drive? That's relatively unimportant to me and like I say I think one that will diminish for most people in future.
ska invita
back on the other side
@ moronik - agree with that, but disagree on the youtube bit - lots of people (me included) have youtube as their main source of music when on a computer. Whats the difference between clicking on an mp3 or clicking play on a youtube vid? in fact with youtubve you get some moving pictures thrown in!If you really want to own the mp3 you just use a youtube mp3 ripper. Youtube is no different to Spotify, except that the artist usually isnt get paid 0.001 pence everytime you play their song...
I think VIVA VEVA VEDA whats it called? I think those youtube videos mean the artist sees some money.
I think VIVA VEVA VEDA whats it called? I think those youtube videos mean the artist sees some money.
Moronik
roughly humanoid
(Feeling my way here. so excuse me if its a bit ill-thought out. Never considered it before a few mins ago!)
I mean if it is in your posession, you can use it whenever you want independantly of an outside body.
Youtube videos require you to use youtube, and so is not in your posession. You merely access it.
Also, possession kind of implies you have the abilty to give it to someone else, while obviously a youtube video remains in one place on the net.
Things like having music stored on an internet cloud, I would not consider 'in your posession' , you just have the ability to access it remotely on demand. But the information itself is not in your posession.
If for example youtube or netflix revoked its access, you would not be able to watch videos.
If something is in your possession, you have control over it, whether you can access it or not.
Its kind of like a library. You can get books anytime, but you dont own them. You merely have access to them.
Having a book on your shelf is in 'your possession.'
I think you are right, the idea of possession will diminish in the future. But I also forsee it becoming an important issues to some people.
I mean if it is in your posession, you can use it whenever you want independantly of an outside body.
Youtube videos require you to use youtube, and so is not in your posession. You merely access it.
Also, possession kind of implies you have the abilty to give it to someone else, while obviously a youtube video remains in one place on the net.
Things like having music stored on an internet cloud, I would not consider 'in your posession' , you just have the ability to access it remotely on demand. But the information itself is not in your posession.
If for example youtube or netflix revoked its access, you would not be able to watch videos.
If something is in your possession, you have control over it, whether you can access it or not.
Its kind of like a library. You can get books anytime, but you dont own them. You merely have access to them.
Having a book on your shelf is in 'your possession.'
I think you are right, the idea of possession will diminish in the future. But I also forsee it becoming an important issues to some people.
ska invita
back on the other side
to go on youtube you need click a button on a computer - to play an mp3 you need to click a button on a computer
if you put something up on youtube and someone else really wants an mp3 of it http://www.youtube-mp3.org/
having a full tune on youtube discourages people from buying it (mp3 or otherwise)
Its defintiely a copyright breach.
Some people even make money off it by putting adverts up on the video.
if you put something up on youtube and someone else really wants an mp3 of it http://www.youtube-mp3.org/
having a full tune on youtube discourages people from buying it (mp3 or otherwise)
Its defintiely a copyright breach.
Some people even make money off it by putting adverts up on the video.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
It's a personal thing I guess. Like I say I don't disagree with what you're saying but I do question how important the distinction is. OK if you've got a hard drive full of MP3s you don't need access to the internet but increasingly people do, all the time (and I'd guess the hard drive getting a fault is more likely than youtube withdrawing its services).
In terms of artists controlling their outputs I'd say if youtube is functioning as a replacement for CDs/MP3s or whatever for a lot of people then that's the same as giving it away, even if some other people use it differently.
In terms of artists controlling their outputs I'd say if youtube is functioning as a replacement for CDs/MP3s or whatever for a lot of people then that's the same as giving it away, even if some other people use it differently.
Moronik
roughly humanoid
dont get me wrong ska, I use youtube for music all day every day! But I dont own it, its a communal resource.
Moronik
roughly humanoid
Posting up a youtube link is pointing someone in the direction of a communal resource they were not aware of, while giving an mp3 to someone means that they are in posession of it.
So if for some reason someone said to Youtube, I do not want my music on Youtube, that resource would be stopped, and the link would die.
If you give the mp3 away, you can't do that, as it is now in someone else's possession.
Sorry to be arguing about semantics. Feel like a bit of a pedantic dick to be honest.
So if for some reason someone said to Youtube, I do not want my music on Youtube, that resource would be stopped, and the link would die.
If you give the mp3 away, you can't do that, as it is now in someone else's possession.
Sorry to be arguing about semantics. Feel like a bit of a pedantic dick to be honest.
ska invita
back on the other side
its not pedantic its just a difference of a opinion
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
TBF, Crass never made a lot from their records, because they always kept a lid on prices, so people file-sharing is probably a bit more effect on income for Crass than for the likes of Ulrich's lardarses. I'm not saying Crass aren't being hypocritical, merely that there are better targets who've done a fuckload less for independent alternative music and politics, and to be fair I doubt this is as much to do with Crass as it is Steve Ignorant looking to build up his pension, because most of the rest of 'em have got on with their lives, whereas Steve has been living off the Crass legacy for 30 years.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
It is trivial to download either the soundtrack or the full video from YouTube though. People usually don't because they would only ever have listened to the song once in the first place, but if they might want to listen later or on their phone or something they do. (Or they fileshare it.)
renegadechicken
Live and don't learn, that's me.
my only memory of crass is sliding down a wall when they opened their gig OD'ing, not a good gig as far as i can recall 
Clint Iguana
not an undercover cop
Downloading is not killing anyone. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Bands and labels need to deal with it rather than do a King Canute.
A bands biggest source of income is merchandise and gigs. Getting the music out to the widest audience possible is going to increase the income from gig tickets and t-shirts. I can think of quite a few bands that I have gone to see several times on the strength of free downloads that I would not have bothered with if I had to take the risk having to pay to find out what they sounded like in the first place.
But not for crass obviously, cos they have not done a gig for the best part of thirty years.
Even though I disagree with clamping down on downloading, I can see the logic of the other side. Not in this case though, it goes totally against what made Crass such a legend in the first place and can only have a negative effect.
I am with Krink on this though; we don’t really know who is doing what here. Is it Crass getting heavy, or Southern records. And if it is ‘Crass’, who exactly is calling themselves Crass these days?
If anyone is interested in the concept of ‘free’ there is a good book on the subject called, as it happens, ‘Free’. It is free to download as an audio book here. It is about far more than just music, it is about the concept of ‘free’ in general, but I found it quite interesting.
It's "heaviness" fwiw
and "Metallica" too, while I'm at it 
And it's "copyrighted" not "copywritten" - yes, Missy Elliot(t), I'm looking at you 
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Some changing of the original Crass ethos it appears:
Moving on, is it any wonder that Crass have now decided to clamp-down on those taking the mickey, as in this blatant example:
Concluding remarks:
In the real world debts have to be paid and royalty cheques banked.
Well, at least none of Crass did a Lydon: "I'm a celebrity get me out of here..."
Moving on, is it any wonder that Crass have now decided to clamp-down on those taking the mickey, as in this blatant example:
and this:
http://www.crassunofficial.com/crass.pdf
Concluding remarks:
http://www.crassunofficial.com/
In the real world debts have to be paid and royalty cheques banked.
Well, at least none of Crass did a Lydon: "I'm a celebrity get me out of here..."
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Must admit, I was never a great Crass fan when they were still going, though I like their stuff better now. I've also not followed the detail of the members since then, though I did have a bit of involvement with Rimbaud through a festival we put on (Projectile). I've just glanced at that archive of correspondence, not really trying to take in the detail of what ultimately becomes a legal saga. Suppose what I took from it was the way the history and ideals of the band, predictably play out as run of the mill (if painful) interpersonal spats - sometimes dressed up and justified as deep principles. At one level it's very sad to see the pain it has all caused (and like I say I just don't know enough to even have a postion on who is 'right'). Same time it's quite reassuring really - there aren't any rarified ideas that are immune from the normal personal shit that everybody faces. Suppose Crass always said that, but somehow they ended up on a false pedestal for some.
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
Youtube and other streaming services can be taken away at any point need a net connection and I can't play them in the car...pretty large difference for me.
people who only download stuff generally don't go to gigs unless it;s free. True i have a mate who downloads stuff AND buys stuff but those too greedy to support new bands releases will probably also be too greedy to pay into gigs . It's a complicated issue and of course if you are on the dole you probably won't be able to buy stuff anyway , but there are a lot of people out there who are loaded and simply won't pay for anything!
having said all that , these greedy German labels that won't sell at a fair price or trade , well good luck to the people who rip em off.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I'm surprised there's still the interest in crass that people would download their music. Bloody horrible racket and poor politics.
