Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Moo
Short answer, yes, but you’re unlikely to get caught, but copyright is literally an exclusive monopoly of the making of copies of any work of art. Likely, lyric websites pay a licence to an agency, and in return report page impressions so that the fee they pay can be distributed pro rata (and they themselves raise revenue by advertising). It might be pennies per creator, but that’s more than they’d get otherwise.
Obviously, we’re unlikely to get caught, but the risk for us would be selective litigation with political motivation. We can say, with some justice, we have a rule against copyright material, and we can show we enforce it, so anything that slips through can be corrected.
Lyrics are copyright, unless that copyright has been released: being freely available online does not mean that a copyright does not exist, others are bearing the legal jeopardy. You’re best bet is to link to a lyric site, and give a short, pertinent quotation. If you do post the full lyrics, please give a source for it being copyright cleared (i.e. a wikimedia page or similar displaying a creative commons licence).
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/music/page/13/#post-247340
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/music/page/13/#post-247344Removed copyright content. Feel free to quote sections and link to published lyric sites elsewhere, but be careful of copyright infringement (per rule 4).
They’re being clever stupid, the precise argument is:
1) We won’t force people.
2) This could lead to people being forced toAllied with the stupidity “We won’t tax meat”, when no-one is proposing that. Part of it is some of these ideas are discussed, in the civil service, they’re in the range of options doubtless ministers have seen and rejected, and doubtless Labour would reject as well. But at best it is a slippery slope argument, and the problem is, once you start accepting slippery slope arguments, you’re on a very slippery slope.
But, they are right, in as much as ‘nudge’ and forcing people to comply without understanding or desire will backfire, but if we do need to reduce meat consumption, say, as a climate measure then that is something that needs to be discussed at length and decided: but, of course, they don’t really want democracy, they just want to muddy the waters, and position themselves as a bulwark against the stalinist hordes of Labour.
1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
This is a thread for discussing the Ukraine/Russian war, if people want to discuss voting for socialism, please start a new thread. I will move any further posts on that topic.
So, it seems SMER has topped the poll in Slovakia : there remain questions as to whether they will be able to form a coalition. It’s also questionable as to what effect their withdrawing from assistance to Urkaine will have, I don’t think they make natural allies with Orban’s Hungary (and no Hungarian party made it into the Slovak Parliament), but they may well pull together on this issue. Next stop, Poland, in two week’s time.
Oh, and as so often, Clare Daly appears to have been on the case
“Officially the EU “condemns the military operation by Azerbaijan.” But EU policies fueled this conflict. We’re ramping up arms research spending, building up the “defence” sector, knowing its products will end up in conflict zones. That’s what they’re for.”BBC are saying 100,000 have left, it’s a clean sweep. No doubt some will go back, but it looks like ethnic cleansing is complete.
But conflicts between capitalist states may have little or nothing to do with capitalism as such, inasmuch as they are not principally fought over resources, markets or trade routes etc.
In this case, the mineral and industrial wealth of Ukraine is in the east, and the western part is largely agricultural, there is iron, coal and even oil: Russia has noted how it has made the Azov sea and internal sea, which is important for trade routes: likewise, Crimea is important as a way of controlling much of the Black Sea. A clear Russian war aim is to take Odesa, and make Ukraine a land-locked country.
Yes, Russia is also asserting an imperial sphere of influence, much like the Monroe doctrine, but countries choosing US hegemony rather than joining Russian hegemony are still in the grip of Hegemony.
The funders conference for the reconstruction of Ukraine talked of needing to restructure transport links to integrate Ukraine into the EU market, and open itself up to investment from EU capital.
There’s a scene in some Arthurian movie: two armies are facing off, and under terms of truce, if one side draws a sword, the battle begins (one soldier sees a snake and kills it, thus starting the bloody battle). The point: when armies are staring at each other, poised and cocked to fight, it doesn’t really matter who started it, the point is to stop it.
This is a war for land and minerals, which are not worth any worker from either side dying for.
An interesting and, it seems to me, balanced assessment of the current state of the war (again, from The Conversation). It seems relevant, with our recent discussions of conscription: “Russian pro-war bloggers complain that the country has refused to go into “total war” mode. But if it’s a long war of attrition, as seems likely, maintaining normality is actually a strength.”
And: “The bottom line is that Ukraine, which is completely dependent on outside support both financially and militarily, will find it hard to sustain its war effort at current levels. Right now it is Kyiv, not Moscow, which is under the greater pressure.” There is a likelihood that Slovakia may elect a war-sceptic government this weekend (or, at least, one that will be heavily divided on the matter) and Poland has some elections coming up, the destabilising effects of cheap Ukrainian grain may well ripple through the neighbour states. The ‘Justness’ of the cause may well be up against the self interest of the actors in the region.
Interesting article in The Conversation: “In December 2022, Azerbaijan began a blockade of the Lachin corridor, the only connection between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. In February, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued a binding order that Azerbaijan must immediately allow the unimpeded movement of people and goods along the corridor. Azerbaijan ignored this.”
The author notes that there was no come back from major powers, seemingly green lighting this move. Worryingly, they also suggest that Azerbaijan has expansionist aims, backed by Turkey: “There is reason to remain concerned about Azerbaijan’s plans. After the suppression of the Karabakh Armenians, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, reiterated what he has said before that he sees what he calls “Western Armenia” as historical Azerbaijani territory that Azerbaijan therefore has the right to reclaim.”
PGB,
well, terminology is an aside: what matters is that the effective control of the war is in the hands of the donors (since, if they cut off supplies, it’s all over). Their motives matter, and I think the onus would be on anyone trying to say that the the donor states are fighting for justice or the interests of Ukrainian people to prove that, especially in the light of their track record.
In world capitalism, no state is truly sovereign, and the world markets dictate much more than any one government can, so it is worth asking whether it is worth dying for what amounts to a change of name on the brass plate. A Ukrainian victory and recovery of their lands won’t lead to democracy, especially as the donors will call in their chips.
I doubt, in any case, that Russia intends to occupy the whole country, their war aims seem to be partition (cutting rump Ukraine off from the sea by taking Odesa as well). They’d be bled white in the west.
Ukraine will be Finlandised by the EU or Finlandised by Russia.
