|
|
|
Charles Manson embraces Creative Commons?
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 5 April, 2008
Along with being an internationally known nut, who headed up the "Manson Family" responsible for the death of actress Sharon Tate and other horrible crimes, Charles Manson always considered himself to be an artist. Now Manson wants fans to be able to download and edit/alter his record "One Mind" in any way that they see fit, opting for the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
chubbyInc
Member
|
6. April 2008 @ 02:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sorry but that's stupid. And anyone supporting that belongs in the same place where he is in. In fact give that he is in the place he is in, he shouldn't be allowed to do anything. He should just be in a small cell.
I shake my head when I think about the amount of money it costs to feed someone like that. There was only one thing Charles Manson embraced and it sure wasn't creative, Songs, trance-poetry, conversations, raps, ramblings, musings, etc... associated with him are just encouraging what he portrays.
*edited*
Censored wouldn't work either, we need to be aware of sick b**tards like him. *
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. April 2008 @ 15:46
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
6. April 2008 @ 02:27 |
Link to this message
|
Reality check... Manson himself never laid a finger on anybody. He may be insane, and who are we to judge, but a murderer he is not, and never has been. By the logic used to keep him locked up then both Bush brothers should be in jail.
So he wants people to mess about with what he has created, and to give it away into the public domain under the Creative Commons. Fine by me.. at least the riaa can't get fatter off it. I think that is what this is really about.. the establishment whining because they think they are missing out again because they are too greedy.
Manson should be released.. he has been held in prison for a very long time without any truly legal case. I think he likes it in there, or some lawyers would have got him out by now.
|
Newbie
|
6. April 2008 @ 03:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by varnull:
Reality check... Manson himself never laid a finger on anybody. He may be insane, and who are we to judge, but a murderer he is not, and never has been. By the logic used to keep him locked up then both Bush brothers should be in jail.
So he wants people to mess about with what he has created, and to give it away into the public domain under the Creative Commons. Fine by me.. at least the riaa can't get fatter off it. I think that is what this is really about.. the establishment whining because they think they are missing out again because they are too greedy.
Manson should be released.. he has been held in prison for a very long time without any truly legal case. I think he likes it in there, or some lawyers would have got him out by now.
QFT
I've enjoyed his other cds and I am assuming this one will be no different.
|
Staff Member
|
6. April 2008 @ 03:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by chubbyInc:
Sorry but that's stupid. And anyone supporting that belongs in the same place where he is in. In fact give that he is in the place he is in, he shouldn't be allowed to do anything. He should just be in a small cell.
I shake my head when I think about the amount of money it costs to feed someone like that. There was only one thing Charles Manson embraced and it sure wasn't creative, the poster of this article should be ashamed of themselves and apologize to the Afterdawn community, even though it might be news to some messed up people, it shouldn't be shared here. Songs, trance-poetry, conversations, raps, ramblings, musings, etc... associated with him are just encouraging what he portrays.
I have absolutely nothing to apologize for, for reprinting an article that's doing the rounds, and the quote you are making reference to is a quote from the label website which is there, actually, to surprise some people that Charlie Manson and those words can exist without your screen catching fire. I'd be surprised if anyone is offended by it at all, in fact, I'm moreso offended by thinking I'd have to censor it just because it is Charles Manson... should I censor any news that states the name of anyone or any organization that can be associated with criminal activity?Quote:
Reality check... Manson himself never laid a finger on anybody. He may be insane, and who are we to judge, but a murderer he is not, and never has been. By the logic used to keep him locked up then both Bush brothers should be in jail.
I respect what you are saying and you might also notice I actually didn't call him a murderer in my article, I just said he was the leader of the Manson family that was responsible for Tate's murder and other things. He is a dangerous man either way because I would think he could get things done without having to do it himself.
Osama Bin Laden did NOT fly into the World Trade Center, but he is 100% accountable for it none-the-less. I know that's a cheap and bad comparison since Osama has done a lot of evil on his hands directly, but I'm talking about that single act of mass-murder, he is responsible for it, even tho he wasn't on any of the planes, because he used his influence and misguidance to form an organization of ppl who can be led to literally kill themselves and others around them.
Manson's crimes might pale in comparison... but the logic is the same, he has a will and is dare I say smart enough to get somebody else to do his dirty work. That said, I do totally respect your comment as many ppl really do think Manson was a murder, as in he "killed" tate "himself", which is inaccurate.Quote:
So he wants people to mess about with what he has created, and to give it away into the public domain under the Creative Commons. Fine by me.. at least the riaa can't get fatter off it. I think that is what this is really about.. the establishment whining because they think they are missing out again because they are too greedy.
Well I don't know about this in the case with Manson at all to be honest man because I don't think enough ppl wud enjoy his music to make this a big deal, but you might have a point when you apply it to big figures who have embraced this approach to digital music, such as Radiohead and Trent Reznor.Quote:
Manson should be released.. he has been held in prison for a very long time without any truly legal case. I think he likes it in there, or some lawyers would have got him out by now.
Well he is a poster boy for fear and always will be. His name is infamous around the world. I think where he is now is where he is in fact.. safest.. I think if he was released, a bullet would get him "somehow". It wold also be a major public relations disaster for the legal system, even though it might be technically unfair, how do you think the media and the people would react?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. April 2008 @ 03:29
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
6. April 2008 @ 04:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm going to get this anyway.. because I liked his previous stuff and I will do anything to support media released under the Creative Commons.
I'm not no way getting drawn into a debate on Manson, Tate and what happened..
It was all a very very long time ago. I'm old enough to just remember some of it, but with no opinion at the time.. too young. I have seen the way certain people are constantly named.. every time somebody famous gets shot or killed they are putting pictures of Charlie all over the papers and news.. Like he had anything to do with anything for the last 40 years?
(I like the way dela goes on the defensive when I start throwing a little reality about.. hehhehheh.. no need to defend any points from me. I totally agree with the article and it's posting on this site ;) I wasn't so much commenting on the article as attacking the perceptions of Manson created by the media over the many years since the killings.
He may even have had a point, because everything was done to get publicity, and notoriety.. It was a strangely twisted version of the social revolution that fizzled out into the disillusionment and materialism of the 70's..
That's a whole different ballgame, but I'm sure older members will know what I'm hinting at.
|
Staff Member
|
6. April 2008 @ 05:06 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I like the way dela goes on the defensive when I start throwing a little reality about.. hehhehheh
dont worry, im not on defensive, just making sure its understood that I never called him a murderer, just a nut, which he clearly is ;-) but I also thought id throw in a few comments too ;-)
|
Senior Member
|
6. April 2008 @ 13:11 |
Link to this message
|
Manson did try to kill someone before the family went off on their murder spree
Originally posted by wikipedia:
By June, Manson was telling the Family they might have to show blacks how to start Helter Skelter.[36][43][44] When Manson tasked Tex Watson to obtain money supposedly intended to help the Family prepare for the conflict, Watson defrauded a black drug dealer named Bernard "Lotsapoppa" Crowe; Crowe responded with a threat to wipe out everyone at Spahn Ranch. Manson countered on July 1, 1969, by shooting Crowe at his Hollywood apartment.[45][46][26][47]
Manson's mistaken belief that he had killed Crowe was seemingly confirmed by a news report of the discovery of the dumped body of a Black Panther in Los Angeles. Although Crowe was not a member of the Black Panthers, Manson, concluding he had been, expected retaliation from the group. He turned Spahn Ranch into a defensive camp, with night patrols of armed guards.[45][48] "If we'd needed any more proof that Helter Skelter was coming down very soon, this was it," Tex Watson would later write. "[B]lackie was trying to get at the chosen ones."[45]
On July 25, 1969, Manson sent sometime Family member Bobby Beausoleil along with Mary Brunner and Family member Susan Atkins to the house of acquaintance Gary Hinman, to persuade him to turn over money Manson thought Hinman had inherited.[49][45][50] The three held the uncooperative Hinman hostage for two days, during which Manson showed up with a sword to slash his ear. After that, Beausoleil stabbed him to death, ostensibly on Manson?s instruction. Before leaving the Topanga Canyon residence, Beausoleil, or one of the girls, used Hinman?s blood to write "Political piggy" on the wall and to draw a panther paw, a Black Panther symbol.[46][26][51]
In magazine interviews of 1981 and 1998-99,[52][53] Beausoleil would say he went to Hinman?s to recover money paid to Hinman for drugs that had supposedly been bad; he added that Brunner and Atkins, unaware of his intent, went along idly, merely to visit Hinman. On the other hand, Atkins, in her 1977 autobiography, wrote that Manson directly told Beausoleil, Brunner, and her to go to Hinman?s and get the supposed inheritance ? $21,000. She said Manson had told her privately, two days earlier, that, if she wanted to "do something important," she could kill Hinman and get his money.[50]
|
Senior Member
|
6. April 2008 @ 20:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
i am old enough to remember all of it.he is ,and has been found,guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.if they ever let him out it will be a sad day.in fact its too bad they didnt fry him.the day i support so called art from a sick fuck like him will be a foggy fucken friday.
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
7. April 2008 @ 07:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by aldan:
i am old enough to remember all of it.he is ,and has been found,guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.if they ever let him out it will be a sad day.in fact its too bad they didnt fry him.the day i support so called art from a sick f--- like him will be a foggy f----- friday.
Aldan, I was around for the 'Whole Damned Thing' too, complete with references to the 'Beatles' White Album, and 'Helter Skelter'.
No matter HOW other people may want to candy-coat the events, IMHO Manson is every bit as guilty of Murder as the unfortunate, poor, weak-willed, desperate, drug-taking, brainwashed-by-Manson-himself adolescents (like 'Sexy Sady') who plunged the large 2-pronged meat fork into Sharon Tate's pregnany body. HOW she suffered! You should have seen -- in death -- the look of agony on her face!! .....
I saw a police photograph of her once, - hanging dead from a rope. I would never post that picture here of course, but if one could see it, I doubt they'd have much damned sympathy for Manson's "musical woes".
If you aided-and-abbetted a terrorist; if you brainwashed a would-be suicide bomber into blowing up innocent children - I would consider that no less a murder than what Manson did and vice-versa.
The Electric Chair would have been too good for him.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
DVDdoug
Junior Member
|
7. April 2008 @ 14:57 |
Link to this message
|
Manson has always been a con man and a criminal. (Apparently, he's still conning some people) He wanted to be a rock star. He hung-out with the Beach Boys and he auditioned to be a Monkee. He wanted to be worshiped. Let's NOT give him what he wants!
Quote:
Manson himself never laid a finger on anybody.
You CAN be convicted of murder even if you don't do it yourself. For example, You can be convicted of murder (and sentenced to death in California) if you hire a hitman, or otherwise order a killing. As far as I know, Hitler never personally killed anybody either. These men are the same, except luckily, Manson had fewer followers.
Quote:
Manson should be released.. he has been held in prison for a very long time without any truly legal case.
He shoud be DEAD! There WAS solid evidence against him. The only reason he's not dead is because the Califormia supreme court overturned ALL of the death penalty sentances. Later, the California voters kicked-out all of the ssupreme court judges, but all of the old death penalty sentances (including Manson's) remained overturned.
|
|
