jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
bone china mug herehttp://www.coleoflondon.com/collections/mugs-heros-and-villains/products/karl-marx-mugdon't ask why but karl marx duvet covershttp://www.cafepress.co.uk/+karl-marx+duvet-covers
You have to make a judgment as to whether content owners will pursue you for copyright infringement. A handful of Youtube video montages aren't top of the courts priorities though believe it or not. You also have considerable rights under fair use.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_United_Kingdom_law
Quote:The term, "Webster's" has become a generic trademark in the U.S. for comprehensive dictionaries of the English languageSo there would be nothing stopping the party setting up a "Websters dictionary" website with our own definitions of terms. Google Pagerank would need to get us near the top in which case you might as well increase our Google ranking with the normal website anyway.
More evidence that awareness is not the problem for socialismhttp://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/16/socialism-most-looked-up-word-2015-merriam-webster-bernie-sanders?CMP=twt_gu
imposs1904 wrote:I'm guessing the talks were held at Marchmont Street in Bloomsbury. That was where the old (expelled) Camden Branch held their meetings in the 80s.Everyone posting here probably knows that Camden branch were not an expelled branch in the 80s but just mentioning this for the benefit of any other readers.
Young Master Smeet wrote:The 2006 conference resolution can't be said to apply retrospectively, if SS decided to contest they could cause a mess, the text and performance of the talk is copyright the estate of E Hardcastle, irrespective of where the talk took place. Without express or implied agreement to the contrary that holds.If the SPGB own the copyright presumably the SPGB could relicense it all under CC-BY-ND, but are you saying the conference resolution might not have meant to do that, only meaning to apply to future material?I think I'm basing 1986 on the dates from the tapes list, but a check of back issues of Socialist Standard from then might indicate the date, as might any images from the video of current issues. Is there a Socialist Standard visible in one of the videos?Didn't the SPGB publish and sell cassettes in the 1980s of talks?Doesn't giving a talk on behalf of the party transfer copyright to the party?
The film was a talk recorded in 1986 probably at head office, there was no Socialist Studies group then. The 2006 conference licensed all SPGB material under CC-BY-ND.
I'm not saying we shouldn't give random high profile celebrities as fair a hearing as the man on the Clapham omnibus. Or that a default position of 'we hate everyone and we don't care' doesn't come across as a repellant. Or that 'the world is against us' so close ranks and close minds, comes across as presumptious and paranoid.Personally I believe Brand has long since burned his bridges urging votes for Green (and against the SPGB in Brighton) and Labour but this is not about him specifically.If Charlotte Church/Russell Brand/Jeremy Corbyn/[insert random high profile celebrity here] called a press conference tomorrow and said 'I've joined the SPGB and I want all my followers to do the same', for arguments sake even supposing the followers were all admitted, what would that achieve? What would happen if said celebrity changed his/her mind and resigned? What if you thought a celebrity explaining our case was better publicity? Well our case has been explained on BBC Daily Politics and why should we want members who take the word of a celebrity over our candidate?Publicity alone is not the problem and certainly not publicity from any particular individual celebrity or other high profile person.
An even better question, are Donald Trump's claims to be considered 'truths'? Clearly not in the common usage of the term but I'm thinking of in terms used by Lbird here.Donald Trump Says crime statistics show blacks kill 81 percent of white homicide victims. Donald Trump "I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering" as the World Trade Center collapsed. Donald Trump "The Mexican government … they send the bad ones over."Donald Trump "The people that went to school with (Barack Obama), they never saw him, they don't know who he is."All of these are rated 'pants on fire' by Polifacthttp://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/but Trump is riding high in the GOP polls so are these 'true' for his supporters?
On a more serious note, if you think high profile individuals are the answer, that would be at variance with historical materialism. On the other side of the coin, if you think the only thing standing in the way of socialism, the only problem if you like, is high profile individual (Labour) leaders, that would also be at variance with historical materialism. Ordinary men and women make their own history.
rodmanlewis wrote:jondwhite wrote:To clarify I'm not against disputing public claims that some non-member is a socialist, but I think it unwise to get into the nitty-gritty of whether a non-member would be hypothetically accepted or rejected where there is no application for membership.It depends on how you define a "socialist" (not socialism). A socialist has to be more than one who holds socialist ideas in their head, and doesn't communicate those ideas to anyone else or contribute in other ways to the promotion of socialism.
i think this topic is going in a different direction about what is a 'socialist', but I don't believe the first 'socialists' only came into being in June 1904.
