The author of that article could have benefited greatly from consultation with a copy editor. There are several typographical errors. Also, though there are several links to allegedly supporting material, the one I looked at (related to music) wasn't necessarily authoritative. Further, with popular music involving sometimes significant sums of money, litigation can be involved and whether or not the litigation was successful would color claims of plagiarism one way or another.
Thanks, Bolshevik, for the food for thought but I'm skeptical.
Yeah, sure, nothing is ever completely original. And, that's good fodder for a philosophical discussion. But, when someone knowingly takes the work of someone else and misrepresents it as their own, they've ventured into a land where cold, hard reality trumps the esoteric.
Yeah, sure, nothing is ever completely original. And, that's good fodder for a philosophical discussion. But, when someone knowingly takes the work of someone else and misrepresents it as their own, they've ventured into a land where cold, hard reality trumps the esoteric.
I don't think it's esoteric. What objects are you using now, where ideas were not stolen?
Stolen is too strong a word. It suggests deliberation. Drawing from previous influence might better describe the process. I'm using "lands" metaphorically.
Stolen is too strong a word. It suggests deliberation. Drawing from previous influence might better describe the process. I'm using "lands" metaphorically.
I wasn't accusing you of stealing, if there's confusion there.
Ideas were forcefully taken and applied to many of the objects we are all using now. Doesn't mean we stole them. Doesn't mean we refuse to use them.
I should have been clearer. I didn't think you were accusing me of anything. I'm just saying that to me, personally, the term "stolen" implies deliberate intention. For example, if write a song that unintentionally includes a riff I heard 30 years ago, that's a mistake on my part. If I know the riff is from a 30 year old song and try to slip it in, hoping no one will make the connection, that's stealing. Same result...different motivation. Well, anyway, that's just my opinion.
By the way, this was an issue of legal importance before the internet existed because you had to prove accessibility to make a claim valid. If some guy in Germany wrote the same song I did, I would have to prove he somehow had access to my version. Otherwise, it was considered coincidental.
Okay, I was not referring to coincidence. That would be philosophical. Often, for example, scientific discoveries are made by multiple people in different times and places. But history typically rewards one person above the others. Often, they had friends in power or just better marketing opportunities. Perhaps it is therefore wrong to credit anyone and just remember the discovery.
There's a guy from Cleveland, Ohio, named Eric Carmen, who had a couple of hits in the 1970's. His family is from a Russian background, his aunt was a violinist for the prestigious Cleveland Orchestra. He started studying classical music even before he entered kindergarten. So, one might surmise he was no stranger to the works of Rachmaninoff.
Well, it turns out that All By Myself was partially based on Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #2 in C minor/Opus 18. Never Gonna Fall in Love Again was influenced by the second movement of Rachmaninoff's Symphony #2. It was no coincidence. Carmen had probably been exposed to these works hundreds of times. The problem he encountered is that he thought they were in public domain. In fairness to him, I should note he was, at that point, not much more than a local kid, trying to break out on the music scene, not yet versed in the legalities of the music industry.
His error was quickly discovered and he reached a royalty agreement with Rachmaninoff's estate. Wierwille's deliberate deception, on the other hand, took decades to come to light. Some still can't accept the reality of it. It's quite a different and darker issue than the Eric Carmen/Rachmaninoff controversy.
I do not believe intent plays any part in copyright infringement cases.
To me, a larger problem is the pseudoepigrapha and forgeries in "scripture".
Hi, Tom
My point wasn't really a reference to intent. Before the internet, a large part of proving someone had stolen your music was being able to show they had been exposed to it at some point. Such is the case with Led Zeppelin using Taurus as a partial framework for Stairway to Heaven. They toured together and shared the same stage. Zep may have even heard Spirit experiment with various paramutations. So, there's the exposure element for you. Same with Eric Carmen. He undoubtably had extensive exposure to Rachmaninoff material. Wierewille clearly had access and exposure to the works he pilfered. They weren't "previously unknown truths" as he led people to believe. This is where intent to deceive enters the picture.
Yes, the problem with authenticity of what was once regaled as sacred is certainly a valid area of interest and quite worthy of exploration. I think what we're talking about here, though, is something of a more basic, fundamental nature...Wierwille actively made a deliberate effort to misrepresent his work and conceal that fact in order to facilitate his own, self-centered interests.
Yes, the problem with authenticity of what was once regaled as sacred is certainly a valid area of interest and quite worthy of exploration. I think what we're talking about here, though, is something of a more basic, fundamental nature...Wierwille actively made a deliberate effort to misrepresent his work and conceal that fact in order to facilitate his own, self-centered interests.
Had VPW cited sources in the modern way would he have been as "successful" as he was?
Some might argue he made a tactful decision. (From the standpoint of getting The Word Over The World, and that's all that matters)
TWI to my knowledge is composed of anti-intellectuals. Practically chanting "Uneducated Lives Matter"
It sounds like VPW played to his market, so he didn't want to look too intellectual.
Also to my knowledge, much of the names like Stiles and Bullinger, people he plagiarized from, were well known in TWI.
Only the name "Bullinger" was well-known. Kenyon was known to some, and Stiles and Leonard were actively concealed, even to their names and existences.
vpw made a doctrine out of contrasting with :"world's wisdom"-but the hypocrite lauded to the skies any "worldly expert" who took pfal.
Don't take vpw as an expert on anything but fleecing the public.
Only the name "Bullinger" was well-known. Kenyon was known to some, and Stiles and Leonard were actively concealed, even to their names and existences.
vpw made a doctrine out of contrasting with :"world's wisdom"-but the hypocrite lauded to the skies any "worldly expert" who took pfal.
Don't take vpw as an expert on anything but fleecing the public.
He was a good shear-cropper though — a portion of what he swindled out of folks went right back into pulling the wool over their eyes.
There's a guy from Cleveland, Ohio, named Eric Carmen, who had a couple of hits in the 1970's....
I remember Eric Carmen.
He's the guy who had that hit in the 1980s called "Turn the Radio Up."
Of course, that song is impossible to find nowadays because like a fool, he gave it the wrong NAME. He seems to think it's called "Make Me Lose Control," which is totally NOT the line everyone remembers.
It would be on a list of Greatest Misnamed Songs, for songs remembered by lines rather than titles.
Prime Example: "Never Gonna Dance Again," by Wham!
Some a-hole in marketing called that one "Careless Whisper.'
On the contrary, Saint Vic wanted to appear uber-intellectual. Why else insist everyone refer to him as "Doctor"?
I think you both are correct. Dictor wanted to project a credible (intellectual) persona... but he only tolerated anti-intellectuals among his followers. Once anyone developed a sense of cognitive dissonance and said so out loud, he banished them.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
138
52
45
Popular Days
Feb 28
62
Feb 26
51
Mar 28
47
Feb 25
42
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 73 posts
Mike 138 posts
waysider 52 posts
So_crates 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 28 2018
62 posts
Feb 26 2018
51 posts
Mar 28 2018
47 posts
Feb 25 2018
42 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Just for the record - I’ve mentioned this before - the definition for “hard hitting” as often associated with tough journalists who do their job - is uncompromisingly direct and honest, especially in
Grace Valerie Claire
Mike, what are you talking about?? I think there is a lot of "good," here at the GSC. For example, if you go back, and read the threads, many people have revealed the real TWI, not the one in your i
DontWorryBeHappy
Hey Mike: Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already to
Rocky
The author of that article could have benefited greatly from consultation with a copy editor. There are several typographical errors. Also, though there are several links to allegedly supporting material, the one I looked at (related to music) wasn't necessarily authoritative. Further, with popular music involving sometimes significant sums of money, litigation can be involved and whether or not the litigation was successful would color claims of plagiarism one way or another.
Thanks, Bolshevik, for the food for thought but I'm skeptical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/nov/23/comment.stephenmoss
Somewhere on these threads the "truth is truth" argument is presented. If an idea is stolen, does that make it a bad idea?
I believe stealing of ideas is commonplace in all fields. Pick any well known name, just start digging and you will find grayness.
After all, great ideas will outlive their discoverer. All people will be forgotten. If ideas are lost, they will be re-discovered. Maybe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, sure, nothing is ever completely original. And, that's good fodder for a philosophical discussion. But, when someone knowingly takes the work of someone else and misrepresents it as their own, they've ventured into a land where cold, hard reality trumps the esoteric.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't think it's esoteric. What objects are you using now, where ideas were not stolen?
What lands?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Stolen is too strong a word. It suggests deliberation. Drawing from previous influence might better describe the process. I'm using "lands" metaphorically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I wasn't accusing you of stealing, if there's confusion there.
Ideas were forcefully taken and applied to many of the objects we are all using now. Doesn't mean we stole them. Doesn't mean we refuse to use them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I should have been clearer. I didn't think you were accusing me of anything. I'm just saying that to me, personally, the term "stolen" implies deliberate intention. For example, if write a song that unintentionally includes a riff I heard 30 years ago, that's a mistake on my part. If I know the riff is from a 30 year old song and try to slip it in, hoping no one will make the connection, that's stealing. Same result...different motivation. Well, anyway, that's just my opinion.
By the way, this was an issue of legal importance before the internet existed because you had to prove accessibility to make a claim valid. If some guy in Germany wrote the same song I did, I would have to prove he somehow had access to my version. Otherwise, it was considered coincidental.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Okay, I was not referring to coincidence. That would be philosophical. Often, for example, scientific discoveries are made by multiple people in different times and places. But history typically rewards one person above the others. Often, they had friends in power or just better marketing opportunities. Perhaps it is therefore wrong to credit anyone and just remember the discovery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There's a guy from Cleveland, Ohio, named Eric Carmen, who had a couple of hits in the 1970's. His family is from a Russian background, his aunt was a violinist for the prestigious Cleveland Orchestra. He started studying classical music even before he entered kindergarten. So, one might surmise he was no stranger to the works of Rachmaninoff.
Well, it turns out that All By Myself was partially based on Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #2 in C minor/Opus 18. Never Gonna Fall in Love Again was influenced by the second movement of Rachmaninoff's Symphony #2. It was no coincidence. Carmen had probably been exposed to these works hundreds of times. The problem he encountered is that he thought they were in public domain. In fairness to him, I should note he was, at that point, not much more than a local kid, trying to break out on the music scene, not yet versed in the legalities of the music industry.
His error was quickly discovered and he reached a royalty agreement with Rachmaninoff's estate. Wierwille's deliberate deception, on the other hand, took decades to come to light. Some still can't accept the reality of it. It's quite a different and darker issue than the Eric Carmen/Rachmaninoff controversy.
Edited by waysiderspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Geiger
I do not believe intent plays any part in copyright infringement cases.
To me, a larger problem is the pseudoepigrapha and forgeries in "scripture".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hi, Tom
My point wasn't really a reference to intent. Before the internet, a large part of proving someone had stolen your music was being able to show they had been exposed to it at some point. Such is the case with Led Zeppelin using Taurus as a partial framework for Stairway to Heaven. They toured together and shared the same stage. Zep may have even heard Spirit experiment with various paramutations. So, there's the exposure element for you. Same with Eric Carmen. He undoubtably had extensive exposure to Rachmaninoff material. Wierewille clearly had access and exposure to the works he pilfered. They weren't "previously unknown truths" as he led people to believe. This is where intent to deceive enters the picture.
Yes, the problem with authenticity of what was once regaled as sacred is certainly a valid area of interest and quite worthy of exploration. I think what we're talking about here, though, is something of a more basic, fundamental nature...Wierwille actively made a deliberate effort to misrepresent his work and conceal that fact in order to facilitate his own, self-centered interests.
Edited by waysiderword choice
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Had VPW cited sources in the modern way would he have been as "successful" as he was?
Some might argue he made a tactful decision. (From the standpoint of getting The Word Over The World, and that's all that matters)
Edited by Bolshevikedited to clarify frame
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
TWI to my knowledge is composed of anti-intellectuals. Practically chanting "Uneducated Lives Matter"
It sounds like VPW played to his market, so he didn't want to look too intellectual.
Also to my knowledge, much of the names like Stiles and Bullinger, people he plagiarized from, were well known in TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes, world wisdom, as VPW put it. A common hatred among many Americans.
VPW won people's hearts without citing sources. Old-timers can look at VPW's books and the plagiarized sources side-by-side and not bat an eye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Only the name "Bullinger" was well-known. Kenyon was known to some, and Stiles and Leonard were actively concealed, even to their names and existences.
vpw made a doctrine out of contrasting with :"world's wisdom"-but the hypocrite lauded to the skies any "worldly expert" who took pfal.
Don't take vpw as an expert on anything but fleecing the public.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
He was a good shear-cropper though — a portion of what he swindled out of folks went right back into pulling the wool over their eyes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Did you mean "tactical" ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Probably.
Would his followers have respected him more, or less, for citing sources?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think he would have been MORE successful, as it would have shown that he was separating the baby from the bathwater, as it were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I remember Eric Carmen.
He's the guy who had that hit in the 1980s called "Turn the Radio Up."
Of course, that song is impossible to find nowadays because like a fool, he gave it the wrong NAME. He seems to think it's called "Make Me Lose Control," which is totally NOT the line everyone remembers.
It would be on a list of Greatest Misnamed Songs, for songs remembered by lines rather than titles.
Prime Example: "Never Gonna Dance Again," by Wham!
Some a-hole in marketing called that one "Careless Whisper.'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
On the contrary, Saint Vic wanted to appear uber-intellectual. Why else insist everyone refer to him as "Doctor"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I think you both are correct. Dictor wanted to project a credible (intellectual) persona... but he only tolerated anti-intellectuals among his followers. Once anyone developed a sense of cognitive dissonance and said so out loud, he banished them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think his act was along the lines of Will Rogers or Mark Twain...act like a bumpkin while spewing "wisdom".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.