bibbly-o-tek

the Scritti Politti source

• Home
• Video
• Audio
• Gigography
• Archives
• About

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/c03/h03/mnt/55845/domains/bibbly-o-tek.com/html/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 405

1. T-Lo 11.28.06 / 1am

   thanks for sharing these clips! Wow…TBBB…
   makes me wish I was seeing him live again soon!
2. Peter M 11.30.06 / 1pm

   It’s a joke to say that YouTube “screws up copyright”, but that posting the stuff here on bibbly-o-tek instead would somehow make it all OK. All this video and audio is posted without the permission of the copyright owner, so it’s all morally dubious! Which isn’t to say we’re not grateful for you making the stuff available, but the fact is, it’s on a dodgy legal footing :)
3. Marco Raaphorst 11.30.06 / 3pm

   I agree what you’re saying, but it’s not exactly like that.

   The thing is: for a content creator YouTube is not good because you will loose copyright over your work. But the material available is great, so we would be screwing the fans if we wouldn’t publish it. But the main thing is: bibbly-o-tek doesn’t publish on YouTube.

   Please keep this in mind: these are 2 different things; the content versus the copyright.

   John receives some kind words from Green, so we feel ok for doing this. And let’s face it: Scritti was watching those video’s we’ve uploaded. I think that’s great and fun in general. We’re not making a buck, they are not loosing money.
4. Peter M 11.30.06 / 3pm

   I’m aware of all the issues. Content creators retain all the ownership rights for anything they upload to YouTube, although they obviously assign YouTube the rights to redistribute the video. YouTube is no worse than any other video site in this regard. “YouTube screws up copyright” isn’t an accurate statement in any way, shape or form.

   The question is whether someone filming a Scritti gig is actually a “content creator”! Video clips of Scritti, in whatever form, on whatever website, are essentially bootlegs. Some bands spend huge efforts to try and suppress bootlegs for a good reason: they have absolutely no control over a sound/video recording that is being distributed in their name. It’s great to see this stuff, but wherever it’s hosted, on bibbly-o-tek, or YouTube, or wherever, it’s a bootleg, and violates the rights of the songwriters and performers. Just because it’s on a (great) fansite such as this, rather than on YouTube, doesn’t suddenly make it “ok”.

   The only reason all this content is allowed to remain online is presumably because Green hasn’t made efforts to request its removal. Whether that’s because he doesn’t mind, or (as I’ve heard) because he refuses to look at anything Scritti-related on the internet and simply doesn’t know, is anyone’s guess. In the meantime, keep up the good work.

   Peter
5. Marco Raaphorst 11.30.06 / 4pm

   Take a look at Blip.tv and Revver for example. They will pay you for the traffic you’re generating, this is totally different from YouTube where they will use your content to make money and you will receive nothing. And they are making millions. That content will be shown on national TV as well and stuff: zero money for the creators. That can not be legally done through Blip and Revver. So: no, they are not all like YouTube. YouTube takes away your right to say ‘no, I don’t want my video being used for a Bush campaign’.

   And about the bootlegs: it would be different if we would be making money with those bootlegs and we’re not. Bootlegs normally are sold and sure I can see a band objecting, but this is a totally different situation here at bibbly. It all about sharing for those who weren’t there. Is making photo’s of gigs and putting them on Flickr illegal?

   So what’s the problem?
6. Peter M 11.30.06 / 5pm

   So you’re saying that it’s better for an individual using Blip or Revver to make money out of the traffic that’s generated towards videos of a band that they’ve filmed without permission, than for YouTube to make money out of it? No, both are wrong, obviously, because the band don’t earn royalties in either case!

   Marco, there’s no problem here, it’s great for all the Scritti resources to be collected together in one place. it just bugs me when people adopt a “holier than thou” approach to bootlegging. We fans may enjoy it, but that doesn’t make it right – and It’s not making money that’s the issue, it’s what I said before, it’s that the artist has no control over what’s presented in their name. It’s totally different to images on Flickr, where sound recordings are obviously not involved.

   I don’t want to get into a lengthy and confused argument about the nature of copyright, I was just taking issue with your initial point, that gig clips hosted by you are OK, and gig clips hosted by YouTube aren’t OK. That’s not the case – as far as the artist is concerned, they’re one and the same.
7. david 11.30.06 / 5pm

   Hmmm… Peter, you say these clips ‘bug you’ but are pleased to see them nonetheless. I presume all you are implying is that you would prefer we watch with your ambivalence rather than the ‘holier than thou’ presumption of Marco (excuse the convoluted metaphor), is that right? It kind of adds up to the same thing, no?
8. Peter M 11.30.06 / 5pm

   I didn’t say the clips bugged me, whenever they appear it’s a treat – because I’m a fan, after all. I said that what bugs me is the idea that some methods of bootlegging are right and others aren’t. I wasn’t trying to blow up a big argument, or diss the good people who run the site, I was just debating a small point. Apologies for any offence caused.
9. Marco Raaphorst 11.30.06 / 8pm

   @Peter: YouTube is making money by providing those video’s and we’re not making a buck with those videos. It is only meant for people like you to watch. They are not of excellent quality, but I think some of them are great. And they have probably helped Scritti and the whole promotion behind it. We’ve been quoted and linked by BBC, The Guardian and others.

   Sure, it is punk mentality… just do it, put it on and make them available. But if you’re comparing our way of sharing those videos with the way YouTube is doing it I do not agree.
10. nemorino 12.01.06 / 1am

    If I’ve understood Peter correctly, he’s simply highlighting a reality of life – that any copyright content or performance which is copied, distributed, made available to the public without the consent of the copyright or other rights owner is an infringement of those rights. In the case of these clips, whoever has filmed/recorded the band without consent has infringed (i) the rights of the composer of the songs and (ii) the rights of the performers in their performance.

    The rights are further infringed by distributing the illicit copies and making them available via the internet. In the UK there is a range of remedies available in the civil courts and also the criminal courts where the UK Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 has specifically created criminal offences in relation to unauthorised copying & distribution. The range of rights reserved exclusively for creators and performers has been harmonised across Europe via several directives implemented into national laws.

    So the legal argument is clear-cut: anything recorded, copied and distributed without authorisation is an infringing copy. Further, the law does not in this instance allow someone who has made a bootleg copy to claim copyright in their own film or sound recording as it would be tantamount allowing unjust enrichment for the bootlegger to be able to claim exercisable rights in their unauthorised recordings.

    The fact of making available clips for money or otherwise is immaterial to the strict legal position, and the absence of any enforcement of rights by those affected isn’t to be taken as a waiver of those rights.

    All this applies to the various sound recordings on the site as well (where record company copyright may also be infringed, in addition to the content (the musical work – i.e. the music – and any literary work (the lyrics)).

    In the UK, none of the uses we’ve looked at would be covered by a statutory defence – i.e. an exception to the exclusive rights granted to the creator or other owner of copyright or rights in performances (such as making a copy for research or private study).

    I agree with Peter’s analysis in this respect. As to the moral argument about whether there should be these enforceable rights – well, that’s another matter. Personally I’m all in favour of copyright for creators of original musical, literary, dramatic and artistic works.

    Which isn’t to say that it isn’t enjoyable seeing these things. But there’s little point in persuading ourselves that the current legal framework doesn’t exist – or that it doesn’t apply to activities we enjoy here on this fantastic site. As responsible citizens, we should debate these issues rationally and not retreat into quasi-metaphysical justifications (“the internet should be, must be free”) – this isn’t rigorous enough! Copyright laws don’t mean that you can’t do things: they just mean you need to ask permission first, as you would if you want to use anyone else’s property (copyright and rights in performances are considered, certainly in UK law as property rights).

    You couldn’t just use my flat, my guitar, my favourite shoes just because you felt like it. But I might let you if you asked nicely. Licensing is the solution. Some interesting challenges ahead in this area!

    Apologies for the lecture. It’s over now.

    Greetings to all and thanks to those concerned for a great site.

    PS I’ve been fascinated to see at so many gigs recently how no-one stops anyone taking pictures etc. as they did in the old days. Are these rights becoming unenforceable in practice as a result? Or could be venues be covered by a blanket licence? Discuss…..
11. Ernst 12.01.06 / 10am

    The copyright discussion in itself is interesting but not so relevant here. It’s obvious that almost all of the material on our site is Green’s or Scitti Politti’s intellectual property. The material will be displayed as long as he allows it. We have made it clear that if anyone thinks his rights are infringed by the displayed material, we will take it off. In fact, behind the curtains, there have be some discussions about some material. Given the fact that Scritti Politti and Rough Trade are aware of our website and have allowed it so far, I see no reason to debate this. Given the lack of official promotion we might contibuted to the promotion of the new Scritti Politti here and there. Marco himself is a musician and sound designer and is very very into copyright issues. I think he meant that YouTube in general is careless with copyrights compared to Blip or Revver. Not in this particular case, the copyright is, was and remains with Scritti Politti.
12. nemorino 12.01.06 / 11am

    Thanks, Ernst; an interesting point well argued – and I certainly take the point about how this site could well be seen as a far more effective promotional window for Scritti compared with the apparently indolent efforts made by the label to date – note Green’s comment about “the record company” in the Marc Riley radio clip! I’ve certainly pointed friends to this site as a fantastic resource for those who want to explore further in a setting which provides a great context, intelligent and adult comment and indeed the opportunity to experience Scritti’s music in more detail than can be given by 30-second clips on iTunes and the like. It’s inevitable the the label and the band would know about all this and to the extent that they’re not apparently taking steps to limit the amount of musical or performance content on the site, it seems reasonable to conclude that RT is happy with the exposure it provides – at no cost to themselves.

    The copyright policy of this site is very clear, and indeed none of the debate on the issue is intended to be critical per se. But if I’m honest, I have to point out that mp3 or video content available on site without the express or implied permissions of the composers, performers, sound recording owners etc. is an infringement under most European legal jurisdictions. If I make avalable a clip filmed by my partner at Shepherds Bush, I know that permission wasn’t obtained for the filming from the performers or Green as the writer. Under UK law, it is a breach of statutory duty AND a criminal offence knowingly to distribute or make available that unauthorised recording. And strictly, within my understanding, the same applies to the site for making it available to others.

    That’s the legal reality. Of course, tech developments mean that the provisions of the law do not expressly cover the reality of the tools available to all of us – and indeed which record companies etc. use themselves. Which is why there is so much unauthorised reproduction and distribution going on which is in many cases not challenged by the rights owners – i.e. it may suit their purposes not to, for perfectly good reason (the stories around the Arctic Monkeys/MySpace thing being one such example – amazing global promotion at zero cost apart from a few well-placed press releases to fan the interest in the phenomenon).

    So I’m not being critical here: I’m just very interested in the rights argument at a point where all the distribution models challenge the legal models so fundamentally – and I’m also interested in what rights owners and rights ‘consumers’ think will be the best way to go – and how the law will develop to embrace all this in a model which rewards and protects creators etc. fairly while allowing access without unduly encumbering people who want to view or listen to content with onerous charges or fees. Blanket or collective licensing may be one answer (though this will weaken the exclusive rights granted under European laws to creators and performers by removing their right to consent); standard transactional licensing may safeguard these rights but result in relatively punitive charges for individuals or websites with the effect that the amunt of content available online is reduced – whcih could ultimately harm a group/composer/record lable interest by limiting exposure.

    I’ll stop now. Perhaps it’s only me that finds this interesting in this amount of detail (and no, I’m not a lawyer either!).

    Regards to all.
13. Marco Raaphorst 12.01.06 / 12pm

    Maybe if we make all audio and video files only available as streams this will be just a little better than a download. Still collecting societies are demanding money for streams and it is a lot of work because you need to pay collecting societies and labels. I am not sure how to fund this and I personally would not like to do this, because it will be too much effort for me; money and time.

    If we make it a private site for only registered users, this might solve a few of those issues. I need to look into that, but on the other hand it would seriously damage all the links coming in from BBC, The Guardian etc.

    And think about this for a moment: what if we take down all the content, all audio, all photos and all the videos? What would be the impact of that on Scritti?
14. Ernst 12.01.06 / 12pm

    Marco, what’s the problem ? Your last remark worries me a bit.
15. Marco Raaphorst 12.01.06 / 12pm

    I will email you about it Ernst.
16. Ron 12.01.06 / 1pm

    I’ve been fascinated to see at so many gigs recently how no-one stops anyone taking pictures etc. as they did in the old days. Are these rights becoming unenforceable in practice as a result? Or could be venues be covered by a blanket licence? Discuss…..

    It’s simply because securty can’t really confiscate someone’s mobile phone at the door! Mine takes fantastic pix and decent YouTube-quality video…
17. Mike Nelson 12.01.06 / 7pm

    Er…Can I suggest that you guys have quite so thoroughly (exhaustively) clarified all the limitations and definitions regarding the Scritti music and video content on this site that Marco now sounds thoroughly harassed by the responsibility of what is presented here – not a great outcome. Ease up and consider that if there is a ‘crusade’ here it’s actually about supporting fans in doing fan-type things.

    Fact is, I’m sure, that this site has done a huge favour to all at the record label and in the band. Green has so far remained – very sensibly – uninvolved. Why would he want to comment anyway? If the site ever includes something that could be seen to replace real commercially-available product then this might become a serious issue. Just now, we’re just happy supporters of the band and the site.

    Personally, I’m much more bothered that around half the video content still won’t play on my laptop!! Is there any other way to access it?
18. Sam 12.04.06 / 2pm

    I think video/audio files being neatly contained in one supportive site, with a running commentary that can explain any technical issues, is less of a worry to a band than clips randomly posted all over the net. For this reason I agree that youtube probably isn’t the best place to be placing clips if we want to be allowed access to them for a long time.
19. joel 12.04.06 / 5pm

    Anyway some good news,WBBB confirmed as one albums of 2006 in Q and Boom Boom Bap as one of the “best tracks you may have missed”!!
20. russell 12.05.06 / 4pm

    This is a very interesting discussion, and intersects with a long piece i am in the middle of about changes in copyright law, largely pushed by the internet. the two fields to separate are author’s rights and copyright (as often ‘owned’ by corporations). I make films and videos, and occasionally ‘sample’ (i.e. quote or steal) other persons work. My working practice is to include any musician who actively contributes as ‘one of the team’ and credit their name. More well known citations I DO NOT credit, as i believe using (say) the opening bars of ‘All You Need Is Love’ to be sufficiently obviously The Beatles, and not an attempt on my behalf to claim authorship. I also do not believe in resting my work on the kudos of others (think of all the famnous songs used as filler in Hollywood films – which DO pay rights, of course), so such snippets are used sparingly, and often mashed or masked (as in a sampled record). i have been citing ‘obscure’ musics, as a reference source for people (and the artist) who might find some affinity.
    This may seem awfully personal, but i think it’s the other hand to the legal (or, strictly, paralegal) discussion. That is, Green and Rough Trade (level 1 and level 2) apparently do not object to a website like bibbly-o-tek… however, a lawyer somewhere MIGHT object… and the current copyright laws are more or less clear, and corporations are attempting to make them clearer.
    if you believe that culture must flow, then these two positions cannot but become antagonistic at some point in the future.
    there is a battle being set up – by legal departments of large corporations – but the internet is constructed to allow this exchange.
    I would say that as long as it is indeed an axchange, this is to be not merely encouraged, but fought for. I imagine that artists like Green would be up for this.
    It all gets clearer (morally, but not legally) once we take money out of the equation. After all, have Run DMC sued Green for his ‘lift’ of track titles in Boom Boom Bap? Wouldn’t that be silly?
    this site is a model of the correct way to do things, and Green cannot have lost any revenue from the exposure here. Sites like YouTube should be avoided, ad all artifacts end up in a bargain bin of low-res nonsense.
    It’s important to be aware of the various legal movements, but it’s even more important to realise that these are not random facts of nature, but alterable social contracts. Well, a new one is coming along, and i believe that the rearguard action of paralegals is doomed, but we/you are the footsoldiers who will break it down.

    Hmm, that sounds unnecessarily militaristic, but you know what I mean… all best
21. Peter 12.20.06 / 11am

    Hello,
    do u know if it’s possible to purchase gadgets of scritti politti (t-shirts, photos, …).
    TKS.
    Peter.
22. Amanda 01.24.07 / 3am

    Thanks for posting the videos. I missed Green(Scritti) when they were here in California (the San Fan show),so seeing these is WONDERFUL!

© 2006, bibbly-o-tek.com, powered by Hemingway flavored Wordpress.

Entries RSS Comments RSS