Is Stop the War losing it plot and it's SWP Ideology?
Ezzzammanan | 16.08.2006 17:11
Why an earth are SWP Stop the war getting involved with this? Someone on the demo asked some SWPer's; considering that Hizbullah is an anti-semitic organisation, how their support for it square with the Jewishness of SWP gurus Trotsky and Tony Cliff? The SWPer's looked miserably embarrassed and silently crawled away. Is the SWP is simply being taken over by Hizbullah supporters or haven't they got the bottle to say no.
One lovely chant on a demo went like this "Kill kill kill the socialists, kill kill kill the Jews". How Lovely the marriage is...
One lovely chant on a demo went like this "Kill kill kill the socialists, kill kill kill the Jews". How Lovely the marriage is...
Ezzzammanan
Comments
Hide the following 27 comments
Stop the War nicks a pic
16.08.2006 17:49
woof woof
think yr confused mate
16.08.2006 18:25
anti imperialism
Copyright Capitalism
16.08.2006 22:19
I also wonder why those criticising the Stop The War campaign are so hostile towards a demo calling for Isreal to stop invading Lebanon. Are these critics on the side of Bush and the Zionists?
Ray
More stop the war bullshit
17.08.2006 00:10
Stop the War Video:
Mike
must try better
17.08.2006 01:05
Larry O'Hara
e-mail:
contactnfb@tiscali.co.uk
Homepage:
http://www.borderland.co.uk
swp scum
17.08.2006 02:04
galloway should convert to islam and fuck off to pakistan and take the rest of them with him.
fuck the swp
Why stop the war?
17.08.2006 09:26
Lister
Internationalism
17.08.2006 10:24
1) Asking someone to acknowledge that you're using a photo they've taken probably does fit into the "capitalist ideology of protecting ideological property". However, it would probably also fit into the general principles that most societies (communist or otherwise) would base themselves around. Having the decency to acknowledge someone is called "not being a tw@t". Anyway, its not a crucial issue particularly...
2) Detailed debates on the wider Israel and Lebanon issue have been taking place on revleft and libcom and is clearly controversial. Anyway, the basic truth is not that "Israel is to blame". Neither those ruling in Israel nor in Lebanon have the interests of the working class at heart. A victory for Hezbollah or the IDF is not a victory for any type of anti-capitalist movement. Our role should not be to cheerlead for either ruling class but to continue arguing for a genuinely internationalist position. Sure, it's possible to say that Israel acted disproportionately, or that the original kidnappings were unwise given the situation in the Middle East. Ultimately, however, whichever side of the argument you take on this is not a position that gets to the cause of matters - the role of capitalism (which is a position I'd guess most on Indymedia would take as given). If capitalism is the problem, then how does taking the side of the "more oppressed capitalist" or the "oasis of democracy capitalist" solve the root causes rather than prop up the system?
3) I'd stress that this position does not entail a lack of concern for those suffering. It is a position that seeks to remove suffering to the working class by getting rid of capitalism. It also would probably cause less deaths that by repeatedly cheerleading or "offering solidarity" to whichever country is "more oppressed" so that they can get killed.
4) In addition, this is not an argument for Bush or Blair. Since when has "the left" bought into the crap black-or-white arguments that we are offered to ensure that we don't rock the boat? Since when has genuine internationalism been supporting the right-wing of capital?
5) You are right that "Israel has no right to exist". However, if you're in any way anti-capitalist, neither does Lebanon.
Question Mark
pic nicked?
17.08.2006 12:33
confused
Then things started getting silly. Someone from STW wrote:
17.08.2006 15:02
copyleft
plus
17.08.2006 15:21
(black and white)
and used here:
(black and white)
and not from here
(not a black and white image)
unless made it black and white? but why make it black and white?
copyleft
£100
17.08.2006 15:22
£100
Copyleft is not CopyBroken
17.08.2006 15:28
pic nicked?
17.08.2006 14:33
er would that be the same pic that appeared on a well-known copyleft publishing site?
[/quote]
Yes it's the image, by the same author. However just because somethings published on a copyleft site, doesn't mean it's copybroken (out of copyright / public domain).
All Marc want's is credit for what he does very well.
If I came on here and said I orginised a demo/protest/occupation someone else did people would (quite rightly) go mad at me. So why should Marc who is a freelance photojornalist not be allowed the credit he's due?
Is it because of the C word? if it is what do you think of the GNU copyright license
Scott
Homepage:
http://www.our-party.org.uk/Nucleus/
"preserved in modified versions."
17.08.2006 15:31
"Copyleft is a play on the word copyright and is the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on the distribution of copies and modified versions of a work for others. It requires the same freedom to be preserved in modified versions."
modified
Indymedia pictures
17.08.2006 15:52
If Stop the War had just emailed him they could have had it for free. Instead, they acted like a bunch of arrogant fools and decided that they had an automatic right to take anything on the web and then butcher for their needs. This shouldn't be too surprising to anyone used to working with the SWP who seem to have an attitude to most things that it's either a) theirs or b)imperialist or c)secterianly controlled by someone else.
Tom
ehm...
17.08.2006 16:56
take a look at any of the photos from the 05/08/06 march. hezbolah flags all over, with chants of "we are all Hizbollah!".
rasputin
reply to rasputin
17.08.2006 17:24
anti imperialist
Re: Copyleft is not CopyBroken
17.08.2006 20:39
All Marc want's is credit for what he does very well."
its not out of copyright but it is copyleft. that means people can use it however they like, as long as the product is also copyleft. marc doesnt just want credit, he wants £100 for the use of a copyleft image. respect to marc for making his work copyleft, but trying to charge for it when it gets used by an organization he doesnt like just stinks.
copyleft
Liar.
17.08.2006 20:46
One lovely chant on a demo went like this "Kill kill kill the socialists, kill kill kill the Jews". How Lovely the marriage is...
Of course you have the sound file to prove this. No of course, whenever you got your mouth from around Bush and Olmerts cock, you were too busy wanking over poictures of dead black babies to even notice the demo.
Why does the BNP support Israel, given their well-documented history of trying to exterminate anything Jewish?
P.S. You might have noticed that your new-found bosom-buddies lost the war. Is your master-race becoming diluted?
Fuck the Nazi's
Well...
18.08.2006 00:18
Wendy NUJ
Copy everything and redistribute free
18.08.2006 08:44
By the way my new What ever happened to Luther Blissett / Che fine ha fatto Luther Blissett DVD is out, by that I mean circulating freely, the only way of getting a copy is to er copy it ..
not many copies in the UK and not the sort of thing your average SWP twat will be up 4.
LB (is back)
Luther Blissett
SURE, BUT ISNT THE ACTUAL Q "WHY AINT THE LIBERALS" OUT TOO
18.08.2006 14:45
even if you look at it as "3 + 1"
PS - MUCH SENSE - AMIDST THE DIGRESSING - IN THE COMMENT STREAM + PIECES TITLED " IF THE SMALL PEACES AINT WORKING TRY BIGGER PEACES "
watch THAT space
net watchers
X LEGION
Re: X LEGION
18.08.2006 16:37
anon
copyleft.
19.08.2006 08:26
"STW now claim that they took the photo from www.indymedia.org.uk and that images posted there fall under the "copyleft" licence.
Even if true, this merely makes it worse for them. Three of the essential features of the "copyleft" licence are that:
* All works re-used under it must be credited;
* commercial use is not authorised; and
* a statement of the copyleft licence terms must be presented with the re-use, so that all these conditions are imposed on further re-users.
The last point is the entire point of copyleft."
wendy
more on copyleft
19.08.2006 09:05
The easiest way to understand what it means is to firstly understand how copyright came about and what it means.
COPYRIGHT
The concept of copyright was first introduced in Britain and brought in to force by the Statute Of Anne in 1710 (
Copyright laws can have subtle differences depending on the country and origin of the author, particularly concerning the duration in years that a work is copyrighted for. This can make the whole field of copyright confusing. However the basic rights granted to an author or creator are that they alone can:
* make and sell copies of the work
* import or export the work
* make derivative works
* publicly perform the work
* sell or assign these rights to others
There are some exceptions to the exclusive rights held by the author. In the United States this comes under the heading of Fair Use while in the UK there is a more restrictive right of Fair Dealing. What they both allow is the restricted use of parts of a work for criticism, review or educational purposes.
ANTI-COPYRIGHT
Anti-copyright is largely a political statement as it has no actual basis in law. It's not recognised as a legitimate way of distributing material. It does however allow the author or authors to exercise a moral right to denounce the concept of property accorded under the Berne Convention. Many anarchist works and publications use an anti-copyright notice in this way. A typical anti-copyright notice will say something along the lines of:
@nti-copyright. Please distribute this material freely.
What the above doesn't do is remove the creators rights under the Berne Convention. In law the work is still copyrighted and the author maintains the rights accorded by copyright law. A copyright waiver which addresses each of the exclusive rights such as the right of attribution, naming the original author or linking back to the article can be created but seldom is.
There's a lot of confusion concerning anti-copyright and its legality. For instance by waiving all rights is the author leaving their work open to corporate abuse, or to be twisted out of context by critics without the right of reply? Can someone else claim an unedited work as their own? The answer is no because their property rights are still intact. Although it would be morally difficult to exercise them having in theory already denounced them. An interesting dilemma which brings us to the concept of copyleft.
COPYLEFT
Copyleft originated in the Open Source movement where computer programmes are released to peers so they can be worked on and improved in a collaborative way. A well known example of copyleft in action is Linux, a free open source project which can be built upon as long as the terms of the original copyleft license are incorporated into any improvements or derivative works.
What copyleft does is to offer the original creator and the authors of any derivative works the opportunity to exercise some rights as opposed to all rights. Copyleft has now spread beyond the computing world to the creative community at large. Examples of copyleft licenses include the GNU General Public License - GPL (
This document is an example of how copyleft works in practice. This article and all news articles on yozzee.com are licensed using a creative commons copyleft license. In this case it is the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license (
* copy, distribute, display and perform the work
* make derivative works
However the following conditions apply:
* Attribution: you must give the original author credit
* Noncommercial: you may not use this work for commercial purposes
* Share Alike: if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.
Unlike a anti-copyright notice copyleft is recognised in law and is enforceable. However any of the conditions can be waived by the copylefter if you get permission. For example if someone wanted to use this article or part of it for an anarchist publication or website I would happily waive all the conditions. If however a mainstream or corporate body wanted to use any of it I would maintain all the conditions and ensure credit was given and that it was distributed using a copyleft license and for non profit use.
Now can you think of a good reason not to copyleft your work? It's free, it's easy to do, it maintains the integrity of your work by ensuring it remains free and for non profit use, and not least it directly challenges the existing copyright laws and their emphasis on private property rights.
yozzee | 23.07.2004 18:57
more on copyleft
“COPYLEFT or COPYRIGHT?”
21.08.2006 19:40
It’s a shame that a debate about Copyleft is mixed up with posts about the SWP and that some folks who have made comments that if said in a pub over a drink could end up in a right old mess! (Have you seen the size of me?) But being called a “wanker” on Indymedia is not such a big deal but come on guys!
Anyway…
On Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia) it says that “Copyleft relies on copyright law to undo the automatic prohibitions on copying and impose a perpetual, irrevocable, freedom to use the work."
My understanding is that it would work something like this:
>>>
You are free:
to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."
>>>
For more look at:
I could add a Copyleft license like the one above to all my images and people could then copy and use my work for free (as long as the conditions are followed) which as a socialist fits in with my views on life and getting good images of protests out to people and letting people use my work in a positive way would and is great. This is why I have posted some 20 images on Indymedia with links to more over the last six months and why I have let loads of sites and blogs use my images for free over that time!
This would work for me if only anti-capitalist, anti-war, socialist websites and non-profit blogs used the images under such a license.
But here is the problem I have with Copyleft.
Over the last year a well known fascist website has used many (31 last count) of my images. If I had used a Copyleft license for all of these images (like the one above) and if this fascist website had followed the conditions to the letter then I would be in a position of not only seeing my work on such a site (and not been able to do anything about it) but also seeing my name (the credit) on this site!
I have looked for a Copyleft license that would stop such groups from using my images but at the same time would let anti-capitalist, anti-war, socialist websites and non-profit blogs use my images.
I have not found one.
I ask all of you on here who have far more knowledge on Copyleft then me if you can come up with something that would work I would look at it and if it fits then I would go for it.
But until then I will do what I have always done which is to hold on to my Copyright and when asked let folks use my images on a case by case basis without a fee.
COPYRIGHT & COPYLEFT(ISH)
Marc
Homepage:
http://www.protestphoto.co.uk
My replies to those comments
31.08.2006 17:01
Sorry that I have not be able to reply to the number of comments added to my initial comment I made some time ago.
Please see link below
The first point that I would like to add. Is the continuing use of the term Zionism is an offensive degenerate term for Jewish people? I am not Jewish nor do I know any, but the way the term Zionism is spouted in Indymedia when you clearly mean the Jewish People is clearly done with spite. I sure some people here will come up with some form of historical evidence. If I were to use a similar claim on any other race or group I would rightly and my comments would be booted off this site.
Point 2, "I also wonder why those criticizing the Stop The War campaign are so hostile towards a demo calling for Israel to stop invading Lebanon. Are these critics on the side of Bush and the Zionists?"
I am also against random terrorist acts. What you expect realistically that Israelis to do? Sit back and watch what happen around them?
Point 3, "the original post seems a blatant anti-semitic/fascist propaganda intervention."
A cheap shot with no evidence to back your claim. See above comments point one. I am neither an anti-semitic, at which point I was complaining about and a fascist.
Point 4, "At least now both countries are democracies with free speech, freedom of the press and all the other freedoms we enjoy."
Depending on the political viewpoint you may have, democracies is a lie and only serve to the wishes of the well off.
Point 5, "Internationalism" by Question Mark, I agree with although I would question point 5 in the article but that is my own person view point and not an attack.
Point 6, "take a look at any of the photos from the 05/08/06 march. Hezbollah flags all over, with chants of "we are all Hezbollah!". Is were my original comment stem from since when were "We all Hezbollah?"
I am certainly not and I sure SWP aren't too. It is my frustration that these demos which are principle organize by the SWP are being highjack to suit anti-semitic ideology. If any organization were organizing a similar demo I too still be saying the very same points.
Point 7, "Yes, the chant we are all Hezbollah was used, but was everyone who used it in Hezbollah??? When the wtc was attacked it was a phrase we are all new yorkers, but are we all new yorkers?? obviously not, it is only a phrase used to express support for a group by showing our identification with them. In that sense, yes, we are all Hezbollah, as we are proud of the Hezbollah;s ability to fight the israeli 'defence' forces. Finally, no no fascism, no to zionism. Death to israel." Need I say any more?
This is a demo to stop a war not encourage it, if you need any evidence about anti-semitic ideology you need not need to look far. My other concern with I hope it is unfounded that SWP will do anything to recruit new members, even it it is the wrong type of member. Please say I am wrong.
Point 8, "Of course you have the sound file to prove this. No of course, whenever you got your mouth from around Bush and Olmerts cock, you were too busy wanking over pictures of dead black babies to even notice the demo. Why does the BNP support Israel, given their well-documented history of trying to exterminate anything Jewish? P.S. You might have noticed that your new-found bosom-buddies lost the war. Is your master-race becoming diluted".
I have to say that I shock by the level of filth that came out of his person mouth. You can not know me and there for isn't worth replying too other than you could just read point 7. Anti-semitic anyone?
Point 9, "Spot on mate. At last, somebody on Indymedia talking some sense!" Cheers mate.
Ezzzammanan