Talk:The Evolution Control Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

More recently, ECC ripped off hardly-establishment comedy site "The Onion" by lifting the text from a joke article entitled "HOLY SHIT Man Lands On Fucking Moon". While previous works have skewed more toward sampling from and taking apart media conglomerates, merely ripping off an internet comedy webpage rather than a giant corporate monopoly seems to hint at a dry well of creativity and originality.

Anyone think that the Robin Hood/Free Use act falls down when you start attacking small creators rather than giant media monopolies? Does the ECC welcome people ripping them off in the same manner?

I'd hardly call it ripping off since they do provide source credit in the album. And The Onion isn't quite as small as you would think. --Paul Soth 22:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, they're not as small as we think? They're not just a few guys working on their college newspaper anymore, so that makes it OK to rip them off then. Let's pat the ECC on the back. By the way, the folks at the Onion claim to have been unaware that the entire text of their Moon joke article had been lifted en masse for this 'song'. But hey, the ECC 'credited' them, so that makes it all better. For their next for-profit album, perhaps they should read an entire Steven King novel over some music. After all, won't it be 'OK' as long as they "Provide source credit"? --Taniwha
Copyright violation for the nation. And you know, that might not be a bad idea, even if it would be rather long. Why don't you talk to Mark at markg@evolution-control.com and share some ideas. --Paul Soth 07:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Share ideas with Mark? I'm sure the ECC doesn't need anyone to 'share' ideas with them. They're obviously perfectly capable of using other people's ideas already. By the way, I'd love if you could explain to me, why you feel that copyright violation is a pure good. Do you feel that there are any cases in which an artist should not resent having their work taken from them and used without their permission, without compensation? Is it just the teenage immature rebellion attitude behind stealing other people's work that makes it so 'naughty cool'?
I guess I don't see any non-hostile, non-immature, non-selfish reason to go and kipe someone else's work en masse. How about explaining it to me? For that matter, what exactly makes it OK to take from someone else's work? Is it the credit? Does credit override the need for permission? --Taniwha
I suggest looking into Bastard Pop and Culture jamming if you wish to know more. It's audio collage, take from it what you will. Be amused, be offended, just be anything, that's the point. By the way, The Onion is cool with them about "The Fucking Moon" track considering that they featured and interviewed the ECC in August 2002 (Volume 39 Number 32). --Paul Soth 07:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to know YOUR opinion on why it's OK to steal someone else's work for your own purposes, not read a link to an article. Rather than the 'audio collage' argument, what's the moral argument, from YOUR point of view? I'm glad to hear that the Onion is cool with the ECC copypasting their work; does that excuse copyright violation en masse? EDIT: I guess you need not bother. The article you linked to clearly explains what I had felt: "Critically, explain Heath and Potter, most of society's problems (and rules) are traceable to collective action problems, not traits inherent in cultures as most culture jammers believe, a mistake which leads them to attempt to disrupt the existing social order with very few results. It also allows people to wrongly claim a political element to their lifestyle preferences, or glorify criminality as a form of dissent."--Taniwha
What does this all have to do with wikipedia? Jdcooper 11:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I realize this is an old conversation and probably no one—the original participants or otherwise—is going to look at this, but I suggest "agreeable," "mature," and "selfless" instead of "non-hostile," "non-immature," and "non-selfish," respectively. Just saying. >_> <_< -Dan 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't disagree, your suggestions would not be less non-confusing. Aelffin 14:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


I agree that the ECC is guilty of being less-creative-than-usual in this instance. I haven't heard the track in question, however, upon finding the article referenced, I suspect that ECC used the fake 'transcription' of the moon-landing to re-create a fake audio-track of that transcription, complete with roger-beeps and modulated radio-voice effects. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but that would at least constitute a contribution. My main problem with the article, and I suspect the audio-track as well, is that it is very un-funny. Then again I think the Onion has been devoid of humor for many years. I also fail to see how this is at all relevent to wikipedia. Are the people bitching about the 'morality' of the ECC calling for removal of the ECC entry on those grounds, or are they suggesting that a paragraph on the ECC's supposed 'immorality' should be added to the ECC entry? I realize this is an old discussion and I won't get a reply, but I just wonder what the hell they were hoping to accomplish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.14.140 (talk) 08:53, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
My reading of this conversation is that User: Taniwha appears to have an issue with the WP:NPOV treatment of the band's copyright stance, and was looking for an on whom editor to vent this frustration. Aelffin 14:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gunderson

The article repeatedly refers to "Gunderson", without stating who he is or what he has to do with the group. It doesn't even list a first name. If anyone knows anything further about this, please fill it in. -Branddobbe 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It says "Mark Gunderson" in the very first sentence of the article which also identifies him as the founder of the group. --Paul Soth 09:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image threats

User:CBM has been making threats to delete the images used in this article despite my repeatedly pointing out that I have been given permission to use them (see email below). You can read the discussion on my user talk here and on his/her/its user talk here. I have asked him/her/it to clarify him/her/its opinion and to move the discussion to this page. Aelffin 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At 06:22 AM 8/27/2007, you wrote:


Hey Mark, some Wikipedia editors are getting pissy about image copyrights. Would you mind providing a quote I could put on the images I uploaded from your website? Something to the effect of “I’m Mark Gunderson and I approve this image.” Thanks!
 
Have fun at the burn! (jealous)
 
-Nathan

     Hi Nathan; you have the permission of myself (TradeMark Gunderson) and The Evolution Control Committee to use materials of all kinds (including images, audio, video, and text) in any way you see fit.  Such as Wikipedia.  Thanks!

- TradeMark G.
:.e.c.c.: 

--
ecc@evolution-control.com                 "It was twenty years ago today..."
or   ecc@pobox.com                             The Evolution Control Committee
http://evolution-control.com                      Established 1987

SKYPE: trademarkg ...     ICQ: 1353166 ...      AIM: TradeMarkECC
MYSPACE: www.myspace.com/theecc ...      YAHOO: evolution_controlled_creations
TRIBE:  http://people.tribe.net/trademarkg ...  GMail/GTalk: gunderson.mark@gmail.com

(comments copied from user talk pages)

I don't understand the copyright tags on this image. If it's public domain, we don't need special permission to use it. Can you clarify how you know the image is public domain? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. What don't you understand about the copyright tags? It's fair use as an album cover, but it has been released into the public domain by its creator. I ran it by him to be sure, and his reply was that all of the images on his website were public domain. The Evolution Control Committee is well known for advocating free use of all intellectual property. Is there some other way this information should be conveyed? Aelffin 01:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If the cover is released into the public domain, then it isn't fair use, it's free content. But I don't see a copyright statement on the website. Maybe I missed it? Do you have an email from the webmaster saying the images are public domain? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would think it would be both fair use and free content. If you feel that the free content tag is superfluous, feel free to remove the free content tag, leaving the fair use tag. If, on the other hand, you feel the fair use tag is NOT sufficient by itself, please explain why and I would be happy to supplement it with Mark Gunderson's express written permission. But before asking me to dig through my old emails and/or email Mark, I would point out that you did indeed miss the copyright statement featured very prominently on the Evolution Control Committee home page, which can be seen here: [1] So, you see this image is quite available for use, as is documented on at least three different grounds. Is there anything else I can do for you? Aelffin 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That image ("copyright violation for the nation") is hardly an explicit copyright statement for the site. If the image is free, there is no need for the fair use tags. At the moment, the image license tags there don't make sense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the use of the anti-copyright symbol in the band's copyright violation for the nation logo is an explicit copyright statement. Also, I see nothing in our articles on free use or public domain which explicitly precludes the possibility of an image being both. Is this some obscure wikipolicy, or are you just assuming the two categories are mutually exclusive? Aelffin 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Just putting that symbol on their website somewhere doesn't give a clear copyright statement - it looks to me like it's just a sign that they sympathize with that position.
Public domain and "free use" are the same. The issue is that the image has fair use tags on it. Fair use is a provision in copyright law that is only applicable when you don't already have permission to use the image. If the image is public domain, fair use is no longer relevant, so the image shouldn't have fair use or "non-free" tags if it is a free image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I meant to say that there is nothing in fair use that precludes the image from also being in the public domain. Remember that Wikipedia is an international resource and many different legal standards apply, so each rationale for use needs to be presented. As for the anticopyright logo, if you read up on the ECC and consider the context, you'll understand that--being displayed prominently at the very front of the website--this logo is clearly intended as a sort of statement of principle. Aelffin 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree the image is a statement of principle, but I don't see it as a clear copyright release for the info. Anyway, I'll write to the site and clarify the license directly with them. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Mark is at Burning Man right now, so please do not attempt to delete the image if he doesn't get back to you right away. Aelffin 17:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and followed up on that image permission issue, in case Mark hadn't gotten back to you yet. I hope the email below clarifies the situation to your satisfaction. Aelffin 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
At 06:22 AM 8/27/2007, you wrote:


Hey Mark, some Wikipedia editors are getting pissy about image copyrights. Would you mind providing a quote I could put on the images I uploaded from your website? Something to the effect of “I’m Mark Gunderson and I approve this image.” Thanks!
 
Have fun at the burn! (jealous)
 
-Nathan

     Hi Nathan; you have the permission of myself (TradeMark Gunderson) and The Evolution Control Committee to use materials of all kinds (including images, audio, video, and text) in any way you see fit.  Such as Wikipedia.  Thanks!

- TradeMark G.
:.e.c.c.: 

--
ecc@evolution-control.com                 "It was twenty years ago today..."
or   ecc@pobox.com                             The Evolution Control Committee
http://evolution-control.com                      Established 1987

SKYPE: trademarkg ...     ICQ: 1353166 ...      AIM: TradeMarkECC
MYSPACE: www.myspace.com/theecc ...      YAHOO: evolution_controlled_creations
TRIBE:  http://people.tribe.net/trademarkg ...  GMail/GTalk: gunderson.mark@gmail.com


Thanks for getting the email; it makes it easier to see what has actually been released. The email does not say that these images are public domain or released under a free license. It is only a grant for use by Wikipedia. We classify such images as nonfree because they cannot be used by others. What we need is either an explicit release of the images into public domain, or a release under a license we consider free, such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the words he used the first time I emailed him were "public domain" and I take "use in any way you see fit" to indicate exactly that. It doesn't matter though. This email is sufficient to ward off those editors who would prefer to erode Wikipedia's function by obstructing the use of images. Thanks for your time. Have fun with your image vandalism. Aelffin 04:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as I said, Wikipedia doesn't consider that sort of release to be a free license. I'll email him sometime to see if the pictures are under a free license. If they aren't, we won't be able to use those pictures on the discography. Lists of nonfree album covers aren't permitted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1) Where in Wikipolicy does it say that "Lists of nonfree album covers aren't permitted." 2) Where in Wikipolicy does it say that I cannot use images that I was given specific and explicit permission to use? Back up your policy claims or back off. Also, I would like to move this discussion to the Evolution Control Committee talk page. Aelffin 15:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
As to the fact the grants of permission must use a free license, see the top of Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission or the sentence "For purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted material lacking a free content license." in WP:NFCC. Removing images from lists of albums (discographies) is done per WP:NFCC#3, which requires minimal use of nonfree images.
In any case, I am going to email have sent an email to the ECC to see if they will explicitly release the images under public domain or a free license, which would resolve all of this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)