<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>blogTO Recent Comments: Crystal Castles' Creative Commons Controversy</title>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/feed/recentcomments/?9560</link>
<description>Comments recently made in this post on blogTO</description>
<copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:41:14 PST</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>Allah</title>
<description><![CDATA[
meow!!!!]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c377779</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c377779</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:18:09 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>jesus 1</title>
<description><![CDATA[
moody people 

crystal castles rock]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c377770</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c377770</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:17:11 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>DJ Mouk</title>
<description><![CDATA[
in capitalism everything makes money. Is CC playing the song at their concerts? do they DJ it? this is clearly where they make money with it. 
Imagine McDonalds using a CC track to promote their "myspace"? CC would probably go mad about it.

If you rip another musician off so badly, call him/her up, ask for permission, or make it a collaboration and split it 50/50.

this could be so easy if one has the respect for somebody else's art. 
And if not, well, then get a lawyer and sue CC. 

my personal feeling that CC doesn't create anything new by ripping off other musicians, and they don't want to share. 
They are clearly saying in many interviews they aren't influenced by anybody. They don't want to give back, they only take. That's why they will fail in the long run.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c289001</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c289001</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:39:41 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>stv</title>
<description><![CDATA[
@Name: "There are some who would say" means that this is the opinion held by some, and it is the opinion that some people have. If it were my opion, I would merely said "Creative Commons is a farce" and left it at that.

I produce my own tracks from time to time, and I know every sound I create is protected by copyright. 

Part of the reason CC came into being was to give more copyright control to smaller artists.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_problem_does_Creative_Commons_intend_to_solve.3F
"The downside of these exciting new developments and possibilities is that the new technologies can also be used to violate the rights of copyright owners as they are currently defined ... Our alternative is to provide creators and licensors with a simple way to say what freedoms they want their creative work to carry. This in turn makes it easy to share, or build upon creative work. It makes it possible for creators and licensors to reserve some rights while releasing others. This, at its core, is our mission. Copyright gives authors certain rights. We want to make it simpler for authors to exercise those rights in ways others can understand."]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c288449</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c288449</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:29:32 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Name</title>
<description><![CDATA[
"There are some who would say that Creative Commons is a farce - a means for bedroom producers who aren't likely to make any money in the first place to feel like they have some sort of copyright over their product"

What the fuck are you talking about?  EVERY bedroom artist automatically has a copyright over their product just by creating it.  It's called the Berne Convention.  Someone needs a clue.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c288419</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c288419</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:50:47 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blake</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Message from Andy from Crystal Castles' label, to someone at the 8bitforum =

"I?m not sure if I was clear in my message to you that songs with Lo-Bat samples were left off the CC album because we didn?t have the sample clearance. Many songs were left off the CD because we needed more time to clear the samples. We are hoping to have the songs on a future release (maybe a rarities/demos/remixes compilation) and would love to clear this with Lo-Bat. If you can get a contact for him through the 8bit forum that would be great and we can finally release these tracks."
]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c284575</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c284575</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 01:08:44 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>rek</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Was my comment deleted because it linked to Torontoist?]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c281042</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c281042</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 15:02:13 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>je deviens dj en 3 jours</title>
<description><![CDATA[
" The both sould like Zelda to me"

yeah that's the good comment]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280744</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280744</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 04:31:23 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>dubmood</title>
<description><![CDATA[
why give crystal castles more attention? this sounds like a cheap publicityhype to me. and why call them chip-pop at all. They aint making chip, they suck, they are ugly etc. sure I would punch them in the face if I saw them but untill then...]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280659</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280659</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 20:43:45 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>chenyip</title>
<description><![CDATA[
The both sould like Zelda to me]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280618</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280618</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 16:06:56 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>glomag</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Jimmy:
Marty is right, and it is worth underlining- this is NOT a case of Lo-bat sampling a video game. This is an ORIGINAL composition, made by Lo-bat, using a game console. This is an important point. Crystal Castles took more than just a sample of the Lo-bat track, they use most of the track which runs underneath their vocals, etc. They pitched it slightly to make it sound different or to put it in a key she can sing maybe. Honestly, it is more like a remix of Lo-bat than a new track.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280616</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280616</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 15:55:53 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Marty</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Jimmy:
The problem is that Lo-bat uses a software synthesizer to directly manipulate and use the actual gameboy as a synthesis workstation. search for LSDJ or nanoloop to find out more. 
Many chip artists have developed their own distinct signature sounds using these programs. Even using the same hardware and software, it can be very hard to duplicate another artist's sounds.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280599</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280599</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 14:39:36 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jimmy</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Are you kidding me? If you base your music on samples of 80s video games eventually they are going to sound the same. Lo-Bats tune is better - I usually like my music without someone screaming lyrics that can't even be understood. The two bands should battle for the rights with a game of Jumpman Jr - I'll charge up my Commodore 64.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280585</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280585</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 12:50:02 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Dafydd Hughes</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Ry Tron - It's true that the license Lo-bat uses doesn't include a share-alike section, but it's misleading to say that the Canadian CC license doesn't. The version of the CC license I see most often specifies that you _must_ redistribute derivative work under the same license. That wording exists - Lo-bat just didn't choose it. It's this kind of misunderstanding that can easily lead to this situation.

Any benefit of the doubt I may have been giving Crystal Castles sort of dissolves when I read about Trevor Brown. To me it looks like they just think they can get away with it.

It's really cool to see this getting so much attention - Creative Commons is such an amazing alternative to the record industry's approach, encouraging sharing, remixing and building on each other's work.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280575</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280575</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 11:43:57 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Cromag</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Whoever said that an artist automatically has a copyright on their work is right, but not universally. 

in the USA, an author has copyright, but has no commercial rights to their work unless they register that copright (that is "active copyright" vs. the universal "passive copyright" we have in canada and that is accepted as the standard across the world)

THe united states is going one further by trying to abolish active copyright, saying that you would not have copyright to ANYTHING you create automatically, but ONLY things you register.  Its like, double active copyright.  

The bill is called the "orphaned works bill" and you should watch this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc
]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280574</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280574</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 11:39:34 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bro</title>
<description><![CDATA[
See, the CC license Lo-bat used said that you could make derivative works if they were non commercial, and ANYTHING you released MUST BE released under the SAME CC license.  CC has not released insecticon, and bitter hearts (bitter hearts ALSO uses that lo-bat song, but goes beyond "sampling" and practically just plays the song and adds some drums from another artist, Covox's song Sunday).

Since Insecticon and Bitter Hearts were released under the name crystal castles (not descibed as remixes, which they are now pretending they are), and not credited to the originators of the work, and are being used commercially, that violates both CC license and copyright.  They are not selling recordings of the songs, but they are selling tickets to shows at which they perform them.  

It has been verified that they play insecticon and bitter hearts live.  

Many bands play covers and don't play royalties, but, they  don't hide that its a cover.  They don't play, for instance, Smells like Teen Spirit, and say "this is one of our new songs, its called Autobot".  That's stealing.


]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280573</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280573</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 11:36:28 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Steve</title>
<description><![CDATA[
from an April 2008 interview for Vice Magazine in France:

vice: You are tired and I don't want to bother you anymore, but what about this bullshit on the internet between you and this guy pretending that you "stole his art" to do t shirts with Madonna's fucked up face?

alice: This is really starting to bust our balls. The story is that this guy is not the real author of this illustration. We found this Madonna drawing on an old flyer for a punk gig. The artist re-drew it for us back when we were just a little band, and now that we have some sort of fame, he writes everywhere that we stole it. To tell the truth we always wanted to pay him but he is acting like he doesn't know, because of all the noise around this story which brings him more publicity. So we had some arguments and we banned him from our myspace page. 

ethan:  Moreover, we are not rancorous and if this asshole reads your mag, tell him his cheque awaits him.

vice: Message sent?

---

According to <a href="http://www.pileup.com/babyart/blog/?cat=14" target="_blank">artist Trevor Brown's blog</a> from 2 days ago, "i have received no compensation for their use of my art - the case remains unresolved - they have my address and bank information but are not paying me anything"]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280572</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280572</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 11:17:50 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Phil Ville</title>
<description><![CDATA[
It's the future of Crystal Castles that you should really be question, because they don't have one]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280571</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280571</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 11:17:40 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Steve</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Ry Tron: word count is more of a guideline than a rule at blogTO, but every publication has these measures in place to some degree to stop us from articulating ourselves.

blogTO is a local-focussed general interest site, and the 2,500 word hair-splitting treatise on copyright law you're looking for is likely to be found elsewhere (which is one reason I do things like include links to more detailed articles).]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280567</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280567</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 11:03:38 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jeremy</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Crystal Castles also got in a bit of a shuffle back in March when they used an illustrator's work on t-shirts without permission:

http://comics212.net/2008/04/13/long-story-short-band-steals-from-illustrator-doesnt-seem-to-care/]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280561</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/music/2008/05/crystal_castles_creative_commons_controversy/#c280561</guid>
<category>Toronto, Music</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 10:21:31 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>