Upsetting

losthorizon

Upsetting and sad and really shocked to see that the authorities are letting Gary Glitter earn money still from the Oasis Song Hello. Oasis actually sing though Hello Hello Its good to be back.

How Gary Glitter thinks one line from one of his songs could have been ripped off . I mean it could have have been coincidence. If I was the record company I would refuse to pay him and let Gary Glitter the child molester take court action - I really dont think he would win.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jul/29/gary-glitter-royalties-oasis-1m

charlietheminxx

If you are actually finding this upsetting, you must have very few genuine worries :P count yourself lucky!

rovoagho

What have "the authorities" to do with it? And what's "upsetting" about it exactly? As scummy as the man is, he's (currently) a private citizen running a business that happens to be based on royalties that Oasis have agreed to pay. You think "the authorities" should be able to confiscate the assets of free men and women just because they don't like them?

floggg

losthorizon wrote: »

Upsetting and sad and really shocked to see that the authorities are letting Gary Glitter earn money still from the Oasis Song Hello. Oasis actually sing though Hello Hello Its good to be back.

How Gary Glitter thinks one line from one of his songs could have been ripped off . I mean it could have have been coincidence. If I was the record company I would refuse to pay him and let Gary Glitter the child molester take court action - I really dont think he would win.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jul/29/gary-glitter-royalties-oasis-1m

You know it says right there in the article that he took them to courts and won already?

losthorizon

charlietheminxx wrote: »

If you are actually finding this upsetting, you must have very few genuine worries :P count yourself lucky!

Luckily I do have very few worries

floggg wrote: »

You know it says right there in the article that he took them to courts and won already?

Yes I did read the article. Most people I notice on here dont when commenting on things. You obviously did as well. But, when you look at the other matters being discussed on AH yes I do find it more disquieting than most of those. That someone who was found guilty of such vile crimes is able to have such an easy source of money you would actually think the courts would have transferred his earnings to victim support or something. That would be more worthwhile would it not?

dirtyden

losthorizon wrote: »

Luckily I do have very few worries



Yes I did read the article. Most people I notice on here dont when commenting on things. You obviously did as well. But, when you look at the other matters being discussed on AH yes I do find it more disquieting than most of those. That someone who was found guilty of such vile crimes is able to have such an easy source of money you would actually think the courts would have transferred his earnings to victim support or something. That would be more worthwhile would it not?

It would be nicer if his earnings were transferred to his victims, but that was beyond the scope of this court case. Maybe someone could take a civil case against him and justice might be done that way.

floggg

losthorizon wrote: »

Luckily I do have very few worries



Yes I did read the article. Most people I notice on here dont when commenting on things. You obviously did as well. But, when you look at the other matters being discussed on AH yes I do find it more disquieting than most of those. That someone who was found guilty of such vile crimes is able to have such an easy source of money you would actually think the courts would have transferred his earnings to victim support or something. That would be more worthwhile would it not?

If you read it, why did you choose to ignore what it said in your OP?

And you know it's not an "easy source of money." He's not getting it for free. He's getting it because of something he created.

He's clearly a filthy piece of **** but the criminal justice system does not just strip people of all property and rights because they are convicted of a crime, not matter how vile.

losthorizon

floggg wrote: »

If you read it, why did you choose to ignore what it said in your OP?

And you know it's not an "easy source of money." He's not getting it for free. He's getting it because of something he created.

He's clearly a filthy piece of **** but the criminal justice system does not just strip people of all property and rights because they are convicted of a crime, not matter how vile.

Er what did I ignore?

And as far as I'm aware it is in the power of the judicial system to impound money that may be used for improper activities.

floggg

losthorizon wrote: »

How Gary Glitter thinks one line from one of his songs could have been ripped off . I mean it could have have been coincidence. If I was the record company I would refuse to pay him and let Gary Glitter the child molester take court action - I really dont think he would win.

In addition to his royalties, in 1999 Gadd received an estimated £200,000 for copyright infringement after taking legal action against Oasis.

I think that's the bit you chose to ignore.

He already took the legal action. Not only did he think they ripped it off, the court did too.

And they courts can confiscate monies made from improper purposes. Not take money from somebody because they were convicted of something reprehensible.

You can't just take away property from somebody because you feel they might commit an offence down the line.

Innocent until you have actually committed a crime and all that.

longshanks

Roman Polanski drugged and raped a young girl, then fled the U.S. to avoid charges. Yet many A-list actors line up to work with him, speak of his amazing vision and talent, and his films are successful.
Despite his crime he is a very wealthy man.
There's no business like show business.

No Pants

Let's move away from Gary Glitter for a moment, OP: do you think that criminals should have all their assets confiscated?

losthorizon

No Pants wrote: »

Let's move away from Gary Glitter for a moment, OP: do you think that criminals should have all their assets confiscated?

It depends on the crime obviously.

People in Ireland who have been involved in dodgy financial dealings should not profit in any way from them and should have all that money taken away from them, any interest as well taken away, investments too and family houses as well. That would put an end to such practices. There are a few FF politicians and bankers living and dead walking around who have gained from such shady dealings.

A parking ticket - obviously not.

Would you agree with that?

Table Top Joe

losthorizon wrote: »

How Gary Glitter thinks one line from one of his songs could have been ripped off . I mean it could have have been coincidence.

Eh....this is Noel Gallagher, even if he didn't admit it(and he has) going by his track record its pretty obvious he isn't above a little bit of "borrowing", hes used the chorus for "All The Young Dudes" alone on more than one occasion


And as horrible as Glitter is he's a free man, he isn't any different to any other scum bag whos done time and is now free, he's perfectly free to make a living however he likes(within reason like)

Table Top Joe

Some more of Noels "coincidences"



http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiGtv7ayXcU

Menas

Table Top Joe wrote: »

As horrible as Glitter is he's a free man, he isn't any different to any other scum bag whos done time and is now free, he's perfectly free to make a living however he likes(within reason like)

Exactly. Ridiculous to deny someone a legitimate income after they have served their punishment....no matter how much you do not like them.

floggg

losthorizon wrote: »

It depends on the crime obviously.

People in Ireland who have been involved in dodgy financial dealings should not profit in any way from them and should have all that money taken away from them, any interest as well taken away, investments too and family houses as well. That would put an end to such practices. There are a few FF politicians and bankers living and dead walking around who have gained from such shady dealings.

A parking ticket - obviously not.

Would you agree with that?

Well you do know that the Glitter song was written long before and had absolutely nothing to do with his sex offences.

So there would be no question of Glitter profiting in any way from his crime.

Just profiting from something he produced of economic value.

Karl Stein

Those who destroy other peoples' lives should lose their right to property and the profits from it - all of it should be directed to survivors.

losthorizon

The burgler was caught robbing that house! He never robbed before. Dont be that naive.


Just a bit concerned that he would use the money to travel to do the same thing.

Menas

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Those who destroy other peoples' lives should lose their right to property and the profits from it - all of it should be directed to survivors.

And that would keep your murderer , for example, who has served his punishment confined to a life of poverty....and thus push him back to crime.
Society tries to punish and rehabilitate people before releasing them back in to society...

Sir Osis of Liver.

Notice how Gary Glitter is an anagram of girly target!

Karl Stein

Trigger Happy wrote: »

And that would keep your murderer , for example, who has served his punishment confined to a life of poverty

Sounds good to me.

Glitter used his wealth, fame, and position, to abuse minors. I don't give a shit if he has to live in squalor. I believe he shouldn't be able to profit from that which he leveraged to help sexually abuse and rape his victims.

....and thus push him back to crime.

Back to crime? Back to child rape? Poverty doesn't = child rape.

Society tries to punish and rehabilitate people before releasing them back in to society..

Afaia paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated - just monitored.

No Pants

losthorizon wrote: »

It depends on the crime obviously.

People in Ireland who have been involved in dodgy financial dealings should not profit in any way from them and should have all that money taken away from them, any interest as well taken away, investments too and family houses as well. That would put an end to such practices. There are a few FF politicians and bankers living and dead walking around who have gained from such shady dealings.

A parking ticket - obviously not.

Would you agree with that?

If someone generated income while being parked illegally, such as being at work, why shouldn't that be confiscated also?

floggg

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Sounds good to me.

Glitter used his wealth, fame, and position, to abuse minors. I don't give a shit if he has to live in squalor. I believe he shouldn't be able to profit from that which he leveraged to help sexually abuse and rape his victims.



Back to crime? Back to child rape? Poverty doesn't = child rape.



Afaia paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated - just monitored.

Lol. Yes, so lets take away all their assets.

And then of course once they decide that there is zero point in trying to earn a living if the State will just decide to take any assets they might have, I'm sure you'll be delighted to see the State supporting them via welfare payments.

and you know mosy child rapists manage to commit their heinous crimes just fine without a back catalouge of music and publishing rights.

I'm pretty sure he could have downloaded child porn on any ol cheap asus computer.

And I managed to get to Vietnam as a student, so I'm sure he could have managed it as a bricklayer.

Karl Stein

floggg wrote: »

And then of course once they decide that there is zero point in trying to earn a living if the State will just decide to take any assets they might have, I'm sure you'll be delighted to see the State supporting them via welfare payments.

I don't think you fully understand how the system is set up. Currently the state enforces property rights - it writes the god damn rules. What I'm saying is that rapists and murderers should not have their property rights upheld by the state.

Survivors should be able to go after them for every fucking penny. Their rights to property should not trump their victim's right to seize it for recompense.

See: The Catholic Church versus its victims and the Magdalene Laundries telling its former slaves to get ****ed.

Do you agree with the idea that the property rights of a child rapist should be subordinate to rights to recompense for his victims?

Simple question.

Annasopra

losthorizon wrote: »

Er what did I ignore?

And as far as I'm aware it is in the power of the judicial system to impound money that may be used for improper activities.

Is there some proof you have that Glitter is using his money improperly?

rovoagho

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Survivors should be able to go after them for every fucking penny. Their rights to property should not trump their victim's right to seize it for recompense.

As someone pointed out on page 1, they can.

/thread

the purple tin

Sir Osis of Liver. wrote: »

Notice how Gary Glitter is an anagram of girly target!

Also slang for rectum, Gary Glitter = ****ter.

No Pants

The Magdalene laundries were different in that they actually made profit from the labour of the inhabitants. Unless you can prove that Glitter was molesting a child when he wrote the song or that the song was only bought by people because of a crime that wouldn't become public knowledge for years yet, I don't see the connection.

Menas

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Do you agree with the idea that the property rights of a child rapist should be subordinate to rights to recompense for his victims?

Simple question.

You are mixing two things up.
Yes victims can take legal action to seek redress against the offender. There are mechanisms in place for that today
But denying the offender who has served his time the right to earn a legitimate living is a different, and stupid, concept

Hedge11

Someone should tell the Yanks to stop playing that Rock and Roll thing of his at their sporting events too.

losthorizon

Hedge11 wrote: »

Someone should tell the Yanks to stop playing that Rock and Roll thing of his at their sporting events too.

Why is it still played?

If you think thats bad. Have a look at what the spanish king got up to recently. This is besides hunting rare animals in Africa and some of his family taking holidays during the funerals of the train crash victims in Spain but this beats all.

Although the Moroccan Royalty needs a good kick up the ass as well. Featured on Euronews quite a bit recently.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/03/uk-morocco-spain-protest-idUKBRE97204T20130803

Capt'n Midnight

music copyright is scary

The Verve get NO royalties from Bitter Sweet Symphony , ( 100% to the Rolling stones )

Someone may have a link where someone got sued over three similar notes.


There is also this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2276621.stm

Musician Mike Batt had paid a six-figure sum to settle a bizarre dispute over who owns copyright to a silent musical work.

floggg

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I don't think you fully understand how the system is set up. Currently the state enforces property rights - it writes the god damn rules. What I'm saying is that rapists and murderers should not have their property rights upheld by the state.

Survivors should be able to go after them for every fucking penny. Their rights to property should not trump their victim's right to seize it for recompense.

See: The Catholic Church versus its victims and the Magdalene Laundries telling its former slaves to get ****ed.

Do you agree with the idea that the property rights of a child rapist should be subordinate to rights to recompense for his victims?

Simple question.

I think its you who doesn't understand how the system works. It already provides a victim of another's wrong doing with a mechanism to obtain compensation.

losthorizon

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

music copyright is scary

The Verve get NO royalties from Bitter Sweet Symphony , ( 100% to the Rolling stones )

Someone may have a link where someone got sued over three similar notes.


There is also this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2276621.stm

Madness!