|
Post by beacon on Sept 30, 2014 4:28:54 GMT -5
While I enjoy Beacon's blogs and agree on excellence, he also has that familiar PID quirk of needing to throw in an overegged pudding along with tight research. I note that in different blogs he 'thinks it's funny' that iamaphoney hasn't received a desist from Apple. Then later he 'thinks it's funny' that he (allegedly) DID get one, preventing the supposed ReveaAtion. Well you can try to have it both ways but don't be surprised when someone, in this case me, calls 'ARSE!' As I said elsewhere on the subject, iamaphoney is also trying to have it both ways. When he was in 'deep cover' and faceless, I could dig (as, let;s face it, we all did) that this was at the very least a delicious meal he'd cooked. The Revelation is then nothing more than the end of that and the beginning of the (Mike Yarwood style) 'And this is ME' phase which again is cool as he can take the credit in person and we all buy the album as a perfect desert to 'Winged Beetle' Unfortunately what he did and is still doing is mixing desert in with dinner and pretty soon not even the dog will have it even if it IS presented in a nice set of suitcases. Thank you for your comments, I am glad you enjoy my blog. Whilst I may well be an arse, I do feel I can have it both ways in this one instance. My intent in making the points about Iamaphoney and the 'cease and desists' was this. The main bulk of his work fails to attract any copyright issues from either Apple or EMI, thus fueling the insider claims, however, he claims that the 'Revelation' was stopped in its tracks by a 'cease and desist' order. The Revelation was never officially released, therefore, to have received one he would have had to of attempted to get advance permission from Apple / EMI / whoever. Now I am no legal expert, but, would something that is not in the public domain attract a 'cease and desist'? I don't know. Why would you even attempt to get permission? Surely you would just release, even if YouTube block it within hours. In my blog I have tried to investigate a tentative link between IAAP and Neil Aspinall's Standby Films, however, it is very tentative and I certainly wouldn't claim it to be proof. Since then IAAP, or Billy Martin, has latched onto this and updated their LinkedIn profile, cryptically, to seem to suggest my assertion is true. Likewise MikeNL also used the Standby Films motif in his Billy Martin interview. Now maybe Mike can add something to this, but it sets my bs sensors twitching. Maybe IAAP likes the tacit authentication my blog infers, but maybe my assertion is completely wrong? Maybe Standby Films was nothing but a tax-dodge for Aspinall. In Mike's Billy and Me interview Billy Martin certainly implies that there has been inside help. From Aspinall in obtaining footage, interviews, photographs, possibly finance and, if it is true, in obtaining Mal Evan's long lost manuscript, and now from McCartney himself. Again this sets the bs sensors off. The project seems to have gone from an outright Paul is Dead theme to, what is now, a claimed, musical collaboration with McCartney. However, if IAAP is an inside job, it seems to run counter-clockwise to the claims made on this forum by Apollo C Vermouth (rumoured, of course, to have been Aspinall) who repeatedly stated that everything points back to Pepper and that the answer to the riddle was a relatively simple one. Whatever Iamaphoney is, it is anything but simple. So why the seemingly differing viewpoints if both projects are Apple approved? Maybe Apollo C Vermouth was not Aspinall? - Lucy / Iameye / Iwill wanna help me out here? - Maybe Aspinall had nothing to do with IAAP? Maybe IAAP is nothing more than a means by McCartney to re-write Beatle history in his favour? Maybe it's a complex marketing scheme / scam? Maybe it is all part of our Tavistockian mind-control conditioning? My answer seems to have become quite long and winding, however, the one thing I am consistent with in all my work is that I don't have the answers, I merely seek them. Welcome aboard Delysid and I hope you can help us get to the bottom of all this but, I can have it both ways about the 'cease and desists'!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 6:36:54 GMT -5
"When he was in 'deep cover' and faceless, I could dig (as, let;s face it, we all did) that this was at the very least a delicious meal he'd cooked. The Revelation is then nothing more than the end of that and the beginning of the (Mike Yarwood style) 'And this is ME' phase which again is cool as he can take the credit in person and we all buy the album as a perfect desert to 'Winged Beetle'
Unfortunately what he did and is still doing is mixing desert in with dinner and pretty soon not even the dog will have it even if it IS presented in a nice set of suitcases."
lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 6:45:20 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 6:50:49 GMT -5
It is written: It is better to trust in Tetragrammaton than to put confidence in Princes. lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 7:03:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 7:06:55 GMT -5
Apologies, B if you thought I was saying that YOU were an 'arse'. I really wasn't. I was being exclamative rather than making a personal attack, I assure you! Otherwise, further to your welcome and thorough response, I understand your thinking path there but I would ask you to consider that it may be based upon a wishful construct, that 'IAAP is for real'. He isn't and by your own reasoning, without further 'evidence' you can establish this as long, so you do not attach to the wishful construct, by interrogating: If IAAP is or has been Apple MPL as he claims why would he/they need permission for RevelAtion when he/they DIDN'T need it for Winged? This has been dealt with by specious notions of 'authorisation' of 'Winged' and 'censorship' of RevelAtion, both of which notions can't pass credulity BECAUSE: Which YouTube items of any kind have ever attracted a downer from Apple/EMI or Apple/Universal? I do have an interest in legal things of this kind and as far as I can see the only examples of copyright claims have been upon items using extractions of the copy-protected Apple DVDs such as Anthology. That material includes their newly produced items including interviews, remastered audio and new transfers from archival material they have acquired from third parties (eg the original film companies who may or may not have been commissioned by NEMS or EMI or Apple back in the day) Restoring and adding to such material, and presenting it under the auspices of 'the official story from the horses' mouths' (the actual point of the Anthology project, remember) Apple have created new copyrights and held those EXCLUSIVELY in, for example, that Anthology DVD, not making it available under any other container such as a much-demanded DVD of '1', for example or to any external media producers. Apple released and have kept the price of that Anthology DVD set such a runaway bargain that nobody can seriously want to buy any competing product. It was conceived as the definitive word on The Beatles and they market and price it so that it's always there, a huge resource, at an unbeatable price, to 'see off' any competing histories. So any 'similar content' which is not their new production/transfer (eg. an old clip of 'Strawberry Fields' ripped from an officially-released out of print documentary such as 'Beatles Compleat', made under licence from EMI by MGM in this instance) is literally and legally 'none of our business' as far as Apple and its current licensees are concerned. They hold *some* rights in such material but not ALL rights and where that's the case they appear to leave well alone. McCartney's MPL is even more generous to YouTubers, taking precisely NO legal action against anything whatsoever even where clips are clearly sourced from their released products (most McCartney video at large appears to be from 'The McCartney Years') The suggestion, then that IAAP had received 'special treatment' suggesting 'authorisation' is what makes me shout 'ARSE!' about the "Rotten Apple" series and 'Winged Beatle'. Similarly, I'm shouting it when that (lack of) reasoning is inverted and he's supposedly being CENSORED by Apple in regard of a now mythical item that was gonna blow the lid off a 'conspiracy'. That 'conspiracy' was invented to an imminent deadline as a joke one morning, nearly 50 years ago by a burgeoning journalist who was and remains amazed that anybody could have taken it seriously. On that foundation, the Church of PID is built. Until relatively recently it was a fun house but, as I've suggested elsewhere as others occasionally do, there are those onboard PID who are covertly or otherwise working for a *different* conspiracy. THIS is worth interrogating IMO. (Come in Jan Irvin Larouche!) So you can have it both ways if you like, Beacon but it's STILL transparent BOLLOCKS both ways. All arguments for 'IAAP if for real' FAIL at every level. IMO, IAAP should have come clean when he showed his face. Instead he's still trying to hang onto his mystery school which is transparently is O fuckin V fuckin E fuckin R to anyone not engaged in the childish side of PID which is 'let's pretend'. It's a real shame because he's, frankly, the only operator EVER in PIDland who deserves attention. The rest is hobbyism gone batshit but ONLY where there's a Scientology-style cultish belief-system attached (the Plastic Clare Sun Kings School of Murdered JPM's 'sacred heart'). I really appreciate what YOU do and what others on here do to draw cultural threads across it all so long as I'm not expected to go 'MY GOD. IT'S ALL TRUE. THE BEATLES WERE INVENTED BY ALDOUS HUXLEY/THEODOR ADORNO/WILLIAM SARGEANT/BEELZEBUB HIMSELF (delete where applicable)' I have BEEN to Liverpool, mateys. it would be an idea for some others to get a passport so they too can visit the territory of their maps You're welcome PS- I don't seem to be getting on with the 'quote' function on this board. Hopefully I'll get the knack but apols meanwhile
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 30, 2014 7:29:34 GMT -5
Ok Delysid, we are in agreement, I think.
Question: Whatever the reality, or not, of the Revelation 'cease and desist', what is the legal situation regarding IAAP's use of reversed Beatle material? Would this not represent a copyright infringement?
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 7:51:42 GMT -5
Haha. I hadn't noticed you'd replied while I was wrangling with that quote function (Jesus!) Well that's one of the really interesting questions that I was hoping IAAP would play out big-style in public once he 'came clean' for the release of 'The Right Album'. There is no legal precedent for releasing a composition which is a performance forward of a published composition backwards and I would have thought that the chance of legal action would have been minimal while potentially attracting all kinds of publicity and attention from Apple and MPL and the media. I'd certainly love to be at any such court case, wouldn't you?
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 7:55:35 GMT -5
A quick legal opinion? It would *theoretically* remain the same composition or a derivative work BUT the new words and melodies outputting from his innovation of process would be in "all new ballgame" territory because they clearly could not straighforwardly be claimed to be the same melodies or words. If he had released without revealing the innovation of his process, there would have been little chance of identification in most examples. Therefore, I can see no reason why he couldn't attempt to claim a new copyright. In fact, a new copyright would have gone unnoticed but for the context of his ruse. It would drive lawyers NUTS to work that out but I'd say that the chances of him losing would be pretty small.
The major thing in his favour would be that he hasn't 'COPIED' anything in any conventional sense!
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 30, 2014 7:59:21 GMT -5
Thanks Delysid, yes it would drive lawyers nuts.
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 8:05:12 GMT -5
Thanks Delysid, yes it would drive lawyers nuts. Well, they'd love it because it would drive them nuts while enhancing their bank balance! But I'd love to see the face of the judge the first time the IAAP tracks were played backwards in court!`
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 30, 2014 8:20:09 GMT -5
I think it is an interesting question. I have no legal background but my thought would be that if IAAP uses a reversed Beatle recording that would constitute a copyright infringment, but if he used his own 'cover' version and reversed that he may be able circumnavigate any copyright issues.
I can't believe that McCartney would allow anyone to make money from the back of Beatles recordings other than himself. Getting away with things on YouTube is one thing but publishing, and making money from, materials via iTunes is another. i wonder if there is a way to find out about royalty payments from iTunes?
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 8:28:51 GMT -5
Only IAAP could do that. But there's no way he filed those directly with Apple. That's not possible these days. One uses an aggregator such as Tunecore to place items in the Apple Store and they receive then receive royalties and pass on the statements. When submitting them, IAAP would have simply asserted copyright and indemnified both the aggregator and Apple in respect of any claims against this (standard contract), which, as we're saying, is by no means something he isn't entitled to do. Which brings us back out of the loop. I was looking forward to major journalists finding out about this project but can now see that IAAP is afraid that if they do, he'd be facing a writ. I'm not sure that would actually happen but I can't blame him for not taking the chance. I have thought of making direct contact with IAAP a few times to advance a media plan, I must admit. I think I could actually take this to the mainstream without lawyers but that's easy for me to say as I would have zero personal risk. On the Macca profit front, I think you're mischaracterising the guy, dead or not. He's got a long record of being generous on all fronts and has gone on record at length supporting the validity of what the samplists do, who have taken from The Beatles and his own stuff. And not just sonically. Miles has noted that Macca was mystified when Zappa complained that 'We're Only In It For The Money' was taken as an offence by him whenever it's actually establishable that McCartney ON REQUEST BY ZAPPA made sure that no action was to be taken on the Mothers' satire of the Sgt Pepper cover (and nobody else subsequently doing the same has ever had a problem) His best quote on the subject is 'I've always said that I don't have a problem with bootlegs . Then my lawyers call to say 'Oh yes you do'
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 8:33:33 GMT -5
Another thing to say clearly is that I'm a big fan of what IAAP had achieved right up to the "Billy and Me' video, although the suitcases and Mal Evans stuff I'm just catching up on caused an equal 'OH NO. WHAT IS HE DOING??' although 'the treasure hunt' aspect is great! Of course the answer is 'promoting The Right Album' whose production, taken together with all costs of the 'advance promo' of 'Rotten' and 'Winged' is a sizable investment to recoup although it's not, as you seem to have imagined, hundreds of thousands which would suggest the need for major funding, leading to a theory of official backing. The real cost of the whole thing has been his time which he has given a lot of life to, provided the results for free, really, and I'd like to see him rewarded for it in whatever way he needs. Regardless, he remains a bona fide LEGEND!!
|
|
iameye
Electric Arguments
Posts: 1,119
|
Post by iameye on Sept 30, 2014 8:50:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 30, 2014 8:52:17 GMT -5
I have thought of making direct contact with IAAP a few times to advance a media plan, I must admit. I think I could actually take this to the mainstream without lawyers but that's easy for me to say as I would have zero personal risk. Well Iamaphoney / Billy Martin is actually Martin Heurlin who still has a day job; My name is Martin Heurlin and I plan on TV productions company Group. I stand for casting a Car program on national geographic. I am looking for one person who knows someone who has an old car (pre-1985) standing in the garage that can not run. Maybe because he can not afford or just abandoned. We make a TV program for national geographic will help the person to have made the car running. Here are some examples of programs: natgeotv.com/uk/car-sos/videos It is important that the person who has the car does not know anything about it then it must be a surprise, but you can look at the examples I sent to you. It is also very important to both the nominator and nominee speaks a little English. Best regards, Martin Heurlin Write to: EMAIL: mh@koncern.dkSo, he may well appreciate the money and assistance. Seriously though you could try iamaphoney@gmail.com or speaking to MikeNL, otherwise, in my experience, you wait for the man to come to you.
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 9:01:03 GMT -5
Hey nice info. I think it would definitely be worth drinking it over. I will make sure you're in the loop if anything occurs!
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 9:07:59 GMT -5
I take it Beacon that 'Let's Pretend' games notwithstanding, that it's now firmly established that MH is the "culprit"? I'd just hope he's a bit more relaxed about that being known now as I wouldn't want to be suspected of 'being on his tail', if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Sept 30, 2014 9:26:43 GMT -5
I take it Beacon that 'Let's Pretend' games notwithstanding, that it's now firmly established that MH is the "culprit"? I'd just hope he's a bit more relaxed about that being known now as I wouldn't want to be suspected of 'being on his tail', if you know what I mean. That is my sincerely held belief and all my research backs that up, though, I cannot confirm it categorically. Mike NL denies it is MH, and to be fair he would know better than I, but I think he doth protest too much.
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 9:56:09 GMT -5
I'm not really a detailed follower of the events, just the content which I reload from at intervals. But thanks for this massive update. I need to digest it but yeah I think I'll send a couple of emails soon. PM me if you think I need to know more. (or less)
|
|
|
Post by linus on Sept 30, 2014 14:43:17 GMT -5
Last time I checked, RA 20 had been removed by Apple for use of copyrighted materials.
Which is ironic because it was mostly comprised of clips from Revolution #9, which is mostly sampled material.
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Sept 30, 2014 17:52:30 GMT -5
I do remember when that happened. It was quite a shock to the system at the time because it did introduce the 'real world' to the IAAP continuum and I think the varied interpretations of the action really kicked things off. I'm not sure I ever saw it although I know some people had already grabbed it. That it attracted legal attention remains curious.
|
|
|
Post by roscoe on Oct 2, 2014 1:25:08 GMT -5
I had no idea whether Crowley had any children who had survived, so I was reading through his Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley , and I marvelled at all the references to Beatle material. It wasn't labelled as such, of course, but there it was, right before my eyes! Yeh Barbara Bush Nee Pierce. The mother of George W Bush. Shown here extreme Left alongside Dubya's daughter Jenna receiving cosy bedtime stories. Look what's on Poppy's lap. Dubya would have been 3 years old. Hmmm!!!! Bedtime stories well learned from Poppy. Jenna Bush making the Mano Cornuto.
|
|
|
Post by delysid on Oct 2, 2014 20:31:08 GMT -5
Would hate to be taken for a Bush apologist but the idea that he (or Poppy above) are saluting Satan with that sign has been thoroughly debunked as that particular use alludes to some Texan cattle-ranchin'.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Oct 2, 2014 21:30:03 GMT -5
Would hate to be taken for a Bush apologist but the idea that he (or Poppy above) are saluting Satan with that sign has been thoroughly debunked as that particular use alludes to some Texan cattle-ranchin'. The ironic thing about Satanism is hardly anyone ( I asked a bunch of people and no one had a good answer) knows what it is (including Satanists!). It turns out all it means is worshiping God as a man! As Crowley said, "there is no God but man". Again ironically most major religions worship God as a man. So when Islam, Christianity, Judism talk about "Satanism" they are really the pot calling the kettle black!
|
|