Charlie Manson uses Creative Commons licenses

Psychopathic monster Charlie Manson has released a new album, "One Mind," under a Creative Commons license. I am not entirely delighted by this news. Link (Thanks, Mike!)

[#1 posted by jim.cowling, April 4, 2008 1:40 AM]

It'd be interesting if Manson was able to come here and give some feedback on this. However, he undoubtedly doesn't have any Net access.

Which means, of course, that Charlie don't surf.

[#2 posted by Skep, April 4, 2008 1:59 AM]

What? You don't like the tag line "Creative Commons, a license so good even a psychopathic murder knows its good?"

I wonder if he did so to evade a Son of Sam law that prevents profiting from crimes or some such?

[#3 posted by Dave Parker, April 4, 2008 3:04 AM]

It will be interesting to see if he is able to "give the stuff away".

I thought the title was going to be a quote from the boss of some big record label, trying to discredit Creative Commons.

[#4 posted by nanuq, April 4, 2008 3:41 AM]

Does it say something about popular culture that the album cover is less scary than some of the ones I've seen in record stores?

[#5 posted by error404, April 4, 2008 4:11 AM]

Let's look at the facts re Charles Manson?

Juvenile reform school rapist, thief, pimp and all round scum bag sure.

But he never killed ANYONE.

His little friends did the killing.

Sure he can be seen as a conspiritor before and after the fact but he isn't actually a murderer.

The US seems to have this total blind spot to this fact.

Manson will never be realesed despite having fulfilled any reasonable tarrif for the crime.

Much the same way Myra Hindley in the UK was a conspirator to murder but never actually killed anyone, yet would never have been released from prison if she'd lived to be a thousand.

Don't get me wrong, I am not keen for Chuck's release,nor particularly for the late Ms Hindley for that matter, but it does constitute the suspension of the law to appease the hysteria of the public.

[#6 posted by Hamish Grant, April 4, 2008 4:12 AM]

That's democracy!

[#7 posted by error404, April 4, 2008 4:24 AM]

I would suggest a quick refresher course n Democracy Hamish old boy.

it most certainly isn't "appease the mob", coz otherwise we'd have internment without trial.......hang on

[#8 posted by Clif Marsiglio, April 4, 2008 4:30 AM]

@5 --

Quite a few people believe he has killed, but the bodies were never recovered and thus harder to prove. All anecdotal so even harder...we might find evidence in the near future.

As for only being a conspirator? That is even worse than actually doing it...being able to convince others to kill for you is far far far worse than ever being able to kill someone...you can lock someone away and stop a murder from killing, there isn't a way to keep a charismatic leader from having his leader kill without actually putting him down. I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but it would be the only way to keep someone like him from hurting others. (Still not going to suggest it for someone like him regardless).

So no...he hasn't "fulfilled any reasonable tarrif for the crime" and never will.

[#9 posted by buddy66, April 4, 2008 4:49 AM]

Hitler didn't kill anyone either.

[#10 posted by ruth_dt, April 4, 2008 5:00 AM]

Come in #9, your time is up. This debate is now over according to Godwin's Law.

[#11 posted by mikelotus, April 4, 2008 5:57 AM]

Charlie really dug the White Album

[#12 posted by Lauris, April 4, 2008 6:07 AM]

I know that this might hurt Cory, based on all he's done to promote the CC for sane and good people. On the other hand, being insane does not negate your right to creative self expression. I'd rather see his album CC than part of any kind of actual profit making venture. Charlie has ironically given us permission to understand his depraved mind without in any way sponsoring his actions. I think that this is (possibly inadvertently) an excellent use of the CC license.

Of course I may change my mind if I listen to the whole album.

[#13 posted by Doomstalk, April 4, 2008 6:14 AM]

#10: That's a bit imprecise. Godwin's Law is primarily about wholly inappropriate comparisons to Hitler and/or the Nazis, thus lessening the impact when the comparison is actually appropriate. In this case, I'd argue that comparing one charismatic leader who ordered his followers to murder to another is appropriate.

[#14 posted by Abelard Lindsay, April 4, 2008 6:28 AM]

I don't see the problem. Charlie Manson also uses indoor plumbing. This makes me no less likely to utilize indoor plumbing myself.

A Good Thing is a Good Thing, even if Bad People use it.

[#15 posted by zikzak, April 4, 2008 7:19 AM]

@13: You know, there was another guy who "argued that a comparison was appropriate"...his name was Hitler, and he was comparing Jews to animals!

[#16 posted by DCer, April 4, 2008 7:36 AM]

Charles Manson isn't releasing any music. He is in maximum security prison with no access. Someone else is doing this. As it's written, this is incorrect.

[#17 posted by Dayv, April 4, 2008 8:03 AM]

#13: you're both wrong.

Godwin's Law is a statement on the inevitability of Hitler/Nazi comparisons.  It is descriptive, not prohibitive.

[#18 posted by error404, April 4, 2008 8:55 AM]

#8- Clif M

"Quite a few people believe he has killed."

Actually that is such a nothing statement as to almost not deserve answering.

Some people believe I can fly, some people believe the world sails through the ether on the back of elephants.

None of the above are admissable in law.

"being able to convince others to kill for you is far far far worse than ever being able to kill someone."

So that would cover every single leader of every single country?

What about every officer in every army?

Agaion your point is not pertinent to the law.

Oh it's the reason why he is still in jail, he scares the shit out of people, but that is not actually illegal.

On the one hand you say...

"I'm not a fan of the death penalty"

And then go on to say that...

"So no...he hasn't "fulfilled any reasonable tarrif for the crime" and never will."

So he shouldn't be killed by the state, but has been in prison for getting on for 40 years now but still that wouldn't satisfy you.

So which is it?
Respect the law and the sentencing of said law, or can the governent just throw away the key as and when it pleases?

The govt can not be above the law.

Interestingly Linda Kasabian did not participate in any of the murders either, she was however a co-conspirator, but was granted TOTAL immunity from prosecution if she turned states evidence.

So she walked on charges, that had they been brought,would have put her away for the same term as Manson.

See there is no law against being a charismatic manipulative swine, same as there's no law against being an easily manipulated sap.

[#19 posted by aelfscine, April 4, 2008 9:20 AM]

You know who's just like Nazi Germany?

Joseph Goebbels!!

*nods sagely*

[#20 posted by Bouncy Bouncy, April 4, 2008 9:53 AM]

He also breathes air, but I don't think that reflects badly on air.

[#21 posted by Clif Marsiglio, April 4, 2008 10:00 AM]

@404 --

Actually that is such a nothing statement as to almost not deserve answering.

Ok -- quite a few reputable persons that have studied the cases, as well as his followers (both renounced followers and those that still do and were around). He was never tried in a court of law, but we all know that is only for the sake of law much like OJ Simpson both did and did not kill his ex-wife as evidenced by California courts.

Better?

So that would cover every single leader of every single country?...What about every officer in every army?...Agaion your point is not pertinent to the law.

No, wars are considered legal. Officers telling their soldiers to kill can be a legal command. Both can also be illegal as well. Heads of state have been convicted of murder or worse for ordering persons to illegally kill. There are many US officers right now in prison for crimes in Iraq (though light punishment for taking lives).

Oh it's the reason why he is still in jail, he scares the shit out of people, but that is not actually illegal.

That is the real reason ANYONE is in jail...we don't put people in jail for rehabilitation here...the only reasons are punishment and because people are scared (and the punishment is only because it allows us the illusion of power over those that scare us).

On the one hand you say..."I'm not a fan of the death penalty"...And then go on to say that..."So no...he hasn't "fulfilled any reasonable tarrif for the crime" and never will."...So he shouldn't be killed by the state, but has been in prison for getting on for 40 years now but still that wouldn't satisfy you.

So which is it?

Ummm....I don't get what you mean? Just because I don't want someone put to death because of my moral reasoning, I shouldn't want someone to be able to walk free beside me?

I don't believe he should EVER be free...but that doesn't mean I want a bullet between his eyes.

For the record, I do not believe we as humans have the right to take a life. I believe we should lock some people up forever, just the same. And I believe for our own humanity, we should treat those we lock up with the utmost respect and comfort with the exception of ever allowing them to be free again.

Interestingly Linda Kasabian did not participate in any of the murders either, she was however a co-conspirator, but was granted TOTAL immunity from prosecution if she turned states evidence.

So she walked on charges, that had they been brought,would have put her away for the same term as Manson.

She should have been. That doesn't mean that Manson's guilt or need to be punished is any less. Hers was a lessor crime than Manson's and less likely to be repeated outside of his influence. And the US system of laws SUPPOSEDLY lets some guilty off to protect the innocent from being imprisoned (again, in theory)...her testimony was necessary to imprison Manson. Who would I rather see imprisoned if I had to pick? Not a hard choice.

More or less, you really don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.

[#22 posted by Sean Blueart, April 4, 2008 10:00 AM]

Does labeling Manson a " psychopathic monster, juvenile reform school rapist, thief, pimp, or all round scum bag" somehow avoid recognizing that he's first and foremost a human being?

Does labeling anyone "vermin, or swine" make it easier to exterminate them?

Is it easier to forget that they are human by applying a characterization?

[#23 posted by mindysan33, April 4, 2008 10:15 AM]

I'm sure someone will buy/download the thing, cause they think it's all cool to be into mass murderers... or mass murder conspirators, as the case maybe.

And this does not in any way negate creative commons awesomeness.

#9- Agreed about Hitler. He didn't kill anyone, but he is certainly responsible, or at least one of the most responsible parties.

#15- I think you actually invoked Godwin's law there... But I think you meant to....

#16- I think you could be right, but then there he is in Natural Born Killers... so I suppose it's possible. I kinda doubt it, though.

#19- roflmao!!! I think it is the *nods sagely* part that got me...

Mindy

[#24 posted by ME, April 4, 2008 10:41 AM]

So I went ahead and downloaded the album out of morbid curiousity. After forcing myself to listen to it for a few minutes, here's my short review--

An addled old man, long sequestered from society, with a pleasantly gravelly bass voice sings nonsense lyrics while strumming an out-of-tune guitar.

Regarding the CC license in this case, I think it's great. It allowed me to listen to this sad figure's musical ramblings without commercial involvement. This recording is more of interest to criminologists than musicologists.

But don't take my word for it, have a listen yourself. You'll find the effect pathetic more than anything else.

[#25 posted by buddy66, April 4, 2008 11:32 AM]

My psychologist friend K was Manson's "counselor" at Vacaville prison for a couple of years. I asked him whether Charlie was consciously evil or truly psychotic (we were debating the difference), and he sighed and said: "Charlie's crazier than a shithouse rat."

[#26 posted by takeshi, April 4, 2008 1:48 PM]

No doubt that Manson is criminally insane, but a monster? I can think of far worse. I try to reserve use of the word for those whose crimes are unmistakably ghoulish. Yes, Manson did kill people. He may not have been convicted for the murders, but it is widely believed that he was responsible for the death of Donald "Shorty" Shea and others.

Having said that, he's also quite a songwriter. "Eyes of a Dreamer" is a particularly good example of his guitar playing and singing abilities. Charlie allegedly ordered the Tate murders because the house that Roman Polanski and his pregnant wife were occupying was owned by producer Terry Melcher.

In fact, Melcher recorded two of Manson's songs with the Beach Boys, and had intended for a time to release Charlie's records and make a documentary about the Manson family. So, I think that, given a little guidance in his formative years, Manson might have gone on to great things. Compare to Hitler as necessary.

Another tragedy is the story of Bobby Beausoleil, the Manson family member convicted of killing music teacher Gary Hinman. As a substitution for Jimmy Page, Beausoleil created some interesting electronic music for one of Kenneth Anger's films, "Lucifer Rising," and has several other instrumental compositions to his credit.

[#27 posted by Chris L, April 4, 2008 1:55 PM]

I categorize this away in my my mind, right next to all of Hitler's paintings, and Kim Jong Il's musicals. Curious hobbies of dead or aging psychopaths.

[#28 posted by Sam, April 4, 2008 2:34 PM]

I'm listening to the album right now.

It's ... interesting. I don't know if I'd call it "good," but I would like to point out that many awesome musicians are completely batshit crazy.

[#29 posted by lamarlowe, April 4, 2008 2:52 PM]

#25: I'm sure shithouse rats everywhere are organizing to protest the comparison....and to reference #19, ...not to mention all the gas-house gerbils.

[#30 posted by frankiez, April 4, 2008 3:39 PM]

Charlie hurted (he never killed anyone) way less people than the last 50 years american presidents...

[#31 posted by Skep, April 4, 2008 5:33 PM]

#22 POSTED BY SEAN BLUEART , APRIL 4, 2008 10:00 AM
Does labeling Manson a " psychopathic monster, juvenile reform school rapist, thief, pimp, or all round scum bag" somehow avoid recognizing that he's first and foremost a human being?

Does labeling anyone "vermin, or swine" make it easier to exterminate them?

Is it easier to forget that they are human by applying a characterization?

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's ok to vilify people based on actual, proven villainous behavior--unless you are prepared to claim he is not of those things?

[#32 posted by Skep, April 4, 2008 5:35 PM]

errata--everything but the last paragraph is a blockquote.

[#33 posted by Red Zebra, April 5, 2008 4:26 AM]

Manson is a scapegoat for the psycho-sexual anxieties of the collective American psyche. And I'm referring to both Charles and Marilyn.

[#34 posted by Anonymous, August 8, 2009 8:34 PM]

to those knocking him (no I am not a fan of what he's done or what he stands for btw), the dude has two billboard top fifty hits, how many do you have?