Thoughts on Russell Brand? new book REVOLUTION

[randpaul2016]

Has a new book coming out titled REVOLUTION





I've been a fan of his for a while now, before he got involved into politics, back when he had his own show BrandX. Yall ever watch TREWS?


Its okay to like him right? lol Some flip out and hate him a lot. wtf?

[rpfocus]

I've been a fan of his for a while now, before he got involved into politics, back when he had his own show BrandX. Yall ever watch TREWS?


Its okay to like him right? lol Some flip out and hate him a lot. wtf?

I've watched some of the Trews videos. He's funny. I don't agree with all he says and he's probably far too left for this board, but I find him entertaining. Especially when he's blasting some of the idiocy on Faux News and MSNBC. Not much interested in the book though.

[Valli6]

Has a new book coming out titled REVOLUTION

WTF? He doesn't know this is Ron Paul's logo? What art director did he pay to put Ron Paul's logo on the cover of his book? (which also happens to have the same title as a book Ron Paul wrote.)

[Miss Annie]

He's a commie

[maybemaybenot]

He's a commie

He's also an idiot.

[navy-vet]

Commie idiot works.

[twomp]

He's also an idiot.

This troll doesn't think he's an idiot because he's a commie. He thinks Brand is an idiot because he said some not so nice things about poor, poor, mistreated and abused Israel who is a victim of everyone. Why does everyone have to pick on Israel? tears... sniff... sniff...

[TaftFan]

He's a lunatic and a commie. And I hope Ron (or whoever owns the logo) sues the pants off of him.

[vita3]

Guy is interesting to hear. He Should come to a Liberty event & meet our side, while hearing stories from mom & pop business folks, trying to make it happen.

[vita3]

Does sound like he was on cocaine w/ Letermann

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This troll doesn't think he's an idiot because he's a commie. He thinks Brand is an idiot because he said some not so nice things about poor, poor, mistreated and abused Israel who is a victim of everyone.

That's RPF user PRB for ya.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Sounds like he's another dumbass trying to co-opt our movement. Heard him on Alex Jones and wasn't impressed with his knowledge, to say the least.

[pcosmar]

He's also an idiot.

Coming from you,,, that is an endorsement.

[pcosmar]

He's a lunatic and a commie. And I hope Ron (or whoever owns the logo) sues the pants off of him.

Ron does not own the Logo. As I remember,, the logo and stencils were produced by Ernest Hancock of Freedom's Phoenix.
It was released copy-left. Free to use.

And Freedom's Phoenix has done several stories on Russell Brand. I'm sure they are aware.

[Bastiat's The Law]

A socialist calling for a revolution, how original.

[AlexAmore]

He's a lunatic and a commie. And I hope Ron (or whoever owns the logo) sues the pants off of him.

That would definitely be within the spirit of the logo. /sarcasm

The stencil and spray paint symbolizes rebellion and anarchy.

How can one own a logo? Through government violence. Notice how the only way to "rectify" this is through more government violence (suing his pants off).

[TruckinMike]

Ron does not own the Logo. As I remember,, the logo and stencils were produced by Ernest Hancock of Freedom's Phoenix.
It was released copy-left. Free to use.

And Freedom's Phoenix has done several stories on Russell Brand. I'm sure they are aware.

And if I recall correctly from a previous logo thread Hancock said it was created back in the sixties ....during the era of peace, love, long hair, and hippies. Don't quote me on that...lol.

[specsaregood]

And if I recall correctly from a previous logo thread Hancock said it was created back in the sixties ....during the era of peace, love, long hair, and hippies. Don't quote me on that...lol.

Yeah, I recall him saying he didn't come up with the logo originally, but he definitely modernized it and associated it with Dr. Paul. Ron Paul had nothing to do with its creation and he certainly doesn't own it.

This is the video that started it all:

Uploaded on Mar 21, 2007

[AuH20]

Russell Brand still hasn't figured out that socialism is a tool for the elites. Interesting fellow though...

[Deborah K]

And if I recall correctly from a previous logo thread Hancock said it was created back in the sixties ....during the era of peace, love, long hair, and hippies. Don't quote me on that...lol.

Ernie actually said he ripped it off from an internet ad.

This is my standard response,… the idea/logo belongs to everyone and to no one. I was very certain about what was gong to happen (long story why) and made the decision before the first sign was made to promote the concept without any restrictions (it’s a freedom thing).Ernie Hancock

http://scottnix.com/ron-paul-revolution-image/

Here's a blast from the past: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...evolution-logo

[Valli6]

I realize the "logo" is not owned or trademarked, and would not expect anyone to sue over it - but it is reasonably well-known, and recognizable as a graphic image associated with Ron Paul, and has been such for at least 7 years. A simple google search would've been enough to inform anyone who didn't know this.

So it's odd that Brand's publisher (Cornerstone in UK) would allow their art department to design a book cover using an already well known graphic, associated with another well-known person, who has already written a book titled "Revolution".

Nevermind that the word "Revolution" has been used with the backwards 3-V-O-L before. In this case, those letters are portrayed as having been stenciled - something unique to artwork created by Paul supporters in combination with the word "revolution" AND they've used the identical color scheme. Unless this book is an homage to Ron Paul, using this image was a crass and selfish move.

Ron Paul, an unapologetic capitalist, wrote a serious, informative book called Revolution to educate people about policies their government practices, and to bring people together for positive change - not to make money. And Russell Brand, anti-capitalist that he is, wrote a book called Revolution, centered on his own lightly-informed opinions, to make himself richer. The fact that he's copped a well-known graphic from someone else's movement in his pursuit of increased personal wealth, makes him look like a hypocrite. Apparently, he believes integrity doesn't matter unless you can be threatened with a lawsuit or government force.

As far as Russel Brand himself goes, he can be funny - or not - watch him if you enjoy him. I'm not too interested in'im myself.

[jllundqu]

He's a lunatic and a commie. And I hope Ron (or whoever owns the logo) sues the pants off of him.

LAWSUIT???

[maybemaybenot]

That would definitely be within the spirit of the logo. /sarcasm

The stencil and spray paint symbolizes rebellion and anarchy.

How can one own a logo? Through government violence. Notice how the only way to "rectify" this is through more government violence (suing his pants off).

But logos are creations. We allow ppl to claim private property, to claim sole possession over a piece of the Earth, a right of exclusiona against other human beings enforced by violence. We allow private property based on the idea that its true value is based on what human beings do with it, and nothing would be done with it if it didn't have someone privately benefiting from it. Well in the case of art/trademarks/copyrights, allowing ppl to use violence to claim what they created is perfectly justified, and best for encouraging the creation of them. They didn't take it from anyone, and if others could use it without permission, then ppl would stop creating it. Even huge brands like logos or super hero characters, if the state wasn't violently enforcing those copyrights, those creations wouldn't come into exist. Every great copyright/trademark is 1 success out of a million attempts, no one would attempt to create something if they couldn't get money out of it. Just like land would be treated like $#@! if it wasn't enforced through the state's violence (and they did invent private property, saying it can work without government doesn't change the fact that govt started the idea of private property).

Btw, patents are different, that's holding onto cures and technology, not pieces of art/entertainment/text. It would be the same issue/disagreement, but saying we should have copyrights/trademarks is not the same as saying we should have patents. 1. Inventions would still be created without patents, because large corporations would still get a huge benefit out of a headstart, and then just being 1/3 of the market eventually or w/e happens. Stories, logos, w/e would have zero meaning because they can be reproduced easily to the pt of defeating the whole pt of making money off of them, movies could truly go under because of the internet (a long time from now, its a cultural relic, like baseball). There would be literally no profit. 2. Saying ppl can't produce needed inventions is evil, saying ppl can't copy the BK logo or a book or anything else is harmless. The only thing that needs to be publicly available as far as text/information/trademarks are educational material which is all available on the internet legally and illegally, there's no harm in copyrights/trademarks.

Seriously, what's the harm in copyrights/trademarks? I respect if this is just out of principle, $#@! the state, but really the policy is fine. Its harmless.

[pcosmar]

And Russell Brand, anti-capitalist that he is, wrote a book called Revolution, centered on his own lightly-informed opinions, to make himself richer.

Do you listen to yourself? or were trying to be deliberately contrary.

If the man wants to profit,, he is not anti-capitalist.. He is a Capitalist.

And Ron does not own the logo,, never did.
The Campaign never owned it. It was the grassroots (a widely diverse bunch) that used it to promote Ron,, and the ideas of Liberty.

As far as Brand,, He lives in a highly socialist society. He is steeped in it. But what I have seen him oppose is Authoritarianism (Monarchy) and corporatism.
And corporatism is closer to socialism than it is capitalism.

[pcosmar]

Seriously, what's the harm in copyrights/trademarks?

They have their place.

and they are irrelevant in this case.
That particular Logo was released Copyleft,, or creative commons. Free to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

Copyleft (a play on the word copyright) is the practice of using copyright law to offer the right to distribute copies and modified versions of a work and requiring that the same rights be preserved in modified versions of the work. In other words, copyleft is a general method for making a creative work as freely available to be modified, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the creative work to be free as well.

[AlexAmore]

Seriously, what's the harm in copyrights/trademarks? I respect if this is just out of principle, $#@! the state, but really the policy is fine. Its harmless.

IP is actually a violation of private property. You're telling me I can't put a bunch of colors shaped like your logo on MY t-shirt and sell it? You're violating MY property rights. I'm not stealing anything. Theft can only occur in the realm of scarcity. There is no scarcity in concepts. As soon as an IP is granted, they automatically gain partial ownership over EVERYONE else's property because now they're restricting what other people can do with their property.

You also seem to be caught up in this notion that people are entitled to their ideas earning them money. First, I hate entitlement thinking. Second, you won't find this occurring in the realm of theoretical sciences and mathematics. You can come up with some genius scientific discovery and you can't claim IP on it for everyone who ends up using it. Yet we have plenty of theoretical scientists and mathematicians working diligently.

[maybemaybenot]

IP is actually a violation of private property. You're telling me I can't put a bunch of colors shaped like your logo on MY t-shirt and sell it? You're violating MY property rights. I'm not stealing anything. Theft can only occur in the realm of scarcity. There is no scarcity in concepts. As soon as an IP is granted, they automatically gain partial ownership over EVERYONE else's property because now they're restricting what other people can do with their property.

You also seem to be caught up in this notion that people are entitled to their ideas earning them money. First, I hate entitlement thinking. Second, you won't find this occurring in the realm of theoretical sciences and mathematics. You can come up with some genius scientific discovery and you can't claim IP on it for everyone who ends up using it. Yet we have plenty of theoretical scientists and mathematicians working diligently.

I specifically said patents were a separate issue, and explained why. The harm done by restricting the creations of cures and inventions is infinitely greater than the harm done from restricting unauthorized Spider-Man t-shirts (and I don't think this is some weird strawman argument, I really do think trademarks/copyrights don't get anymore harmful than that, make a case otherwise if you disagree). You make great pts that copyright laws restrict ppl's use of their property, like an entitlement program for the copyright owner. But this argument applies to ALL private property. Why is anyone entitled to private property over land, a violent, state-enforced right of exclusion against others? Because by giving one person (or multiple but specific owners) an entitlement to all profits on the land leads to taking better care of said land. There's no libertarian or moral justification for private property, its just the best system there is (and great for ensuring other individual rights, because without private property it would just mean total state control without any balance of power with the ppl).

Copyrights/trademarks are exactly like real estate and other private property and patents (but the harm of patents is huge, so patents are horrible), only with less harm. Claiming that no one can touch your grass is violating the inherent human rights of everyone else on the planet, but its the best system man has ever invented, collectivism (the default, natural state of the land) is just disastrous. Same goes for copyrights/trademarks, its a restriction that leads to efficiency and better outcomes. Telling someone they can't reproduce a fictional book is a restriction on ppl's right to use their property, and telling ppl they can't step foot in Disney World without paying first is ALSO a restriction on ppl's right to use their property, because no moral rule ever said anyone gets to own all that land, its just a violent, state-enforced right against others using it. If the state didn't beat ppl up for going into Disney World and "trespasing" onto the planet they were born on, then Disney World would lose its profits, thousands would lose their jobs, etc. Same goes for copyrights/trademarks, only the restriction is even more rational and harmless.

[AlexAmore]

I specifically said patents were a separate issue, and explained why. The harm done by restricting the creations of cures and inventions is infinitely greater than the harm done from restricting unauthorized Spider-Man t-shirts

I never mentioned patents once. I mentioned how there are massive groups of people making incredible discoveries without a patent system available to them. So why do we need any IP (force) at all?

(and I don't think this is some weird strawman argument, I really do think trademarks/copyrights don't get anymore harmful than that, make a case otherwise if you disagree).

I did and you seemed to have failed to grasp it.

You make great pts that copyright laws restrict ppl's use of their property, like an entitlement program for the copyright owner. But this argument applies to ALL private property. Why is anyone entitled to private property over land, a violent, state-enforced right of exclusion against others?

private property was around before governments existed. I can claim private property without needing a government at all. I simply need to make the claim that something is mine. Afterwards, I can choose how to defend that claim. I could defend that claim with a gun or I could use the government (which I'm against). I don't think you understand basic Libertarianism all that well tbh.

Because by giving one person (or multiple but specific owners) an entitlement to all profits on the land leads to taking better care of said land.

But there doesn't need to be a government giving out land deeds for that benefit to occur.

There's no libertarian or moral justification for private property, its just the best system there is (and great for ensuring other individual rights, because without private property it would just mean total state control without any balance of power with the ppl).

You're contradicting yourself. If the government is giving out land deeds, then there is total state control. There is no private property if you're paying property taxes or if you can only claim private property because the government recognizes it.

Claiming that no one can touch your grass is violating the inherent human rights of everyone else on the planet, but its the best system man has ever invented, collectivism (the default, natural state of the land) is just disastrous.

Collectivism implies that there are positive rights to land, but those rights don't actually exist. So you're wrong about it being the default, natural state of the land. Prove to me that positive rights exist. The core of your arguments are based on false premises.

Same goes for copyrights/trademarks, its a restriction that leads to efficiency and better outcomes. Telling someone they can't reproduce a fictional book is a restriction on ppl's right to use their property, and telling ppl they can't step foot in Disney World without paying first is ALSO a restriction on ppl's right to use their property, because no moral rule ever said anyone gets to own all that land

Again, you're implying that people have a rights and that one of those rights is to use any and all land. Show me where that is written into the fabric of the universe. You're making stuff up. People are not born with moral claims to anything.

its just a violent, state-enforced right against others using it. If the state didn't beat ppl up for going into Disney World and "trespasing" onto the planet they were born on, then Disney World would lose its profits, thousands would lose their jobs, etc. Same goes for copyrights/trademarks, only the restriction is even more rational and harmless.

I think Disney World has private security forces. Why should tax payer funding go to subsidizing a billion dollar operation such as Disney World? They can fund all their own security (and they do).

With Trademarks, I would rather let Pepsi and Coca Cola privately go after copycats for fraud. We don't need government subsidies for Pepsi to keep their business afloat. To lie to people about a drink being Coca Cola is fraud and IP is not necessary at all. Very few societies would allow fraud to go rampant. This can all be solved in a free society as the incentives are there and so force is not necessary.

[Valli6]

Do you listen to yourself? or were trying to be deliberately contrary.

If the man wants to profit,, he is not anti-capitalist.. He is a Capitalist.

And Ron does not own the logo,, never did.
The Campaign never owned it. It was the grassroots (a widely diverse bunch) that used it to promote Ron,, and the ideas of Liberty.

As far as Brand,, He lives in a highly socialist society. He is steeped in it. But what I have seen him oppose is Authoritarianism (Monarchy) and corporatism.
And corporatism is closer to socialism than it is capitalism.

My point was that if Brand badmouths capitalists while practicing capitalism = hypocrisy. I'm not a fan (nor do I hate him, just not that interested), so may have missed something, but from what I have seen/heard, he thinks socialism is the answer, and he's unable to distinguish between capitalism and corporatism. Bitching about authority is easy. Does he speak about any solutions that don't involve taking property/money from the "selfish" people, or forcing people to behave one way or another? Has he admitted that, despite the grand intentions, forced redistribution of money/property doesn't raise a class of people out of poverty?

I know that no on owns the logo and it developed spontaneously through supporters, but with that particular version of the graphic - the stenciled "E-V-O-L" in red, with the rest of the word "REVOLUTION" (the same word) in black capital letters - the association to Ron Paul already exists and is well known.

It's already the same word - couldn't the art director use a more disimilar typeface, and/or a differet color scheme, and omit the stencil effect - which only came about because Ron Paul's supporters couldn't pay printers to make all their signs, like everyone else did? From a graphic standpoint, the stencil sucessfully reinforces the fact that those wielding the image were truly grassroots. In contrast, what does the stenciled lettering represent on Brand's book cover? Nothing whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Why was it used, if it was not an intentional ripoff of the graphic Ron Paul supporters made famous? (okay, perhaps not in Britian, but google is everywhere.)

They didn't break a copy right law, it's not worth a lawsuit... but it's rather scummy just the same.

[specsaregood]

They didn't break a copy right law, it's not worth a lawsuit... but it's rather scummy just the same.

It certainly makes his book lame and makes him look like a johnny come lately with nothing new or real to offer.