Slashdot Mirror

I'm a regular reader of slashdot, but I actually stumbled upon this story via news.google.com when I was searching for news about Chumbawamba's new record ("A Singsong and a Scrap", which is to be released on early October in mainland Europe, not sure whether they've found a UK or US publisher for it yet).

It's also funny a funny coincidence that a company like that would use as an example a band which has put out a remix of their single which is a commentary on the whole filesharing debate (Pass It Along (mp3 mix) which is by the way available on the download section of their site).

I'm a regular reader of slashdot, but I actually stumbled upon this story via news.google.com when I was searching for news about Chumbawamba's new record ("A Singsong and a Scrap", which is to be released on early October in mainland Europe, not sure whether they've found a UK or US publisher for it yet).

It's also funny a funny coincidence that a company like that would use as an example a band which has put out a remix of their single which is a commentary on the whole filesharing debate (Pass It Along (mp3 mix) which is by the way available on the download section of their site).

Some fine choices, sir!

Chumbawamba make a huge collection of back catalogue stuff and oddities available for free download. If you liked Tumbthumping you probably won't find much of interest ;-) Likewise, mainstream politicos may be offended by what's on offer here. <voice type="outraged">these guys are like... anarchists!</voice>

His discussion of the legal risks of decrypting these blacklists is fascinating too, and (as he likes to say) "a topic in itself." He would like to open up the source to his SmartFilter-decryption tool but feels the legal risk is too high. How sad is that?

Here's Secure Computing's definition of the "extreme" category, and the examples they give ("Pixman's Vault of Porn Pix", "Bizarre & Maximum Perversion").

You can confirm Seth's findings using Secure Computing's own SmartFilterWhere.
It asks for your name and phone number; you have my permission to make some up. As of December 7, at 9:45 PM EST, that CGI operates with a Control List updated on December 5 and confirms all of Seth's results that I tried. By the time you read this, they may have quickly fixed all the errors he published, loaded in an up-to-the-minute Control List, and proudly announced that their software is now perfect.

Btw, Chumbawumba seems to understand the power of the internet. Though they don't 100% fit my vision of what a web-based band should do, they are much much closer. Here's their site:

http://www.chumba.com

Not only do they seem to understand that the internet is a powerful tool for selling their music, but they also provide some songs to download for free. I highly recommend reading their FAQ because they talk about their views on file trading and how the corps try to soak up more money than they deserve.

Be cautioned, though, they are basically an anti-corporate band. Although I'd highly recommend you read about what they're about instead of taking my overly-processed view of who they are. :)

As for oi bands wanting to stomp the shit out of Chumbawamba, try Oi Polloi. Crass wouldn't stomp the shit out of anybody, and they're even less likely to reunite, whatever the reason.

As for oi bands wanting to stomp the shit out of Chumbawamba, try Oi Polloi. Crass wouldn't stomp the shit out of anybody, and they're even less likely to reunite, whatever the reason.

As for oi bands wanting to stomp the shit out of Chumbawamba, try Oi Polloi. Crass wouldn't stomp the shit out of anybody, and they're even less likely to reunite, whatever the reason.

As for oi bands wanting to stomp the shit out of Chumbawamba, try Oi Polloi. Crass wouldn't stomp the shit out of anybody, and they're even less likely to reunite, whatever the reason.

As for oi bands wanting to stomp the shit out of Chumbawamba, try Oi Polloi. Crass wouldn't stomp the shit out of anybody, and they're even less likely to reunite, whatever the reason.

Napster [...] has merely solidifed the opposition of a lot of artists to making their music available online.

You can argue that having stuff available on Napster is likely to encourage people to go out and buy the CD, but this is a fallacious argument

theft is still theft

The FSF rep wasn't able to respond to this, but from my point of view, SDMI's ability to make a limited number of digital fulfills the "free speech" needs of the FSF, which was their main concern.

Where's the value that Napster will provide to subscription-paying users, beyond what they will be able to get through other, illicit channels like Gnutella, IRC, and other free media?

Um, how about legitimacy?

AND YOU'RE SUPPORTING THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING YOU YOUR FAVORITE MUSIC.

Or, you could be one of the billions of thieves out there that steals music through "illicit channels", and was responsible for mp3's bad reputation to begin with.

I'm not a current Napster user, nor have I ever touched it.

Almost all of the excuse-robots on Napster are justifying their theft by claiming that "CDs are too expensive!"

Well folks, this is a solution to that problem. If you still need to complain, and $5 is too much for you to spend...stick with your FM radio.

Sure ... it's hard to avoid doing that, tho, as I'm not well versed enough in anarchist thought to have an image of an anarchist society to apply them to. :)

Understandable. I'd say the best example of anarchist communities within our society are a) anarchist squats, b) camping trips, or c) open source software. Now, the problem is that all of these and more may capture the basic essence of anarchism, but they still keep with them the baggage of our society (drug use, anti-social behaviour, etc). But they come a lot closer than, say, the military. :)

(1) this assumes that I know enough of the people around me that this social understanding would actually have force. In *contemporary* society, that often isn't true --- I don't, for example, know my neighbors, nor have particular interest in knowing them; I don't see that changing in the near future.

A *huge* problem with society as it is: People just don't care about their neighbors. Honestly, I don't blame them. I'm currently living in a bourgois suburb of Chicago that I absolutely loathe. I have no reason to talk to my neighbors, nor would I want to.

A big part of anarchist organizing nowadays is not attempting to forcibly smash the state, but instead creating social groups (such as Anarchist Soccer with the hopes of getting people the hell out of their houses and into groups where people can talk.

Chumbawumba (yeah, their music sucks, but they're pretty cool anarchists, and they write well) wrote a great essay about how, the more society becomes privatized, and the more people are separated from eachother, the easier it is to control people. That's why churches are outlawed in a lot of South American dictatorships, not because of a hatred of religion, but because when people gather together, they start spreading ideas. Which is why the Internet is so damn dangerous.

(2) how does anarcho-socialism deal with the 'free rider' problem? (Boiled down to the essence, this is asking how you get your lazy/cheap housemate to buy toilet paper; more generally, it's a question about how you prevent people from profiting off of the efforts of others. Socialism doesn't have a good answer to this, and neither does capitalism [although it's more masked in capitalism, as the free riders *appear* to be productive]; does anarcho-socialism?)

If people, very simply, do not want to work *at all* (remember, work under anarchism is a very social affair, and definitely not the ridiculous grudgery that it is under capitalism and socialism), then the community at large is under no obligation to provide for him/her anything. Chances are, most communities would provide basic needs (clothing, food, housing), but you want Internet access? Electricity? Access to any other resource that the community helps provide? Well, then you might want to volunteer at the Internet Service Collective, or the Electricity Co-op, so that people don't have such a crappy impression of your work ethic.

Honestly, I doubt that very many people would go *their whole lives* without working. People get bored pretty quick with doing nothing. The idea of "freeloaders" is usually a scapegoat for people who's skills aren't "economically viable" or who are old or sick or disabled, or live in a place with high unemployment and very few jobs. Everybody can provide *something* to society.

Presumably I could use force to eject the person not paying rent, right? Unless they could use force to prevent me from doing so, or there were some *effective social sanction* against my doing so ...

A community would have to make a commitment to non-violence. If anybody breaks that commitment, then the community has a right to defend the victim. Self-defense would be the only kind of "violence" that would be tolerated.

This is why anarchists are so often viewed as being violent. Many of the stereotypical anarchists-of-yore were part of a small movement called "propaganda-by-the-deed" that sought to use assassinations and bombings to extract revenge on people in power who had committed heinous acts of violence against the working class. The idea was to use these actions to spark revolution.

Most anarchists today see "propaganda by the deed" as a dismal failure, and definitely don't seek to resurrect the movement. Although nobody really feels particularly *sorry* for the industrialists who had hundreds of workers attacked and killed, and because of this were targetted by anarchists.

This is the center of the problem I have believing in anarchism -- I don't understand what, in the absence of a government monopoly on force, would prevent individuals from using force. I suppose you could depend on everyone agreeing not to use force --- but then the entire community is vulnerable to anyone who violates that agreement, and the incentive for individuals to violate it is going to be fairly high ...

If a community of 5000 people agree to not use force, and 10 of those people break the agreement, would it be hard for the remaining 4990 people to step in? Remember, the majority of people do *not* like violence, and usually are never involved with anything more than a fistfight or two.

Food for thought, anyways.

Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net