Slashdot Mirror
Nazis on Napster
Germany bans much material of this type. Even old Nazi propaganda films cannot be shown except in strictly regulated educational contexts. For a scholarly, in-depth examination of how real propaganda can be effectively used to educate -- and a call for its deregulation -- I recommend my late friend Stig Hornshøj-Møller, writing about Der ewige Jude ("The Eternal Jew," a 1941 propaganda film created by Hitler and Goebbels).
Censorship of Nazi expression ultimately comes from a fear that it is seductive and may influence its audience. I've listened to a sampling of racist, Nazi music and it's not likely to reach a huge audience just because it's on Napster. It's the worst music I've ever heard. Even if I could ignore the lyrics, I think I'd prefer "Achy Breaky Heart" on infinite replay. For some reason, racist imbeciles don't make good musicians, go figure. A ban is entirely unnecessary: it really just draws attention to what would otherwise be overwhelmingly ignored.
And just for completeness, here's a link to the Yahoo French auction ruckus. France demanded that Yahoo make it impossible for anyone within its (France's) borders to access an auction of Nazi-themed items. (Their own report found that this would work pretty well, excepting the minor fact that anyone who wanted to could circumvent it.)
Wait... You mean Rap != Hip-Hop???
I feel so disillusioned.
--White Guy from the Suburbs
Hmm. I was unaware that Napster did any business at all in either of those countries. Just because some people happen to download their free program and download illegal material makes Napster no more liable than Microsoft would be if someone downloaded IE and pulled down some kiddie porn.
In practice, censorship was a central plank of what the Nazis did, famously fulfilling Henrich Heine's prediction that where they start by burning books, they end up burning people. If we are to properly oppose this thinking, we have to oppose censorship at every turn, even where it's turned against a justly popular target for hate: neo-Nazis themselves, who would of course institute all sorts of censorship given half a chance.
--
Xenu loves you!
But between this and the Yahoo/France thing, we've got several cases that are testing how well national boundaries can extend into the internet (we all know they can't, but that's besides the point).
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I totally agree to our claim about laws to be enforced across borders being bad. But you didn't realize that the US set the beginning of this trend.
I'm for equality; I think it's bad when we do something like that, and I think it's bad when someone else does the same.
I was truely amazed when a plane I took from Equador to Miami after a vacation, all passengers and the whole plane was turned upside down in search of drug by US agents on foreign soil.
The difference, as I see it, is that Germany is insisting that the plane be searched before it's ever allowed to take off from Equador. That is the part that I don't like.
While I don't think it's good for a government to restrict what its citizens can view or listen to, that's between the people and their leadership. I would feel otherwise if Germany were a dictatorship, but they're not; Germans have the right to elect their own anti-censorship government if they want. Therefore, Germany can do whatever they want to within their own borders, for all I care. They just shouldn't expect people outside their borders to agree and go along with their ideals.
If I owned Napster, I'd be pretty angry. If I had wanted to be subject to German laws, I'd move there.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I get the sense it's more they don't think they can AFFORD to tolerate certain kinds of dissenting voices.
I think they figure they're protecting the rest of the world. Consider what must be going through their heads: They caused two world wars, they tried to cause the extinction of a race of people, they almost 0wn3d the planet and committed unspeakable atrocities along the way. They're aware of their capacity to wreak havoc on the global stage, and are TERRIFIED that if they allow any kind of Nazi group to take root, it could all happen again. Or maybe they're trying to assure the rest of the world, by publicly going after this kind of material, that they're taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.
I'm not saying they're right. In my head it plays a bit too much like "protect the children." But I'm just saying there's a reason for this.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
GG Allin's magnum opus, "Kill Thy Father, Rape Thy Mother"?
Or anything at all by Anal Cunt?
"Everyone should know of all information that others have deemed unfit for public knowledge."
Fuck Slashdot
If I might take a well known morality story and alter it slightly to fit this story...
First they came for the Nazis, and I didn't speak up because I don't like Nazis.
Then they came for the Klan, and I didn't speak up because I really hate the Klan.
Then they came for the record companies, and I didn't speak up because I hate them too.
Then they came for Microsoft, and I didn't speak up because I hate Microsoft.
Then they came for me, and nobody spoke up because the culture that hates everything in the name of keeping society safe found something about me that they didn't like.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
sniff sniff...oh dude...that was beautiful...
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
I'm pretty familiar with what Nazis and other white supremacists believe and I think they're all nuts. There is nothing special about white people except that an awful lot of white people seem to control most of the money and can't get out of their suburban hives to save their lives. There is no logical end to a program of racial purity except the homogenization of the gene pool, which is pretty much doomed to failure anyway. White culture is a myth; it is divided deeply into about two dozen different cultures, just as are Asian and Hispanic culture. The only reason why Black culture is so homogenized in the US is because slavery stripped the black people of their cultural identity; as a result they have created a new, uniquely American culture out of whole cloth, and every American is better off for it.
Still, I think it would be humorous to give white supremacists...all of them...a homeland of their own, and watch the Christian Identity and KKK people fight it out with the worshipers of Odin Somefather a real "Holy War." Then maybe the rest of us, with more tolerance for differences and more common sense, will get along better.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
I might just take up that challenge. I could use $50k. But will IHR take the evidence seriously? Based on the other things I read on their website, IHR strikes me as an organization with a most definite agenda...
The simplest proof, of course, would be a chemical analysis of the area surrounding Auchwitz for proof of the existance of the ovens (for example, high carbon content in the deeper layers of soil) followed by an analysis of residue from the ovens and gas chambers themselves. Start with a null hypothesis that the ovens are *not* used to cremate corpses, or that the so-called gas chambers did use Zyklon B, and go from there. OTOH I strongly suspect that none of this would be sufficient proof for the IHR.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
First, came online music, which allowed anyone to put their music (or for that matter somebody else's music) out there for public consumption, regardless of the market potential.
Then, came the shotgun marriage of the music industry with online music; which led to the protection of music copyrights while still allowing people to put their music out there for public consumption, regardless of the market potential.
Now, the music industry is moving beyond legitimate protection of their intellectual property, into the realm of controlling what music other people can distribute.
We had to see this coming. The old media want to provide "editorial supervision" of online content, precisely because they make money off of controlling what's popular. Banning Nazi music is only the first step.
Don't get me wrong. I hate Nazis. They're nutcases, provably wrong, violent stupid thugs lacking any shred of sense, dignity, or humanity. There was a time I'd as soon beat one up as talk to one. If Naziism were wiped off the planet I'd be one very happy human being. They have as much right to free expression as we do, and we all lose when free expression is put under corporate control.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
As much as I am against censorship of the Internet, the sad reality in a country where democracy is not as stable as in the U.S. (true only for East Germany which lived under fascist and stalinist dictatorship from 1933 to 1990) makes me wonder whether libertarian truisms will help.
The problem is as much social as political. The neo-nazis were able to instill themselves into the youth culture by tapping into their hitherto repressed national identity (remember that communism subsumed national identity in the satelite nations to the "world communist revolution"), their discontent, and the youthful rebelliousness that is a trait of every generation.
The solution is to offer an alternative that is equally rebellious, allows expression of one's discontent, etc. Not an easy task, but doable. Remember, what's cool in 2000 will look terribly dated in 2010 -- unless nothing is present to displace what was big in 2000.
Censorship just makes neo-nazism appear even cooler in the eyes of the rebellious (which is a huge chunk of any youthful generation) -- how many people here downloaded DeCSS because of efforts to ban it, but have never even bothered to unpack the tarball? I have, multiple times in multiple locations, as I'm sure many thouands of others did. The same phenomenon is true of neo-nazi music (and most things in life, actually) -- ban it and it flourishes all the more. Don't ban it, but speak out against it and emphesize how uncool, idiotic, unsophisticated, and passe it is (come on, the philosophy was a dead end sixty years ago!), and while you won't eliminate it it will lose much of its luster and return to its status of a psychotic fringe element (which every society has and most manage to cope with reasonably well) while the youthful masses move on to the new, cool thing (whatever that is).
Censorship isn't just wrong. It is ineffective, counterproductive, and bought at far too high a cost.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I'm not defending Wagner so much as I am defending scholarship. It is fine to produce a monograph which seeks to prove that Wagner's every motivation was based on antisemitism, and only cites other sources which back up this claim, ignoring a great deal of other Wagner scholarship, but it is foolish to read this monograph and no differing viewpoints.
BTW, to see why you shouldn't hyphenate "antisemitism", click here. According to that page (with which I am inclined to agree), hyphenating "antisemitism" basically means that you think "Semitic" is meaningful, and that defamation of Jews is based on "their race," which is a worrisome (at best) stance to take.
~wog
wrong link for the Jerusalem Report article. Go here
It is odd that many of the greatest (and most nationalistic) composers in the German-speaking world have been Jewish, given the German-speaking world's history of antisemitism (especially in musical circles).
Mendelssohn, for example, whose father had assimilated, saved J.S. Bach's works from obscurity and wrote wonderful Lutheran church and art music, including the incredible "Reformation Symphony". (As a practicing Lutheran, I can vouch for his authenticity of expression and doctrine.) Gustav Mahler, who assimilated, was attacked for his "sensual Semitic ultramodernism" even though his brilliant music was far more conservative of Germanate tradition than that of his Gentile contemporary, Richard Strauss. Both Mendelssohn and Mahler's works were outlawed in Nazi Germany.
The list goes on and on...German culture has been saved, preserved, and perfected by Jews so many times that it is completely incomprehensible how such a pandemic antisemitism could exist for so long.
Hitler mainly liked Wagner because his music was so nationalist, and he (like nearly everyone else in the German-speaking world of the 19th century) failed miserably to rise above the prevailing antisemitism of his day.
Wagner is a very complicated character; he wrote some terribly obscene essays (i.e. "Das Judentum in Musik", which was actually a criticism of Meyerbeer and French Ope'ra), but he actively opposed fascism and religious persecution. The central influence in Wagner's philosophy was not antisemitism, as many are wont to claim, but rather an amalgam of Schopenhauer, early Nietzsche (don't even get started about _Will to Power_, which was written by Nietzsche's sister and which most scholars agree is antithetical to Nietzsche's philosophy), Buddhism and medieval mysticism.
~wog
(Yeah, I'm a CS grad, but I had music history and philosophy majors as an undergrad.)
Wagner's music is not hateful or defamatory. Some critical theorists have tried to demonstrate that it is, but most explanations I've seen don't hold as much water as they would need to. If you want to see real "Nazi opera", look at the works of Hans Pfitzner, whose sole goal in life was to be the court composer to the Third Reich.
Wagner is slowly gaining acceptance in Israel, but Hitler's near-fetishistic obsession with some of Wagner's music (like the Tannhauser overture, which Wagner insisted wsa played whenever he entered a room) has left a lasting tarnish on Wagner in many eyes. Look at this article in Jerusalem Report. While it contains some factual inaccuracies about Wagner's music, it presents some interesting counterpoints from Wagner opponents and Wagner defenders.
Ever stop and realize that maybe non-whites do have a reason to mistrust whites? When were whites ever enslaved by blacks or asians?
Ghengis Khan comes to mind, but Asians really have never enslaved whites primarily due to the dramatic geographic boundaries seperating Europe and the far East (I'm presuming that by Asian you mean Chinese, Japanese, et al). By the time Europeans and Asians had any meaningful, frequent contact the Europeans had overwhelming military superiority and were traveling to Asia. By the same token, Europeans dominated Asians militarily and economically but never "enslaved" them in any strict sense of the word. The same goes for Blacks; the Sahara desert made a significant geographic barrier to any sub-Saharan/European contact which would have resulted in a slave trade. The slave trade between Africa and the Americas was largely a "modern" phenomenon and was also was wholly controlled on the supply side by Africans, who had been enslaving each other for centuries.
For a commentary on the domination of Europeans by Arabs, I ask you to look at the history of the Balkan and Southeastern region of Europe, as well as Moorish occupation of Spain for examples.
Much of the "non-white racial pride" is pure fantasy propegated by Western liberals. Ethnic unity among Blacks, Asians, Arabs simply does not exist. Africa is quite possibly one of the most fractured regions in the world. Ask yourself who perpetrated the slaughter in Rwanda -- it certainly wasn't White on Black. Asia again is another example -- find me some Manchurian or Koreans who have good things to say about the Japanese, particularly those who lived through the Japanese occupations. Indian subcontinant? Nope, not there -- Pakistanis and Indians. And let's not forget the warm relations between the Malays and the Chinese, Fijians and Indians and so on.
The truth is that Whites hardly have a corner on racism. Other races are as racist if not more so than Whites, especially when its not directed at Whites.
It's really no different than the piracy issue. Is the entity that creates a tool for sharing (whether it's Napster, ftpd, Apache, etc) responsible if the users of that tool happen to use it to share illegal or distasteful files?
If Napster caves in on this Nazi issue, then they are accepting responsibility for everything that all Napster users do.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
YI totally agree to our claim about laws to be enforced across borders being bad. But you didn't realize that the US set the beginning of this trend.
Ever heared of Super 101 ? Or have flown from some Latin American countries to the US? I was truely amazed when a plane I took from Equador to Miami after a vacation, all passengers and the whole plane was turned upside down in search of drug by US agents on foreign soil.
The US penalizes countries that don't cooperate or have laws that the US doesn't like with trade barriers, boycotting international conferences in that country or bulling with veto rights in UN or snatching criminals across the border with (para-)military action. This clearly violates other countries sovereignity.
And if Napster doesn't cooperate, they won't be allowed to operate inside German borders. It's as simple as that. And Napster being now a German-owned company, it doesn't seem they are asking to enforce their laws across borders. That Nazis in the US (where such racisst activity is legal and common) can't download the Music, because it's banned for German Users, that's a just a unfortunate (though welcome) side-effect
# And yes, I have seen many people with tons of Nazi-shit on Napster
# Is there any client for Linux that can put people on a kill-list ?
from the FAQ:
"2. What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?
hen you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion.
Them's the breaks."
------ Poo-tee-weet?
On Napster, they first came for the Nazi musicians, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Nazi musician. Then they came for the Rappers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Rapper. Then they came for the Hip-Hop listeners, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Hip-Hop listener. Then they came for the (whatever) and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a (whatever). Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up. They came for your whiny ass at the end though right? Sounds like all in a good days work to me.
Ever heard of a bunch known as the Japanese? A bunch who disregarded the Geneva conventions and used US & British soldiers as slaves?
Perh. you've not studied your history--just about everyone has enslaved just about everyone. Christianity spread to England because a Pope of Rome saw some Angles being sold. There was quite a vigourous slave trade among the Arabs. The Vikings enslaved those they conquered.
We just managed to turn scientific and advanced before everyone else, expanded rapidly, and won. It's not that we're any more evil and nasty than any other race--we're all men, and we're all rotten to one another.
We may have subjugated the world, but we also freed it, you know...
Napster has always been a business entity - the deal with BMG was struck for that very reason. Shawn Fanning, the cap-wearing GenY-er who is always prominent in the Napster media stories barely owns a couple of percent of Napster, Inc. They just trot him out to promote a 'cool' image, for obvious reasons: lots of people will side with Napster as long as they see them as being some plucky underdogs giving music for free to be shared amongst kids who look just like good ol' Shawn.
Reality check. Napster's owned and run by a bunch of your typical faceless suit-wearing executives. They run Napster not because they want to share music for free with college kids, but because they hold the keys to the Napster user database, and through that a distribution model that could destroy the business model of many record companies.
So Napster's not a business entity now that they struck a deal with BMG. They struck the deal so they could get a brief break from legal feuding, and present a more friendly face to all those judges. Now they can legitimately claim that they really want to make deals with record companies, and that they're the good guys. It also split the RIAA, with one of their biggest suporters suddenly going renegade. Next time Hank Barry (CEO) and Shawn Fanning (Founder) are interviewed, or sit in front of a judge, they can shrug helplessly and smile, pointing at how they struck a deal with BMG: why then don't all of the other companies want to co-operate?
So please - cut all the pro-napster propaganda. Those guys are out to make money, and the reason why Napster's still free is because every hour they don't charge, they sign up another 1000 guys and put them in their database. If and when they ever go 100% commercial, at least a dozen of those thousand/hour WILL sign up... and that's a couple dozen million bucks a month for Napster, Inc.
And hey, look - they got the customers, and deals with record labels, too. Swell, eh?
Alex T-B
St Andrews
"Zdnet and CNN report that Napster's new business partner BMG has been requested to stop all trading of music with lyrics that some find offensive"
That was from the original post on slashdot. You say that they've taken the next step of declaring this stuff harmful. Guess what, its the same thing. Attacks on porn are also often made using the excuse that it too is "harmful." It all boils down to the same thing, a person or group attempting to decide for the rest of us what we should see or hear. Sometimes I'm utterly amazed that people as a whole put up with it, but then I remember that most people are sheep.
I'm not a nazi and most porn frankly bores me. But I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with someone else trying to prevent me from viewing either kind of material. A free society depends on freedom of information, regardless of how offensive it is or how uncomfortable it might make some segments of the society.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I'm not sure where the idea came from that something should be banned or prohibited because someone somewhere finds it offensive, but its pure bunk. If someone finds something offensive, they're free ignore it. Ultimately this "I'm offended" excuse is nothing more than another attempt at censorship. The truth is that whether something is offensive or not isn't the real reason anyone complains, they complain because they're afraid you or I might see it. I'm sorry but I'll decide for myself whether I want to listen to a song, read a book, watch a movie etc. etc. Whether or not you approve of the content or want me to experience it is irrelevant. Censorship is evil any way you look at it. It doesn't much matter what you are censoring. In fact I would argue that content such as Nazi propaganda is the last thing we want to censor because if people are not familiar with it, they will not recognize similar current day propaganda, of which there is much around. I think napster should simply tell them to go to hell. Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
What about Wagner? His music was widely used under Hitler. I recently heard a story on NPR about an Isreali conductor who recently played a single piece (in a larger concert) by Wagner. The Public Address system advised the audience, and allowed time for people to leave.
Should Wagner be banned from Napster?
"Amazingly Ignorant Of History" isn't one of the moderation choices, so "Funny" will have to do....
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Wasn't Wagner's (sp?) "Ring Cycle" (I think I have that right) written (and performed) during the Nazi regime?
If so (I am so lacking in this area), couldn't putting up a bit of music from this opera constitute going against what they are after...
OK, I know it is a stretch (to the breaking point) - I might not even have any of this right - someone correct me and mod me down if I am wrong...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
My favorite radio station, KFJC, has a show by anti-fascist researcher Dave Emory. Now, I don't buy everything that Dave says, but he sure is interesting to listen to (I like conspiracy theories). One of the topics he covers very frequently is the "Bormann flight capital organization", which involves "Nazi in exile" Martin Bormann evacuating a lot of wealth from Germany, starting in 1944 -- apparently because the Nazis were anticipating a loss in the war and wanted to start up operations elsewhere. This ties in with the "South American Nazis" you may have heard about (or whose card you may have played in Illuminati! by Steve Jackson Games).
One thing that Dave Emory keeps talking about is the fact that Bertelsmann has been acquiring a great deal of the publishing industry. He seems to think that this is part of the Bormann organization's plans for worldwide fascism or something. Frankly, this is one area where Dave starts losing me -- I think he's too quick to connect things that are German with attempts to found the Fourth Reich (using economic conquest rather than military conquest).
So anyway, given the recent BMG partnership with Napster, I initially thought that the "Nazis on Napster" article might parallel some things I've heard on various Dave Emory programs. Life got just a little bit more surreal for a few seconds, until I started reading further.
-- $SIGNATURE
Wasn't it Bertlesmann that was intertwined with Hitler's Nazi government in the 30s? Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.
--
Communication is only possible between equals
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
As napster is now a business, their "transactions" in those countries are likewise part of this business. This is why you can't use eBay to buy Nazi memorabilia in Germany (or kiddie porn, for that matter), or, for another example, you couldn't download IE with SSL until recently in France, because of their encryption laws. (either that or the encryption was heavily reduced, i can't recall)
the difference with the example above re: IE and kiddie porn is that Napster is not only the client software but is also the search mechanism.
Germany, France and some other European countries (i think?) have laws about the distribution of Nazi-related material, ie that it is criminal activity. Think what you will about this "limitation" of freedom of speech, this is the law in these countries, and if a company wants to exist or trade there, they have to abide by their rules. As now does Napster.
:>
A good parallel to look into this would be eBay - they have people selling war relics, for historical/collectible value. Items at all connected to the Nazi party are prohibited for sale to users in these countries - I imagine they do some sort of lookup between keywords and user's details.
Certainly this isn't too difficult to evade if one is intent on it, but it covers their asses. And this is what it is about, Napster has to put in place some similar safeguard, for instance IP ranges which are not allowed to download songs with any such keywords in the title, or to force the user to set a country of residence in registration.
This won't fix the problem 100%, but if the countries want this as their law, they can't expect Napster et al to do all their work for them. I'm sure they know how to put their own content filters in place at their ISPs if they're serious about it
Fross
Interestingly, I popped Tristan on right before seeing this article. Will I be able to download Wagner's music from Napster? How about Carmina Burana (the official music of the Nazi regime)? Or The Merry Widow (penned by Hitler's favorite composer)?
In any case, I doubt most Slashdotter's are old enough to remember the PMRC and Tipper Gore (who was only a couple of hundred pregnant chads away from being the Frst Lady) of the late 80's and early 90's. The resolution, interestingly, was the RIAA who fought vigorously against music censorship, and Hilary Rosen herself won an award from the ACLU for defending the First Amendment.
Will the RIAA fight for this (BMG's membership notwithstanding)? Although there is a heck of a lot of fantastic music associated with the Nazi's (see first paragraph), it, unfortunately, is highly politically incorrect defend Nazi's in any manner.
It is a sad state of affairs when "nazi" music is attacked but racist music, much of which is gangsta rap isn't. We are sending a bad message to people that could end up being racists: if you're white it is evil, if you're non-white it is just racial pride. But as was pointed out, banning makes it taboo and humans LOVE taboos. All of this makes as much sense as sticking a light outside in an attempt to drive insects away.
I can't see any practical solution for this, and if the German gov't and its courts require Napster to find a way to cease the exchange of hate music, I think its just going to wind up that German users can't use Napster.
Anyone else have a thought on this?
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
ObTopic: Napster can censor whomever they feel like, no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to download stuff using their software. Besides, Nazis are like child pornographers; they have no redeeming social value whatsoever. Good for them for censoring Nazis.
---
Santa Claus: "Ho ho ho!"
NO CARRIER
This discussion should be over pretty soon :)
---
Santa Claus: "Ho ho ho!"
NO CARRIER
> I don't believe in censorship, nor do I believe
> that Napster or BMG have the right to censor any
> form of speech.
How is this censorship? People have debated this on Slashdot before, I believe. It's not censorship unless it comes from a government agency, merely because a business has such a limited control over you. At least, not in the sense most people here seem to take it; as if "the man" is stomping on your rights to have access to something you want.
Can't find it on Napster? Go look for a band's website. They don't have one? Go to music stores that carry a lot of underground labels. Failing that, go visit their shows.
If you object to the content a business makes available, or doesn't make available, it's really, really simple to fix: don't do business with them. Sure, Napster is a great tool, but they don't exactly hold a monopoly over the mp3 market. You have other channels of availability.
They have just as much a right to not give you something as you have a right to possess something.
Godwin's law applies only when the Nazi reference is metaphorical (for example, he's a Nazi or the simile he's like a Nazi), not when National Socialist parties are the topic under discussion. Applying Godwin's Law whenever Nazis are brought up as a legitimate topic (and not as a strawman, etc.) is not in accordance with the spirit of the rule.
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Personally, I feel the responsibility lies within each individual to censor the content that surrounds oneself. I don't like pro-nazi bands... no more than I like gangster rap... or modern country, but they ALL have the right to their freedom of speech and expression. Just because I don't like something or I find something offensive doesn't mean that it should be censored.
As a practicing Roman Catholic, I found Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" offensive towards my beliefs, but I would never have wanted him censored.
Censorship is a form of oppression... like nazism.
[Connection closed by foreign host]
You might be opposed to this, but I think this is a good thing.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
The screaming people get together. Communities point at each other cry out "Get this obscene material off my internet!"
The communities band together. Countries elect officials who cry "Get this dangerous material off our internet!"
The countries finally notice each other, and realize that the internet is a global thing.
So countries start pointing at each other and screaming "You get off my internet!"
We're supposedly moving towards the one world government. We can't even deal with a simple little international network!
My mom is not a Karma whore!
is for someone at Napster to actually LISTEN to every song that is transfered.
I can * name * a file anything I want.
And who determines just what is, and isn't a "Nazi song" anyway? Isn't "The Sound of Music" a "Nazi song?"
"Hitler has only got one ball?"
So, the whole thing is unenforcable, and possibly even undefinable.
Of course that never stops people, does it?
First of all I just want to say that I'm hardcore anti-nazi. And that nazi-punks make me sick. But you can't sensor art. It's the way things are. Granted what they are saying may be hard to hear, but when the day comes that one of us says somthing that is hard to hear (like copyright is bullshit hehe) I don't want to be pushed down just because people don't like it. Given the way napster is set up, it's not really going to happen. And if you don't want to hear nazi punk rock, then don't type "nazi" in the search.
-makoffee
hmm...
If you censor information by using a company that is in a different country than the one you are controlling, it greatly reduces the chance that the people you are censoring will ever even know that their government is in the censorship business.
-Attempting to limit what you see in government funded places. (for now)
-Giving the police a broader allowance to wire-tap.
-Carnivore doing more than what they say it is doing. (Everyones email?)
Sounds alot like 1984 is becomming more and more of a reality
Adherents of free speech have long held that they must tolerate those who's speech is objectionable in order to be heard themselves.
While the present German Government is undoubtedly more benign than its regrettable predecessors it seems they share an incapability of tolerating dissenting voices.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
I'm probably not the only one to notice that your little editorial (the last link) seems to be very well reasoned and thought out. MUCH better than the usual editorials we get here from Mr. Katz, (as much as it sounds like flamebait, it's what I feel.)
;)
Plus, it's got every popular slashdot element from the last 6 months... hmm we've got Napster, censorship, nazis, history... just throw in a link to Freenet in there somewhere and you're set
I fully understand and respect other country's rights to pass laws that may be in conflict with the laws of the USA.
However, their complaint goes way beyond that. They not only want us to respect their laws, but to enforce them as well. That's unacceptable.
There is a simple solution: they should simply pass laws making it illegal for their citizens to perform the actions they find objectionable.
Don't like Nazi songs on Napster? Make it illegal to download them. Don't like Nazi stuff on Yahoo? Make it illegal for the citizens to view the pages on Yahoo.
Enforcement, you say? That's their problem. If they want to make it illegal, then they should have the guts to put the responsibility on their own citizens, not on US companies. The US companies are not forcing the material down to the browser, the citizen has to request the material.
Come on, Germany and France. If you're going to pass censorship laws, then have the stomach to enforce them.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
um.. I done, you can stop reading...
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Here we go...
First, Napster does not "Harbour" any content. They facillitate, period. What you are proposing would lead to lawuits against any company even REMOTELY involved in the transfer of material through Napster/Gnutella/whatever.
Second, "There are laws which prohibit hate and racist content from websites, and therefore the ISPs must keep it off their servers or else face penalties" This is a pretty interesting statement. IANAL, but, the laws you refer to are not the same from country to country, and therefore are, for the most part, un-enforceable. Even if there were a U.N., or other global organization, standard (which there may be) it would not be enough. The ONLY way to resolve this issue is through education, not regulation.
um.. I done, you can stop reading...
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Okay, lets assume not allowing discrimination is a "Good Thing". That means not allowing discrimination against discrimination is also a "Good Thing".
My point is that if you restrict peoples right to express their opinions you are acting in the same manner as the people you criticize.
Sometimes I don't like how people act and talk in my country - but I wouldn't suggest for a minute that we censor them for being unpopular. Doing so would only drive the problem underground to fester and grow.
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, in part, that the government can't obstruct free speech. As near as I can tell, this has no application whatsoever to Napster.
Now, if Napster were run by the U.S. government, then you'd be on to something...
-- dR.fuZZo
You know, he's right and it's true...the poem that I posted above this was originally about Nazis. It was written by a man who was imprisoned for 7 years in a Nazi war camp. You can find the original at this link. Enjoy!
It's all about the Karma Points, baybee...
Moderators: Read from the bottom up!
SIG: HUP
For those of you who haven't heard it:
On Napster, they first came for the Nazi musicians, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Nazi musician. Then they came for the Rappers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Rapper. Then they came for the Hip-Hop listeners, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Hip-Hop listener. Then they came for the (whatever) and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a (whatever). Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.
You can change out the words and this paragraph will apply just about anywhere. This is just a bad thing...
It's all about the Karma Points, baybee...
Moderators: Read from the bottom up!
SIG: HUP
Look at it this way -
Europeans know firsthand what happens if you don't shut a one-testicled gravelly voiced lunatic with a toothbrush moustache the hell up.
Count your blessings that the most hateful people in your country will ever be likely to do again (keep in mind we're ignoring the Native American massacres, slavery etc) would be to show up on Jerry Springer and hit each other with folding chairs, or get REALLY REALLY wrinkly necks and start their own radio talk show about morality.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
that thing looks pretty crappy, and it cant even do warp one, does it at least have phasers since it cant get away quickly?
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
Now I'm confused, do nazi bands have powerful conquering armies and concentration camps, or are thay just a bunch of powerless losers that shave their heads and pretend to have some affiliation with Hitler?. Oh wait, I see the danger, didn't the whole Third Reich start as a metal band?
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
They're a business. It's not censorship if they decide they don't want to carry (or "sell") some given item. We as consumers have a right to not associate with that business that we find operates in a means detrimental to free speech.
Put your money where your mouth is. This is the reason I won't shop at Walmart. They've made a business decision not to carry CDs with "parental advisory" stickers on them (which is completely hypocritical since they have no problem selling "R-rated" movies), so I've made a consumer decision not to give them my money.
There are plenty of places online to buy music that some people find "offensive", and until such music is outlawed (which WOULD be censorship), there will always be such places. If there is demand, someone somewhere will meet those demands.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Actually, the answers would be: "They have the responsibility to do what they think is right," "Can they build a Nazi music detector? No. Can they filter certain files i.e. "stop this" in the sense any reasonable person would recognize? Of course." and "wherever they want."
On the plus side, one sensible thought in three represents an all-time high for Your Rights Online. And kudos to Jamie for ordering the commas and quotation marks correctly! Could you give Rob some pointers on its versus it's?
Forgetting the legal issues, ethically, it's better to let the "offensive" material be. After all, it's the Nazi's of the world who think it's ok to censor, removing their material only validates their pro-censorship position.
My other sig is extremely clever...
Anybody here remember reading J.D. Salinger, D.H. Lawrence, or Mark Twain primarily because TPTB didn't want us to?
Anway, our ability to think, not some search engine's idea of what is appropriate, is what should be guiding us to critically read all versions of history and decide for ourselves what is true.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
It's not Napster's responsibility to regulate music based on content. Who are you gonna allow to tell you what's OK to listen to and what's not OK to listen to? Are you gonna make the decision as to what someone else should not be able to get via Napster? Do you propose setting up a hotline to report lyrics that offend you personally? Besides the freedom issues posed by these questions, any of these scenarios will act to turn Napster into Blandster (more than it is already), and an "illegal" alternative (like the original) will materialize to serve people who prefer to be individuals. I'd rather be offended on a regular basis than have all the edges cut off.
I think people who request outrageous things ("Someone might find this offensive! We better get rid of it!") should be permanently banned from the Internet.
Perhaps they should, just to be on the "safe side", put a warning that, in nicer words, says "To the disappointment of some, you have not died and gone to heaven. Therefore, please understand that, by using our service, you may encounter offensive content. If you are one of the idiots who expects the Internet to be maintained to the likings of the Pope, you are prohibited from accessing our service."
(BTW, in case it comes up... I am *not* making fun of the Pope or anything of that nature.)
________________________________________________
suwain_2
That's the problem. This whole free speech thing has gone too far in the wrong direction. Censorship is bad, when it is by the goverment. When a person, or company, decides to censor themselves is should be their right. Who are you to tell BMG what they should allow transported over Napster. Do I agree that the German goverment should be allowed to tell BMG what to allow? NO. That is the problem; BMG is NOT. Get it straight. It seems that /.'ers are constantly looking to blame the US goverment or big corporations: in this case it is the German goverment and that is who the outcry should be against.
they'll never be able to regulate it. It's like how ISPs are responisble for the content in the websites they host. They in turn pass responsibility to their clients, and if inappropriate material is found, their accounts are revoked. The same should be said for Napster. It's just a matter of finding the inappropriate content...
Barney Will be banned from Napster - His "Love" songs will be conisdered sexually explicit, censory, here we come.