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.)
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!
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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]
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?
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
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
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?