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.)
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.