Nazis on Napster

An AC writes: "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. The lyrics in question are those of 'Nazi' bands. Now that Napster is a true business entity, do they have responsibilities to regulate the music that is shared? Is the technology to stop this even available? If so, where do they draw the line?" Answers: "not really," "not really" and "wherever they want." If Nazi violence is prohibited by the terms of service, presumably gangsta rap is next; selections from Pink Floyd The Wall to follow; Nine Inch Nails and other degenerate art to be purged soon after. Here's my opinion (written 1998).

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.)

Comments

Napster - The Business Entity

[at-b]

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

Re:Big business and online music.

[Yebyen]

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.

Just to emphasize a point that seems to agree with you, but was not emphasized.... we're not really free speech advocates until we fight to protect speech that we disagree with.

*bows*

--

woowoo! Godwin's Law!

[myc]

see this.

This discussion should be over pretty soon :)


---
Santa Claus: "Ho ho ho!"

Re:Responsibility and censorship

[Xzzy]

> 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.

One huge lawsuit...

[autocracy]

...is what you're going to get. Frankly, I'm not into listening to 'Nazi' music, but I do enjoy my Nelly music, among other artists. As soon as this happens, Napster will find itself right back in court jumping more hurdles, and this time the hurdles will be higher because you'll have the public behind the suit. Of course you'll have a few on the other side (I KNOW some Christian organization's gonna complain that it should stay, but they always complain. I'm not trying to be offensive, but that's what happens), but the general sentiment will be against Napster.

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!

nazi bands???

[KevinMS]

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?