Wal-Mart Ditches DRM, Keeps Censorship

Smiley Face writes "Wal-Mart has hopped on the DRM-free bandwagon with today's announcement that it will be participating in Universal's DRM-free sales pilot. The quality looks good: 256Kbps MP3 for 94 cents apiece, but customers are likely to be turned off by the retail chain's continued censorship. 'It's a bit hard to believe that all the customers who shop at the world's largest retailer want censored versions of music, though, but that's what they get. Only edited versions of albums with parental advisories are available, just as they are in Wal-Mart's offline stores. This isn't a new policy; Wal-Mart's online music store has carried only edited versions for years, but it's worth pointing out to potential new users tempted by the lower prices and lack of DRM.'"

Comments

Worthless store

[reidconti]

Never shopped there in my life, never will.

Re:Worthless store

[Bomarc]

I still can't say anything nice about them...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20367400/?GT1=10252
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
http://wakeupwalmart.com/

Re:Worthless store

[Feanor1]

I dont like the store either, but this is NOT really censorship.
As a store that is owned by someone(s), managed by someone(s), they have the right to decide what it is that they will and wont sell. Its ashame that our society doesn't care that these are not the true songs that were released, but
1) Walmart has the Marketshare
2) Record Companies want to be in those locations
3) Record Companies bend to walmart.

Its not like they dont have a choice. And obviously its what many people want. If you want to call something worthless, call the Artist that allows their intellectual property (which they have most likely sold to the Label) to be modified from its orig. artistic form, Assuming they arent just out for money as well.

Re:Worthless store

[d0rp]

Never shopped there in my life, never will. If you've never shopped there, how can you know its a worthless store? I'm not saying it isn't worthless (or that it is), just curious how you can claim that without experiencing it for yourself.

Re:Worthless store

[jimstapleton]

While all your points are valid, they don't counter the fact that it is censorship.

You can go elsewhere and get your music (I certainly do), but if you want to buy your music from Wal Mart, or have no choice in the matter (a small town where Wal Mart has run out the competition, and you don't trust online, for example), then you haven't a choice.

It's censorship only at Wal Mart, but it is still censorship.

Re:Worthless store

[Feanor1]

I understand that you dont have a choice if Walmart has a Monopoly in the 'small town' (something the small town does to itself since they shop there instead of the other stores that are there).

But does that mean that they are censoring Airplanes because Walmart chooses not to sell them and there is no-where else in the small town.

What we are seeing in the 'small town' is the result of putting all your eggs in one basket, not censorship. Walmart is not saying you cant buy those CD's, they are just saying "We wont sell them to you". Just because a company gets as big as walmart, they dont inherit the responsibility of carrying ALL things.

Besides, there are always other options.. Internet, Mail Order, drive 30 miles to the next town.

Re:Worthless store

[Nos.]

It's not censorship. Censorship can only be done by a controlling body. Typically the government, or other official body. Just because Walmart holds a high market share, doesn't mean that artists choosing to release two versions of a song is censorship. If they truly were a monopoly, that might be something worth discussing, but they are far, far from a monopoly in the music world.

Re:Worthless store

[trolltalk.com]

> >"Never shopped there in my life, never will.
> If you've never shopped there, how can you know its a worthless store? I'm not saying it isn't worthless (or that it is), just curious how you can claim that without experiencing it for yourself.

We're all awaiting your report on how it felt to try doing this, as well as your experiences wrt beastiality.

Re:Worthless store

[fyngyrz]

I dont like the store either, but this is NOT really censorship.

Well, whatever it is, I don't buy music, games or video there, and I won't, until or unless they quit doing it. It isn't as if there aren't better sources; anyone who doesn't chop out what the artist put on the media is a better source as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Worthless store

[Goldberg's Pants]

Playing devils advocate, WalMart do have very low prices, and if you're on a low income, they are a great place to shop. There's always the argument made that they kill local businesses. That much is true, sort of, but there was a story recently about a town that didn't want WalMart, but they opened anyway. Then after a few years, for whatever reason, it closed down, and the town wanted it BACK. It didn't KILL local business. It changed it. Other stores opened up near the new WalMart etc...

Their album censorship is nuts. I've known about since I saw a piece on TV about Rob Zombie's "Hellbilly Deluxe" and it played the regular version, and the WalMart version.

Of course what's interesting is they do this with Parental Advisory stuff. The recent Nine Inch Nails album "Year Zero" has no such label on it, despite having quite a few incidences of the F word on it. I wonder if that got past them?

WalMart are considerably evil. But for many, they are an evil necessity.

Re:Worthless store

[jimstapleton]

So, walmart doesn't control what they sell?

Good to know!

The do censor the music they sell in their stores, because they do control it, and choose not to sell it, when there is an audience for it.

Re:Worthless store

[jimstapleton]

The airplanes are a market force example.

But there is certainly a market for non-censored music - it's probably what keeps the FYE in business across the street from the walmart in a small city/large town that my family visits occasionally.

Just because they don't block the content outside of their stores, does not mean they aren't censoring. It's not as bad as a governmental censorship for example, but it is still a censorship - they could sell the unedited music if they wanted to, and could probably increase sales significantly.

From www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

Thus, although there are other options, this is still censorship, because there are no other options at the area they control.

Re:Worthless store

[Nos.]

Walmart cannot stop an artist from releasing a song with offensive lyrics. Therefore, it is not censorship.

Re:Worthless store

[Bomarc]

.... ok, off topic, but: Driving down prices with products imported from China is not a good thing. Putting people out of business who are just barley earning a living is not a good thing. Shutting down an entire store just because they voted for a union is not a good thing.

Spoken like a true "Pro-Wallmart" placement!

Re:Worthless store

[amRadioHed]

It didn't KILL local business. It changed it. Other stores opened up near the new WalMart etc... What sort of stores opened up near the Walmart? Where they really local stores or where they more big box stores and other national chains? I really doubt that the stores opening up near Walmart where anything truly local.

Re:Worthless store

[jimstapleton]

You keep saying that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ex: A telecom company stops a signal from being sent over the wires or air waves, but it is still recorded and distributed elsewise - is it censored?

Ex: A country blocks the distribution of a book within its borders, but it is still published and distributed in other contries - by your definition, it is not censorhip.

Re:Worthless store

[shark72]

"It's not censorship. Censorship can only be done by a controlling body. Typically the government, or other official body."

The above is presently "2, Insightful." This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I love Slashdot.

It's a Venn diagram, folks -- draw a big circle, label it "censorship," and then draw a smaller circle inside it and write "by the government." Government censorship is censorship, but not all censorship is by the government.

Have a blog? Ever delete a comment that somebody's posted? You're censoring. Doesn't matter whom you work for, or how big your blog is.

I think censorship is like piracy and other hot issues: we only define it that way when other people do it. So, we Slashdotters invent increasingly narrow definitions to ensure that the burden falls on others' shoulders. Which is fine, but it's also sad that a certain percentage of you have read Nos' post above and now actually believe that what Wal-Mart's doing isn't censorship.

Re:Worthless store

[shark72]

"Walmart cannot stop an artist from releasing a song with offensive lyrics. Therefore, it is not censorship."

I'm not sure what motive you may have for spreading this falsehood, but please -- stop it.

If the dictionary.com definitions are not straightforward enough, take a look at the Wikipedia entry -- it addresses censorship of music by retailers. The article on Censorship of music may also help you understand how broadly defined the term is. If you are truly steadfast in your understanding of the concept, and not just trying to fool some hapless readers, then you know what to do -- edit the Wikipedia entries to reflect your understanding.

Re:Worthless store

[Nos.]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship

Please explain to me how Walmart is controlling a bands freedom of expression? I'll say it again. Walmart cannot prevent a group from releasing a song with offensive lyrics. Just as they can't prevent the release of another GTA game, or any other media they won't carry because of its content.

Re:Worthless store

[Nos.]

Wikipedia isn't very consistent:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship
Here's the thing. So you think Walmart should be forced to carry media that may offend its customers? What if it offends the owners? Should a little Jewish owned bookstore be force to carry pro-Nazi books?

Re:Worthless store

[no_pets]

I don't buy that. I used to live in a small town with a Wal-Mart. I didn't buy music from them. This was back before we could order online. We would either drive for an hour to the nearest city to buy music and/or join a record club to get them mail-order.

I truly believe that the people who buy music at Wal-Mart would just as soon have a censored CD to save a few bucks instead of paying a little more for a few songs with cuss words in them.

Re:Worthless store

[Gogo0]

products that cost less:
is this evil (as so many walmart haters like to label)? and dont say that chinese products are shit, there is some very high quality stuff coming out of china (despite the fear campaign the media is pushing)

putting people who barely make enough money to survive out of business:
maybe these people need to do something else to make a living if it is so bad. how about if I move into town and open a tiny store that takes away their customers? does that make me evil, or am i just another guy with a successful small business? how large does my business need to be in order to be classified as 'evil'?

being anti-union:
shutting down a store to curb what could be an epidemic in their organization? you know what unions do, right? they organize workers so that they can pressure the organization for more benefits/money/vacation/whatever, otherwise the workers dont work. whether this is necessary at walmart, i do not know, but i do understand entirely why walmart canned them: because that was the only way to handle it.

im not a regular walmart shopper. hell, there isnt even a walmart IN my town (closest one is 100 miles away), but there are some (not all of them, of course) shitty small businesses either running local rackets or offer little service/products because they can get away with it. a walmart (or any other nationwide store) would force these shops to either improve their service or get shut down. the small store has every advantage when walmart moves in on them. they have an existing client base, a reliable location (and if not, they should have fixed that long ago), prices that arent exorbitant (if its a good business), and hopefully a good reputation in the community. if walmart can pop into any town and knock some barely-functioning businesses out, then where is the real problem?

Re:Worthless store

[jimstapleton]

You are attaching an emotional connotation to censorship. Look at it without that.

Censorship isn't always bad. There are people who like Wal Mart's censorship - they know they can get safe music there, and it usually isn't hard to get around for those who don't. An action to force people to carry media is just as bad as one to force them not to. I do think they have crossed the line though. Separate edited/non-edited sections would achieve a similar goal, while allowing more customers to be happy, without censorship.

It's censorship by the dictionary definition, and by their choise. I don't agree with it or like it myself (why I shop elsewhere for music), but it is still censorship.

Re:Worthless store

[jimstapleton]

they may not find those measures worth the effort. It varies with the person,b ut if they live in a small town, I guess they probably wouldn't mind too much.

Re:Worthless store

[bobbuck]

" Shutting down an entire store just because they voted for a union is not a good thing."

What do you mean? Isn't it an opportunity for the town to have a better store with lower prices due to highly efficient union labor? HAHA!

BTW, that's not what happened according to the article that YOU linked. The store was already unionized. The union played chicken with its members livelihoods and lost. I really can't believe it doesn't happen more often.

Re:Worthless store

[Nos.]

To me, its only censorship if you prevent someone from expressing their beliefs, opinions, feelings, whatever. Walmart is not doing that. There's too many definitions out there to argue one against the other, so I'm going by my own beliefs. If a private business refusing to sell something that they find offensive is censorship, then I guess I'm pro-censorship.

Re:Worthless store

[corsec67]

This is MOST definitly censorship. However, this isn't against the First Amendment, so it isn't illegal.

Re:Worthless store

[jythie]

True, they can not prevent it, but they can (and do) use their power to change what people put out.

From a video game perspective, a game that is blocked from being sold at Walmart quickly becomes economically un-viable to produce, for instance. So they get significant control of what does, and does not, get produced.

The problem with Walmart specifically is they have SO much economic clout that they can almost function as a government in some regards. And THAT is what people worry about....

Re:Worthless store

[Pentavirate]

I don't understand how this is considered censorship. Censorship is when the government tries and silence speech. Walmart, as large as it is, isn't the government. Walmart has made a financial (and perhaps a moral?) decision to only sell parental advisory albums that are edited. This is all part of creating goodwill with customers. Some customers are probably grateful for the option to be able to buy these albums at Walmart which is good business. Some won't and they'll buy the albums somewhere else. Apparently Walmart believes there are more that want the edited albums than don't. As a private business, they should be able to sell or not sell whatever music they want.

Likewise they are selling music that's DRM free. This is a business decision because they believe that's what their customers want and they'll have more sales because of it. If you like your DRM with your music, you're free to purchase your music elsewhere. I really don't see a problem with what they're doing in either case.

Re:Worthless store

[nickj6282]

Target doesn't sell cigarettes. Some people find cigarettes offensive. Is Target censoring cigarettes?

Re:Worthless store

[GeckoX]

Go back 20 years. Ever seen a black strip overlayed across a pair of nipples when a movie was being played on tv? What was that called again?

Yes, you've got it. Those nipples were censored.

Censoring is simply filtering, it is not necessarily imposing ultimate control over all of some particular thing.

Re:Worthless store

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, its only censorship if you prevent someone from expressing their beliefs, opinions, feelings, whatever. Walmart is not doing that. There's too many definitions out there to argue one against the other, so I'm going by my own beliefs. If a private business refusing to sell something that they find offensive is censorship, then I guess I'm pro-censorship. To you? Who are you, Stephen Colbert?

Well, to me it's only censorship if it happens on a Tuesday. And no one can change my mind about what that word means to me! Arguments will be much more fun if we can all define our own non-standard meaning of every word.

Re:Worthless store

[init100]

i do understand entirely why walmart canned them

So in the United States, labor unions can exist only if the employer accepts them? Sounds like a great way to effectively ban unions in the entire country. I mean, what employers actually like labor unions?

In other countries, unions can exist regardless of the employers' opinion. If they don't like them, tough luck. In such countries, labor unions are protected by law.

Re:Worthless store

[Pearson]

You seem to have completely missed the way that Wal-Mart crushes small businesses. It's not because the little guys are gouging their customers, or selling crap products/services, and people rush to the new Wal-Mart for relief. The simple fact is that Wal-Mart has a huge advantage due to economy of scale.

The smaller stores have to pay $10 for something, while Wal-mart gets to pay only $5 because they bought hundreds of thousands at a time. There is no possible way for the smaller stores to make a profit with a competitive disadvantage like that. Wal-Mart has other advantages as well, such as the convenience of one-stop-shopping, but this one is the one that is impossible to beat.

Re:Worthless store

[robi2106]

May be you aren't sure of the details of the cases referenced. Wal-Mart didn't with-hold consent for a union, it simply said we will not operate a business in an area likely to have a union. Since wal-Mart expected a union to form, it shut down that store. It is entirely within the law for Wal-Mart to close a location of its own free will. That is capitalism at work.

Socialism would say that the state determines where a business must operate and attaches conditions to that order. The state would force a business to spend its money to open a store at a specific location, and then force the business to operate under the state's rules for tax rates, employment conditions, etc.

What Wal-Mart didnt' do is fire some employees because they were "union" and then hire replacements that were non-union. They closed the entire store. No discrimination (aka preferential treatment) based on labor contract.

The US has a concept called "Right To Work" which basically means if you are in a right to work state, you have the right to choose to be part of a Union. Union membership (and the forced withholding of dues directly from your paycheck by your employer before you receive it) is entirely up to the worker. As such, the company CANNOT discriminate based on the union / non-union status of a worker.

In non-Right to work states, ou do NOT have the choice of joining a union. If the business employs union workers (or if the business is regulated by state / federal law as requiring union workers like with TSA, government regulated industries like rail roads, etc), then ALL employees are union workers. You have no choice, even if the union works against new employees (which most do because union wages are determined by tenure and internal union political position not skill).

Like you mentioned.....

In other countries, unions can exist regardless of the employers' opinion. If they don't like them, tough luck. In such countries, labor unions are protected by law.

This is the case even in right-to-work states, union existence is protected as is union membership. Generally speaking that is .... each state is free to make its own laws, but generally US Federal labor law prohibits passing laws that conflict with Fed laws.

Re:Worthless store

[robi2106]

it does..... it is called outsourcing. Happens all the time. The best time to see this in action is when a company has the choice of expanding a manufacturing facility state side or contracting out to an overseas facility. If the compan decides to go with the foreign facility, then labor costs (which might included increased wages & benefits) _might_ have played a part in the decision.

Re:Worthless store

[qqaz]

So Walmart is evil because they can afford to buy more stuff to sell? Nobody is stopping those other stores from buying hundreds of thousands at a time for $5.

Re:Worthless store

[Real1tyCzech]

Censorship is the restriction of free speech.

The *only* entity outlawed from restricting free speech is the government.

By no means do those laws apply to public or private businesses, citizens, or households.

While it may be censorship, it is not illegal for Wal-Mart, or any other person, company, or organization that is not affiliated with the Gov to censor whatever they please.

Re:Worthless store

[Jason Earl]

Wal-Mart is just pointing out the type of content that is likely to be profitable. You are still perfectly free to make content that isn't likely to be profitable, just don't expect Wal-Mart to help market your material.

Wal-Mart doesn't have magical powers, and it has more than enough competition to keep it honest. If consumers really preferred CDs with explicit lyrics or video games that are mature enough that Wal-Mart won't carry them then people would simply go elsewhere to purchase them. The real problem is that the market for explicit lyrics and ultra-mature video games are relatively small. Wal-Mart isn't interested in niche markets, neither are most game development companies.

Re:Worthless store

[wilymage]

Ridiculous, isn't it?

Sorry to be a little off topic (and sorry to remove your +1 by posting), but I was speechless whilst reading about Starbucks' ability to send workers home if they are wearing a union pin. I did a little more research and I will be hesitant to complain about my country's current union system.

When I was younger, in university, I worked for a subsiduary of (then) Coles Myer: Australia's largest department store/supermarket overlord. I was a member of a union, fucked up a few times, and they came to bat for me. Even got me a pay rise a few times. I was approached *by a manager* -- on the day I started -- to join said union.

In 2005, our Liberal Party (read: conservative) government implemented WorkChoices, a system of workplace agreements with which the unions were unhappy. Over half a million people protested.

We don't take kindly to breaches of our rights. And we don't even have a Bill of Rights! I am thankful every day not to be a citizen of the United States of America.

Re:Worthless store

[Timothy Brownawell]

I don't understand how this is considered censorship. Censorship is when the government tries and silence speech. Walmart, as large as it is, isn't the government.

No.

Censorship is when one person/group/whatever prevents another from saying something, or from seeing/hearing something; the government does not have to be involved. The issue with government and censorship is that our government is generally not permitted to engage in censorship, and that much harder for someone who isn't the government to censor effectively.

Re:Worthless store

[maglor_83]

Just because it's not the government censoring, doesn't mean its not censorship. It is just that the government is not allowed to censor, whereas anyone else is(or at least that's the impression I get, I am not American).

Re:Worthless store

[TheRaven64]

The *only* entity outlawed from restricting free speech is the government. Specifically, the only entity outlawed from restricting free speech by the US constitution is the (federal) government. Congress and the state governments are free to pass laws preventing other entities from restricting free speech, and other countries have different free speech laws.

Re:Worthless store

[Lost Engineer]

Yeah or the small store was gouging people. Trust me, it does happen. Let's just acknowledge that Wal-Mart does outcompete some small businesses and some small businesses take advantage of their near-monopoly status to make loads of money.

Re:Worthless store

[ChrisA90278]

"So in the United States, labor unions can exist only if the employer accepts them?"

No, employees can form a union whenever they like. The employer does not need to accept and in fact their are laws requiring the employer to accept the union.

What Walmart did was after the meant packers unionized, Walmart simply closed the entire meat department and layed off everyone. There are laws saying you can't fire people because they joined a union but no laws requiring you to stay in business forever either.

Re:Worthless store

[Pearson]

So Walmart is evil?

I never said it was evil. I'm just explaining that there is a rational basis behind efforts to prevent Wal-Mart from opening in certain areas. Whether Wal-Mart would have a positive or negative long-term impact on those areas, I'm not qualified to say.

Nobody is stopping those other stores from buying hundreds of thousands at a time for $5.

Now you're just trying to be difficult. A "mom & pop" store in a town of 50k total residents has no way to sell 500k microwaves in their locality, even if they could somehow come up with the money. Wal-Mart buys nationally and only ships quantities to individual stores that it reasonable expects to be able to sell there.

Again, I'm not making any value judgments about any given "mom & pop" store, nor their business practices, whatever they may be.

Re:Worthless store

[zxnos]

good, excellent point. i want to add that walmart cannot through you in the gulag for publishing/distributing said book like a country can. to me that is the defining characteristic of censorship.

Re:Worthless store

[Goldberg's Pants]

The story I mentioned was of a town. Basically WalMart said "we're coming to town". Town businesses said "No! Boo I say!" WalMart came to town. Yes, some businesses DID fold. However, MORE businesses opened up in the "retail park" where the WalMart was located. When said WalMart was on the chopping block, the town begged for it to stay because of all the businesses that had sprung up around it. Retail environment for the town didn't die. It changed. You go to any WalMart, and it will not be on it's own. There will be other retail outlets nearby.

I like the question "How big does a store have to be to be considered evil". That's a very good question.

I've been a victim of such things. I used to work in a gas station. Local supermarket opened one, and basically put our place out of business. A tragic tale... Until your realise that the reason it closed was because my boss, who was a multi-millionaire incidentally, refused to lower the prices to compete. Cutting your nose to spite your face I believe the saying is.

Yes, it's all very well when people say "WalMart killed my business" but there are always two sides to every story.

Re:Worthless store

[Goldberg's Pants]

All I can say is near my local WalMart, yes, there are big chains, but there are also a good number of smaller non-chain restaurants and shops.

Re:Worthless store

[init100]

Wal-Mart didn't with-hold consent for a union, it simply said we will not operate a business in an area likely to have a union. Since wal-Mart expected a union to form, it shut down that store. It is entirely within the law for Wal-Mart to close a location of its own free will. That is capitalism at work.

Socialism would say that the state determines where a business must operate and attaches conditions to that order. The state would force a business to spend its money to open a store at a specific location, and then force the business to operate under the state's rules for tax rates, employment conditions, etc.

So if every area has a union, Wal-Mart will close down entirely? I agree that businesses shouldn't be forced to operate in a certain area if they don't want to, and they aren't where I live. But on the other hand, in my country (Sweden), there are practically no areas without unions, so if Wal-Mart cannot accept them, well, they'd have to find another country to do business in.

The point is that Wal-Mart (or anyone else) should not be treated with silk gloves. That they see a business opportunity in a certain area does not mean that the population and government should accept whatever conditions (e.g. no unions) they try to impose. If Wal-Mart cannot accept that, it just shows that their business case probably wasn't very strong anyway. The population won't miss Wal-Mart if they stay out of an area, as other businesses will gladly step in and take their place.

Re:Worthless store

[jschrod]

Yeah, Wal-Mart will go if they cannot do their cut-throat-style of business; happened here in Germany. Not much loss for our society, if you ask me.

Not that Aldi, Lidl, or Schlecker, et.al. treat their employees with any respect. That WM is even worse, says a lot about it.

Re:Worthless store

[jimstapleton]

I never claimed it was illegal, I was just stating that it was censorship, and the post mine was in reply to never actually *countered* that fact.

Re:Worthless store

[Feanor1]

People.. The decision to Not do something yourself is not Censorship in the context we are talking about.

If you want to look at it the way you just have put it, then I censor myself all the time by not saying curses during Board Meetings. In fact, EVERY group, person, or thing Censor's to some extent. Therefore the word is meaningless.

We are talking about true Censorship, the kind that would come up in a "Your Rights Online". Bigger stakes, and I think about half the people on here agree, a different definition.

Because the Disney Channel puts out shows for kids, does that mean they are guilty of Censorship or of choice.

Everyone saying that walmart is doing something wrong, rather than just something they disagree with, are actually arguing against personal choice, which individuals that own companies still have.

Re:Worthless store

[jimstapleton]

I'm sorry you like to make assumptions and it is making you angry. Don't blame me for that though, you could try to stop making assumptions.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it is still censorship. Just as you not swearing at board meetings is also self censorship.

Re:Worthless store

[sYkSh0n3]

What has never made sense to me, is walmart will sell unedited movies with all the tits, ass, and f-bomb's in their full frontal glory, but they edit the albums (even the sound tracks to these same movies.) I can't find any logic behind that at all. Any ideas?

Re:Worthless store

[Scrameustache]

" Shutting down an entire store just because they voted for a union is not a good thing."
 

What do you mean? Isn't it an opportunity for the town to have a better store with lower prices due to
highly efficient union labor? HAHA!

BTW, that's not what happened according to the article that YOU linked.
The store was already unionized. The union played chicken with its members livelihoods and lost. I really can't
believe it doesn't happen more often.

Yeah, hi, you're entirely wrong about your interpretation of these events.
But you're basing this interpretation solely on an article that gives only Walmart's point of view, so I don't really blame you.

What happened was this: Walmart store opens, employees try to start a union, walmart fights them, they unionize, walmarts pretends to negotiate while they plan the shutdown, then walmart closes the store.

This is 0% because of inefficient union labor, 100% walmart closing down any store that dares start a union, same as McDonalds.

Re:Worthless store

[robi2106]

The population won't miss Wal-Mart if they stay out of an area, as other businesses will gladly step in and take their place.

Exactly. That is the very basis of a free market. IF they don't want to operate a business under the requirements of locl laws, local values, etc then it is their loss. That business will have to make the choice if it is a market they should try to be in, or not.

edited only...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the reason I never buy music from wal mart, as much as I may not like the words to some of the songs, the weird noises they replace them with are even worse.

And worse yet, sometimes they edit out things that aren't offensive at all.

Re:edited only...

[theWrkncacnter]

It's weird what stuff gets edited sometimes. You'd think it'd just be dirty words but a lot of times its some weird phrase of implied violence, like "colt 45" or "can of gas and handful of matches." Sorry but even if you edit out the weapons, I still know someone is getting shot or someone is getting their house burned down.

Re:edited only...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

It's like any other censoring. On TV, people can point their index finger, thumb, pinky, and ring finger. So blurring out the middle finger doesn't hide SHIT.

Re:edited only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your first example is exactly the example I was thinking of when I was posting, from a CD my sister has...

Re:edited only...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the reason I never buy music from wal mart, as much as I may not like the words to some of the songs, the weird noises they replace them with are even worse.

So, their censorship is not along the lines of the old recorded version vs. radio version with the radio version being FCC passable? Huge difference in the scenarios, if WalMart wants things removed they should make deals with the music industry to get stuff more akin to the radio versions or not carry anything they feel the need to edit, cause if that is the way they are doing it then it is a broken product and should be returnable under their "Satisfaction Guaranteed, every time" warantee of products and services for a full and complete refund.

Re:edited only...

[Hafnia]

Why do you accept this kind of sensorship in the US ?
And how did it start ?
Is it really the majority of US citizens who believe it does any good at all , or is there a wierd technical explanation to why we still have to live with this stupid "parental advisory" warning on the front of US CD's, and the beeps on American TV shows
I'm not trying to provoke any of you , and i believe most, if not all, readers of slashdot would prefer unsensored music and TV. I just don't understand the reasoning behind it !

Re:edited only...

[mc2thaH]

That is the reason I never buy music from wal mart, as much as I may not like the words to some of the songs, the weird noises they replace them with are even worse. And worse yet, sometimes they edit out things that aren't offensive at all. By "they", I hope you don't mean Wal-Mart! They are not the one's editing the music, the label is sending it to them edited. Label's have a choice to not edit their music... it just won't be sold at Wal-Mart.

Re:edited only...

[Wavicle]

And worse yet, sometimes they edit out things that aren't offensive at all.

Damn straight. I guess I won't be shopping at Wal Mart after all. I guess I'll have to continue paying $0.22 per DRM-free song through eMusic.

(Yeah, I know, 99+% of the indie music there sucks, but some of it is really good, and I don't feel ripped off when I only paid a quarter for a song that sucks)

Re:edited only...

[Chris Burke]

The weirdest instance of censorship I've ever heard was on a radio station that was playing Live's "Lightning Crashes", and they censored the word placenta.

The mind boggles.

Re:edited only...

[xaxa]

Some people argue that singing about weapons, violence and crime promotes it. It might increase the appeal to own a weapon, copying the artist. Much like other people might copy the artist's hairstyle.

Personally, I don't understand the appeal. Having said that, the lyrics to what I'm currently are "can you see the world you help to build / a world of hate and madness / take a look inside, you have no dreams / your empty soul, can find it", and if we're going to start censoring lyrics people might argue that's too depressing, so I'm against any censoring.

I did read (in a paper, so no link) that some rap artists in Britain had agreed to stop promoting (FWOABW) knives, since loads of teenagers have been stabbed in London this year and no one's really sure why link

Re:edited only...

[Kadin2048]

The weirdest instance of censorship I've ever heard was on a radio station that was playing Live's "Lightning Crashes", and they censored the word placenta. Ironic, considering that I know of a radio station where the DJs once ate a placenta.

Re:edited only...

[the_fat_kid]

my favarite is when Snoop Dogg says that he "laces up my all blue Chucks"
MTV censored the word "blue"

so, from now on try not to use the colors Blue (crips), Red (bloods), or White (latin kings)

oh, wait that's the colors of my national flag.

weak.

Re:edited only...

[pmatchstick]

Wal-Mart exists to sell physical goods for an extremely low price, often to a rural customer base who has few other options. But an online Wal-Mart music store will never dominate the market the same way their box stores own entire counties. Never. Besides the fact that there are too many other options, it's just not "cool", and the music industry thrive on being "cool." iPods and the iTunes store are cool. Wal-Mart is the definition of "uncool."

In fact I'd be surprised if the Wal-Mart online store is a success at all; it certainly can't do 1/10th of the business as Amazon and other competitors.

Re:edited only...

[CastrTroy]

I live in Canada, and they sell tons of un-edited explicit content CDs. They also sell the "radio-edit/clean" versions alongside them, but you have the choice of which one you want to buy. Just like on iTunes. I've always assumed things were the same in the United States.

Re:edited only...

[notamisfit]

That's generally what they do. I don't think that Wal-Mart actually does the censoring in question. (Why would they? They just make their displeasure known and the record companies bend over backwards to get their sales dollars.) Some artists just prefer to bleep, record backwards, or whatnot as opposed to recording alternate lyrics (and some, like Eminem, do both depending on the song).

Personally, I think it's a little silly. Wal-Mart has no problem selling R-rated movies, M-rated games, tobacco or alcohol (and all of them are flagged for an ID check). What makes music so different?

Re:edited only...

[dmsuperman]

They are, at least at most places. Walmart only sells those edited ones, but at most other stores you can buy albums in both the explicit and edited format.

Re:edited only...

[dwye]

> Why do you accept this kind of sensorship in the US ?

This is not censorship. Walmart sells the bowdlerized versions, any other outlet can sell the unexpurgated version if they chose, and most do. If you buy at Walmart, you know what you are getting and what you are losing -- not that the customers necessarily think that missing the Anglo-Saxonisms is necessarily that bad.

> readers of slashdot would prefer unsensored music and TV.

Then they shouldn't buy their rap music and porn at Walmart, and I expect that few do. Those who try, and complain that they cannot, are either too stupid or are trolls.

Re:edited only...

[robi2106]

I just don't understand the reasoning behind it !

that is because most people are idiots and any time something "bad happens" (tm) they scream for the government to "do something" (tm) about it. So stupid laws get made by stupid legislators on behalf of the stupid people that think the government is their babysitter.

Re:edited only...

[glitch23]

The weirdest instance of censorship I've ever heard was on a radio station that was playing Live's "Lightning Crashes", and they censored the word placenta. The mind boggles.

The weirdest instance of a song I've ever heard was on a radio station that was playing Live's "Lightning Crashes", and they used the word placenta. The mind boggles. I guess you had to be there.

Re:edited only...

[Firehed]

And as an unintended side effect, it makes it that much more obvious that the pointer was using his or her middle finger in the first place, in an offensive manner or not.

Re:edited only...

[GPL Apostate]

That's weird, because I bought the latest Nine Inch Nails album at WalMart. It has the usual 'rise up against the bullshit' packaging. I don't know if it is censored or not, but it seems contradictory if it is.

Re:edited only...

[GPL Apostate]

I bought pellets for a pellet gun at WalMart, and it pulled up some sort of 'ID check' thing at the register. Which makes me wonder, because fishing lures are as hazardous as pellets for a pellet gun. Except the pellets are made of lead. And it's kind of cool that it's still possible to buy canisters of little lumps of lead at a retail store today. I suppose there are people actively working to make that impossible.

Re:edited only...

[mc2thaH]

Yeah, I honestly don't understand Wal-Mart. They won't sell music with "explicit lyrics", but they'll sell rated R movies with the same "offensive" language, sexual references, etc.

Re:edited only...

[Achromatic1978]

Teenage Dirtbag by Wheatus a few years ago: "Her boyfriend's a dick, he brings a *CENSORED*gun*CENSORED* to school."

Bleh.

Re:edited only...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Canada, and they sell tons of un-edited explicit content CDs. .... I've always assumed things were the same in the United States.

Walmart does not equal the United States
Walmart = tightly run dictatorship operating as a protectorate of the United States

For the record, they are so bad we don't even let them open stores wherever they want anymore. Many people don't want Walmart anywhere near their communities.

Re:edited only...

[stinerman]

I recall Adult Swim censoring "Sweet Zombie Jesus!". That has to be up there.

Re:edited only...

[welshsocialist]

Wal-Mart's editing of the albums is not the only censorship. In 1996 they refused to sell Sheryl Crow's self-titled album in their stores (their music store and their website sells it) because of this lyric:

Watch out sister, watch out brother
Watch our children while they kill each other
With a gun they bought at Wal-Mart discount stores

As a result Wal-Mart got offended. See Songfacts and E! for details.

Re:edited only...

[doyle.jack]

That particular edit (Live - Lightning Crashes) was done by the record company for the radio edit, which is also shorter in length. Very rarely do stations edit the songs themselves for purposes of censorship.

I used to work in radio (in IT these days) and one of my responsibilities was editing music.

censorship

[caffeinemessiah]

so are they bleeping the kid-unfriendly words out like the old days, or have the artists started recording alternate "clean" versions of their songs? I think it was Nickelback that recorded an alternate single with "fucked up" replaced by "messed up" (could be wrong). Not that I care much for Nickelback anyway.

Re:censorship

[merreborn]

Watch MTV, or listen to the radio, and you'll have your answer. The exact censorship technique varies by song and artist, long story short.

Re:censorship

[croddy]

There are lots of ways of creating clean versions. The policy of recording alternate lyrics goes back at least fifteen years, and all the way back to the 60's if you consider negotiations between labels and artists over controversial lines. Another common solution is reversing and chopping up contested lyrics, which does not leave a hole in the melody line and does not require re-recording the line.

Re:censorship

[Opportunist]

I remember that the "radio edition" of Everlast's "What it's like" was cut by a full verse (the last one). My personal theory is that it was just too embarrassing for the stations to squeak out every other second.

Re:censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Might explain the pricing.

99 cents at iTunes for the uncensored version. If you buy the edited one from Walmart you get a nickel back.

Re:censorship

[TheRealMindChild]

One of the best cleaning of music I have ever heard is done by the Low Fidelity All-Stars. Hearing their clean versions on the radio, you had no idea where explicit material even was, or that it was even there.

Re:censorship

[BigDumbAnimal]

I guess you heard about Mick Jagger rolling his eyes as he sang 'Let's spend some time together' (rather than "Let's Spend the Night together") on the Ed Sullivan Show back in the 60's.

Re:censorship

[croddy]

I was thinking specifically of Syd Barrett being compelled to record "Candy and a currant bun" in place of "Let's roll another one", but I imagine it was a fairly common practice throughout the business.

Re:censorship

[the_fat_kid]

or the red hot chili peppers on Crusty's come back special:
"what you got I want to hug and kiss you"

Re:censorship

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

IMO, it's expected for "fuck" to be excised from airplay one way or another, but speaking of Nickelback, WTF is with the word "drug" in "drug dealer" being censored from *some* radio stations' versions of their "Rockstar" song?

I've honestly never heard something like that before, and it gives me chills. The reference isn't even glorifying drugs, but even if it were, the censors are still off their leashes.

Re:Censorship

[tukkayoot]

No it isn't. It isn't censorship unless the power of the State is involved,

That's not the only valid definition of the word.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

censorship
1. the act or practice of censoring.

censoring
To examine and expurgate.

From the Oxford American Dictionary of Common English

censor
make deletions and changes in

Government doesn't need to be involved for it to be censorship. There can be private/corporate censorship or government censorship. They each have different political implications, but they're both still censorship.

Re:censorship

[bckrispi]

^And yet, for decades, the line "Who the fuck are you? (The Who) has been able to squeak past almost all radio censors.

Re:censorship

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Good point. As has Pink Floyd's "don't give me that do-goody-good bullshit" and Steve Miller's "funky shit goin' down in the city."

All these years I *thought* ZZ Top was singing "I want her... *shit* I gotta have her." I was Sofa King disappointed to read the more mundane "*said* I gotta have her..."

Re:censorship

[justinlee37]

IMO, it's expected for "fuck" to be excised from airplay one way or another

I think it's sad that we expect our first amendment rights to get "fucked" by the media.

Re:censorship

[Discoflamingo13]

We used to play a game at my college radio station where we tried to manually bleep out all the swear words in "Aenema" (by Tool) in real time. The important word in that sentence is "college" - our local metal station has a pre-bleeped version they play which is surprisingly okay.

Re:censorship

[magisterx]

First, I must respectfully disagree that it is not glorifying drugs. While not over the top in my opinion, they are talking about everyone having immediate access to drug dealers. That is at the very least making it seem like dealing with drug dealers as drug dealers is normal, which is quite close enough to glorifying them for many parents.

This begs two questions that perhaps someone else can answer. Is that censorship in compliance with government regulations in some way or from the radio stations themselves? And did Nickelback have the option of refusing to let them do it?

I am greatly opposed to any government censorship, but if the radio station as a private entity wants to censor it and the artist agrees, I do not find that quite so egregarious.

Re:censorship

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Right, but the entire song is a sarcastic commentary on the shallowness, superficiality and hollowness of the "star" lifestyle. From the song's point of view, the ubiquity of drugs is offered as an element of criticism, not praise. In that context, the censorship just seems silly.

I suspect a custom censoring job in this case. I live in Chicagoland, and some stations leave "drugs" in while others don't. I agree that private censorship is the stations' prerogative; I'm just surprised... this is the first time I've heard it used on such a commonplace word. It's not the same as government censorship, you're right, but my fear is that this is a sign of our culture developing an expectation of being shielded from anything they find even mildly unsettling.

I have no idea what the band's position is on this; I suspect their label gives them little choice about agreeing to whatever they have to to ensure widespread airplay.

Re:censorship

[glitch23]

Just goes to show you the extra lyrics do not add anything substantive to the song, just like certain words do not add anything of substance to a movie but can make it rated R. I know I don't need (nor want) to hear a song or see a movie with words that are viewed by society as bad. I prefer to support people who do otherwise. I don't call that entertainment. If I did I would have stayed in high school to listen to the trailer trash talk to each other with their everyday colorful language.

Re:censorship

[CastrTroy]

6 words.

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

You can sing about whatever you want, so long as you don't make it blatantly obvious what you are singing about. It's the same method employed by poets and playwrights, for centuries.

Re:censorship

[Opportunist]

I guess I should not dare to quote "What it's like" here (ya know, all those scaremonger suits against lyrics pages...), but look it up and replace all those words below in the third verse with bleeps, then you know what it sounds like. I've heard it a few times and wondered whether someone scratched the record:

drugs
shit
thugs
chrome 45
shit
dead

The last three alone appear all in the line "He pulled out his chrome 45 talked some shit and wound up dead".

Now imagine what this sounds with bleeps, screechs and hicckups to mask the words. And, somehow, I wouldn't put it beyond Everlast to mask deliberately more than necessary to show just how ridiculous this all is.

Re:censorship

[TheRaven64]

I don't know what you're talking about. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is about a child's painting. And Golden Brown is about toast. Nothing worth censoring there...

Re:censorship

[CastrTroy]

I hope you're trying to be funny, but for more info, check out Wikipedia.

Re:censorship

[Jimithing DMB]

As has Pink Floyd's "don't give me that do-goody-good bullshit" and Steve Miller's "funky shit goin' down in the city."

It used to be this way on the big classic rock station around here but they've since decided to silence the shit part of bullshit which totally screws up the rythmic/lyric combination going on at that point in the song.

As for Steve Miller, it turned into "funky kicks goin' down in the city." which isn't quite as bad.

I don't think that if you bought Dark Side of the Moon at Wal-Mart it would be censored though. Just like Dave Matthews' Before These Crowded Streets is not censored, or at least wasn't when I bought it there, despite the fact that it quite clearly contains the word "fucking" in one song. On the other hand, Matthews didn't use it as an expletive but to refer to the act of copulation. The line being "Tell me are you satisfied with fucking?"

If Wal-Mart's concern is degenerate music then they should simply not sell it. It's one thing to throw an expletive or two in a song but when it turns into a 5 minute talk about killin' dose niggas and beatin' dose hoes it has degenerated into hate speech. To sell it at all is a tacit admission that they find the music acceptable enough to contribute to the artist's riches and allow a bunch of white-collar record executives to make a lot of money feeding hate into the minds of people.

Re:censorship

[soliptic]

Agreed. I got the cd single of "Battleflag", my ex-roommate later got it on vinyl. I was amazing to discover it was 'supposed' to say "on your motherf***in' knees": my radio edit had said "on your n-n-n-n-n-knees", and the stutter effect sounded sufficiently cool that not only did I fail to realise it was there to cover a swear word, I actually prefer it.

Likewise, there was a briillant radio edit of a Mekon and Schoolly D track, which replaced the swear words with old-school hiphop style samples, cuts and scratches. I could never find the radio edit which disappointed me as once again I actually preferred it to the uncensored version!

Re:censorship

[magisterx]

You have an excellent point that it is meant as a sarcastic attack on that lifestyle, but sarcasm flies over the heads of many children (and all too many adults). I should have been more clear in my post, the song is definitely not glorifying it in its totallity, but snippets without examination can seem to be, and that is more than enough pause for some parents. I am certainly not saying that it should be censored, I have a child myself and he hears the uncensored version on my playlist all the time, but I can understand why parents and radio stations react to it.

Re:censorship

[doyle.jack]

Croddy, Good comment. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I used to edit music for a living. Well, part of a living. Really, anything in radio is "part" of a living for most. There are a few popular methods for editing songs for content. There are other reasons for editing songs, but we'll focus on editing for clean radio versions (content). As you mentioned, recording alternate lyrics is one. This requires extra time in the studio, obviously. Lots of hip-hop artists do this nowadays. Eminem is very good at doing it in such a way that you don't even realize that the lyrics were changed until you finally hear a filthy version. This is the preferred method by most listeners, because the song doesn't sound like it was messed with too much, as long as the substitute lyrics work well. The Live/Lightning Crashes example uses this method. Another method is to reverse the offending lyric. Sometimes they get lazy and reverse the instrumental part of the track, too. This sounds awful. The preferred method here is to reverse only the vocal, and leave the music alone. If you have a track at home where they do this, rip it in and play that part backwards. You'll hear your word. This method doesn't require much post-production work at all, and zero extra time in the studio for the artist. Same as the next method... muting, or drop-outs. Real simple here... just mute the offensive lyrics on the acapella track. Song sounds edited, but doesn't require time from artist and very little post-production time. I think the longest it ever took me to do this on even the worst offending song was about 20 minutes. Last major method is to replace the offending lyric with another sound... sound effect, whatever. Requires muting and then selecting a new sound to put into its place. No extra time from artist, but a little extra post-production effort. Hip-hop songs like to do this a lot.

Re:censorship

[doyle.jack]

Coming from a radio background myself, let's talk about the Nickelback song, Rockstar. I have not personally heard the version with "drug dealer" cut out. However, I know for a fact that there are SEVERAL version of this song circulated by the record company itself. Some stations will not play the song unless specific changes are made. For example, I have heard many stations play the song as-is. There is also a station in my home town, Roanoke, VA, that plays a version with both "Assholes" and "Ass" muted out. "Drug dealer" is still there, though. WFLZ here in Tampa, FL (where I am today) plays a version with "Drug Dealer" but "Assholes" is blurred a little bit but "Ass" is still intact. It's not necessarily always a matter of what the government says to do, but also a matter of what is right and wrong to broadcast over the air. It's a matter of preference and what the station itself feels is acceptable.

Is is disclosed?

[Rude Turnip]

Does Wal-mart at least label their CDs in retail stores and disclose in their online store that the songs are edited versions? The politics of it aside, as long as they are upfront about selling edited versions of songs, then I have no problem with it. However, if they are not being honest about selling songs that aren't the "real" ones, then that is plain deceptive.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[LWATCDR]

The ones I saw had an edited sticker. This will get modded down but Wal-Mart isn't censoring anything. They have simply told the music companies that they will not carry albums with parental advisory stickers. The record companies don't have to comply. Wal-Mart isn't censoring anymore than you are if you choose not to watch Fox News.

I do find it a little silly that they worry about "bad" words but sell alcohol, tobacco, and guns.
I find tobacco a lot more offensive and family unfriendly than most bad words.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[croddy]

The record companies are indeed complicit in this, and so are the artists. Before you sign your rights and integrity over to a label, you should think long and hard about whether they will be doing something objectionable with your work.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[oyenstikker]

I do find it a little silly that they worry about "bad" words but sell alcohol, tobacco, and guns. Beer is bad? Game hunting with guns is bad? I won't be shopping at your store.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[rob1980]

I haven't paid enough attention but I don't think they do. That said... the manufacturer is making the changes to the content here, not Wal-Mart. It should be up to the manufacturer to make sure the albums are marked as clean.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your point, they aren't censoring anything.

But I see nothing wrong with tobacco, alch, and guns... None of these incite vilonce, they don't even "have" a message, beyond if your over 18 or 21 you can partake and depending on the use of the gun, you can kill things (like, for instance, food).

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do find it a little silly that they worry about "bad" words but sell alcohol, tobacco, and guns.

In a free society, "Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms" is a convenience store and not a national police force.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[kabocox]

The ones I saw had an edited sticker. This will get modded down but Wal-Mart isn't censoring anything. They have simply told the music companies that they will not carry albums with parental advisory stickers. The record companies don't have to comply. Wal-Mart isn't censoring anymore than you are if you choose not to watch Fox News.


I, um, download most of my music. I've found out lately that I've gotten old and really dislike any versions of songs other than the radio-edit. There were 4-5 songs that I liked on the radio, but I could no longer stand after hearing the "unedited" version. The "unedited" versions have been ruining good songs. Actually, I want radio/chorus edits. There are some songs that I only start paying attention to once the chorus hits. It wasn't until hearing the complete song that I found out the first 30-45 seconds of my favorite chorus songs are absolutely horrible. Thank god that I got a copy of cakewalk so that I can make my own edits.

I do find it a little silly that they worry about "bad" words but sell alcohol, tobacco, and guns.
I find tobacco a lot more offensive and family unfriendly than most bad words.

This is one of the weird things about people and the way the world works. Wal-mart can "censor" music/games/books that it doesn't like and get away with it fairly easily. Why? because most of the "censored" music/games/books you can find in the music/games/book store a few blocks down. The complaint against alcohol, tobacco, and guns is funny. Why? Because Walmart has always carried alcohol, tobacco, and guns.

The only Walmart's that I don't sell alcohol are those that are in dry counties. You may be unfamiliar with that odd concept. Here in Arkansas and many other southern states various counties have voted not to allow alcohol to be sold in their county. This is extremely funny because if you look at a map of which counties are dry and which are wet, it's a checker board. There is almost always a liquor store at the county line as well. That liquor store might as well be the everything that the "good" folks don't want to see bought "here" but will be bought and brought back anyway store. ;)

Re:Is is disclosed?

[LWATCDR]

Alcohol in my opinion is bad. It exasperates many social ills and is often abused by minors. If you want to "protect kids by not selling product at all instead of restricting it then yes don't carry alcohol.
Guns. Well guns to kill lots of people and again if you are going to not sell a product based on it danger factor then guns would be on that list.
Tobacco is just evil. Selling it is evil and the tobacco companies are just evil. I have watched two friends die from lung cancer that was probably caused by tobacco.
So yes I find it as dumb for Wal-Mart to not carry records with parental warnings as I do for a town to outlaw topless bars when their are hookers on the main street.

Yea you probably wouldn't want to shop at a store I ran since I wouldn't carry alcohol, tobacco, or firearms.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[downix]

Most of the time yes, but I have cought a few occasions where disks were not labelled as such, but when I played them compared to my friends bought-elsewhere disks, there were parts missing. Sometimes the missing parts were odd to select for removal as well. **boggle**

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Anonymous Coward]

That liquor store might as well be the everything that the "good" folks don't want to see bought "here" but will be bought and brought back anyway store. ;)

Those in the "checkerboard squares" that allow alcohol sales can catch the "good folks" 50 miles or more away buying their alcohol in another spot on the checkerboard, sometimes even that great Southern Baptist minister who will be preaching on the evils of alcohol and the sins of gossip the following Sunday. He need not worry that the Police Chief or Sheriff testify that they saw him there, nor many of the other "good folks" cause they fear the question "and what brought you to that location?" and of course they will attend his next service. Pass the plate for tithes brothers.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Scrameustache]

Does Wal-mart at least label their CDs in retail stores and disclose in their online store that the songs are edited versions? 3 clicks from the walmart.com main page: The Parental Advisory program is a voluntary program created and administered by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Re:Is is disclosed?

[LWATCDR]

Nope I know of dry counties. I used to spend my summers up in the Mountains of NC and that area was "dry". If you saw the roads it actually seems like a VERY good idea. Driving drunk on those roads would a Darwin experience.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Belial6]

Pools kill lots of people too, and don't have the benefit of having prevented many rapes, robberies, beatings and killings. Maybe your list should be alcohol, tobacco, and pools.

I might shop at your store as long as it isn't your alcohol, tobacco and firearms store. Although the lack of product would keep my bill down.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[commodoresloat]

Beer is bad? Game hunting with guns is bad? yes, but game hunting with beer is good! just ask Dick Cheney!!

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Pojut]

Alcohol in my opinion is bad. It exasperates many social ills and is often abused by minors. If you want to "protect kids by not selling product at all instead of restricting it then yes don't carry alcohol.

In moderation I find nothing wrong with alcohol. Like Bill Hicks said though, if I were to choose a drug to make legal it sure as hell wouldn't have been alcohol.

Guns. Well guns to kill lots of people and again if you are going to not sell a product based on it danger factor then guns would be on that list.

I suppose that means we should stop selling cars too? Lawn equipment? Ladders? Power Tools?

Tobacco is just evil. Selling it is evil and the tobacco companies are just evil. I have watched two friends die from lung cancer that was probably caused by tobacco.

Tobacco is not evil. Hell, to the Native Americans it was once one of their most sacred herbs. If you wanna be pissed, be pissed at the red man for it, not the fat man in a suit. And by the way, your friends didn't die from tobacco; they died from all the other shit that was thrown in there. But don't act like they didn't know what they were getting themselves into. I'm not trying to downplay the death of your friends (my grandmother died from lung cancer as well) I'm just saying don't act like they didn't know what the risks were.

That would be like going to the running of the bulls in Spain and then suing the government when you get gored.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know pools (and guns) don't kill people, people kill people, usually using weapons.
With that said, people can't carry pools around in their back pocket and stuff someone's head in to drown them, it's not easy for a malicious person to hide a pool or their intent on drowning someone. If you try to drown someone in a pool, you won't easily miss and drown someone else.

Get your head out of your ass, moron. Just because someone says guns shouldn't be around kids, doesn't mean they're against people owning guns..... so ignorant.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[kisrael]

"Wal-Mart isn't censoring anymore than you are if you choose not to watch Fox News."

or is the situation, in some places, more like "as if Comcast chose to carry no other news network than Fox News"

I mean, there's still Satellite, right?

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I probably wouldn't shop on account of your ignorance.

Exasperates doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

Alcohol is perfectly legal to sell to adults. Minors are not allowed to purchase alcohol at Wal-Mart. The people who shop at Wal-Mart are perfectly ok with purchasing edited music. It may seem silly to you, but it makes it easier for a parent who wants to teach their child that foul language is uncouth and a sign of an under developed intellect to purchase music that won't undermine their instruction.

Guns don't kill people. People's ignorance or malice kills people. More kids are killed by swimming pools than by guns, on a swimming pool vs gun per child comparison. You should ban swimming pools.

Tobacco, used in moderation, can be enjoyed will little or no deleterious effects. Cigars promote a healthy relationship with the tobacco plant. Cigarettes are mass marketed tobacco snacks. Similar to twinkies, but greatly overshadowed in harm by the harm that twinkies, potato chips, corn syrup, white bread, and other refined sugar sources have done and are doing to our society. You should also consider banning flour.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[LWATCDR]

You see you are living in a absolute world.
I didn't say ban the sale of guns. I said that they shouldn't be sold at Walmart.
I never said ban the sale of tobacco. I said that shouldn't be sold at Walmart.
That is if you follow the logic that not selling albums that contain bad words is to protect children.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[LWATCDR]

I am a "Red man" I am a Native American.
Sorry but I remember seeing Tobacco executives telling congress that they had no proof that tobacco caused cancer. The tobacco companies marketed to children for years and are just evil.
As to the sacred nature of tobacco. Yes in that cultural context it is harmless. The problem is that cultural context doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for a long time.

The Tobacco companies are a bunch of rich white ex slave owners that sell an addictive product that kills people. How anyone connects smoking with cool I will never get.
Just shows the power of marketing with morals.

As far as alcohol goes. I never said that it should be banned. Just that it is at least as harmful to families as records with bad words. I think it is a bad thing so I don't drink. That is my choice your drinking in moderation is your choice and may be a fine one for you.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Belial6]

OK, I can accept that. But we really should put pools in the list too.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Pojut]

And they are entirely correct, tobacco doesn't cause cancer.

All the extra shit that is put into cigs do (this includes any pestacides used on the plant itself), but organically grown tobacco (just like weed or just about any other herb) will only cause lesions on your lungs...but not cancer.

Again. Tobacco the plant is not what harms you. It's the other shit in a cig that does. I'm not saying that suddenly makes cigarettes "better", I'm simply saying that it's a common misconception that tobacco is what gives you cancer.

The Tobacco companies are a bunch of rich white ex slave owners that sell an addictive product that kills people

And stop with the slave owning bullshit. Slave ownership in the way you are referring to it was gone LONG before they were even born. I can assure you, the fat suits (at least the ones living now) have never owned slaves.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[LWATCDR]

No I like pools.
I never said that I was complete rational all the time.
Actually pools can have some value for a family. They can be a fun shared experience and good exercise. Guns for hunting and maybe target practice "You don't get a lot of exercise target shooting" could have some of the same value so I would be willing to modify it to say "hand guns". I know that people do hunt with hand guns but that is just silly. Do it right and get a rife or if you are going for fowl a shotgun.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Anonymous Coward]

exacerbate, exasperate Sometimes confused or misused. To exacerbate is "to make a bad situation worse, to aggravate the situation." To exasperate is "to greatly irritate or annoy another person."

Re:Is is disclosed?

[qor]

- Alcohol often lets a very shy person open up and talk to people they never would normally, therefore breaking an initial barrier (hell, I know). And I have nothing against minors drinking responsibly, even more so with parental supervision. Nothing better than a son sharing his first beer with his father (oh wait, that would imply a certain level of parenting) - Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are only the means to do it. Otherwise, religion kills people, cars kill people... so on and so forth. - Tobacco is as evil as that spread crap they sell in the US instead of good old butter. The tobacco companies are just as evil as Wal-Mart. PEOPLE decide to smoke, not the tobacco industry. A bit of frigging self-control never killed anyone. But then, we have alcoholics. We have gun-crazed people who think everything can be solved by just pulling the trigger. We have 8-year-old kids smoking. Everything can be solved by just getting rid of those so-called 'evils'? Why don't we get rid of all the science books as well? Then maybe the atomic bomb wouldn't have been invented. People need to get their heads out of the sand, and look reality in the eye. Truth hurts. Deal with it. I might be modded troll for this, but it's sad to see that still today people hide behind preconceived notions of 'good' and 'evil'.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[justinlindh]

Wow, you are excruciatingly ignorant. Every one of your posts in this thread have been absolutely ridiculous.

The Tobacco companies are a bunch of rich white ex slave owners that sell an addictive product that kills people. How anyone connects smoking with cool I will never get.

Seriously? Do you realize how old these people would need to be in order to be "ex slave owners"? Slavery may have played a part in the cultivation of tobacco in GENERATIONS past, but that's hardly the case now. The reason that the tobacco companies are able to deny that tobacco causes cancer is because it's impossible to prove a direct cause/effect correlation due to life involving infinite outside factors. Yet, everybody KNOWS that it causes cancer. It's not a secret, and hasn't been for a long time. People still choose to smoke; do you really believe it's because they once marketed Camel cigarettes with a happy cartoon character several decades ago? People smoke because they choose to, and have for a VERY long time now. If tobacco were outlawed, people would still find ways to smoke (only, this time, they'd be considered criminals).

Outlawing guns does nothing. People who are going to do harm with firearms don't care if they're legally doing so (They're about to cause crime anyway). This can lead to a situation where only the "bad guys" have guns, while the "good guys" can't protect themselves.

Alcohol can be used in moderation, and any damage caused to others due to the misuse of alcohol should absolutely be punishable. They tried making alcohol illegal once, and I'm sure you've read all about how well that worked out.

The point is to focus more on outlawing the actions that people do with guns/alcohol/whatever, not the item/substance itself.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of the edited CDs that Wal-Mart sells are indeed labeled as such.

However, Linkin Park's "Minutes to Midnight" was released in two different packagings at Wal-Mart, one in a hard CD case (like normal) and one in a cardboard jacket case. The hard case release was labeled as "Amended," but the jacketed version wasn't. I'm not sure if it just contained the artist/album on the plastic wrap or nothing at all, but it did not indicate that it was edited.

I purchased this CD there (price matching with Best Buy's $9.99 the week it came out) and discovered that it was actually edited (the first two Linkin Park CDs contained no profanity, thus no editing). I went back to see if the version I had bought actually had a label--if it didn't, I was going to demand a refund since there was no indication it was actually edited. Unfortunately, I had grabbed the hard CD case release and had no good grounds on which to demand a refund, since I should have seen the label before buying.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Wog]

My legally-carried handgun has never killed anyone. On the contrary, it may very well someday save my life or the lives of my children from someone who desires to do us harm.

When did we get the idea that protecting yourself from predators is an evil thing?

I love that so many slashdotters are quick to protest the infringement of their right to free speech, then in the next breath say that my right to keep and bear arms should be somehow limited so that I can't protect myself. Hooray for double standards!

Re:Is is disclosed?

[QuantumRiff]

They won't sell music with "bad words" because of family values, yet they sell the cigarettes that are killing grandma, along with new toys with that shiny lead paint from china!

Re:Is is disclosed?

[glitch23]

I do find it a little silly that they worry about "bad" words but sell alcohol, tobacco, and guns. I find tobacco a lot more offensive and family unfriendly than most bad words.

I agree with the alcohol and tobacco since there are no good things to come out of the usage of those products however guns aren't necessarily bad (as long as you can pass the background check then you *should* be okay to own it.....to go hunting...for animals). However, I'd guess the reason they sell alcohol and tobacco is the same reason why some places sell porn DVDs/magazines and other seemingly non-mainstream items: money. I'm taking a guess here since I'm not up on all the taxes and profit margins associated with those items but I'd guess that stores make a bundle on those items.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[TheRaven64]

All the extra shit that is put into cigs do (this includes any pestacides used on the plant itself), but organically grown tobacco (just like weed or just about any other herb) will only cause lesions on your lungs...but not cancer. Can you back that up with some research? Commercially produced cigarettes produce around 100 known carcinogens, some of which are simply products of combustion simple hydrocarbons. I find it very hard to believe that they are all the result of products added to the plant.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Grant_Watson]

It may seem silly to you, but it makes it easier for a parent who wants to teach their child that foul language is uncouth and a sign of an under developed intellect to purchase music that won't undermine their instruction.

But should WalMart be complicit in that kind of abuse? :-P

Teaching kids that swearing is uncouth is perfectly reasonable. But teaching kids that swearing is a sign of an underdeveloped intellect is just asinine; it's also a pet peeve of mine.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[jez9999]

Alcohol often lets a very shy person open up and talk to people they never would normally, therefore breaking an initial barrier

And so do Ecstasy and cannabis, but you don't see many people arguing for them to be made legal.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[LWATCDR]

Again with absolutes. I was speaking only about what is sold at Wal-mart.
Just because I don't like guns means that I think they should be banned. My BIL is a police officer and also collects guns. When I used to ride my bicycle off road a lot in gator country I thought about carrying a .45 but figured the risk of it going off in a bet off was greater than the benefit to me.
Over all I don't like guns and if you carry a gun you are far more likely to die by a gun than if you don't have one. That is a statistic fact. But just because I don't like them doesn't mean that I think they should be banned.
BTW a 12 gauge pump is FAR more effective at defending you home than any pistol.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[LWATCDR]

I will go over this one more time for those that deal in absolutes.
1. Walmart well not sell records with bad words because they want to be family friendly.
Guns, alcohol, and tobacco have all caused a much or more harm than records with bad words. I would say a lot more harm.
There for it is illogical for Walmart to carry guns, alcohol, or tobacco.

Tobacco is just evil and those that sell it are making profit out of causing people harm. It is that simple. No not everybody that works for the tobacco company is the descendant of slave owners. I was just using a bit of historical perspective of the grief that tobacco has caused over the years.

As I said I wouldn't sell alcohol, tobacco. or firearms at a store I owned.
I feel drinking is wrong for me but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. I don't like to be around it so why would I sell it?
I feel tobacco is evil. Not just a bad choice but wrong.
Guns are more complex. I really don't want to own on myself. I have qualified with the M-16 and the Colt 45 when I was younger. If one is going to sell firearms I feel they should have a deep knowledge of how to use them and how to train people to use them safely. I lack those skills and don't want to gain them so for me it would be wrong to sell firearms since I can not do in what I consider a responsible manner.

Just because I don't like some things doesn't mean that I want them banned. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that I don't have good reasons. Just because I choose to live my life a different way than you doesn't mean that I hate you or consider you may enemy.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[GPL Apostate]

The first person to own a slave in a European-dominated colony on the North American continent was a black man. Or, I should say, a man with dark brown skin whose ancestors came from Africa. Look it up some time.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[GPL Apostate]

Actually, you will find that many of the same people who advocate for alcohol to remain legal also advocate that cannabis be made legal.

It's not a clear-cut world. There are even conservative groups that buy full page ads in magazines like National Review (a quite conservative US magazine) advocating the legalization of drugs.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Lost Engineer]

And so do Ecstasy and cannabis, but you don't see many people arguing for them to be made legal. You must be new here.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck? So if I buy a used fucking CD I have no fucking way of knowing if it is a fucked up version? That's fucked up.

Fuck, man.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[corbettw]

Yea you probably wouldn't want to shop at a store I ran since I wouldn't carry alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. What the hell kind of store is that, ya damn Communist?!

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Bassman59]

Alcohol in my opinion is bad. It exasperates many social ills ...

The word you're looking for is "exacerbates."

You're welcome.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[iainl]

I swear a lot more when I'm drunk. Which has to be good for at least Alanis Morrisette levels of irony.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[LWATCDR]

Yet another NUT CASE living in the world of black and white!
The simple premise if my statement is that alcohol, tobacco, and guns are as bad for people if not more so than records that have bad words in them. That makes it silly to sell them while not selling records with bad words.

I don't like alcohol I don't drink. I disagree with you about the benefits of alcohol there for if I owned a store I wouldn't sell it. I didn't say I wouldn't let you sell it.
Tobacco kills people and your comment about the spread is just DUMB. The tobacco companies have lied to congress and the people about the dangers of smoking. That makes them evil. They have market to kids and it took changing the laws to stop them. My opinion and damn right I wouldn't sell tobacco. I will do nothing to help them make money or help addicted people kill themselves. Notice I didn't say make them illegal!

I don't own a gun. I don't know enough about guns that I could sell them in a responsible way. So I wouldn't sell them.

What is wrong with you people that huge numbers of you don't understand there is a difference between I don't like and I want them declared illegal. Or I wouldn't sell them and I think they should be banned.

What the heck is wrong with you people!
There are lots of things that people do that I don't like that doesn't mean that I want them banned. Heck I would love to see no more professional wrestling, People magazine, and National Inquirer. That doesn't mean I want them illegal!

Re:Is is disclosed?

[oyenstikker]

What is your solution to the problem?

To personally refuse to shop at Walmart, and hope enough other people do the same to force Walmart to change their stock? Good luck.

Somehow prohibit certain vendors from selling certain merchandise? What are your criteria for deciding who can and cannot sell guns?

Re:Is is disclosed?

[welshsocialist]

Generally yes. Edited editions of a album are marked. In my local Wal-Mart, one can generally find the words 'amended' on the white sticker that bonds the top of the jewel case.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[doyle.jack]

Does Wal-mart at least label their CDs in retail stores and disclose in their online store that the songs are edited versions? The politics of it aside, as long as they are upfront about selling edited versions of songs, then I have no problem with it. However, if they are not being honest about selling songs that aren't the "real" ones, then that is plain deceptive. Yes, they are upfront about it. They've always been open about this. Either way, the songs don't have the advisory label on them. They are selling the same copy of it that the record companies send them. This has ALWAYS been the case with movies. Only nowadays are you seeing UNEDITED ones released.

Re:Is is disclosed?

[Wog]

"That is a statistic fact."

Cite sources? Otherwise admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

As for your shotgun comment... I've got that base covered, as well. One thing a pistol *is* handy for around the house are households that have children who sleep far away from mom and dad. A shotgun is great for hunkering down and waiting for the police, but not for moving quickly to secure your child's bedroom after a break-in.

You should have gotten that permit to carry the pistol when biking. Shame on your brother for not showing you how to use a proper holster to eliminate the risk of accidental discharge.

You don't like guns? Fine. But don't go spouting incorrect "statistic fact" because of your bias, and don't go advocating the removal of my rights, even partially. (That *is* what you've been saying throughout this thread, despite what you say in this little spot.)

They can take my means of protecting my loved ones when they pry it "from my cold dead hands."

There's an absolute for ya.

Suggested headline:

[Spy der Mann]

"Wal-Mart ditches some crap, keeps other crap."
From the 'its-crap-anyways' dept.

Re:Suggested headline:

[ASBands]

If only we could download the songs over a network filled with crap...

censorship: US-centric?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Does anyone know if Wal-Mart censors the music it sells in Canada? I've never heard of any complaints that they do.

Re:censorship: US-centric?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen any censored music outside of the US.

Re:censorship: US-centric?

[zippthorne]

Me neither. But I should probably mention that I've spent all of two weeks outside of the US, and most of that time was on a boat or at a beach.

Re:censorship: US-centric?

[jedidiah]

When ET (the movie) was released, there were a number of European countries where I would have been restricted from seeing that movie due to my age. The US is no innovator in censorship by any means.

rights?? censorship??

[bcrowell]

Why is this under "your rights online," and why is the word "censorship" used in the summary? Censorship is when the government infringes on your free speech. If a private organization doesn't want to sell you a particular item, that has nothing to do with the first amendment. Joe's Bar and Grill doesn't offer any CDs for sale -- does that constitute censorship? No, it just means that Joe didn't choose to offer a particular item for sale at the bar. It seems particularly ludicrous to complain about this at a time when there are so many real and horrible civil liberties problems in the U.S., e.g., the attorney general declaring that there is no right to habeas corpus in the constitution.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[nuzak]

> Censorship is when the government infringes on your free speech.

No, it's when any third party does. You have a right to be a censor in your own home, as do most private entities. Wal-mart may have that right, but it is still being a censor, and it's perfectly accurate to call it that.

I'm so sick of the "it's only bad when government does it" argument.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[croddy]

Don't confuse censorship in general with the public freedom of speech. Editing the work of another party to remove something you disagree with is still an offense of censorship against the work -- it is just not a violation of constitutional rights. Wal-Mart is unlike your theoretical bar and grill in that it is offering those works for sale and is making objectionable edits to them. It's not a crime, and it's not a violation of civil liberties. It's just wrong and offensive.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Kjella]

Village (world), meet boy (slashdot) who cries wolf (censorship) way too often. Think Wal-Mart is doing it out of a genuine interest to promote family friendly music? Hell no. They're just selling the stuff with the highest margins and that don't scare away other customers. Censorship isn't when you grocery store doesn't stack $foo brand frozen yogurt for business reasons. Maybe, if Wal-Mart had a monopoly status on selling music then perhaps you could talk about censorship, but even then it's waaaaaaay of a stretch.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Bacon Bits]

No, censorship is when any person with any kind of authority modifies a work for ethical, moral, or political reasons. Wal-mart has authority over what they sell and the music produces have authority over what they sell, so edited copies of records are censored. Therefore, the music companies and the retailer are in the practice of censorship.

It's just not unconstitutional censorship, or censorship which impinges on your rights. This is not to say that this manner of censorship is any more or less ethical or moral (although they clearly have less authority over us as individuals comapred to the government) nor that we as the affected group should be any more or less outraged by the censorship. It is simply not illegal for the RIAA to produce such tracks and Wal-mart to sell such albums, and, indeed, they have the right to do so.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[cdrudge]

I'm so sick of the "it's only bad when government does it" argument.

When the government does it, it usually means that you have no other (legal) choice but to accept the censored version. When a non-government entity does it, it's their choice and there is almost always an alternative. Yes it may not be as cheap or convenient, but there is still ways for you to get your censor-free music. It's not "bad" when Wal-Mart does it, it's their choice. Just like it's your choice not to shop there.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[M. Baranczak]

Censorship is when the government infringes on your free speech.

Bullshit. Censorship is censorship. The government doesn't necessarily have to be involved.

If a private organization doesn't want to sell you a particular item, that has nothing to do with the first amendment.

The first amendment is irrelevant here, and nobody even mentioned it, so I don't know why you brought it up. And just because something is legal, doesn't mean I have to approve of it.

It seems particularly ludicrous to complain about this at a time when there are so many real and horrible civil liberties problems in the U.S., e.g., the attorney general declaring that there is no right to habeas corpus in the constitution.

So in other words, until we get an AG that actually respects the Constitution, we can't complain about all the other petty bullshit that goes on around us? That might take a while.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Khaed]

Except it doesn't do anything to my rights.

I have a right not to shop at Wal-Mart to buy my music. And I don't. I've avoided them for as long as I can remember when it comes to buying music. Wal-Mart has a right to not sell what they don't want to sell.

The silly part is that they DO sell R-rated movies. I saw Porky's for sale at Wal-Mart, and Slither -- the latter of which has more profanity than most non-rap albums, I'd wager.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[WindBourne]

Actually, as a parent, I like that Walmart does not put everything there. My kids are far too long to be into pop music, but I still do not like the idea of their being exposed at age 10 to a lot of what I hear in rap or hip/hop.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[FatAlb3rt]

No, censorship is when any person with any kind of authority modifies a work for ethical, moral, or political reasons.

When any person with any kind of authority modifies the work? Even the artist? Seriously Mr. Clinton, why do you feel you need to redefine words? You're just spouting crap - who modified the work? Maybe the artist wanted two versions, and you can be sure that, whether done in the studio or electronically, they agreed to it somewhere in the fine print.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[mpe]

Wal-Mart is unlike your theoretical bar and grill in that it is offering those works for sale and is making objectionable edits to them. It's not a crime, and it's not a violation of civil liberties.

Are they making it absolutly clear which tracks they have altered? If not then they are at best being misleading about what they are selling. (Even if they take care to avoid selling anywhere which has laws requiring accurate descriptions of goods offered for sale.)

Re:rights?? censorship??

[ari_j]

Is Wal Mart actually editing the songs? I didn't realize that they were. Here, I just thought that they told music distributors that they would only carry music that is edited to remove offensive words. Is that different from Joe's Bar and Grill telling its beef supplier that it will only carry USDA Choice beef? If you want crappy beef, you can go next door. If you want unedited music, Wal Mart has competitors who will gladly sell it to you.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Bullshit. Censorship is censorship. The government doesn't necessarily have to be involved."

Bullshit. Context is important, regardless of what cliches you throw at it. This isn't the gov't trying to prevent you from having independent ideas, it's about Walmart saying they don't want to sell certain things unless they meet certain criteria. The key ingredient here is that you can easily go get that music in a lot of other places. Walmart's doing nothing to prevent that. But... if you want to go ahead and claim censorship is censorship, I suggest you go to Best Buy where they're refusing to sell Hane's underwear. Go get'em!

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Bacon Bits]

What does censorship have to do with your rights? Censorship is just something you can do. It is not tied to the rights of anyone anymore than Ophcrack is tied to illegal computer access. If you use censorship to violate someone's rights (such as the First Amendment) then it becomes illegal, but censorship in and of itself does not imply violating a right under all conditions.

Simply put, the word censorship as defined in any Dictionary does not specify or require that it be done by a government entity.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like States are free to set the drinking age to whatever they want, but the feds won't give them highway funding if it doesn't match their approved "21".

It's basically coercion. Walmart's actions are causing the songs to be censored, therefore there do have a hand in this.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Bacon Bits]

No, I said, "any person with any kind of authority". Obviously if you take it out of context the meaning changes. Yes, this would include the artist, since he may modify his own performance on ethical, moral, or political grounds, and in doing so would prevent the original work from being heard.

I'm not redefining anything. I'm using the definition as listed in the standard English dictionary. *Any* standard English dictionary. If I change "fuck" to "fsck" or "$#%@" or "darn", I've censored myself. I have engaged in censorship. I have become a censor. I have authority over my own message, and I have denied the complete original meaning to you by modifying it.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[goldspider]

Wrong? Offensive?? If you're offended by a store choosing not to sell a certain product, you need a HUGE dose of perspective.

Whose rights, exactly, are being violated here??

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still censorship and labeling it censorship is not inaccurate in any way.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[croddy]

It's not a violation of rights. It is offensive to my musical sensibilities. Do not pretend that Wal-Mart is "choosing not to sell a certain product". They are selling versions altered in accordance with nonartistic concerns -- in accordance with religious and economic concerns. These are not legitimate motivations for altering a piece of music. They are objectionable motivations. This is not an economic problem or a rights problem.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Scrameustache]

I'm so sick of the "it's only bad when government does it" argument.

When the government does it, it usually means that you have no other (legal) choice but to accept the censored version. When a non-government entity does it, it's their choice and there is almost always an alternative. Yes it may not be as cheap or convenient, but there is still ways for you to get your censor-free music. It's not "bad" when Wal-Mart does it, it's their choice. Just like it's your choice not to shop there. Don't like the store's policy? Don't shop there.
Don't like the country's laws? Don't live there.

When a government entity does it, it's their choice and there is almost always an alternative. Yes it may not be as cheap or convenient, but there is still ways for you to get your censor-free music. It's not "bad" when the country does it, it's their choice. Just like it's your choice not to live there.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[goldspider]

I imagine a lot of people who find the original titles' content as objectionable as you find the altered versions. Therefore, it comes down to a simple matter of taste. You don't have to get your panties in a wad over it; just buy what you want from where you want.

Kudos to Wal-Mart for finding an otherwise untapped market, and matching a product to them.

Personally, I find most music produced today "offensive to my musical sensibilities", but you don't hear me complaining about who's selling it, do you?

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Chosen Reject]

And it is not Walmart that is editing the "art" either. They say they won't sell it, the labels want it sold at Walmart, and so the labels and the artists change the "art." You can either have a problem with the artist being willing to change his art, or you can have a problem with the artist selling his rights to the label so that the label can change the art, but in either case your beef is with the artist.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Anonymous Coward]

Walmart isn't censoring the "art". Walmart requests the "artists" to censor their work in order to sell them at Walmarts. If anything, it is the "artists" selling out on their "art" for a buck.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[shaka999]

So in that context what is bad about censorship? Unless you have Tourette's Syndrome your censoring yourself all the time. Besides, we all know that isn't what the title of the page was referring to...

Re:rights?? censorship??

[shaka999]

I guess when Wal-mart starts building walls to keep shoppers inside I'll believe your argument.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[croddy]

Yes, that is correct. I have a problem with everyone involved in this practice.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[E 99]

Don't confuse censorship in general with the public freedom of speech. Editing the work of another party to remove something you disagree with is still an offense of censorship against the work -- it is just not a violation of constitutional rights. Wal-Mart is unlike your theoretical bar and grill in that it is offering those works for sale and is making objectionable edits to them. It's not a crime, and it's not a violation of civil liberties. It's just wrong and offensive.

Nonsense! First, Walmart isn't editing anything. It is reselling a particular product offered by the artists via their publisher, i.e. the edited versions of CDs; and not reselling another product, i.e. the unedited versions. Second, it's every individual's and every corporation's duty to conduct their business in what they view as a responsible and ethical manner. If you are a reseller, that means it's your duty to act with conscience when deciding what products to carry. If you're a private citizen, this means moderating what comes out of your mouth, so as not to say things that will degrade society and lower the quality of public discourse. This can be called "self-censorship," but if it is, then self-censorship is the foundation of any kind of public or private morality.

Calling Walmart's good-faith decision about what it will sell "wrong and offensive" is itself wrong and offensive. Those who say it doesn't make business sense are ignorant of the retail market, and can't see beyond what they would personally like to buy. Walmart will lose some sales to people who would buy the unedited version, but in exchange, they by provide family-friendly atmosphere, and a place where parents who care about that sort of thing can let their kids go and pick out a CD to buy. In other words, they provide an invaluable service to their market that no one else is providing.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a violation of rights. It is offensive to my musical sensibilities.


Holy crap! 99.99% of all music sold today (edited or not) is offensive to my musical sensibilities. Do you think that the world owes me something for that?

Get a grip.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Johnny5000]

It's not "bad" when Wal-Mart does it, it's their choice.

Well, yes, it is still bad, but like you said it is their choice to do it.
Just because they have the right to censor doesn't mean it's a good thing that they exercise that right.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[PitaBred]

They have enough of a monopoly to dictate much of how things are produced. Musicians know that if they want to be successful, they have to be sold at Wal-Mart, which severely influences the music market, believe it or not. If Wal-Mart says "jump", anyone wishing to have their stuff sold at Wal-Mart will do so, because not doing so can be very costly.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[E 99]

Wal-mart has authority over what they sell and the music produces have authority over what they sell, so edited copies of records are censored. Therefore, the music companies and the retailer are in the practice of censorship.

This is silly. First, reselling a censored work is not censorship. Second, what we are talking about is self-censorship. These are alternate versions of CDs produced with the blessing, if not heavy involvement, of the artist, for the purpose of getting more radio play and making more money. Self-censorship is not a bad thing. And even if you think it's a bad thing, it is certainly not Walmart's fault that the artists offer those products.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Bacon Bits]

Nothing is wrong with censorship. It's only bad in that it can be abused.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[cdrudge]

What good is a right if you can't exercise it?

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Bacon Bits]

Ah, but they choose to sell the censored version over the uncensored one. Presumably either or both could be made available at their store (this is Wal-mart, after all). They have a choice, and they elect to use the modified version, and they do so for their own moral or political reasons. Thus, they elect to censor.

I have never claimed Wal-mart was good or bad or that censorship is necessarily good or evil. Quite the opposite. Censorship, like many things, is wholly neutral when not associated with any context. I was merely pointing out that, yes, this is a form of censorship. I did say that censorship risks offending those who then use the works, but again, that is merely an aspect of censorship, not on the virtue of censoring works.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[FauxPasIII]

> you can easily go get that music in a lot of other places.
> Walmart's doing nothing to prevent that.

Continuing the trend... Bullshit. Preventing their customers from having any
other choice in the marketplace has been WalMart's primary modus operandi for
at least 15 years.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Adambomb]

censorship (sn'sr-shp') Pronunciation Key
n.
The act, process, or practice of censoring.
The office or authority of a Roman censor.
Psychology Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.

censoring

noun
1. counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy
2. deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances

(dictionary.reference.com)

So...where was the government mentioned there?

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, sorry, I misread your post I replied to in my pre-caffeine-fix phase. I thought you said it DID impinge on rights, and replied to that sentence. My mistake.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[ashmon]

That's the beauty of the Internet. There isn't one "place" you can buy stuff. They're talking about the online Wal-Mart music store here. It's not like there aren't any other choices when it comes to online buying of music. This isn't censorship, it's a company choosing not to sell a certain product. Wal-Mart doesn't have a monopoly here. Ever hear of iTunes? go there if you don't like Wal-Mart's modus operandi. It's just a click away.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Anonymous Coward]

That word you keep using. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[UbuntuDupe]

No, censorship is when any person with any kind of authority modifies a work for ethical, moral, or political reasons. Wal-mart has authority over what they sell and the music produces have authority over what they sell, so edited copies of records are censored. Therefore, the music companies and the retailer are in the practice of censorship.

Even by that (contrived) definition, this isn't censorship. They're doing it for business reasons: to keep people coming to the store. They (in their estimation) gain more $ by keeping the shelves "clean" than they lose.

Business reasons are distinct from political, moral, and ethical reasons.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Bacon Bits]

Yes, so contrived. It's only the primary definition of censor.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[godzilla808]

From m-w.com:

Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable (censor out indecent passages) Censorship: 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

The above definitions make no mention of the government. Wal-mart, in this case, does not sell the music that it deems objectionable. This isn't based purely on business, but more on what the company feels is right/wrong. That's censorship.

Now, do I think that this is as bad as governmental censorship? Nope. But at least recognize it for what it is.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[SEE]

Wal-Mart was smaller than either K-mart or Target in the 1980s. How do you think they pulled ahead of both? Magic?

No, what Wal-Mart did was gather massive amounts of information, and learned to apply it better than the bigger chains. They worked out what sells and what didn't, kept their fingers on the pulse of demand, and then made their choices of what to stock and how accordingly. That upped their margins; they sold through inventory faster and thus made more profit on the same fixed store costs. That drove the profits that let them launch a huge wave of expansion -- and successfully compete with Target and K-Mart in the markets those two already dominated. Wal-Mart won because it had better information about what sells than its discount retail competitors.

And that's a huge reason for manufacturers to do what Wal-Mart tells them to do. Wal-Mart knows what sells at retail better than anybody else.

Take the example of Diet Coke with Splenda. Wal-Mart had better information on the demand for Splenda-sweetened soft drinks than Coca-Cola could have, because it knew how non-Coke Splenda soft drinks were selling. So when it told Coca-Cola that Splenda would be a good idea, Coca-Cola followed the advice -- and it's selling quite well, through all retail channels. Including, for example, Target.

If Wal-Mart says "jump", anyone who wants to make money will do so whether or not they care about selling through Wal-Mart, because Wal-Mart knows what the hell it's talking about.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Rayin]

Why is it wrong and offensive?

Why should you be able to excercise your right to free speech and the owners/executives of Walmart shouldnt be able to excercise theirs? After all, that is all that they are doing.

Its like when the Dixie Chicks were taken off of a lot of radio stations a while back. They were free to say what they wanted. However, if I own a radio station and dont like what they are saying, I should be equally free to voice my opinion by not playing their music.

Business owners deserve freedom of speech just as much as you or I, and there is nothing wrong nor offensive about that, especially considering that Walmart is actually PROHIBITING actual wrong and offensive material from being sold in their stores...

Re:rights?? censorship??

[CastrTroy]

There was a big argument about this when a local grocery store decided to stop carrying a local Gay/Lesbian paper because they found that a lot of the content was pretty objectional. Lots of sex content and what not. Stuff you may not want the kiddies reading about. Well, they started a big stink about how it was censorship. Sorry, but if they don't want to display your product in their store, then that's their perogative. They don't sell playboy magazines either. Are they censoring that? No, they just decide what products they do and do not want to carry in their store. Forcing them to carry a product they don't want to infringes more on their rights to run their business as they see fit than them not carrying it infringes on someone elses right to sell a product.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Bullshit and bullshit. That's not censorship. Walmart's hold on the music industry is hardly monopolistic.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[PMuse]

censorship - No one may sell this music.

personal choice - I won't sell this music.

See the difference?

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Johnny5000]

What good is a right if you can't exercise it?

Most people would agree that the KKK have a right to organize and preach their beliefs,
but that it's rather distasteful for them to do so.
It's perhaps an extreme example, but I hope it illustrates my point.
Someone can be well within their rights to do a bad thing.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it wrong or offensive? The artists agreed (through contracts with their record labels) to allow these alternate versions of their works to be created. Some people don't like bad words. Censored versions of their work allows it to be opened up to other people who otherwise may have refused to listen to it (or been denied by their parents as is more often the case). It's a compromise to allow their work to reach more people. If they didn't want to make that compromise, they have the option of negotiating record deals that do not allow censored versions of their songs to be created. This may limit their options as to what labels will carry them, and the number of people that will be exposed to their work, but that again is their choice as an artist.

There is nothing unethical or immoral going on here.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[MirthScout]

censorship - man in the middle of the distribution chain makes the choice
personal choice - end user makes the choice

See the difference?

(Aren't english words fun. We all have different views of what they mean. :)

Re:rights?? censorship??

[Eravau]

Agreed, it's censorship of what content/merchandise they choose to provide. But the assumption here seems to be that any censorship is inherently wrong...even if a private entity censors what they will and will not sell.

As for the your rights online listing? This has nothing to do with our rights. We still have the right to buy or not to buy at Wal-Mart or elsewhere as we are inclined. But if we say "Wal-Mart has to sell such-and-such"...then there are some rights being infringed upon...but they're not ours, they're Wal-Mart's rights as a private entity to sell or not sell what they wish.

I censor what I watch, listen to and read...but I'm not infringing on anyone's rights. There are just some things I don't want to hear about. Everyone has the right to free speech...just not free guaranteed delivery to every soul on earth.

Re:rights?? censorship??

[nuzak]

> But the assumption here seems to be that any censorship is inherently wrong

That would be an incorrect assumption when it comes to parents and minors, the workplace, or a number of other venues. Wal-Mart's censorship is more of a pandering to a moral code that aims to restrict virtually every expression of grown men and women. So yes, I consider it wrong. It's their right, and my right to not shop there, and I leave it at that.

Wal-Mart is in for trouble as their growth plateaus, because I can't think of any other retailer with a public image that's not only "uncool" (K-Mart and Target had that problem) but actively loathed with such passion -- and not just by customers, but by suppliers!

WTF?

[gEvil (beta)]

What the frig? WalMart can keep their shouty censored DRM-free mp3s! I'm taking my flippin business elsewhere...

Download once

[Anonymous Coward]

Upload thousands of times.

The way the internet is meant to be.

Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[iamacat]

For me, CDs with swear lyrics are a specialty market that is adequately served by Internet/mail orders and adult stores. I don't see why a store that also sells toys and teen clothes would want to carry "50 cents" in the next isle. The real problem is that WalMart is a monopoly in many communities and there may not be another CD store for quite some distance. Rather than regulating there offerings, we should split up the company to promote competition. Then customers will have a variety of places to shop, "family-friendly" or not.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[Opportunist]

I don't see why a store that also sells toys and teen clothes would want to carry "50 cents" in the next isle.

Because it makes money, and the customer won't notice that he was ripped off by getting a disc full of squeaks instead of what he wanted before he gets home anyway.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[reidconti]

CDs with swear lyrics are a specialty market?

No, oddly sanitized versions of 'reality' without obscenity are a specialty market.

Thankfully those who get all hot and bothered by an arbitrarily-judged "offensive" word are a dying breed.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[Anonymous Coward]

50 cent

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[Paulrothrock]

Until I moved into the city, I thought that it wasn't so bad that so many hip hop artists, particularly the popular ones, swore so much. Then I heard how the people who lived across the street from me, who immersed themselves in "hip hop culture," spoke. Every other word is the F bomb. They don't even need to be excited or angry to use it. And it's not just the parents, but the children as well. And they all seem to call each other the N word, even though it's about an equal split between caucasian, hispanic and african american.

I don't mind using the word occassionally, but constant use of words like that water down their meaning. And I also don't like how they seem to SCREAM every sentence. Fortunately they're moving soon, and their landlord is converting the building back to single-family houses.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[funkatron]

I don't see why a store that also sells toys and teen clothes would want to carry "50 cents" in the next isle.

Because the only age group that can stand to listen to a full album of 50 cent will also be interested in toys and teen clothing.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[tieTYT]

I don't see why a store that also sells toys and teen clothes would want to carry "50 cents" in the next isle.
That makes about as much sense as carrying "Busta Rhymeses", "Wu-Tang Clanses", "Fabolouses", and "Notoriouses Bs.Is.Gs."?

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[DrusTheAxe]

>Thankfully those who get all hot and bothered by an arbitrarily-judged "offensive" word are a dying breed.

One can fucking hope so.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[Restil]

And Walmart will happily refund the cost of the CD purchase... even if you can't produce the receipt. So nobody's really getting ripped off here. Besides, the only people who are likely to not realize the CD they're purchasing is not chock full of cussing are probably too young to be purchasing it anyway.

-Restil

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[iamacat]

Oh well, there probably should be some songs about one's virgin wife being raped by the landlord before marriage as per order of the king (look up origins of the word "fuck" sometime). However, I don't see why I would want to hear about that every day, in every song. Or why such music needs to be sold in the same store as teddy bears. Mind you, I agree adults should have a right to buy it somewhere.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[commodoresloat]

I don't see why a store that also sells toys and teen clothes would want to carry "50 cents" in the next isle. The thing is, they do carry "50 cents" in the next aisle; they just carry a version that bleeps out the word "fuck" but nevertheless contains the same exploitive, misogynist, violent gangsta message. The problem with all this censorship is not only that it backfires (making the uncensored version all the more desirable, and enhancing 50 cent's credibility as a thug and an outlaw), but also that it doesn't address the problem in the first place. The problem is that this underlying message (of black criminality, of abuse of women, of a puerile sexual obsession, and of glorified violence) is the message that the major record labels have decided is "what the people want." It is the message that is promoted in commercial hip-hop on radio stations and so forth. I don't think any of it should be censored but I do think a realistic dialogue about this message needs to be had by the industry as well as by local communities. Unfortunately, instead of having that dialogue, companies censor the word "fuck" and pretend they've done their job.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[shaka999]

If the words weren't considered offensive they wouldn't be used in the first place. The "artists" are trying to make a childish statement. Or more likely trying to sell to rebellious teenagers trying to make a childish statement.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[wilder_card]

So don't buy the song. You go along all happy in your Pollyanna world. However, why you would want to buy the song after they excise certain words escapes me. Either you know what the word is anyway, or the song doesn't make any damn sense. Either way it's stupid.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Actually, Walmart will not issue refunds on CD purchases (or software, or DVDs). But Walmart doesn't have a choice - blame copyright law for that. The best you can do is exchange a defective CD for an identical one. And because I know somebody's going to suggest it, I don't think you're going to get anywhere claiming the CD is defective because there's a squeak instead of the work "fuck".

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[Anonymous Coward]

50 cent or you know in context of the actual sentence "50 cent's"

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[Delkster]

Oh well, there probably should be some songs about one's virgin wife being raped by the landlord before marriage as per order of the king (look up origins of the word "fuck" sometime).

Last time I checked, that theory about the origins of the word was probably false.

Anyway, while I don't really care if there's swearing in lyrics one way or the other, I certainly understand that some serious matters that are worth expressing can be difficult to convey as strongly without some strong words, and some matters themselves, expressed in any relatively direct way, are of the kind that would probably warrant a parental advisory or something. Unfortunately the world isn't only daisies and butterflies so neither should music be. That kind of music isn't even some kind of a niche; there's a lot of it.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[dwye]

> look up origins of the word "fuck" sometime

It comes from an early Anglo-Saxon verb meaning to strike. The acronym theory is nonsense; the word is older than the use of Latin to euphemize; certainly it started before the separation from any Dutch tongue.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[iamacat]

Music influences your mood and actions. If you listen to swear music most of the time, you are more likely to be angry and destructive. Say there are two songs:

1. Country music: We really tried to work out our relationship, but we just have too many differences. Let's just divorce and move on while trying not to screw up our childrens' lives
2. Rap: Fuck and kill this nappy headed whore

Which lyrics is more likely to motivate you to handle your personal life constructively? Life may not always be beautiful. Art should uplift people rather than helping them work up the rage.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[Opportunist]

Even if they did replace it, my time's not free. It's for sale. I sell it daily, by the hour. I doubt they'll pay me for the hour wasted.

Re:Why should *every* song say "fuck"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your characterizations. First, a fair portion of country music contains what most people might consider "adult themes", including alcohol abuse and marital infidelity. Granted, it's hardly ever (maybe never, but I don't know) expressed with profanity, but how are those concepts more acceptable than certain vulgar words? Further, the sanitization of lyrics is somewhat arbitrary - my favorite example being "crap" and "shit". A song with "crap" is acceptable, but a song with "shit" is right out. Perhaps you could explain how those two words convey significantly different concepts to a minor? As follow up questions, do you imagine that people under 18 don't defecate, and is it OK for the song "Why Don't We Get Drunk and Screw" to be sold in the same store as teddy bears?

Second, you've singled out rap music, which is certainly an easy target, but that is by far not the only music to earn those Parental Advisory stickers - quick examples from the stack of CDs next to my desk: "Rosenrot" by Rammstein, "Lest We Forget" by Marilyn Manson, and "Faceless" by Godsmack. As it turns out, roughly 20% of the CDs I have at hand have those stickers, and wouldn't be available at Wal-Mart; none of my CDs are rap music. So, there's a fair amount of music I like but cannot buy at the same time as a teddy bear in Wal-Mart, and none of it is rap. Additionally, I don't accept at face value that listening to "swear music" is likely to influence someone to become "angry and destructive"; perhaps the correlation is only in your head, or perhaps you have the cause and effect reversed. I assure you that frequently listening to Rob Zombie has never given me the inclination to eat children (or their teddy bears). OTOH, if I were forced to listen to enough country music...hmmm.... Anyway, nobody's forcing you to buy a Ministry CD with your teddy bear.

But wait, all is not lost - even though I can't buy any "swear music" at Wal-Mart, I can still get a gory and violent movie to go with my teddy bear. Depending on the movie, perhaps you might label it "swear video".... Maybe you feel that a season of "The Sopranos" on DVD is more "family friendly" than "Tupac's Greatest Hits" on CD (or whatever rap CD, I made up that title). But such a view doesn't make sense to me, and I find Wal-Mart's policy to be capricious and hypocritical.

But is Wal-Mart's policy actually capricious and hypocritical? Perhaps not in a business sense. I can easily imagine the same people who applaud Wal-Mart's policy on "swear music" blithely ignoring the presence of "The Sopranos" or "Saw II" right across the aisle. The decision-makers at Wal-Mart know this. I suspect that the margins & sales volumes for DVDs is better than that for CDs. If so, then it would make sense - they get to tout themselves as "family friendly" by sacrificing the lower profit items, while keeping the higher profit items that very few people bitch about.

- T

"Censorship"?

[nmb3000]

How is this censorship? Like any other store, Walmart chooses what they will and will not stock. Regardless of what you personally think of Walmart, they got where they are by making smart (perhaps sometimes ruthless) business decisions. I know this might be hard for some Slashdotters to believe, but what about people who want censored, or a 'radio edit' of a song? Besides, nobody is forcing you to shop at Walmart, and if you want to buy music there then you get what they sell. I don't see how the "censorship" issue is news at all.

Hurrah for dropping DRM though. Be interesting to see how long this will last and if there is any repercussion. One nice thing about Walmart is that it's big enough to just smile give the bird to the RIAA.

Re:"Censorship"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but, unlike charity, it should end there.
                Clare Booth Luce
                US diplomat, dramatist, journalist, & politician (1903 - 1987)

Re:"Censorship"?

[mcmonkey]

How is this censorship? Like any other store, Walmart chooses what they will and will not stock. Regardless of what you personally think of Walmart, they got where they are by making smart (perhaps sometimes ruthless) business decisions.

How is Microsoft a monolpoy? What's wrong with bundling IE with Windows? Like any other OS provider, MS chooses what software will and will not be included/compatible. Regardless of what you personally think of MS, they got where they are by making smart business decisions.

Not saying you should take one side or the other, but the situations seem pretty similar to me.

BTW, it's not just a case of Walmart only selling the 'radio edit' versions of CDs. They also will not sell at all CDs, Books, etc. that are critical of Walmart.

Re:"Censorship"?

[swb]

Censorship is in many ways a poor word, because it begs comparisons to the coercive government control that you see in totalitarian societies like China. But in many ways it fits, since Walmart is a large organzation with significant market power that is using its choices to limit the choices that consumers can make.

Wealthy, affluent consumers are seldom affected since they generally have choices, but even in totalitarian countries, they often have choices as well (black markets, travel, etc). But people whose choice is Walmart or nothing dont really have any choices, and this is where it starts to feel like the other kind of censorship.

Due to Walmart's size, Walmart can influence the ability of others to make choices; suppliers will have to decide if its worth it to produce uncensored content while also meeting Walmart's needs at Walmart's prices.

What I don't get, though, is why Walmart censors stuff at all. It may have made sense back in the 1980s when their primary market was bible-belt rural, but now? It just seems self-limiting.

Re:"Censorship"?

[PCM2]

Besides, nobody is forcing you to shop at Walmart

Unless you live in one of the areas -- quite common in mid-America -- where Wal-Mart is pretty much the only retailer for everything. Don't believe me? There are communities in the U.S. where not only does everybody shop at Wal-Mart, but most of the people in the community work there, too. Wal-Mart undercutting everybody else's pricing on everyday goods particularly affects smaller retailers in these parts of the country, where people don't have as much disposable income as they do on the coasts and are more keenly interested in "bargain shopping." Indie record stores haven't a hope of surviving where A.) a comparatively small number of people are interested in indie music; and B.) Wal-Mart is going to put all the new mainstream releases on sale for $9.99 the week the come out.

Re:"Censorship"?

[ClioCJS]

the word censorship as defined in any Dictionary does not specify or require that it be done by a government entity.

Re:"Censorship"?

[workindev]

Really? Please name a specific town where the only place to shop or work is Wal-Mart.

While you are working on that, consider Hays, Kansas. I had the "privilege" not to long ago of driving through Hays on a road trip. It's a small, Kansas town in the middle of nowhere off I-70. Downtown was a couple of blocks long, and there is a large, Super Wal-Mart right off the freeway. Not too surprisingly, the area around the Wal-Mart was booming. There were strip malls packed with stores, new commercial developments under construction, and lots of cars and 18-wheelers stopped there to shop. See for your self. It seems as though, at least in Hays Kansas, that Wal-Mart was helping draw customers to these new stores rather than smash them to oblivion with their low prices.

Re:"Censorship"?

[E 99]

What I don't get, though, is why Walmart censors stuff at all. It may have made sense back in the 1980s when their primary market was bible-belt rural, but now? It just seems self-limiting.

You should see the miles of cars every Sunday outside the mega-church near me, just outside of philadelphia, a very liberal city. The demand for family-friendly shopping is everywhere in North America, not just the Bible Belt. South America even more so.

Re:"Censorship"?

[Anonymous Coward]

but what about people who want censored, or a 'radio edit' of a song?

What about them? If they don't like the lyrics then they can go $#%& themselves. Hey, who censored my post!!?

Re:"Censorship"?

[PCM2]

Really? Please name a specific town where the only place to shop or work is Wal-Mart.

I can't remember any specific names but I was specifically thinking of some towns I passed through while on a Greyhound bus in Wyoming. Somebody else on the bus knew someone who lived there and that was pretty much her life.

This phenomenon has been studied and discussed pretty thoroughly, though. Here's a report by an Iowa State University professor from 1997 where they found that small towns lose up to 47 percent of their retail trade once Wal-Mart moves in. (It's a PDF.)

Re:"Censorship"?

[workindev]

That's funny, because there have been plenty of studies concluding the exact opposite of what you are claiming too.

-A study at West Virginia University concluded that "the process of creative destruction unleashed by Wal-Mart has had no statistically significant long-run impact on the overall size and profitability of the small business sector in the United States"

-The Ludwig von Misis Institute concluded that Wal-Mart significantly contributes to the wealth of a community

-Mississippi State University concluded that there are "both positive and negative impacts" on the local stores when a Wal-Mart is built

-MIT concluded that Wal-Mart benefits the poorest segments of the population the most

-The University of Missouri concluded that a Wal-Mart does far more economic damage to neighboring towns that it didn't build in compared to the towns where they build a new store

From my recent experience driving through Hays Kansas, I tend to believe these reports more than those who claim that Wal-Mart destroys the community.

Re:"Censorship"?

[notamisfit]

http://www.apple.com/itunes/

Re:"Censorship"?

[swb]

What the fsck is "family friendly" shopping? I find it hard to believe that an uncut version of "Requiem for a Dream" among a zillion other videos in the DVD bin amounts to "family hostile shopping." "Hustler" on the checkout aisle, sure.

Walmart has been hammered of late for their inability to cater to more "sophisticated" customers -- ie, people other than dolts wanting to gorge themselves on low-quality imported crap. I don't see how continuing down the same road built around fake Moral Majority family values aids in the growth.

Re:"Censorship"?

[E 99]

The majority of parents (or at least a large enough minority that you can build a shopping empire around them) like the freedom of letting their kids pick any CD in the store to buy, knowing that none of the "music" contained therein will contain explicit descriptions of deviant sexual exploits. And those who whine because there is a store who won't sell them such are not considered "sophisticated" by the rest of us, nor presumably by the executive management of Walmart.

Re:"Censorship"?

[swb]

Pay attention to your fucking kids and what they consume! Don't require that the nanny corporate state do it for you.

Re:"Censorship"?

[E 99]

Pay attention to your fucking kids and what they consume! Don't require that the nanny corporate state do it for you.

A) My kids don't buy their own CDs. B) If they did, it's a good thing that there's a store available that provides an environment and selection that I find appropriate for them.

Whatever then "nanny corporate state" is, and whatever it is doing for me, is limited to the confines of your own imagination.

Re:"Censorship"?

[swb]

I guess keep shopping at Walmart and all the other thought control corporations, since you aren't capable of taking care of what your kids buy or teaching them how to make decision that reflect your values.

Apples and Oranges

[pickyouupatnine]

At issue was weather WalMart would sell DRM-free music. Yes they will. Now what kind of DRM free music users will find is a completely different story - that is for the consumer to decide. Atleast they aren't being conned into buying something and then finding out that there are large imposing restrictions on what they can do with what they've purchased.

Also in Canada?

[DarkArctic]

Is the music censored in Canada as well? I can't remember that last time I bought a CD there so I can't say for sure, but I think I have bought CD's with the "Parental Advisory" notice on it.

Re:Also in Canada?

[crossmr]

its not censored in the US so using "as well" there makes your sentence confusing.

Re:Also in Canada?

[DarkArctic]

Sorry, I guess that was a bit unclear. According to the article Walmart sells edited copies of albums. Just curious if this is just in the States or for us in the Arctic playgrounds too.

NOT Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

You want your rap lyrics hard or rock more sexual, buy from somewhere else. These crap edits aren't getting my money.

Wal-Mart isn't telling artists what to sing or fighting for a law to prevent you from saying or buying explicit lyrics, they are merely risking sales (mine, at least) and choosing their values over capitalist greed.

Re:NOT Censorship

[oxidiser]

I would hesitate to say they are choosing values over greed. In fact, I believe greed is most likely the motive for the editing to begin with. They view themselves as a family-friendly store, or at least market themselves that way. I would imagine they assume the number of customers who would stop shopping there is greater than the number of customers they would gain by selling original music edits. I'm sure if they felt they would make more money by selling the unedited versions, they would do so.

Re:NOT Censorship

[jedidiah]

The ironic part of course is the fact that the "family unfriendly" part of most of these works have squat to do with which of the "7 deadly words" are being employed. Merely being at Walmart in any form just goes to show how genuinely crass they are being about the situation. It's really remarkably two faced.

Framed in terms of the presumed goal of the practice, it's even worse.

Now the stuff is cloaked but no less problematic really.

OTOH, the presumed intended market here likes blissful ignorance.

Re:Not censorship

[Scrameustache]

If they start to stop people from singing those lyrics in their stores then it will be censorship. Go sing "Killing in the name" by Rage Against The Machine in a series of walmarts, come back to me with your results/mugshots.

Re:Not censorship

[stinerman]

Fuck you. I won't do what you tell me. ;-)

Value Add

[jumperboy]

The important distinction is that, in this case, censorship adds value for some consumers, while DRM does not.

Re:Value Add

[xenobyte]

The important distinction is that, in this case, censorship adds value for some consumers, while DRM does not.

How can you ADD value by REMOVING something that was intentionally included in the product by its creators?

A product that's missing some part is defective by any definition and an artistic creation is all or nothing. It's completely unbelievable that they've gotten away with selling vandalized stuff like this for so long. It should be illegal to sell something like this without a HUGE label informing the user that THIS PRODUCT HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM ITS INTENDED FORM BY REMOVING CERTAIN LYRICS AND/OR PIECES OF ARTWORK IN ORDER TO SATISFY A MORALLY CHALLENGED CENSORSHIP BOARD.

Re:Value Add

[jumperboy]

I don't advocate censorship of the arts or product tampering. My understanding is that the music is altered voluntarily by the artist so that it may be considered for sale by Walmart. The artist does not have to comply. I very much agree with you that there should be a prominent notice that the product has been altered to meet certain guidelines. Just keep in mind that some people will seek out such a notice, especially if they want to be sure a purchase is age-appropriate. This adds value to some consumers. The fact that an artist will alter their work to participate has the same impact on their integrity as any other reaction they may have to their audience or market factors. At least with downloaded music, you can purchase individual songs, so the impact Walmart has had due to its instore album sales may actually decrease, since they can opt to make available online only the songs that meet their guidelines.

Just shows Wal-Mart isn't all bad

[Reality Master 101]

Considering the type of music that typically has two versions, I can only assume that parts of it being removed can only be an improvement.

Wait a minute, I wonder if that CD of Beethoven Piano Sonatas I bought the other day from Wal-Mart was censored... *then* we would have something to complain about.

Sounds good to me if they are using artists I like

[SuperKendall]

I really don't care if Walmat only carries "clean lyrics" since little music I listen to has any distinction between "clean" or "explicit".

The technical specs look good though, and I think music companies need to see that people will buy DRM free music if it is offered. So, I'll probably try to find a few tracks to buy...

Let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

So the story here is that Wal-Mart is going to start selling a bunch of generic second-rate stuff, cheaply. But if you want anything "real", you won't be able to find it there.

This is news, and in YRO section. Thanks for keeping us informed about these lightning-paced developments, Smiley Face and Zonk.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

[DoofusOfDeath]

'It's a bit hard to believe that all the customers who shop at the world's largest retailer want censored versions of music, though, but that's what they get

I doubt all customers want any particular product or service. The more important question is whether or not enough want this product in order for it to be worth offering.

Speaking for myself, I do want this service. The absence of crude songs is completely irrelevant to me because I wouldn't want them anyway. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Re:I'd buy that for a dollar.

[E 99]

I doubt all customers want any particular product or service. The more important question is whether or not enough want this product in order for it to be worth offering.

No, that's not the question. I don't think there's any doubt that the sales of unedited CDs would more than pay for the actual expense of carrying them. The question is whether those sales would make up for the loss of business Walmart would receive from abandoning its "family-friendly" policies. The answer is that Walmart's family-friendly-cred with its customer base is one of it's most important assets, and there is no way that the sales of unedited CDs would ever even approach the value of that.

No need to suspend disbelief

[SparkleMotion88]

It's a bit hard to believe that all the customers who shop at the world's largest retailer want censored versions of music.

People go into Wal-Mart all the time and buy CDs from "artists" like Ashlee Simpson and Finger 11. After observing this, I have no trouble believing that customers will buy whatever the retailers put on the shelves.

What I don't understand. . .

[Blinocac]

They censor the music obviously to appeal to the Christian Right. Yet, they have quit selling all but blackpowder firearms, a move that pisses off the Christian Right. I don't get it.

Re:What I don't understand. . .

[VelvetHelmet]

Probably because they are trying to maximize their profits rather than trying to please one group or another.

Google found this about the gun sales: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191818,00.html

If they felt that offering non-edited music would increase profits, they probably would do so.

At least that's what I'd do if I were running WalMart...

Re:What I don't understand. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

They censor the music obviously to appeal to the Christian Right. Yet, they have quit selling all but blackpowder firearms, a move that pisses off the Christian Right. I don't get it.

As I understand it, they're only dropping firearms where there isn't much demand. Presumably it's more profitable in some areas to use that floor space for fishing poles or tennis rackets. Also, I suspect that there's a lot of overlap in areas where there is high demand for firearms and a noticeable presence of Christianists....

- T

Thank you, Wal-Mart!

[Anonymous Coward]

I appreciate having a place to buy a "clean" version of a song. I don't care to hear obscenities that add nothing and would prevent me from purchasing an album or track were a "censored" version not available. (Thus Wal-Mart INCREASES the marketplace for music, since there's a broader audience that can get a track/album and those who WANT the "uncensored" version can find it too, just not at Wal-Mart.)

If the artist truly believes his/her art is compromised by such requirements, he/she can choose to NOT sell at Wal-Mart. (Don't tell me about record company contracts that might require such things, since if the artist is TRULY concerned, he/she would never sign a contract with a company that had such requirements.)

So thank you, Wal-Mart!

Cost for Quality?

[chew8bitsperbyte]

Ok, so Walmart is selling MP3s @ 256kbps for $0.94 and Apple is selling AACs @ 256kbps for $1.30. I like Apple and all, but is the quality of AAC _really_ that much better than MP3 to warrant an extra $0.36? I can barely tell the difference between 160kbps and 256kpbs MP3s, but maybe it's just me... ~B

Re:Cost for Quality?

[petermgreen]

Furthermore unless all your portable players play aac you are going to have to transcode those aac tracks further losing quality.

The walmart deal certainly seems better than the apple one to me if they carry the music you want and you are in the US (presumablly walmart won't sell internationally)

Re:Cost for Quality?

[babyrat]

cost for easy integration with iTunes?

Re:Cost for Quality?

[chew8bitsperbyte]

Possibly. Personally, as much as I love Apple (and hate censored music/movies), I'd rather save the $0.36 and manually drop the track into iTunes. Thirty six cents seems a bit much for a click and drag, IMO. But hey, that's just me.

Re:Cost for Quality?

[TheRaven64]

How much is Walmart charging for albums? DRM-free albums are the same price as DRM'd ones on iTunes. As to the AAC Vs MP3 thing, I can't hear artefacts on AAC at that bitrate, but I often can on MP3s. For me, 256KB/s AAC is lossless; I can't hear anything it discards. This is not universally true of 256KB/s MP3 (it is for some music, not for others). Considering that every device I own capable of playing music (including my cheap mobile phone) can play AAC, I am just not interested in MP3s anymore. Mind you, Walmart isn't launching this service in the UK, so I don't get the option of trying it..

Re:Cost for Quality?

[Lost Engineer]

Wait, that's a plus? I thought we hated iTunes.

They are playing the wrong game...

[HerculesMO]

The future of the music industry is going to be subscription based. You'll have internet access everywhere you go at some point in the near future... in your car, at work, everywhere.

You will pay $10 or $15 a month to play all the music you want.

Last.FM is one of my best bets in this market too... personalized music stations, international hits, etc.. it's going to be a lot of fun to see the next few years. Personally I use Last.FM and Yahoo LaunchCast on a daily basis -- people ask me all the time how I find such neat new music, and I tell them always "It was recommended to me" -- by whom? Ahh.. when they figure that out, say good bye to music sales as we know them.

Re:They are playing the wrong game...

[Microlith]

And when you stop paying you get no music at all.

I'd rather be forced to maintain my own collection and expand it slowly, then have to choose between everything and nothing on a monthly basis.

Re:They are playing the wrong game...

[HerculesMO]

The option to buy and keep will always be there in digital media, but I think that the future is going to be a combination, mostly streaming media and some kept media.

Like I said, I use Yahoo LaunchCast now, but when I find a song I like, I grab that (I'm on the unlimited subscription), UN-DRM it (I love you Doom9), and convert it to VBR MP3 format.

Then I can throw it onto my iPod and roam around my car and the gym with it. If I had the ability to stream into my car and the gym with 'personalization' and 'skipping' ability -- I'd never bother downloading the song, because I'd get exactly what I want.

Very Competitive: Walmart wins 3 of 4

[Future Linux-Guru]

MP3 vs AAC
256kbp vs. 256kbp
"censored" vs. "non-censored"
94 cents vs #1.29

For those who care about the "clean" tracks, it's still 3 of 4.

Of course Apple still has the edge with the iPod community, and perhaps ease of use. But no one should be fooled: this is very good for the digital music marketplace.

Doesn't Make Any $%^& Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood that Wal-Mart sells other "adult" items: Rated-R and unrated movies, booze, cigarettes, guns, and so on. Yet music with swearing in it is somehow on the verboten list, even for those above age 17. Those are some interesting morals that China-Mart, erm Wal-Mart, has.

Re:Doesn't Make Any $%^& Sense

[timster]

I'm going to have to go with racism (along with some age discrimination). Everybody watches violent movies and drinks; tobacco and guns cut across cultural boundaries. But much of the music with swearing is seen as "young black people" music and so Walmart got lots of angry letters demanding that it be taken out of the store. Your fundamentalist types don't want their children growing up listening to "black" music and disrespecting authority, as wholesome as those activities may be.

Re:Doesn't Make Any $%^& Sense

[xgr3gx]

Yeah, Walmart is damaging the US economy since it is basically a retail outlet for China.
It looks like in order to keep music prices low, Walmart is going to force artists to outsource musical talent to China, or use cheap Chinese labor for ripping the CDs to MP3. ;)

It's good because

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good because fucking filthy language breeds contempt for a god damn fucking corrupt system. If I fucking wanted to listen to filth I'd record my fucking self, god dammit !!

Wal-Mart censors.

[WK2]

For anyone wondering why a private company would voluntarily censor their merchandise, Wal-Mart does it to satisfy the Christian Rite, and prudes in general. It helps them when they advertise as a "Family Store." There are more people who would prefer that other people are censored than there are who prefer that nobody is censored, and Wal-Mart is indeed catering to the majority.

Re:Dat dang music

[Anonymous Coward]

(I can't lie though, the Marlin 39A is my favourite .22 of any sort)

And a very fine piece it is. I prefer auto-loaders however, so for me it's the Ruger 10/22.

Customer's cognizence of DRM is growing...

[ftobin]

The most important change with Wal-Mart offering DRM-free music is that it is clear customers will see music as having one of two different types of labels, WMA vs MP3. Customers tend to know that MP3's can be used technologically unrestricted, but WMA can be restricted; having this choice makes them aware that music can be sold legitimately under MP3's.

Given no direct benefit but only impediments for customers with WMA or DRM, they will attach negative connotations to DRM systems. As long as this negative connotation is implanted long enough, they will come to expect that things should only get better over time, and that WMA and DRM will eventually go away.

In this manner, the societally expected norm will change, and the anti-DRM side will win the war of minds.

Is that true?

[antifoidulus]

Its been years since I have bought a cd at Wal-Mart, but I did manage to get Coal Chamber there unedited(though the Korn CD I bought was edited...bleh). So at least some Wal-Marts sell some unedited songs....

Amazing, they can poison our dogs and children no problem, but if somebody should utter the word "fuck" then Wal-Mart has a hissy fit.

Re:Is that true?

[qqaz]

Yeah man the other day some guy from Walmart came to my house, snuck in my back yard, and was sneaking dog poison into my dog's dish. What a bunch of jerks!

Goddamn mutherfucking walmart!

[Anonymous Coward]

listening to fucking profanity in motherfucking songs never fucking did ant goddamned thing to my shit.

Fuck man, I fucking talk like any other motherfucking educated fucker. Shitheads like fucking walmart make fuckers think that fucking listening to profanity makes you start fucking swearing all over the fucking place.

Fuck em' I'm going to exercise my fucking freedom and buy fucking fuck filled fuck songs from some fucking other place.

It is bowlderized, not censored.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The correct word to use is bowlderize, not censored. That word is an eponym named after Thomas Bowlder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowlderize

That dude thought the Holy Bible has sections too racy for children and young people and so he brought out an edited version.

Censorship is when the Govt uses its power to silence an expression. As others have noted, Walmart is not preventing the record companies from selling profanity laden songs in other places.

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[dilute]

Bowdlerized

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[hansamurai]

I hate this frakking bowlderization going on in our society.

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[Nasarius]

Censorship is when the Govt uses its power to silence an expression

For fuck's sake, does anyone on Slashdot look at a dictionary? From M-W, censor (verb):

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[toriver]

I think there is an implied "as covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution" after "censorship" in the debate here.

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Both spellings have dictionary entries (onelook.com, wikipedia redirection).

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks you are too narrowly defining censorship; it can apply to all those who find fault and attempt to change the morality of others. To wit:

Dictionary.com
censor [sen-ser]
-noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3. an adverse critic; faultfinder........(4 qand 5 were arcane uses of the world)
-verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

Bowdlerization applies as well; it is a more specific form of censorship. Note that the eminent Mr. Bowdler did not object to the Bible (for how can one find fault with the directly revealed word of God?), but with Shakespeare:

Dictionary.com
bowdlerize [bohd-luh-rahyz, boud-]
-verb (used with object), -ized, -izing.
to expurgate (a written work) by removing or modifying passages considered vulgar or objectionable.
Also, especially British, bowdlerise.

[Origin: 1830-40; after Thomas Bowdler (1754-1825), English editor of an expurgated edition of Shakespeare]

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[Chris Burke]

I appreciate the informative link to the term Bowlderize, but I would like to add that just because that term applies does not mean that no other term applies. In this case, censorship applies perfectly well. It is not the case that censorship only occurs if its the government doing it, no matter what your friendly neighborhood libertarian would like you to believe.

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[smellsofbikes]

A: I'm pretty sure it's Bowdlerize, not Bowlderize -- there are a lot more references to the first term, and it's the one I've seen in print.
B: Bowdlerization is a subset of censorship. They both apply to this situation.
C: I entirely agree with you: it's an under-represented idea that anyone can censor anyone else, that it's not just governments. My community HOA, were I unlucky enough to have such a thing, would try their best to prohibit me from painting the outside of my house with enormous images of naked women riding giraffes. That's censorship. Now, if I bought a house that already had those painted outside, and then the HOA made me remove them, I believe that would be both bowdlerization and censorship.

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[monxrtr]

For fuck's sake, does anyone on Slashdot look at a dictionary? From M-W, censor (verb):

        : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable And that's an everyday normal occurrence by everyone. By definition everything which you do not choose to see or do or hear at the time you choose something else to see or do or hear is censored. When you choose one person to marry, you censor all other persons you could have married in your marriage. And nobody is suppressed in voluntary censorship. Just like if you change the cable news channel from Fox News to CNN you are censoring Fox News and vice versa. If you voluntarily bleep out bad words on your own copies of purchased music it's censored, but nobody is suppressed. So that dictionary definition is FALSE. Suppression only occurs when you violently force someone to do something they don't want to do or you violently prevent them from doing something they want to do.

And voting to tax the rich at a higher tax rate is absolutely no different a form of censorship than voting to impose mandatory Christian school prayer is absolutely no different a form of censorship than voting a Decency Czar with total power to delete all "bad" things from content. It is actually the Progressive victory paths which have paved the way for a reverse stacking of the SC to uniformly impose decrees which new groups can find objectionable. But don't forget when you vote to raise your neighbor's property taxes you have CENSORED (and by using democratic violence at that) his use of his funds, have prohibited, have stolen, what would have voluntarily been chosen. If you have no objection to that type of taxation occurrence, then you have no ethical, moral, or philosophical basis upon which to object to somebody censoring all "bad" content you possess, even against your will.

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[The Wing Lover]

That dude thought the Holy Bible has sections too racy for children and young people

By "the Holy Bible", you mean "The Works of Shakespeare"?

Did you even read your own link?

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I plead guilty as charged. I remember that eponym from my college GRE prep days and I misremembered what he expurgated. I even got the spelling wrong. But I did verify the link to wikipedia, and when the cursory reading of the wiki article showed I was on the right track I hurriedly posted it. Later I did read the wiki article and realized I was wrong to claim he edited the Bible. I dug up my old vocab book by Rosenblum and it too agrees with wiki. Bowdler edited Shakespere, not Bible. Sorry for the mistake.

Re:It is bowlderized, not censored.

[Random832]

Wikipedia often has redirects for common misspellings. That doesn't qualify as a "dictionary entry" for the purpose of defending it as if it were a legitimate alternate spelling.

Wal-Mart Still Requires "Windows"

[Anonymous Coward]

"We're sorry, your operating system is incompatible. To provide the best download experience, we can no longer support Windows 98, ME or NT. Please visit again after you upgrade to Windows 2000 or XP. Visit our Help section for complete system requirements information."

If they're gonna start selling MP3 files, maybe they should first start by allowing web access to their download store to systems other than Windows.

Re:Wal-Mart Still Requires "Windows"

[Anonymous Coward]

I just went there using Ubuntu & Epiphany. I bought a WMA and an MP3. The "download all at once" link gave me an exe, but I could download the songs individually without problem. After an "apt-get install wine" the exe they provided ran equally well.

so wal-mart censors songs

[circletimessquare]

an activist would see a free speech political issue to harp on

an entrepreneur would see a business opportunity

and me, a realist, would see that the entrepreneur has a better chance of changing the world, or walmart's opinion, than the activist does

get your facts straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Wal-Mart doesn't censor anything.

The record companies and the artists are doing this in order to sell at Wal-Mart.
In effect it is self-censorship for profit.

One is reminded of a famous painter who painted two versions of a painting for a king, one for public display (clothed) and one for private display (unclothed).

All I can say is

[niceone]

****ing **** ****mart!!

Should I check this is OK with my parents?

Re:All I can say is

[PenGun]

Maybe so. You were trying to say "Fucking Wal-Mart!!" I believe.

Re:All I can say is

[niceone]

Ssshhh - think of the children!

Re:All I can say is

[TheRaven64]

He did. Walmart inserted the asterisks.

Censorship != not selling

[dazedNconfuzed]

Censorship is when some party actively tries to inhibit you from buying or selling certain intellectual property anywhere based on content.

Wal-Mart may choose to not sell you CDs with certain lyrics, but they're sure not trying to prevent the distribution thereof elsewhere. If they were suing anyone who sold Parental Advisory materials, or lobbying for legislation outlawing it, or kneecapping anyone who bought it elsewhere, yes - but they're not; if Wal-Mart isn't selling what you want, you're free to buy it somewhere that does, and nobody is trying to shut down those places for doing so.

Freedom of the press does not mean you get to control someone else's press.

Do people really care?

[Loosifur]

I mean, I think it's great that Wal-Mart is ditching DRM; I think every music retailer should follow suit. But how many people who buy music online do it from the Wal-Mart website, or would? The content is edited, and people who go to Wal-Mart to shop are gonna go to the brick-and-mortar store for music as well, so there's not a lot of draw there I think. Besides, hasn't Apple started doing some sort of DRM-free iTunes thing?

Anyway, as I understand it DRM removal software is pretty easy to find...

Oblig Simpsons

[CrazyJim1]

Moe,"When you say I wanna I wanna put it in you, can you change that to I wanna I wanna hug and kiss you?" Red Hot Chilli Peppers,"Yah, that's even much better than the original."

Censorship as a barrier?

[secPM_MS]

How big a barrier is this censorship to most consumers? Walmart is not the only major store to restrict their merchandise to avoid offending major market sectors. Porn vendors have always prospered selling material that larger vendors choose not to carry. To the extent that artists try to offend cultural mores (or appeal to consumers who want to offend cultural mores), they restrict the venues that will carry their wares - but they may increase the demand, depending upon the balance. I have always gone to specialized vendors for specialized wares. Walmart if not going to provide primers and smokeless powder for reloading, kevlar and graphite fabric and associated resin systems for repair, or multi-system VCR-DVD combo's. They also don't carry much in the way of niche media products that don't offend their guidelines. My last music purchases were a few classical CD's that I bought at a sale and a number of CD's of traditional Eastern European folk music that I bought from a supplier in Eastern Europe for ~ $6/disc.

The interesting question to me is the fact that musical copyright only lasts 50 years in England and much of Europe. Thus, individuals and organizations should be able to put "public domain" music on the web without offending their local laws. Interested individuals in countries where the copyright law period is now much longer should be able to access this, despite these materials being under local copyright. It could be interesting, particularily for somebody like me who is quite happy with very good 50 year old recordings (really good PL's started comming out ~ 50 years ago).

Movies? Bullets?

[chrb]

Curious, I had no idea WalMart censored media it sells. Do they also censor DVD movies?

And do they still sell bullets? Saw that one in Bowling for Columbine. It would be odd to censor CDs that contain a few swear words, and yet sell lethal projectiles.

Re:Movies? Bullets?

[geekoid]

Just because someone likes to hunt doesn't mean they want to hear filth.

Those are totally different things.

No I don't hunt, no I don't mind impolite words.

Re:Movies? Bullets?

[dlhm]

I think they still sell kitchen knives in houewares and bricks in the the garden department.. both of with can be deadly if used incorrectly...

Re:Movies? Bullets?

[chrb]

I went Googling to try and find the answers, and came up with this:

Sometimes, the lyrics aren't even offensive. On her second album, Sheryl Crow wrote a song about the true case of two children in Florida who bought bullets at a Wal-Mart in 1992 and then killed a man. Wal-Mart refused to sell the album, and Crow was locked out of the world's largest retail store.

Interesting.

Re:Movies? Bullets?

[east coast]

And do they still sell bullets? Saw that one in Bowling for Columbine. It would be odd to censor CDs that contain a few swear words, and yet sell lethal projectiles.

Yeah, God forbid that Walmart (as much as I do hate them) uses their legal right to pick and choose what they sell.

Let's come over your house and make some heavy handed decisions on what is right or what is hypocritical and start to force you to live by our definition of a good life. Let's see how fast you bitch.

I can't believe that people see the legal right to choose as being somehow oppressive just because it's not the choice that they would have made.

Re:Movies? Bullets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: Not interesting

What idiot (besides chrb, of course) would be surprised that a company that invests millions per year to maintain a brand name some people trust would not want to sell a song that tangentially implicates them as an accessory to murder? Crow (who is also an idiot, but for different reasons) is criticizing WalMart in that song. Duh. It is a social commentary on the ease of accessing violent weapons but explicitly names WalMart. And you are surprised.

Re:Movies? Bullets?

[monxrtr]

I can't believe that people see the legal right to choose as being somehow oppressive just because it's not the choice that they would have made. This is a big reason for the general erosion of freedom which was brought by the political "left" side of the aisle. They don't want the government spying on your phones calls and tracking your emails but they want the government to collect your personal financial information and deduct from your paycheck. They don't want the government banning products but they want the government to redistribute wealth.

They've been "confused" for a long time, and it's good to see so many pointing out the hypocrisy. You voluntarily "censor" who and whom you associate with, whether it's a corporation, a spouse, or friends. The only time "bad" censorship can occur is when violence is used to prohibit consensual transactions and behavior. Consent is a two way street, not a one way street. And it is the height of all ironies that those who would decry Walmart choosing to sell clean versions of lyrics are the first ones in lines with pitchforks to share your paycheck. You don't have the right to enter someone's house and repeat the F word in their ear all day long if they don't want to let you enter their house and repeat the F word in their ear all day long.

And really, stop hypocritically censoring people by voting for excessive taxation for government programs that violently force other to "contribute", even if they are a minority who doesn't agree with the majority. It's actually a worse form of censorship than if religious zealots broke into your house and bleeped out "bad" words on your music.

Selected music might be a value to some

[klubar]

The fact that the music is selected for clean lyrics might actually be a value to some shoppers. Didn't project your value judgements on what all consumers want. Clearly there are many consumers that buy their music at WM so they must be doing something right. It's really about choice. What they are doing isn't illegal or even anti-competitive. If you don't like their policies don't shop there, if you do like their policies (or prices) spend your money at the store. It's not like they have a monopoly on music (or even inexpensive music.)

Re:Selected music might be a value to some

[Scrameustache]

It's really about choice. If that were true they would offer a choice.

Seeing as how the OP said "fuck" in his title...

[benhocking]

Thankfully those who get all hot and bothered by an arbitrarily-judged "offensive" word are a dying breed.

Seeing as how he had the word "fuck" in his title, I don't think he was going on about its offensiveness as a word so much as its over-use. I think his complaint was that a lot of fucking people don't seem to fucking realize that it's possible to have a fucking song without fucking swear words.

That said, I'd agree that you're unfortunately right that it's not a specialty market.

It is censorship.

[thedohman]

Sometimes I have to give my two cents...

According to Merriam Webster, to censor is: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable (censor the news); also : to suppress or delete as objectionable (censor out indecent passages)

So, yes, what Walmart does is in fact censorship of the things they sell in their stores, as they "censor out indecent passages." It is just not government enforced censorship.

In 2001, I worked (seasonally) for Sony Disk Manufacturing. I know for an absolute certainty that when new Sony label CD's were released, there was a normal version, and an edited Walmart version, so censrship was done at that time.

That said, my wife does buy CD's from Walmart occasionally. The Gorrilaz' Demon Days that she bought from Walmart DOES contain bad words of the "7 words you can't say on television" variety. This was maybe a year ago. I don't recall if the 'explicit lyrics' label was on the package or not, but it appears that the censorship is not consistent.

For those who don't care if it's censored (like parents of young children who might {gasp} want songs with no bad words for the kids to overhear while riding in the car), Walmart selling non-DRM music is a good thing. Kudos to Walmart.

Re:It is censorship.

[Gruneun]

According to Merriam Webster, to censor is: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable (censor the news); also : to suppress or delete as objectionable (censor out indecent passages)

So, yes, what Walmart does is in fact censorship of the things they sell in their stores...

No, even by the definition you provided, it is not censorship. Walmart isn't suppressing, deleting, or, in any way, preventing the record companies from providing their product to the masses. They simply aren't assisting them and they have no requirement to do so. There is a substantial difference.

Re:Very Competitive: Walmart wins 3 of 4

[timster]

I see two points to Apple, one to Walmart, and one tie. AAC is a superior format to MP3, and you have to be digging pretty deep to find a recent device that doesn't support it. It's also just as open as MP3 (and created by the same people).

Re:Very Competitive: Walmart wins 3 of 4

[VP]

That is 2 out of 4 - i.e. tie. AFAIK, at the same bit-rate AAC files sound better than MP3 files.

Hooray for Wal-Mart

[JavaJack]

I'm not sure you should even call this censorship. I'm sure these recordings are available in their original corrupt(ed|ing) version from other outlets. I don't appreciate the way in which pop culture is corrupting our language and making it seem acceptable to use the F-word, et al in everyday speech. Its disappointing to hear such speech coming from the mouths (and fingers) of people that are in other ways decent.

Those who don't have the level of intelligence necessary to use descriptive language and have to resort to meaningless expletives, have questionable intelligence.

If I owned Walmart, I would not feel comfortable offering products that contain offensive language. Better to offer the "censored" versions than not at all I suppose.

As for those who have never shopped there, what do you have against saving money? I would say that those who are not willing to save money also have questionable intelligence.

Re:Hooray for Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree w/ JavaJack here. For me, this is a *benefit*; it's just less I have to pick through.

In fact, I would like for iTunes to have an explicit filter so they don't even show up in search results -- it just makes me page through more garbage. That would be a feature, not a bug ;) (It may have that, but I don't use it enough to have found it. Still waiting for more iTunes music to be DRM-free...)

And knock it off with the "it is too censorship" threads. Even if it is technically, it is not of the "your rights" kind of censorship. It is unrelated to any rights of yours unless you are the artist. And you'll notice (if you know anything about it) that the producers generate the censored version -- just like censored movies for hotels and airplanes...

Amazon

[dazedNconfuzed]

there may not be another CD store for quite some distance.

Ever hear of Amazon.com? They'll sell you pretty much anything in print and ship it to your door in days, usually cheaper than just about anywhere else. If you've got a mailbox, the "there isn't one around here" argument doesn't fly.

Rather than regulating there offerings, we should split up the company to promote competition.

Rather than imposing your whiny will on others, go open a competing store. The whole point of this argument thread is that Wal-Mart doesn't carry that stuff; apparently there is a market for a store-next-door featuring Parental Advisory material.

Re:Amazon

[jedidiah]

Just wonderful. Knocked back into the 19th century because far too many people are far too willing to make excuses for a corporate behemoth that wields more market power than "convicted" monopolists.

Re:Amazon

[iamacat]

Rather than imposing your whiny will on others, go open a competing store

Why? It's a democracy. If I think current business laws do not benefit me, I am free to vote for politicians who will make life easier for small businesses and harder for WalMart. For example, we can simplify the tax code to make WalMart pay the same tax rate as my business would have to without expensive lawyers and offshore tax shelters. Or, we can make companies that want to sell stuff in US (besides raw natural resources like oil for which we don't have much choice yet) follow several essential US labor laws, such as workspace safety, minimum wage, and overtime pay and limits.

Re:Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? It's a democracy.

No, it isn't. The founders deliberately avoided the word "democracy" when authoring the constitution. They did so to keep assholes from imposing the "tyranny of the majority" on those of us who don't agree with their politics.

For example, we can simplify the tax code to make WalMart pay the same tax rate as my business would have to without expensive lawyers and offshore tax shelters.

Agree with you here. Government using the tax code to promote and penalize select businesses/behaviors is a Bad Thing(tm). A flat rate income/vat/NRST tax would work wonders. In fact, the Fairtax would do everything you requested.

Or, we can make companies that want to sell stuff in US (besides raw natural resources like oil for which we don't have much choice yet) follow several essential US labor laws, such as workspace safety, minimum wage, and overtime pay and limits.

Outsourcing is, in large part, a result of our income/payroll taxes. If a corporation is forced to pay taxes on labor, and then forced to pay duties when they export, outsourcing is a natural result. Adopting a VAT, NRST, or the Fairtax and eliminating the federal payroll taxes would make all labor tax-free in the US. This make a good deal of progress towards reversing the outsourcing trend. We can't do anything about the tariffs operated by foreign governments, but turning the US into a tax shelter for labor-intensive jobs could encourage such jobs to migrate from Europe the the US.

That's freedom for ya

[gatkinso]

Some PRIVATE concern sells what they see fit and people bitch.

Hey of you don't like it buy somewhere else.

While I don't agree with censorship and don't sanction it, I am not too worked up over not being sold music that blares on about "niggers" "'hoes" and "busting a cap in your ass".

Ok, enlighten me....

[Steinar]

Why would anyone censor *music*?

I can understand, though not really approve, movies, pictures and stuff. But why music?

Are they you still censoring books in the ehh, States ehh, of America?

(Please don't say they are censoring heavy metal with 'fuck' or 'shit' in the text...)

And how does it work? Beep? "It was the ever best f*beep* in h*beep*!"

Re:Ok, enlighten me....

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"I can understand, though not really approve, movies, pictures and stuff. But why music?"

For reasons that aren't different from movies, pictures, and stuff.

"Are they you still censoring books in the ehh, States ehh, of America?"

As I understand it, some schools won't carry some books in the library for students. (Lame.) Other than that, no, I'm not aware of any books being censored. I've heard of publishers bailing on them because they think they'll tank their P.R. (like the OJ book that was in the works...) but I wouldn't label that censorship.

"And how does it work? Beep? "It was the ever best f*beep* in h*beep*!""

Usually they make the instrumentals a little louder and cover up the word.

"Why would anyone censor *music*?"

I think the idea behind it is that civility breeds civility. Don't expose the kids to the nasty language and they'll be respectful. (Yeah, I agree, silly.) So the FCC puts a mandate in place saying no foul language. The reason for this is that the signal is being broadcast and anybody can pick it up. A kid can pick up a $2 radio, for example, and listen in with no way of verifying age etc. Cable TV is different, people pay for it, they know what they're entering into, you can see all kindsa 'adult' stuff.

So... kids like the music, but it's full of stuff the parents don't approve of. The parents decide they prefer to get their kids the version without the nasty language. Music industry complies, voila. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. Two flavors of the same song, let the customers choose. Fine by me.

Re:Ok, enlighten me....

[E 99]

"Why would anyone censor *music*?"

I think the idea behind it is that civility breeds civility. Don't expose the kids to the nasty language and they'll be respectful. (Yeah, I agree, silly.)

I personally see nothing silly about censoring things like graphic descriptions of group sex out of the music one's children listen to. Censoring such "artists" altogether would make even more sense.

Re:sig

[Constantine XVI]

I suggest you change your sig to reflect this story

Wal-Mart itself does not edit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wal-Mart is unlike your theoretical bar and grill in that it is offering those works for sale and is making objectionable edits to them."

Wal-mart isn't making edits to anything.
It is the record companies and artists who do the editing.
Self-censorship.

Re:Wal-Mart itself does not edit

[jedidiah]

Walmart is using/abusing it's market power to ensure that those works are censored.

It has a singular advantage in this area.

Hey everybody!

[east coast]

My local Christian book store doesn't sell Hustler! That's Censorship! Those Nazis!

My local adult bookstore doesn't sell the Bible! That's Censorship! Those Nazis!

My local country radio station refuses to play "Tooling for Anus" by The Meatmen! That's Censorship! Those Nazis!

And on and on...

Can we get over this "Store X sells items that are profitable since they're desirable to their target customer" and stop calling it censorship for once and for all? Because a business uses their legal right to choose what they do and do not sell hardly fits into the definition of censorship. On the most technical level, yes. But the word has long overgrown it's Webster dictionary definition in modern society.

Re:Hey everybody!

[toriver]

If the Christian book store sold a sanitized Hustler with no sexual content, or the adult bookstore sold a version of the Bible with all the boring non-sex edited out (and called it The Bible), you would have a point.

Re:Hey everybody!

[east coast]

No, I have a point without this since the "clean" products that Walmart is selling is being put out by the producer, they're not "censoring" anything. No one is twisting anyone's arm. Stop acting like someone is being oppressed here.

Once again this is the classic case of people mistaking inconvenience for oppression.

WalMart has the right to pick and choose what they carry. Why is it if they don't choose to carry something that you like because of their own self-imposed moral standards that you feel like you're the one being put off?

Maybe you'd like it if WalMart could dictate what you have to buy from them?

They have the right to choose just as much as you do. It's not censorship in the modernly acceptable term.

I've noticed more and more how much people hate having other people exercise their right to choose if they're not choosing the most outrageous choices. Just another sign of the decline of civilization.

Re:Hey everybody!

[ClickOnThis]

No, I have a point without this since the "clean" products that Walmart is selling is being put out by the producer, they're not "censoring" anything. No one is twisting anyone's arm. Stop acting like someone is being oppressed here. To follow the argument of the GP post, it isn't the bookstores that would be doing the sanitizing of Hustler or The Bible either. It would be the publishers. If the publishers of Hustler want to sell a sanitized version of their magazine, then it's up to them and I suppose nobody would mind. But what would the religious community have to say about a salacious edition of The Bible? I don't think they'd shrug their shoulders and say that nobody is "censoring" anything.

Once again this is the classic case of people mistaking inconvenience for oppression. As opposed to Wal-Mart's business plan, which is to get people to mistake oppression for convenience.

WalMart has the right to pick and choose what they carry. Why is it if they don't choose to carry something that you like because of their own self-imposed moral standards that you feel like you're the one being put off? If I shopped at Wal-Mart (which I don't) it would be only natural for me to be "put off" if they didn't carry something that I wanted, and instead carried it in a censored form.

Maybe you'd like it if WalMart could dictate what you have to buy from them? Seems to me that is exactly what they are doing here. And I don't mean in the sense of "you have to buy it", I mean "this is what you buy if you buy it from us."

They have the right to choose just as much as you do. It's not censorship in the modernly acceptable term. And what is the "modernly acceptable" definition of censorship?

I've noticed more and more how much people hate having other people exercise their right to choose if they're not choosing the most outrageous choices. Just another sign of the decline of civilization. To the extent that what a company as large as Wal-Mart chooses has an limiting effect on what someone else can choose, I'd say there is cause for objection. And if you want to take a look at the decline of civilization, look into the numerous reports of Wal-Mart's unsavory labor and business practices.

Re:Hey everybody!

[CRiMSON]

But isn't his point pretty much if you don't like it, don't buy it. You can get it elsewhere. And if your happy listening to edited version of a CD/TAPE/MOVIE good for you.

But personally I'll pay more, and get the real version.

The producers of the CD's I'm sure ok'd the editing (Otherwise wouldn't it be illegal to sell the CD's cause you'd be changing the orginal content, what stops me from buying 1000's of cd's editing them and reselling them then. So I'm really assuming the recaord labels are into this), couldn't this just be considered a different SKU? And Wal-mart doesn't happen to carry the other (orginal)SKU.

Re:Hey everybody!

[ClickOnThis]

But isn't his point pretty much if you don't like it, don't buy it. You can get it elsewhere. And if your happy listening to edited version of a CD/TAPE/MOVIE good for you. No, I think his point was "Wal-Mart is not hurting you, so go away." I disagree. Even putting aside their dark history of business and labor practices, their presence in the market as the world's largest retailer is bound to have an effect. It's not too far-fetched to imagine the market being skewed towards "sanitized" versions of songs by Wal-Mart's restrictive choice. Sure, some consumers want to buy the sanitized version anyway. But I think most consumers will buy from Wal-Mart because they want to save money or because they don't care. I would claim that many of those consumers would buy the "unsanitized" version at the same price if they had the choice.

But personally I'll pay more, and get the real version. And what is the "real" version, after the "sanitized" one has dominated the marketplace? I can see Wal-Mart's restrictive choice as a de facto censorship because of the sheer dominance of their distribution system.

Re:Hey everybody!

[QuantumRiff]

And I would be fine with wally mart choosing not to sell the music. But Wally mart saying "if you change this music to be different than the artists intent, we'll buy it" is not cool... like with your analogies

Your local christian book store sells copies of Hustler magazine, but the pictures are replaced with photographs of famous stained glass windows at different cathedrals.

Your local bookstore rips out pages of the bible, and pasts in pornographic pictures..

Your local country radio station plays "achey brakey heart" but tells everyone it is "tooling for Anus" when they announce the song..

The point is they are misrepresenting what they sell. The buyers intent is to hear the artistic thoughts of marylin manson (shudder) not "his artistic thoughts as re-composed by walmart". Just like if I walked into a store and bought a bible, I would be expecting a bible, not the ripped apart version with porn in it mentioned above. If I go into a porn store, wanting to buy a bible, and I don't find it, I can go to another store and get it. If i've never read the bible, or didn't know what it was, and picked up the 'edited' version, I might change my ways of thinking about certain religions..

Re:Hey everybody!

[Aneurysm]

Sure, some consumers want to buy the sanitized version anyway. But I think most consumers will buy from Wal-Mart because they want to save money or because they don't care. I would claim that many of those consumers would buy the "unsanitized" version at the same price if they had the choice.
Your argument is gone in a second there. People buy there because it is convenient and they can save money. People who genuinely cared would buy their CD at a different store at a higher price, or perhaps research where they could buy the adult advisory version nearly as cheap.

Walmart does things like this simply because the consumers choose to act this way. They can make more money from stocking the one version. Walmart is not hurting the consumers, the consumers are hurting themselves by not exercising their right to choice by actually buying elsewhere. Sadly I think the main problem is that the majority of America cares more whether Walmart stocks CDs with swearing in than they do about Walmart selling lethal firearms.

Re:Hey everybody!

[ClickOnThis]

Sure, some consumers want to buy the sanitized version anyway. But I think most consumers will buy from Wal-Mart because they want to save money or because they don't care. I would claim that many of those consumers would buy the "unsanitized" version at the same price if they had the choice. Your argument is gone in a second there. People buy there because it is convenient and they can save money. People who genuinely cared would buy their CD at a different store at a higher price, or perhaps research where they could buy the adult advisory version nearly as cheap. I don't think you've said anything that contradicted me. My argument was that those who don't care, don't care enough to shop elsewhere and pay more for the unsanitized version, yet many would buy it at the same price if it were available. But I do see that what I wrote was poorly phrased, and could be misconstrued. I meant to qualify it: "most consumers who buy from Wal-Mart would do so because...".

Walmart does things like this simply because the consumers choose to act this way. They can make more money from stocking the one version. Walmart is not hurting the consumers, the consumers are hurting themselves by not exercising their right to choice by actually buying elsewhere. Sadly I think the main problem is that the majority of America cares more whether Walmart stocks CDs with swearing in than they do about Walmart selling lethal firearms. Good points. However, I'd still claim that Wal-Mart hurts consumers when they do the socio-economic equivalent of strip mining: asking for tax incentives from already distressed communities where they locate; offering wages and benefits that are so low their staff has to rely on various kinds of public assistance paid for by the taxpayer; and so on. You're not likely to see how Wal-Mart hurts consumers by simply looking inside the store.

Re:Hey everybody!

[east coast]

To the extent that what a company as large as Wal-Mart chooses has an limiting effect on what someone else can choose, I'd say there is cause for objection.

SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE! It's called freewill. Use it!

And if you want to take a look at the decline of civilization, look into the numerous reports of Wal-Mart's unsavory labor and business practices.

I'm not shopping at Walmart as it is. I use my freewill without feeling the need to bitch about a business exercising their rights. It's a simple system. If people use it it actually works! I really really find it annoying that people feel slighted that they're so unconvinced that they would have to go to another store to buy the latest Ice Cube album. Jesus. Let these people use their rights to choose! Why is it that you people are so hellbent on forcing them into selling what you find socially acceptable? And don't say that you're not or you wouldn't bother to offset what I've said.

Re:Hey everybody!

[DavidD_CA]

Your post failed to mention Natalie Portman.

You insensitive, censoring clod!

Re:Hey everybody!

[ClickOnThis]

To the extent that what a company as large as Wal-Mart chooses has an limiting effect on what someone else can choose, I'd say there is cause for objection. SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE! It's called freewill. Use it!

And if you want to take a look at the decline of civilization, look into the numerous reports of Wal-Mart's unsavory labor and business practices. I'm not shopping at Walmart as it is. I use my freewill without feeling the need to bitch about a business exercising their rights. It's a simple system. If people use it it actually works! I really really find it annoying that people feel slighted that they're so unconvinced that they would have to go to another store to buy the latest Ice Cube album. Jesus. Let these people use their rights to choose! Why is it that you people are so hellbent on forcing them into selling what you find socially acceptable? And don't say that you're not or you wouldn't bother to offset what I've said. You misunderstand my motive. I'm not trying to persuade Wal-Mart to change its mind and carry uncensored songs. I'm "exercising my right" to encourage other people to "exercise their right" to shop elsewhere.

Re:Very Competitive: Walmart wins 3 of 4

[Future Linux-Guru]

I'd disagree. Grab any random person off the street and ask if their MP3 player will play MP3 files.

Then ask them if it will play AAC.

Truth is, most don't care. They just want it to work, and MP3 has way greater recognition out there than AAC does. The benefits of having better sound are negligible...and probably only applicable to the sorts of folks who spend time on websites like this one.

I disagree...

[PixelScuba]

Valid argument... but with Wal-Mart's power and influence, I think it actually extends into censorship. Wal-Mart is SO influential when it comes to sales that, whatever Wal-Mart says, happens. Companies have to regularly edit CD album covers, lyrics and tone down lyrics JUST to get into Wal-Mart. I can't find the numbers, but I've seen that Wal-Mart sells a significant number of all CDs sold... so when Wal-Mart says they have to airbrush a bikini onto White Zombie's 'Super Sexy Swingin' Sounds' album, I'd say that Wal-Mart is engaged in censorship simply because of their sheer influence and clout. If your local CD store says it won't carry a CD because it is explicit or the cover is inappropriate (to them), then the CD just won't be there and you'll have to shop elsewhere. BUT when Wal-Mart says it won't carry a CD for explicit reasons, and it forces the artist/producer to return and change the product to fit Wal-Marts morality views... I would definitely call that censorship.

Re:I disagree...

[The_K4]

However you can usually get the unedited version at your local record/book shop. If people did that rather then buy at Wal-Mart then they would reduce Wal-Mart's ability to make such demands. It only works because the vast majority of people buying albums buy them at Wal-Mart and accept the edited version.

Re:I disagree...

[yali]

Mod parent up!

The grandparent post makes a theoretical argument about free markets. In a competitive market, one seller's choices about what to carry are not censorship. Sellers can decide what they will and won't carry, and buyers can simply go to other sellers. Competition insures that if there is demand for some product, a seller will emerge to provide it.

But that presumes a competitive market. If a market is dominated by a monopoly seller, and the monopoly seller uses non-market-based judgment to suppress certain products, then I think it is fair to call that censorship.

Reasonable analysts have raised the serious question of whether Wal-Mart has monopoly power. Not everyone agrees of course, but I don't think it's ridiculous to argue that in the music market, Wal-Mart is using its clout to enforce non-economic judgments about content.

Re:I disagree...

[kisrael]

Yeah, mod parent up... I think the grandparent post doesn't grasp how influential Wal*Mart can be in out there in the hinterlands.

And they're a bit like the Texas School Board textbook reviewers, where the clout they wield extends beyond just the people directly cut off from certain materials by it. For people who don't want their culture hedged in by the most bible-thumpin' fraction of the population, this is a problem.

Re:I disagree...

[LWATCDR]

"Valid argument... but with Wal-Mart's power and influence, I think it actually extends into censorship. "
Can you buy the unedited version elsewhere?
If Walmart told them that the edited version was to be the ONLY version of the album sold then you might have a point. Nope people choose to buy the edited versons at Walmart and some choose to buy the unedited version. It is simply a marketing choice Walmart and the record companies made.
I think the use of obscene words in music is just selling out for cheap shock value. One of my favorite bands is Rush. The majority of their albums contained lots of speech that some people really wouldn't like but they didn't have to use any obscene words to do it.
If an artist really feels that it is wrong to change their album the they shouldn't do it. They should take the hit and not sell it at Walmart.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from people judging you. It means that you will not go to jail for it.
Walmart doesn't have to sell records that it doesn't want to sell anymore than a record company has to sign artists it doesn't want to sign or for you to buy an album you don't want to buy.
The simple solution is if you want the unedited version go and buy it.

Re:I disagree...

[Mr. Underbridge]

Yeah, mod parent up... I think the grandparent post doesn't grasp how influential Wal*Mart can be in out there in the hinterlands.

Did Amazon.com go out of business and I missed it?

Re:I disagree...

[GPL Apostate]

A lot of people like to go and look at physical things before they buy them. And I am far happier throwing a large item in the bed of my truck and driving home with it than I would be paying someone with an expensive brown truck haul it to my house, a week after I ordered it without ever seeing the physical product.

I used to like amazon.com when it was a place with a homepage that sold you books. Now it's just a sleazeshop pushing all sorts of junk on me.

Re:I disagree...

[Mr. Underbridge]

A lot of people like to go and look at physical things before they buy them. And I am far happier throwing a large item in the bed of my truck and driving home with it than I would be paying someone with an expensive brown truck haul it to my house, a week after I ordered it without ever seeing the physical product.

No doubt, but that's getting pretty far afield from demonstrating that Wal-mart's sales practices are tantamount to total censorship, even in remote areas. You have to demonstrate that you can't access mail order, the internet, and can't get to a non-Walmart record store. And if that's the case for you, then I won't me opening any mail from you, Mr. Kaczinsky. ;)

someone please fix the mod on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling the truth is not trolling.

The artists an labels themselves are the ones doing the so-called censorship in this scenario and some *gasp* all to make a profit.

Re:someone please fix the mod on this

[jedidiah]

They do this with the knowledge that if they don't there will be wide swaths of the buying public (many of them in rural areas not served by any other retailer) that won't ever see their product.

They abuse all manufacturers like this and have accelerated the outsourcing of manufacturing to China. Sometimes they push manufacturers that would never consider such outsourcing on their own.

Microsoft is a pussycat compared to Walmart.

Re:someone please fix the mod on this

[jschrod]

You are right that "troll" is the wrong mod.

Flamebait, it should be. But sadly, no mod points today.

It's the Visible Minority

[CohibaVancouver]

'It's a bit hard to believe that all the customers who shop at the world's largest retailer want censored versions of music, though, but that's what they get.

The vast majority of people likely don't want censored music, or, more likely, don't care if Wal*Mart is selling uncensoring music. However, there is a loud moralistic minority that annouces Wal*Mart boycotts etc. if they hear about something they don't like. The majority never chimes in with a counter-opinion, so the minority wins.

Another analogy might be if Wal*Mart starting selling Playboy magazine. I bet 97% of Wal*Mart shoppers wouldn't care and wouldn't alter their purchasing behaviour because of it, but I also guarantee that remaining 3% would picket the store and demand boycotts in their churches. As a result, no playboy.

Artists should fight back

[CaffeineAddict2001]

Instead of rerecording 'clean' versions of their songs they should use their creative abilities to make fun of censorship.

I like what Nirvana did with Nevermind. Apparently some nut jobs were offended by seeing a naked baby in a swimming pool and they wanted the album cover censored. Kurt Cobain said "Sure, but only if there is a small stick over the baby's penis that says 'If this offends you, you are a closet pedophile.'" The cover remained intact.

government, corporation, and individual can do it

[Scrameustache]

I dont like the store either, but this is NOT really censorship.
As a store that is owned by someone(s), managed by someone(s), they have the right to decide what it is that they will and wont sell. Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.

censorship - deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances
censoring
deletion - the act of deleting something written or printed
Bowdlerism - censorship in the form of prudish expurgation
Comstockery - censorship because of perceived obscenity or immorality

Not all censorship is equal, nor does all arise from government or external force.

censorship, official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. It may be imposed by governmental authority, local or national, by a religious body, or occasionally by a powerful private group.

I don't know who taught you to think that it's not censorship when it's done for profit, but you were lied to. Censorship is done by whoever has the power to do it, no matter if the power used to do it is by nature political, capital or personal.

Re:Very Competitive: Walmart wins 3 of 4

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind that nearly any "mp3" player made in the past two+ years can play AAC files...

I got rights!

[Brandybuck]

Yelled while pounding my desk, in a passable Bela Oxmyx imitation: "I got rights!"

I got rights! On one side of the street is a Rasputin's Music. On the other is the Evil Rapacious Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart doesn't sell CDs with vulgar lyrics, Rasputin's does. This is censorship! My rights are being violated! I am being oppressed because I have to walk across the street to buy an albumn where someone says "fuck"! Think of the children!

'quality looks good' ?

[fractalrock]

Purchasing a highly compressed file for a buck a piece doesn't cut it for me.
That is like saying the *National Inquirer* is quality, when you could be reading the *New York Times*.

No: DOWN with Wal-Mart

[ClickOnThis]

I'm not sure you should even call this censorship. I'm sure these recordings are available in their original corrupt(ed|ing) version from other outlets. I don't appreciate the way in which pop culture is corrupting our language and making it seem acceptable to use the F-word, et al in everyday speech. Its disappointing to hear such speech coming from the mouths (and fingers) of people that are in other ways decent. I'm not here to defend what "Pop Culture" puts in song lyrics, although I hardly think they're responsible for "corrupting our language." But neither can I defend Wal-Mart's action to censor the songs it sells. And it is censorship: check other discussions under this story for a definition of the word. Furthermore, decent people do use bad words sometimes. Get over it.

Those who don't have the level of intelligence necessary to use descriptive language and have to resort to meaningless expletives, have questionable intelligence. Your statement is tautological, but to respond: those who can use words (good or bad) to convey something intelligent deserve to be recognized for it, and certainly don't deserve to be censored by anyone, let alone the likes of Wal-Mart.

If I owned Walmart, I would not feel comfortable offering products that contain offensive language. Better to offer the "censored" versions than not at all I suppose. If you owned Wal-Mart, all you would care about is making a buck. And (like them) you would sell ammunition, cigarettes, etc., right alongside your censored CDs if you thought that would increase your bottom line.

As for those who have never shopped there, what do you have against saving money? I would say that those who are not willing to save money also have questionable intelligence. I know may people who do not shop at Wal-Mart who have nothing against saving money, but who have a great deal against the company's labor and business practices. And I hardly think they're not intelligent for that choice -- quite the contrary. Indeed, I would question the intelligence of someone who only sees as far as saving money when it comes to Wal-Mart.

The various abuses of Wal-Mart are well-documented elsewhere; I won't go into them here.

you can't spell Bethoven without $&@%

[MrBulwark]

Seriously, if you think it's not music unless it has the obscenity in it, then perhaps what you are listening to may not be music after all. And get off my lawn, while you are at it!

Re: you can't spell Bethoven without $&@%

[Lumpy]

What are you talking about? Mozart's songs all have the F word littered about to the point it makes Most gansta rap sound like a disney song.

Them old musicians were hard core mothers' banging it up old skool!

Censorship it is.

[Scrameustache]

Censorship is when the government NO! Censorship is when content is removed. NO MATTER UNDER WHO'S AUTHORITY IT WAS REMOVED.

There is ethical exception for corporations. If it would be wrong when a government does it, it would be wrong when a corporation does it, and you can stuff your moral relativism in a sack, mister.

Re:Censorship it is.

[Le Marteau]

NO! Censorship [answers.com] is when content is removed

I happen to agree with you, but citing "answers.com" as an authority in a discussion of the nuanced meaning of a word is laugh out loud funny.

When does it end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time (as well as WalMarts). The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever (especially for music).
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

The Sound of Silence

[mdielmann]

AKA, most rap/hip-hop after it's been censored for foul language and inappropriate content. Maybe they'll finally get some of my money.

Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's basically coercion. Walmart's actions are causing the songs to be censored, therefore there do have a hand in this."

10% of the distribution pie is not a Monopoly.

Coercion is when you have no other real choice; the idea that you equate this with real coercion is laughably stupid.

"In a competitive marketplace, the possibility of economic coercion is much reduced as suppliers are compelled by competition to accept less money or labor for their goods."
  -wikipedia

Re:Very Competitive: Walmart wins 3 of 4

[timster]

Your average person on the street will say "uh, I dunno, it just plays what's on my iTunes"

Most of the rest of them will have no clue what formats their 'MP3 player' plays, but most of them do in fact support AAC. The older el-cheapo devices that didn't will mostly be in a drawer collecting dust. The tiny minority with an MP3-only device are likely to be less interested in (purchased) online music, since they figured out years ago that none of the major online music stores were selling something that would work for them.

MP3 may have some name recognition, but it's really just jargon. Lots of people think the iTunes store sells MP3s.

This is wal-mart we're talking about here..

[plasmacutter]

enough with the "censorship" thing. This is wal-mart we're talking about here.

I once went there while sick to pick up some nyquil, and while i was there i got some canned air to blow out my computer.

I was carded for both items... because we all know that dialogue in school:

"hey man you wanna come to the party at my place this weekend?"
"i dunno, will you have nyquil and canned air that tastes like plastic there?"
"hell yeah!"
*high five*

Censorship

[jmorris42]

> While all your points are valid, they don't counter the fact that it is censorship.

No it isn't. It isn't censorship unless the power of the State is involved, since WalMart isn't a government they can't be a censor. What they are doing is exercising business judgement. All retailers do it, they make decisions on products to carry or not carry based on what they believe their target customer base wants. And while it IS true that some Walmart customers would indeed buy rot gut "Urban Yodeling" the presence of such crap would cost them business with their core customers, probably more than the difference in sales between the radio safe version and the uncut edition. Or at least their executives calculate it that way and it is their right to make that decision, not yours.

Or perhaps they just think it is the moral thing to do, kinda doubt that since corporations as a rule are amoral, but I'm always being accused of being an optimist. You might be too old to remember Charlton Heston's stunt of buying shares of Time Warner and then showing up at the stockholders meeting and performing a spoken word version of Cop Killer for the Board in a futile attempt to shame them. Maybe Walmart's Board has a little shame. Of course they also had HRC on their board once so they probably have the morals of weasels.

But again, just to make sure the point isn't lost. Walmart refusing to sell something isn't censorship. Target refusing to sell something isn't censorship. Billy Bob's Redneck Emporium refusing to sell something isn't censorship. The governmemt saying, "Sell that crap and you go to jail and get yer ass pounded." is censorship.

That wierd noise you hear...

[Prototerm]

...is just the lead singer trying to hit that high note.

Nothing to hear here, move along.

Re:Very Competitive: Walmart wins 3 of 4

[jedidiah]

Sure. Let the naieve consumer try that. The result will cure them of having an interest in iTunes.

Re:Very Competitive: Walmart wins 3 of 4

[Anonymous Coward]

The advantages of the more sophisticated codecs like AAC, Vorbis, WMAPro are mostly found at lower bitrates. At 256kbps they are all transparent for the vast majority of listeners. Hydrogenaudio doesn't even do 128kbps listening tests anymore, as they would need very large samples to get statistically meaningful differences between the codecs in their public listening tests.

Tom Petty

[Scrameustache]

so are they bleeping the kid-unfriendly words out like the old days, or have the artists started recording alternate "clean" versions of their songs? In Canada, on the French speaking radio stations, Tom Petty sings "let's roll... another joint", on the English speaking top-40 style stations, he sings "let's roll... ... ...".

Re:Tom Petty

[kalaf]

Which century are you referring to? Last I checked, Tom Petty doesn't have any songs on top-40 style stations.

On regular classic rock stations, they don't censor those lyrics. I'm only speaking for the 3 radio stations I know of which play that song mind you, so results may vary.

Re:Tom Petty

[Scrameustache]

Which century are you referring to? Last I checked, Tom Petty doesn't have any songs on top-40 style stations. Now that you mention it, I was talking about the century where I didn't have an iPod plugged in the car stereo...

There is a point here.

[mcmonkey]

Walmart is a publically traded company. The owners of Walmart can choose to sell whatever they want (within the law) and choose to not sell whatever they want. So should there be any general interest in the things they choose to not sell? If you really have an issue with Walmart's policies, you could just buy some stock and voice your opinion at the next shareholders' meeting. Why is this an issue?

Well, for the same reason it would be an issue if the only web browser that worked with MS Windows was Internet Explorer. If you don't like it, you're free to use another operating system.

It's an issue because in the real world, the overwhelming majority of personal computers run MS Windows. Having to choose between IE on Windows and another browser on another OS is not the same as having the choice of browsers to run on Windows.

The flaw in this analogy is MS has been through the legal process and declared a de facto monopoly and found guilty of abusing that position. However in the USA, Walmart (through Walmart and Sam's Club) is the #1 retailer of toys, the #1 drug store, the #1 grocery store, the #1 clothing store. And if not #1 yet, they are in the top 5 for books, CDs, DVDs, and electronics.

So, if Walmart decides to not sell your product, you're pretty much in the same boat as someone whose software MS excludes from running on Windows. Yeah, there are other stores just as there are other operating systems, but they're at a huge disadvantage in the market place.

Re:There is a point here.

[east coast]

So, if Walmart decides to not sell your product, you're pretty much in the same boat as someone whose software MS excludes from running on Windows. Yeah, there are other stores just as there are other operating systems, but they're at a huge disadvantage in the market place.

Very bad analogy. First off, Microsoft has a much greater share of the desktop market then what WalMart has of any market. Even if WalMart is #1 that doesn't mean it's in the majority. Hell, with enough retailers in place a 3-4% market share could make a retailer #1.

Besides, no one forces you to shop WalMart. The difference of going to another store and having another PC or VM-solution to run non-windows software is worlds apart.

Aside from house brands there isn't anything that is sold at WalMart that you can't get elsewhere. Use your dollars as votes, people. It's not that hard.

You underestimate them

[Scrameustache]

Walmart cannot stop an artist from releasing a song with offensive lyrics. Man, Walmart builds on fucking indian burial grounds, they can dispose of corpses in very efficient ways.

What about Movies?

[bonknasty]

How stupid. Wal-Mart sells movies, right? Can I buy Eddie Murphy's Raw at Wal-Mart? Is it all bleeped out too? I don't think so. Music is just under fire because of bible-thumping hillbillies in, oh, places like Arkansas.

edited != censorship

[Ogive17]

Someone tell the submitter/editor that if Wal-mart was censoring the music, we'd never know because the music would never end up on the shelves.

And who cares if they edit out foul language? Any reasonable person already knows this, and if it bothers them there are thousands of other stores willing to take your money.

If you want to bitch about something, my friend (who's parents still live in Canada) told me that some Canadian insurance company requires immobilization devices to be installed on all cars if they are to be insured. Complain about the potential abuses of that system. Wal-mart selling music without cussing is not something to whine about.

I've Never Gotten Wal-Mart's Music Policies

[buzzcutbuddha]

I can't go to Wal-Mart and get an unbowdlerized copy of a CD...I guess because "it's for the children", meanwhile, said "children" are over at the movies picking up Saw VIII: the "We-Cut-Titties-Off-In-This-One-Double-Secret-Unce nsored-Director's-Cut" edition double-packed with Jackass III with the uncut scene of Steve-O eating his own nuts.

Somehow that's okay to Wal-Mart.

so what?

[iamthelinuxguy]

I get a DRM-free version AND I don't have to listen to a bunch of unnecessary foul language that adds nothing to the song in the first place? Works for me!

Censorship, what's in a name?

[Baavgai]

I'm not clear why so many here take offense to use of the term censorship in relation to sanitized versions of original works. It's clearly "the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group," fitting the almighty wikipedia's definition for censorship. However, there's a better word for this, if it will make the "only the feds censor" crowd happy; Bowlderized.

Thomas Bowdler, knowing better than anyone else what's good for us, released the Family Shakespear in 1807; you can pretty much guess what he left out. If bowlderized doesn't suit, then Comstockery is also apropos.

To put the action's of Sam Walton's mega mart in the right context, it really needs it's own eponym. I vote for Samitized.

They ARE NOT CENSORING anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Wal-Mart isn't censoring anything. They are simply choosing not to sell albums that have the "explicit lyrics" advisory on it. That's NOT censorship...it's simply product choice.

I have an online business. The fact that I will not sell games with Parental Advisories on them doesn't constitute censorship...it's simply my choice of what I want to and don't want to sell.

Someone doesn't get their 'own way' on something and all of the sudden start yelling that their 'rights' have been violated. Get off it people.

Move along...there's nothing to see here.

Re:They ARE NOT CENSORING anything

[InsaneProcessor]

Please tell us your online business. I want to shop there. I applaud Walmart in the choices they make. I will continue to shop there like I always have.

Re:They ARE NOT CENSORING anything

[Grishnakh]

Wrong. It's still censorship, just not "governmental censorship." Look up the definition; it doesn't have to be by the government to still be censorship.

If you're refusing to sell certain products in your market segment for reasons other than purely business reasons (moral objections falls into this), then you're practicing a form of censorship. If you're refusing to sell those games because they're unpopular and you won't make a profit, that's a business decision. But if you're refusing to sell profitable games because you don't like them, that's a moral choice, and completely unrelated to business (and in fact can hurt your business). It probably doesn't matter much if your store is not a market leader, or some sort of niche player; no one really cares then, and will just go somewhere else. But when a huge corporation which is a market leader does it, its effects are much more noticeable and up for debate.

Similarly, when FOX news refuses to report on certain events because of their political bias, that's censorship; it's not just "reporting choice". Corporations can censor just like any group which has power. The main difference is that it's fully legal in most cases, for good reason (private entities/people should be able to do what they want within reason). But it's also fully legal for people to bitch and complain and bash those corporations in public for doing so. In the end, the consumers will make the ultimate choice with their wallets.

Re:They ARE NOT CENSORING anything

[mike2R]

You really think they're doing this because WalMart executives think naughty words are wrong??

This is a pure business decision - it's part of a marketing stratergy to portray themselves as familly friendly. Don't like it? Don't buy it. It's their business and they have the right to make this decision if they want.

Re:They ARE NOT CENSORING anything

[Grishnakh]

This is a pure business decision - it's part of a marketing stratergy to portray themselves as familly friendly.

Perhaps. But I was referring to the PP who didn't want to sell certain games at his online store for that. I highly doubt he's making more money by doing so. You're probably right about WM.

It's their business and they have the right to make this decision if they want.

I never said they didn't, I only said that it is indeed a form of censorship. There's some businesses that have made a living by censoring movies, editing out the "naughty" bits, and renting these. Until the movie studios found out and got pissed, they had a market for people who, for some strange reason, wanted to watch popular movies without objectionable content. For these businesses, it was a good business decision, even though it's still "censorship": their target market happened to want censorship. As you infer, Wal-Mart's target market may want censorship as well.

Advisories are ok

[nurb432]

Modifying the content to suit some suits concept of morality isnt ok. ( i wont call it censorship, since only a government can do that )

Re:Advisories are ok

[gujo-odori]

Yes, it is OK. Perfectly OK. Walmart sells edited versions of music why? Because there is a demand for it in their customer base. That being the case, you could make an argument for them being remiss if they didn't sell edited versions.

Do I buy music there? No. OK, I don't buy music at other stores either, because I'm so fed up with the music establishment that it's been over five years since I bought anything that wasn't an Indie CD, purchased directly from the band at a live performance. But if Walmart had anything I wanted, sure, I'd probably buy it there. They have good prices. I buy other stuff there.

I filter spam for people. I believe in making it as difficult as possible for spammers to deliver their spew, and I'm pretty good at achieving that. Why do I do this? Not for the money. I could get paid to do a lot of things in IT. I do it because it suits my concept of morality. It seems to suit a lot of other people's concept of morality, too.

If you have a different concept of morality, that's fine. Buy your music somewhere else. Don't spam-filter your email. Whatever floats your boat. But don't tell others that because their concept of morality is different than your concept of morality, that they can't act as they see fit within the bounds of the law. That would be imposing your concept of morality on others, and to use your own words to describe your stance on that issue, it "isn't OK."

Re:Advisories are ok

[nurb432]

My concepts of morality is all that matters when I'm the customer.. its my way or the hiway.

Re:Advisories are ok

[gujo-odori]

Yes, that's exactly what I said. You *did* read to the end, right? Oh, wait. This is Slashdot.

Irony

[freeweed]

That dude thought the Holy Bible has sections too racy for children and young people and so he brought out an edited version.

Just had to point out that this may actually be the first confirmed case of real irony on Slashdot, considering who's usually behind censorship campaigns.

Re:Irony

[Jonner]

It doesn't look like Bowdler did anything to any Bible. He's best known for "Family Shakespeare". It seems that Boothroyd's New Family Bible appeared about the same time as "Family Shakespeare" and both were part of an already existing social trend.

Re:Very Competitive: Walmart wins 3 of 4

[jgoemat]

Just because MP3 is acceptable quality at 256kbps doesn't mean iTunes shouldn't win that. AAC is still higher quality at the same bit rate even if most people can't tell the difference.

(WAL-MART) - $0.94 vs $1.29: cheaper is better, but were these songs recorded by children working 16 hours a day in China for slave wages? :)
(WAL-MART) - MP3 vs AAC: MP3 is more portable
(ITUNES) - 256kbp vs. 256kbp: You say that they are the same, but AAC is higher quality at the same bit rate. In any case, this is at best a tie for WAL-MART, so WAL-MART still wouldn't "win" 3/4. I don't know what the parent was talking about...
(ITUNES) - "censored" vs. "non-censored": non-censored is better

Firefox and WMA

[edibobb]

I just tried out Walmart's music download. First, I was greeted with this:

"We notice you're not using Internet Explorer. Other browsers may be able to access our original Music Downloads store which has fewer user features than our latest version but offers the same music. We will be making enhancements to our updated version in the future to support the Firefox browser. If you want to take advantage of all the features in our updated design now, please get the latest version of Internet Explorer."

But I perservered, in spite of not having the "latest version of Internet Explorer." I downloaded High_School_Musical_Cast-7-Gotta_Go_My_Own_Way.wma . (They didn't have much Beethoven.)

I was tricked! I lost 88 of my hard-earned cents. It won't play because it thinks I don't have a license. In fact, I have had a license since I was 16. (15 and a half, if you count the learner's permit). Those Arkansas farmers!

Re:Is is disclosed? Regarding slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still practiced in the Middle East and Africa, under Moslem control.

This just in:

[JazzLad]

Local radio station CENSORS music played.

Details at 11.

Re:This just in:

[Psychofreak]

In the store I work at the censored versions of the songs CAN and ARE played at work over the PA. My co-workers bring in their Ipods or laptops, but have to meet a rather strict set of rules for their play lists. The truth is the set of rules is taken directly from what is allowed on daytime radio and flavored to the likings of corporate and the customers. In fact some music has been obtained in both censored and uncensored forms so they can listen to the music at work. It has also been mentioned that some censored songs are better than the uncensored version (Adam Sandler's "Pice of Sh*HONK* Car") I am not upset that some companies choose to sell only censored forms of music. The uncensored versions are available elsewhere and it creates and maintains a nitch market that keeps smaller businesses going.

Phil

Re:Is is disclosed? Regarding slavery

[Pojut]

Slave ownership in the way you are referring to it was gone LONG before they were even born.

See that bold part? Your post is a perfect example of why I said that.

You can't spell Beethoven, either!

[bobschneider8]

And don't you know what the lyrics of the "Ode to Joy" are all about? They'd make Larry Flint blush!

Tried it now, needs Windows

[kbahey]

Well, I went to Walmart.com, and went to Music. It then had a link to "Music download". I clicked that using Firefox on Linux, and got this error:

We're sorry, your operating system is incompatible. To provide the best download experience, we can no longer support Windows 98, ME or NT. Please visit again after you upgrade to Windows 2000 or XP. Visit our Help section for complete system requirements information.

So, using Firefox agent switcher, I made it so I am MS IE on XP, but still got the same message.

Then, I fired qemu with a Windows 2000 instance and tried from a real MS IE browser, but then was greeted with a message saying that I need to upgrade Media Player.

So, no dice.

Sorry, won't use it.

Don't want my $. I'm on a Mac

[nysguy]

Clearly a somewhat limited target group, but don't understand why they don't want my money. Macs are blocked: We're sorry, your operating system is incompatible. To provide the best download experience, we can no longer support Windows 98, ME or NT. Please visit again after you upgrade to Windows 2000 or XP That's not an upgrade! If I fake out the browser client, then it complains I don't have Media Player 9. Give me a break. Maybe still in the single-digits, but if you're targeting your music to families (assuming that's the goal of the PG versions), you'd think they'd allow Macs.

US Labor Law

[bobbuck]

I know this is pedantic but Quebec is technically in Canada. To your point above: the union was already in place. They were allowed to keep the union. It's just that they didn't have jobs anymore.

Re:US Labor Law

[Anonymous Coward]

"Quebec is technically in Canada"

Yessss.... more's the pity....

It is my only dream in life now, to see Quebec kicked out of confederation once and for all ...

Re:US Labor Law

[init100]

They were allowed to keep the union. It's just that they didn't have jobs anymore.

Where I live, you cannot fire a guy for being a member of a labor union. Actually, I think that our labor unions are too powerful, as they can blockade companies into bankruptcy almost at will, and acts largely like a state-sponsored mafia. But protection in law from being fired for being a member of a union is fine with me.

a dollar a song is STILL too much

[TheGratefulNet]

drm or no drm; lower this supposed price threshold and make it more in line with the russian mp3 site's prices.

or, are you uncomfortable admitting you were reaming us for YEARS? and that you still intend to, drm or no drm?

I'm not buying in (heh) at this price point. a nickel a song is more reasonable. a dime a song, maybe. closer to a dollar - and you can go pound sand.

fwiw.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just because someone says guns shouldn't be around kids"

He didn't say that. He just said he wouldn't sell guns because they kill a lot of people.

And beer isn't bad. Please stop the nonsense. His theory about children abusing alcohol is a lot of rubbish. It's pandering to the masses to make a point that he has no logical or statistical base for.

The reason is obvious.

[raehl]

I do find it a little silly that they worry about "bad" words but sell alcohol, tobacco, and guns.

There is a very good business reason for this.

The business reason is that historically, Wal-Mart's customers have been predominantly rural. Rural people tend to like their alcohol, tobacco and guns, but fear bad words and sex. You might also recognize these people as typical inhabitants of red states.

Blue-state people like bad words, alcohol and sex, but don't like tobacco or guns.

Wal-Mart is just providing their customers with what they want.

But what we've REALLY learned here is, everybody likes alcohol.

Re:The reason is obvious.

[GPL Apostate]

Rural people tend to like their alcohol, tobacco and guns, but fear bad words and sex. You might also recognize these people as typical inhabitants of red states.

I would agree with you, to a point, except I live in a rural area of one of those 'red' states. Believe me, some of the people you see in WalMart SHOULD fear sex, if the weird ugly little runt people who trail along behind them are the outcome of sex. However, they all seem pretty regular and sexed up, hence all the ugly little runt people who trail along behind them.

I mean, to LOOK at some of those women, one doesn't have to wonder that they all get likkered up before they have sex...

Am I engaging in censorship?

[smitth1276]

Am I engaging in "censorship", then, since I have chosen not to operate a retail store that sells unmodified albums? It isn't censorship to choose not to sell something. That's basically what you're bitching about, and you'll have to get over it.

Maybe they don't like sandwiches...

[CelticWhisper]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/10/17

What is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But at least recognize it for what it is"

Self-censorship (artists and labels) in the name of profit?

Re:rights?? censorship?? - the problem is:

[Ralph Spoilsport]

When the government does it, it usually means that you have no other (legal) choice but to accept the censored version. When a non-government entity does it, it's their choice and there is almost always an alternative. Yes it may not be as cheap or convenient, but there is still ways for you to get your censor-free music. It's not "bad" when Wal-Mart does it, it's their choice. Just like it's your choice not to shop there.

Walmart is well known for gutting towns of their small businesses. It is not uncommon for WalMart to be the only record store for miles. So, sure: you can buy from OTHER online places, but if you want the real deal on a CD, then you may or may not have much access or selection thanks to their procurement policies, esp. if you have no interest/access to online shopping. ***I agree that one can shop elsewhere*** (I do) but I also realise that some people in some parts of the USA don't have quite so many options - it is often a choice between Walmart, Kmart, Sears, RiteAid Drugs, and Safeway. Not a lot of culture there...

RS

they are the same

[tacokill]

It's just Wal-mart.

Re:Wal-Mart needs upgrading"

[Technician]

"We're sorry, your operating system is incompatible. To provide the best download experience, we can no longer support Windows 98, ME or NT. Please visit again after you upgrade to Windows 2000 or XP. Visit our Help section for complete system requirements information."

Thanks for saving me the time to find that out. I use Ubuntu. I have one dual boot machine that runs 98SE for legacy applications. Oh well. Maybe later Wal*Mart will upgrade to service the rest of the market.

"We're sorry, your online shopping system is incompatible. To provide the best download experience, we can no longer support closed solutions. Please advertise music again after you upgrade to Open Standards. Visit ODL for complete system requirements information."

Peer pressure + alcohol harmful to growing kids

[SuurMyy]

The problem w/your reasoning is that ppl are social creatures, and peer pressure is a much more effective force than you seem to give it credit. Only friends make friends smoke, and get wasted - and some of us are more at risk of ending up addicted. Genetically, even. AFAIK, alcohol actually is much more harmful for young people than adults, so I would disagree w/your have-a-beer-w/dad-policy. It is well known that the risk of ending up an alcoholic is related to the age of onset of alcohol (ab)use. Possibly it has something to do w/how the brains respond to alcohol and how that gets affected by giving alcohol to children whose brains are still evolving in a lot more significant way than those of adults.

Other than that... yes, I do believe that people are responsible for their actions. It's just that as social creatures we're not really too good at that at all, and tend to make bad decisions to be better accepted by peers. And yes, it's very sad, but this is how it goes. So you cannot solely put blame on just one person, when he or she is just doing what everyone else is doing, because of social/genetic build. We're less able to make our own choices than it may appear at first glance.

Not censorship

[anandsr]

I agree that censorship can be done by private entities. Like in the case of Slashdot, it can censor the speech on this forum, and it will be called censorship. Even though slashdot is not very powerful, it still can censor.

But what Walmart does with music or videos should not be termed censorship, because it is not stopping you from going out and buying music from other stores. It is also not stopping you from playing music from other stores in their stores. If they start to stop people from singing those lyrics in their stores then it will be censorship. But I think most non-adult stores will object to something like that, causing censorship.

The actual term is Bowdlerization of music, which is very different from censorship, as it creates a different version along with the original. It is like a parody, but with a different intent. But it doesn't stop the other version. I do think that it is subverting the original lyrics as they don't advertise the modified nature of the music prominently.

Re:government, corporation, and individual can do

[gafisher]

In a free market: 1. A seller may choose what to sell, and what not to sell. 2. A buyer may choose what to buy, and where (or where not) to do so.
To censor is to prohibit access; a retailer which declines to sell a certain product cannot keep a customer from purchasing that product elsewhere. If Walmart chose to sell only widescreen DVD movies, customers could go elsewhere for other versions. If Walmart chose to sell only Spanish books, they would in no way be prohibiting customers from buying books from another seller. If Walmart carries only the "sanitized" versions of some CDs (sanitized not by them but by the record companies or even the bands themselves) customers are free to make any or all of their music purchases at one of Walmart's thousands of competitors.
This is not "censorship."

double standards

[loafula]

you can only buy censored albums at walmart, yet they sell R rated movies and M rated games. that just does not make sense.

Re:Wal-Mart needs upgrading"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd bet that the 'windows only' stuff is just leftovers from their old WMA offering. No need for it now that there are no licenses to manage. Expect this to be changed to a platform-neutral interface soon .... it feels like the MP3 offering is a rush job ...

Re:Very Competitive: Walmart wins 3 of 4

[GauteL]

MP3 vs AAC
256kbp vs. 256kbp
"censored" vs. "non-censored"
94 cents vs #1.29

For those who care about the "clean" tracks, it's still 3 of 4. 1. How can you claim 256 kbp vs. 256 kbp to be a victory for Walmart? It is equal.
2. MP3 vs. AAC is only a victory for Walmart if your particular player doesn't support AAC. There is hardly any players out there that doesn't these days and AAC is usually considered to provide better quality for a given bitrate. This could just as easily be called a victory for Apple.
3. $1.29 is for single DRM-free tracks on iTunes. Albums still cost $9.99, the same as DRM encumbered albums. Walmarts seems to cost around $9.22-9.44 looking at the picture from arstechnica. The price for albums is approximately 6-8% rather than 37% higher at iTunes. *

I agree, it is competitive and in many cases better. But it isn't as favourable compared to iTunes as you suggest.

* Note that Apple deducts the price of the singles you have already bought from an album when purchasing the full album, which could save you.

How Can They Do This?

[reabbotted]

I'm a little confused how they are able to edit music. There used to be a business near where I live called Clean Flix that would edit and sell movies for content. They found a legal loophole that allowed them to run for a while, but after battling with the movie industry for several years, they were finally shut down. How is Walmart able to edit music and Clean Flix not able to edit movies? Is it just because Walmart is such a behemoth? Could Walmart edit my movies?

thick as a brick

[Scrameustache]

To censor is to prohibit access; How many fucking dictionary quotes and links do you need!?

The word you're trying to define there is ban. Stop trying to redefine "censorship" in a way that means it's not happening. Are they filtering out content they find objectionable? THEN IT'S FUCKING CENSORSHIP! It doesn't matter if it's not absolute, if it's not governmental, or if you agree that the content should be filtered. Censorship is simply when a third party removes content exchanged between others. Here you have artists, the public, and the third party is the oligarchy of music distributors: The RIAA on the production side, and in this instance Walmart on the distribution end.

Re: Your Brick

[gafisher]

Whew! Must've touched a nerve!
What Walmart is selling are the "radio versions" of some recordings, exactly what you'd hear (in most cases) if you listened to a licensed radio station in the US and many other places. Walmart isn't keeping anything off the market; they're just keeping some things off their shelves.
The record companies offer these, and in many cases the bands themselves actually record "radio versions." Is Sam Goody guilty of "censorship" because they DON'T sell the radio versions? Is Amazon guilty of "censorship" because they don't offer wax cylinders? Is iTunes guilty of "censorship" because they don't include that beguiling jewel case? Of course not!

and another red dot...

[Scrameustache]

Is Sam Goody guilty of "censorship" because they DON'T sell the radio versions? Is Amazon guilty of "censorship" because they don't offer wax cylinders? Is iTunes guilty of "censorship" because they don't include that beguiling jewel case? Of course not! Is an elephant a steam locomotive because Davey Crockett died at the Alamo? Of course not!

The dictionary definitions I posted: read them.

Re:and another red dot...

[gafisher]

Is an elephant a steam locomotive because Davey Crockett died at the Alamo?

I think we've drifted into a Netflix ad.
I read your dictionary quotes, and yes, they're interesting, but they don't apply to the current discussion. Since you didn't include quotes from every dictionary, it seems you're guilty of violating your own definition of "censorship," my friend.

Was krusty

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it was Krusty, and the line is "What I got, you gotta get and put it in you"/"What I'd like is I'd like to hug and kiss you"