Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
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.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
"Wal-Mart ditches some crap, keeps other crap."
From the 'its-crap-anyways' dept.
Does anyone know if Wal-Mart censors the music it sells in Canada? I've never heard of any complaints that they do.
http://outcampaign.org/
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.
Find free books.
What the frig? WalMart can keep their shouty censored DRM-free mp3s! I'm taking my flippin business elsewhere...
This guy's the limit!
Upload thousands of times.
The way the internet is meant to be.
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.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
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.
_Vishal www.squad9.com
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.
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.
The important distinction is that, in this case, censorship adds value for some consumers, while DRM does not.
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
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.
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.
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.
Monstar L
50 cent
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.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
"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.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
****ing **** ****mart!!
Should I check this is OK with my parents?
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
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.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
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...
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
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."
God spoke to me.
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).
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.
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.)
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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).
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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...
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
That is 2 out of 4 - i.e. tie. AFAIK, at the same bit-rate AAC files sound better than MP3 files.
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.
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.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
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.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Interesting.
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".
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
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*!"
I suggest you change your sig to reflect this story
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
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.
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.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
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.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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.
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.
That makes about as much sense as carrying "Busta Rhymeses", "Wu-Tang Clanses", "Fabolouses", and "Notoriouses Bs.Is.Gs."?
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.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
The airplanes are a market force example.
/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
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
: 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.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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.
Walmart cannot stop an artist from releasing a song with offensive lyrics. Therefore, it is not censorship.
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.
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
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.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
"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.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
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*.
The various abuses of Wal-Mart are well-documented elsewhere; I won't go into them here.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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!
"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.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
>Thankfully those who get all hot and bothered by an arbitrarily-judged "offensive" word are a dying breed.
One can fucking hope so.
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.
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.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
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.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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?
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.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
Walmart is using/abusing it's market power to ensure that those works are censored.
It has a singular advantage in this area.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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?
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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*
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
> 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.
Democrat delenda est
...is just the lead singer trying to hit that high note.
Nothing to hear here, move along.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
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
Play with my webcams and lights here
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.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
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.
Sure. Let the naieve consumer try that. The result will cure them of having an interest in iTunes.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This is MOST definitly censorship. However, this isn't against the First Amendment, so it isn't illegal.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
You can't take the sky from me...
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....
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.
www.joshferguson.org
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
www.arkhambrewingcompany.com For all your Lovecraftian T-Shirt needs
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.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
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.
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!
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.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
Target doesn't sell cigarettes. Some people find cigarettes offensive. Is Target censoring cigarettes?
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.
Modifying the content to suit some suits concept of morality isnt ok. ( i wont call it censorship, since only a government can do that )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
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.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
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
I just tried out Walmart's music download. First, I was greeted with this:
a . (They didn't have much Beethoven.)
"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.wm
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!
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.
No Comment.
Local radio station CENSORS music played.
Details at 11.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
See that bold part? Your post is a perfect example of why I said that.
Living With a Nerd
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.
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.
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".
Redundancy is good And also good.
And don't you know what the lyrics of the "Ode to Joy" are all about? They'd make Larry Flint blush!
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.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
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.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
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.
I...I'm attacking the darkness!
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.
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.
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.....
This is the case even in right-to-work states, union existence is protected as is union membership. Generally speaking that is
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.
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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
sup
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.
paintball
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. -- Albert Einstein
> 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.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/10/17
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
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.
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.
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).
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
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
"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.
It's just Wal-mart.
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.
I...I'm attacking the darkness!
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.
always mosh clockwise
"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."
The truth shall set you free!
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.
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.
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.
The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne
Flamebait, it should be. But sadly, no mod points today.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
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.
This sig all sigs devours
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.
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.
Not that Aldi, Lidl, or Schlecker, et.al. treat their employees with any respect. That WM is even worse, says a lot about it.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
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."
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.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
you can only buy censored albums at walmart, yet they sell R rated movies and M rated games. that just does not make sense.
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
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.
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.
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.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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?
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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!
The dictionary definitions I posted: read them.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
Fuck you. I won't do what you tell me. ;-)
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.
Yeah, hi, you're entirely wrong about your interpretation of these events.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.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.