Censorship - Did AT&T Have the Right?

2007-08-09 08:28:28

#1

GorillaTicTacs: Member; +231|6392|Kyiv, Ukraine

AT&T, official sponsor of the Lollapalooza tour, decided to edit out 20 seconds of Pearl Jam's cover of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" because of the anti-Bush message contained.

Pearl Jam wrote:
In the main verse:
"George Bush, leave this world alone."
"George Bush find yourself another home."

So did AT&T have the right to censor just that particular snipped from its podcast, and what does that say about future corporate control of artistic license?

I can see both sides of the issue of course, ATT needs to protect its assets and lobby interests (as well as its fat NSA contracts selling customer databases to wiretap programs), but at the same time it shouldn't be selectively censoring a product it is selling, which the customer believes he is paying for a full musical performance and receives instead an edited version that fits the corporate interest and changes the very meaning of the message.

I can understand "explicit lyrics" being censored on the grounds to sell more music to a younger audience, but generally you don't change or override the message by changing "fucking" to "damn". The core meaning or expression of the artist doesn't change in this way.

Linky:
http://pearljam.com/news/index.php?what=News#195

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-08-09 08:29:00)

2007-08-09 08:34:22

#2

topal63: . . .; +533|6737

Censorship = stupidity.

2007-08-09 08:45:40

#3

B.Schuss: I'm back, baby... ( sort of ); +664|6860|Cologne, Germany

well, if it is something they edited out on their own podcast, it's certainly within their rights, legally speaking. It's probably somewhere in the fine print. Pearl Jam should look up the contracts..

But I think it's lame, and certainly not in line with the great tradition of free speech that you hold so dearly in the US.

After all, who really cares about Lollapalooza and Pearl Jam ? Through its actions, AT&T has made much more of it than if they had just allowed the original lyrics to be broadcasted.

stupid public relations, if you ask me.

2007-08-09 08:50:13

#4

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6668

What the hell is a lollapolooza? It sounds like some kind of Pokemon.

2007-08-09 08:55:42

#5

GorillaTicTacs: Member; +231|6392|Kyiv, Ukraine

ghettoperson wrote:
What the hell is a lollapolooza? It sounds like some kind of Pokemon.

*prays skyward* Forgive him father, for he knows not and hath liveth under a damneth rock for his entire life.

Wiki isn't just a cool name for a pet monkey you'll never own, its also your best friend.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-08-09 08:58:21)

2007-08-09 08:59:20

#6

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6509|Northern California

AT&T is complacent and in bed with this administration. If it's not common knowledge yet, there's NSA eaves dropping rooms in ATT buildings to monitor EVERY phone call (not just the forein to domestic calls...but all calls). They obviously get some kick back from this administration for being part of the shredding of our constitution under the label of "national security." What's to think they wouldn't have deliberately censored music from this tour. They are corporate dogs to this administration and have zero ethical boundaries. The firm I work at has some of the best antitrust attorneys and among their cases, their are plenty against the behemoth telco.

2007-08-09 09:06:35

#7

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6309|Éire

Is the last saving grace of the US going to crumble now too? Free speech is what you guys used to do best, when everyone is slinging mud at everything else you are doing the US have always been able to say 'at least we have free speech in this country' ...maybe not for much longer when the big companies finish invading every aspect of everyday life?

2007-08-09 09:25:03

#8

too_money2007: Member; +145|6327|Keller, Tx

Peral Jam still sings? God, they suck now. I used to like, maybe, 2 of their songs, but really. The whole gay grunge band thing is over with.

https://www.learningfromlyrics.org/22Jeremy%5B1%5D.jpg

2007-08-09 09:33:57

#9

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6309|Éire

too_money2007 wrote:
Peral Jam still sings? God, they suck now. I used to like, maybe, 2 of their songs, but really. The whole gay grunge band thing is over with.

http://www.learningfromlyrics.org/22Jeremy%5B1%5D.jpg

Grunge may over and done with but there's fuck all good music around these days to take its place. Except for the odd good band here and there.

2007-08-09 09:36:15

#10

too_money2007: Member; +145|6327|Keller, Tx

Braddock wrote:
too_money2007 wrote:
Peral Jam still sings? God, they suck now. I used to like, maybe, 2 of their songs, but really. The whole gay grunge band thing is over with.

http://www.learningfromlyrics.org/22Jeremy%5B1%5D.jpg
Grunge may over and done with but there's fuck all good music around these days to take its place. Except for the odd good band here and there.

I stick to classic rock mostly. Nothing's better than Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rush, etc etc

2007-08-09 09:54:35

#11

Hurricane: Banned; +1,153|6649|Washington, DC

I'm not surprised that NS&A did that.

Bad one, pricks.

2007-08-09 09:56:48

#12

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6309|Éire

too_money2007 wrote:
Braddock wrote:
too_money2007 wrote:
Peral Jam still sings? God, they suck now. I used to like, maybe, 2 of their songs, but really. The whole gay grunge band thing is over with.

http://www.learningfromlyrics.org/22Jeremy%5B1%5D.jpg
Grunge may over and done with but there's fuck all good music around these days to take its place. Except for the odd good band here and there.
I stick to classic rock mostly. Nothing's better than Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rush, etc etc

Me too ...plus any bands I do listen to from the last 15 years are all inspired by the classic rock bands like Primus (influenced by Rush, The Residents, Zappa) and Nine Inch Nails (inspired by Pink Floyd).

I think we better stop derailing the thread now though!

2007-08-09 10:00:35

#13

blisteringsilence: I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy; +83|6720|Little Rock, Arkansas

too_money2007 wrote:
Braddock wrote:
too_money2007 wrote:
Peral Jam still sings? God, they suck now. I used to like, maybe, 2 of their songs, but really. The whole gay grunge band thing is over with.

http://www.learningfromlyrics.org/22Jeremy%5B1%5D.jpg
Grunge may over and done with but there's fuck all good music around these days to take its place. Except for the odd good band here and there.
I stick to classic rock mostly. Nothing's better than Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rush, etc etc

Hey, I saw Queens of the Stone Age last night, and I approve even more than before.

2007-08-09 10:24:38

#14

heggs: Spamalamadingdong; +581|6407|New York

It was within AT&T's rights I'm sure. However, it made them look like more of an ass. Censorship is fucking retarded.

Remember Me As A Time Of Day

2007-08-09 10:29:08

#15

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6640|London, England

The media always bash George Bush. I'd like to think one isolated censor in a sea of Bush Hating isn't anything to worry about. Maybe they're trying to say "Look, we know George Bush is a Jackass, but, like trying to scare people about Terrorism, we don't need it in our face all the time"

2007-08-09 10:33:53

#16

ProteinRage: Hero of the Internet; +15|6488|Everywhere and nowhere

I think the more important question here is, why is a shitty band like Pearl Jam defiling a great song by Pink Floyd?

2007-08-09 11:42:02

#17

Blehm98: conservative hatemonger; +150|6482|meh-land

AT&T was perfectly within their rights to do so though...
i don't see what's really wrong with what they did

2007-08-09 11:49:11

#18

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|6690|UK

Blehm98 wrote:
AT&T was perfectly within their rights to do so though...
i don't see what's really wrong with what they did

censorship = commies = AT&T

Geddit?

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2007-08-09 13:33:00

#19

rawls2: Mr. Bigglesworth; +89|6579

Fuck Pearl Jam for changing the lyrics to one of the greatest rocks songs ever!!!

Oops beat me to it.

ProteinRage wrote:
I think the more important question here is, why is a shitty band like Pearl Jam defiling a great song by Pink Floyd?

Last edited by rawls2 (2007-08-09 13:34:51)

2007-08-09 13:35:29

#20

The_Mac: Member; +96|6244

I think it's funny how you're getting corporate editing confused with actual censorship. Real Censorship would be GWB himself editing out the lyrics because he didn't like it.
And who cares? There are enough dumbfucks trying to sound controversial as it is, serves the moron right.

2007-08-09 14:02:56

#21

Strngs012: Could I have 10,000 marbles please; +40|6437|Florida

GorillaTicTacs wrote:
AT&T, official sponsor of the Lollapalooza tour, decided to edit out 20 seconds of Pearl Jam's cover of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" because of the anti-Bush message contained.

I can't stand it when bands get political. They should just shut up and sing. I also think it's funny that they are have to jump on the Bush bashing bandwagon to get noticed these days.

2007-08-09 14:27:59

#22

GorillaTicTacs: Member; +231|6392|Kyiv, Ukraine

Strngs012 wrote:
GorillaTicTacs wrote:
AT&T, official sponsor of the Lollapalooza tour, decided to edit out 20 seconds of Pearl Jam's cover of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" because of the anti-Bush message contained.
I can't stand it when bands get political. They should just shut up and sing. I also think it's funny that they are have to jump on the Bush bashing bandwagon to get noticed these days.

There's a "Bush Bashing Bandwagon"? Why wasn't I informed? It sounds like a lot of fun. And here I thought people didn't like him because of the damage he has helped create at almost every level of our government and even to the core of our nation's psyche. I didn't know people didn't like him just to be one of those "hip kids".

In case you missed the point, they weren't trying to get noticed. ATT decided to get them noticed by snipping a bite out of their performance...or at least some technical flunkie with an attitude not unlike yourself, working for ATT, decided it was his patriotic duty to personally take a poke at the 1st amendment. Or, possibly it was a corporate policy wonk that decided their NSA contract was worth more than a few seconds of Pearl Jam the fans bought on their iPods.

And since when, oh dear god, are songs (and the people that sing them) not allowed to be "political"? By extension, is art no longer allowed to be political? Movies? Plays? Musicals? Sculpture? Literature? Or, is it just when you disagree with the politics that it should be banned/not allowed? The bright side is that modern country music would effectively cease to exist...

2007-08-09 16:09:10

#23

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6424|North Carolina

I'll agree that AT&T was fully within their rights to censor whatever they please if they own the rights to it.

I don't agree with the move, but it's legal.

2007-08-09 16:13:12

#24

The_Fighting_69th: Combat medic; +6|6772

Bush has lost a lot of my support of this last term (mostly the border issue), but I can understand AT&T doing what it did. I have no problem with a company that wants to try and stay neutral in the eyes of the world. Look at what has happened to some companies, bands, towns etc. Whoever goes way left or way right. There is a backlash and people boycott them. Think Dixie Chicks.

Sure songs, art, etc can be "political", they have every right to be, but AT&T also has every right to control things that affect their image.

Last edited by The_Fighting_69th (2007-08-09 16:15:43)

2007-08-10 18:59:00

#25

Dersmikner: Member; +147|6517|Texas

As the people paying for the show, and as the folks owning the rights to the recordings, they can do whatever the hell they want. They aren't the government, they're a private entity paying for a performance. Hell I'd stop payment on the check to Pearl Jam and claim that I wasn't given what I was told I was purchasing.

I'm not a Bush fan anymore, not because of the war but because he doesn't veto every bullshit bill the Democrats pass to spend my money, but this little story tells me I'm done with Pearl Jam.

Also, closer to the truth is that YOU are, after a fashion, the censor insomuch as you are trying to FORCE your beliefs on AT&T as opposed to letting them purchase what it is that they want. You want them to HAVE to put up with whatever Pearl Jam says, even though AT&T is the sponsor and paying for the rights to the show. Should Pearl Jam have been allowed to get on stage and advertise for Nextel? When do you consider the rights of the buyer?

Last edited by Dersmikner (2007-08-10 19:00:50)

BF2S Forums Censorship - Did AT&T Have the Right?

Pearl Jam wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

ProteinRage wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Strngs012 wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Board footer