Lollapalooza Webcast: Sponsored/censored By At&t?

got traction

i rock the sohc
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
this is taken from the Peal Jam website:

After concluding our Sunday night show at Lollapalooza, fans informed us that portions of that performance were missing and may have been censored by AT&T during the "Blue Room" Live Lollapalooza Webcast.

When asked about the missing performance, AT&T informed Lollapalooza that portions of the show were in fact missing from the webcast, and that their content monitor had made a mistake in cutting them.

During the performance of "Daughter" the following lyrics were sung to the tune of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" but were cut from the webcast:

- "George Bush, leave this world alone." (the second time it was sung); and

- "George Bush find yourself another home."

This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media.

AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.

Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of "NetNeutrality." Check out The Future of Music or Save the Internet for more information on this issue.

Most telecommunications companies oppose "net neutrality" and argue that the public can trust them not to censor..

Even the ex-head of AT&T, CEO Edward Whitacre, whose company sponsored our troubled webcast, stated just last March that fears his company and other big network providers would block traffic on their networks are overblown..

"Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider." (Marguerite Reardon, Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: March 21, 2006, 2:23 PM PST).

But what if there is only one provider from which to choose?

If a company that is controlling a webcast is cutting out bits of our performance -not based on laws, but on their own preferences and interpretations - fans have little choice but to watch the censored version.

What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band.

The complete version of "Daughter" from the Lollapalooza performance is posted below for any of you who missed it. We apologize to our fans who were watching the webcast and got shortchanged. In the future, we will work even harder to ensure that our live broadcasts or webcasts are free from arbitrary edits.




im a voted for bush and stand behind that, i am also a huge pearl jam fan. i think its bullshit that at&t decided to censor things out. thoughts?
 

oc_civic

....................
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
link?
 


Destroy

New Member
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
whats surprising is that people still listen to pearl jam.
 

Going-West

Tree people on my radio
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
whats surprising is that people still listen to pearl jam.
Haha, true. Whether you agree with them or not, that's pretty f**ked up that they censored that. Thats just a blatant slap in the face for free speech.
 

Akiahara96

back!
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
I thought the article state that it was a mistake that those things where censored? Censorship is bad in my opinion but it is more and more prevalent everyday. Also, pearl jam haven't put out a good album since Vitalogy.

link: http://pearljam.com/news/index.php?what=News#195
give me a break. you don't really believe it was a mistake that an uber political, uber liberal comment was censored and nothing else?

just because it's becoming more common all the time doesn't make it right. :what:
 

JiuJitsu_greg

New Member
Registered VIP
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
give me a break. you don't really believe it was a mistake that an uber political, uber liberal comment was censored and nothing else?

just because it's becoming more common all the time doesn't make it right. :what:
I never said it was right. I actually said censorship is wrong in my eyes. I also believe that there is no way to prove or disprove that this was on purpose or an accident. So, there is no real way to know either way. So why pretend you know it was on purpose when you have no proof?
 

$lick Rick

TEOTWAWKI
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Haha, true. Whether you agree with them or not, that's pretty f**ked up that they censored that. Thats just a blatant slap in the face for free speech.
meh, a private company paid for and provided the webcast. they can "censor" whatever the f00k they want.
if they dont want their company assosiated with anti bush remarks then they have every right to leave those comments out of their webcast

free speech means you can say whatever you want, but it doesnt mean that the company is obligated to broadcast it in its entirety
 

jdmspivic

Go Ahead Shoot Me b***h!
Registered VIP
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
Thats bullshit. Just because eddie veder is right doesnt mean they have to censor it . BTW i love pearl jam . lol
 

Going-West

Tree people on my radio
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
meh, a private company paid for and provided the webcast. they can "censor" whatever the f00k they want.
if they dont want their company assosiated with anti bush remarks then they have every right to leave those comments out of their webcast

free speech means you can say whatever you want, but it doesnt mean that the company is obligated to broadcast it in its entirety
Yeah, the company legally can do whatever they want, it's their money, it's their airtime. What I'm saying is someone opinions were blocked out because of those opinions conflicted with those running AT&T. Censorship is wrong, censorship puts one persons opinion over another, and no matter how rediculous the opinions are people should be allowed to speak their mind. So like you said, they legally can do whatever they want, but like I said, it's a slap in the face of free speech and its wrong.
 

$lick Rick

TEOTWAWKI
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Yeah, the company legally can do whatever they want, it's their money, it's their airtime. What I'm saying is someone opinions were blocked out because of those opinions conflicted with those running AT&T. Censorship is wrong, censorship puts one persons opinion over another, and no matter how rediculous the opinions are people should be allowed to speak their mind. So like you said, they legally can do whatever they want, but like I said, it's a slap in the face of free speech and its wrong.
i just dont agree

no opinion was put over another, and no opinion replaced the one that was removed.
they simply removed a remark that they didnt want to be associated with whether or not they agreed with it


a few weeks ago i was filming a television commercial and we had some real customers in it.
at the end one of them screamed "f**k bush" and we didnt include it in our commercial

that was not an infringement on free speech and this is no different
 

Going-West

Tree people on my radio
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
i just dont agree

no opinion was put over another, and no opinion replaced the one that was removed.
they simply removed a remark that they didnt want to be associated with whether or not they agreed with it


a few weeks ago i was filming a television commercial and we had some real customers in it.
at the end one of them screamed "f**k bush" and we didnt include it in our commercial

that was not an infringement on free speech and this is no different
Well that's your opinion and that's fine. But I say removing someone opinion that differs from your own goes against free speech. They removed someones opinion. That is infringing on that persons right to say whatever they want, black and white. AT&T went out of their way to remove that part of the broadcast because someone didn't agree with it. Anyone who knows Pearl Jam knows they are very liberal and very anti-bush, all it was was someone at AT&T didn't like the comment and censored it.

No AT&T didn't replace that opinion, they just removed it, IMO thats wrong. They should have left it in and maybe put a disclaimer, like you see all the time, at the start that says the opinions of this artist do not express ours blah blah blah. That way the artist can still express his/her opinion and the company wouldn't be liable. That is lame about your commericial though...damn hippies.
 

$lick Rick

TEOTWAWKI
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Well that's your opinion and that's fine. But I say removing someone opinion that differs from your own goes against free speech. They removed someones opinion. That is infringing on that persons right to say whatever they want, black and white. AT&T went out of their way to remove that part of the broadcast because someone didn't agree with it. Anyone who knows Pearl Jam knows they are very liberal and very anti-bush, all it was was someone at AT&T didn't like the comment and censored it.

No AT&T didn't replace that opinion, they just removed it, IMO thats wrong. They should have left it in and maybe put a disclaimer, like you see all the time, at the start that says the opinions of this artist do not express ours blah blah blah. That way the artist can still express his/her opinion and the company wouldn't be liable. That is lame about your commericial though...damn hippies.
they were paid to play songs in the same way a janitor is paid to mop floors or a painter is paid to paint houses. that performance and their "artistic license" became property of att to broadcast in part or in its entirety as they saw fit

there's nothing different between the hippies in the commercial and the hippies on the stage. and just like att, my company decided that we didnt want to be associated with those remarks regardless of whether or not we agreed with them. associating with anything thats inflammatory or derogatory is not good for business, despite disclaimers

this was not a "pro bush" action nor did it infringe on any of their rights, they're just old and bitchy performers that are used to getting their way
 

Going-West

Tree people on my radio
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
they were paid to play songs in the same way a janitor is paid to mop floors or a painter is paid to paint houses. that performance and their "artistic license" became property of att to broadcast in part or in its entirety as they saw fit

I agree, I was never saying it wasn't legal, I just think it's wrong. They didn't ask the band, and there were better ways to go about it. Free speech shouldn't be for sale.

there's nothing different between the hippies in the commercial and the hippies on the stage. and just like att, my company decided that we didnt want to be associated with those remarks regardless of whether or not we agreed with them. associating with anything thats inflammatory or derogatory is not good for business, despite disclaimers

There is a big difference. I think it was ok to take the thing out of your commercial because it had nothing to do with selling cars. Pearl Jam was playing music and expressing themelves. Music expresses opinions. Also, the guy in your commerical swore, which is not allowed on public TV, there are regulations and laws for that. There are no laws againt voicing political opinions, and for those two reasons, it's very different.

this was not a "pro bush" action nor did it infringe on any of their rights, they're just old and bitchy performers that are used to getting their way.

Yes it did Todd, it infringed on their right to express themselves and speak freely, two of the fundemental rights that make up this country.
 


Top