digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Pearl Jam censored by AT&T, calls for a neutral 'Net

arstechnica.com — After a pair of political Pearl Jam lyrics are censored on an AT&T webcast, the group publicly calls for network neutrality. AT&T says that's not the issue.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • randallm, on 10/10/2007, -12/+39It's 1984 lulz
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2"We are the dead."
    • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Iphone. Partners with the devil since 2007.
    • maj0rm0j0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I'd say right now it's about 1983 headed to 1984. What happened to activism? Are we all so happy with our governments that we can't march or use our voices? People always deserve the government they get.
    • appetite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Maybe this is why it seems like no one is protesting, no one cares, and no one is speaking strongly about our problems--because there's a giant lens between us and the world that has a lot of stake in what passes through.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4A boneheaded move they apologized for profusely, however, it was clearly not a network neutrality issue.
    • econofast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Thanks to the all-powerful grasp of AT&T, I never heard about this. Oh, wait. The fact that this has been a top story on almost every tech and music site, as well as being covered in every major newspaper today - all because Pearl Jam posted a comment on their website - shows that all hope is not lost, and that the power is actually becoming less consolidated. Lollapalooza is a non-story until this happens.
      Let the scumbags consolidate power in the old media. It will be their downfall.
  • FatHed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+153"but AT&T does not edit or censor performances."

    Stop lying, you did, it's not a question of how, you censored a performance, so don't say you don't, assholes.
    • farmer448, on 10/10/2007, -3/+32I am so sorry, I cannot stop laughing. At&T aka Southwestern Bell is well on its way to rebuilding the original AT&T telephone monopoly. So to its youngest most influential audience, the AT&T spokesman gives up an answer that sounds like the "Dog ate my homework". And for this he probably got a six figure salary plus bonus plus options.... And so the US will continue to fall behind in the digital revolution as companies are run by the equivalent of the old Keystone Cops....
    • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -22/+8Would that be the same reaction you would give to the soldier that was censored at Yearly Kos? Or does it only apply to when censorship is done to you?

      http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2007/08/liberals-and-censorship.html

      • dezmd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14referencing a site called 'right wing lunatic' to try and make the 'oh oh liberals do it too' point seems, well, retarded.

        Cheers.
        • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Good God, you completely missed the point. The point was, if you're going to scream about Freedom of Speech, that means you have to defend it on BOTH sides of the coin. No one seemed to care that the soldier was censored at Yearly Kos, but everyone's getting uppity about Pearl Jam.
          • sbader, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4but wasn't the reason he was censored because he was in uniform and soldiers aren't supposed to participate in political activities while in uniform.
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Leaving aside the fact that "freedom of speech" is a restriction on government...

            So breaking military regulations is equivalent to non-obscene political speech?
          • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Since neither one of you can be bothered with actually READING the article, it shows that Markos, the founder of DailyKos has said as late as June of this year, that soldiers should be allowed to make political statements while in uniform, and to believe otherwise would be "unAmerican". Now, I'm not debating whether or not the guy on the panel was correct in shutting down the soldier, I'm talking about the guy who was running the camera who suddenly cut off the audio.

            It's called hypocrisy. Even event people have said they encouraged the soldier to say something because they thought "it would benefit our cause". Now, do you honestly think that the soldier wouldn't have been censored had he come out against the Iraq war?
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Don't make stuff up. The guy wasn't an active soldier anymore, but a veteran. Military regulations generally apply... to, well, the military and people currently in it.
        • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5So, let me ask something. If the site's name wasn't rightwinglunatic.com, would that make the article less true? Of course not, so your argument is pointless.
      • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Yeah, didn't think I'd get a rebuttal. Thank you for proving my point.
      • alterImperson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3What the ***** was that? That video doesn't even make sense, It's a recording from C-SPAN/CNN coverage of the event, I don't think the convention had any hand in the "censorship". The fact that the author of that blog blames it on the daily kos crew proves they're really just an idiot.
      • FatHed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1WTF dumbass? Last time I checked, I was not a member of Pearl Jam, so I was not censored. Got it? I'm not a subscriber to either stupid party. You showed how gullible and retarded you are with your witty comment about censoring me. Woot, thinking things through ftl.
    • alterImperson, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2/sarcasm But they didn't, the selectively shortened the performance for the consumer's benefit. Sheesh, you people are just ready to jump on the "monopolies are evil *****" bandwagon.
    • alterImperson, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1/sarcasm But they didn't, the selectively shortened the performance for the consumer's benefit. Sheesh, you people are just ready to jump on the "monopolies are evil *****" bandwagon.
  • DrummerAndrew, on 10/10/2007, -5/+98Pearl Jam seems like the perfect band for this. If it had been some little known group, we may never hear about it. Let's hope that we can Digg this and stay with it so that this becomes a poster child for net neutrality. This is absolute censorship. Claiming that this was done to protect their 'all-age' viewers is ridiculous, those lyrics don't have any swear words in them. Ideas should be freely communicated, and this seems like it might be a first amendment issue.... which is bad.

    What will AT&T do next? I'm not excited to find out.
    • mustbepatient, on 10/10/2007, -18/+19Since it's AT&T's broadcast I don't think it's a free speech issue in this case. However, as consumers we still have the option to say that they shouldn't be doing this.
    • skinjester, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8don't see why you're being dugg down when you're absolutely right. It isn't a free speech issue at all. Unless you prefer to believe AT&T was broadcasting without Pearl Jam's permission?
      • GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Did AT&T use public airwaves at any point to transmit the broadcast at any point? If so, then yes, this is a free speech issue. If not, then it is just as clearly not an issue of free speech, but still represents the danger of private censorship in from a company with a near monopoly. And yes,I consider 5 companies that constantly rename, merge and split with each-other a monopoly.
    • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3I have the perfect solution, Pearl Jam should stop being shills for the big media companies and listeners should stop supporting the artists who continue to be.
      • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2And bitches who bury comments like mine are prime examples of what I'm talking about, you deserve the censored sanitized crap you receive.
    • jet2work, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Eddie Quiote sell out to ATT and then cries like a little beotch when the edit out his comments about GW. Hellooooo Eddie. When you are getting paid to say it (like you were) IMHO your speech in now COMMERCIAL SPEECH. You were peddling a product, and ATT wasn't buying it so they cut you off. Why?? who knows, but as long as you live in my house mister you will play by my rules. Get it?
    • bocaJWho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The top two posters in this reply thread are absolutely correct. This was a webcast by a company wholly owned by AT&T. They have no obligation to broadcast content that they don't agree with. The only way you can strech this to a free speech/net neutrality issue is that AT&T would offer increased bandwidth to their own broadcast to the detriment of those who would broadcast an uncensored version. Sadly, no one else seems to be saying this.
    • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I realize this was AT&T's broadcast however if they have a written policy that says that they will only censor "profanity" and/or there was an agreement to what Peral Jam would/would not say (i.e. profanity) and they censored it just because they didn't like it then they may have a legal issue there. Obviously for PJ to perform there is a contract so it would be interesting to see what it says about censoring "offending material".
  • SprkJonz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+60Just another example of people in power saying, "We know what's best for you so we'll make the decisions for you!" I consider myself to be fiscally conservative, but this kind of action by AT&T makes me wanna puke.
  • jamie939, on 10/10/2007, -13/+17double plus good; chocolate rations have been doubled.
    • Dan911, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1think i am the only one that got this?
    • bnooser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1don't worry, I got it too. 2 + 2 still equals 4 in my book.
    • MasterGrief, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You'd better be careful or you might just... cease to exist.
  • juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -28/+3Dupe.
    http://digg.com/politics/AT_T_CENSORED_anti_Bush_lyrics_in_Pearl_Jam_song_Portions_gone_in_webcast
    • mustbepatient, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1ars technica has a "digg it" button on their homepage, so if you happen to read ars that's what you'll see to digg (esp. if you don't trudge in the upcoming section of digg...)
    • CoJeff, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5That isn't the only dup. There are probably close to 20 different digg articles on this now.
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Is it just me, or isn't it completely ridiculous that this can happen? Why doesn't Digg aggregate a "story" and not links to it? Why the hell can't we bind 8 or 9 URLs that have different point of views or different people reporting on it, to one "Story"?

        *sigh*.
        • GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If nothing else, they could at least add a "relevent stories" section at the top that is automatically generated from submitted links. It would be one of the easiest things in the world to do.
        • wiskers69, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I like that idea of being able to combine story's into one heading. Should you be able to dig the individual story's as well as the over all heading or do you just get one shot? I like the idea of being able to digg the individual story's so you can see what reports/opinions are more popular. Maybe the overall headings rating can be an aggregate of all the individual stories diggs.
    • abusive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Yeah, that is a dupe one you posted. Good boy.
  • NewPatriot, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24i wish i was a neutron bomb for once i could go off
    • rholloway, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Don't worry, I got it and a few others will too. Should have gone with 'I wish I was a full moon shining off a Camaro's hood'.
    • NewPatriot, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2sweet!
      sorry rholloway. i hit the wrong thumb.
    • Wendigo6x3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I wish I was a messenger and all the news was good.
      • NewPatriot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3i wish i was an alien at home behind the sun
        • lonelymiddle1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I wish I was the souvenir you kept your house keys on
    • orbital58, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I wish i was an alien at home behind the sun.
    • samsonthesaxman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wish I wish I wish I wish I guess it never stops (live version)
  • Raian, on 10/10/2007, -3/+93Or.. maybe someone needs to break up AT&T?
    • longbow486, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11and the endless cycle continues, you cant kill a virus
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Luckily, AT&T isn't a virus, it's a monopolistic company. If the government had any balls and wasn't owned by AT&T, this situation would have never existed.

        Alas, our Justice system might as well be a branch of the Executive.
      • DavidtheDuke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3At&t is a living organism, part living endoskeleton and part cybernetic exoskeleton. It is a machine.
  • holzp, on 10/10/2007, -24/+14No bigger PJ fan on the planet than me, however, if AT&T is doing the broadcast and sponsoring the broadcast, they can censor whatever they like. Does Pearl Jam allow fans to get up on stage and moon them during their shows?
    • DOUBLEZER00, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8That's exactly the kind of thinking that's going to destroy the world.
    • rholloway, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14From an artist's perspective, had censoring the broadcast been in the contract, I don't think PJ would have allowed their show to be on the webcast. That whole business thing cuts both ways. I listened to it on XM, uncensored. But then again, after what they did to Opie and Anthony for what Homeless Charlie said about Laura Bush, who can count on any corporation anymore?
      • Jexie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3When could a person ever actually rely on a corporation?
      • ald4ngo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Oh, quit being so melodramatic.
    • mille716, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Pearl Jam is well known for being a politically outspoken band. AT&T must have known this before they signed them up and Pearl Jam clearly didn't expect to have their broadcast censored. This would be ok if AT&T told Pearl Jam "we want you to perform for us but just so you know, we will cut out anything overtly political" and Pearl Jam agreed. This didn't happen. They signed up a group of artists then decided to edit their art. Pearl Jam is right.
      • holzp, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3You can't rely on corporate America to carry your message while you attack corporate America. I wish they kept on with their anti Ticketmaster stance, that I respected. But to be sitting in a huge arena with the ExxonMobile Luxury Box up in the corner playing a show where they get all "***** Big Oil" just does not sit right with me. The internet has give them all the distribution channels they need, they have the money and clout to get it done. They cant have it both ways.
        • skinjester, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1that's in a nutshell why Pearl jam is so lame - they rely on corporate America at the same time they "attack" the status quo
    • gernblansted, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The problem here is that AT&T claims it doesn't censor except for profanity, but they censored based on politics so they lied. If they lie this time, why should we believe them when they say they'll be "fair and balanced" when it comes to keeping the net neutral? Since they are researching ways to 'tag' copyrighted content coming through their networks, does that mean my sling box will be useless when they engage that technology - that I won't be able to watch my recorded tv programs remotely on my laptop? Will they just call the FBI and arrest me? This corporation can NOT be trusted with anything, except to make a profit at anyones expense but their own. The Internet has become too important to leave in control of people like this.
  • misfit410, on 10/10/2007, -32/+6I wish musicians would shut up and sing, as if anyone can understand a word that comes out of that drunks mouth anyways.
    • sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Don't call him a drunk! But, yeah, he needs to open his mouth when he sings.
    • n8r0n, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5I agree. I am sick of musicians and actors pushing their political agendas on their fans. I pay to listen to your music not your political views. This is why I gave up on Pearl Jam and others a long time ago.
      • longbow486, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3example: Green Day
      • skinjester, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0also agree. Vedder's best work was clearly as a child actor
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf-4lOQonAU
      • warriorscot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Some people like their celebrities with a conscience, Art and Politics's go hand in hand and i wouldn't want it any other way neither would it be possible as artistic product is usually strongly influenced by the creators beliefs that is what produces individual music and innovation without it we would have nothing but manufactured pop music, if you don't like the lyrics don't listen to them just enjoy the music or don't its your loss.
    • thegodfaughnder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I think musicians have just the same rights as anyone else to voice their oinion. Its ***** to tell any human being to shut up and not disscuss their opinions. Also...... he was singing, and they barely let him do that. But i also believe that the public as a whole has the right to speak their mind against someones opinions, not a big corporation like AT&T. But on the other hand AT&T probably reserved the right to do as such and Pearl Jam should have voiced their opinions when the contract was signed.
    • rholloway, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Dude, this story was about Pearl Jam, not REM.
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8So with network neutrality, we'll get a censored version of Pearl Jam's show from AT&T, which drops out every 5 sec with a buffering message appearing (Since the p2p traffic will be at the same priority). Nice job tying two unrelated issues in the title.
    • DOUBLEZER00, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9What does Net Neutrality have to do with the media buffering?
      • gernblansted, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Nothing. Nice try, geekee. That exact argument you made is why we can't trust AT&T to 'regulate' who gets priority on the Net - we know if you don't support their man politically, then your priority can be dropped. If AT&T gets its way, try connecting to any high profile site with video/audio that criticizes AT&T without buffering dropouts. Then go watch the video of their political allies, and suddenly, the net will work again. Yes, this was AT&T's web cast. Yes, they lied about the intention to censor political information. They'll lie again. That's the point.
  • Nodaki, on 10/10/2007, -28/+1Eddie Vedder is the biggest pussy douchebag on the planet. THE biggest pussy douchebag on the planet.
  • serpicolugnut, on 10/10/2007, -27/+11So what if they censored the broadcast? It's their broadcast. They can censor it if they so desire, so long as there was nothing in their contract with Pearl Jam about censorship rules.

    Get over yourselves people. Freedom of speech does not equal the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. For example, if I came to work and started in to a loud, anti-Bush rant (or a pro-Bush rant, for that matter), my boss could easily fire me over it. I have freedom of speech from persecution of the government for what I say, not from my employer or people I do business with.

    Dugg by a whole lot of people who attended public schools, and who probably have a lot of rent-to-own furniture in their house.


    • TheKricket, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11its amazing how so VERY little people know about their rights...
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9it's really sad to see that we are in the minority. Just goes to show the saying "common sense is not common" is true.
    • rholloway, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"They can censor it if they so desire, so long as there was nothing in their contract with Pearl Jam about censorship rules. "
      That's the point--had censorship language been in the contract, AT&T would have been short 2 hours of content for their webcast. I don't disagree with you--someone failed to either review contracts or honor them. Either way, the content provider was led to believe the broadcaster was to be broadcasting the show in it's entirety--hence the kerfuffle.
      For someone who clearly didn't go to public schools, you sure did take a big whiff at the obvious.
      • slunktoday, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0If Eddie and co. are too lazy to read their own contracts, it's their own fault.
    • mille716, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You're missing the point. AT&T and a small number of other companies are the gatekeepers to massive amounts of news and information. They are deciding what information gets to the masses. Corporate censorship is just as wrong as government censorship.
      By the way, great job on trying to make yourself sound smart by knocking public schools and poor people, you smug *****.
    • gernblansted, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"Dugg by a whole lot of people who attended public schools, and who probably have a lot of rent-to-own furniture in their house." - serpicolugnut

      My my, aren't we special? I guess your "highbrow" private school didn't teach you much. If AT&T censors based on politics when it isn't even their official policy to do so, which "Pipes" as you specially educated people would say are going to have the "spigot" turned down later on when AT&T gets their way? Or is that too lowbrow for your exceptionally educated self to grasp?
    • warriorscot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So you are saying you are not able to freely discuss politics in the office with co-workers/friends at all, certainly you have a vague point in that certain situations you are best to hold your tongue, BUT in the workplace short of Racism, Sexism and general discrimination you are allowed to talk about anything in particular you want to.

      Also its a different situation we are talking about Artists and Entertainers that are hired to perform as they see fit for X amount of time, and like it or not people listen to music as much about the ideology of the artists and what they represent as much as the music itself, and when you accept censorship of your media you deserve anything you get from it, the media of any truly free nation should be 100% censorship free at least in terms of non-offensive language, the media is your conduit into the world at large and no matter what is on it it should be uncensored.
      • ald4ngo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0"in the workplace short of Racism, Sexism and general discrimination you are allowed to talk about anything in particular you want to"

        Yeah, right. Wake up.
    • alterImperson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Dugg by a whole lot of people who attended public schools, and who probably have a lot of rent-to-own furniture in their house."

      You sir are an ignorant *****.
  • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -5/+52Solution: Don't play concerts for AT&T
  • valoss, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39Thanks AT&T! I will commence my boycott immediately.
    • Kenard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good luck on that, don't visit any websites from across the country, or your packets will get routed through them.
  • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -22/+19Since when does AT&T not have a right to control their message they are broadcasting? Censorship? Not even close. AT&T is not the government and unless they broke some terms in their contract they are probably within their right to do whatever they want with their stream/property. Had Eddie Vedder said, "I love to ***** underage retarded kids as Michael Jackson fingers my butt" and they muted the stream, would you say the same thing about censorship? Doubt it. If it was the government, i.e. FCC, that had placed the mute on the stream, then you would have a case at censorship. When are people going to stop seeing the word Bush and acting just on that emotion it brings?
    • TheKricket, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9did you even read the ***** article? at&t has already stated that this was a "mistake" and that it shouldn't have been censored - in fact, they didnt even censor it - it was a 3rd party contractor that was supposed to censor "vulgar" language
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4So everyone should bury the article as inaccurate since the headline and summary both talk about AT&T censoring Pearl Jam and this wasn't the case, right? Regardless if they did it on purpose or accident, they are allowed to control their stream how they see fit, unless under contract not to. The point is people see Bush and act on emotion instead of using their brain to think.
        • DOUBLEZER00, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So when in the telcom world, there are a handful of providers, AT&T being one of them. For the sake of argument, let's assume it was AT&T who censored the lyrics. Now, AT&T starts censoring it's content, so if you're on AT&T's network you can't see what you want to see anymore. When one starts doing that, what's to stop the next from doing it? And the next? Pretty soon the 'gatekeepers' of the telcom world are dictating what content is suitable for you, aren't you mature enough to decide what's suitable to watch and listen to? Soon, if things keep on the same track, even if you are mature enough to make your own decisions, you won't even have the choice. So keep up with this attitude and China's web censorship won't look so bad anymore.
    • CMuffa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8They did mention that "political lyrics" are against AT&T policy, therefore the 3rd party contractor censored it. But what AT&T and the rest of the corporate world fails to realize is that we have "The People's Policy". It's called the constitution. Rule number 1, freedom of speech. Whether it be offensive or not, we have the right to hear it. It's the corporations (including all media outlets) who have chosen for us, to control what information/music/whatever is passed along to you. Well thanks for nothing. Because even if someone did say "I love to F underage...blah blah blah", I'd still like to hear it and then use my own mind to determine if it was offensive.

      "Once upon a time, I could control myself".....now the goverment and corporations are doing it for me. Thanks again for nothing.
      • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you are off point here. Technically AT&T is hosting the broadcast not on a "public" internet site (i.e. government) so they have the right to censor what they want that comes over their network regardless of the 1st amendment. This is why we are free... if you do not like AT&T then do not use them so on and so forth.

        Now if they started censoring other websites then we have a problem.
    • Herv3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2They have every right to decide what to broadcast and I have every right to boycott. They exercised their rights and I will now exercise mine.
  • PacketScan, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3It was only a matter of time before AT&T put the proverbial foot in the mouth.
  • slunktoday, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1If Pearl Jam didn't want to be censored, they should not have played a gig that had tons of huge corporate sponsors. They knew what they were getting into, and didn't mind cause of the paycheck. Kind of hard to complain about it now.
    • charli2na, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You obviously know nothing about the band, they don't play for the paycheck... in fact they only tour every 3 or 4 years. That was their only US show this year.
      • slunktoday, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0They got paid more because AT&T was a sponsor.

        The only show Pearl Jam plays this year is to headline a festival where tickets cost $100+ and they'd have to play a shorter set. Who is that for, the fans?
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah that makes sense, corporation censors an artist and you complain at the artist. You may have Stockholm Syndrome.
      • slunktoday, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0When people get paid to render services, they are accepting a form of outside control. It's stupid to complain about a loss of rights when you accepted money for it
        • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, when they are paid for a service they are accepting a form of payment for their service. Rights are not bought or sold. That's serfdom at best, slavery at worst. You should be approaching this from the angle If the corporation doesn't like the service or the message, don't hire the artist.

          The constitution was set up on John Locke's moralled principle. Locke believed in rights to one's labour (commonly referred to pursuit of happiness or 'The American Way'), Vedder as an artist has a right to that labour and that labour is an art and the proliferation of that art form. When someone censors that art before broadcasting it, it ceases to be the same art that Vedder produced and so it is a transgression of his rights to his labour.

          You however argue that Vedder has no rights because he forgoes them for payment but that's the thing about constitutional rights; they're unalienable. 'Unalienable' means they cannot be sold or alienated any other way.

          The corporations here are flying in the face of the vein in which the constitution was written and you are so lost to the American Ideal you are defending its kidnappers. Reflect on that last sentence and remember what the American ideal was and appreciate that corporate personhood has no role in it.
  • n3w5wh0r3, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1
    Rule 1.
    AT&T sucks.
    Rule 2.
    Don't use AT&T for anything but private phone convos.
    Rule 3.
    Get V-Cast. (Verizon)
    • ben_nushmut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Let me revise that for you:

      Rule 1.
      AT&T sucks.
      Rule 2.
      Don't use AT&T for anything at all if you are concerned about your privacy or net neutrality.
      Rule 3.
      Don't get your telco services from any other Baby Bells turned mega corporation that doesn't understand basic mathematics. (Verizon)
  • NeoRevolution, on 10/10/2007, -15/+41George Bush, leave this world alone.
    George Bush find yourself another home.

    Lets digg this so they know they have no control over us.
    • skinjester, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2such a bold political statement. thanx for sharing.
    • expat001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11How about give up your iPhone in protest?
    • santiago1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2T'was from NiN's Year Zero, if I'm not mistaken (can't remember off the top of my head which song, but I can hear it in my head).... nice of him to credit appropriately....
      • ruley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2no, its not. Year Zero is based in a post-bush world.
        nice effort though.
        FAIL
    • GhostFreeman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think 'they' got the point back when we were spamming AACS codes
  • SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -10/+23This does not involve packet priorities, rejecting traffic from other networks, or giving an unfair amount of bandwidth to some connections. So, why the hell was "network neutrality" called into the picture?
    • skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5It's so Pearl Jam has a new buzzword to use in their latest attention-whoring scheme. I guess it also helps record sales when you haven't put out an album worth a ***** since Ten.
    • jp007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9It was called into the picture because network neutrality is damaging to at&t. I think the band is probably pretty pissed at at&t for what happened for the censoring of their concert, and educating the populace about network neutrality is really the only way to poke them back in the eye.
      • Figs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1By confusing people about what network neutrality is?
        That doesn't make sense.
    • kaffein, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Shows you how much they knew about what Net Neutrality is...
      Pearl Jam = Nubs. XD
    • ruley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4i think what he meant was: these are the people that say they wont censor your information
    • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Really I don't care that they brought up Net Nutrality simply because this will turn more people onto it and making people want to get educated on the issue. Even if their reason for bringing it up was wrong I still love getting the message out to people.
  • Jus7in, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Anybody who still uses Yahoo!/AT&T needs to realize that they are supporting this crap. Between them monopolizing (once again) the telecommunications industry, spying on their own customers, and this, they are clearly an evil that needs to go.

    Delete your Yahoo! screen names and stop visiting the site. They operate entirely contrary to what America, and freedom, stand for.
    • cobravap, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1HAHAHAHA, yes true, but in america we have no choice! DSL At&T is a monopoly, however i wouldn't exactly go jumping on the comcast bandwagon as they are also utter crap.
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13What a joke. Publicly showing they're morons that don't know what net neutrality means. They have issues with censorship and really think putting the FCC in charge is the solution?
  • blorc, on 10/10/2007, -18/+6Pearl Jam is awful anyway. They should have censored the entire performance.
  • nk231, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14One more reason not to sell your soul to AT&T for an iPhone.
  • sorensilk, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5This isn't censorship. If Pearl Jam hosted the concert on their own servers with AT&T as their ISP and AT&T edited it then it would be censorship. AT&T is a horrible company but they didn't do anything wrong here.
    • avery, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Even in that case, I'd wager that AT&T could still shut down the pipe. It's their network. Period.

      No matter how much all you diggers want this to be about censorship, it's just not. If the gov't had somehow shut down the stream or edited it, then I'd be on your side 100%. AT&T is a private company and they can control their network however they like. Even if they make the wrong choice as they probably did in this case.
    • CMuffa, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If AT&T advertised a "LIVE" concert...then


      That's what I think about that. Real life doesn't have controlled interuptions.
  • ffingers, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19I just have to say.....i was at that concert and it was awesome....granted...the political stuff sort of came from nowhere...but it was cool to see all the people singing the wall and then cheering when vedder said "Bush leave this world alone"....very cool...

    on a side note, he had an Iraq war vet up there in a wheelchair who talked about how bad the war was...then Ben Harper and Vedder sung an anti-war song in the vet's honor....

    and don't forget that Vedder also sung a song "No Go BP Amoco" in response to BP's dumping into Lake Michigan...seriously...very political concert...even for Vedder...but it was a good show
    • gumby05, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah me too.
      lance armstrong and dennis rodman were up on stage with all those other people on the last song.
    • leavittsj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I was also there. I didn't think it was that political, but then again I went to PJ's vote for change concert :) I think what got Eddie going, as far as the BP Amoco was the petitioner's. I would've loved to be the one that got his signature.
  • RyanBlueThunder, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3TICKETMONSTER SUCKS!
    I just paid $7.50 in 'convenience' charges for a $20 ticket...rediculous.
    • dezmd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No *****, my wife got me two tickets for Hank Williams III on ticketrapester and the total came out the $50, for 2 $16 tickets. I shoulda just got there early and paid at the door.

      That said, it was ***** worth it anyway, so I guess I'll shut the ***** up.

      cheers.
    • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yea Ticketmaster = RIAA in concert form.
  • SilkSteel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14These ***** at AT&T need to get off their knees and stop sucking big brother's *****. I'm glad Pearl Jam is making a big deal out of this because it needs to be done. Companies like AT&T who pull ***** like this end up setting precedents for future policies, along with affecting what kinds of laws are passed. We cannot be complacent in this critical period of defining what should and should not be regulated on the internet.
  • jamin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18I recently canceled my AT&T service because I'm tired of their *****. Maybe more people should do the same.
    • MannaPC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4In a lot of areas they don't have a choice, AT&T or nothing... Take where I live for example *sigh*.
      • LowRentDiggs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It sucks when it's like that. I'm considering a move to a place that is only serviced by AT&T and don't like that one bit. It's one of the many factors that is pushing me towards not accepting that job.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18I really, really hope that Google buys the new spectrum from the FCC, and implements an open national wireless internet. The sooner we can get away from companies like AT&T, the better.
    • cubicrystal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Right, because Google isn't heading into Big Brother territory.

      Gimme a break.
      • Hmoobgolian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I will take Google over AT&T anyday ...
  • expat001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23I want to see everyone with an iPhone to give it up in protest to censorship, and being complicit in the spying of US citizens.

    (right, like anyone here has any principles)
    • gogun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1just use linux on it, and hopefully you can get off at&t
  • Ceeman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The blue room is basically AT&Ts tv channel. NBC has its own code of conduit and FCC while CNN doesnt have to worry about the FCC they still censor what they put on their network.

    If this was a free show that was streamed on Pearl Jams site and AT&T did this then you have a case for even crying about NN.

    We need more Nation wide ISPs and back bones not more government.
  • flatspunk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6While I supported Pearl Jam's anti-Ticketmaster monopoly in the 90s -- I don't know what kind of net neutrality they are trying to promote.

    I am against any laws regulating the Internet unless the law is "don't regulate the Internet". This whole idea of preventing companies from implementing QoS or bandwidth tiers is absurd. It reeks of anti-corporate ra-ra and seems to lack any insight into how networks can be structured.

    I wish hippies, artists and politicians would quit trying to regulate what they don't fully understand...
  • hydroplane, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Hey! Eddie! leave those wall lyrics alone!
  • rwvalentine, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4f' net neutrality, i'll pay more for my data to go faster than their stupid f'n videos and billy's porn downloads.
  • serpicolugnut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Last time I checked AT&T isn't the only communications provider in the country. On the internet front, you have AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, and a number of smaller players. On the cell phone front you AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Not to mention the smaller pay as you go providers. On the landline front you have AT&T and Verizon, plus a number of smaller companies.

    You people saying AT&T owns the communications in the US obviously don't remember what it was like before the breakup. Sure, I'm not happy with AT&T re-assembling itself in to the communications giant it once was. But it isn't there yet, and although we've diminished competition in these markets, we have removed it.
    • DOUBLEZER00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You do realize that AT&T owns and leases out the majority of the lines that 'these smaller providers' use right?
      • cubicrystal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Exactly. But it goes so much deeper than all this - AT&T owns you and your personal data and there's nothing you can do about it but cut the cables. And let's be realistic here, who is going to do that when it's all so distractingly numbing to be *wired*.
  • claxton6, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0now AT&T sucks just as much as Pearl Jam..
  • Ghoztt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16Pearl Jam has a RIGHT as an ARTIST and as HUMAN BEINGS to say what they said. This is censorship. This is censorship by an extremely freak'n large corporation. This is tyranny! I say we break up AT&T again, and while we're at it, Walmart, BestBuy, Microsoft, all the Oil Company's and every other monopolistic company out there! RETURN AMERICA TO A FREE MARKET!
    • ald4ngo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2They have the right to say what they want in a public forum. The broadcast is not a public forum, it is controlled by AT&T. AT&T can choose what they want to put on their servers. Is is that hard to understand?
    • rwvalentine, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ya! Lets take control of the means of production and return to a free market!
      retard.
  • kylere, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Pearl Jam can rant about rights all they want, but as long as they are AT&T's pet band to begin with i could care less. Let's see one major act really refuse to use TicketMA$TER, instead of talk about it, and lets see one major band actually refuse corporate logos.

    Lots of them have talked, none including Pearl Jam, have yet. You go to bed with the devil, you should expect him to control you ( you hear me Saddam :-))
    • drtyfrnk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I guess you don't know PJ's hearing in 95 against ticketmaster as a monopoly where they testified against them and their overpriced tickets.

      Then in 96 they went on a tour without a stop in a ticketmaster place.

      So kylere, go research before you post what you think you know.
      • kylere, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Then they went back to Ticketmaster when the publicity died down just like good little sheep, stop rewriting history and learn it.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2these guys are in their 40s, and a little before my time. I don't get why people are for Net Neutrality. As long as we don't have net neutrality, we can;t have government censorship etc...
  • rob357, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0AT&T @!*&%
  • seafoodmama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3interestingly not everything was censored. from the rueters article only the comments about the president were removed. vedder also railed against bp and had an iraqi vet on to condemn the war. if someone had some agenda they didn't really follow through too well. still sounds fishy though.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN091821320070809?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true
  • jron, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7This has nothing to do with net neutrality. If you don't like AT&T's business, don't give them your money. Don't allow the govt. to regulate the internet; look at what a great job the FCC does with TV and Radio. Pearl Jam gets pissed because a corporation sensors their anti-bush song... then ask to give bush the power to sensor the internet... ok.
    • NeoRicen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You dumb *****, Net Neutrality doesn't allow anyone to censor the net, it's the ***** opposite.

      You can't just throw all regulation under one giant '***** you' umbrella, you just look like a ignorant simpleton.

      And what about people who don't have anyone around but AT&T to provide to them? How about you just toss them a typical Libertarian "***** you" you jackass.
      • aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Net Neutrality would not have prevented this, it is a none issue in this case. The best you can do is say that AT&T as it stands can't be trusted, how about an antitrust suit instead? The competition of a break up will do us way more for us, rather then accepting AT&T as an extension of the government. You should read this to have a better understanding of the issue at hand then you presently do (also note that this will help you understand why AT&T is as big as it is) http://www.mises.org/story/2139
  • GeauxLSU, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9This has NOTHING to do with the so called "Net Neutrality" debate.....If AT&T had censored someone else's broadcast....You have a case, BUT they did NOT.....It was their own broadcast and like TV they can edit it and transmit it how they chose. Freedom of speech cuts both ways!!!! On top of that, they said it was a "mistake by a webcast vendor and contrary to our policy". Any censorship fingers need to be pointed in that direction....BUT again NOTHING TO DO WITH NET NEUTRALITY!
    Proponents of net neutrality are doing like they always do...make something out of nothing....and the AT&T hateres are jumping on the bandwagon!
    • dezmd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Sounds more like the right wing AT&T apologists are trying to jump on the bandwagon.

      AT&T was broken up once, looks like they're going for a repeat performance with the re-merging of the Bells.

      Cheers.
      • GeauxLSU, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Calling people silly names denigrates your argument and speaks volumes about your maturity and intelligence!

        Plus read your history...The AT&T of old and this AT&T are not the same company. The OLD AT&T was a monopoly of phone service. This company, composed of a few of the components of the OLD AT&T, competes against a number of providers in voice, data, and video. Not the same company or market place!!!
      • aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You refer to this as a bandwagon, that makes it sound like a farce. I'm all for breaking up monopolies, but he is right this is not about Net Neutrality, NN would not have prevented this.
    • fortezza, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2And I have the right to Digg you down.
      • adrianpike, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1And I have the right to Digg you down.
    • Hmoobgolian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You know what, Net Neutrality has become a twisted issue and politicized to fit one's agenda. Yes, you have a point that AT&T may have had the right to censor what they didn't like going through their webcast, but then again what else doesn't, at the packet level. AT&T is a huge telecoms company that runs probably 90% of all our national telecommunications. How can you fight something that is as enormous as that? It's like David and Goliath, except the real world. The big guy always wins, unless all the small guys band together.... Net Neutrality is simple, DO NOT regulate the internet at ALL ... period!!
  • coyoteblue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Yeah I was there, it was a pretty sweet concert.

    My favorite part was his song urging fans to boycott BP-AMOCO stations because of their decision to dump ammonia and sludge into Lake Michigan.

    A guy behind me started booing when he was talking about the boycott and yelling "Who the f*ck cares?".

    It took about ten seconds before he was KTFO.
    • jet2work, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So much for free speech. How hipocritical is it to kick a fan out of your concert for exercising his free speech.
  • crhawk, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2"Proponents of net neutrality are doing like they always do...make something out of nothing....and the AT&T hateres are jumping on the bandwagon!"

    Agreed
    • fortezza, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Please don't make a big deal out of my digging you down, then.
  • jesusfish12, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2my you're a rowdy bunch. everyone settle down...

    http://attblueroom.com/home/index.php

    • eclectro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A vendor did it blah blah blah. Liar liar your pants on fire.
    • dustinhansen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But AT&T wouldn't have done anything unless everyone got their panties in a bunch.
  • cubicrystal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4














    AT&T runs the telecommunication cartel. Don't like it? Stop using your cellphone and put them out of business.

  • sand1ego, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Censorship is done only by the Government. A private company editing a concert, which they have the broadcast rights to is not censorship. Did all of you morons sleep through civics class???
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.