ZFT-Spot Tornado

Evening folks,

One of the many topics I am deeply concerned with is freedom of speech. I will hopefully write many posts relating to the philosophical elements of that subject and the application of those ideals. In dangerous times, tongues need to be free. If they are not, we crumble.

Tonight I will focus on a slightly different subject. Recently, a large uproar has been occurring among a vocal minority of the world's population: Frank Zappa fans. Love him or hate him, Frank Zappa has been a powerful force in American music, and a passionate voice for freedom of speech and the promotion of musical education. His testimony in front of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee against the proposals of the infamous PMRC are legendary, frequently quoted and used by supporters of free speech. But, as Frank would say, "music is the best," and it is his music that is most cherished of his contributions of society.

It is unfortunate that Frank Zappa's surviving family--his widow Gail and his children Moon Unit, Dweezil, Ahmet, and Diva, collectively referred to as the "Zappa Family Trust" (ZFT)--
do not share their beloved patriarch's wisdom. Over the past few weeks, lawyers representing the ZFT have threatened a number of Frank Zappa fan sites and tribute bands with lawsuits. Why? The fan sites were sued for illegally distributing copyrighted material in the form of downloadable unreleased live recordings, and for using Frank Zappa's image and words. The sites in question were forced to remove these recordings (which is an understandable request), as well as all song lyrics, album covers, and images of the composer. Tribute bands, with the main goal of preserving the music, have been sued for illegally profiting of ZFT trademarks (using the name Zappa to let people know that they are a Zappa tribute band), and for preforming the music of Frank Zappa without permission. According to U.S. law, musicians are allowed to cover copyrighted music as long as the venue or the band pays its dues to the local organization that takes care of the performance rights (for the U.S., that would be ASCAP), which these bands do. However, ZFT lawyers argue that Frank Zappa's music is inherently "dramatic" in nature, and because it is "dramatic" it falls under a different category.

Is that any way to treat your fans? The people who strive day by day to preserve the legacy of Frank Zappa, is that how they are treated? There seems to be a trend; not too long ago, lawyers representing Prince sued the Artist's largest fansite for similar atrocities, namely having Prince's image and song lyrics on the site. What is the music industry coming to? Antagonizing fans is no way to sell merchandise.

This leads to the question: is this right? Not in any legal sense, but morally. "Music is the best." Shouldn't the music come first? I agree that artists should making a substantial profit on their hard work. But suing a website for offering UNRELEASED live bootlegs? Why not embrace the fact that their is an interest in these recordings, and that their availability will only increase the demand for official releases? The Grateful Dead and Phish are examples of this, offering free live shows on their own website. Other bands like The Who, Primus, and Pearl Jam offer these live recordings for a low price. Last time I checked, these groups are doing well.

But enough blather from me, what do you think? Do these fan sites and tribute bands infringe on the musician's estate's right make a profit on the music, or is there something amiss? Hopefully this will all blow over, but either way the wind blows the music remains the best.

Sources:
One of the fansites being sued
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_rights_organisation

Guantanamo Bay

Wednesday the Supreme Court heard the third incarnation of the Guantanamo Bay case. The first two times this case was brought before the high court it was ruled against the Bush administration. Since these two cases, legislation has been passed allowing Bush to, in essence, do what he’s been doing all along. The fight, however, continues.
The men at Guantanamo Bay are being held on American soil; the country the air base land is being leased from can not allow the prisoners to be tried within their courts because that imposes itself upon American sovereignty.
The men at Guantanamo Bay are not being held on American soil; they are not subject to a writ of habeas corpus because the only people this is available to are citizens and those being held within the United States.
The men at Guantanamo Bay are prisoners of war and thus should not be subject to a writ of habeas corpus even if they are held on American soil because never in the past have we provided detainees with this opportunity.
The men at Guantanamo Bay can not be prisoners of war because there is not a declared war going on and, further, many of the men are not even citizens of the countries that we have engaged in any combat with.
The men at Guantanamo Bay are not subject to a writ of habeas corpus; in addition to what is listed above, the Constitution allows suspension of these rights if an adequate and equally effective alternative is put into place.
The men at Guantanamo Bay must be subject to a writ of habeas corpus; the Bush administration’s arguments against them are flimsy. The new evaluation system put into place does not allow for lawyers or access to the evidence against them, immediately assumes the Government’s evidence to be fully correct and allows for innumerable retrials if, somehow, the detainee wins the case.
Clearly, the Bush administration wishes only to rob these men of their right to be proven innocent. Why would they do so unless they were afraid that just that were true? Should they not concern themselves with finding and holding the men who are guilty, or are they afraid that there are, simply, no guilty men to be found?
Is the incompetence of a nation a good reason to hold innocent men prisoner for six years, away from their homes, away from their families, away from their lives. Is the incompetence of a nation a good reason to punish these families in such a manner as depriving them of the only person in the household whom is, feasibly, allowed to go out and make any decent sum of money? Is the incompetence of a nation a good reason to allow said nation to deprive a group of people of their rights? Does allowing them to this, now, setting this standard of conduct only allow them to do the same thing to us in the future? Does allowing such a flimsy trial system to stand as fair and just and right only facilitate the government’s ability to do the same thing to us, it’s citizens, at a later date?
This battle is about the rights of the imprisoned. Why should it matter what country their citizenship belongs to? A man is still a man, no matter the length of his hair or the country of his patriotism. As such, we should disregard the fact that this has never happened before, that rights have never been given in such a manner and we should move past that.
Just because rights had never been given to black men and women doesn’t mean we should not have given them those rights. This is no different.
The men at Guantanamo Bay must be given fair trials and, once it is realized that they are innocent men, Guantanamo Bay must be closed.

Nightmare of Moloch

(Hello! I'm Josh, a new contributor here. I was once the editor of A More Pleasant Blog, a now-defunct blog similar to this one. Hopefully A Less Pleasant Blog will have more success than mine did! I'm a full-time student at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and I write poetry, prose, play blues harmonica and piano, enjoy long walks on the beach, and S&M.)

Nightmare of Moloch

“What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?” –Allen Ginsberg, “Howl” (Part II, lines 1-3)

As American citizens and, indeed, as human beings, no right is more sacred to us than our right to freedom of expression. The freedom of expression fosters the growth of the qualities that separate man from less-intelligent beings (animals, small rocks, Rush Limbaugh): namely communication, creativity, an understanding of self and a general understanding of the world around us. All other liberties stem from this crucial right, for without it we are simply zombies controlled by the will of power and corruption.

Free speech is a right, not a privilege. It is the freedom we are born with and the freedom it is our duty to use and protect. Were it not for the brave actions of some men and women to express their thoughts and feelings at the least “convenient” times, human history as we know it would have slowed to a standstill. If free speech was not fostered as it were women would not have the right to vote, slavery would not have been abolished, the United States would have never sought independence, and science would have bowed to the supreme authority of the Bible and the Catholic Church. With such monumental stakes on the line, defending one’s right to think for themselves has cost the lives of many.

A landmark for modern free speech occurred fifty years ago in1957 when an obscenity trial was brought against poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti and his City Lights Bookstore for their publication of “Howl,” a poem by Allen Ginsberg which contains numerous references to both heterosexual and homosexual acts (as in the lines “…who let themselves be fucked in the ass by saintly/motorcyclists, and screamed with joy…”) and drugs (as in the lines “…or purgatoried their/torsos night after night/with dreams, with/drugs, with waking nightmares,/alcohol and cock and endless balls,/incomparable blind…), as well as containing many uncensored expletives (including, but not limited to: fuck, fucked, ass, cock, cocksucker, cunt, snatch, and other variations). After a widely publicized case, the court ruled in favor of Ferlinghetti and for free speech. To quote San Francisco Municipal Court Judge Clayton Horn, “the theme presents unorthodox and controversial ideas. Coarse and vulgar language is used in treatment and sex acts are mentioned, but unless the book is entirely lacking in social importance it cannot be held obscene” (Garofoli, “’Howl’ Too Hot to Hear,” final paragraph).

But now, even fifty years after the rule of law declared the poem not obscene, a new controversy is brewing over the poem’s content. In one of the finest examples of irony to be seen in a long time, the radio station WBAI, “long the radio flagship of cocky resistance to government excess, decided last week that it couldn’t risk a 50th anniversary broadcast of the late poet’s recording of ‘Howl’” (“A Muse Unplugged,” par. 2). This brazen step back for free speech in this country occurred because of “fear that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would levy large obscenity fines that might bankrupt the small-budget station” (“A Muse Unplugged,” par. 2).

What kind of country do we live in when the population lives in fear of an agency designed to serve us? We have become a people that shriek out in horror when Janet Jackson’s breast is exposed on live TV, or cry foul at musicians for the content of their lyrics. Where is that starry spangled-eyed wonder that we lost which produced a poem of such magnitude? What gives the Moloch-like federal government the arrogance to scare a small radio station into self-censorship? This same government has stepped even further into blasphemy to censor the words of our greatest generation, removing the word “fuck” from verbal accounts of World War II veterans in broadcasts of Ken Burns’ latest documentary (“A Muse Unplugged,” par. 4). Where is the line drawn? Who draws the line? Is it us? Is it them? Is the line a reflection of society, what society will not hear? How many eyes must we have in order to see the looming tragedy that is gradually unfurling itself over the landscape of the American continent?

The FCC argues that it is acting in the best interests of the population, but we have the liberty of choice, of choosing what we want and do not want to hear. Whether it is hearing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University or a late American’s poem on the radio, we all have the choice to either listen, or not. We can choose not to watch a madman speak; we can choose to change the station. Why must we let Moloch decide for us?

Om.

Works Cited

"A Muse Unplugged." The New York Times 8 Oct. 2007: A-22.

Garofoli, Joe. "’Howl’ Too Hot to Hear." The San Francisco Chronicle. 3 Oct. 2007.

Ginsberg, Allen. "Howl." Howl and Other Poems. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1956.

Flames Destroy, Knowledge Rebuilds.

The political fire is lit and smoldering, factions are established and assortments of torches and Molotov Cocktails are being tossed back and forth between them. Each stands firm in their beliefs, or - much more frequently - in their parent's beliefs, their teacher's beliefs, their friends beliefs. The internet seeks to reach out a welcoming hand to young voters and bring them and their input to the forefront of political influence and so terribly few possess beliefs that are not carbon copies of those possessed by their genetic predecessors.
Youth voting is not a bad thing.
Youth voting blindly is an atrocity of the highest nature, serving only to prove that legions of young voters do little but multiply the numbers provided by the middle aged.
Now is not the time to vote along party lines; not the time to ignore the news; not the time to fail your country. Now is the time to educate yourself for the sake of education, your country and your children. No matter your age or your political beliefs. Take the time to learn what you are picketing for before you stand on the street, chanting and holding signs. Take the time to learn who you're really voting for before you make an up-and-coming bomber of the Vatican or former cocaine user president, take even more time to think before you do the same based solely on those claims.
Take the time now to teach yourself what you're doing because if you don't know now everyone might suffer later.