Discogs preventing the sale of certain tunes...

[dj jedi]

Comparing musical taste and 'choice' of sexuality is exactly the problem with this record, and why it should be banned. There's nothing high and mighty or subjective about it, in the 21st century this kind of stuff is unacceptable.

[eazyflow]

Comparing musical taste and 'choice' of sexuality is exactly the problem with this record, and why it should be banned. There's nothing high and mighty or subjective about it, in the 21st century this kind of stuff is unacceptable[/b].

Nah, it's still your opinion.

Other people will have a different opinion of what is and isn't acceptable music for grown adults to trade and enjoy - and that's why this is a dodgy precedent they are setting...

deciding what you want to have sold on your site based on morality is not being a Nazi. selling a record on someone else's website is not an unalienable human right being deprived of someone.

Discogs isn't some blokes 'blog' though. It's a resource that 1000's of people have contributed to (myself included) and built into the valuable music resource that it is. when you open something like that up to a worldwide community in such a way then I'm a bit uncomfortable with it taking a moral stance on behalf of all those people who've contributed.

[Ric]

Hmm tough one. I would take the same stance were discogs mine. Amusing that you can't but it but you can still listen to it via the YouTube link. There's plenty Gary Glitter for sale, will they drop that too? Quite different I know but I doubt any high street retailers sell his back catalogue.

[Traffic Cone]

Comparing musical taste and 'choice' of sexuality is exactly the problem with this record, and why it should be banned. There's nothing high and mighty or subjective about it, in the 21st century this kind of stuff is unacceptable[/b].

Nah, it's still your opinion.

Other people will have a different opinion of what is and isn't acceptable music for grown adults to trade and enjoy - and that's why this is a dodgy precedent they are setting...

Precedent to do what, exactly?

Many countries, including this one, have laws about hate speech that are broadly of a similar tone. I don't really get what makes it so worrying to apply this principle to Discogs. Unless setting hate speech to music somehow invalidates all this.

Discogs isn't some blokes 'blog' though. It's a resource that 1000's of people have contributed to (myself included) and built into the valuable music resource that it is. when you open something like that up to a worldwide community in such a way then I'm a bit uncomfortable with it taking a moral stance on behalf of all those people who've contributed.

but it is also a privately owned site. from the perspective of the people who own it, it is their site. i'm pretty sure Ebay has a similar policy, and I'm sure HMV and the likes probably decline to stock racist music. So I don't really know why Discogs is so different. I don't know that user-built content means there should never be any restrictions.

As a parallel example, this forum is built on user contributions. But if I started posting racist stuff here and the admin delete it, that's surely within their rights?

[electric tribe]

Agree with the policy overall that offensive lyrics such as the Buju tunes should apply. People are free to go and find it by other means just that discogs doesn't have to support it.

Somewhat questionable if any inappropriate entries that do not violate any defined policy can be marked up by some know it all.

no idea why this one isn't allowed:

http://www.discogs.com/Outlander-Vamp/release/34226


Did see a list of not allowed for sale tunes all by one user it seems:
http://www.discogs.com/lists/not-allowe ... ?limit=250

[dj_gyr8]

Hi,

Surely, let the buyers choose - make their own choices...

[dj jedi]

Nah, it's still your opinion.

Other people will have a different opinion of what is and isn't acceptable music for grown adults to trade and enjoy - and that's why this is a dodgy precedent they are setting...

Yeah, an opinion shared by most open-minded people these days mate. If you're in some way condoning this record, the rave scene probably isn't the place for you, being based on you know equality, acceptance and all that.

We're drifting in to political debate here so if people want to continue that discussion, I'll move it to off-topic.

[pete.devnull]

Controlling what's on their site doesn't make them nazis. There is a big difference between making it illegal to sell stuff like this altogether anywhere, and a private website saying "we don't want this stuff on our site" and refusing to feature it or sell it. In Discogs' case, they even let people add those releases/ track them through the database (for the purpose of keeping the info out there), they just don't want money from the records flowing through them/sellers who specialize in it using their site as a primary selling point.

It's a common problem when sites become huge/defacto standards for something, people think those sites have a responsibility to provide users the same freedoms as, say, a government or something. Especially when the site is community driven or relies on user-generated content (ala discogs, reddit). Nope, it's still just some dudes running a site, they can do what they want. Since it's community driven, people will complain and they will likely listen since they do depend on users for content, but at the end of the day it's a website, not a democracy.

Not something i would listen to myself but by banning the nazi crap THEY have become the nazis! It's disgraceful.

[pete.devnull]

Controlling what's on their site doesn't make them nazis. There is a big difference between making it illegal to sell stuff like this altogether anywhere, and a private website saying "we don't want this stuff on our site" and refusing to feature it or sell it. In Discogs' case, they even let people add those releases/ track them through the database (for the purpose of keeping the info out there), they just don't want money from the records flowing through them/sellers who specialize in it using their site as a primary selling point.

It's a common problem when sites become huge/defacto standards for something, people think those sites have a responsibility to provide users the same freedoms as, say, a government or something. Especially when the site is community driven or relies on user-generated content (ala discogs, reddit). Nope, it's still just some dudes running a site, they can do what they want. Since it's community driven, people will complain and they will likely listen since they do depend on users for content, but at the end of the day it's a website, not a democracy.

Not something i would listen to myself but by banning the nazi crap THEY have become the nazis! It's disgraceful.

[rage]

Agree with the policy overall that offensive lyrics such as the Buju tunes should apply. People are free to go and find it by other means just that discogs doesn't have to support it.

Somewhat questionable if any inappropriate entries that do not violate any defined policy can be marked up by some know it all.

no idea why this one isn't allowed:

http://www.discogs.com/Outlander-Vamp/release/34226


Did see a list of not allowed for sale tunes all by one user it seems:
http://www.discogs.com/lists/not-allowe ... ?limit=250

WTF? I can understand the Buju one but what's the problem with that?

[eazyflow]

Nah, it's still your opinion.

Other people will have a different opinion of what is and isn't acceptable music for grown adults to trade and enjoy - and that's why this is a dodgy precedent they are setting...

Yeah, an opinion shared by most open-minded people these days mate. If you're in some way condoning this record, the rave scene probably isn't the place for you, being based on you know equality, acceptance and all that.

Nice try Jedi, but I'm not condoning gay-bashing here and you know it.

If I only listened to music that reflected my own political and moral standpoint, then it would be a very small collection of music indeed. Most Hip Hop I listen to involves lyrical content about crime or violence in some way, does that mean I'm a muthafunkin O.G.living the thug life? No. I work a 9-5 in Hull.

As an adult I'm perfectly capable of making a distinction of whether I approve of a records message or not, and it's perfectly reasonable for me to enjoy tunes such as the Buju Banton one on a level of simply finding it a firing piece of jungle whilst rejecting the content of the lyrics. Much in the same way I don't condone murder or violence any time it's mentioned in a whole host of other jungle tunes...

Look at Eminem's Marshall Mathers LP - This promotes murder, rape and describes violence in the most graphic detail. In the song 'Kill you' he talks about raping and murdering his own mother... at the moment there are nearly 300 copies of this for sale compared with some obscure jungle tune which has probably popped up for sale once in the last 3 years. Do you think this should also be banned? If not, then why?

Why is one acceptable to Discogs but the other is not?

The point is Jedi, that everybody's own definition of that which incites hatred and violence is different. what is the point at which you would draw the line? And why should it be down to you to decide where that line is? Why should it be down to anyone? there are far too many grey areas and things can be prevented from sale for the most tenuous of reasons (see above electric tribe's post above). Surely it's easier for there to be no line? Trust people to make their own judgements?

If something was so offensive and abhorrent to modern society then modern society would reject it choosing to not buy or listen to it - they wouldn't need some 'right-on' honcho at Discogs HQ to make that choice for them.

[Traffic Cone]

to try to answer those questions:

what is the point at which you would draw the line?

as mentioned: the line they are drawing is music which aims to "incite violent hatred against groups of people based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity".

To me there's a difference between expressing hatred for individuals, or morally dubious ideas - and actually encouraging violence against groups of people. Even if Eminem's talking about killing his own mother in detail - that doesn't exactly imply that the message is "hey you should totally kill your mother too!". But some anti-gay track, or some nazi punk tune about bashing black people, or bashing commies, or whatever - isn't specific. That's what makes it more an incitement to violence, because it's already generalized.

And I think the fact that this mirrors laws that many countries have about hate speech to me suggests that this isn't just the start of a much broader block of content deemed offensive. The point of those laws isn't to control all opinions, it's to try and stop encouraging opinions which lead to broader disruption or violence in society.

And why should it be down to you to decide where that line is?

Well, it's down to Discogs in this context - and it's their site.

Why should it be down to anyone?

Because Discogs is a privately owned site open to the public, not a publicly owned service.

To counter that point: what responsibility does Discogs have to sell anything people want to sell with no restrictions?

[eazyflow]

to try to answer those questions:

what is the point at which you would draw the line?

as mentioned: the line they are drawing is music which aims to "incite violent hatred against groups of people based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity".

To me there's a difference between expressing hatred for individuals, or morally dubious ideas - and actually encouraging violence against groups of people. Even if Eminem's talking about killing his own mother in detail - that doesn't exactly imply that the message is "hey you should totally kill your mother too!". But some anti-gay track, or some nazi punk tune about bashing black people, or bashing commies, or whatever - isn't specific. That's what makes it more an incitement to violence, because it's already generalized.

And I think the fact that this mirrors laws that many countries have about hate speech to me suggests that this isn't just the start of a much broader block of content deemed offensive. The point of those laws isn't to control all opinions, it's to try and stop encouraging opinions which lead to broader disruption or violence in society.

How about this line from the same album:

“My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge / And I’ll stab you in the head, whether you’re a fag or les / A homosex, hermaph, or a trans-a-ves / Pants or dress? Hate fags? The answer’s yes."

Does that satisfy your criteria?

And besides, couldn't it be argued that lyrics condoning thoughts of violence towards specific individuals is in some ways even more sinister then those targeted at a large generalised group?

Some people might think so, and that's kinda my point...

And why should it be down to you to decide where that line is?

Well, it's down to Discogs in this context - and it's their site.

Why should it be down to anyone?

Because Discogs is a privately owned site open to the public, not a publicly owned service.

To counter that point: what responsibility does Discogs have to sell anything people want to sell with no restrictions?

Yeah, you're right - Discogs is a privately owned site and they can restrict what they like. I'm just questioning whether they should.

[Eyeski3000]

This about sums it up really...

[rage]

Nah, it's still your opinion.

Other people will have a different opinion of what is and isn't acceptable music for grown adults to trade and enjoy - and that's why this is a dodgy precedent they are setting...

Yeah, an opinion shared by most open-minded people these days mate. If you're in some way condoning this record, the rave scene probably isn't the place for you, being based on you know equality, acceptance and all that.

That's a little judgemental mate, part of being open minded is accepting that people may have a different opinion to you. I listened to the record, It didn't offend me, the sample is in bad taste but that's about as much as I can say, it doesn't mean I condone it's message. Saying that, I also believe that if discogs want to take a moral stand and ban it that is completely at their discretion and I'm not buying all this slippery slope stuff people are going on about.

What is confusing the hell out of me is why theyve decided to ban Vamp.