Re: Let me repeat myself..

[caen!bsbbs!nrc@harvard.harvard.edu (N. Richard Caldwell)]

aruss@oucsace.cs.ohiou.EDU (Andrew Russ) writes:

> If i am a record comapny, doi have the choice of whether or not i label certa
> albums, the criteria for labelling, the message on the label, the placement a
> size of the label, etc?  That would represent a freedom of choice, would it
> not?

The National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM) and the
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) agreed on a uniform
sticker but the decision on what to sticker is entirely up to the record
company.

> 	So are the PMRC recommendations a standard that they recommend i 
> use for the benefit of parents.  What happens if i don't go along with this
> "suggestion".  

I'm not sure if the PMRC ever recommended any standard but the record
companies have set their own.  I'm not sure what happens if someone
fails to sticker something that someone feels should have been.  The
agreement is among the members of RIAA and NARM so I assume that any
action - if there even is any - is spelled out by their agreement.
 
> 	Perhaps the PMRC husbands in the Senat will or won't introduce 
> legislation on home taping or digital tape recorders or some other 
> issue of financial importance.  At any rate, the No More Censorship Defense
> Fund (Dead Kennedy's legal project) and Frank Zappa and others have stated
> that this was the implied carrot and stick behind the major labels.  

Yes, it has been widely reported that the record companies sold out
the artists that they lined up against these at the first opportunity 
to curry favor on issues much more important to them.  This seems to
support the notion that the record companies were more concerned for
their balance sheets that any potential infringement on their rights.

> 	For smaller ones, such as the Alternative Tentacles label that
> released the Dead Kennedys Frankenchrist album, theycan be sued.  The L.A.
> city attorney admitted in print that their hope in filing the suit regarding
> the poster in the album (and there was a warning sticker about the poster on
> the album) was that even if the band, record comapny, and record pressing
> company (which had nothing to do with the poster) won the suit, that one
> or more of them would be bankrupted.  This was quoted in a newspaper--either
> in L.A. or San Francisco (included with NMSCDF information package), so here
> was a local government employee clearly attempting to use intimidation to
> curtail legal expression.  

This is a valid complaint and a perfect example of how those who
are up in arms about stickering are missing the real problem.  If I
recall the case correctly this is another case of someone attempting
to squelch our rights using obscenity laws.  The prosecuter claims
that the poster is obscene and therefore illegal (please correct me
if I'm wrong, I haven't heard anything about this in a while).

The horrible thing is that the notion of "obscenity" not being protected
under the first ammendment was actually upheld by the supreme court
even when there was a liberal majority.  There is essentially no hope
of getting that overturned with the current court.  I doubt that even
a liberal court would overturn it.  What we need are some people with
a libertarian bent on the court and that will never happen as long
as we have an entrenched two party system.

> 	The question is, what would the PMRC do in the case of independent
> record companies (or majors for that matter) that don't follow their 
> proposal?  

As far as I know the most they can do is complain.

> 	Some state legislatures have passed or tried to pass  (i don't know
> which or where) laws requiring labels, specifying content and placement and
> type of records to be stickered; and some (Maryland, i think was one reported
> in a Rolling Stone about a year ago) also added bans on sales of stickered 
> records to minors.  

All of those laws were defeated.  New ones pop up from time to time
but from what I've read the PMRC uniformly opposes them.  This is ironic
since the first mention of the whole issue (Chris's parody) was evidently
based on the Pennsylvania stickering law which the PMRC had nothing
to do with.  Chris attributes the law directly to the PMRC and I'd
be very interested to hear any evidence of that connection because
that would be at odds with everything else I've read.


"Don't drive too slowly."         Richard Caldwell
                                  The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)
                                  {n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!nrc
                                  nrc@bsbbs.UUCP