Dangerous censorship or ????

Jovimimi · #21 05-06-2005, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkywho

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jovimimi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkywho

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneDeaf

Just face it, everything is possible in the land of the free

bla bla.

I can only comment to Starbuck's reaction. Why should they sell the album? If they don't sell it because of the line with anal sex, that does NOT make it censorship (IMO). If Starbucks decides it will be very choosy in what cds it sells or not, more power to them. Who cares?

are you as a american citizen ok to have starbuck give their opinion about music ? do you care for their opinion ? aren't you pissed off they give their opnion on something THAT is not related with their own business (coffee)

yes I am ok for any corporation to give their opinion on music just as I give my opinion on music as an individual. Their opinion means as little as mine. If I choose not to buy a cd, any given corporation should have the right not to sell it if they so choose.

no, I don't care for their opinion but I know most people don't really care about my opinion either - I still have it though and I voice it

No, I am not pissed at all. Why should I???? I get my cd wherever I want - I've never bought cds at Starbucks. In fact, I am more pissed that Target doesn't carry the new Ryan Adams cd and I had to go all the way to Best Buy to get it. See - not everybody sells everything.

Oh, and who are you to say what business Starbucks is in and what it isn't? Music sales is, in fact, a growing part of Starbucks business - more power to them.

BTW, they just signed a no-name alternative rock band to sell their album at their stores!! I think that is great!

ok ... I respect your opinion ... this is not mine but I understand what you mean ... for me it's just incredible a coffee shop is patronizing like that but it's also because i think a coffee shop might have a bigger impact on cd sales (unfortunately) that a good or bad music critic .. ppl are very easily influenced and maybe starbuck being very vocal about the cd will give some ppl IMo wrong informataion ...

now if raget doesn't want to sell Ryan Adams cd it's not cool neither but it's a passive censorship probelm ... I only buy my cds to Virgin .. because I think I have more chances they have them all ... (which is not totally true though ) my favorite book stores doesn't have all the books and same for my supermarket .... I never thought it could be censorship problem but i am sure it's a $$ probelm to protect some markets and make some other having tough time to find space to sell their stuff

Adrian · #22 05-06-2005, 05:30 PM

This is going to sound really strange coming from me...but I have absolutely no problem with Starbucks refusing to sell the CD. It's their store, they make the decisions about what goes in and out of it. A worse situation would be forcing them to carry the CD. When you own your property, you make the decisions about the disposition of your property, and if you can't, then you don't own it.

Adrian

Supersonic · #23 05-06-2005, 05:32 PM

Aloha !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jovimimi

ok ... I respect your opinion ... this is not mine but I understand what you mean ... for me it's just incredible a coffee shop is patronizing like that but it's also because i think a coffee shop might have a bigger impact on cd sales (unfortunately) that a good or bad music critic .. ppl are very easily influenced and maybe starbuck being very vocal about the cd will give some ppl IMo wrong informataion ...

now if raget doesn't want to sell Ryan Adams cd it's not cool neither but it's a passive censorship probelm ... I only buy my cds to Virgin .. because I think I have more chances they have them all ... (which is not totally true though ) my favorite book stores doesn't have all the books and same for my supermarket .... I never thought it could be censorship problem but i am sure it's a $$ probelm to protect some markets and make some other having tough time to find space to sell their stuff

i = I
informataion = information
raget = Target
probelm = problem (twice the same mistake

)

Further on, leave the ... out of your replies, start new sentences with a capital and make your replies not a pain in the arse to read, and let them make any sense! What's got your favourite book store to do with the censorships of CD's? Thank you.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Jim Bon Jovi · #24 05-06-2005, 06:32 PM

as maria said, if starbucks (just one possible outlet to purchase might I add) chooses not to sell certain cd's for whatever reason then it's their right to do so. It's not like there's a blanket ban on the CD.

you can't complain at record stores for not supplying cd's of artists no one beside you has ever heard of just like I can't complain at asda because they don't stock my favourite bottle of wine.

Mousebounce · #25 05-06-2005, 07:03 PM

I am also with Maria on this. If the CD was banned throughout the US, then I would have a problem with it. But because it is just one corporation, it doesn't bother me. It is their right to choose CD's that they feel are "appropriate." Who am I to tell them how to run their business?

On the other hand I just noticed that the Black Eyed Peas "Don't Phunk With My Heart" is being played on the radio as "Don't Mess With My Heart." After listening to all the "gangster" rap on the radio these days, I can't see how changing that one word is really necessary.

Thomas Anderson · #26 05-06-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supersonic

i = I
informataion = information
raget = Target
probelm = problem (twice the same mistake

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supersonic

What's got your favourite book store to do with the censorships of CD's?

I find it funny how you would correct someones grammar and spelling and then make a mistake of your own

Kathleen · #27 05-06-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mousebounce

I am also with Maria on this. If the CD was banned throughout the US, then I would have a problem with it. But because it is just one corporation, it doesn't bother me. It is their right to choose CD's that they feel are "appropriate." Who am I to tell them how to run their business?

Basically, I agree with this also BUT - they are the ones that went after getting Bruce's record in the first place. They know that he is popular and will sell so that satisfies their capitalistic urges. That's fine. What does it say when they then decide that "it's a dirty song" and shouldn't be in their store? The front of the CD has a sticker on it in any case warning about "adult imagery". Selling the CD would let all of us decide for ourselves and let Starbucks make money from Springsteen. I suppose I don't get their reasons unless it's all about control.

Kathleen

spunkywho · #28 05-06-2005, 07:51 PM

Since we are talking about censorship and Starbucks!

Starbucks started out as a little coffee shop at the Pike Place Market in Seattle with their original logo:

as you can see the original logo shows evil nipples.

Very soon officials came in and made sure that Starbucks could not display their original sign anymore and the new logo was invented without the evil nipples:

To this day, the only shop that is still allowed to display the original logo is that very first shop at Pike Place!

Oh and btw, the official response from Starbucks is that they are not decided not to sell the album based on the anal sex reference, but merely because of a timing issue as they signed the all female rockgroup "Antigone Rising" to showcase for this month instead!

Jovimimi · #29 05-06-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mousebounce

I am also with Maria on this. If the CD was banned throughout the US, then I would have a problem with it. But because it is just one corporation, it doesn't bother me. It is their right to choose CD's that they feel are "appropriate." Who am I to tell them how to run their business?
?

the problem for me is that thinking a cd is appropriate or not should not be their business they just sell coffee

spunkywho · #30 05-06-2005, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kathleen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mousebounce

I am also with Maria on this. If the CD was banned throughout the US, then I would have a problem with it. But because it is just one corporation, it doesn't bother me. It is their right to choose CD's that they feel are "appropriate." Who am I to tell them how to run their business?

Basically, I agree with this also BUT - they are the ones that went after getting Bruce's record in the first place. They know that he is popular and will sell so that satisfies their capitalistic urges.

According to headquarters, the anal sex reference wasn't the reason to not sell. They signed with a no-name all female band instead which I think is awesome and cannot be interpreted as being capitalistic. Though that is really not a bad thing, as Starbucks is a business and business is capitalism.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/06/news...n=money_latest

Dangerous censorship or ????

NBJ - Everything Else