I was more than clear enough the first time; however, I will attempt this again.


All the TV stations, and that includes MTV, who refuse to show the original version or any video are corporations first. These companies are under no obligation at all, to show this or any video, for that matter.

All the stations have to follow their countries laws/regulations/guidlines. In the U.S., they have to follow FCC guidlines and regulations, which are set by Congress. *

If you haven't noticed, since the Janet Jackson "Equipment Malfunction" incident, the FCC has become very strict. Congress has also passed a law making the fines much higher, and the President signed it. **

On Nov. 23, 2004, Viacom (the company that owns MTV) paid $3.5 million in fines because of that Half-Time "Equipment Malfunction". A Half-Time show that was produced by MTV, mind you. Viacom has become a lot more careful in what they will and will not allow all their TV/Radio stations, especially MTV to show/do since that incident.

Outside of laws/regulations/guidlines in the countries these stations are in, each station (even those outside the U.S.) have their own guidlines of one kind or another, on what is and isn't allowed in videos. All the labels, video directors, and bands know these guidlines.

Forget that in the U.S. and several other countries, they have a hang up on Homosexuality (especially involving males), the implied bestiality is more than enough to have the video banned by U.S. stations, and many other countries' stations. Keep in mind, all these video stations are geared to kids, as well.

The director and band knew what was going to happen the second they planned what was going to be shot. The director's own rambling post above, shows that.

They all knew MTV and other stations were not going to touch the original version or either of these versions.

Now as Seerix has pointed out, if they really wanted to have the original version shown, they could set up their own site. That means the band or director will have to spend their own money, which if they seriously wanted to fight Censorship, that should have been no problem for them. Just as long as no actual bestiality is involved, it would be legal to be posted on a U.S. based internet site.

With the internet sites, they will find they have the same issue as the Stations. They're corporations, and will have their own guidlines.

Now if it gets enough attention, they could do what Madonna did and really cash in. After all the hoopla and attention, she put the video for Justify My Love up for sale, and charged $19.95. People flocked to buy it, to the tune of $40 million. Money she would have never seen, if the video was shown on MTV. She has no talent to speak of, but she is one of the shrewdist businesswoman you will come across.

However, since none of the band themselves is involved in anything in this video, as with the Madonna video, I don't seeing that happening.


In the end, this wasn't about Censorship. This was about publicity, and nothing more.



*Congress is that group of men and women (that make laws, raise or lower taxes, set minimum wage rates, approve Federal Judges (who among many other issues, decide what the Congress and President say is or isn't legal, is in fact legal, including what is or isn't indecent or obscene), and declare wars that leads to younger Americans being sent to fight, and possibly maimed and die in these wars, etc...., etc...., yada, yada; which most younger Americans do not bother paying attention to or voting for.

**The President is that guy in that little White Shack on Pennsylvania Avenue, who signs bills, flys on some big planes, fancy helicopters, nominates Federal Judges (who among many other issues, decide what the Congress and President say is or isn't legal, is in fact legal, including what is or isn't indecent or obscene), send the younger Americans to fight, possibly maimed or die in wars, and can end life on this planet, etc...., etc...., yada, yada; which most younger Americans do not bother paying attention to or voting for.


Maybe if these younger people did vote more often, Congress and the President would pay attention to them, and their wishes? If 15-20 million of them are not going to bother to vote, they really shouldn't cry over spilled milk.





I now return you to your reguraly scheduled stations.

One more point, Christina Aguilera's Dirty video actually did lead to controvesey, and I don't mean her outfit. The government of Thailand banned the video from national television and banned her from entering Thailand, because a pair of posters that appear in the background of the boxing ring. They advertise, in Thai, the sex tourism and underage girls of Thailand.


The set designer and director thought they looked nice, and claim they didn't bother to find out what they were for.

Satires which the censors understand are rightly prohibited.

-Karl Kraus

Are you saying the drama behind this censored video is a microcosm of mainstream society's conservative sexual tendencies?

Homo-smut should be just as readily visible at all times as hetero-smut?

Is this video an effort to challenge the status quo? Or are you just realizing this social orientation for the first time?

Why the dismay?

actually with the advent of bit torrent technology hosting a video like this on the band's official website wouldn't really cost them anything. they could cap the bandwidth on the torrent and let their fans seed the swarm at a negligible cost to the group or director. shit i could even get my roommate to host the torrent out of our apartment but i'm too busy drowning in my tears after being flicked

as for TEMPTED's earlier question about why the strokes would need the publicity?

...well after their initial buzz and ridiculous hype for 'room on fire' i haven't really heard ANYTHING about the band. this is quite possibly the longest they've ever been discussed on these forums and we're not even talking about them.

Gddmnd, I hate MTV.

Yes, true. However, as Seerix pointed out the labels are the ones who own and control most of the new bands sites. With the advent of the net, labels have included it in all contracts that new bands sign. Labels want to milk as much money and control matters as much as possible, before they throw the group the the sidewalk.

In this case, if the label has a problem with the video, they won't allow it on the site.

true, but i've seen some pretty beefy fan sites that wouldn't really need to abide by the restrictions set by the label. regardless of that, there shouldn't be anything prohibiting the director of the video of hosting an example of his art for the world to see on his own personal webpage. right?

If it's a site in the U.S., just as long as there is no actual bestiality involved, they can host it themselves on any site that will allow them.

As has been said before, if they really wanted the original version to be shown, they could find a way to accomplish it.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to keep this video from being shown, as is being made out to be. The vast majority of the world, doesn't even know who the Strokes are. The Batman theme is probably more well known than the group stealing it.

Now if the media bites on the bait, a lot more will hear about them. Add in human nature what it is....and more sales and money for the band, which is the real point of this video.

That's a good point. If they really care so much about the high art that is this video, you would think they'd be taking measures and buying their own space. I guess considering that, the other issue is what rights they have. I know that labels get their fingers in everything regarding a song/album.

Perhaps it's possible that this video that was shot is again owned by the label because the song is owned by the publishers? So if they made a video that can't be shown on standard channels, and then the label has legal rights to the video so it also can't be shown independently, then I could see a sort of "trap."

Of course that still doesn't excuse the obvious: the people involved knew it was going to either be censored or rejected entirely. But if we assume for a moment, that these people actually thought they were releasing some sort of important pop art, then it is indeed possible that they could be screwed.

I do remember there was an issue with Fiona Apple's album being trapped in some limbo a while back, like the label would not let it get released and she couldn't legally release it herself.

All the more reason to get one's own label.