It’s not often you find a Grammy Award-nominated musician on the front lines of political activism. One of those exceptions simply goes by the name Moby.

The L.A. based electronic musician spends every iota of his free time making it count. When he’s not making music, he’s promoting music therapy as a board member of the Institute for Music and Neurologic Function.

He’s also taken Washington to bat, by testifying on the Hill about Net Neutrality and standing up to the ever powerful Recording Industry Association of America or the RIAA.

Recently Moby sat down with Abby Martin on Breaking the Set to discuss the problems with making piracy illegal, and why the freedom of information is so important in today’s digital age.

MR

***

Moby Breaks the Set on the Freedom of Information

***

AM: What is the corporate music industry’s biggest failure?

MOBY: I think one of the biggest failings is that music business and record companies have treated listeners terribly for a long time. Overcharging for CDs in an era of CDs, and punishing people for downloading music, and basically trying to make people feel guilty for listening to music. I just think it’s created a very sort of strange and very unhealthy climate around the release of music.

AM: You’ve also stood up to the Recording Industry Association of America and called for the group to be disbanded in 2009 for its two million dollar lawsuit against a mother who illegally downloaded music. What prompted you to go after the RIAA?

MOBY: The whole reason I make music—and maybe I’m stating the obvious—is because I love making music and I love the idea of people listening to the music that I’ve made. The idea of punishing the audience, even if they’re downloading music illegally, I don’t think and audience should be punished, nor should the RIAA take litigious action against soccer moms who are just downloading music because they want to listen to it. It seems very self-evident to me that if you’re trying to generate goodwill, suing the people who are ultimately patronizing your business is not the best way to go about that.

AM: Let’s talk about your new album “Innocents”. Why did you choose that name and how is it different from your previous work?

Moby: I’m going to try and not give a long-winded self-involved grad student answer, ‘cause I’m really good at long-winded, self-involved grad student answers…but when I was in college, I was a philosophy major and I’d just been obsessed with the simple question of: What does it mean to be human in the Universe that’s 15 billion years old? What significance do our lives have? And when I look at our collective response to the human condition, I see a lot of confusion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness, and–in a strange way–a lot of innocence, ‘cause the truth is none of us really know what we’re doing. You know, we might put on a brave face when we go out in public, but at the end of the day we all get old, we all die, we’re all confused, and I feel like, collectively, even though at times we’re not necessarily doing the best things, we still have a quality of innocence to us and that’s what the title of the album comes from.

AM: And you’re also—this is really fascinating–you’re a board member for the Institute for Music and Neurologic Function, which studies the effects of music on the brain. Talk about this. What have you learned as part of that organization, and how can music be used in therapeutic ways?

MOBY: Well, it’s funny ‘cause I’ve dedicated my life to making music, and I always thought music was something I loved and was really fun, but I never thought it actually had anything beyond a very sort of frivolous utility. Dr. Oliver Sacks and Dr. Connie Tomaino are two amazing brain neuroscientists and they started this institute for Music and Neurologic Function. What they’ve seen is that music is a remarkably powerful healing modality. When I talk about the sort of healing effects of music it almost sounds like I’m indulging in hyperbole, but it’s truly miraculous. People who are aphasiac, who’ve had strokes, when they listen to their favorite music from childhood, even if they’ve lost the ability to walk or speak, they can still dance and sing. I know that sounds like the most absurd claim, but Dr. Sacks and Dr. Tomaino have documented this and they’re going before Congress to try and get more money for music therapy because really it is phenomenal healing. The only problem is it’s hard to make money from it, so clearly the pharmaceutical companies aren’t too thrilled about a non-profit powerful healing modality.

AM: I know that you testified in front of Congress in 2006 about Net neutrality. When are you going to get out there and testify about the music therapy?

MOBY: Hopefully soon. The funny thing about talking about music therapy is you don’t have to convince anyone of its power. All you have to do is say ask anyone how they respond to their favorite song. If you even right now think of your favorite song you could almost feel like a physiological and neurochemical change, and the truth is, it’s a real change. It promotes healing and it decreases stress hormones like norepinephrine, and adrenaline and cortisol, so in the future I think people will look at music not just as something fun, but as a really, really powerful healing modality.

AM: It’s also a revolutionary tool, which is why it’s such a travesty that it’s the first thing cut from public education; music and arts. I mentioned that you did testify in front of Congress about net neutrality. Let’s talk about that. What did you tell them back then, and are you worried about the current circuit court lawsuit that could entirely abolish the concept?

MOBY: Yeah. I was a little bit confused, because in 2006, and now, the Internet seems to be working fine the way it is. I don’t understand the idea of—to an extent and very broad terms—privatizing the Internet, when it’s this fantastic, egalitarian, granted chaotic, but democratic institution that serves everybody equally. So when you have these big corporations who want to get involved and try to monetize it and privatize it; I just don’t understand why they would mess around with something that works so flawlessly the way it is.

AM: How much do you think the music industry is a part of that push? I mean, we know that SOPA was obviously trying to implement a lot of seizure on net neutrality as well.

MOBY: In some ways I’m the wrong person to ask, because I love what I referred to as, the democratic chaos of the Internet. I love the fact that it is strangely self-regulating; it kind of polices itself, and I’ve also been a life-long member of the ACLU, so, I’m just a huge proponent of the free and uninhibited dissemination of information.

AM: I love that about the militant egalitarian method that the Internet started out as, and unfortunately we are seeing that going by the wayside. It’s really important that we cement that notion quick. Let’s talk about another thing that the ACLU is really big on, Chelsea Manning. You are also part of the I Am Chelsea Manning Video a few months back. Why is this case so important to you?

MOBY: It’s a tricky thing to talk about, because I’m a musician,  I live in L.A., so, if I worked for the NSA or had worked for the NSA, I might have a different perspective—but it seems like sometimes governments, including our own, are interested in restricting information, because it is actually sensitive and to disseminate it would be compromising. But other times governments almost restrict information either because it’s embarrassing or it’s just a knee jerk reaction. You know, this feeling like it’s their job to restrict access to information, and that’s why I thought the Chelsea Manning case was so important, because she was drawing attention to the seemingly arbitrary way in which the government was trying to restrict access to ostensibly classified information.

AM: It’s also a crime to over-classify. We see things just being classified just for the sake of classifying them. Of course, we know that no one was actually hurt by the release of those documents. What are your thoughts on other whistleblowers in the public spotlight right now, like, Edward Snowden?

MOBY: Again, it’s tricky because everything I say has to be qualified with the caveat that I am a college dropout, and I make music and I live in L.A., so, my opinions are vaguely informed at best. But I’m just a fan of openness and I can’t think of too many instances where airing on the side of openness has done harm. In fact, quite the opposite. We live in a culture where it’s becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to restrict access to information which, personally, I think is great. I’d much rather have a few instances where potentially sensitive information is released, but as a result you have so much information that the public benefit is released as well.

AM: You keep saying that your opinions are vaguely informed at best. You’d be shocked at how uninformed Americans are. I think it’s very important to voice your opinion because you wield a lot of influence in this industry, and it’s unfortunate that others don’t. Why do you think that not other musicians and entertainment people speak out about these issues?

MOBY: I think probably because they’re getting much better advice than I am, because what I’ve found is by being an opinionated loudmouth as I am, I do often times run the risk of alienating a lot of people. So, I think that a lot of musicians, actors, whomever, are getting good management-career advice, and their managers are saying, “Keep your opinions to yourself ‘cause you’ll sell more records.” I unfortunately never got that advice, and I was raised by progressive hippies who told me that if you have the ability to reach people and communicate, you might was well try and say something that has some value or some merit to it. Or at least try to do so.

AM: I agree with your parents, Moby. Let’s talk about veganism. You’re a vegan. You even released a book critiquing the modern meat industry. What lead you to the decision to practice veganism, and what are your biggest frustrations right now with factory farms?

MOBY: I’ve been a vegan now for 26 years, and an animal rights activist for about 30 years, and what informs my veganism and animal rights activism is pretty simple. I love animals and I don’t want to be involved in any process that contributes to their suffering. I guess looked at objectively death is inevitable, but suffering isn’t. I think that we have the ability to treat other creatures with respect and dignity and ameliorate their suffering, and I just wonder why we don’t make more of an effort to do so. Why collectively we’re comfortable to contributing to the suffering of—literally—tens of billions of creatures who are all incredibly sensitive. I think it was I think it was either Albert Schweitzer or Einstein said the questions isn’t ‘Do animals have an intellectual life?’, the question is ‘Do they have an emotional life?’, and anyone who’s ever been around animals knows full well animals have incredibly profound emotional lives, are incredibly sensitive, and I just feel like it’s incumbent upon me and hopefully the rest of us to sort of like decrease the amount of suffering we cause while we are alive.

AM: Right, and we’re so detached from the food that we eat and I think that if people really saw the suffering they would be absolutely horrified. The food industry has so much autonomy, so much political influence. I mean, just look at Monsanto alone. How could we ensure that the food we are eating is safe and not destructive to the environment and doesn’t contribute to the suffering of creatures?

MOBY: When we put out the movie “Gristle”, which is about factory farming, I was asked that question. What one thing could we do that would make factory farming either go away or become a lot better, and one thing would be end subsidies to meat production, ‘cause meat production—and I’m not even saying people shouldn’t eat meat–but I’m just saying the production of meat decimates the animals, it decimates the workers, it decimates the communities, and the end result is a product that causes diabetes, arteriosclerosis, heart disease, obesity, etcetera. So, just end all subsidies to it and let meat actually cost what it should cost. Truth is, without government subsidies, a pound of hamburger would cost around thirty dollars. And I have a feeling if you just let meat cost what it should cost, all of the sudden you see people eating a lot less meat.

AM: Very well put. Totally agree. Thank you so much for your input on that, and so much more. Moby, artist, activist; really appreciate you coming to the studio.

***

Transcript by Juan Martinez, Photo by Flickr User Justin Wise

MEDIA ROOTS — When I think of the most prolific innovators of our generation, there are a couple names that immediately come to mind. The founders of Apple, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, are definitely at the top of the list. There’s no denying that Apple computers have aesthetically designed the world in which we all know and live in today–by simplifying technology to the point where everyone can use and access the internet, Apple products have changed the course of social interaction in the world.

I had the great pleasure of sitting down with the co-founder of Apple, Steve Wozniak, last week in downtown DC. Truthfully, I was a little worried that someone worth billions of dollars would be pretentious and aloof. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to see how down to earth and open he was to share his perspective.

It was a refreshing and enlightening experience to hear from such a visionary on issues like MegaUpload’s Kim Dotcom, Net Neutrality, WikiLeaks, and government legislation that curbs our internet freedoms.

Abby

***

RT’s Abby Martin sits down with Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple,

to speak about net neutrality and his fear that freedom on the Web might become a thing of the past.

***

RT — “Well, we begin today taking a close look at cyber-legislation and the aim to regulate the internet. With the failure of the most recent cyber bill in the Senate and a possible Obama Executive Order, it seems the government is looking for ways to beef up internet protection.

“The head of cyber command General Keith Alexander, also head of the NSA, has come out asking the administration to review the rules when it comes to cyber-attacks. Currently, the Pentagon is only allowed to defend against attacks inside its own boundaries. But they are hoping now to expand that power to outside of their own computer networks and within foreign countries.

“Now, this comes days after Kaspersky Labs identified another apparent state-sponsored virus with links to Stuxnet and Flame. So, as heavy as speculation swirls around the future of the internet, we, here at RT, sat down with someone who had a clear hand in creating our current cyber climate. Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, speaks to RT’s Abby Martin about net neutrality, his fear that freedom on the internet could become a thing of the past. He also weighs in on the Kim Dotcom case against him.”

Abby Martin (c. 1:05):  “So, Steve, as co-founder of one of the largest companies in the world, do you think that you have a responsibility to speak out about internet issues like internet regulation?”

Steve Wozniak:  “I don’t think anyone comes with a responsibility just because their company is really big. Especially, since I’m not the one who wanted to run a company, just be a great engineer to help start it. I don’t feel that anybody has a responsibility. However, I do like it when well-known people, that are in the public eye, speak out on social issues and give their opinion.”

Abby Martin:  “What do you think about legislation SOPA and PIPA? And why do you think they were so unpopular?”

Steve Wozniak:  “It turns out that the, well, the internet, when it first came, it was a breath of fresh air. It was so free. Nobody owned the internet space. Countries didn’t own it; they didn’t control it. It was worldwide. It was people to people. It was like we, little people of the world, all of a sudden had this incredible resource. And we didn’t have to go through other people selling it to us and delivering it to us. That has changed a lot. But, still, those were items, that were kind of against just being able to use the wires to send whatever you thought of to somebody else who’s a friend or whatever sharing data.

“So, a lot of people had done that sort of thing. They had freely shared maybe a song with a friend. Or maybe they shared another file with another good friend and they just don’t want interference. Now, sure, it’s illegal to share copyrighted material. Fine, there are laws in place. But these were new laws, that were gonna just totally try to put up roadblocks to services, that had other very good purposes in our life. 

“For example, I might make a promotional video for an interview like this and then I’ll email it to you. Well, it’s too big to email. So, I’ll upload it to a little site. It may be Dropbox, maybe it’s my Apple iDisk, maybe it’s Megaupload. I’ll upload it to a site and send you the URL and now you can download it.

And I do that regularly.”

Abby Martin (c. 2:52):  “I heard you previously talking about Kim Dotcom’s case. And you mentioned that the charges against him were pretty much phony. Elaborate more on what you mean by that.”

Steve Wozniak (c. 3:04):  “Yes, first of all, he ran one of the largest file-sharing services in the world. So, the most movies and all were being exchanged by people through that site. It’s not a site where you could link to it and connect to it and say, ‘Search for Avatar.’ There was no searching. Somebody could upload a file and then pass out a URL on their own. And they are violating the law, if it’s copyright material, like a movie. And the person, who downloads it, is violating the law, too.

“But what Kim Dotcom ran is just a service that’s like the post office. He was the post office it was being mailed through. Why do you shut down the post office, thinking that’s where the problem is? It’s not. So, that was a phony charge.

“They tried to charge him with a copyright violation, himself, for uploading 60 songs or something. But they had come up off of CDs he had purchased.

“So, you see, it was all these attempts, that I call phony. Then they had to figure out a way to extradite him. They needed a crime, that would get him five years in prison to meet the law, the New Zealand law, for extradition.

“So, they made up phony charges of racketeering, like he’s some big mobster connecting, you know, a big financial empire in these countries. I mean Apple does that. But Kim Dotcom is just a nice soft little sweet guy when you meet him, who tells the truth openly. You know when somebody’s being truthful when you’re with them, personally. And he does hide things. He doesn’t harry. He doesn’t have concocted lines to tell. He’s not a racketeer.

“They charge him with mail fraud because he said, ‘I deleted some files.’ And what he had done was delete the links to them. Like, if you have a computer and you take a file and you throw it in the trash. The file is still on your hard disk. It didn’t really get erased. The link is gone. You can’t find it anymore by that link. So, that’s a phony charge. He really had got rid of the one part, that you could have gotten rid of to make it look as though it was deleted.

“The phony charges just indicate that they’re gonna, they’re doing everything they can to make the public think they, the prosecutors, are in the right. You know? But you don’t do phony things when you’re in the right—you have an open and shut case—no. They’re having to go beyond the bounds of what’s right to try to convict him.”

Abby Martin (c. 5:06):  “What kind of precedent do you think this sets for, just, government overstepping?”

Steve Wozniak:  “I’ve read a lot about how they confiscated his data files, actually, took them to the United States and they didn’t have the right to do that.

“It’s, yeah, the trouble is we’ve developed what sort of rights you have to have against accusers, meaning the police and the prosecutors. They are the accusers. The presumption of innocence means the burden of proof is on the accuser. They have to prove that. You have the right to be notified of what you’re being charged of. You have the right to, you know, a lot of different rights, that make sure you’re being treated fairly. And prosecutors and governments have found every way they can to get around those rights. And that’s what bothers me. It’s that, if they want to convict you of something you didn’t do, they have an awful lot of techniques to do it. A lot of ways to do it.”

Abby Martin (c. 5:51):  “You founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation to protect free speech. Should the principles of the First Amendment be protecting something like WikiLeaks?”

Steve Wozniak:  “Free speech is not absolute in my mind. It’s a very important right. It has to go through considerations of, ‘Did you violate it in ways, that might be, hurt somebody else?’ Some free speech could actually trigger harmful events. It could trigger even murders.

“So, does murdering an abortion doctor count as free speech? No. There are limits to free speech.

“I don’t know in the case of WikiLeaks. Um, I don’t know where that’s going to fall out.”

Abby Martin:“So, you think there are limitations, in terms of, kind of, opening or protecting free speech online, the war on whistle-blowers?”

Steve Wozniak (c. 6:35): “Well, yeah, free speech online. I was brought up with the belief that the First Amendment was such a good thing. Every one of our Bill of Rights was so crucial to my heart, the way my dad taught me. But free speech meant you could say something bad about the president, even. You could say something bad about your government. You had that right. And we were taught you don’t have that right in Communist Russia. So, I believe in that right very strongly.

“As far as WikiLeaks, you know, I wish I knew more about the whole case. On the surface, it sounds to me like something, that’s good. The whistle-blower blew the truth. The people found out what, they, the people paid for. You know? And the government says, ‘No, no, no! The people should not know what they paid for.’”

Abby Martin (c. 7:15): “You’ve grown up in a generation where you’ve seen the internet proliferate into something so massive where political and social movements are birthed online now. What do you think about the evolution of the internet and how Apple has played a role in expanding that to people?

Steve Wozniak: “You know, when we started the company—I always go back to that point. We have a vision of computers being prolific and in everybody’s hands throughout society. Did we have the idea that it would lead to, you know, the incredible connection that the internet would come on board, that broadband would come on board for almost everyone who wants it and that that would lead to all these, basically, the way we live life and the way do things, everything political, everything social, the way we do things with other people is all done with your computer, on the internet, with your iPhone or mobile devices now. And it’s a totally different world than it was when, well, we had powerful computers, but they weren’t a part of your life as much as now. And I’m just as happy as everyone else to see it having turned out this way.”

Abby Martin (c. 8:17):  “And how do you see it going? Do you think it will still continue?  Or do you think we’ll see, kind of, a curb. I mean with the political and social movements now where everything is integrated, everything is being homogenised in the entire world and we are seeing the Arab Spring, the Occupy Wall Street movement, really, because of social interaction.”

Steve Wozniak:  “Yes. I think that a lot of social interaction will be curbed. I, I—let me take that back. I fear it. I fear it will be. The gatekeepers, those who can turn on and off switches, allow certain things, disallow other things, allow who gets to send me data about a new movie, rather than everyone having equal say so of reaching me. Yeah, I fear that very strongly. Especially, net neutrality, issues like that, internet freedom is being interfered with in major ways. And it shouldn’t.

“I think the internet should, from day one, a country of its own, that isn’t bound by any individual county’s laws. Maybe we could have had an internet government. But it didn’t happen, just like world government doesn’t happen. You know? Space doesn’t belong to anyone. The moon doesn’t belong to anyone. These are really beautiful principles in life. And then, as soon as a country figures out a way to get control of them, it disappears.

“I’m an optimist. I think we can move more and more towards net neutrality. The trouble is a lot of it has to be, um, enforced by the government and conservative types and libertarian types say, ‘Government shouldn’t have any say and control over that! That takes away our freedom!’ Wrong. It takes away the freedom of the companies, that are taking away the freedom from us.

“Every freedom we have in the United States—every one of them—was given to us by Congressional regulation. It’s called the Bill of Rights. That is what gives us our freedom. And, yet, it was from the government. It was government regulation.

“No, there are times when government regulation says, ‘You will not impede with the internet neutrality of the users.’

Abby Martin (c. 10:05): “What do you think about this whole hacktivist movement, that’s come out of, kind of, the war on whistle-blowers, Occupy Wall Street, Anonymous, and you have the take-downs of government websites. And then you see legislation, like CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Security Protection Act, that, kind of, puts a stop to these things. Do you think that that’s, kind of, working as a guise and using the hacktivism and the hacktivists [as a pretext] for regulating the internet even more?”

“Well, I really think that there are means for legitimate discourse. And trying to bring attention, um, with activist acts is wrong. On the other hand, I believe very strongly that legitimised marches and that sort of stuff, with the approval of the authorities, there’s room in our society to go out and have a microphone, to have a say and be heard by many others, especially, in this day of the internet.

“So, there are a lot of avenues. It’s just trying to, you know, grab some to get on the news, I don’t think that’s the way to, maybe it’s a start, it puts ideas into people’s heads, but I really, um, I, I don’t think that’s the right way to solve things.”

“I know you said before that no one really has the responsibility to speak out about anything. But why do you, Steve, speak out? And why do you think so many others don’t about these issues?”

“You know what? The whole world is very conflict-oriented. We want to take a side and fight for my side. My side might be my country. It might be my computer platform. It might be which browser I use. And I take my side and everybody else is bad. And I want to fight. And I only want to look at the world one way. And I’m the, I try to be so wide and open and just, you know, accept everything and judge it. That’s the logical scientific approach. Don’t take a side. Don’t be, like, for one religion against others, that sort of thing.”

Abby Martin: “Thank you so much for your time.”

Transcript by Felipe Messina for Media Roots and RT

***