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 — Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman are the directors of the limited theatrical release documentary film, If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, which earned a 2011 Sundance Award and a 2012 Academy Award nomination.

The film tells the story of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and touches upon the question of whether the ELF were ‘terrorists’ or not. Yet, one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another person’s freedom fighter.  Fight for freedom, yes.  Fight crime, yes.  But fighting terrorism is something few disagree with, like preventing lunatics from attacking and endangering innocents.  But the ELF were not terrorising the general public.  The general public had never even heard about the ELF and their desperate efforts to mitigate or prevent the clear-cutting destruction of the natural world until police got caught pepper spraying and targeting those radical environmentalists.

Andrew O’Hehir reviewed the film for Salon:

“Radicals perform a social function that they themselves often view with contempt, and one that is similarly misunderstood by people in the political mainstream who almost always see radicalism as crazy and counterproductive. People who chain themselves to old-growth redwoods — or, for that matter, to the doors of abortion clinics — hardly ever get what they want in the short or medium term, since what they want is generally unrealistic, and often amounts to a revolutionary change in the social order. But in posing an unrelenting and quixotic challenge to the consciences of their fellow citizens, radical activists often nudge us along toward more modest, incremental changes. Does anyone dispute that facts on the ground with regard to environmental policies and abortion rights have changed, thanks in part to the actions of activists many people view as deranged?”

Read more and find out how to view the film here.

Messina

***

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front

***

Watch Protest in Downtown Eugene on PBS. See more from POV.

Police pepper spraying radical environmentalists in Downtown Eugene

***

COMMON DREAMS– The Obama administration has endorsed genetically engineered agriculture on more than 50 National Wildlife Refuges, with more GE-refuge approvals in the works, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The new plan is designed to insulate refuges from environmental court challenges in the wake of a lawsuit recently won by PEER and other groups which halted GE agriculture in all Northeastern refuges.

The national blitz of official filings is intended to remove a perceived barrier to the export of American GE crops – U.S. restrictions on growing GE crops on National Wildlife Refuges. Under a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS operates the refuges) policy, GE crops are banned from refuges unless determined to be “essential” to refuge operations. Countries leery of importing U.S. bio-engineered food have cited the policy as one basis for their concern.

Rather than overturn this FWS “Biological Integrity” policy outright, the White House has embarked on a region-by-region approach to file environmental paperwork justifying GE agriculture on – 31 refuge units across 8 Midwestern states; 25 refuges units in 12 Southeastern states; and an unspecified number of refuges in the 8-state Rocky Mountain Region.

The proposal for the Midwestern Refuges would allow more than 20,000 acres to be cultivated with no limits on how many acres could be GE crops. The public comment deadline for that plan is today. In its comments, PEER argues that the GE operations risk harm to wildlife, refuge plants and soil, while contending that there is no refuge purpose for which GE crops are essential, as required by FWS policy.

“These plans are based on the curious notion that wildlife benefit from having the small slivers of habitat set aside for them covered by genetically engineered soybeans,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting the Midwest refuges are already surrounded by row crops, most of which are now GE. “To boost U.S. exports, the Obama administration is forcing wildlife refuges into political prostitution.”

In 2010, PEER, the Center for Food Safety and Delaware Audubon brought successful litigation charging that GE agriculture on refuges in the Northeast violated the Refuge Improvement Act as incompatible with refuge purposes and lacked reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act. That suit was settled when FWS agreed to stop commercial agriculture operations on all refuges within the region. These latest filings are supposed to shield refuges in other regions from similar suits based on failing to meet procedural requirements of environmental statutes. Future challenges would have to show that these new eco-reviews are impermissibly defective – a higher legal hurdle.

“The Obama administration says that it is devoted to scientific integrity but these new reviews are scientific travesties,” added Ruch, pointing to new Interior Department (which includes FWS) rules requiring that scientific information in decision- making “must be robust, of the highest quality, and the result of the most rigorous scientific processes as can be achieved.” “The sole document assessing the environmental impacts of genetically engineered planting in 25 Southeastern refuges is only six pages long.”

Increasingly the only seed available to U.S. farmers, especially for corn and soybeans, is GE. Ironically, it is the ubiquity of GE agriculture that FWS offers as the main reason it must allow these crops on refuges.

***

Read the PEER comments

View the EA for 31 Midwest Refuges

See proposed finding of no impact for GE crops on 25 Southeast Refuges

Examine draft EA for Rocky Mountain refuges

Look at litigation driving GE agriculture out of Northeast Refuges

Review the Interior Department’s new scientific integrity rules

***

TELEGRAPH– Scientists have created genetically modified cattle that produce “human” milk in a bid to make cows’ milk more nutritious.

The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk.

Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.

The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.

They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company.

Read full article about Genetically Modified Cows Produce ‘Human’ Milk.

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2011

Photo by flickr user Jon Smith Una Nos Lucror

EXAMINER– Adoption 911 is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) animal rescue devoted to helping all animals in their time of need. It started when one Los Angeles woman found the need to save horses from slaughter and grew into a foundation dedicated to keeping all creatures from a life of despair, torture, starvation, solitude and slaughter.

It all started one Saturday afternoon late in January when Animal Communicator Candi Cane Cooper had just finished working at the Santa Anita Race Track.
 
“I knew that this day could quite possibly be the hardest day of my life,” Cooper says. “I had plans to go under cover for a documentary, visiting a feed lot where hundreds of horses were being held for slaughter.”
 
Cooper pulled up to the feed lot where a starved and pregnant Mare immediately starting calling out for help. Hundreds of horses were there, all kinds, just waiting for slaughter. But before Cooper could even comprehend the gravity of what she was witnessing, this Mare grabbed her attention.
 
Continue reading about Adoption 911.

© Examiner, 2009

Photo by Candi Cooper