at Law School. Take it away. Thank you, Daniel. As you said, I'm Vivek Krishnamurthy, and you may remember me from such Brooklyn client lunches as yesterday's lunch. But I'm here to introduce myself. I'm here to introduce my great friend, collaborator and colleague on a bunch of different ventures, Arturo Carrillo, who is professor of law at George Washington University Law School, who directs the International Human Rights Clinic there, and came to working on law and technology issues and human rights issues from a really human rights perspective. Having spent many years working for the UN in El Salvador, amongst other places, on more traditional human rights issues before entering the Legal Academic Academy. Originally from Columbia, the country, then ended up at Columbia University for years before I ended up at George Washington University. And today's talk is really, the title is a more perfect internet, and part of that is clearly, might veer into the technical infrastructural elements of what we're talking about, but really we're talking about the problems of civility and incivility online, and when incivility can lead into more dangerous and harmful forms of behavior, which Arturo has defined using the term of cyber violence. So maybe we can just kick off. Arturo, thank you so much for being here. Well, thank you for having me. For joining us. So the format of the event we're just going to, Arturo and I are just going to have a conversation for 25 minutes, half an hour, to get some of the issues on the table, and then we'll open it up to questions, comments, thoughts, et cetera. So maybe you could just start by your categorization. So your idea that there's a spectrum of cyber violence and explain it to us and how that's helpful. Yes. Well, again, thank you for having me to the Burbank Klein Center and to Vivek for moderating. So I want to talk about cyber violence as a spectrum, and on the sort of low grade end of it, we have what we could call digital incivility. And on the more aggravated end of the spectrum, you would have things like cyber warfare and cyber security understood as a tax on infrastructure and that sort of thing. So I'm not going to really be talking about those most aggravated forms, right? Cyber warfare or cyber security. I'm going to focus on digital civility and then cyber violence, which is everything that flows from digital incivility when it becomes more intense, especially in terms of harm to affected persons, but doesn't, you know, fall into this other area that I'm excluding. And so digital civility, right, generally can be defined as being mindful of your presence online and the presence of others online, right, and how it affects that engagement. And, you know, it encompasses all kinds of conduct and everything from, you know, the most common kinds of digital incivility are things like name calling or trolling or unwanted contact, right? This is studies done by the Pew Research Center and Microsoft most recently show that, you know, there is a problem of incivility online. And when it rises past a certain threshold, which I'm increasingly defining as the harm to people that are affected by this violence, it can become, you know, what I would probably call interpersonal cyber violence. So interpersonal cyber violence would be made up of things like cyber stalking, cyber harassment and non-consensual pornography. So these are conducts that go well beyond just being mean online and have huge impacts on the people affected by them. And so that's where I've been focusing my work on, both as director of the International Human Rights Clinic. We have a cyber violence project where we work with people who have been subject to these kinds of cyber violence and we also do research on the topic. So that in a nutshell is the spectrum that we've been working with. So you're talking about the online manifestation of a problem that is probably as old as, you know, the human species, right? Which is that we are a social animal. We relate to each other in different ways and sometimes those relations are so suboptimal that we need to send it into violence. Is there something unique about the digital sphere that makes it more of a problem online? And do you think there's something, is it useful to think about digital incivility and interpersonal cyber violence as separate from the offline analogues to those problems? So what's different about it? Well, I do think there are substantial differences.  So cyber stalking is one such example, right? It's an online extension of stalking in the real world and you frequently have the physical with the digital stalking conducts combined. But then you have a phenomenon like cyber harassment and cyber mobs, right? That generate at a pace and at an intensity that just you wouldn't have in the same way in the real world. And so I do think that there is a qualitative difference in the type of harms that can be generated in the digital realm. And, you know, non-concentral pornography as well, the range and scope of the conduct in the audience, it reaches in the harm that then is effective is I think qualitatively different. And then the other thing is that just the nature of online communication, right? It's done in a way that has no context as we've all, you know, I'm sure read and studied. Which means that things that may seem innocuous set in the real world with a smile come across as offensive or hurtful on a screen. And then when you compound that with things you're getting from other sources, right? Because the way things kind of replicate and get bounced around and forwarded and so forth, the multiplier effect contributes, I think, to whatever negative feelings might be generated by a particular conduct. So on both these levels, you know, you have really an entirely different kind of dynamic.  And that itself nowadays has enormous implications. So I think we're talking about something very different from what happens in the real world, which is bad enough, right? So you have, I mean, a lot of people are obviously talking about all of these issues, but you've actually done some work or, you know, reported on some of the work that others have done to quantify just the extent of this problem. So maybe it might be useful to share that. Well, so there have been a number of studies done on different aspects of cyber violence. Generally, Pew Research Center has a study from 2014, which you can see online, which reported that 73% of people online have experienced some form of cyber harassment, seen it or experienced it. And 40% claim to have personally been an object of some form of cyber harassment. You know, depending on, there are a number of studies that pretty conclusively established that women are disproportionately the objects of cyber violence and harassment in the way that I've been defining it. And among them, the 18 to 24 age group is that which is most susceptible. So young women in particular are, tend to be the objects of this kind of conduct. But it's not exclusively limited to women. When we started our cyber violence project, we opened our doors to clients from the community, and the first two clients to walk in were two gay men.  So at that point, we had to reevaluate our focus, which was initially on violence against women online, and we made it instead gender-related violence, cyber violence that is the focus of our project, and we renamed it for that reason. So these statistics are helpful to show generally that it's a very pervasive conduct. I mentioned, you know, it tends to happen predominantly on social media sites. So 66% of the folks who reported seeing or experiencing online harassment in the Pew study said that they experienced it on social media. And within social media, Facebook is the leading platform. Twitter also, and so forth. One statistical curiosity that I find is that the numbers of people who report seeing or experiencing online harassment is roughly double those who report having suffered it themselves. So for example, in the Pew study, 18% of folks reported having seen somebody stalked online, you know, singled out and harassed repeatedly, but only eight reported that they themselves had been stalked, right? And I cited the original numbers that say about 73 see something or experience something online, but only 40 say it's happened to them. And so I think what that suggests is a couple of things. One is that people are more likely to talk about what they see happening with others than what actually happens to themselves. I think there's a huge under-reporting problem, and there are probably good reasons for that. And the other thing is, even if the under-reporting numbers are true, it's still an enormous number of people that are being impacted, right? So in preparation for this talk, I did some math, which I normally avoid at all costs, but it turns out that close to 75% of the US population is online, right? So that's about 240 million people. And so if we take the number of 8% of people who report themselves having been objects of some stocking, right? You're talking about close to 20 million people. And I don't think we get 20 million cases of cyber-stocking reported in the country. I'm not 100% sure of that, but I'm pretty sure it's not that high. So this brings me back to the digital civility piece, right? Awareness that this is actually a problem is, I think, a first goal for advocates, those of us who want to advocate for a better Internet, right? And because especially among the generation that is most affected, there's this sense, and I know this from my own students, right? This is just stuff that happens online, right? And people are mean to each other online, but you just block them and you move on, right? But at what point does that contribute to a culture that permits or facilitates that type of conduct moving forward? And so I think that raises interesting questions about what do we do about this, right? So let's stick with just the digital civility in civility piece. What can we do specifically about that? We'll abstract away the more serious forms. So what are the measures?  So why don't we start with thinking about design principles? So are there things that we can do? And these are supposed to be social media sites, which are where most of this is happening, right? Can we change the architecture of these sites to reduce the prevalence? Well, I'm not sure I would start with the architecture necessarily. I think the response has to be what others have called a multimodal approach, right? Different modalities of regulation. So this is Jacqueline Lipton building on Lawrence Lessig's framework for regulating online conduct. And so there are different parts to that, right? And architecture is just one of them, and that's the part that I'm probably least familiar with myself. So I might leave that to some of the experts in the room to see what could be done on that end. But the conduct of private institutions, the role of public education and the creation of new social norms in particular, I think are what we as advocates need to be focusing on. And in particular, this idea of promoting the digital civility, right? The digital golden rule is an important approach, right? And so I'll talk a little bit about, you know, Microsoft did a global study of online safety perceptions, right, in 14 countries. And, you know, determined that there was this sense, you know, that harassment was happening, that people were being subjected to these offensive conduct and their response, their suggested reply was, well, you know, let's promote the digital civility principles and they have an actual code, right? And the first, you know, rule of that code is the digital golden rule, right? Be aware of what your presence online, how it's being felt, be respectful of differences and stand up if it's safe to do so for yourself and for others, right? So what they're trying to do as part of their digital online safety initiative is to help create new social norms from that particular sector. And my point is, well, I think that's a valuable initiative and it shouldn't be limited to the private sector, I think, right? And so in that vein, as part of the cyber violence project that we're doing at GW Law, we have an educational component, a public educational component. And what that consists of is a cyber violence curriculum that we have, my students and I have put together for university students, university age students, because the idea is to roll it out even beyond just institutions, right? And eventually we hope to get to high school age students. And it has, you know, so it has three components, right? The first is the awareness creation component. What is cyber violence? Why is this something that you should be concerned about? And that's a little bit what I was talking about before. Second is what can you do to prevent yourself from becoming, right, a victim of cyber violence? And finally, the third module is, well, you know, if you are unfortunately subject to some kind of serious cyber violence, well, what can you do about it? It's interesting because the Microsoft study that was done globally found that a substantial majority of the people surveyed said they had no idea where to turn if they were, you know, victimized in some way online. They just, people don't know what to do. And so I feel like that is an opportunity for advocates in terms of helping to create awareness and then promote prevention and then how do you deal with it when it happens? So I feel like the social norms, the public education piece is where there's a lot of opportunity. Yeah, would you actually share with us some of what's in that curriculum? I think that's really interesting just in terms of sticking with the prevention before we talk about responses as it happens. What are things that people can do? Because I think there isn't a lot of awareness about what would be the recommendations on what to do. Yeah, I know. Well, as it turns out, most of the social media platforms for all of them, which is where this conduct tends to occur, have measures that users can employ to protect themselves. First and foremost, your privacy settings. And I didn't realize this until we started having, you know, clients come in the door who had issues, you know, exposed because they didn't set their privacy configuration very well. And so then we were started to advise them on what they could do. And, you know, Facebook, for example, you can really fine-tune the privacy settings to the point of individual posts and individual users and contacts, right, friends? And that's not a coincidence. That's on purpose, right? The company has a very strong internal online safety initiative that is meant to address just this problem. So knowing that you have, right, these opportunities to fine-tune your own privacy settings, realizing that there is a need to, right, that's where the education part comes in. So that's one piece. The other piece is password protection. It's unbelievable. But every time you go to a digital hygiene or digital security talk, regardless of what the setting is, you know, I was in one in Eastern Europe on digital security for human rights organizations, the central, right, central points is protect your passwords. You know, don't use the same password over and over again. Don't be obvious about what passwords are. Change them regularly. I don't know. The statistics show that, I don't know, some 70 or 80% of breaches of privacy or security are often because of, you know, access to passwords that people are not taking care to protect. And these are, so these seem like straightforward responses and in large part they are. But I think that just having people realize that there's a problem that is requiring of these responses is kind of the part that I think we sometimes miss out on. And then once something happens, you know, then you resort to things like blocking or reporting procedures that platforms have that we talk a lot about. So I think in terms, you know, that is an important part of prevention. So we've kind of been sort of the universe of self-health measures, but now let's sort of descend on your spectrum to where something is happening. And that, in your definition, does implicate the law. So your definition of interpersonal cyber violence is something that is actionable under the law, if I'm not mistaken, right? Yes. So why don't we talk about, I mean, you've done some really interesting work on discovering some civil remedies that people can access short of going to the criminal system, which we'll discuss as well. But so what are some of the things that people can do using the tort system or the sort of civil liability system? And that's a country-by-country thing that we'll stick with the U.S. for now. Right. So when you move into the legal realm, right, I just want to highlight that for most clients, just getting stuff taken down or harassment to stop is their priority. So the non-legal company interface piece is very important that we just talked about. But once you get into a situation where you need to employ legal measures, then there are a range of options. Obviously, there's civil and criminal. I talked about cyberstalking and cyberstalking statutes across the country have largely been either updated or supplemented to include online conduct as a medium for stalking. Revenge porn is another area where you have 35 states currently have revenge porn statutes. Laws that outlaw non-consensual posting of intimate or sexual conduct or images, I should say. But at least in the practice that we have, so the cyber violence project that I run, I run in conjunction with another clinic, the Family Justice Litigation Clinic. And the reason is because that's the clinic that does domestic violence cases at our law school. And they were seeing a number of cases coming in that had a cyber-abuse component. And so when I approached Lori Cohen, my colleague about working on this directly, she says, absolutely, we have this coming up more and more, and so how can we work together to help the clients here? That clinic focuses largely on securing civil protection orders for their clients. They were doing this before there was a problem with cyber-abuse, right? But what we have discovered in the past two years that we've been doing this is that with some advocacy and with some guidance for judges, you can get a protection order that includes language about not communicating online media and basically covers all the permutations that you would want to cover to prevent further harassment online. And this is not something that has not been really explored in the literature or in much practice as far as I know. I think that there are some other folks who are starting to work in this way, right? But the short of it is that we believe that in most states have some version of the civil protection order that we use in D.C., right? It's not a criminal standard. You don't have to prove that like stocking is happening. You just have to make a prima facie case that it's happening to get the order and then the order will include all these measures that would be directed at ceasing the conduct. We're talking about something that I guess is more popularly known as a restraining order, right? Is that what we would call it for laypeople? I mean, it's the same idea, right? If you're a victim of stocking in the real world, you tell the person, you know, do not come within X feet of me or contact me using the phone or whatever, and it's just the application of that to the digital realm. Yeah, my understanding is the civil protection order is what we call it in D.C., but I think it works as a restraining order. And they're very open as to the content.  Anyway, you can get very specific. And, but then there are first amendment concerns that come up, right? Which is sort of the counterweight that we're now starting to bump up into. If somebody on the opposite side of a CPO action that, like, you know, that is, say, the person who was harassing wanted to contest one of these orders on first amendment grounds, they clearly definitely could. And so we're kind of trying to anticipate that and think about how you get language into these and see the effect of curtailing cyber harassment or stalking, but would be, if not first amendment proof at least, resistant. So, I mean, first amendment is one issue. We talked about platforms that we're going to sort of assume are generally socially responsible and want to do the right thing. But of course a lot of this behavior happens on the darker fringes of the internet, you know, websites and other actors who are not responsible and, you know, are going to claim various kinds of immunities, right? For example, section 230 of the communication is decent. Right. You can't get the websites that hang the range porn for my large unless they do something to it. Or, you know, copyright sometimes trotted out as an idea, but the copyright in the image usually bests on the person who took it. Well, but that has been used in a couple of cases. If the person took the image, him or herself, and it's on a U.S. server, then you can notice that. You can't even say take down notice. And that can work. In fact, we, you know, suggest doing that and would be willing to do that on a, you know, in a heartbeat if the opportunity arose. I think that's a, the problem is this stuff gets distributed so easily and far that once it's off, you know, not on the U.S. server, you can't really go there. So let's sort of complete the spectrum of exploration here and talk about the criminal side of things, which is probably, in some cases, unfortunately going to be where this goes. So what is the state of criminal liability and has the law caught up necessarily to deal with these new modalities of stalking and harassment? Well, I think the law, normally speaking, is in the process of catching up and it's done better in some areas than others, as I noted. But the real challenges are in law enforcement. So, for example, as I said, you know, most states now have versions of their physical stalking laws that will include online harassment or stalking or through electronic means. So that, you know, that piece is pretty well covered and people have, even prosecutors, you know, I think have come around to understanding that that is part of what has always been understood as stalking. Cyber harassment, right, if you look at conduct that is not always directed at the victim but is always about the victim and can cause serious distress, attended in laws, right? And there's a related problem which is that of terminology. So, you know, some states have cyber harassment statutes that are actually cyber stalking statutes and some have cyber stalking statutes that include harassment, which is right, doesn't require that it be directed at the victim as long as there's some kind of harm. And then there are all these different degrees of how much harm is required for it to be actionable. You know, one state requires physical harm to derive from the electronic harassment, right? So, when you start to move down from something as clear as cyber stalking, repeated conduct, directed at the victim, causing fear for safety and what, right? It gets harder. Then you get to the revenge porn area. As I was saying a moment ago, about a year and a half ago, there were 25 states with revenge porn statutes. Now there are 35, right? On the other hand, there's no federal revenge porn statute. There's a bill, a pending in Congress. I confess I need to learn more about it, but it doesn't seem to be moving. And so the books have those laws. The question then is how do you persuade the law enforcement to act on the stalking laws, the revenge porn laws, right? There are some federal laws that also, in theory, let you bring cases for interstate communications that harass or threaten. So the Interstate Communications Act, the Telephone Harassment Act, there are a handful of cases that use those. I think they're more theoretical as far as I can tell. But nothing that specifically says, here's a phenomenon, here's a problem that we need to, first we have to typify it, we have to define what we're talking about and then address each piece of it in the appropriate way, right? So that's the normative piece. But then it's all about the law enforcement. So we had a CPO action or restraining order action, my partner clinic where the client was complaining about intimate pictures of hers that the respondent had posted. And the judge said, well, you know, you should just be flattered that someone wants to take pictures of you because no one would want to take pictures of me naked. This is the judge.  That just happened. Like this is from like last month. So, you know, and then I have another, I have another client who had a, you know, a very unfortunately unhappy break up with her former husband. And in the melee, you know, he basically stole her phone and her computer, hacked into them and stalked her through, you know, through her own accounts. And she reported that to the police and they wouldn't take, you know, wouldn't take either the stalking complaint or the theft complaint. So eventually the hardware was returned, right? It's part of the ongoing civil proceedings there. But they just wouldn't, they didn't just not believe her. They didn't think there was a problem, right? Ex-husband held onto the computer. What's the big deal, right? Meanwhile, he compiles a dossier on her that had full GPS tracking of where she had been, of who she had been with, pictures from her accounts. And she had all that, you know. So the real struggle, part of it is normative in getting that where it needs to be. But it's getting the law enforcement authorities to really capture, understand that there's a problem and that they have a role in dealing with it. And there are many, many other examples, you know, that you can read about online that are similar to that. The thing about law enforcement is that, you know, ultimately the sanction of the criminal law is going to be based on their resources. And I mean, the scale of the problem that you're describing sounds that, like, we have to prioritize measures that are outside the law, because if there are 8 million people or 20 million people who are being harassed every year, I mean, I don't know how many criminal prosecutions are in the United States, but probably, you know, it's probably not, for all offenses, probably in the tens of millions, right? So this would overwhelm the system. So maybe on that happy note, we should open it up. I have an option just, however. Yeah, both to questions and ideas and suggestions, you know, on ways of addressing some of the problems that have come to light here. Hi, my name is Ron Newman. I'm going to ask this from a somewhat unusual viewpoint. One thing I didn't hear you mention anywhere during your talk was libel and defamation. And I was actually on the receiving end of a civil suit on that subject, which we basically managed with some help from somebody at Berkman to kill off with CDA 230. But I want to ask, you know, what is the role of libel and defamation law in this problem? It definitely has a role. It's part of the civil remedies that in extreme cases you can obviously bring to bear for your client. Depending, you know, if in fact the statements that are being broadcast online are untrue and harmful, then yes, absolutely. That would be something that we would consider as a remedy. No doubt. So how about CDA 230? Obviously there's a barrier to that, you know. Well, this would be against actual individuals identified as posters of content, like, you know, persons, right? So it wouldn't be like going actual host or anything intermediaries. Can't touch them, you know, to paraphrase the song from the 80s, right? But there have been some cases brought successfully, I think some settle under libel defamation in harassment situations, you know, where you're able to identify the source, like the individual who posted this, the foundatory content. And so it's, you know, we haven't actually used it yet, but I'd be, you know, I'm looking forward to doing that at some point. Very much a remedy. Hi, I'm Sarah Grant, I'm a 1L. One of the things that seems to me somewhat obvious is that in cyberspace you can be stopped from a foreign country. And, you know, physical, you cannot be physically stopped from a foreign country very easily. So what, if we are looking at the legal side of things, either civil or criminal remedies, is any of that available if you are being cyber-stalked or cyber-arrested from a foreign country? Because at least my understanding is we don't have the international conventions that would apply to these things, so that, like, ATIs or anything else would apply. Yeah, no, that's a great observation and you're exactly right. So this is still playing out very much at the local level, at the national level, in the way that, you know, states and authorities try to address it, but it has an international transnational dimension that you put your finger on, which is hugely important. And so the first part of the response or answer would be the companies themselves operate globally. So depending on how the stalking takes place, let's say it takes place on Facebook, and even if it's coming from a different jurisdiction, you know, Facebook will have that covered and the takedown notice and the reporting procedures that by and large, I understand that they apply effectively are available. On the other hand, you know, I had a case where our client would have been, was a woman in a different country who was the object of a sex torsion. So her former partner was threatening to publish, you know, sexual images if she didn't pay him a certain amount of money. And she was, you know, somewhere in Europe and he was somewhere in the U.S. So if he had been the other way around, there's like nothing we could have really done about it without talking to lawyers or authorities in that other country. In this case, we were able to do some research into what remedies would have been available since the person threatening the criminal act was in the U.S. territory. But it points up some very, very challenging aspects of this that the surface is only being scratched right now on that. So it's kind of even realizing that it's an issue at all, locally, right? But you're absolutely right. At any given time, it could implicate people from anywhere in the world. Talking about this, are you going to go out? My question builds a little bit off of these three issues, but you talked about, you know, when Beth asked you what elements of this are different online, you talked about the very rapid potential buildup of mass harassment. There are many different actors on one or many platforms. And I'm wondering, have you thought about the legal remedies for those sort of situations where you can't really pinpoint a one actor who's called, I mean, there are many of them. There may be a ringleader, but there are, you know, maybe dozens or even 100 people involved in this and there what do you think is the, you know, what is the role of the platform that, I know they've been doing stuff, but are there other things that platforms could be doing in conjunction with or separate from legal remedies? Yes. Well, the cyber mob phenomenon is one of the big challenges. And the other, of course, is the anonymity, right? And I think by and large, most of us would say anonymity online is not a bad thing. It might have to have its limits in extreme cases, and some of these are in fact extreme cases that we're talking about. But generally speaking, you know, I think it's an important concept. So, but it is what it is, right? It's an obstacle if you want to pursue through, you know, libel or defamation actions or through some other kind of legal action. You've got to identify the persons behind this harassment online.  And that's, you know, the kind of capacity that law enforcement should have, and some do have now. That's another problem. So, you know, I think trying to figure out how to get more of that forensic capacity into the hands of advocates who can break through, right, the anonymity and anonymity and be able to go after some of this, some of the perpetrators legally is a challenge. I mean, we had this client I was telling you about that had her hardware taken from her ex-husband, from her husband, when she got it back, she's like, we need your help to, you know, break this open and get inside and see all the evidence of him stalking us, stalking me. And, you know, my answer was, I can't do that. You know, the police that you reported this to who aren't paying attention to you, right, the crime unit of the D.C. Police Department, they're the ones that should be doing that, but they weren't. And so I felt really, you know, powerless on that technical front, right? And I want to be able to turn to somebody and say, you know, maybe I need to call the Access People or something. I don't know. But that's a big challenge. You asked about, you know, what can companies do more? You know, I actually think that the social media platforms are doing a pretty bang-up job, not because, you know, it's not pure altruism. It's like this is their business model. It depends on people feeling safe online in their space, right?  Community standards that have been crafted to take into account conduct-directed individuals that's meant to shame or humiliate them, right? So that will be taken down if you can show that.  And I said, well, actually, from what I've seen, you know, with Vivek, I'm a member of the Global Network Initiative and I've seen from the inside what goes on and I really feel like they're doing a lot. Could they do more? Probably. But from what I've seen, they're very, very sensitive. Talking now about companies like Microsoft, like Google, like Facebook, right? Twitter, I don't have as much information on, although I do know that they do take down offensive tweets and close accounts under certain circumstances. So there's probably more that can be done there. I, you know, as someone looking at it in this way, I feel like they're doing a lot.  It can't just be the companies, it can't just be law enforcement. It can't just be us. Definitely can't just be us. You mentioned, if you do get a takedown order on a US-based server, probably for the larger, well-known ones, it's fairly straightforward the ones you mentioned earlier. But what about something that's like a more obscure US-based server than hosted someplace and how difficult or successful are you with that? And when you said call the access people, I don't know who the access people are. I'm sorry, access now is an NGO that has, that works on Internet freedom issues and they have a very, they have like a help desk for digital security issues that I just realized now as I was giving the answer to the last question. But really the point I was just making there is that it would be helpful to have access to people who could do this kind of forensics and I'm not even sure they can. So I haven't actually used the DMCA procedures yet. We've just researched them and we know that they're a remedy that can be evoked. So, and I'm not a copyright lawyer myself. So I don't know, as a practical, I know that it has worked in a case or two that I... Any kind of civil action on a mom and pop hosting place, you know, that maybe some guy's done it on some US-based server, not on a Twitter or, I mean, not on a Facebook, but something else, you know. Yeah, I... Yeah, hmm. The systems people might not be around. Even in universities or small colleges, you might not know how to get a sysad. I see your point. You're talking about sort of how this gets atomized and anyone can basically host content, right? And so it doesn't have to be a big server. Yeah. That's a good question. I had not thought about that. But what I can say is I haven't seen that come up yet as a problem. I mean, again, I think it would come down to just being able to identify the person. And once you could, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to go after them civilly, either for libel, for slander, or I don't know about copyright if they were hosting images. I don't know. But it's a very good question. I'll have to think about that some more. I'll have a curious question. You know, I think one of the issues that Cura was pointing to is this sort of traditional cybersecurity issue or an attribution, which is a hard one, in anything happening online. But there's also the issue of intent. And you've explored this in your paper, right? Because especially the mob phenomenon, the person who is perhaps instigating the mob knows what they're doing. But it's often the case that people in the mob are unwittingly along for the ride. And when the online mob is something as easy as a retweet, and you don't really understand what's going on, what do we do about that problem? Is that an education problem? Is it a legal problem? I do think it's partially a problem of a culture of digital civility, in part. I think there's definitely an issue of just malevolence. I think it's hard to know where that line is drawn. I remember seeing a report. I can't remember if it was the New Yorker about a journalist who confronted an online troll. So she agreed to meet with him. And she had stalked him and said horrible things and death threats. And she knew where he was doing his book talk and stuff. All the horrible stuff that we're talking about. And then she agreed to meet with him, and they're talking. And he brings up this horrible content that she'd been posting about him and at him. She's like, oh, I was never going to do any of that. She's like, we're basically all cowards. Those of us who do this. So it's that disconnect between what comes across, which looks and feels exactly what it looks like, to what the intent behind it might be. I'm not trying to excuse any of that conduct. But it was an insight into the psychology of the online stalkers, harassers, like the worst ones, that suggested it's much more complicated than it might seem. Then there was, of course, the Alanis case in the Supreme Court, the Facebook rap lyrics. Did you guys see that? So a guy was convicted of, I think it was attempted murder or a crime based on the fact that he had put lyrics on his Facebook page, posted them that were about his former girlfriend and were explicitly and graphically describing how he was going to dismember her and chop her up into little pieces and do all horrible kinds of things. And she was, of course, scared witless. And so he was convicted of the criminal offense of, I can't remember exactly what the offense was, I think it was intent or attempted or something. It was maybe a threatening. Yeah, that threats, yeah. And it goes up to the Supreme Court and there's a big First Amendment issue there that everyone was kind of paying attention to. But they don't even get to that. They say, you know what? They overturn the conviction. They say, as bad as this looks, there's no way you can actually find, based on what happened below, that he had the intent to do any of this. Just these lyrics in this way, you can't prove that the intent was not proven because the crime required intent, they overturned it. They didn't even get to the First Amendment issue. So again, you're asking about how do we know what the intent is? What does it mean? What can you do about it? Very complex, very nuanced and difficult to get at, right? I don't know if that answers your question, but it provides some context, yeah. My question is about laws that do exist. I guess, you know, in situations where intent is less important, such as, like, revenge porn, 35 states have laws, but the other 15 don't. So if you're, and for a lot of other forms of cyber violence, if you're resulting to things like DCMA or libel to get what you want, to me that suggests there's a huge, that's a huge gap in policies and regulations that exist. So I wonder, you know, what kind of education might be necessary for policy makers or how you kind of galvanize getting laws to reflect where we are in society with technology today? Well, I mean, there are a number of initiatives, right, that are meant to address that gap at the state level in laws against revenge porn. So is that what you're asking? Is it porn, right, or something else? Well, there, so there's one way of looking at it is to say, well, we need a federal law, right? And so the bill for a federal revenge porn law, I mean, leaving aside the enforcement issues that come even with that, is one attempt to sort of make this more uniform. Folks have been working on getting more states to adopt these laws and have them be more consistent, right? So the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, Marianne Franks at Miami and Danielle Citrone at Maryland have done a lot of work in this area. And they're largely the engines behind states, this increase in state protection, right? So I think it answers your question more directly. Educating policy makers that there's a problem is almost certainly something that needs to happen. And I talked about the importance of public education. I talked about creating awareness publicly among people who might be affected or might be perpetrators of cyber violence. But I realize now that we probably should be directing some of this at policy makers as well. Might need to add that to our agenda. Because you're right, a lot of this comes back to people just don't see it's a problem or don't understand how much of a problem it is. That's really the, I think, the impediment to getting better legal responses and better enforcement. That does answer your question, right? So in terms of this sort of raising the awareness of the problem and maybe also just a bit on the educating of the judges and others, I'm fascinated by these cases where you have people who will, with intent, tweet at a person who they know to have, what's the disease, epilepsy, they'll tweet a flashing gift or a flashing video to cause physical harm. That newsweek reporter, yeah. There's been a couple, there's been that one case recently and a couple of cases in the past. I'm wondering, I mean, as terrible as that is, if that's a helpful kind of case in terms of kind of highlighting that this kind of online... How level it can become, yeah. That was actually a salt, right? Exactly, yeah. Oh yeah, that sounds right, yeah. I wasn't aware of that case, but yes. Well, so there are extreme cases like that. Other extreme cases are like the swatting cases, right? You all are familiar with swatting, where somebody reports some kind of violent activity at the target's home, maybe a terrorist, a alleged terrorist or weapons or something, explosives, and then the local SWAT team gets called in and they just surround the house and these unsuspecting folks inside get swatted. The door gets kicked in and it's the SWAT team and they're just sitting there, right? And this happens pretty frequently. So there are extreme manifestations of this that I do think help draw attention to the problem somewhat. I think that's part of what we try to do in our own education curriculum. We use the Gamergate example, Zoe Quinn, because our target audience are 18 to 24-year-olds and so we use her to get their attention. In her case has everything in it, right? Stocking and harassment and wrench porn. So I agree with you, I think that is part of it, but I think we just need more consistent and broader efforts, broader coalitions. Right now, there aren't a lot of folks really looking at this this way. And there's a dismissiveness still in the authorities, not all, but some that make it hard. So I think that's helpful, yeah. So what do you think are the points of leverage that are available to people in this room, right? I'm going to leave this talk as people who are concerned about these issues and wanting a more perfect internet. What do you suggest that we do? Is it a matter of private virtue online or is it really focused public policy advocacy or what do you think is the right approach? Well, I think it does start with one's own conduct online and mindfulness. One thing that grew out of the work that we did was for me an insight was you can inadvertently be someone that's being uncivil or causing harm online without even realizing it. And how do you make yourself aware of that and avoid it? And that's the mindfulness piece, right? And we built that into our curriculum because we realize with my students that a lot of people don't view themselves, most people don't view themselves as harmful actors online, until they are. So I think it starts there. You know, at least as an educator and an advocate, I think the public education piece and the forging of new social norms are really where we need to engage. And I think there's no substitute for engagement. And this is where organizations like Access and others that we know have started to get the ball rolling. But at least on the cyber violence front, you still don't have that kind of coalition or broad network or well articulated movement that needs to happen before you start getting through to, I think, policymakers and others, that this is a real problem, that it has a shape, that it has parameters, that it can be addressed, that it has to be addressed. So I would start with that idea of how do I contribute to building out new social norms and, you know, promoting awareness and engagement. Of course, Rob. First of all, thanks for the great talk. And I was really glad to say you're optimistic at the end of what was otherwise pretty depressing. But I'm curious about the notion of teaching people to be better people online and mindfulness. And if we're to overly simplify this, there's people being jerks online who know they're being jerks, and there's then inadvertent jerks. Do we have any idea what the proportions are? What kind of people might be susceptible to a strong nudge in the right direction? I don't know. I mean, I take the view that most people online are probably not the jerks, the knowing jerks, right? Or even the inadvertent jerks. I think most people online, and this is just purely impressionistic. I don't have any numbers on this. I'm not sure that, you know, other than just looking at sheer numbers of people online, right? We say, what, 240 million Americans, right? 75% of the population online. So I think you want to assume that most of the people in your audience are in that category of folks who at least are not intentionally are being jerks, right? And maybe most of them are trying to avoid that. For the ones who perhaps are jerks or knowingly so, or, you know, that's where the educational piece that talks about consequences or potential consequences I think is important. This is an imperfect model, right? I admit. But so if I'm a college student and our curriculum is called pulling the plug on cyber violence, right? So we show that there's this problem. If I'm someone who I know has engaged in some of these conducts, I've trolled a bit, anonymously critiqued someone in personal terms, or I've been a jerk online. And I start, and I see, right, this panorama presented and I see the harm that it does to people. I see examples of that. I see what consequences might come from it, even if they're only theoretical still in some, I'm hoping that some people will get a new perspective on their own conduct, right? I mean, I think that's the way that I would approach that. And then, of course, there's always going to be a group that isn't affected by anything. They're always going to do this no matter what. They're going to find ways to get around, even if the norms evolve and get to where they should be. Even if we start to get enforcement, they're still going to have people who are going to do swatting and who are going to do horrible things to other folks online, just as they do it offline. So, but I just feel like there's an awareness dimension that has not really even been fully activated yet that would reach a lot of people and affect conduct. And I come from a hard-edged accountability background, right? I mean, I'm about legal accountability and so for me to get to the point now where I'm actually advocating, shaping new social attitudes and norms is something that surprises me, first of all. But I don't see any other way of approaching this. It's about culture. It's about creating new practices and awareness. This is just restating the question earlier. Not really restating it anyway. Sure. I mean, if the intent is to harm, if the intent is a retribution or to destroy. It doesn't help to show people how much they harm other people by their actions. That's just what they want. That's right. So, there's got to be another way. Well, that's where I think the law should come in. That's where the justice system should operate, right? And that's the other challenge that we were talking about, that it's not at that level yet normatively and certainly not in terms of enforcement. So that's the complementary piece, right? For those who are always going to be malevolent, then you need to have some legal remedies or else it won't work. Will you give me the last word, Jack? Oh, no. Pressure. I hope you give me the last word, actually. Otherwise, like... Audience, please make it profound. Okay, so my name is Filippo. I'm a second year here. I've been reading a lot lately about how the environment on cyber and on the internet is very different than the real world. And some of the arguments advancing are that the laws that we have in the real world cannot be used to combat the problems in the cyber world because it's just a very different dynamic. And I was just wondering what your thoughts are in terms of that difference between the problems on cyber. Are they just an extension of what we experience in real world? Or are they fundamentally different in some way? I'd say yes, no, and neither. There's some truth to both of those perspectives, right? I mean, let's take human rights, for instance, which is the background that I have. And there was a debate back a few years ago about whether we needed a whole new system of norms to deal with online conduct framework that was already in place for human rights can and should apply and would be effective. And that came out in the second scenario, right? So it's now firmly established that rights apply online as well as in the same way that they apply offline. And then there are interpretations that say, and these rights are adapted and interpreted in ways that are consistent with their underlying values but that take into account technological dimension, right? So because there are new media will create new issues and so you just have to adapt, right? And I think that has worked by and large well, although not fully. I think the cyber violence area is one that poses in some ways new challenges, in some way, it's just the same thing happening online, like the stalking example. But some of this stuff, I think, because of the reasons we were talking earlier about how the way that it can escalate, right? And also the way that the harms are generated and the subjectivity. I think there's dimensions to it that make it something different than what you could ever do in the physical world for the first point or that you could address with existing tools. You need some new tools. So it's actually a bit of both. And I think that's how the human rights framework has evolved to address this particular phenomenon. Does that answer your question? Keep it quick because we're at the top of the hour. I'm taking over Dwayne Mitchell's Apple Script business and I do specifically Apple Scripting and GUI Apple Scripting, which is scripting unscriptable. And I can write malware to screw up your Macintosh six ways to Sunday with the GUI scripting and tiny 2K applications that you can put in a Word document that would, if I'd like to... Is there a question at the end of that? No. Because we're really at the top of the hour. No, I know. I'm just saying that if I could do it and drop one in at some cartel banking facility, they wouldn't know what hit them. I'm just saying that I'm sure there are people who know Dwayne and Dwayne was regular here and I just wanted people to know that that's available script type. Okay, perfect. Okay, thank you very much. Well, thank you to Arturo for... Thank you. Very insightful presentation. Thank you.


live on the Metal Voice with my buddy Rich Cattino from Metal Asylum also Metal Hall of Fame and also writer for Brave Words and today we are going to, Rich just set it all up, you do that while I do some settings over here just tell us what we're going to be reviewing. We are unboxing the Mali Crew Shout the double 40th anniversary box set this is my original though so but it's in your box set here. So there's all kinds of goodies Jimmy's got it still sealed so he's going to take off the plastic right we're going to check it out and talk about the audio because I have you have it to the original CD that they remastered in 99 I want to say. Somewhere around there. There it is there it is guys so this is again in this box set but as a paper sleeve. Yep. In this box set and then there's all sorts of other goodies. Yeah, so this is what we're going to do exactly where Rich said we are going to unbox the 40th anniversary of Mali Crew shout at the devil and just a little bit of background for everybody this has been is a limited edition box set. LPs cassette CD it has everything this is everything you need BMG recently announced year of the devil a multi configuration celebration of shout at the devil the centerpiece of year of the devil is a limited edition super super we shall say box set, which features a newly remastered album on LP CD cassette also included are the reproductions or reproductions of the original seven inch signal singles to young to fall in love looks that kill among a pentagram seance board devil board with the metal planchette, metal seven inch adapter album artwork. Basically it's coming out October, the 27th as the 40th anniversary. I'm going to rip it all open. Cool. Rich, you can speak to the audio aspect because I have not compared the two right speak to the audio. I speak to what's inside the box. Okay, so you want to do that as we get to the different items you can open up you want to open up the box first and show a couple of the goodies and we'll talk about our audio as you pick those things. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. All right. First of all, let's talk about what the heck this thing is. Definitely a box. I got this in the mail yesterday.  I forgot about it. So it comes in the mail. Just everybody understands how thick this is. What do you want to compare this you want to compare this to a CD. It's like, it's like the rat and the docking reissues that they did but it's it's like two of those put together. That's how big the boxes. This is heavy. I would give this four pounds, five pounds maybe maybe. Yeah, there you go.  It smells fresh. And they list all the items. I always smell it. I always like to smell because of our youth. It was like it was like behind the records when we bought them back in the 80s. Right. When you open them up. Look at this. Look at this. I have just a little cut here. I have not opened it yet. It is. We were going to not only look at it, but we're going to smell it. Okay. Like back in the day. Because back in the day. That's what we did. Yeah. Right. It's not like new records. This is the first rip. Here it comes. You guys ready? I have to get a first rip because you know what always happens. You're kind of like, I can't rip it. I can't open it. It is shrink wrap. There we go. As you're doing now. Jimmy, I'll show you that. Like I was showing you before the original vinyl. And I still actually have the insert that it came with back in the 80s. Remember the insert. I got the vinyl. Yes. I have the vinyl somewhere too. Yeah. Still have that. Very good. Right off the bat. The feel. You have it in back of you, right? Yeah. It's right here next to me. Look at this feel. Look at this feel. The feel feels like. It's got a little texture. It's got texture. That's the right word. It doesn't. It's not slippery. Like it's going to fall out. You're going to fall out of your hands. On the back of it. It has the insert. Like the album. Old album insert. Right. Look at that. Yep. And it's, it's really a box set. I mean, it's a box. Yeah. It's a set. So let's look at this. Even the side. That's a nice decor. Yeah. Very, very nice texture. There it is. Yeah. There's the back of it. Kind of looks like a. Nice. Nice. Nice box. Beautiful. Do we know how much this is somewhat going for? Yeah. This is going for something like 350 a year less on Amazon. Canadian. That's about $2,000. No, no. It's probably about, I would guess about for 25 Canadian. Okay. And the year and euros and the British pounds. It's probably like, I don't know. 20 bucks. 20 year and 20 pounds. All right. There we go. All right. Let's unbox this puppy. Let's unbox her. Unbox it. Okay. Oh, wow. Wow. Look at that. Right. This is the Ouija board. They definitely made sure they incorporated our mom. Right. Look at this. The Ouija. Taken from the French word. We. Look at that. So you can actually do a seance. I don't know if the original loud mad this, but I think it's not. No. The only thing that. In the top part. In the top part. There is a Ouija. Okay. If you're into that kind of stuff. Okay. Let's, let's see what we got on the first layer. Oh, a pentagram. Oh my gosh. Look at this. This is just some sort of cardboard pentagram. You're going to scare your parents with. Like back in the day, they're scared of this. Right. Yeah. That was on, you know, that was on the cover. Yeah. Yeah. So Jim Harrison saying it's a 350 Canadian or 377 Canadian. So it's around there. Look at that. Look at that. That's very thick. Yeah. Nice, nice reproductions of these things. They're not lightweight at all. But here's a little fun fact here. I just noticed when I was looking at the. The merch thing that came with the original one. Yes. Pentagram is a regular star.  It was pointed down. So this.  Interesting little difference. I'll tell you. The album's title and the band's use of the pentagram caused a great deal of controversy. We're going to have to remember this. Yeah, of course. And I'm assuming they went from the slant. To the straight up, right? Yeah. And it was also, I think the song. No, from the PR. MRC. The. Let me look it up. What song was it? Maybe. Bastard. Nice. Bastards. Yeah. Bastard. That song was on the list. From Tipper Gore. And I remember the looks that kill video. I've had the pentagram in it too. It's fun. And the fire in the middle. Yeah, yeah. So they had the whole presentation going on.  You know what theatrical band that Blackie Lawless was in. So it was kind of, he lifted it from there. He brought it into Mali crew and sort of that. And what was going on at the time? Mali crew, I'm not sure if you saw them open for Ozzie. No, I didn't see that. Back in 84. I did not see it because when Ozzie came here, it was rad that was opening up. Oh, cool. Yeah. In 84. The us festival, the album was released. And the us vessel was not too long after that. Or it was a little bit before. I don't remember the exact timing of it all. Yeah. But they were virtually unknown to the metal world. Right. Aside from the West Coast, you know, all the LA clubs and stuff. That's right. And to me, when, you know, I saw the us vessel, I saw Mali crew. I kind of heard about them in a way and I go, this is interesting. Yeah. As long as well as quite right. Yeah. Right. I mean, and it was like in the morning when they were playing. So it was kind of like they're wearing all their gear. Yeah. And when the scorching sun and yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The MRC. Yes.   Any other fun facts? There were a lot of demos that have been re-released. Like we mentioned right here. Right. Which comes included. If we have that in that box set when you get to it. Yeah. Yeah. And let's, let's start opening her up and we could talk about the music as well. Cool. So here we go. Here's another. This is a second one. Second pentagram. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Then we have this. What's going on here. And we got the splatter. Splatter one. Yeah. So we're already at three sort of cardboard.  Design. Yeah. Designs. So again, rush. And let's open her up from here. Look at this. Here we go. Wow. Look at this. This is nicer. Do you have the original album there? Yeah, I do. Mamma Mia. Look at this. Yep. Same opens up gatefold as well. Let's, let's compare the original. So you're saying this is a replica of the original album. Yeah. Cause it even comes with well, aside from the insert, when you get to the vinyl, it has all the lyrics, you're eating everything. So this was the original and that comes in that too. Now for my memory, the original album that I had, I think it didn't open up, at least not my version. Oh really? Maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe, you know, I've forgotten because it's kind of lost in my parents' house. So I don't remember exactly. Maybe certain pressings did. I don't remember. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Maybe I just do not remember. But look at this. Let's look at the original. You have the red on the back there. Yeah. Yeah. Look at that. It's an exact replica. You know what's cool about that? I kind of like that. I do like the sort of, you know, let's try to like make it, let's reproduce what doesn't exist anymore. I kind of like that. Right. Exactly. And you get the lyrics too. It's always good to have lyrics. And wow, man. The sort of the texture. This is beautiful.  Let me see the back of the original. Let me see the back of the original. Yeah. The rear masters are very nice. Wow. Look at, okay, with only this part here is a little bit different. I don't know. Right. It's a little shinier. It's got the little bit of gloss to it. Yeah. But the rest of it is very matte, you know, but it's very shiny. Yeah. Tom Werman who actually did produce this. We should also give a shout out to him. Yeah. We have seen great. Yeah. A lot. Look at that. So just tell me about when you put this album on, tell me it sounds great. What were some differences you made? Well, just like when we talked about the docking ones and the rat ones, there's really not too much of a difference because they really did sound good back then too. Just from the 80s, like the rat and the docking had a little more high end, right? A little more troubling. Yeah. But with the Motley crew and those albums too, it's a little bit like tighter now. So it's not so much high end. It's a little more bass and drums, a little bit fuller, I guess you could say. Okay. But it doesn't have to worry. And now we're comparing the original LP Yeah. To this newly remastered, re-released LP, correct? Right. Exactly. So it's just maybe a little more tighter.  Vince is still on top of everything, but it's just a little warmer, you could say. A little bit tighter, brought in a little bit closer without it getting muddy or anything.   The vinyl itself gets warped. Right. So it's nice to have a fresh new LP. Right, especially from, you know, the 80s because they were so thin back then. Yeah. We should talk about that too. You know, this is very, look at how thin this is. These things were, everybody, everything from the 60s, 70s and 80s, everything was so like paper thin, the vinyl. Yeah. Let's talk about that. Let me just feel how thick it is because I've noticed that all new LPs that are being released are new vinyls. Wait a second. Wow, wow, wow. Here, look at this. Oh, the color. Yeah. Very cool. Holy mackerel. Look at that. I didn't even, I should have opened that first. So let's look at the original one. Let's look at the original one. Okay. Yeah. Typical. This here, look at that. It does not, does it bend? Let me be careful here. Yeah, yeah. No, no. Okay. It's a little bit. Yeah. Here is very, very thick. Yeah. Right. If you look at mine, even over time, if you look at it, it almost gets a little bit of a wobble to it. Yeah. Not this. It's not completely straight across anymore. You know what? It is very, somebody said hypnotic. Look at that. Rich. It's a cool splatter effect. Yeah. All these, all these great masters that everybody's doing when they do different colors like, did you ever see the sabotage ones? No. Those look great too. All the different color vinyls. Okay. Let's put this away. This is so far on lovin' us. This is great as a, not only is it great to have one of the best, this is the best Molly Crue album. This is the quintessential Molly Crue album. It's still my all time favorite. And this, the sound overall, just the band itself, you know, there's a little bit of punk there. There's glam and there's metal. But it's very metal. It's so metal. I love it. Okay. Let's see what else we got now. I'm taking this part out. What is this? That is those demos. Oh, on a separate vinyl. Look at that. Yeah. Let's talk about these demos a little bit. Cool. Which we're familiar with a few of them because they previously appeared on that remaster. Okay. Right. The crucial crew. Right. What do you think about Shout at the Devil, that demo in general? I mean, if people have heard it. Yeah. It sounds pretty good. I like these demos from Prue because these are pretty well produced. They sound terrible.  There's a pretty decent mix to these. Wow. Wow. That's pretty cool. Very thick as well. So this is the first time that these demos have been all together or put together on vinyl. Correct. As a sort of single album. Yeah. Maybe there's bootlegs of these somewhere in the world. I don't know. But here we go. Molly Crue. Shout at the Devil. Yeah. I like Shout at the Devil, but I like the actual album version better than the demo. Same here. I think I, but I would say yes, it's a cool raw alternate. Shout at the Devil. But I do prefer the original. Then you have looks that kill. Again, a cool alternate and the phrasing of the vocals are a little bit different. I wrote about that when I sent him my review to Brave Words. I really like what Vince does on this albums because it's alternate deliveries to some of the lyrics and how he, he pronunciate some things and it's really almost, it goes back to too fast for love almost the way he does. You know, sing some things. Very cool. I like it. But the music is still, you know, it's still got that metal punch in everything like the whole record Shout at the Devil has. Yep. Yep. Knock him dead kid. Yeah, it's okay. I mean, it's not bad. It's not bad. I do prefer the album version. So do I. Too young to fall in love. The demo, right? Yeah. That's on this here, I believe. I like the album version better than that one too. Yeah. Yeah, me too.  And now, which was on the next album. Theater of Pain. Theater of Pain. That one. That's the one I know. This one has less reverb. Yeah. Where Theater of Pain is a more glossy, more polished. Yeah. Even his scream. It's sort of like he, his scream sounds so faint on the, on the album version on Theater of Pain. Where on this one is scream is coming full force. Yeah.  I do. And this is a little bit raw too. It's a little heavier.  I think so too. Yeah. What about I Will Survive? That one's okay. I could see why that didn't make an album. Okay. Yeah. I like it. I like it. And then Black Widow, which was released on the red, white and crew compilation. I remember that. Which was in 2005. So we did hear that. I like it. I like Black Widow. I do too. I like Black Widow. That's a song that could have fit well on, I think Shout. Yeah. So overall, thumbs up to this. You're saying in terms of audio. What about audio? When you compare this to this year? It's kind of the same. There's not much of a difference. Okay. Yeah. I didn't notice much of a difference. But like I said, these demos, usually demos a lot of time sounds terrible. These are good sounding demos. They are. They are. I agree. I mean less of the gang vocals on Shout at the Devil and looks that kill. Because you're going into the studio, you're going to put a little bit more of the back vocals in there, right? Right. But I would agree with you, the Shout at the Devil songs are a lot better than the demos. But you know what? These are pretty good alternates. They are. Like I said, looks that kill is really cool. I like the way Vince sings. It's different. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. All right. What do we got here? That we got the... Well, I had... I opened that up already. You got... You got the tarot cards. Tarot cards, yeah. Well, I'll open them up. There's a Mick who's no longer in the band, right? A magician. You got Tommy Lee, the lover. He's like Paul Stanley here. Yeah. Or the star child. And the son. That's cool. And did you ever notice... I spoke to Thor, you know, this whole Mad Max look. Right. There is a coincidence of the Mad Max look coming from Thor who had that Mad Max look. Yeah. Prior to Molly Crue. Now again, I don't know if they lifted it or not or maybe Mad Max was very popular at the time. Yeah. I remember... Everybody kind of lifted it. All those clothes were in head parade or in the circus. You remember that? And all the ads? Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, Thor kind of used that Mad Max look, but then again, Mad Max came out around that time too. So... Yeah. You can see how popular culture sort of bled into the music culture. Into the metal, yeah. But it was a great look. And you know, the spikes and the shredded clothing and the leather and the denim and everything. It's great. And what's this here? Oh my Lord. I don't know what this is. Did you get this? Yeah. What is this? Like a... Put your pencils in here? Eamon, I guess, a little... What does it say on the label? It says it's a what. They call it. It's not a shot glass. It's a... No, this is like you put your pens in. Oh. It's a candle holder. Oh, it's a candle holder. A candle holder. So if you want to conduct a seance, there you go. There you go. Yeah. Very nice. Very nice piece. Very nicely sculpted. It's not, you know, crappy. It's very well put together. Now I had this too, back in the day. So did I. It comes with a Mali crew cassette. I'm not opening this up though. I'm sorry. No, I'm not opening this up either. I'm not either. It was worth millions. But it's cool. It's a red cassette. I don't know if you can see that, but this is a red cassette now. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. Wow. Very cool. Yeah. And we got a... What's in here? Oh, look. Another surprise. Do I open this up? That's where... Go ahead. You can take them out. Those are the singles. Ew. Yep. Look at that. Whoa. Look at this. Holy moly. Yeah. So we have... Well, let me open these up here. Very nicely dressed up. Yep. Collared. Whoa. Look at that.  I have one of those on my vinyl. Yeah. So I play these actually, Jim. Take me to the top and too young to fall in love. Okay. So tell me about those, the quality. Too young to fall in love virtually sounds the same. I don't hear the difference with the remix. Okay. I'm curious to know when that remix actually was done for this. How old that is, you know? But I don't hear a difference. And take me to the top. Sounds like it does from the debut. Yeah. You know, it'd be cool talking about the debut. It'd be good if they re-released that, but the leather records version. That'd be cool. Yes. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Cause it was... Oh, look at this one. This one's white. Yep. Side A, Looks That Kill, which was a big smash hit. I tell you, I got it all done pretty much. That was the song. That was the song. That was the song. Piece of your action. Yep. Great song too. Again, after their debut album. Yep. Which is probably the best song on the album, I would believe. I think. Very nice. Beautiful. Beautiful. Just, you know, everything is just beautiful. And one of them on the back of the too young to fall in love, you got the tour dates. And then on the back of the Looks That Kill, you got the lyrics to the song. So far. Wow. All right. Let's see what else we got here. We got a little treasure chest here. Look at that. Oh yeah. Little bag. Little bag. A change purse. Right. Hey, I'm going to go bring my change. That's underneath the handkerchief with the singles. That's on the bottom of that in the box. Okay. Let's take a look inside here. Oh, look at that. Look at that. Look at that sound here. Cool. What's in there? Some coins. What's in there? Those are the money. What do they call those? Oh, look at this. What the hell's that? What is that? Yeah. What are they called here? I'm looking at the listing here. They're called something. Sounds like something from Ikea. Oh. What's that? That would be for the Ouija board. That's for the Ouija board, right? This is for the Ouija board. What do they call this? Let's take a look here. Metal pentagram. Seven inch. I know that's not it. Metal plant planche, I guess. If somebody knows what these are used for. Metal planche, I guess. If you pronounce it that way. I guess this would be for the Ouija board. Like you kind of move it. Yeah. And this here, I don't know what you do with this, but it's. That's how you use it. That's what you use on the Ouija board. That's the thing. Oh, okay. So this is like a pick. It's sort of designed as a pick, but beautiful. Nevertheless, beautiful. Yeah. Very nicely done. Yeah. Let's put it back in the change purse. Maybe I go to the store and put all my loonies and toonies in here. We have in Canada. All right. What do we got next? Oh, look at this. I just don't really know how it's all set up. Yeah. Try to get this out. I don't want to break anything. Oh, there it is. That's the, and it comes with a CD. Yeah. So if you don't have your toonies, you can put it on. Yeah. I don't want to break anything. Oh, look at that. There it is. Yep. This version doesn't come with those demos. But if you have the crucial crew version from 99, that had some of the demos. Rich, I'm scared to open this up anymore. Okay. That's everything I think. That's it. Yeah. So you wanted to know about the CDs to compare them, right? Because I played them. Yes. Go ahead. I'm going to try to figure out what the heck I'm doing here. So there's actually on the inside. Yeah, nice. Go ahead.  Go ahead. Um, the 99 one definitely sounds slightly different than this new one. Okay. This one also has a little more high end to it. And then this one again, like the vinyl, it's a little bit tighter sounding. Okay. Yeah. So there's a little bit of a trend.  Technology has advanced. Right. It's definitely slightly different, a little bit, like I said, a little more punchier, a little warmer, maybe. Okay. Yeah. All right. How would you compare the CD quality to the vinyl, like the new CD to the new vinyl? What would you say? I think the CDs always come out with a little more of your high end and your trouble without losing your bottom end. Okay. But the vinyl, I think it preserves that and presents it a little bit more with your, your little bit of a tighter transfer, right? And you got your bass and your drums, but you can still hear your cymbals and the punchiness and everything. It doesn't, it doesn't lose that. It just feels a little bit, like I said, a little bit tighter. Okay. I felt the same thing with the rat ones and the same thing with the Dawkins. Great. Um, is there anything else? The CDs are a little louder, by the way. The CDs come out a little bit louder too. Well, that's the technology of today, right? Versus 1999, when it was released like this, right?  Sort of like, Hey, that's cool little, uh, cassette just sort of is a souvenir in a sense. Yeah. I don't think everyone's actually cranking out their, you know, putting on their cassettes and putting them on their ghetto blasters, right? Yeah. But it's a cool little treat, we'll say. Agreed. Um, again, you know, this album went four times platinum. It's probably, you know, one of their most known albums, I think any, you know, there's just hits right across the album. Too young to fall in love. Shout out to the devil. Looks at kill. Red hot using that double bass drum. Yeah. It's just so many great tracks. Great. Carver Peltler Skelter. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, um, knock them dead kid 10 seconds to love and danger, which has got some great drumming on that as well. Yeah. I don't know, is there anything else we can say? And a little instrumental that Mick does. God bless the children of the beast with this nice little dynamic change throughout the album.  I agree. Tom Werman who does the production. I love that guitar tone. It sounds like it has less reverb, right? It just sound, but even crunchy. It sounds crunchy. And that's where it's got a very punky feel. Like I said before, But it's probably their most metal album. Oh, totally. Yeah. Yeah. 100% metal. Yeah. I love Vince Neil's vocal tone throughout the whole album. Yeah. And that's what separates this band from all the other bands of that era. It's his tone. You know, right away. This is Motley Crue. Yep. Yep. I think, but everybody, I think everybody from that first wave had that quality too. Like Twisted Sister didn't sound like quite right. Yes, agree. Rat didn't sound like Doc and Wasp didn't sound like, I don't know, Helix, you know, those guys from that 82 to 85 period, no one sounded the same. It's a very good point. Yeah. Then of course we're still in 83 or that, that transition into complete hair metal didn't happen yet. Right. That was like 87. 87. That's right. So we still had that raw metal, punky, catchy. And the thing about this album is so melodic. I mean, you can play it on, and that's why they played it on the radio, right? And that's where it grew the audience. They had such a huge audience because it was accessible. And that was the key word.  I mean, Yeah. That and live wire just all the time. And then when theater pain came out and home sweet home was the hit ballad that was even played even more. Actually rich. I will take back what I said the first time I heard of Molly crew was live wire. And I'll tell you how it was back before MTV or much music here in Canada, or maybe at the beginning of that, we didn't have that was all scrambled. It was a specialty station, right? It was all scrambled. We had one of those here too. So you had to like pay to, to be part of that channel. Right. So music video videos was really big back then. And live wire came out as a video. And people would buy video compilations.  Yeah, the VHS. You could rent these things or you could buy them. And I think it was either a friend or a cousin of mine who had like a video compilation. And on it was live wire. It was the first time I ever heard Molly crew. This is before looks that kill. Right.  Or whatever it was. I can't remember. And it was like, that was like a real punky metal song. It was. Yup. Agreed. One of my favorite songs. That's pretty much it. Anything else you like to add? No, I think we covered everything. We did really good. All right. So everybody, you know, I'll show it again. Molly crew. Shout at the devil. Yeah. They're quintessential album. One of their best albums, I would say it is their best album. Next to the first album that is. I wonder why they did this before too fast for love. Maybe they're doing something like I was saying, maybe we're getting the leather records version or something. You know, I don't know if BMG owns too fast for love because this is by BMG. Yeah. So I don't know that could be also, there could be a rights issue or licensing issue. We don't know. But you know what?  Yeah. You know, it's, it's worth it.  Yeah. Very well, a great presentation. It's not everything. So you only listen to CDs. You can listen to CDs. You could just sit there on top of your desk and you could say, Hey, right. Got my box set. Yeah. That's it. All right, man. Listen everybody. Have your second great Sunday. Thanks for being on rich from brave words. Not all fame. And as always, jimmy.net And buddy, we'll talk soon. Yep. See you guys next time.