Audio, hi-fi and car audio - Not enjoying the cacaphony of the sales hack Steven R. Rochlin abusing us to make a buck

Andre,
Here is a document which largely confirms your position:
http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/anthony/naruc.htm However, the realities of
advertising, at least in the U.S., seem remarkably divergent. To put it
bluntly, the level of enforcement based upon general advertising law verges
on nonexistence. However, there appear to be two tiers of law: the general
advertising law, as non-administered by the FTC, and statutes covering
special areas, such as drug and food labeling, that are strictly enforced.

The only example I can recall relevant to audio was the decision of the
FTC, sometime in the 70's, to mandate quoting of RMS power, rather than IHF
power, to "protect" consumers from blatantly false amplifier claims. For a
few years, the FTC lawyers whacked at the manufacturers, and got them in
line. In the past few years, the IHF power spec has reappeared. It appears
that with respect to compliance with advertising laws, the primary question
is, "What is the cost of compliance versus later payment of a fine ?"

As Steven R. Rochlin has got your back up, so I have my particular
pique. Brian L. McCarty has for years been attempting to attract investors
via blatant fraud, with his websites http://www.coralseastudios.com, and
http://www.worldjazz.com. I have on a number of occasions, and in a number
of ways, brought this to the attention of Australian regulators. Their
attitude appears to be that unless McCarty actually succeeds in taking
someone's money, there is no complaint worth the effort of prosecution. The
decision of law enforcement is weighted heavily by the existence of injured
parties.

Realities sometimes exist in contrast with the statutes. For example,
here in the U.S., the FBI has a guideline, sometimes broken at their
discretion, that cases distinguished primarily by financial loss are not
initiated unless the loss exceeds $40K.

Thus, Rochlin, as with current importers of junk equipment who quote IHF
power, "White Van" speakers, or Brian L. McCarty, take risks based upon
their assessment of who gets hammered and why. Of course, sometimes, when
the personality of a risk-taker gets carried away, as with a Ponzi scheme
that grows, he might lose his game of chance.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

soundhaspriority wrote:
I haven't made a study of Rochlin, as you have. I perused the site,
particularly the info sectionl. While I did not purposely examine the
info
in order to validate it, it generally impressed me as useful; the sort of
stuff that many audiophiles who aren't bookish gain access to via
Rochlin's
site.

First of all, we in Europe have a higher expectation of reviews than
Americans. (It is a subtext of much of what John Atkinson writes; much
of the controversy he is involved in, away from the pseudo-scientific
crank fringe of Krueger etc, arises from the fact that he is an
Englishman with much higher expectations.) Secondly, the laws in Europe
are much different. Thirdly, your analysis of American law and practice
below is at variance with the reality of practice.

Here in the U.S., there has been considerable law relating to the
truthfulness of advertising claims. "Bigger", "better", "more powerful",
"more effective", even "clinically proven", have been given somewhat of a
waiver by our legal system from standards of common discourse. Hence, we
tolerate advertising balderdash that would be considered offensive if
told
by one person to another. In one case, the contents of a college catalog
were used as evidence against the college. The college successfully
defended
with the claim that the introduction to the college catalog was
"advertising" rather than "contractual promises."

But neither US law, nor local AAAA codes of practice, nor for that
matter codes of practice enforced by the major media, permit "passing
off", the pretense that one thing is in fact another thing. That is why
you find outright paid-for newspaper advertising supplements, when
dressed up as editorial matter, headed with the word "ADVERTISEMENT" or
"Advertising Supplement" on each page.

In the case of Steven R. Rochlin's EnjoytheMusic.com paid advertising
is clearly dressed up as independent advertising matter. That is
passing off. That is deceit for gain.

Since English and American common law are still joined at the hip to a
surprising degree, with civil verdicts shared as precedent in both
countries, the U.K. is not immune to this. In fact, there is a rather
rude
colloquialism in the U.K. that actually was the slogan of a laxative --
"gets around the bend", which was modified to "he's gone around the
bend."

The similarities are deceptive. In the UK an advertiser will get away
with none of the bigger and better examples you mentioned above.
European law effectively comes down to a challenge to advertisers to
prove all factual claims and in some cases implied factual claims. Note
that it is the law that issues the challenge; there is no need to wait
for a competitor or consumer to lodge a complaint; false advertising is
illegal and the state acts on behalf of the common weal. In practice,
long before the state acts, the professional bodies have acted,
precisely as in the US example above where no one in the print media
can get away with publishing an advertisement dressed up as editorial
without announcing it. (In most countries the sanction works through
capitalist means, incidentally: what happens is that after all other
remedies are exhausted, membership of the pro body is withdrawn, and
with it the right to get credit and to withold a fixed percentage of
the payment as the "agency" fee, which is the income of the
intermediaries. That usually suffices to close down the transgressor
because we are talking about interest for 90 days on many hundreds of
millions, and about 12-16.5 per cent of the many hundreds of millions
which are the ad agent's fees. Unfortunately the internet does not yet
have professional standards so there is no one to sanction the likes of
Rochlin when they transgress decency.)

All this is as puzzling to me as it would be to someone hearing it for
the
first time. If Mr. Rochlin's activities are not sanctioned by everyone on
the personal level, the courts have endorsed much or all of it as one of
the
primary engines of Capitalism -- advertising. According to capitalists,
encouragement of consumption is vital to prosperity.

I made my early career in advertising. I still write very technical
books on communications psychology and reprographics (a part of the
graphic arts) for the communications trades, of which advertising is a
substantial part. I believe implicitly in the value of advertising to
reduce unit costs my maximising distribution, the key mechanism of
capitalism.

However, the value of honest advertising is demeaned when people like
Rochlin tries to pretend advertising is impartial editorial. Rochlin's
activities at Enjoythemusic.shill devastate the credibility of a wider
audience, all for Rochlin's personal profit. He makes work for the rest
of us to recover that good faith which advertising would enjoy, but for
the activities of Rochlin and others like him.

All but the most ardent capitalists are torn between disgust and
admiration
of all things capital. Capitalism is weak on moral content, but strong on
results.

That's bull****. The morality of the hidden hand is merely poorly
understood. As a young intellectual, I felt as you describe above,
terribly ambivalent. Then I went to Russia to lecture on the marketing
uses of statistics, during Brezhnev's little perestroika of the later
1960s. I came away wondering how anyone in his right mind could be
anti-capitalist. There are no examples, none, period, of central
planning working. The only alternative is capitalism. (The so-called
welfare state, often described as modified mixed-economy socialism, is
no such thing; it is modified capitalism and, what's more, a very
nation-state sort of capitalism at its root, as can be seen by studying
the first welfare state, Bismarck's Prussia, and the following that
through the Liberal founders of the British model system which in a
cleaned-up form operates in Germany and elsewhere in Europe today.)

I don't trust any review anymore. My standards have become too internal
for
that. Perhaps you, too?

Yes, of course. But this isn't about whether two sophisticated
audiophiles are taken in by Rochlin's greedy crap. It isn't even about
those less sophisticated whom Rochlin leads to the slaughter at the
hands of paying pushers of placebo "audiophile" fashion-of-the-week
crap. This is about the fundamental dishonesty of Rochlin claiming to
"help audiophiles". In Europe he would investigated and brought up
before an enquiry for lying that he "helps audiophiles" when all he
does is "help himself line his pockets". That is so gross a
transgression of honesty that it alone would be enough to condemn
Rochlin and Enjoythemusic.ripoff, even without all his other deceits
and dishonesties.

Andre Jute

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...

soundhaspriority wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Rochlin: far from "helping audiophiles" as you claim,
you are a parasite on high fidelity, pushing bland and
incompetent **** because the makers pay you for
adverising on your silly site and for the number of
foolish audiophiles who read your one-sided
travesties of reviews. You are a sales hack, pure
and simple, but one without the balls to open up
an emporium on the high street. --- Andre Jute

This reminisces the "art vs. money" debate.

Eh? I can understand that a logger might object. But you're mistaken if
you think my objection to Rochlin and his Enjoythemusic.com ripoff is
on the grounds of art or even journalism, though it is wretched
journalism, mere paperhanging for advertising, pandering to
manufacturers too cheap to afford real advertising. Nah, here I speak
as a DIYer and on grounds of morality.

Look, audio has from the very
beginning been very commercial.

Absolutely no objection. On my home base, RAT, most of the actually
useful guys have some commercial interest in electronics or directly in
audio. Without their knowledge, the newsgroup would fall down.

But Rochlin doesn't fit that definition. He is a know-nothing. If he
didn't make a buck leading audiophile fashion victims to the slaughter,
he'd make a buck leading jeans-snobs or watch-snobs to the slaughter.
Rochlin is an ignorant shill.

My personal opinion is that Mr. Rochlin's
obvious, and not criminal, desire to make money is a tolerable
tradeoff
for
what he provides the community.

The question is what does he provide to the community. My opinion is
clear enough above: nothing for the community, dollars in Rochlin's
pocket for Rochlin.

Or does Mr. Jute think that the lives of audio entrepreneurs should
patten
after Kerouac, Burroughs, or Jackson Pollock?

Please God, no! Your very suggestion tells us that you don't know
anything at all about these people. I'm sure that even Rochlin, whom I
dislike intensely for his basic dishonesty, his uselessness, for being
a parasite, bathes more often than that trio of scroungers and liars.
But there is a difference between Rochlin and that trio: they had
talent; Rochlin's only "talent" is quivering like a puppy-dog to be
loved so that we will give him tidbits off our table.

Rochlin is not "an audio entrepreneur". He is a publicity flack, a
paper hanger for advertiser, grubbing trash. It is an impertinence for
Rochlin to claim that his Enjoythemusic.com ripoff "helps audiophiles".
It helps no one except Steven R. Rochlin, who next week will be pushing
different crap while the innocent is stuck with the crap he equally
willy-nilly pushed last week.

Check out who advertises on Rochlin's site. Then check out who gets the
best reviews and the constant mentions. Draw a conclusion. I have. See
above.

Andre Jute
"You can wait 'til more important things get taken care of."
-- Ned Carlson of TubeZone to a Customer who already waited *14 weeks*
for his tubes.

Andre Jute wrote:

Rochlin: far from "helping audiophiles" as you claim,
you are a parasite on high fidelity, pushing bland and
incompetent **** because the makers pay you for
adverising on your silly site and for the number of
foolish audiophiles who read your one-sided
travesties of reviews. You are a sales hack, pure
and simple, but one without the balls to open up
an emporium on the high street. --- Andre Jute

Hi Everyone,

Enjoy the Music.com's July edition celebrates our 11th year of
helping
audiophiles all around the globe with informative articles, show
reports,
equipment reviews plus much more! New reviews appear in both Superior
Audio
and the Review Magazine, with critical assessments of the Audioengine
5

powered monitors, silver cable comparo, Hagerman Technology Chime
tubed
DAC,
Role Audio Sampan speakers, Sound Dead Steel Isoplatmat, Stereovox XV2
cable, Aural Acoustics Model B speakers, plus ModWright Instrument's
Denon
3910 universal player and SWL 9.0 SE preamplifier.

http://www.EnjoyTheMusic.com

Enjoy the Music,

Steven R. Rochlin
http://www.EnjoyTheMusic.com

Yo, Bob:

I started out writing to you how sad is all this laid out in your
letter. But it isn't, really. True, scum like Carlson and Rochlin and
LaFever get away with their nastiness only a little scarred. True, the
bullyboys on the internet seems to believe that living with dishonest
trailer park trash is a manhood rite. True, the authorities are lost in
a morass of immorality if they have to set a high financial barrier
before they act. On the other hand, nobody is pretending it is an ideal
situation, and some in authority are considering the amount of flex in
the system that is necessary/least damaging. And a minority of folk --
on these conferences you and me -- are not afraid to speak up and
trample a few bullyboys. I can remember how corrupting the constant
lying of the Kennedy/Johnson era was, and how the constant political
correctness of the left-wing generation which educated me narrowed
their mental capabilities and their inherent honesty (I'm talking about
the fellow-travellers protecting their careers by not stepping out of
line; the committed leftwingers were dishonest through and through,
like a candy stick you buy on an pier). Now principled people can at
least speak out. That is a huge advance. Far from whimpering in our
beer, a few tentative congratulations may be in order.

Andre Jute

soundhaspriority wrote:
Andre,
Here is a document which largely confirms your position:
http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/anthony/naruc.htm However, the realities of
advertising, at least in the U.S., seem remarkably divergent. To put it
bluntly, the level of enforcement based upon general advertising law verges
on nonexistence. However, there appear to be two tiers of law: the general
advertising law, as non-administered by the FTC, and statutes covering
special areas, such as drug and food labeling, that are strictly enforced.

The only example I can recall relevant to audio was the decision of the
FTC, sometime in the 70's, to mandate quoting of RMS power, rather than IHF
power, to "protect" consumers from blatantly false amplifier claims. For a
few years, the FTC lawyers whacked at the manufacturers, and got them in
line. In the past few years, the IHF power spec has reappeared. It appears
that with respect to compliance with advertising laws, the primary question
is, "What is the cost of compliance versus later payment of a fine ?"

As Steven R. Rochlin has got your back up, so I have my particular
pique. Brian L. McCarty has for years been attempting to attract investors
via blatant fraud, with his websites http://www.coralseastudios.com, and
http://www.worldjazz.com. I have on a number of occasions, and in a number
of ways, brought this to the attention of Australian regulators. Their
attitude appears to be that unless McCarty actually succeeds in taking
someone's money, there is no complaint worth the effort of prosecution. The
decision of law enforcement is weighted heavily by the existence of injured
parties.

Realities sometimes exist in contrast with the statutes. For example,
here in the U.S., the FBI has a guideline, sometimes broken at their
discretion, that cases distinguished primarily by financial loss are not
initiated unless the loss exceeds $40K.

Thus, Rochlin, as with current importers of junk equipment who quote IHF
power, "White Van" speakers, or Brian L. McCarty, take risks based upon
their assessment of who gets hammered and why. Of course, sometimes, when
the personality of a risk-taker gets carried away, as with a Ponzi scheme
that grows, he might lose his game of chance.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

soundhaspriority wrote:
I haven't made a study of Rochlin, as you have. I perused the site,
particularly the info sectionl. While I did not purposely examine the
info
in order to validate it, it generally impressed me as useful; the sort of
stuff that many audiophiles who aren't bookish gain access to via
Rochlin's
site.

First of all, we in Europe have a higher expectation of reviews than
Americans. (It is a subtext of much of what John Atkinson writes; much
of the controversy he is involved in, away from the pseudo-scientific
crank fringe of Krueger etc, arises from the fact that he is an
Englishman with much higher expectations.) Secondly, the laws in Europe
are much different. Thirdly, your analysis of American law and practice
below is at variance with the reality of practice.

Here in the U.S., there has been considerable law relating to the
truthfulness of advertising claims. "Bigger", "better", "more powerful",
"more effective", even "clinically proven", have been given somewhat of a
waiver by our legal system from standards of common discourse. Hence, we
tolerate advertising balderdash that would be considered offensive if
told
by one person to another. In one case, the contents of a college catalog
were used as evidence against the college. The college successfully
defended
with the claim that the introduction to the college catalog was
"advertising" rather than "contractual promises."

But neither US law, nor local AAAA codes of practice, nor for that
matter codes of practice enforced by the major media, permit "passing
off", the pretense that one thing is in fact another thing. That is why
you find outright paid-for newspaper advertising supplements, when
dressed up as editorial matter, headed with the word "ADVERTISEMENT" or
"Advertising Supplement" on each page.

In the case of Steven R. Rochlin's EnjoytheMusic.com paid advertising
is clearly dressed up as independent advertising matter. That is
passing off. That is deceit for gain.

Since English and American common law are still joined at the hip to a
surprising degree, with civil verdicts shared as precedent in both
countries, the U.K. is not immune to this. In fact, there is a rather
rude
colloquialism in the U.K. that actually was the slogan of a laxative --
"gets around the bend", which was modified to "he's gone around the
bend."

The similarities are deceptive. In the UK an advertiser will get away
with none of the bigger and better examples you mentioned above.
European law effectively comes down to a challenge to advertisers to
prove all factual claims and in some cases implied factual claims. Note
that it is the law that issues the challenge; there is no need to wait
for a competitor or consumer to lodge a complaint; false advertising is
illegal and the state acts on behalf of the common weal. In practice,
long before the state acts, the professional bodies have acted,
precisely as in the US example above where no one in the print media
can get away with publishing an advertisement dressed up as editorial
without announcing it. (In most countries the sanction works through
capitalist means, incidentally: what happens is that after all other
remedies are exhausted, membership of the pro body is withdrawn, and
with it the right to get credit and to withold a fixed percentage of
the payment as the "agency" fee, which is the income of the
intermediaries. That usually suffices to close down the transgressor
because we are talking about interest for 90 days on many hundreds of
millions, and about 12-16.5 per cent of the many hundreds of millions
which are the ad agent's fees. Unfortunately the internet does not yet
have professional standards so there is no one to sanction the likes of
Rochlin when they transgress decency.)

All this is as puzzling to me as it would be to someone hearing it for
the
first time. If Mr. Rochlin's activities are not sanctioned by everyone on
the personal level, the courts have endorsed much or all of it as one of
the
primary engines of Capitalism -- advertising. According to capitalists,
encouragement of consumption is vital to prosperity.

I made my early career in advertising. I still write very technical
books on communications psychology and reprographics (a part of the
graphic arts) for the communications trades, of which advertising is a
substantial part. I believe implicitly in the value of advertising to
reduce unit costs my maximising distribution, the key mechanism of
capitalism.

However, the value of honest advertising is demeaned when people like
Rochlin tries to pretend advertising is impartial editorial. Rochlin's
activities at Enjoythemusic.shill devastate the credibility of a wider
audience, all for Rochlin's personal profit. He makes work for the rest
of us to recover that good faith which advertising would enjoy, but for
the activities of Rochlin and others like him.

All but the most ardent capitalists are torn between disgust and
admiration
of all things capital. Capitalism is weak on moral content, but strong on
results.

That's bull****. The morality of the hidden hand is merely poorly
understood. As a young intellectual, I felt as you describe above,
terribly ambivalent. Then I went to Russia to lecture on the marketing
uses of statistics, during Brezhnev's little perestroika of the later
1960s. I came away wondering how anyone in his right mind could be
anti-capitalist. There are no examples, none, period, of central
planning working. The only alternative is capitalism. (The so-called
welfare state, often described as modified mixed-economy socialism, is
no such thing; it is modified capitalism and, what's more, a very
nation-state sort of capitalism at its root, as can be seen by studying
the first welfare state, Bismarck's Prussia, and the following that
through the Liberal founders of the British model system which in a
cleaned-up form operates in Germany and elsewhere in Europe today.)

I don't trust any review anymore. My standards have become too internal
for
that. Perhaps you, too?

Yes, of course. But this isn't about whether two sophisticated
audiophiles are taken in by Rochlin's greedy crap. It isn't even about
those less sophisticated whom Rochlin leads to the slaughter at the
hands of paying pushers of placebo "audiophile" fashion-of-the-week
crap. This is about the fundamental dishonesty of Rochlin claiming to
"help audiophiles". In Europe he would investigated and brought up
before an enquiry for lying that he "helps audiophiles" when all he
does is "help himself line his pockets". That is so gross a
transgression of honesty that it alone would be enough to condemn
Rochlin and Enjoythemusic.ripoff, even without all his other deceits
and dishonesties.

Andre Jute

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...

soundhaspriority wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Rochlin: far from "helping audiophiles" as you claim,
you are a parasite on high fidelity, pushing bland and
incompetent **** because the makers pay you for
adverising on your silly site and for the number of
foolish audiophiles who read your one-sided
travesties of reviews. You are a sales hack, pure
and simple, but one without the balls to open up
an emporium on the high street. --- Andre Jute

This reminisces the "art vs. money" debate.

Eh? I can understand that a logger might object. But you're mistaken if
you think my objection to Rochlin and his Enjoythemusic.com ripoff is
on the grounds of art or even journalism, though it is wretched
journalism, mere paperhanging for advertising, pandering to
manufacturers too cheap to afford real advertising. Nah, here I speak
as a DIYer and on grounds of morality.

Look, audio has from the very
beginning been very commercial.

Absolutely no objection. On my home base, RAT, most of the actually
useful guys have some commercial interest in electronics or directly in
audio. Without their knowledge, the newsgroup would fall down.

But Rochlin doesn't fit that definition. He is a know-nothing. If he
didn't make a buck leading audiophile fashion victims to the slaughter,
he'd make a buck leading jeans-snobs or watch-snobs to the slaughter.
Rochlin is an ignorant shill.

My personal opinion is that Mr. Rochlin's
obvious, and not criminal, desire to make money is a tolerable
tradeoff
for
what he provides the community.

The question is what does he provide to the community. My opinion is
clear enough above: nothing for the community, dollars in Rochlin's
pocket for Rochlin.

Or does Mr. Jute think that the lives of audio entrepreneurs should
patten
after Kerouac, Burroughs, or Jackson Pollock?

Please God, no! Your very suggestion tells us that you don't know
anything at all about these people. I'm sure that even Rochlin, whom I
dislike intensely for his basic dishonesty, his uselessness, for being
a parasite, bathes more often than that trio of scroungers and liars.
But there is a difference between Rochlin and that trio: they had
talent; Rochlin's only "talent" is quivering like a puppy-dog to be
loved so that we will give him tidbits off our table.

Rochlin is not "an audio entrepreneur". He is a publicity flack, a
paper hanger for advertiser, grubbing trash. It is an impertinence for
Rochlin to claim that his Enjoythemusic.com ripoff "helps audiophiles".
It helps no one except Steven R. Rochlin, who next week will be pushing
different crap while the innocent is stuck with the crap he equally
willy-nilly pushed last week.

Check out who advertises on Rochlin's site. Then check out who gets the
best reviews and the constant mentions. Draw a conclusion. I have. See
above.

Andre Jute
"You can wait 'til more important things get taken care of."
-- Ned Carlson of TubeZone to a Customer who already waited *14 weeks*
for his tubes.

Andre Jute wrote:

Rochlin: far from "helping audiophiles" as you claim,
you are a parasite on high fidelity, pushing bland and
incompetent **** because the makers pay you for
adverising on your silly site and for the number of
foolish audiophiles who read your one-sided
travesties of reviews. You are a sales hack, pure
and simple, but one without the balls to open up
an emporium on the high street. --- Andre Jute

Hi Everyone,

Enjoy the Music.com's July edition celebrates our 11th year of
helping
audiophiles all around the globe with informative articles, show
reports,
equipment reviews plus much more! New reviews appear in both Superior
Audio
and the Review Magazine, with critical assessments of the Audioengine
5

powered monitors, silver cable comparo, Hagerman Technology Chime
tubed
DAC,
Role Audio Sampan speakers, Sound Dead Steel Isoplatmat, Stereovox XV2
cable, Aural Acoustics Model B speakers, plus ModWright Instrument's
Denon
3910 universal player and SWL 9.0 SE preamplifier.

http://www.EnjoyTheMusic.com

Enjoy the Music,

Steven R. Rochlin
http://www.EnjoyTheMusic.com