IamCraig.com Rotating Header Image

Opinion

Holy crap! I have opinions! Lots and lots of opinions! You want to read my opinions NOW!

Do they owe it to the fans?

Oct 5th, 2011
by Craig.
Comments are off for this post

On a local radio station today, the DJ made reference to the station’s blog (“Do they owe it to the fans?“), but on air seemed to be asking a slightly different question to that posed on the blog. To the straight-up question, my answer is no, bands don’t owe it to their fans to tour.

However, the DJ (or someone who called in) introduced the issue of bands who rest on their laurels and issue remastered version after remixed version of their music, and live off of the income from that. To that I say, “Hey, if you (gentle reader or listener) want to pay for yet another remix of the same old song, go right ahead. But I won’t.” I’m all for residual income, but unless you actually get off your arse and do something new occasionally (and that includes touring, even if you sing your old stuff), why should I buy your old stuff, over and over again?

Which actually leads to the age-old question of old music coming out in new formats to keep up with technology. (For the sake of simplicity I’ll stick to referring to music from here on, but the same principles apply to films and any other recorded entertainment.) These days the big entertainment companies like to tell you that you have “licensed” the music that you have bought. (I don’t think you’ll find a “licence” printed on any of your old vinyl LPs!) This allows them to attach all sorts of conditions to your licence, not the least of which prevents you from making copies of said licensed material.

To that I respond that if I have bought a licence that entitles me to listen to a particular song, then I am allowed to listen to that song for the rest of my life in whatever formats exist between the time I licence it and the time I die. The licence should only apply to the song I originally bought, or any substantially similar version of the song. Therefore, if another band performs the song, or the same band records it at a concert, or the original lead vocalist records a duet with someone not a member of the band (just to give a few examples), those would be considered substantially different, and I would not be entitled to those versions of the song until I paid for a copy.

Therefore, if I bought Penny Lane in 1967, as far as I’m concerned I’m entitled to listen to the same version of Penny Lane in the comfort of my home at any time I choose by playing it on my record player, on my CD player, or on my computer (which includes whatever portable device you carry around in your pocket) from a digital file (e.g., MP3). So if I bought the right to listen to Penny Lane in 1967, then I am entitled to obtain, for free (or perhaps for a modest fee to cover materials, shipping and handling), a copy of Penny Lane on CD and MP3 and in any future recording formats. (The same applies if I lose my original copy.) If the same song is re-issued by the band twenty years later, even if the latest version is somehow technically superior, it’s substantially the same song and I’m entitled to a copy of the “new” version for free. If the company I paid in 1967 is unable or unwilling to send me a copy of Penny Lane on/in the latest format at my request, then I am entitled to obtain a copy by whatever means I deem necessary. Enter (in this day and age) file sharing.

Of course, coming up with a 44-year-old receipt to prove you’ve already paid might be a challenge!

RIP Jack Layton

Aug 22nd, 2011
by Craig.
Comments are off for this post

Today Canada lost its only political leader. Whether or not you agree with his politics and the politics of his party, Jack Layton was the only leader of a major federal party that actually met the definition of the word “leader”. Others, including the current prime minister, are certainly the figureheads of their respective parties, but they are not leaders. There’s a huge difference. It was not just Layton’s success in the most recent election that made him a leader; it was the fact that he actually had a vision for Canada.

Rest in peace, Jack. We lost more than just another citizen today. You are not irreplaceable — none of us are in the grand scheme of things — but the question is whether or not someone of your calibre can be found in time to avoid Canada becoming a de facto one-party state.

Only in Vancouver …

Feb 3rd, 2011
by Craig.
Comments are off for this post

… will you be approached outside a Starbucks by a guy plugged into an iPod begging — “pretty please” — for a dollar to buy a coffee.

Invincible and invisible cyclists

Dec 1st, 2010
by Craig.
1 comment
Cyclist dressed in black. Photograph by Mark van Manen, PNG.

Cyclist dressed in black. (Mark van Manen, PNG.)

The front page story in The Vancouver Sun on 29 November was Cycling’s most dangerous intersections: 10 places cars are most likely to hit bicycles in Vancouver. Illustrating that story was one of the pictures you see here. (For some strange reason, the Sun has two identical versions of the story [here and here] on its website, but with different pictures.)

Now, I realise that the photographs were no doubt posed, but they beautifully — and ironically — illustrate exactly why so many cyclists (and pedestrians) are getting mowed down on Vancouver streets. Note the following:

  • The cyclist is dressed entirely in black, and
  • The picture is taken at night.
Cyclist dressed in black. Photograph by Mark van Manen, PNG.

Cyclist dressed in black. (Mark van Manen, PNG.)

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been driving in Vancouver on a rainy night — which, as you will know if you live in this part of the world, account for about 300 of 365 nights — and a cyclist or pedestrian has almost literally appeared “out of nowhere” and narrowly avoided becoming one with my car. You can point the finger of blame at me if you want, accusing me of not paying attention. But really, even if there was no car traffic on the roads (besides me) and so I didn’t have to be swivelling my head this way and that to look out for them (especially at intersections, which is what the Sun story is about), I’d be hard-pressed to see a damn nearly invisible person (and bike) until my headlights are reflected in the whites of his or her widening eyes. Besides, if I’m doing such a poor job of paying attention, how come I don’t have these close calls during the day in good weather?

Add to that cyclists and pedestrians who think they are somehow exempt from both the laws of the road and of physics — or have a death wish — and you have a recipe for disaster. The onus is on everyone on the roads to do their part to keep them safe, but jeez, if you’re the one likely to be on the losing end of a collision, don’t you think you should invest a little more effort and thought in keeping yourself alive before you even walk out the door?

(Copyright note: These photographs are the copyright of, presumably, Mark van Manen of the Pacific News Group [PNG]. They are used here without permission, but I assert that their use here is in line with the concept of “fair dealing” under Canadian copyright law, in that this article is a criticism of the content of the works themselves and the news story to which they are attached rather than simply being a reposting of a news article. To the best of my knowledge, non-copyrighted versions of these photographs are not available. In any case, these are the pictures the public has seen, so my creating my own similar pictures would negate the nexus of this article.)

Bizarre Virgin Mobile Terms and Conditions of Service

Nov 25th, 2010
by Craig.
Comments are off for this post

Occasionally I feel that I really must address my insomnia by reading the mounds of legalese shoved in my face every time I want to do anything in this modern society of ours. This is particularly important where money is involved, of course, which means all of the mindless EULAs (end user licence agreements) that I’m presented with when installing software generally get skipped. Fortunately I have an old computer that I try out new software on first, so if I missed the part in an EULA that says the software manufacturer can install viruses on my computer, it’s not a big deal because the old computer is just for testing, doesn’t contain any sensitive or important data, and can be reformatted at a moment’s notice without any hesitation.

Anyway, back to legal agreements involving money. Back in 2007 I bought a Virgin Mobile Canada cell phone. I stopped using their service a few months later because I cancelled my planned move to the new area code where I got the phone, and I gave the phone to a friend. At the time I noticed some rather bizarre wording in their “Terms and Conditions of Service”. However, as we all know, you either bend over and agree, or go and live in a cave.

Fast forward a couple of years and I bought a cell phone as a present for someone, and I decided to go with Virgin again. Another year later and I’m again looking at the “Terms and Conditions of Service”. The bizarre wording has survived at least three years, unchallenged (I assume) by anyone with the time, interest and money to pursue what surely must be a serious privacy issue. (I have the interest, but neither the time nor the money.)

Here’s the bizarre wording (which I have truncated and annotated), from the “About Content Provided By You” section:

Any Content transmitted through or to the Services by you will be considered non-confidential and non-proprietary. [Fair enough, I suppose. This is a cover-your-arse sentence in case someone manages to intercept your “content”. If I was a government spy, I’m sure my employer would give me a super secret phone that would ensure that my “content” remained confidential.] … Virgin Mobile, its Suppliers and designees will be free to copy, disclose, distribute, incorporate and otherwise use the Content and all data, images, sounds, text, and other things embodied therein for any and all commercial or non-commercial purposes. [Whoa! Seriously?! So those naked pics I sent my girlfriend are fair game, and I can expect to see them published by Virgin in a glossy magazine at some point? And what about those steamy phone conversations when I’m away from home? Broadcast on radio and television?!] You agree to grant to Virgin Mobile a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license, with the right to sublicense, reproduce, distribute, transmit, create derivative works of, or publicly display any Content submitted, transmitted or posted by you through or on the Services. [Hey, if you’re going to make me a reluctant porn star, at least cough up some of the dough you’ll be making off of me!]

Now, I think it’s safe for any reasonable person to assume that no sane company is going to start trawling though billions of their customers’ inane text messages — and, I might add, the “content” sent to the “services” by non-customers who have not consented to these terms — collecting the more salacious ones to make into a coffee table book. However, if Virgin were to go insane and do so, guess what? You (and I) agreed to it!

Welcome to the modern, civilised world.

The fickle American voter

Nov 14th, 2010
by Craig.
Comments are off for this post

As someone who doesn’t get to vote in American elections, I chastised friends and acquaintances for jumping on the Obama bandwagon back in 2008 and following it all on TV like it was some kind of daily serial. I do realise that what happens in America influences a lot of non-voters; just ask the Iraqis. However, there’s a difference between academic interest and fanaticism. But I was neither for nor against Obama; he may have said some thought-provoking things, but I am extremely cynical when it comes to politicians.

But if it wasn’t so serious, I’d laugh at the American voter. Here they elect a guy on a wave of popularity not seen, I believe, in the lifetimes of most American voters. Then two years later, because he hasn’t changed the world, brought about universal peace, cured all diseases for evermore, and put a million dollars in everyone’s bank accounts, they vote for the party that is diametrically opposed to him. Huh? Am I the only one who thinks this American voter is an idiot?

But it just starkly illustrates much of that’s wrong with the American political system. Black and white, for us or against us, commies and capitalists, red and blue, flip and flop, and simply no possibility of middle ground. Almost makes the Canadian two-and-a-half-party system look like paradise.

And I’m going to say something I never thought I’d say, because too many politically-correct people are too quick to blame something like … oh, let’s say, race … for one thing or another. But I do have to wonder if they all voted for him back in 2008 just because he is (half) black, and I do have to wonder if the Tea Partiers were so vocal and so successful for the same reason.

The American voter is both fickle and short-sighted. Then again, they’re no better in British Columbia, where the provincial government is trying to bribe people with promises of a cheque for $19.17 per month to vote in favour of the HST. And you know what? People will buy that … or rather, I should say, will be bought by that.

Newer Posts →