share the confusion

Prince’s new album, Planet earth, was given away with a rag of a Sunday paper today, causing quite a furore in the “music industry.” The Mail on Sunday may be a horrible paper, but I made up for it by buying a couple of fairtrade dubble bars at the same time. That’s one of the best excuses for buying a dubble bar I’ve had all week.

Here’s what’s left worth keeping from the shopping trip. Just the CD and the dubble bars.

The furore was caused by a new album being given away free. Shock, horror cried the “industry”, the sky is falling. Cover mounts are destroying the “industry”, Prince is betraying record stores who stock his cd’s etc etc. This is the same “industry” who used to declare in huge letters on record sleeves in the eighties that “Home taping is killing music – and its illegal.” The same industry who continues to make a huge profit, more than in the eighties. Oh how we’re shedding tears for them as they continue to spread their FUD.

Prince is supposed to have made £250,000 from the giveaway. The paper covered the cost in the hope of recouping it in increased circulation and advertising revenue, which is why they’ve been trailing it for a month. Money is still being made, the problem of the complainers is that their music sales profit monopoly is being threatened. Like a record store like HMV really cares, the last Prince release sold only 80,000 in the UK in total. They’re concerned about the precedent.

In the meantime, Prince makes a new chunk of money without the record company making any (still finding it hard to care about that, anyone who has ever seen a cross-collatoralisation deal would probably agree) and gets lots of publicity for his 21 live shows in London. Artist makes money, record company gets none, fans get new album legit and cheap. I’m betting this won’t be the last time we see this done. Meanwhile, the “music business” (who are everything about business, music is just the way they try and make their money) has a new worry they can’t even threaten their customers with, a la file sharing. This is the same “music business” who, as their power has grown and grown, has turned music from something we participate in, something that we play and enjoy together, socially and creatively, into something that others do, where we are entertained by “professionals” and encouraged to consume, not create. In return for believing that “we couldn’t do that” we’re fed a stream of sub-standard, here today, gone tomorrow pap by the “professionals.” Who can forget the musical inspiration that was “The fast food song.” Music business, we shed such tears for you. To paraphrase one of the new songs on Prince’s CD, “I love you baby, but not like I love my guitar.”

I’m a naturally scruffy person, there’s no use in me denying it. Its not that I don’t have my smart moments, I simply gravitate towards the relaxed and comfortable and there’s something about me that makes me look scruffy. I’m not complaining, merely stating fact.

It may be my choice of wardrobe of course. I have only one pair of “smart” shoes, classic English brogues in black leather. I reflected today, as I was taking them off after one of their very rare appearances, that I’ve had this same pair for 13 years now. 13 years for one pair of shoes should give you an idea of how seldom they come out, or so I thought.

They’re not very worn because I only wear them with a suit, but despite that these long standing (couldn’t resist) shoes have had their share of adventures. They’ve seen 6 weddings, been to the head offices of multi-national companies, travelled the length and breadth of the country, borne 3 coffins, walked into a handful of restaurants, kept me standing when delivering lectures and training to FTSE 100 companies, been scuffed when fixing computers, danced, tapped along when playing in a jazz band and even made a dream come true.

Somehow, these shoes I never wear seem to have seen more of life than I have, which is worrying considering its always been me that’s been wearing them. Perhaps I’d be better letting my shoes blog for me.

I’ve been downloading a lot of new music this week and I’ve been determined to get it all for free. Not a single penny of mine has crossed the Internet as I’m getting my megabytes of music. Bit Torrent? Nah. Limewire? Are you kidding me? I’m going for creative commons music. Songs I can download completely legally.

Of course this means that I’m getting a load of very new music from people I’ve never heard of, but since when has an artist being signed to a label been an indicator of quality? Most people haven’t even heard of creative commons music and they’re missing out because of it. Sure the edges might not be polished completely smooth, but to me that’s a positive. What I’m hearing is real. Its authentic. Its like that band you loved when they brought their first album out, when they were still hungry, but the rest were never quite as good.

I’ve been a fan of Scott Andrew for a couple of years and I found him because of his creative commons music releases. Today I found another artist whose fun and intelligent approach to describing life in a pop song have instantly endeared him to me. I highly recommend you visit the website of Jonathan Coulton and listen to some of his songs. I’m particularly fond of this one, for the aforementioned fun and intelligence –

IKEA

Long ago in days of yore
It all began with a god named Thor
There were Vikings and boats
And some plans for a furniture store
It’s not a bodega, it’s not a mall
And they sell things for apartments smaller than mine
As if there were apartments smaller than mine

Ikea: just some oak and some pine and a handful of Norsemen
Ikea: selling furniture for college kids and divorced men
Everyone has a home
But if you don’t have a home you can buy one there

So rent a car or take the bus
Lay your cash down and put your trust
In the land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
Billy the bookcase says hello
And so does a table whose name is Ingo
And the chair is a ladder-back birch but his friends call him Karl

Ikea: just some oak and some pine and a handful of Norsemen
Ikea: selling furniture for college kids and divorced men
Everyone has a home
But if you don’t have a home you can buy one there

Ikea: plywood, brushed steel
Ikea: meatballs, tasty
Ikea: Allen wrenches
All of them for free
All of them for me

I’m sorry I said Ikea sucks
I just bought a table for 60 bucks
And a chair and a lamp
And a shelf and some candles for you
I was a doubter just like you
Till I saw the American dream come true
In New Jersey, they got a goddamned Swedish parade

Ikea: just some oak and some pine and a handful of Norsemen
Ikea: selling furniture for college kids and divorced men
Everyone has a home
But if you don’t have a home you can buy one there

Freeview ascent puts it above Sky in digital race | Media | MediaGuardian.co.uk

Something free overtaking the mighty Murdoch empire? It brings a smile to a confused face.

Does the Internet encourage duplicity?

Its a question I’ve been considering for a while and true to form it now leaves me confused. It seems that much of my online experience of late has involved deliberate attempts to lie to me and its difficult not to be disheartened by such experiences, especially when considering the needs of those who have to lie online that they will be safe in real life. Those who lie about their identity when blogging in a country where they could be imprisoned for what they write are still lying, but few would disagree about the necessity of them doing so, in fact most would even applaud them for their courage in taking the risks they are in blogging at all. Objectively, of course, they are still lying, but if they are not condemned for doing so, is it truly a lie? Is a lie only a lie when it hurts another? Is lying actually something that is subjective, rather than objective? When is a lie a lie?

The wikipedia editor who lied about his credentials and identity is a well known example to the “Internet-ati” of someone whose online lies were exposed, but did anyone consider whether the editing and contributions he had made were inaccurate at all? If they weren’t, are his lies somehow diminished, or is the principle of lying sufficient that even what he wrote that was factually correct is now devalued? Can objective facts be destroyed by the source of those facts being proven dishonest? Do facts then become subjective, or have they always been?

A forum I read recently exploded into a flame war when the claimed credentials of one of the posters was called into question. In the eyes of many, it only took her honesty to be questioned for almost all that she had said to then be attacked, attacks that became increasingly personal. Lying online still seems to be considered sufficient grounds for inflicting social pariah status on another, so why then do so many fall prey to its temptations? Is it perhaps because of a desire to be someone different to what they are in real life, to gain a sense of fulfillment in their lives that the offline world does not give them, or is it merely always malicious?

The online world Second Life is rife with dishonesty, much of which I have seen to be malicious, but also much that I have seen to be escapism. Paradoxically, many in Second Life who are tired of the duplicity and the lies around them, particularly concerning people having alts (other avatars, owned by the same person), often create their own alts to escape it, to “get away” from it all. In order to escape being lied to they embark upon their own lie, so is this objectively lying, or subjectively? Black and white, or shades of grey?

Anonymity and identity, both vital parts of the Internet and yet they seem to be in direct conflict. Is there a resolution? Is there even a need for a resolution, or does online dissembling and duplicity only reflect our nature and be indicative of it? If we do it online, do we do it also offline and the Internet only makes it easier?

Its definitely too confusing for me to find an answer, but I’ve been reminded of a saying while I’ve been writing this and it seems a good way to conclude yet another unfinished thought. It does not need proof to destroy trust, only suspicion.

It turns out I’m shallow. I’ve been seduced by Google’s shiny new gadgets.

It started off with gmail. We love gmail, we love its storage size, its reliability, its very cool features. Even the “targetted advertising” is funny sometimes, when I pay attention to it. Like most gmail veterans, I’ve long since got used to blanking it out mentally. Gmail is a shiny gadget and I love it.

Then Google bought writely, the online document and spreadsheet creator, and turned it into Google docs & spreadsheets, which must have taken them hours to come up with the name for. I use docs & spreadsheets almost as much as I use gmail, but then one day I clicked on the innocuous looking “more” link at the top and opened a pandora’s box of other shiny new gadgets.

Ooooh, look, there’s google reader, a RSS aggregator! Wow, Google notebook, perfect for keeping all those little notes from websites in the same place! Google calendar, that should be handy for keeping track. I may as well use Picasa for photos as well, since I’m already signed up to it, by virtue of having a gmail account. Fantastic, there’s Google personalised home page, where I can bring all of this together with widgets! I can add lots of other clever widgets too, so everything I need is in one place and I need never visit another website again and then…..

Oh. Bugger. I’m fished in, I’ve sold my soul to Google. I’ve been seduced by clever gadgets and toys and they’ve got me right where they want me, on their website all the time. But they’ve made it all so shiny!!