Things i’ve grown to dislike…

I have another reason to continue my illogical dislike of the Disney corporation.

They are having a whinge at YouTube due to Disney owned videos are being published on YouTube. Yet their issue isn’t that they are being put up there as such, its more that according to the article, YouTube are only pulling them down on request and that isn’t doing enough as far as Disney are concerned.

What exactly “doing enough” entails isn’t pointed out in the statement, Disney merely go on to say that there needs to be further discussions. We can only speculate what those discussions will be about, YouTube hiring full time video checkers to view each and every video to make sure it’s not a Disney video, which of course then leads to the fact that they will also have sit through the travesty that are Disney movies in the first place (I pity the poor sole that would have to do that), and not only that, they would have to remember each and every scene just in case they came across it in a video.

Disney, you need to harden the f*ck up. Not just on this issue but in your movies too, i’ve had to sit through so much dull and mind numbingly rubbish movies from your company. Sure you have every right to protect your copyright but don’t expect YouTube to do more than take it down when asked. There is no way to tell if a video is a Disney video without watching every video first, or asking the poster whether the video is copyrighted, to which I am sure they will all answer no.

It’s actually against the law to broadcast radio stations or CD’s in a public place without permission (hence why you rarely hear good music in supermarkets), but it’s impossible to police unless someone in the know contacts the owner of copyright.

I hate Disney!

Why does the Music Industry constantly whinge about the increase digital music sales not replacing the drop in physical music sales (CD) (article)

Yes admittedly it IS partly because of illegal downloads BUT I would suggest that even if you were able to stop that tommorow, it wouldnt dramatically increase the amount of CD’s bought. People download cos they can, often stuff they don’t want or dont need.

I would suggest that there are numerous reasons for decline in CD sales:

- For so long artists have released albums with 1 or 2 good songs and with filler tunes for the rest of the album in a cynical attempt to harness the popularity for a song into paying for more songs, meaning buyers are more wary of buying albums nowadays.

- online sales allows people to only buy the song they want rather than the albums.

- there are soooo many releases nowadays that you can often miss releases by artists you like or you are forced to choose between artists (if you have a budget restrain) and by the time you can buy the other you forget, there are just too many to choose from so you just don’t bother.

-I suspect music has lost it’s appeal as a movement whereby people used to really stick by their musical styles and artists and now its become more of a throw away commodity whereby the record companies are more interested in sales than actually defining good artists or genre’s. Take for example the dilution of electronic music, it went from what I thought was a fairly strong direction despite the hundreds of artists, to all of a sudden being diluted by a myriad of crappy catchy tunes, formulaic song writing (if you can call it writing), empty lyrics and abominable remakes of old 70s and 80s tunes. Gone is the innovation and excitement that would make me buy many CD’s even those of dubious quality, now it’s replaced by skepticism and indifference as releases become the same song with a different name.

- MP3 players are too expensive and restrictive. At 600 dollars for a good MP3 player you’re looking at quite a hefty purchase, more than a mini home stereo system (and a good one at that) when, if you turn the clock back say 15 years, you could buy a walkman for 100 - 200 dollars and even recently a CD player that played MP3s could be purchased for 100 dollars. I haven’t bought one because I don’t really need one but also cos they are fairly expensive. I suspect that if more people had them, then more people would use online purchasing of MP3s. Also the restrictions on the players are stupid, if a song isnt available on iTunes you can’t (or couldn’t) purchase songs from other suppliers, which is stupid cos then your purchases are dictated by whats available and if there is nothing you want you wont buy.

I suspect that the Music Industry is reluctant to let go of a system that has served them so well for so long. From Record Singles to Record Albums through to Cassette and CD’s, it worked and made alot of money. But I think it’s time to let go and start afresh.

Albums sizes were created to fit on a record, then on tapes and CD’s.

There are no such restrictions on Digital music and as such I think that they have to change their view. Is the Single still viable, i’d suggest not at only 2 dollars each. Is the Album still viable, again i’d suggest not as with the choice of only buying the songs you like, people wont buy the rest of the albums.

If indeed, they want to continue with more choices and pushing the flavour of the month then maybe its time to remove singles and restructure the album to maybe 4 or 5 songs with digital data (album covers, lyrics, videos etc) accessible on the more current video/mp3 players.

Think about it:

- The costs of production decrease as artists don’t have to make as many songs
- Most artists are quite talentless anyway so 4 or 5 songs in a short period of time is about the most you could get out of them.
- Most albums only have 3 or 4 releases as singles
- If successful, fans don’t have to wait for years between albums (remember waiting for the prodigy album, then being subsequently dissapointed).
- It’s easier for artists to change their direction without a huge backlash or to subsequently and quickly change back.
- It allows for constant releases by artists, you can release an album at the start of every year or every half year.
- People are more likely to buy if it has all the songs they like.
- It’s less of a risk to release up and coming artists.
- Hopefully no more compilation CDs

Why are celebrities signed up to Networks? It seems a stupid waste of talent to sign up a celebrity to a station.

Take for example Tim Ferguson, formerly of Doug Anthony Allstars (if you don’t know who whey are check out the wiki link, I suspect that many people would know who Richard Fidler, Tim Ferguson and Paul McDermott are but wouldn’t know where they came from) was signed up by Channel 9 to be host of “Don’t forget your toothbrush“, which was a gameshow I actually enjoyed but like all interesting game shows, it was a bit to smart for the general population. It was axed and as he was signed to the network he did nothing for a long time, other than stupid TV Shows like Unreal TV.

Firstly like in that example, if the show doesn’t work then their talents are wasted until their contract ends.

Secondly, i’m sure many celebs have countered this by demanding a certain amount of air time which, if they are initially unsuccessful, means the networks end up creating stupid shows for them to host (ie Unreal TV) which just ads to the shit already on TV.

and

Finally, we don’t have a huge pool of talented celebrities (probably explains how Stephanie Mcintosh, quite possibly the most droll actor on Neighbours can end up with her own reality TV show AND a hit song, despite the fact she is a poor singer (compared to what is already available)), so why tie them up to a network.

This was all inspired by hearing Dicko’s contract at 7 will be up soon and he will be moving back to 10 to possibly be a judge on Idol again. All this after such ground breaking success on shows like “My restaurant rules” and “Celebrity Survivor”, admittedly I hate him but he is a good tv character and he was wasted on 7. I hope he at least got paid well.

What’s with stories about Sting Ray attacks in the wake of Steve Irwin dying? Yes, he died tragically to a Sting Ray barb, he’s famous and it’s understandable that death would have alot of coverage (though not the complete over exposure that we had in the media and the “suddenly a steve irwin fan” syndrome (similar to “Suddenly a Docker Syndrome”) that you saw everywhere, given that till he died not many people considered him much of a celebrity).

However i’m stunned that the media deem it important to report on every Sting Ray attack in the world. I am trying to picture the editor telling his reports that he needs reports on any Sting Ray attacks that occur anywhere. I’ve read about 4 since Steve Irwin died, to put it into perspective, when Peter Brock died there wasn’t any increase on the reporting of motor racing crash deaths, when a celebrity dies in a plane crash (aaliyah did i think) there is no increase in the reporting of plane crashes. So why are there more Sting Ray stories?

Ok JJJ is the Youth Network and aims to give exposure to an ever broadening range of musical styles that appeal to the Australian Youth of today.

Sometime though I just wonder whether or not they should include policies on not playing shit music regardless of the genre.

I often look up youtube for the latest soccer clips or spectacular goals.

I’m increasingly annoyed at the number of people who post the video clips I want but deem it necessary to replace the sound track with music.

If i wanted to watch music with my football I would turn it down myself and turn up winamp.

Is there anything worse than stupidity being rewarded by fame? Admittedly, me talking about it only adds to the fame of the situation but I’m talking about something in reaction to the situation rather than to add to it.

I’m talking about David Blaine, his wikipedia entry states he is a Magician and Stunt Performer to which they should add Public Nuicance.

He’s the Paris Hilton of the magic world, a talentless nobody who is famous for doing nothing out of the ordinary.

Take for example his list of so called stunts (from wikipedia):

1) He pent seven days buried inside a glass coffin at the bottom of an open pit in front of a New York City building. On top of the coffin was another coffin of the same size filled with water. The surrounding area was covered in dirt.

2) Blaine stood in a closet of ice located in Times Square, New York. A tube provided him with air and water while his urine was removed with another tube. He was encased in the box of ice for 61 hours, 40 minutes, and 15 seconds before being removed.

3) Blaine had a crane lift him onto a 90 ft (27 m) high and 22 in (56 cm) wide pillar.[citation needed] He remained on the pillar for exactly 34 hours and 23 minutes without food, water or anything to lean on.

4) A 44-day endurance stunt sealed inside a transparent Plexiglas case suspended 30 feet (9 m) in the air over Potters Fields Park on the south bank of the River Thames in London.

5) Blaine was submerged in an 2.4 metres (8 feet) diameter, water-filled sphere (isotonic saline, 0.9% salt) in front of the Lincoln Center in New York for a planned seven days and seven nights, using tubes for air and nutrition. He concluded this event by attempting to hold his breath underwater to break the world record of 8 minutes, 58 seconds.

Now, its hardly going to be asking much for someone to stay under water for 7 days and 7 nights with air and food, hell, i’d do it if you paid me. Sitting in a box where you can breathe and live! Being frozen in ice, well that would be painful but I dont there would be many people who couldn’t do it. All these so called stunts have required him to do nothing whilst being in certain situations that really aren’t very risky.

Hardly a cause for the amount of fame he has.

In his latest trick, he got injured, hooray!!

The stunt was to be: “Suspended 50 feet in the air while strapped in shackles and contained inside a giant gyroscope. His goal will be to escape from his shackles. But, only after the gyroscope has been spinning for 16 hours with him inside.”

This is from the Sydney Morning Herald : “After two days twisting and turning in the air, Blaine unhooked himself, jumped and crashed through the stage about half an hour after being given the go-ahead to try to escape.”

What a dickhead.

We were supposed to already have Digital TV by 2006. Now we have to wait till 2012, ANOTHER 6 YEARS before analog tv is shut down which basically means that we wont have channels exploring the medium properly until they can guarantee that everyone is switched onto digital tv (ABC and SBS excepted who already use it).

Now the government is spending 20 million on a campaign to prepare and educate australians on the change to digital.

What a waste, how about you just turn off analog tv and force people to get digital set top boxes or digital tvs. There is no greater incentive to make people do something about it than to take away their tv.

Why does the structure of our Parliament allow for MPs to take portfolios in which they have no experience. Why is Senator Coonan the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.

I have soo many issues with this, firstly she wouldnt know the fuckin first thing about IT so why put someone like that in a position where they are driving that industry. You would think it would be more ideal to have a panel of IT experts that would make decisions on policies that we should try and adopt. Yes I realise that they have advisors however that just means that the Minister is a puppet or that the advisors comments are ignored or twisted to serve the purpose of the government.

Why are Communications and IT grouped together? They require very different knowledge, I know alot about IT, thats the field that I work in, but I know little about communications. Admittedly the two can be intertwined at times however what the hell do the arts have to do with them?

Senator Coonan has launched another defence of the nation’s broadband network after Mr Murdoch labelled services a “disgrace” and called on the Government and Telstra to invest up to $12 billion to improve download speeds.

She said the speeds were not as slow as Mr Murdoch had suggested, with 80 per cent of households able to access speeds of up to 8 megabits per second (mbps) from 19 different providers.

Another 14 providers were offering speeds of up to 24mbps to about 4 million households, the minister said, and Telstra’s roll out of its 3G network would provide speeds of up to 40mbps.

“So we do have fast broadband available and where the problem is is in pushing it out beyond Telstra’s footprint to rural and regional Australia,” Senator Coonan told ABC Radio.

Senator Coonan, you’re wrong! ADSL broadband suppliers CLAIM that the 8mbps connections are available however the reality is quite different. You can only get the full 8mbps if you are close to an exchange with the furthest away only receiving 1.5 mbps THEN there is the fact that instead of packaging the 1.5mbps as the default lowest speed, most providers are selling 256kbps or 512kbps as the entry package ie a third of the speed that people should be gettting. Then there is the fact that it’s not always easy to get your broadband upgraded, any request ends up in weeks of waiting for either the provider or telstra to set it up for you with both blaming the other for the delay.

As for her claims of providers offering speeds up to 24mbps, we applied to iinet recently for 24mbps and were told that there were no ports available despite their website saying their were. After a number of to-ing and fro-ing we just gave up and went with an 8mbps connection.

We live in a broadband backwater!