I'm okay with purchasing my music. I'm okay with the idea of musicians getting paid for their work. In theory, I was okay with iTunes being the venue for my music purchasing.
Of course, I was decidedly unhappy about their DRM copy protection. The music belongs to the artists, not iTunes, so why should they get to say how you use it? You should be able to do with an iTunes song anything you could by ripping the song from the album.
I didn't make too much of a fuss about this, I guess, since I buy CDs from my favorite artists, and only really used iTunes to buy single songs from artists whose CDs I wouldn't be willing to purchase in their entirety. Or, I bought vinyl, and a lot of current artists who release on vinyl include a full album download (from a non-iTunes third party). So all around, pretty decent deal.
I didn't boycott iTunes because of their ridiculous DRM policies, but I wasn't thrilled about it. So I was thrilled when they recently made the switch to DRM-free downloads. The policy change wasn't backwards-compatible, so to speak, but it was a step in the right direction. I was proud of Apple for taking a step outside of their "self-important proprietary software comfort zone".
So imagine my surprise when I go to download the one song I wanted from Eve 6's self-titled album, a discovery I made on my main resource for music, Pandora. The track, Inside Out, is apparently the most popular track on the album. This earned it a heftier price tag - $1.29 for a single song!
What the hell, iTunes?!
Just when we thought we could be proud that Apple was relaxing their arrogant iron fists, they pound us with something even more absurd.
I'm okay with artists being paid for their music. I'm not okay with third-party middle men profiteering on the popularity of items that they don't even own.
I'm not sure what I'm personally going to do about this. I will definitely be Googling* other options for music purchasing, listening, and management software.
As for the music industry and iTunes in particular, I know what I think they should do about this. It's time to take a page from the book of Radiohead and let the artists, and possibly even the customers, set the prices for what really is an arbitrary commodity.
I would prefer to cut out the middle-man, but if you've seen Firefly, you know that most of the world is middle-men, and they don't like being cut out. I'm sure Apple is no exception, though at the moment they remind me more of the Alliance than any of the Firefly crew's backwater contacts.
*Google... there's an example of how to do business. Sure, if Apple is the fearsome, paranoid dictator of the internet, then Google is its Big Brother. But damn if we don't love our transparent, open-source friendly Big Brother.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Equilibrium
Have you ever seen the film "Equilibrium"? If not, go do that now. I can't promise great cinematography or a groundbreaking plot, but it's very thought-provoking and features Christian Bale, who somehow manages to play stoic characters with amazing emotional range.
Which is an absolute necessity for this film, because the majority of the characters are supposed to be emotionless, and a bunch of flat main characters doesn't make for a very interesting movie.
In the film, "they" (the government? society as a whole?) have decided to subdue their emotions using drugs to eliminate hatred, violence, and war - at the cost of love, happiness, and any real meaning to their lives. It's not a new premise by any means, and honestly, if you've read any of the dystopian classics (1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451), the story seems uncannily familiar.
It hadn't occurred to me while reading those books, however, that a society without emotion is likely to be a more violent society than one with. Morality requires emotion. In order for the majority of the populace to condemn murder, violence, and destructive behavior, they have to feel that it is wrong. They have to have some desire for peace, or at least a desire to preserve their own interests.
If there was no jealousy, no betrayed husband would kill his unfaithful wife and her adulterous lover in a furious rage. But the husband who can comprehend and experience jealousy can also experience remorse. And, it usually takes quite a bit to get a person to those extremes in any case.
A husband with no emotion and an unfaithful wife wouldn't care one way or the other with whom else she is double-dealing. At the same time, however, a husband who has no emotion could kill a completely faithful wife without the slightest hesitation or guilt.
Emotion moderates human behavior. The prospect of guilt or the fear of punishment are the last lines of defense against unsavory behavior, but before those there is a desire for peace, a love for one's close friends and relatives, a need to be respected by one's peers.
In a society where no one has emotion but everyone has some unmotivated pursuit, I would expect a lot more violence than in the emotion-driven world we actually inhabit. The violence would not be malicious, but neither would it be absent.
Which is an absolute necessity for this film, because the majority of the characters are supposed to be emotionless, and a bunch of flat main characters doesn't make for a very interesting movie.In the film, "they" (the government? society as a whole?) have decided to subdue their emotions using drugs to eliminate hatred, violence, and war - at the cost of love, happiness, and any real meaning to their lives. It's not a new premise by any means, and honestly, if you've read any of the dystopian classics (1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451), the story seems uncannily familiar.
It hadn't occurred to me while reading those books, however, that a society without emotion is likely to be a more violent society than one with. Morality requires emotion. In order for the majority of the populace to condemn murder, violence, and destructive behavior, they have to feel that it is wrong. They have to have some desire for peace, or at least a desire to preserve their own interests.
If there was no jealousy, no betrayed husband would kill his unfaithful wife and her adulterous lover in a furious rage. But the husband who can comprehend and experience jealousy can also experience remorse. And, it usually takes quite a bit to get a person to those extremes in any case.
A husband with no emotion and an unfaithful wife wouldn't care one way or the other with whom else she is double-dealing. At the same time, however, a husband who has no emotion could kill a completely faithful wife without the slightest hesitation or guilt.
Emotion moderates human behavior. The prospect of guilt or the fear of punishment are the last lines of defense against unsavory behavior, but before those there is a desire for peace, a love for one's close friends and relatives, a need to be respected by one's peers.
In a society where no one has emotion but everyone has some unmotivated pursuit, I would expect a lot more violence than in the emotion-driven world we actually inhabit. The violence would not be malicious, but neither would it be absent.
Adrenalin Philosophy
So, the name of this blog...
You know when you're in an intense situation, your heart is racing, and you think "yeah, this'd be a good idea."
This is sort of like that.
You know when you're in an intense situation, your heart is racing, and you think "yeah, this'd be a good idea."
This is sort of like that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)