My Rating: 0.5 out of 5 Magnum, PIs

Perhaps something stands out about Borne's latest release, Loss of Signal: it is by far and without a doubt the most boring, unoriginal CD I've heard in the last year or two. It's the first CD I've tried listening to where I couldn't make it through an entire song. It's the first CD I've received from Rosemary Simon, the best employee at Cornerstone Promotion, that made my wife, Sarah, say, "What is this? It's really bad." She even said, "Wow, they are SO ripping off Coldplay." I don't listen to Coldplay, nor have I ever liked their music, so I couldn't knowledgeably (sp?) agree. Nevertheless, sometimes there's something to be said for the "worst of the worst," but this CD doesn't have any sort of redeeming value to it other than the fact that it was decently recorded.

Usually, "worst of the worst"-style products have some sort of kitchiness or novelty. This one doesn't. It's just boring. The songs are drab and cliché. As I was listening, I was thinking, "How did this get past quality control? I can't believe people buy this stuff." It is surprising that the album wasn't released by one of the RIAA companies.

Yes, it's that bad. I so disliked it that I had to add a 0.5 Magnum P.I. rating to my rating scale in my stylesheet. I never thought I'd review a product that would require such low marks.

I'm trying to listen to music from their fancy music player (which doesn't even play full songs) and I can barely make it through the first clip. I don't know what it is, but it's just irritating music.

Blech. Jeez, even look at that guy (presumably the singer) at the front of their photo. Even that's obnoxious to me. And do we really need that guy on the right to be sitting like... that?

Rarely do I think this, especially because it's so pretentious and music-snobby, but I just want to say to these guys, "You wasted your time and money. Stop and go home."

As if I don't have enough going on in my life right now, I've decided to start an online magazine that'll be hosted at my other domain zoombaby.net. Since it's a domain I use primarily for freelance development and demos, I thought I might put it to use. We've owned it for a couple years now, it seems and I finally want to put it to real use.

See, the difference between this magazine and a site like Prefix Magazine is that Zoombaby will be an actual magazine that you can print out if you like. It will also be navigable like a real magazine. For instance, it'll have page numbers and a relatively small number of hyperlinks. And you'll have to flip through pages--don't worry, there won't be any annoying flash. And there will issues with content that doesn't change! How un-bloggy!

My friend, Mark Miller, and I are the editors-in-chief. We've proposed four sections of the magazine:

1. Featurettes
   • You can think of this as "Featured Stories"
2. Opinions/Editorials
3. Reviews
   • We've got movie reviews, book reviews, theater reviews, and music reviews
4. Arts
   • Featured art contributed by artists. We'll have poetry, photo essays, paintings, etc.

I'm really looking forward to it. For the first issue, we've got 15 or 16 content contributors. Even better, I won't be writing for the first issue. I'm going to work explicitly on the design/layout of the magazine. It's also going to be built upon the content management system I've written (that this site is being served on). It should be fun!

As always, I'll keep you updated.

These last few weeks, I've been burning out.

I've had too much work to do, and I've imposed too many demands upon myself. If you're a friend of mine, you've probably found that I've been fairly out of touch. Well, it comes down to the fact that I've been too fearful of our financial situation (me, Sarah, and the baby depending solely on my income) and I've become a slave to worry, grief, and work. This is not the way we were meant to live.

Last night, Sarah and I had a long talk with our good friends, Adam and Gretchen. Couple that with the sermons I've listened to in the last few weeks, I've learned quite a few things about where I am spiritually and what's wrong with it:

• I have laid down my Kingdom of God perspective and taken up a worldly perspective of discontent,
• I have become a slave to work and money instead of hope and righteousness,
• I am addicted to work,
• Regardless of my decisions, God does not want me to live a life filled with regret,
• I am judgmental,
• I am addicted to noise,
• In ten years, I won't remember the things that are upsetting me now,
• and God is not about the American Dream.

We really don't need to worry about our lives and that is almost ridiculously simple to say. His yoke is easy and His burden is light. That means that God will provide. That means I am not the one responsible for making the money. That means I need to be faithful and righteous and my worries should disappear. The things I've been struggling with must be so disappointing to God. It's so easy to focus on the splinter in my finger when the rest of my body is entirely healthy.

Whether I worry or not, my life won't be any different, but my quality of life will. And the worry in my life has been SO burdensome. And the way I've been living is so contrary to what is good for me. It's been so horrible. But, last night, I felt refreshed and freed in a way that I haven't felt since I was "saved" a few years ago. The things listed above are things I've known for years, but I haven't had the will to actually change. I've allowed the pressures of society to take me down and I didn't take action against them.

If there's ever a time for change, right now is the time. It's almost Easter and there is power and significance in this upcoming weekend. Tomorrow, we celebrate that Christ died for us on the cross for our freedom. I need to remember these things and take action. Christianity is not just about knowledge, it's about doing. It is time to take action and do. If you are a friend of mine and a brother/sister of mine in Christ, send me an e-mail and keep me accountable. I am asking you to do this. Even if I send a crabby response, please persist. The most challenging person in my life has been my friend John because he's been telling me to take a sabbath and to not work on those days. He's also been telling me not to be productive on those days. That means I can't record music, work on the yard, or do anything that will make me feel productive. It's a tough challenge.

Ohhhhh, THAT'S how it works!

Is "copyright infringement" the same thing as "stealing"? Maybe not. But, when you're talking about "copyright infringement" or "copyright infraction" of digital music files attained through illegitimate channels and/or against the will of the company/person responsible for distributing the music, then you are stealing.

I love how people can come up with all of these relativistic excuses to justify their actions when it comes to "stealing" music. As someone left in a comment on my post about the RIAA visiting ASU yesterday:

He's right, though. It is "not technically stealing." But, does that make it right? Does that make it justifiable? Does that make it legal? Absolutely not.

Just because YOU don't want to spend money on a CD from the RIAA because the artist receives "very small amounts" of your payment doesn't mean you should take the music via illegitimate means. Also, you're wrong about it hurting "no one but the very RIAA we hate." Here's the deal: the artist signed a contract with a record company wherein that artist conceded the right to ownership of the distribution methods of the artist's music. No one FORCED the artist to sign that contract; the artist signed the contract and it was that artist's decision to do so, thereby accepting the terms of the contract.

Furthermore, just because the artist receives so little of your CD purchase price doesn't mean that the artist hasn't received a decent sum of money in the first place. Here's where your small-change argument falls apart: generally the artist receives an "advance" to record an album, which is a lump sum of money, or payment, to the artist before the product is released. Furthermore, when an artist goes on tour, the record company generally pays for that tour, giving the artist a "per diem," which is a set amount of money paid to the artist per day to use however the artist wishes and to keep forevermore. Furthermore, the record company pays for all the other expenses, including the tour bus, the gas to move the tour bus, the bus driver, the trucks necessary to move the artist's gear around the country, etc. And do you know who pays to market the album and the tour itself? The record company! So, just because the artist receives pennies on the dollar for every CD sold doesn't mean that you're not supporting the artist.

So, if you don't buy a CD and you steal it instead, are you hurting the artist or the record company? The answer is: both. You are hurting the record company because you are taking a product that you are not entitled to have and thus "stealing" a sale from them. You are hurting the artist because the artist's livelihood depends on sales of his product. Even if an artist is hugely popular, if his sales suck, the record company won't sign him to release another album (unless a tour is wildly successful). And who's fault is that? If you ran a company that depended upon the sales of a product by someone else and that person's sales didn't live up to your business expectations, what would you do?

If you don't like the RIAA, don't buy their music and don't listen to the music they release. The artist signed with the RIAA and made a pact with "the devil" to release their music through RIAA channels. If you don't like the RIAA, then don't support their artists. The artists have a choice, too, with whom they sign contracts.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but the record companies that make up the RIAA aren't total idiots and they aren't all bad. Their business strategy is bad! The way they are treating customers is bad! But, the reason they do it is because the formerly-loyal customer has turned her back on the companies. Do I think "education through litigation" is wrong? Of course!! But, do they have the right to protect their property? Yes they do. Does the RIAA need to find a way to survive in light of music piracy? Of course! But, people also need to be educated that stealing music (as opposed to stealing a physical CD from a store) is wrong.

I want you people who don't think downloading music illegitimately is illegal to listen to this:

You are not entitled to free music!

There is no birthright to free music. I don't know where you ever got the idea that it's okay to get music without paying for it (when it is the wish of the artist/record company to sell that music and not give it away for free). We live in a capitalistic society (if you don't like it, you don't have to live here) where people choose to release a product in order to make a profit. And artist can also choose to release her product for free, if she has retained sole ownership of that product throughout the duration of its life. It's called the free market and it's a beautiful thing. In this free market, there is an exchange of goods and services for other goods and services. If you cut out one side of the equation, you are violating the terms agreed upon when you entered the free market and, thus, are breaking the verbal contract you've established with the proprietor. In our country, if you don't pay for something that's supposed to be paid for, it's called "breaking the law." Now, if a musician like me decides to release his first two albums for free, which I have, and I release a third album and I want to make money off of that album, I'm going to get upset if someone steals, duplicates, or illegitimately releases the album to people who could be paying me for it. You can distribute my first two albums as much as you possibly can, but don't do it to my third album unless I give you permission. I am allowed to make these decisions because I OWN THE WORK and I CHOSE TO RELEASE IT THIS WAY. If I had signed a deal with a record company, I would have chosen to forfeit those rights and allow the record company make the decision for me, unless we agreed upon different terms and conditions within said contract.

There are some artists who don't mind their music being downloaded, and that's great. I praise them for their willingness to spread the goodness of their art. But, typically, those artists have not signed deals with the record companies that are in the RIAA. Therefore, you DO NOT have the permission to "infringe the copyright" by downloading that music. Just because you can download their music doesn't mean there won't be repercussions.

To people who think "sharing means caring," you're immature, you don't have a basic understanding of economics, and you aren't living in the real world.

I won't even go into the logical fallacies behind this statement. If you can't see the problems with this line of thinking, please take a long time to think about if you were the artist or if you owned the record company that released the record that people were stealing. This post is not meant to be demeaning, but rather to be a wake-up call to people that might not have an understanding of economics and what it takes to maintain a civil and healthy society.

A few days ago, I received an e-mail from ASU about the RIAA coming to campus to give a talk about copyright and the state of the music industry as part of ASU's Security Awareness Week. I went this morning, and it was fairly interesting. The guy, whose name I didn't really catch, is the Senior Vice President of Technology for the RIAA... I believe it was David something. [Correction: the guy's name is David Hughes.] Anyway, his schpiel (sp?) was noteworthy. He made some good points and he made some really ridiculous points.

I got there about 10-15 minutes early and there were 2 guys running the video/audio recording equipment and two other guys waiting for the event to start. One guy was wearing an Invisible Children shirt. It turns out he's the president of the Young Democrats club, or something to that effect. The turnout was looking quite bleak until the event was just about to start. Students started coming in, slowly, but surely. About 20 minutes into the event, the room was about 3/4 full.

David, if that is his real name, started talking about the history of the music industry, the way things work with record companies, etc. It was a fairly decent background and he was quite casual, even throwing out a few profanities, possibly to look "cool" and "laid back." He went on about how record companies need money to do "research and development," and that they're essentially "venture capitalists" who will sign somewhere around 20 new artists per season, lose money on 17 of them, break even on 2, and make a lot of money on 1. It's that 1 artist, the Britneys and Jessicas, that make a ton of guaranteed money that allows the record company to sign less successful artists. He mentioned that many of these artists end up making a ton of money off the record company with big advances and poor sales, something I questioned him about regarding recouping costs. He also mentioned that he estimates 50% of college students actively steal music, to which he got some pointed retaliatory remarks, and said that he had some studies to back his point up. Basically, he wanted to tell us that we [college students] used to be the recording industry's best customer and now we're the worst enemy. I guess that's what happens when you suddenly lose your monopoly in an industry.

Shortly thereafter, excitement was thrust upon us when...

Four people, likely students, walked into the back of the room, all holding cardboard signs. One sign had a scythe attached and said, "Don't fear the RIAAper." Another guy had no pants on and had a sign that said, "The RIAA sued the pants off me." Another girl had a sign that said, "Download like it's 1999." And the last girl had some spare change in her hand that was to go to "Metallica's retirement fund." It was quite funny and David reacted fairly well, laughing loudly and wishing he had his camera. After they had a brief debate, none of which was captured by a microphone, David essentially kicked them out and had some (defensible and understandably) snide remarks for them. As they were walking out, they said, "Some people still believe that sharing means caring.'"

After David had started speaking again, it was apparent that the audience, most of which were students, were growing antsy and needed to get their anti-RIAA questions off their backs. Few people asked particularly good questions, unfortunately. One guy even mentioned, "I only make enough money to buy one CD per month. What am I supposed to do?" to which I replied, "You're justifying your stealing," and David had a few things to say as well. That sparked the series of mostly-immature, folly-that-comes-with-youth questions including one guy saying, "You keep saying 'stealing' when you should be saying 'copyright infringement.'"

Anyway, the presentation left me feeling irritated because of two things:

David's argument was basically that we should feel sorry for the fact that his business is quickly becoming irrelevant and they don't know how to change. It's expensive to find new artists and they're releasing bad music because they know it'll sell and it's expensive to change a business model. So, instead, they're going to use what he calls "Education through litigation," which disgusted me and other people in the room. Basically, it's our fault that the record companies sell music from Britney Spears and it's our fault that Wal-Mart is the #1 music retailer in the country. We've forced the "lowest common denominator" on ourselves. And if the RIAA can't find new talent because of us, then "that's a shame."

Many people who steal music have an immature perspective about stealing music and don't realize foolish they sound to real adults. The RIAA isn't bad because people want to steal music! The RIAA is bad because they have bad business practices! They sue stroke victims, 10-year-old children, people who don't own computers, and make many lives a living hell. They intimidate people without substantive proof, they bully ISPs and universities to hand over network traffic data, and they don't care about the customer. They treat the customer like she's a thief or criminal. It's implied that nearly everyone college-age is a pirate. At least, that's the way I see it. Like my friend said, you don't go to the gas station and steal gas, even when you hate the oil companies and refineries. Why? Because there's accountability... you're on camera, they'll track you down, etc. But, when it comes down to something like music, it's socially acceptable to steal music. There's definitely a supposed-anonymity and a disconnect of ethics. Also, college students are total moral relativists, as my friend put it, and there's no way the RIAA is going to convince them not to steal.

I was glad about a few things, though. The RIAA is well-aware that they are becoming irrelevant. They are also aware that nobody likes them, but they don't care about that. Someone also brought up the fact that the RIAA was recently voted as being the "worst company in America", to which David responded with some laughs and a quip about how they've been "beating Exxon-Mobil for years" in that arena. Another guy also brought up the fact that the RIAA is losing credibility with its customer base by suing everyone and their grandmother.

Another thing David brought up that was interesting is Steve Jobs' open letter to the music industry about removing DRM from electronic sales of digital media. David brought up a meeting and some e-mail exchanges he's had with Jobs and called Jobs a "hypocrite." When asked if Jobs would be willing to sell Pixar movies through iTunes without DRM and DVDs without CSS encryption, there was no response. When asked about interoperability of downloads from the iTMS, Jobs responded, "Ask me again when we have less than 50% of the market share." He thinks Jobs posted that letter to get the attention off of him and the bad press he'd been getting regarding Norway's tying laws, which I think was a really good point that most of the tech blogs has missed. Jobs knows exactly what he's doing and he's one of the world's most wealthy businesspeople for a reason.

Someone asked about the out of court settlements that they're offering to people who get the DMCA notices in the mail. Apparently, they think it's a very nice way to settle things and doesn't skirt the law by any means. In fact, it can be considered "beneficial" to the John Doe being sued in that if John is trying to get a job with the FBI, a copyright infringment settlement never goes on his record. So, it's actually a "good thing" (my words, not his). Personally, I think it's ridiculous because people can be threatened with a lawsuit by the RIAA without the RIAA having any proof of the person actually stealing. But, whatever... people seem to be settling out of court all the time now.

What the RIAA needs to do is cope with downsizing, realize that some aspects of their industry are going to fail, they no longer have a monopoly, there are better distribution and business models, and work around the fact that "piracy will always exist" (as David put it). His argument is that in the 1980s/1990s, somewhere around 80% of people who had cable were getting it for free through illegal, "illegitimate" channels. That's not how the industry is anymore and the record companies want it the same way. Unfortunately, this is a bad analogy because there are no reasonably-cheap alternatives to getting cable. In my area, we have a choice of going through Cox Cable, Qwest digital cable, or some satellite TV. And they all cost about-the-same. With the music industry, you can release your own music at little to no cost (as I did with my newest album, Within) and the distribution/business model is completely different. If they truly are venture capitalists, then they'd realize that there are other ways to earn money. They're just too comfortable with the monopoly they used to have that they won't use their venture capitalism to try a different model.

David kept going on about "basic economics" when it comes to the prices of CDs and whatnot. Unfortunately, his understanding of "basic economics" stops there. The demand for music has changed and the supply needs to change. They must reform or die. And no one will care if they die because artists will find another way to distribute their music. The RIAA sees their way as the only way to do business. That's the way it's been for the last 50 years and that's the way they want to keep it. Musicians never spoke poorly about the record companies 50 years ago because no one wanted to bite the hand that fed them. Now, the RIAA is unnecessary for success and the world is ushering change. Whether the RIAA will survive or not, we won't know for another 20-30 years, likely. Especially considering the rate at which copyright law changes.

The entire presentation was filmed and will supposedly be released on iTunes U and ASU's security website. There was a microphone going around for people to use if they had questions, but more than half the time, the microphone didn't make it to the student, so I'm sure it'll be hard to hear the questions being asked. Nevertheless, a few other students were recording, including a woman who recorded on her camcorder for Geek Method's podcast. I don't think the official ASU recording picked up the protestors, but I know the Geek Method recording did, so your best bet is to stop there when it's available.

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to interview Paul Stewart, drummer from the acclaimed pop/rock band, The Feeling [official website]. They aren't terribly popular (yet) in the US, but they're huge in the UK. Apparently, they were the #1 band in the UK as far as radio plays. They're very successful and they're newest album, Twelve Stops and Home, their hit UK album which was recently released in the US.

At this point, the camera battery died (of course), so I don't have a transcription of the rest of the interview. We did ask him about the video for Sewn. He told us that it was recorded in a day in some condemned house in London. It was freezing and they recorded the video backwards, which is why they look so strange in the video. Apparently, it was the only interesting idea submitted for the video out of all the ideas they received. We talked a little longer, but didn't want to waste any more of his time.

Special thanks to Karli Stein at Cornerstone Promotion for setting this up (and for her patience with me in getting this interview online sometime this century). Also, obviously, special thanks to Paul for conducting the interview with a couple of amateurs. We had a great time and hope he did, too.

Please see the review I wrote for Four Stops and Home, The Feeling's four-song EP.

FYI, I would give their full-length album, Twelve Stops and Home, 4 out of 5 Magnums. It's really quite good, though some songs are definitely better than others.