Rum Doings Episode 73: Sweet, Creamy And Uncommonly Good
by John Walker on Jun.03, 2011, under Rum Doings, The Rest
With Nick on holiday, and John in the throes of E3, it’s a good job we pre-recorded Episode 73 of Rum Doings. This week we don’t discuss… we forget! Until ages in!
We get too excited by potentially gloopy liquid. And then with a sense of topicality you can only hope for from us, we discuss the distinct lack of a rapture. Special guest Judge Martin “Coxcombe” Coxall is inspired to start a new religion. Via a brief chat about cats, we then ponder copyright, publishing and piracy.
Oh, the topic! Is the NHS just a fairytale that won’t have a happy ending? And are there ladytits at E3? Which brands of mental allow you a blue badge? And then we’re very sensitive about DID. And Operation. Oh, and here’s that kitten tray:
Please consider writing a review on iTunes. It’s a really good way of raising our profile. And keep on tweeting and so forth.
Make sure to follow us on Twitter @rumdoings. If you want to email us, you can do that here. If you want to be a “fan” of ours on Facebook, which apparently people still do, you can do that here.
To get this episode directly, right click and save here. To subscribe to Rum Doings click here, or you can find it in iTunes here.
Or you can listen to it right here!
[audio: http://rumdoings.jellycast.com/files/audio/rumdoings_e73.mp3]
June 4th, 2011 on 05:46
What an odd start to this one. Nice conversation.
I adore you, John, I’m just ambivalent about religion-on-religion disagreements. I certainly prefer tolerant, loving religion like yours to Camping’s but I don’t like that the inspiration for either type is mutable. I’d prefer we all took skepticism further and lost the irrational bits of faith that are such a source of quarrel. Then such fluffy disagreements wouldn’t occur, age-old wars would lessen in severity and people would be more allergic to all manner of cons (TV stock brokers, mediums, chiropractors, etc).
This was a strangely agreeable podcast (especially the talk of piracy and such). The only other comments I have are tangential and related to iTunes and Spotify: Google Music is in beta over here and I like it. You just upload songs and can then stream them from any net-enabled PC or Android device. This works just like Amazon’s Cloud Player except that Google isn’t selling music yet; if you buy an Amazon MP3 then you can store and play it from their Cloud Player without adding to your storage quota (nice incentive, that). Apple is rumored to be producing a similar service…
Oh! Also, I would only go to Cuba on a humanitarian sort of volunteer adventure. It seems to be a not-very-nice place, especially compared to nearby areas…
June 4th, 2011 on 16:31
I’m not quite sure what’s happening to Martin. On his first Rum Doings podcast I found him to be very annoying, last weeks one he was fine and this week he was actually quite nice to listen to. If we (theoretically) extrapolate this, he’ll be more awesome than John and Nick combined. And what a fabulous cat impression!
That said, could you please change your laugh Martin as it is almost the same as John’s. I’d suggest a witch like cackle.
June 5th, 2011 on 00:36
Don’t worry, Nick, Canadians tend to forget that Manitoba is part of the country, too. We get reminded when massive flooding or unprofitable American NHL franchises show up unexpectedly, but that’s about it.
June 5th, 2011 on 15:58
The spanish v, while more like a b than in John’s pronunciation, is more like a v than Nick thinks.
And it changes from region to region: my grandad is from Tenerife and pronounces the v in his surname as a v, with no b-ness to it at all. So for all I know one should really pronounce “Havana” as Haxhthxcrhthana.
Cuba seems to be doing remarkably well, considering the economic embargo and the communism.
June 6th, 2011 on 18:21
I’m broadly supportive of Nick’s notions on copyright, but some things make me feel moderately uneasy, as I suppose an idea which overthrows the current status quo might. I do believe that someone who creates something has the right to decide what happens to it, whether that be never being released, or being sold for ludicrous money, even if it hurts his or her interest. I appreciate that in practice the person who gets the money are the middlemen, but I still think this principle isn’t a bad one, and is surely what copyright is there to protect (says the unknowledgable layperson).
Also, while it doesn’t make much sense to go to HMV and buy songs, many still do, and the majority of purchases are still made offline. Theres still a lot of money in this outdated mode of commerce, and will be for at least another decade or so, as big companies come up with more inventive ways of milking their cash cows. I’m not convinced theres quite as much money in the pay what you like model- I suspect much of the success there is due to it being a rare event. There is something to be said for not devaluing one’s product. Once consumers are used to getting something for price A, then they are unlikely to accept price B>>A. Now this may be the market adjusting towards sensible prices, but if said prices aren’t actually earning the creators a profit/ enough of a profit then there might be an issue there.
June 7th, 2011 on 08:32
I tried to say hello the day it went up, but the comment didn’t take. Wasn’t sure if it was Nick deleting it because a post that just said “Hello!” was inane, or if it was a weird hiccup on WordPress’s part. It seemed rude to ignore the shout-out, so I’m posting again…
Hi from Mother’s Milk! :)
June 7th, 2011 on 10:29
mister k: Recent propaganda has retconned copyright as some sort of inherent right of creators. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was conceived as a bargain/bet for the benefit of culture at large. The populace would temporarily sacrifice it’s
INHERENT right to share with the promise of a better cultural crop soon after. It was *never* initially meant to be some sort of God-given “protection” of “creators”. Indeed, when the Stationers’ Guild tried to argue this in the 17th century, they were angrily rebuffed by the law lords, particularly Lord Camden.
Please read my paper at http://ip.cream.org for a detailed analysis of the real seedy origins of “IP”.
June 7th, 2011 on 16:27
I think many people don’t realise is that we have a list on what we most likely to buy and what we aren’t for example games and music are at the top of my list and TV and Books are at the bottom. So I make a choice whether to get either. But with the internet I don’t have to make that choice. I can have it all, I will pay for the stuff at the top of my list but will get it eventually at the bottom of it.
I do think that’s the underlying problem with piracy not that you don’t pay for things because not everyone pays for everything but you can get in the habit of paying for other things but still getting some things you like for free.
June 7th, 2011 on 16:34
Just to further what I was saying, in a pay what you want economy I can see people either giving some money to everything but not enough for it to keep going so they can buy everything that they might like. Getting 1 or 2 things they like for full price but not buying the others but still getting them from piracy, or getting nothing but still having it all for free from piracy.
June 7th, 2011 on 22:11
Mm, well I was going to ask you what you feel about the idea of the creator having ultimate control over their work, but I imagine I’ll need to read that paper first! Will do when I find time.
June 8th, 2011 on 09:17
mister k: You beg the question that the creator is not standing on the huge shoulders of a shared culture.
June 9th, 2011 on 22:50
Just in case anyone’s interested, I believe the shop that our intrepid podcasters mentioned is Vom Fass, on Milsom Street. Fancy liqueurs and oils abound.