A Strange Addition

I'm sorry that I'm not doing a written article, I've been doing these instead. Back to normal next time. Enjoy!

The Kid: Car Insurance

As you may or may not have noticed (to be honest, I don't care either way, except that I'll kill your children and eat your pet hamster if you didn't notice) I turned 17 this week. I've had my provisional driving license for a month, ready for last Tuesday when I'd finally be able to put it into practice. I got some L-plates for my birthday, and have been promised lessons by various relatives (Dad's probably the best bet, he can actually reverse park).

And then the problem arose.

The car that I was intending to use to learn how to drive is my mother's Ford Fiesta, circa 2003. It's not exactly an Enzo, let's put it that way. The amount required to get insurance to learn to drive said car? About £4,000. £4,000. Seriously.

Pictured: The car I wish I was learning to drive.

Now, the average 17-year-old is either in college, working part-time, or has a job at entry level or an apprenticeship. I don't think that they have £4,000 just lying around to pay for insurance just to learn how to drive (David Cameron probably did when he was this age, but anyway). That is, of course, on top of the cost of the car, road tax, fuel, fuel duty, and the myriad other charges levied on every other driver in the land. Even a provisional license costs £50 that I don't have, and had to ask for as a birthday present. (On top of the aforementioned L-plates. I had to sacrifice Mass Effect 2. You have no idea of the anguish that that caused me.)

Now, I understand that the insurance companies need to make money. They wouldn't exist otherwise. They do, however, have something of a captive audience, in that it is illegal to drive anything without insurance.

Can they not give learners a break though? Of course we are logically quite likely to have an accident (as in a car crash, not what you were thinking). But then, are we not the most careful, the most tentative, the most cautious drivers, simply because we have to concentrate so hard on the road? It's because young drivers, particularly teenage boys, break the law so often in cars, is what the statisticians will tell you. Idiot boy racers ruining it for everybody. Except...

The majority of lads I know wouldn't bother trying to do handbrake turns or be first off the mark at the traffic lights. We don't have the cars to do it, and are conscientious enough to know that we have to pay for any damage. The Insurance companies will say that we need a no-claims bonus, to prove that we are good drivers. Yep, we have to pay through the nose for the privilege of proving that we shouldn't have to pay so much. That makes perfect sense.

My more conspiratorial side, however, suspects something more sinister is afoot here. Everybody is quick to point the finger at the corporations being the obvious bad guys again. But what if there is something deeper going on, something with a little more meaning. Tinfoil hat time, people.

The penalty for driving without insurance does not come from the insurance company. The real penalty is not in what you have to pay to have your own car fixed, or that of the other party. No, the real penalty is the maximum £5,000 fine that can be levied on you just for driving without insurance, as well as anything between 3-8 points on your license.

Let's put that into perspective. The fine is the same as Drink Driving, (although you don't have to go to jail for driving without insurance), twice that of Driving Without Due Care, and five times the amount for driving without a license.

Hmmm, so I pay £4,000 for learner's insurance, or risk a £5,000 fine. The choice seems pretty obvious, little more than basic maths. But why is the fine for driving without insurance so high? It's like fining people for not having a bank account (Watch this space) . Even after learning, the premiums drop to an altogether more manageable £1,500 per annum.

Are the government up to something here? Obviously they rake in a couple of billion a year through taxing insurance companies, but why go so hard on young drivers? Surely they want us to grow up, drive safely, and pay our car tax, fuel duty, road tax, MOT, and all the rest of it.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that they are playing a long, green game(no, not golf). By making it so hard financially to learn to drive, at the same time as introducing University fees, they must be trying to stop people learning to drive. It makes sense. They can charge quite a bit for public transport, and appease the green lobby at the same time. They continue making money off of people who continue to drive, while the NHS gets a bit of relief from the lack of road traffic incidents. Surely though, they are better going after public drunkenness than kids wanting to get behind the wheel? (That might have to wait for next month, though).

It's just a bit crap for the victims of such a system. Ah well, looks like I'll have to not bother with the Enzo. Pity.

Crime Is Cheap, In Fact It's Free

The 'noughties' (forgive me) have brought on massive technical advancements. Who can forget the first adverts from '3 Mobile' bragging about their cellular phone video calls and the first time you could actually download sound and video at a reasonable speed? Dial-up to Broadband, fax to email, Linda to Heather Mills; it's been a crazy decade. And of course, like everything, we the people were not allowed to have our way with these advancements, oh no, as the governments of the world decided to get their grubby hands all over the new tech. Why? Because billions of dollars was at risk in one industry. Would you like to hazard a guess?

It's these fellas. The music industry in the US alone was worth $15bn in 1999, which is an absolutely gigantic amount in anyone's terms. Everything was coming up peaches, and the corporations were raking it in. Then, out of nowhere, revenue fell. Not by a little: takings from the US were only £10.5bn in 2008. How did this happen, you ask? How can one of the biggest consumer industries in the world just lose 30% of its money?

Because Napster came along.

In June 1999, things went wrong (for the businesses, at least). People could now get free music whenever they wanted, as long as they had an internet connection (which would pay for itself after a few downloads). Napster was the first massive file-sharing website that allowed people to give away their tunes. Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker were two American university students who dreamt of a world where you could have what you want, when you want it. They decided to do their bit by creating a piece of software that allowed you to put any data you wanted onto a server and have it downloaded by anyone, anywhere in the world. And of course, things went a bit crazy.

Millions of people used the service to get the latest music albums and those with a fast enough connection the latest films, and before they knew it music corporations were being bled to death by computers. Napster had twenty-seven million users at its peak, making it one of the most popular websites in the world. However, with all this traffic, comes attention.

American band 'Metallica' had their song 'I Disappear' leaked onto Napster a few days before its commercial release, leading to them filing a lawsuit against the service. Dr. Dre saw one of his songs on Napster, and filed a lawsuit as well as delivering the names of users who had downloaded his single to the Ninth Circuit Court. A&M Records also sued Napster, claiming it had infringed copyright. Notice anything about all of these cases? They all involve money. The artists didn't speak a lot about the tracks being leaked: it was more the record labels, i.e. the money spinners. But whoever it was, Napster was shut down and only saw the light of day again after a bailout from a German company following a $26m fee.

And that was the end of Napster as we knew it. But this wasn't the end. People liked what Napster did, and wanted more. £0.79 for one song? Are they joking? £7.99 a dozen? For some people that's disposable income for a whole week. So people sought out different ways to download their music, and huzzah, Limewire, Kazaa, Filetopia and others popped up to help people trod along and search for their free entertainment. But nothing was quite as big as The Pirate Bay.

The Pirate Bay was new. Big. Cocky. Swedish. It was basically an index of the internet. And it was all free. Music, films, applications, books, TV shows, all there. It was more than just a breakthrough: it was a whole new society. And it hated the corporations.

The Pirate Bay showed available torrents (files used to tell your computer what data to download and from where) from all over the world to get you free stuff. And oh my, people lapped it up. To make a long story short, TPB was epic beyond belief and everyone loved it. Well, of course, not everyone, which is why in 2008 the International Fedaration of the Phonographic Industry tried to shut it down. Now of course, the IFPI is a government organisation, so this was purely down to them breaking the law. Don't bring up the fact that the IFPI's American branch is the RIAA, which represents 90% of all music sales in America. I'll just let you think for a minute.

Okay. Now, if you watched the news or went on the internet at all in 2008 or early 2009, you'll know that it was a very long, drawn out case and it ended up in the owners having to pay the absolutely humongous sum of $13m! Which is about 0.05% of music revenue worldwide... anyway! The IFPI got excited, and started demanding that TPB be blocked by internet service providers, with which the cooperative chaps replied "no". So things once again went crazy, and 'Pirates' as they are affectionately known around the world started rebelling, epitomised in the cleverest cartoon I've ever read, posted on The Pirate Bay during the trial:

(click here for a bigger version)

So, after it all calmed down The Pirate Bay kept running and people kept downloading music, and the corporations stuck there thumbs up their arses and carried on whistling. The convicted had their fines reduced to $3m: the labels had been done. People had had enough: no more monopoly! No more shitty number ones! No more paying for music! It had all happened so fast, and we are yet to see just what else the record labels will pull out of their hats. Coin operated speakers? iPods with a credit card slot? Who knows, but eventually one of two things will happen: one music label will gain a massive monopoly and control the whole industry, or people will act again and see free music be free to be free. Yes. Thank you for reading.

The Kid: Music Today

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old coot, music has really lost it's edge. I think it's because songs aren't really about anything anymore, or are just about love, leaving little or no variety in terms of what people are actually singing about.

In the past year, what have the most successful songs been about? Let's have a look...

According to itunes, the top 10 best selling singles of 2009 were as follows:

1. "I Gotta Feeling," Black Eyed Peas
2. "Poker Face," Lady Gaga
3. "Just Dance," Colby O'Donis / Lady GaGa
4. "Boom Boom Pow," Black Eyed Peas
5. "Fight For This Love," Cheryl Cole
6. "In For The Kill," La Roux
7. "Number 1," Tinchy Stryder
8. "Bad Boys (feat. Flo Rida)," Alexandra Burke
9. "The Fear," Lily Allen
10. "Use Somebody," Kings Of Leon

I'll give credit where credit's due with this one... "I Gotta Feeling" and "Just Dance" are both about partying, as far as I can make out, and "Boom Boom Pow" doesn't appear to actually be about anything.

This only leaves Lily Allen's "The Fear" that is actually about something, the curse of celebrity. Something that the public knows a lot about and can relate to. OK, so it goes slightly deeper than that, about the changing aspirations of girls in Britain in the past decade or so, and our obsession with getting famous at any cost. But it is just one song out of ten, on that list.

Other songs last year seem to have focused mainly on the areas of:

• women looking nice dancing in clubs,
• women being attracted to men dancing in clubs,
• being on fire

OK, so Kasabian did quite alright with "Fire" and, other than Snow Patrol's "Up to Now album", it was the only song I have bought that was made in 2009. Of course, I am a bit retro in terms of music, but even I liked The Arctic Monkeys at the height of their powers, and fell in love with The Kaiser Chiefs and their Jam-reminiscent style. Undoubtedly there were some good tunes from artists I haven't heard on the radio, and I'd be the first to admit I'm not that big on any particular music scene at the moment.

This leaves us with the question of why. Why are pop musicians, the voices of the younger generations, singing about such mindless crap? Go back forty years, and the Beatles, the Who, the Kinks and the Stones were singing about political revolution (er, "Revolution") and social struggles (a special nod here to "Shangri-La" and "Won't get Fooled Again"), changing the world. Go forwards ten years, and we get punk rock, with the Sex Pistols advocating anarchism, and The Clash calling for political upheaval. The Jam did some damn fine work in the late 70s/early 80s with "That's Entertainment," "Going Underground" and "Town Called Malice." Morrissey was so successful because he combined good music with lyrics that actually meant something, rather than just the usual twaddle about how good it is to get drunk. In the Nineties, Britpop made a few social statements as well, notably "Cigarettes and Alcohol," "Parklife," and eventually "Bittersweet Symphony" in 1997. Even as much as two years ago, the Kaiser Chiefs sang that "Everything is Average Nowadays," and a few years before, The Arctic Monkeys looked at everyday life and gave us the likes of "Brianstorm." Even Razorlight chipped in with "America".

My main point, however, is this: do we, as a generation, simply not care about the world around us anymore? Or is life so good, the government doing such a good job, that we don't want to change anything? Let's just hope that this generation gets its act together pretty soon.

The Famous Peter Will Buy Any Car

First of all, sorry about the lack of posts, it's exam season. We'll be back to normal by February at the latest.

It's advert season. The time of year when we've got a bit of cash in hand from Christmas presents, and in between the big department stores shoving their January sales up your nostril a few gems come through to get you to spend your (not) hard-earned money.

First of all, here is Guinness's big budget effort, showing a bunch of farmers prancing around a grey planet proving there is no God.

I prefer the drink itself... I don't think Arthur Guinness had this in mind when he created a dark ale in his little Irish shed, but nevertheless it rakes in the awards and makes the odd pub-goer for once proclaim: "Actually love, I'll 'ave a Guinness", which is alright with me.

A beautiful piece of art that whilst not measuring up to their 'Horse Surfers' ad of 1999 (which is wrongly regarded as the best advert of all time) still shows that the advertising industry can still boom and wow the public even in a recession as deep as this one. Why? Because in a recession there are two choices:

1. Get the drinks in
2. Sell your stuff

And as I try to keep this a neutral website, here is the ad industry's contribution to aiding number two.

Yes! Now, you can sell your car to people having seizures! From £50 to £100,000! Isn't it delightful? See how he made a cheeky joke about how boring silly newsreaders are and burst into dance so it appeals to the kids? N'aawh! And look at the dancing! Epilepsy looks great. Do you reckon it was all spontaneous and he was actually expecting to do a proper report? It looked like it. Oh, I've been fooled!

Enough of that. The retards at WeBuyAnyCar.com (if you hadn't guessed the name) have concocted the most brain-dead vomit on television since Kerry Katona. From 0:05-0:09 he genuinely looks like he's having a fit, which is probably why his speech didn't match his lips. Now, I could go on for pages about every aspect of the stupidity of the 41 seconds you'll never get back (not to mention the final dance move that made Michael Jackson spin at 1000rpm in his grave), but first I'm going to ask the question that really should have come up in the director's meeting before the abomination was put out: who does this appeal to? Let's do a checklist.

Teenagers (17-21)

Most likely they'll just talk about it on facebook, with excessive use of the word 'wanker', 'tosser', and 'car'. The sad thing is that this could be regarded as a commercial success, as "any publicity is good publicity", said the Priest to Gary Glitter.

Young Adults (22-29)

These people will just hang their heads in shame and thank the lord they aren't anything to do with WeBuyAnyCar.com, and if they know anybody who is they'll instantly disown them whilst trashing their car, driving license and draining their bank account. Probably.

Adults (30-55)

Some of these will fall for it. If it makes them laugh, they'll look into it: their best years are behind them and they'll do anything anybody under 30 tells them to do if it's hip and cool. Which this advert isn't, but they think it is.

Pensioners (55+)

Pensioners will shout at the telly for being too loud and demand to OFCOM that the 'newsreader' be given an ASBO.

Well, that was exhausting. Notice that I've missed anything? You should. I've not mentioned the actual purpose of the advert. You can make preposterous adverts that are a success (Compare The Market did it fantastically), but when you cross the line it's indicated by people talking exclusively about the idiots on the advert and not actually what it's advertising. The 'Meerkat' campaign increased site traffic to CompareTheMarket.com by 80% despite being completely stupid, so who can fault it?

All in all, television is even dumbing down in between actual television. The fad of just getting people talking and being vaguely memorable instead of actually getting a product sold has taken hold and isn't leaving any time soon. I'm off to the pub.

Thank you for reading, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and New Year.