I've been mouthing off to friends in the last couple of weeks saying that the best thing Kevin Rudd could do right now was to say "stop pissing about, if I'm elected I'll introduce four year fixed terms. So although I can't tell you when this election will be, I can tell you that the next election will be the last Saturday of November 2011".

Well, he's done it. Sort of.

I wasn't aware of the constitutional issues requiring a referendum on the issue, meaning we wouldn't see the first fixed election date until 2014. There is also the complication of the Senate and whether they would also swap to four year terms as happened recently in Victoria.

Vote on fixed term pledged [The Age]:

KEVIN RUDD has put his money where his mouth is and promised to hold a referendum calling for the introduction of four-year, fixed terms for federal parliament.

Mr Rudd told the Herald that if Labor was elected this year the referendum would be held at the same time as the subsequent federal election, scheduled for 2010.

Peter Costello is in favour of fixed terms but thinks the public won't agree to it as they want their government to be accountable more often.

I have no problem at all with fixed three year terms.

The major newspapers are making a big deal about the fact the new Kylie single has "leaked" and is spreading around the internet "like wild fire". The articles inevitably go on about piracy.

It's all rubbish of course.

The single was released "to radio" for tomorrow. Therefore thousands of promo discs have been sent to radio stations. Presumably that's how it ended up on the net. The "releasing to the net" is the "leak" but it's a trivial extra step in the distribution process already started by the record company. There was nothing but some vague morality (and presumably some kind of contact) preventing those radio stations playing the track now. At which time it would have been taped and ended up on the net (as an "FM rip") tomorrow anyway.

The real question is why release a single to radio weeks before it's possible to buy it? There are no technical reasons they couldn't have make the single available for digital sale tomorrow, at the same time as the radio release. None. They could have released it now, before radio.

But instead the digital release was to have been in November, a few days before the physical release on CD.

Why? They must have known it would leak. It looks like nothing more than deliberately bringing pain on themselves so they can complain about it.

To be fair, we know why they didn't just release the single as a digital download now. This is how it "used to" work:

1. Release song to radio
2. Excitement builds within fandom
3. Excitement is quantified and the number of singles worth pressing is determined and pressed
4. Music is released for purchase
5. All that pent up excitement = huge sales
6. Song hits the top of the singles charts

That's why they hoped to delay the sale. If they released it for sale now the sales would be spread over multiple weeks instead of all splurged in one go.

Further, in the digital sales world, step three is no longer necessary.

Perhaps this has done nothing but shone a massive spotlight on the real issue with how record companies still hope to market their artists.

Charts.

And the solid link between radio stations as the promoters of record company product.

Think of how many sales they would have received if they'd have released the track on iTunes and no-where else, forcing fans to buy it to hear it.

Think of the outrage! Not from fans, but from radio stations...