the new "rip proof" cd's coming out... [Archive]

Critical1

10-03-2001, 02:09 AM

the cd's will be unplayable on a pc. one option is that you will be able to play them on your pc with a microsoft program. thats right microsoft wants exclusive control over yet another asspect of the computing world.

personally I think windows media player is crap, crap that you need to watch certain types of video, but crap none the less.

when we have a party here the music is all stored on my pc and played with winamp through my stereo. it sounds good, looks good, and does what I want it to. I have close to 2000 songs on my hard drive.
If I download music over the net it's to listen to so I can decide if I want to buy it or not. and example is the Sonics. I grabbed some of their stuff a few weeks ago and picked up one of their cd's the other day. once I can track down the other 2 I'll buy them as well. I admit that not everyone is this way about music sharing. that is why the recording industry is so bent out of shape over napster and its many clones. unfortunately you cant convince them of how many records sharing SELLS. if I can sit at home and check out music from 10 bands in an hour or so, it sells records. I will buy it if I like it and if I can hear more than just the one song on the radio. without sharing I am exposed to relatively few new bands. with sharing I can check out dozens in a week.

btw the link works

AHunter3

10-03-2001, 02:26 AM

I would never even consider buying a CD I could not convert to MP3, as that has become my "target" format for all of my music. But as the OP says, they'd have a difficult time of it keeping me from digitizing the analog sound output. So unless they intend on making everyone move to sound systems in which the speakers themselves receive a digital stream, they won't accomplish much.

If they had any damn sense they'd sell individual songs at a reasonable price at download sites and get on this train instead of attempting to derail it.

Gary Kumquat

10-03-2001, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by AHunter3
If they had any damn sense they'd sell individual songs at a reasonable price at download sites and get on this train instead of attempting to derail it.

Damned right, but what's the chance of the music industry accepting that when they can try to use draconian laws (http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf) to force people to do as they say?

Punoqllads

10-03-2001, 02:57 AM

Personally, I give them, oh, about 30 days between releasing the first "uncopyable" CDs to the general public, and seeing new CD drivers linked to from slashdot that allows Linux to play said CDs. Heck, they've talked enough about the method they use that the new drivers might actually be out before the first CD is officially released.

SPOOFE

10-03-2001, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by bdgr
Originally posted by SPOOFE
it affects our freedom
How?
By limiting ripping legally purchased cds to mp3 for our personal use.
Time for Freedom Lesson Numero Uno, kiddies: You don't have a right to convenience.

Basically, none of your freedoms are being violated by rip-proof CDs, because you never HAD a freedom to rip CDs in the first place. You have a privilege, the constraints of which are set out by the provider, and agreed upon by you when you buy the provider's products.

bdgr

10-03-2001, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Time for Freedom Lesson Numero Uno, kiddies: You don't have a right to convenience.

Basically, none of your freedoms are being violated by rip-proof CDs, because you never HAD a freedom to rip CDs in the first place. You have a privilege, the constraints of which are set out by the provider, and agreed upon by you when you buy the provider's products. [/B]

Oh, I'm not saying its a constitutionally protected right or anything. They are legally within thier rights to try and stop people from fair use, but I wont feel a bit bad when someone brings out a ripper or a directx plug in to defeat it. It will only be a matter of time.

Wallenstein

10-03-2001, 05:55 AM

KellyM

10-03-2001, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Time for Freedom Lesson Numero Uno, kiddies: You don't have a right to convenience.
So you don't have a right to the convenience of "time shifting"? The Supreme Court would disagree. See Sony v. CBS.

Freedom

10-03-2001, 08:36 AM

Thanks for the clarification Tuba. I've had a couple of questions about p2p, but I've refrained from asking them due to the sensitivity the Reader has regarding Napster.

I think ANY effort to use software or the law to restrict trading of music is doomed to fail. There are just too many crackers out there drooling over the prospect of being the one to crack a major code.

The recording labels have two major fatal flaws.

[1] Everything has to be standardized and consistent.

[2] Cost prevents them from changing their codes frequently.

I think we will see this battle drag on until artists start succesfully taking the music directly to the net, or a new breed of recording labels pops up and markets exclusively over the net.

Una Persson

10-03-2001, 08:56 AM

This effort will fail, and fail laughably.

Let's see...the largest, most powerful corporations in the world, versus unorganized groups of amateur 13-19 year old hackers working out of their parent's basements.

I call it "The Hackers" by 20 points.

jovius

10-03-2001, 09:17 AM

Çyrin

10-03-2001, 09:17 AM

Call me crazy, but I really like Windows Media Player, the new wma format (fully supported in Windows XP and by my Rio 800 MP3 player) is REALLY great. You can take an outdated MP3 file (I say out dated because the file format has been around since 1988) which is approx. 1MB per 1 Min of music, and without losing any detectable quality, convert it to wma at 0.5MB per 1 min. Now Rio has already gotten on board with wma. Winamp is a FORCE in the digital music world, I have a feeling that wma will just be a new file format and winamp will probably want in. Until that happens, you'll just have to suffer with Windows media player 8, which by the way now fully supports DVD playback... is there any Bill can't do?

Before anyone asks, I am not in any way associated with Microsoft, I just really like alot of their work... like I said at the begining, call me crazy!

Sofa King

10-03-2001, 09:41 AM

Basically, none of your freedoms are being violated by rip-proof CDs, because you never HAD a freedom to rip CDs in the first place. You have a privilege, the constraints of which are set out by the provider, and agreed upon by you when you buy the provider's products.

Sorry, SPOOFE, but that's not correct.

You don't sign a release when you buy CDs. You buy them just as you would a book or an LP or a newspaper.

As a consumer, you are allowed to do whatever you want with your property, so long as it is legal and within the bounds of personal use. You're allowed to use that newspaper to potty-train your puppy, and you're allowed to cut apart your books and paste the pages to your bathroom wall, or read them at night to your children. You're allowed to make a cassette tape of your LP and play it in your car. You are absolutely allowed to make a recording of your CD, in any format you choose, so long as it is for personal use.

That's why a hack for this bullshit is not only inevitable, it's also legal, with the same caveat.

This new-format solution is almost as bad as it can possibly be. It will not stop anybody who is determined to copy and distribute music. It will, however, punish everyone else, including me, who uses their property in a lawful manner. And, it forces a new, proprietary standard upon law-abiding people when there is a better, public domain standard--MP3--out there already, which will continue to be used by the criminals. In other words, Microsoft profits from your mistake if you buy one of these CDs, and it provides an incentive for people to break the law, because MP3s sound better--except to Çyrin. Nice work, recording industry.

musicguy

10-03-2001, 10:16 AM

Yes, I'm sure that people just want to rip copies of personal CD's that they have purchased. Nobody would ever want to grab a few or a few hundred tunes that they had not paid for. I have no problem with people wanting to take a CD and make a personal copy, whether it be a cassete tape or MP3's. This is not what the majority of people are doing though.
Somehow, many people have determined that they shouldn't have to pay for music, that it is somehow their right to rip of artists, and that the only reason they are doing it is for convenience. It's a bunch of crap.
As an artist who relies on royaly checks to help pay my bills, I resent this a great deal. I can understand why you wish that artists would just give their music away to everyone. I wish car companies just gave their cars away but thats not how it works. And I don't recall anything in the constitution about the "right to steal".

KellyM

10-03-2001, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by musicguy
Yes, I'm sure that people just want to rip copies of personal CD's that they have purchased. Nobody would ever want to grab a few or a few hundred tunes that they had not paid for. I have no problem with people wanting to take a CD and make a personal copy, whether it be a cassete tape or MP3's. This is not what the majority of people are doing though. Defend this claim.

I have quite a few MP3s. Virtually all of them are ripped from CDs I own. Most of the rest are legally free downloads (mostly classical music, some marches). The main reason I have these is so I can listen to music at work without tying up my CD drive with a music CD. What I'm doing is squarely within fair use. The Copyright Act gives the copyright holder no legal right to prevent me from doing this.

What evidence do you have to support your claim that this is NOT the most common use of MP3s ripped from music CDs?

Whack-a-Mole

10-03-2001, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Sofa King
That's why a hack for this bullshit is not only inevitable, it's also legal, with the same caveat.

While I personally agree with your sentiments on this issue I thought software made for the purposes of defeating copy protection is illegal.

musicguy wrote:
Somehow, many people have determined that they shouldn't have to pay for music, that it is somehow their right to rip of artists, and that the only reason they are doing it is for convenience. It's a bunch of crap.

I'm looking for a cite for this but IIRC the record industry has shown no slump in sales since Napster and the whole MP3 downloading thing got started. Their profits are as intact as they ever were. This would suggest that you, as an artist, is still receiving the royalties due you. Maybe it is anecdotal evidence but it does seem as if the music that is just plain ripped-off by some guy is made up for by the people who get a chance to listen to something and do, in fact, go out and buy your work.

I'm also kinda surprised at a musician's defense of the record industry. It has been my understanding that the music industry has a hammerlock on all but the biggest name bands. Quite often it is they who decide who gets played and who doesn't not to mention that your first few record profits will largely end up in their pocket. I would think that unless you are Metallica you would like to see options on the market that help break or at least diminish the control a few record labels have on the industry. What you are seeing with these rip-proof cds is the industry's attempt to maintain its oligopoly.

Critical1

10-03-2001, 12:24 PM

about the selling songs 1 at a time thing. who wouldnt LOVE to be able to hit a site, select 15-20 of your favorite oldies/funk tunes/classic rock hits, pay a buck or 2 for each song and then download em. I would do this in a heart beat. just about the only songs I have that I dont own on cd are the few oldies that you cant find anywhere convenient. dont get me wrong I'm looking but these will most likely come from a used cd shop or even a pawn shop. its a damn good idea, the record industry would make a fucking MINT off it, but alas it has to do with music on the internet and they obviously have a huge problem with that idea.

rjung

10-03-2001, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
While I personally agree with your sentiments on this issue I thought software made for the purposes of defeating copy protection is illegal.
Really? So I can't use my scanner's OCR software any more? When did this happen? :)

(As for the OP -- IMO, anything based on a Microsoft "standard" is good news for Bill Gates and bad news for everyone else. Just say no.)

Sofa King

10-03-2001, 12:43 PM

You bring up an interesting point, Whack-a-Mole, I think that it is still legal.

I bring up the example of software games, many of which have a rudimentary form of copy protection which requires that the CD-ROM be in the system. However, for personal use, it is not illegal to make a disk image of the game, then use an executable script to redirect the program to run the game from the hard-drive image. (In some cases this allows games to run faster, and naturally reduces damage to my property--the CD-ROM.)

I'll need someone who knows more than I to back me up on this, but I'm pretty sure copy protection only applies to distribution, not personal use.

As I have a number of friends who are successful musicians, I can understand musicguy's sentiments. In fact, that is exactly why I do not collect or listen to pirated music.

But I am not about to restrict my own personal behavior because the manufacturer assumes that I will act as a criminal, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let Microsoft run this show. If you want to fix the problem, then fix the problem! Don't penalize me while leaving the door wide open for those who would break the law, and while also allowing yet another corporate vampire to feed off of the musicians themselves.

Çyrin

10-03-2001, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Sofa King
Don't penalize me while leaving the door wide open for those who would break the law, and while also allowing yet another corporate vampire to feed off of the musicians themselves.

Awww, c'mon, do we really need such harsh terms? I mean, it's a capitialist society. They are just doing their job! They just happen to be doing a better Job than everyone else. :cool:

gazpacho

10-03-2001, 01:06 PM

rjung, Gary Kumquat in his post had a link to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One of the provisions that has got people really upset is a provision making it illegal to do anything to defeat a copy protection protocol.

There is a Russian currently in US jail for figuring out how to defeat the protection that can be put into Acrobat documents and then telling others how to do it.

My biggest beef with the new CDs is that the copy protection works be making the discs flawed. The discs do not conform to the new standard so in one sense they are selling deliberately defective merchandise.

Robb

10-03-2001, 01:07 PM

Sofa King, I haven't kept up with copyright law, but I beleive that what Whack-a-Mole refers to is that it is illegal now to attempt to defeat copy protections. I think that might be a categorical ban. IIRC, this made a bit of a stir recently when a Russian was arrected at a conference here in the States, because his Russian compnay had developed a way to defeat copy protections. I do know that this incident was mentioned around here. If I weren't so lazy, I'd look up some of this.

Whack-a-Mole

10-03-2001, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by rjung
Really? So I can't use my scanner's OCR software any more? When did this happen? :)

It's called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). You may have heard it recently about the researcher who, under a challenge from the Secure Digital Music Initiative, defeated some of the protection schemes they had put in place. The researcher wanted to discuss his findings and was threatened with a lawsuit by the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) if he proceeded. Since the big stink of that whole thing the RIAA backed down and said it had never threatened a lawsuit. Still, the researcher faces potential prosecution (the RIAA thing would have been a civil suit had it progressed).

Frankly my guess is the RIAA doesn't want the law challenged so soon against a person who is upstanding and had only done what was actually asked of him in the first place. They'd rather wait for some lowlife who'd find it harder to complain about his rights being trampled after being caught for pirating $1 million in CDs. In an interesting twist the researcher wants his time in court as a method for challenging the law on free speech grounds but it's hard to see how this will happen if the plaintiff backs off.

Nevertheless the DMCA is still ont he books and unchallenged as of yet. This MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.com/local/wfla/mgadddu9eqc.asp) talking about what I just mentioned above states:

A fair use'' doctrine in copyright law permits the use of copyrighted materials for scholarly research. But the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has been interpreted as prohibiting the dissemination of software used to gain access to copyrighted digital data.

pldennison

10-03-2001, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
I'm looking for a cite for this but IIRC the record industry has shown no slump in sales since Napster and the whole MP3 downloading thing got started.

Not according to the RIAA's midyear reports (http://www.riaa.com/News_Story.cfm?id=446). Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing $5.5 billion.

Their profits are as intact as they ever were.

Like most corporations, the record companies operate at a very low profit margin. They're seen as a very unattractive investment by professional investors because the ROI is so low (sometimes nonexistent). Something like 15 of 20 CDs brought to market never recoup their investment.

Sofa King

10-03-2001, 01:43 PM

Well, I stand corrected. Thank you for setting me straight, all.

I stand by the vampire thing, though.

Tymp

10-03-2001, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by pldennison
Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing $5.5 billion.
So what? Compare that decrease to the decrease in, say, personal computer shipments over the same period and you will find, I think, that the recording industry is still fairing quite well, even in a rather unfriendly economy. People are buying less. This does not mean that they are stealing more.

Çyrin

10-03-2001, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Sofa King
Well, I stand corrected. Thank you for setting me straight, all.

I stand by the vampire thing, though.

That's Ok. Vampires are pretty cool! :D

Musicat

10-03-2001, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by pldennison
Not according to the RIAA's midyear reports (http://www.riaa.com/News_Story.cfm?id=446). Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing $5.5 billion.

Lessee, nothing, like the economy, could account for that except Napster/MP3's? And the industry never had a 5% dip in sales in a 6-month period ever before?

Critical1

10-03-2001, 02:06 PM

"Not according to the RIAA's midyear reports. Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing $5.5 billion."

didnt napster go down around 2000? if so then it could be said that napster was in fact SELLING records.

and I somehow have trouble thinking that the recording industry operates at anything less than a disgusting profit margin. come on it costs like a dime to press a cd. and they sell for 16$ or so? even with a 50% retail mark up thats 7.90$ per cd. with profit like that the only reason these guys wouldnt be makeing cash hand over fist is if they were total idiots...hmmmmmm

pldennison

10-03-2001, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Tymp
Originally posted by pldennison
Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing $5.5 billion.
So what? . . . People are buying less. This does not mean that they are stealing more.

Wow! It's a good thing I didn't assert that they were! Thankfully, nobody was harmed! Um, please light your Straw Persons aflame elsewhere please, and try to follow the conversation:

W-A-M: "I'm looking for a cite for this but IIRC the record industry has shown no slump in sales since Napster and the whole MP3 downloading thing got started."

pld: "Actually, there has been a slump in sales."

That was the totality of my reply. If you're looking for someone to make connections between the slump and Napster, look elsewhere, and don't put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Musicat
Lessee, nothing, like the economy, could account for that except Napster/MP3's?

Oh, look, another one! :rolleyes: You may go stand in the corner with Tymp now, under the sign reading, "Arguing Against Things Other People Didn't Say."

And the industry never had a 5% dip in sales in a 6-month period ever before?

Beats the shit out of me. I don't recall that being the question, either. The question was, "Aren't sales up or unchanged since the Napster/mp3 brouhaha?" and the answer is, "No, they are in fact down."

Sheesh.

Robb

10-03-2001, 02:13 PM

Sofa King, its not that I want to beat a dead horse, but I think its fair to cite to you why we say this. (and, I finally bothered to look it up myself.)

From a .pdf file (www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf) about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
New section 1201 implements the obligation to provide adequate and effective protection against circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners
to protect their works.
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.
Which is written in Title 17, Section 1201 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html)
a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. - (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title....
and
(b) Additional Violations. - (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

mung

10-03-2001, 02:19 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pldennison
Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing $5.5 billion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, these numbers are better used as evidence against the RIAA than for them. If you examine the PDF file at the bottom of the your link, you can compare Jan-June 2000 to Jan-June 2001 sales statistics. At the height of Napster usage (the Jan-June 2000 numbers) record sales were up not down. It was not until July 2000 when court injunctions against napster were set forth did the record sales start to decline.

I could concede that this is probably due more to a declining economy than the decline of napster but not if it is supposed to used as evidence by the RIAA that CD ripping and sharing is hurting their sales.

pldennison

10-03-2001, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Critical1
and I somehow have trouble thinking that the recording industry operates at anything less than a disgusting profit margin.

Yes, but nobody is particularly interested in what you think, except to the extent that it coincides with facts. Again, most corporations operate at a tiny profit margin,e ven the giants. In the most recent quarter Warner Music Group saw EBITDA of $87 million on revenue of $895 million. That's down 11% from the prior year quarter, BTW. That's 9% for that division, and that's one of the better companies.

come on it costs like a dime to press a cd.

Right. And the music on the CD appears on it by magic, never having been produced by human beings, played on costly musical instruments, or laid onto digital or magnetic tape in expensive recording studios. Oh, and all the artwork, packaging, distribution, advertising, and promotion is free and appears by magic as well. Remarkable, no?

(Note to the sarcasm-impaired: Avert your eyes.)

with profit like that the only reason these guys wouldnt be makeing cash hand over fist is if they were total idiots...hmmmmmm

Quick, alert Wall Street that there is a new financial wizard in town. :rolleyes:

yosemite

10-03-2001, 02:40 PM

So, it is established that record sales were down 5%, which is not exactly shocking with the current economical climate. OK.

I am curious how this MS proprietary plan for CD music will affect alternative Operating Systems, like Linux and Mac. (I use a Mac, along with a PC.) I don't even have Windows Media Player installed on my Mac - it has gotten bad reviews and I just never need to use it. (And when I do, I just turn on my PC.) So if this devious plan goes into effect, how will it effect people like me?

I am one of those people who uses MP3s of music I own. I used to download music on the Internet (obscure film music) that I did not have on CD. However, I had this music on LP, I was just looking for an MP3 version of it. (If anyone has a CD to sell of John Addison's score to "Swashbuckler", let me know!) There's a lot of good music that never made it to CD. And I'm too unsophisticated (and unmotivated) to try to "rip" my LPs to MP3, or burn them on CD. So what is wrong with downloading an MP3 of music I already own? None, that I can see.

There are a lot of reasons people use MP3s, and many of them are completely legal and above-board.

Tymp

10-03-2001, 02:46 PM

Whoa! Now hold on there, pldennison. No need to get all worked up. W-A-M’s post implied that the mp3/Napster crap had no detrimental effect on sales and profits. You contradicted his post with the data you selected. It’s not so much of a stretch to think that you were posting that data to contradict the implication.

Sorry to upset you.

Tretiak

10-03-2001, 03:06 PM

It would be cool if there was a country where if someone wanted to sell you something, but if there was some aspect of it you didn't like then you could refuse to buy it. That would be cool.

Tejota

10-03-2001, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Originally posted by bdgr
Originally posted by SPOOFE
it affects our freedom
How?
By limiting ripping legally purchased cds to mp3 for our personal use.
Time for Freedom Lesson Numero Uno, kiddies: You don't have a right to convenience.

Basically, none of your freedoms are being violated by rip-proof CDs, because you never HAD a freedom to rip CDs in the first place. You have a privilege, the constraints of which are set out by the provider, and agreed upon by you when you buy the provider's products.

I don't think priveledge is quite the right word. That suggests that the copyright holders kindly gave us an ability that we had no right to have. But that's not true.

The capability to do this was inherent in the Redbook spec,
But orignally the hardware to do it was too expensive for most people. The makers of CD's didn't plan for us to have this ability, but they could have forseen it. We've always had the right to pull the data off the CD to use within the restrictions of copyright law.

Because we had that right, an industry gradually grew up to enable that right for us. That industry also enabled large scale sharing in a way that arguably violates copyright laws. (also arguably doesn't, the supposed copyright violators weren't making a profit or performing the works, but rather something entirely new to the law)

You have the right to use a CD and the data on it in any way that you see fit as long as you don't violate copyright laws.

That means have the right to make copies for your own use, excerpt parts of it for a school report, analyze the bits for hidden messages, or anything else that isn't a commercial use or distribution of said data.

Copyright holders have the right to all commercial exploitation of the information that is copyrighted. AND NOTHING ELSE. There is no such thing as intellectual property. What copyright holders have is a monopoly on sale and non-scholarly publication of the information, that is all. All other rights belong to whoever owns the CD itself.

They have the right to withhold the information from publication, but once published and purchased, you you have the right to do everything BUT re-publish. And if your re-publishing is parody or scholarly, you can even do that.

Now, rights and capabilites are two different things, We certainly have the right to make our own MP3's from CD's that we have purchased, but we won't necessarily continue to have the ability.

tj

musicguy

10-03-2001, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole

I'm looking for a cite for this but IIRC the record industry has shown no slump in sales since Napster and the whole MP3 downloading thing got started.
I'm also kinda surprised at a musician's defense of the record industry. It has been my understanding that the music industry has a hammerlock on all but the biggest name bands. Quite often it is they who decide who gets played and who doesn't not to mention that your first few record profits will largely end up in their pocket

1) I'm looking for a cite as well but I saw an article a few days ago stating that the music industry is showing a major slump right now.

2) I'm not so much defending the music industry as I am my right to put out a creative work without people being able to copy it illegally. In that sense though, yes, the record companies protect their artists.

3) It is very true that the first profits go to the record company. That is because they paid to have the recording made and with a new unproven artist, will recoup their investment off of the top. Remember that many new artists don't sell more than a few units and it is the record companies that lose in this case. Furthermore, it is the music BUSINESS. They are in it to make a profit. But the flip side is they have much more marketing and distribution power than any independend artist could ever hope for or afford. A band that tries to market their product on their own is never going to reach the market that a label can. So if you want to sell 100,000 units, that many people are going to have to have heard of you.

vasha

10-03-2001, 05:28 PM

On the subject of getting compensation to artists, while allowing people free access to all sorts of music even if they haven't heard it before, I've just had an idea. It may be crazy and unworkable, but...

Suppose there was a sort of database of music on the web, which people could get access to by paying a fee (monthly, yearly, whatever.) They could download whatever they wanted to, and if they liked the item/thought they would listen to it more than once, they would tell the database so, and the database would pay the artist or label (as musicguy says, labels are good for production, marketing, etc.) a fixed amount out of their common funds. The user wouldn't be paying anything extra so they'd have no motivation not to want to compensate the artist. This way, the money would go to people whose music was actually being appreciated.

One reason this might not work is that in order pay people for their music, the access fee might have to be unreasonably high. But the cost-per-item would be less than with recorded music, digital distribution being cheap, and some middlemen would be cut out.

Has anyone else had an idea like this?

Critical1

10-03-2001, 05:29 PM

"Right. And the music on the CD appears on it by magic, never having been produced by human beings, played on costly musical instruments, or laid onto digital or magnetic tape in expensive recording studios. Oh, and all the artwork, packaging, distribution, advertising, and promotion is free and appears by magic as well. Remarkable, no?"

forgive me for ever assuming anyone had a brain, ok lets do this in detail.

press the cd .10$
packaging and inserts .10$
shipping per unit .10-.25$

still under a dollar here.
queens bohemian rhapsidy cost (so I have been told and itll work for an example) 1,000,000 bucks to produce. one song cost a million freakin dollars. that is WAY over the average cost of any one album. I dont have a contract handy but bands I have talked to on the subject tell me they get around .10$ per sale. so since we are just over a million bucks Ill just round down.
if theres a 7.00$ profit per sale then at the platinum lvl bohemian rhapsidy made 6 million bucks. less 100,000 per band member. thats still 5mil plus PROFIT!

now I could be way off on a few numbers but it seems to me that the only place all that money could be going is straight to the label. we arent talking about subpop here we're talking sony or A&M. even with double the cost to produce and ship an album with a million dollar song on it and doubling the bands pay rate you still have a good profit.
considering that most bands work out new albums while on the road and spend relativly little time in the studio. And dont have a few to opera singers on hand for backing vocals the cost to produce and album should come in at well under 1mil.

of course I could be on crack.

Poloin99

10-03-2001, 06:55 PM

Posted by MusicGuy

**As an artist who relies on royalty checks to help pay my bills, I resent this a great deal. I can understand why you wish that artists would just give their music away to everyone.**

I would buy music if the seller gave me an option to buy only the song I want. I loathe buying 15 songs for $16.00 when I simply wanted one song!!

Also, how do I do that nifty "originally posted by" thing??

musicguy

10-03-2001, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Critical1
now I could be way off on a few numbers but it seems to me that the only place all that money could be going is straight to the label.

considering that most bands work out new albums while on the road and spend relativly little time in the studio.

1) A portion of the money, at least, that is going to the labels is used to subsidize up and coming acts that have a very small following. The record companies are lucky on most of these if they recoup a fraction of what they put in. The less profit the record companies make, the less new artists you will hear about.

2) Bands spend a great deal of time in the studio working on their music. I speak from experience when I say that 1 song can take anywhere from 20-80 hours to record with studio costs running $200-$500 per hour not including engineer, producer fees, studio musician fees, equipment rentals, cartage, etc... It's not as easy or cheap as one might think.

musicguy

10-03-2001, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Poloin99

I would buy music if the seller gave me an option to buy only the song I want. I loathe buying 15 songs for $16.00 when I simply wanted one song!!

So should you not have to pay for a book when only one chapter has the information you want? I'm not against online music which would allow you to PURCHASE one song but I am against people stealing one song so they don't have to pay for the whole thing.

Poloin99

10-03-2001, 07:16 PM

I would go to the library (Napster) and copy the chapter.

musicguy

10-03-2001, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Poloin99
I would go to the library (Napster) and copy the chapter.

If I'm not mistaken, photocopying copywritten material is illegal as well.

emarkp

10-03-2001, 07:34 PM

Anyone who thinks the recording industry is losing money because of Napster, et.al. is pulling it out of their rear end. Every evidence is contrary. Let's start with the CNet article (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2306997.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni) which cited an independent study showing that Napster use actually increased sales.

Then there's the discussion on Slashdot entitled, "Pirates Steal Negative $1,400,000,000 from Music Industry" (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/27/1549234&mode=nested).

And finally, there's the actual data that's referred to in the Slashdot thread (the link there doesn't work anymore--you can find it at: http://www.riaa.com/MD-US-3b-00.cfm ).

Note that the .pdf file (http://www.riaa.com/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf) which is downloadable from the above riaa site has the market data since 1991.

The trend is clear in the pdf file. Total sales were approximately flat in 1995-1997, but rocketed up in both 1998 and 1999, when Napster was peaking. Sales actually declined in 1996-1997. We've now returned to a nearly flat period, when the economy is headed for recession. Big surprise.

The underlying numbers are even more revealing. Since 1991, cassette sales have been dropping. Doing the regression on CD sales shows that they really haven't slowed at all. The only really sharp dropoff is in cassette singles (by 90% in 2000), and of course there's no data about how many of those were produced (also, it was only an acceleration of an existing trend).

Finally, note that the cost/unit is going up, largely because of increasing volume of sales in CD's and DVD's, and decreasing sales in other formats.

SPOOFE

10-03-2001, 07:45 PM

As a consumer, you are allowed to do whatever you want with your property, so long as it is legal and within the bounds of personal use.
Didn't say you couldn't make Mp3 copies of your CDs. I just said that there is no obligation on the part of the manufacturer to make it easy for you.

I don't think priveledge is quite the right word. That suggests that the copyright holders kindly gave us an ability that we had no right to have. But that's not true.
I concede on that one. I apologize for making myself unclear... while I do agree that people can make copies of a copyrighted medium for their own, archival use, I believe that a company also has the right to take whatever steps necessary to try to keep their intellectual property sealed.

Basically, you have the right to a copy of the things you buy, but you don't have the right to have it an easy task.

Questions about "What if I don't have Windows Media Player?" shouldn't even be part of the debate, in my opinion. That's like saying "What if I don't have a CD player?" when the market made the switch from cassettes to CDs.

capacitor

10-03-2001, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by musicguy
Yes, I'm sure that people just want to rip copies of personal CD's that they have purchased. Nobody would ever want to grab a few or a few hundred tunes that they had not paid for. I have no problem with people wanting to take a CD and make a personal copy, whether it be a cassete tape or MP3's. This is not what the majority of people are doing though.
Somehow, many people have determined that they shouldn't have to pay for music, that it is somehow their right to rip of artists, and that the only reason they are doing it is for convenience. It's a bunch of crap.
As an artist who relies on royaly checks to help pay my bills, I resent this a great deal. I can understand why you wish that artists would just give their music away to everyone. I wish car companies just gave their cars away but thats not how it works. And I don't recall anything in the constitution about the "right to steal".

I bought 130 CDs because of Napster. Since the suit, I bought 3. I know of a lot more music fans who are disgusted like me of the heavy-handed way the record companies shell out records and distribute the riches. I have to say it, but I tolerate the Taliban a little more than the record industry as it is today.

pldennison

10-03-2001, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by capacitor
I have to say it, but I tolerate the Taliban a little more than the record industry as it is today.

Right. Remember when the RIAA executed women for showing their faces in public, and pushed brick walls over onto homosexuals? They sure are much worse than the Taliban. :rolleyes:

Grow up.

musicguy

10-03-2001, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by capacitor
I bought 130 CDs because of Napster. Since the suit, I bought 3. I know of a lot more music fans who are disgusted like me of the heavy-handed way the record companies shell out records and distribute the riches. I have to say it, but I tolerate the Taliban a little more than the record industry as it is today.

Well I personally know many people who downloaded multiple gigabytes of material off of napster and never bought one CD during the process. How did this help the artists? Are you saying that every song you downloaded from napster, you went out and bought the CD? That would be very noble but highly unlikely.

And lastly, your comments about the taliban vs. the record industry were idiotic, ignorant, and highly offensive.

Mr2001

10-03-2001, 09:36 PM

Hmm, those CDs are completely useless to my new portable CD/MP3 player. It reads the discs like a CD-ROM (supports multisession, ISO9660, Joliet, etc.) so I doubt these protected CDs will work in it, and if I can't rip the tracks to MP3s I can't play them that way either.

I have no use for a CD that will only play on my roommate's stereo, so I don't plan on buying any of them. If I do buy one of these defective CDs because it isn't marked, I will return it to the store.

I will then come back with some friends the next day, buy a few more copies, and return them... we'll repeat until all the defective CDs have moved from the "new" racks to the unalphabetized "pre-owned" racks where no one will ever stumble across them. :D

The Ryan

10-03-2001, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Basically, none of your freedoms are being violated by rip-proof CDs, because you never HAD a freedom to rip CDs in the first place.

Are you seriously saying that people did not have the freedom to rip CD's? Then how did all those songs get onto Napster? Did the labels put them there?

pldennison
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
I'm looking for a cite for this but IIRC the record industry has shown no slump in sales since Napster and the whole MP3 downloading thing got started.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not according to the RIAA's midyear reports. Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing $5.5 billion.
That is relevant only if Napster started in 2000. My understanding is that it was around a while before that. Unless you have a cite disproving that, Whack-a-Mole's point stands.

musicguy

10-03-2001, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by The Ryan

That is relevant only if Napster started in 2000. My understanding is that it was around a while before that. Unless you have a cite disproving that, Whack-a-Mole's point stands.

Isn't it far more relevant as to when Napster really caught on (mid 2000) rather than when it started?

SPOOFE

10-03-2001, 10:00 PM

The Ryan...

Are you seriously saying that people did not have the freedom to rip CD's? Then how did all those songs get onto Napster? Did the labels put them there?
Jesus H. Christ, is that even an argument? Tell me you don't seriously believe that I mean "freedom" to refer to a person's ability to physically move or perform an action. Considering that the topic had to deal with "rights", I don't see how an intelligent mind could possibly misconstrue the meaning.

That is relevant only if Napster started in 2000. My understanding is that it was around a while before that. Unless you have a cite disproving that, Whack-a-Mole's point stands.
That is the most anally simplistic view of the events I have ever seen. Napster did not zoom to popularity overnight... indeed, it was relegated to it's original purpose (allowing amateur musicians swap music/ideas) for a long time. Only when the Mp3 boom hit (late 1999/early 2000) did Napster catch on... and when that happened, the music industry started feeling the loss of revenue, and as a result they tried to get Napster shut down.

Capacitor...

I bought 130 CDs because of Napster.
Obviously, you are not a typical Napster user. Off-hand, I personally know seven people who never bought a single CD because of Napster.

I have to say it, but I tolerate the Taliban a little more than the record industry as it is today.
Wow. You've just invoked the modern-day version of Godwin's Law. Congratulations.

Una Persson

10-03-2001, 10:42 PM

KellyM

10-04-2001, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by musicguy
Originally posted by Poloin99
I would go to the library (Napster) and copy the chapter.

If I'm not mistaken, photocopying copywritten material is illegal as well. There is no such word as "copywritten", and whether it is illegal to photocopy copyrighted material depends on whether the copying falls within Section 107 fair use, or is licensed. This is a nonsimple question.

pldennison

10-04-2001, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by The Ryan
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
I'm looking for a cite for this but IIRC the record industry has shown no slump in sales since Napster and the whole MP3 downloading thing got started.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not according to the RIAA's midyear reports. Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing $5.5 billion.
That is relevant only if Napster started in 2000. My understanding is that it was around a while before that. Unless you have a cite disproving that, Whack-a-Mole's point stands.

Yes and no--you're correct that, if Napster started up before that, then it's start precedes any slump or perceived slump in record sales. I concede that point.

However, if one is going to propose a connection between Napster and record sales ( and I am not--I think they're completely unrelated), one will have to do better than to simply point to numbers and engage in post hoc conjecture. That's not how causality is established.

Wallenstein

10-04-2001, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Anthracite
Originally posted by musicguy
Originally posted by Poloin99
I would go to the library (Napster) and copy the chapter.

If I'm not mistaken, photocopying copywritten material is illegal as well.

You're kidding, right?

WTF?

From John Rawls' A Theory Of Justice (O.U.P. 1973)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of research of private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1998, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency.

http://www.cla.co.uk/index.html

It is indeed illegal to photocopy published material unless you are covered by the above exceptions (in the UK at least).

Same applies to recorded music.

-- Quirm

Una Persson

10-04-2001, 07:31 AM

(cough) Fair Use (cough)

Or, do you not have that in the UK? Regardless of what their scarecrow text says, you can make copies within the bounds of Fair Use here in the US.

Una Persson

10-04-2001, 07:34 AM

What I mean to say is, AFAIK, our version of Fair Use allows for very limited photocopying - as seen in every single school and University course that I or anyone else has likely ever been in. To claim that all photcopying is illegal is not correct.

KellyM

10-04-2001, 07:38 AM

It's the existence of the right to make copies without a license under fair use that drives the media producers completely nuts. The DMCA, unrippable CDs, encrypted DVDs, and all these other anti-consumer things are nothing but a bald-faced attempt by media producers to stamp out fair use. They are trying, by technology, to take away what Congress will not, by law.

Wallenstein

10-04-2001, 08:00 AM

Hmm - ich bin kein Lawyer, so could someone p'raps explain what counts as fair use?

The impression I got from Poloin99's post above was that if, for example, there was a particular recipe in a cookbook which I wanted, but I didn't want to buy the whole book, I would be perfectly entitled to pop down to the local library and copy the recipe I wanted. Same applies to Napster and individual tracks on CDs.

Would that count as fair use? (Genuine question - I have no idea if it would).

Academic photocopying is one thing (although even that, as Anthracite sez, allows for only limited amounts of copying) - but (at the risk of being unfair in my interpretation of Poloin99's post) I'm not sure that's what the majority of Napster users are engaged in...

Unless I were a Media Studies student or summat it's hard to imagine that I could claim 'fair use' when I rip off the latest Hollywood DVD...? I'm not talking about making back-up copies in case the goldfish chews the originals or anything like that (do you guys have a 'constitutional right' to be able to do that?), but rather people going out purposefully to obtain music/literature/whatever without paying for it (which is what Poloin99 indicated he would do).

-- Quirm

musicguy

10-04-2001, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Anthracite
What I mean to say is, AFAIK, our version of Fair Use allows for very limited photocopying - as seen in every single school and University course that I or anyone else has likely ever been in. To claim that all photcopying is illegal is not correct.

Yes, I will agree that all photocopying is not illegal but in the context we were discussing, as to whether it would be ok to copy a chapter of a book to avoid buying the book, is not fair use, AFAIK. And if I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll be corrected :)

musicguy

10-04-2001, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by KellyM
It's the existence of the right to make copies without a license under fair use that drives the media producers completely nuts.

Maybe the reason it drives them nuts is because of the blatant abuse by people who claim its their right to make a copy of something, which it is, then continue to make copies for their next door neighbor, their co-worker, their friends, etc...

How would you feel if it was your book, song, software, etc. Everyone thinks by stealing this stuff, they are only hurting the media giants who can afford it. But that is not the case, it hurts real, hard working people, who depend on this income. Maybe it doesn't hurt Madonna, but we are all not Madonna (for which I am grateful).

The Ryan

10-04-2001, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Jesus H. Christ, is that even an argument?
Your attitude is not appropiate for GD. If you wish to be rude, the proper place would be the Pit. I would think that after more than a year, you would be able to figure that out for yourself.

Tell me you don't seriously believe that I mean "freedom" to refer to a person's ability to physically move or perform an action.
Considering what the word means, yes I do.

Considering that the topic had to deal with "rights", I don't see how an intelligent mind could possibly misconstrue the meaning.
I didn't notice the wrod "right" mentioned even once before your post. Could you provide an example of such an instance?

Here's the discussion as I remember it (bolding mine):
Critical1:
...it affects our freedom (at least as far as ripping for personal use which I do alot of) ...

You

it affects our freedom

How?[/quote]

bdgr
By limiting ripping legally purchased cds to mp3 for our personal use...

Critical1
the cd's will be unplayable on a pc...

You see a discussion of freedom and abilities and you decide that they're talking about rights? Seems to me that you are the one misconstruing the argument. Critical1 made it quite clear that he was talking about freedom.

That is relevant only if Napster started in 2000. My understanding is that it was around a while before that. Unless you have a cite disproving that, Whack-a-Mole's point stands.
That is the most anally simplistic view of the events I have ever seen.
Whack-a-Mole said that he did not know of any drop in sales since Napster began. pldennison said that there had been a drop in sales after Napster began. I pointed out that this did not disprove Whack-a-Mole's statement. I fail to see what anuses have to do with this.

Napster did not zoom to popularity overnight... indeed, it was relegated to it's original purpose (allowing amateur musicians swap music/ideas) for a long time.
I never claimed that. But Whack-A-Mole's statement had to do with the beginning of Napster. If pldennison believed that that was the wrong time period to focus on, he should have stated that explicitly rather than giving data for the time period he thought was important without mentioning that it's a different period.

Only when the Mp3 boom hit (late 1999/early 2000) did Napster catch on... and when that happened, the music industry started feeling the loss of revenue, and as a result they tried to get Napster shut down.
That's a blatantly post hoc argument.

pldennison
However, if one is going to propose a connection between Napster and record sales ( and I am not--I think they're completely unrelated), one will have to do better than to simply point to numbers and engage in post hoc conjecture.
You seem to have lost track of the full history of this discussion. A review:
MusicGuy implies that Napster has hurt record sales.
Whack-A-Mole challenges anyone to find data showing a slump in sales since Napster began.
You posted data showing a slump after Napster began.
I stated that those data are not relevant to Whack-A-Mole's statement.

In other words, I was arguing against the post hoc argument that since there was a slump in some period following the introduction of Napster, it must have been because of Napster.

The Ryan

10-04-2001, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Jesus H. Christ, is that even an argument?
Your attitude is not appropiate for GD. If you wish to be rude, the proper place would be the Pit. I would think that after more than a year, you would be able to figure that out for yourself.

Tell me you don't seriously believe that I mean "freedom" to refer to a person's ability to physically move or perform an action.
Considering what the word means, yes I do.

Considering that the topic had to deal with "rights", I don't see how an intelligent mind could possibly misconstrue the meaning.
I didn't notice the wrod "right" mentioned even once before your post. Could you provide an example of such an instance?

Here's the discussion as I remember it (bolding mine):

Critical1:
...it affects our freedom (at least as far as ripping for personal use which I do alot of) ...

You

it affects our freedom

How?[/quote]

bdgr
By limiting ripping legally purchased cds to mp3 for our personal use...

Critical1
the cd's will be unplayable on a pc...

You see a discussion of freedom and abilities and you decide that they're talking about rights? Seems to me that you are the one misconstruing the argument. Critical1 made it quite clear that he was talking about freedom.

That is relevant only if Napster started in 2000. My understanding is that it was around a while before that. Unless you have a cite disproving that, Whack-a-Mole's point stands.
That is the most anally simplistic view of the events I have ever seen.
Whack-a-Mole said that he did not know of any drop in sales since Napster began. pldennison said that there had been a drop in sales after Napster began. I pointed out that this did not disprove Whack-a-Mole's statement. I fail to see what anuses have to do with this.

Napster did not zoom to popularity overnight... indeed, it was relegated to it's original purpose (allowing amateur musicians swap music/ideas) for a long time.
I never claimed that. But Whack-A-Mole's statement had to do with the beginning of Napster. If pldennison believed that that was the wrong time period to focus on, he should have stated that explicitly rather than giving data for the time period he thought was important without mentioning that it's a different period.

Only when the Mp3 boom hit (late 1999/early 2000) did Napster catch on... and when that happened, the music industry started feeling the loss of revenue, and as a result they tried to get Napster shut down.
That's a blatantly post hoc argument.

pldennison
However, if one is going to propose a connection between Napster and record sales ( and I am not--I think they're completely unrelated), one will have to do better than to simply point to numbers and engage in post hoc conjecture.
You seem to have lost track of the full history of this discussion. A review:
MusicGuy implies that Napster has hurt record sales.
Whack-A-Mole challenges anyone to find data showing a slump in sales since Napster began.
You posted data showing a slump after Napster began.
I stated that those data are not relevant to Whack-A-Mole's statement.

In other words, I was arguing against the post hoc argument that since there was a slump in some period following the introduction of Napster, it must have been because of Napster.

Tejota

10-04-2001, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by musicguy
Originally posted by Poloin99
I would go to the library (Napster) and copy the chapter.

If I'm not mistaken, photocopying copywritten material is illegal as well.

You are indeed mistaken. Photocopying can be illegal, it can also be legal. It depends on the purpose of the copy.

musicguy

10-04-2001, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Tejota
[QUOTE]
You are indeed mistaken. Photocopying can be illegal, it can also be legal. It depends on the purpose of the copy.

I understand "fair usage". I just don't think it is applicable to what most people are doing when they are copying media. In the context of what we were discussing, copying a chapter of a book to avoid buying the book would not be legal unless it was for eduational purposes, which wasn't what we were talking about.

KellyM

10-04-2001, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by musicguy
How would you feel if it was your book, song, software, etc.
I write software. I've even had stuff of mine "stolen". Nonetheless, I refuse to accept that we have to banish fair use in order to protect IP creators.

I note that there are IP creators out there that want to make it so that you CANNOT READ A BOOK ALOUD TO YOUR CHILD without acquiring a special "reading-aloud" license.

Max Torque

10-04-2001, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Quirm
The impression I got from Poloin99's post above was that if, for example, there was a particular recipe in a cookbook which I wanted, but I didn't want to buy the whole book, I would be perfectly entitled to pop down to the local library and copy the recipe I wanted. Same applies to Napster and individual tracks on CDs.

Would that count as fair use? (Genuine question - I have no idea if it would).

Probably a bad subject matter choice for your example. Copyright protects creative works. You cannot copyright an idea, only an expression of an idea. As I recall, recipes are usually looked upon as lists or collections of facts, and facts cannot be copyrighted. There would have to be something mighty creative about the way that recipe was expressed for it to be protectible by copyright.

So instead let's say it's a one-page short story. If you're making a single copy for your own use, you're probably okay, because you're not worth going after, in the eyes of the author. Even if you're making 30 copies, enough to give out to your entire college class, you'll probably be fine, because copyright tends to be pretty lenient when the copying is done for educational purposes. If you're making hundreds of copies and selling them on the street, you got a problem.

musicguy

10-04-2001, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by KellyM
Originally posted by musicguy
How would you feel if it was your book, song, software, etc.
I write software. I've even had stuff of mine "stolen". Nonetheless, I refuse to accept that we have to banish fair use in order to protect IP creators.

I note that there are IP creators out there that want to make it so that you CANNOT READ A BOOK ALOUD TO YOUR CHILD without acquiring a special "reading-aloud" license.

You know, I'm really not against fair use either but I wouldn't be surprised if it is banished, given all of the abuse. I couldn't care less if someone takes a CD that I have created and converts it to MP3 so they can listen to it on the computer or portable player, whatever... But when I see my friends and my own material on Napster, knowing that we will not get paid for the downloads, it irks me.

Somehow, many people have determined that it is not only ok, but some sort of "right" to take for free what is not theirs. These people would punish their children for stealing a candy bar, but don't think twice about loading pirated software onto a computer. Do people really believe that they can justify this becuase they don't like the company(s) that own the rights to it. I really just don't get it.

Seraphim

10-04-2001, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Critical1

call me crazy but if I run a jack from my stereo to my sound card wont I still be able to record any cd I want?

and do they really think there won't be a way around this inside of 2 weeks?

From the posted article:

Committed pirates will eventually find a way around any digital protections, even if it is simply "holding a microphone up to the speakers," said Jonathan Usher, group product manager for Microsoft's Digital Media Division.

and

"I think the reality here is that none of these (CD copy-protection) techniques is going to be successful in the long term," said Jupiter Research analyst Aram Sinnreich. "They're fraught with technical difficulties, and if they did surmount those, they would meet with a severe consumer backlash."

"A lot of copy protection around (CD) audio is really a stopgap solution," said an executive of one major label.

So the answers to both your questions are yes and yes. Executives are well aware that their protection schemes won't stop the committed pirate, so the best they can hope for is to frustrate the casual user. 2 weeks? Bah, I'd say a day or two at most. I remember when the first batch of cd-roms encoded with the new Safedisc 2 anti-copy protection was released, and yet on the same day I saw people posting those cd images in a newsgroup.

KellyM

10-04-2001, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Max Torque
So instead let's say it's a one-page short story. If you're making a single copy for your own use, you're probably okay, because you're not worth going after, in the eyes of the author. Even if you're making 30 copies, enough to give out to your entire college class, you'll probably be fine, because copyright tends to be pretty lenient when the copying is done for educational purposes. If you're making hundreds of copies and selling them on the street, you got a problem.
But if the RIAA gets its way (which musicguy seems to think is an OK situation) and fair use goes away, you won't be allowed to make even that one copy for personal use. Hell, if fair use went away, I wouldn't even be allowed to quote a preceding message on a message board.

Wallenstein

10-04-2001, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Max Torque
Originally posted by Quirm
The impression I got from Poloin99's post above was that if, for example, there was a particular recipe in a cookbook which I wanted, but I didn't want to buy the whole book, I would be perfectly entitled to pop down to the local library and copy the recipe I wanted. Same applies to Napster and individual tracks on CDs.

Would that count as fair use? (Genuine question - I have no idea if it would).

Probably a bad subject matter choice for your example. Copyright protects creative works. You cannot copyright an idea, only an expression of an idea. As I recall, recipes are usually looked upon as lists or collections of facts, and facts cannot be copyrighted. There would have to be something mighty creative about the way that recipe was expressed for it to be protectible by copyright.

So instead let's say it's a one-page short story. If you're making a single copy for your own use, you're probably okay, because you're not worth going after, in the eyes of the author. Even if you're making 30 copies, enough to give out to your entire college class, you'll probably be fine, because copyright tends to be pretty lenient when the copying is done for educational purposes. If you're making hundreds of copies and selling them on the street, you got a problem.

Cheers for the clarification - I bet there have been some interesting legal wrangles over recipe authorship / copyright issues :)

Just a quick question (for my own curiosity, sort of thing): if I did indeed photocopy the short story for my own use would I be technically breaking the terms of the 'fair use' agreement (but on a level too trivial to be worth bothering about) or are indivduals in such cases actually exempt from the requirements? Or does it depend on the context in which I make the copies (if I am a genuine student or whatever)?

Thanks,

-- Quirm

KellyM

10-04-2001, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Quirm
Just a quick question (for my own curiosity, sort of thing): if I did indeed photocopy the short story for my own use would I be technically breaking the terms of the 'fair use' agreement (but on a level too trivial to be worth bothering about) or are indivduals in such cases actually exempt from the requirements? Or does it depend on the context in which I make the copies (if I am a genuine student or whatever)?
There is no "fair use agreement". Fair use is a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner: it is a limitation on the right of the copyright owner to prohibit certain forms of copying. Making a single photocopy of a short story for personal use is not a copyright infringement because it (probably) falls within fair use and is therefore an act for which no authorization from the owner of the copyright is required. Simply put, the owner of the copyright has no legal right to prohibit fair use copying. (Which is why the copyright owners have turned to approaches that make it technically difficult or impossible to make copies, and furthermore lobbied for laws which make it illegal to attempt to circumvent such technologies. They've also lobbied to eliminate fair use directly, but Congress won't go for that.)

Wallenstein

10-04-2001, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by KellyM
Originally posted by Max Torque
So instead let's say it's a one-page short story. If you're making a single copy for your own use, you're probably okay, because you're not worth going after, in the eyes of the author. Even if you're making 30 copies, enough to give out to your entire college class, you'll probably be fine, because copyright tends to be pretty lenient when the copying is done for educational purposes. If you're making hundreds of copies and selling them on the street, you got a problem.
But if the RIAA gets its way (which musicguy seems to think is an OK situation) and fair use goes away, you won't be allowed to make even that one copy for personal use. Hell, if fair use went away, I wouldn't even be allowed to quote a preceding message on a message board.

You will if the artist allows you to! And as musicguy sez, most artists have no problem at all with copies being made from eg. CD to mp3 if you have paid for the CD in the first place! The same applies to the bed-time story example given earlier.

I can quote a preceeding message on this board because I have entered into an agreement with the Chicago Reader such that whatever I post becomes their property, and they can thus allow others to re-post it freely.

If I object to my ideas being quoted I am free to remove myself from the boards. On the other hand, I am not free to reproduce any of the posts in another publication - if a poster thinks this unfair then they are again free to leave the boards. That ain't unfair as I see it...

KellyM - you seem to be arguing that an individual should have the right to make copies of CDs (or whatever) without having paid for it at all...?

Is that a fair representation of your position?

-- Quirm

Wallenstein

10-04-2001, 07:11 PM

KellyM - I posted the above before I read your reply...

Same question stands though - if I produce a CD or book or whatever, is it really the case (in the US at least) that any individual has a constitutionally protected right to copy that work (for personal use) without giving me a penny?

Or have I misinterpreted what you've been saying?

-- Quirm

capacitor

10-04-2001, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by musicguy
Originally posted by capacitor
I bought 130 CDs because of Napster. Since the suit, I bought 3. I know of a lot more music fans who are disgusted like me of the heavy-handed way the record companies shell out records and distribute the riches. I have to say it, but I tolerate the Taliban a little more than the record industry as it is today.

Well I personally know many people who downloaded multiple gigabytes of material off of napster and never bought one CD during the process. How did this help the artists? Are you saying that every song you downloaded from napster, you went out and bought the CD? That would be very noble but highly unlikely.

And lastly, your comments about the taliban vs. the record industry were idiotic, ignorant, and highly offensive.

The songs I didn't like, I deleted. The ones I did, I bought the record or the CD if it had good reviews.

About my Taliban comment: I was being nice to the record industry.

I don't condemn the people, or the artists who struggle mightily with the system at all. I condemn the system that thinks it can take over the Internet and dictate everything from what format of media we can buy or use to the very way we are to use our computer. If they have their way, the computer would be exclusively like a TV or Radio: a device that we can interact only on their terms. That is antithetical to what a computer is. The record companies want to totally control the way we use all our media devices, including the computer. As I am a very extensive computer user, I find their naked grab at total control intolerable. Not even the Chinese government have as much control over media devices as the intent of the record industry.

KellyM

10-04-2001, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Quirm
I can quote a preceeding message on this board because I have entered into an agreement with the Chicago Reader such that whatever I post becomes their property, and they can thus allow others to re-post it freely.
This is false. My comments do NOT become the property of the Chicago Reader when I post them. They remain my property. What I give the Chicago Reader is a license to republish my comments. I don't give such a license to YOU, though, and as far as I can tell, neither does the Chicago Reader. You can't republish them unless I say you can, the Chicago Reader says you can (in writing), or such republication falls outside the scope of a copyright owner's exclusive rights (presumably, by being fair use).

KellyM - you seem to be arguing that an individual should have the right to make copies of CDs (or whatever) without having paid for it at all...?

Is that a fair representation of your position?
No, it is not. I have no idea how you've come to this conclusion, either. (Although it is true that I believe that individuals should be permitted to make copies, for their own personal use, of CDs which they come to possess by whatever means, whether paid for or otherwise. This is, as far as I know, the law of the land.)

Rather, my position is that the publishers should be prohibited from utilizing technological device to prevent people from making copies which they are permitted to make by law. This is a consumer-rights issue, not a intellectual-property issue.

Max Torque

10-04-2001, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Quirm
Same question stands though - if I produce a CD or book or whatever, is it really the case (in the US at least) that any individual has a constitutionally protected right to copy that work (for personal use) without giving me a penny?

Nope. See, there are a few things a court would look at to determine if your use was "fair". One factor is, how much of the copyrighted work did you copy? If you copied the entire book, song, sculpture, whatever, well, that's a point against you. If you're, say, copying a few lines because they contain quotes you find charming, that's a point in your favor, because you didn't copy much.

Other factors are the purpose of the use (education? criticism? turning a profit? having the benefit of owning a book without paying for it?), the nature of the copyrighted work (historical correspondence? nonfiction? Stephen King's latest work of fiction?), and the effect of your use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (trying to sell it yourself and thus deprive the copyright owner of sales? trying to write a free pamphlet on a public health issue?). This is all right out of section 107 of the copyright code. The "market effect" factor is certainly the most compelling, and that one factor will frequently win or lose a case.

From here, there are all kinds of wacky stuff we can talk about. But, to bring it back on subject: copying even an entire song (or, indeed, an entire CD) so that I, the purchaser of the CD, can listen to the music more conveniently, is a fair use, even though I'm making a duplicate of the entire work; I'm not depriving the copyright owner of sales. If you go to a library and photocopy an entire book so that you don't have to buy it, that is NOT a fair use. Hope the difference is clear.

And don't everyone jump all over me, I know I'm simplifying.

KellyM

10-04-2001, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Quirm
You will if the artist allows you to! And as musicguy sez, most artists have no problem at all with copies being made from eg. CD to mp3 if you have paid for the CD in the first place! The same applies to the bed-time story example given earlier.
Under the law of the land, I DO NOT NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE ARTIST to make a copy of a work which I lawfully possess for personal use. Nor do I need the permission of the author to read a book I lawfully possess out loud to a family member.

What you are suggesting is a CONTRACTION of rights currently existing under law: you are proposing to take away fair use.

It doesn't matter if the artist says I can make a copy for personal use or not: the law says I can. (I just can't give those copies away.) Similiarly, it doesn't matter whether the author says I can read his book aloud or not: the law says I can. (I just can't read it "publicly": that would be a "public performance"). Making copies for personal use and private readings are activities which fall outside the scope of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner: copyright owners simply have NO RIGHT under law to restrict those activities.

Mr2001

10-04-2001, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Quirm
Same question stands though - if I produce a CD or book or whatever, is it really the case (in the US at least) that any individual has a constitutionally protected right to copy that work (for personal use) without giving me a penny?

From http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

And from http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html:
Do I have the right to make a copy of my CD for my own personal use?
Yes. The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use.

Mr2001

10-04-2001, 08:27 PM

Let's try those links again...
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html

SPOOFE

10-04-2001, 10:12 PM

Your attitude is not appropiate for GD. If you wish to be rude, the proper place would be the Pit. I would think that after more than a year, you would be able to figure that out for yourself.
Incredulity is not allowed in GD? Mr. Ryan, I would suggest that you take a nice, long look in a mirror before you talk about someone being "rude". :rolleyes:

Considering what the word means, yes I do.
And, what, exactly, does "freedom" mean? Let's take a look...

free·dom (frdm)
n.
The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).
Now, how many of those deal with physical restraint, and how many of those deal with "rights"?

I didn't notice the wrod "right" mentioned even once before your post. Could you provide an example of such an instance?
You're right, and I apologize. This topic had been discussed before, and in those other threads it was made abundantly clear that "rights" were the issue, and not "physical restraint.

You see a discussion of freedom and abilities and you decide that they're talking about rights?
Yup. You see the word "freedom" and think that they're talking about physical restraint? Do you really think a new CD format that makes ripping difficult will really result in people being incapable of movement? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Seems to me that you are the one misconstruing the argument. Critical1 made it quite clear that he was talking about freedom.
Yes, and so was I. Please note, for future reference, Mr. Ryan, that there is more than one definition for "freedom".

Whack-a-Mole said that he did not know of any drop in sales since Napster began. pldennison said that there had been a drop in sales after Napster began. I pointed out that this did not disprove Whack-a-Mole's statement. I fail to see what anuses have to do with this.
Again with your belief that words have only one definition. I suggest you purchase yourself a dictionary.

You stated that if Napster were truly responsible for a drop in sales, then we should have seen it as soon as Napster was started up. As others have pointed out, this is not so. Napster would only cause a significant impact on the market after a large number of people started using it. As has been pointed out to you - and you've ignored, since it proved you to be wrong - this popularity of Napster didn't come about until late '99 - early 2000, coinciding with the significant dip in sales.

I never claimed that. But Whack-A-Mole's statement had to do with the beginning of Napster. If pldennison believed that that was the wrong time period to focus on, he should have stated that explicitly rather than giving data for the time period he thought was important without mentioning that it's a different period.
So let me get this straight: Because PLD did not formulate his comments to your exact specifications and requirements, he is incorrect?

WAM's stated time period was "since Napster began". PLD pointed out that, yes, there WAS a slump in sales "since Napster began". It was then added onto by other posters that the slump in sales coincided with the rising popularity of Napster.

Feel better now, honey?

That's a blatantly post hoc argument.
'Twasn't an argument, sweet cheeks. It was a simple statement of fact. Or are you claiming that the record companies DIDN'T try to get Napster shut down?

2sense

10-04-2001, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by KellyM
Originally posted by Quirm
I can quote a preceeding message on this board because I have entered into an agreement with the Chicago Reader such that whatever I post becomes their property, and they can thus allow others to re-post it freely.
This is false. My comments do NOT become the property of the Chicago Reader when I post them. They remain my property. What I give the Chicago Reader is a license to republish my comments. I don't give such a license to YOU, though, and as far as I can tell, neither does the Chicago Reader. You can't republish them unless I say you can, the Chicago Reader says you can (in writing), or such republication falls outside the scope of a copyright owner's exclusive rights (presumably, by being fair use).

Just pointing out that the Chicago Reader has just republished KellyM's comments, as per the agreement between them.
No fair use necessary.

-----
Just my 2sense

musicguy

10-05-2001, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by KellyM
But if the RIAA gets its way (which musicguy seems to think is an OK situation) and fair use goes away, you won't be allowed to make even that one copy for personal use.

Where did I EVER say that I wanted fair use to go away? I thought I had been clear about that when I stated I had no problem with fair usage. I especially feel this way where it relates to educational material. That is not what I was talking about. But, your "I'll take whatever I damn well want to" attitude (or perhaps perceived attitude) is what I have a problem with. As an artist, I have protection under the law that says that you can't do whatever you want with my material. You can make a personal copy from a legally owned CD. But you cannot distribute that material or obtain it illegally and that is exactly what I want protection from. Downloading something so you don't have to pay for it infringes on my rights and it has to stop somehow. Now you say this new CD protection is not the way. I pose this question to you then. What do we do to protect the artist from being ripped off? Nothing? You are worried about your rights. What about mine?

Critical1

10-05-2001, 01:21 AM

ya know after reading through this post I realise something.

they are not denying fair use of copied material, they are saying that if you want to listen to your music on a pc you WILL use widows media player.

that is utter bs.
because a minority is useing mp3 technology illegaly Noone gets to use it? what the fuck is that crap? I mean (yeah its a reach) a minority uses guns illeagaly but we havent taken those away yet.

why even bother with something that will cost so much to impliment and has such a slight impact? does bill gates really give head THAT good ?

Wallenstein

10-05-2001, 02:15 AM

Nice one - that's clarified a few things for me.

Cheers for sortin' that all out people :)

-- Quirm

The Ryan

10-05-2001, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Incredulity is not allowed in GD?
I did not say that your incredulity was inappropiate. I said that your attitude was inappropiate. There is much more than your incredulity that is rude in the statement I quoted, and there are many more statements than the one I quoted which are rude.

free·dom (frdm)
n.
The condition of being free of restraints.

Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Political independence.

Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.

Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.

The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.

Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.

Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.

The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.

A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).

Now, how many of those deal with physical restraint, and how many of those deal with "rights"?
I've bolded those that deal with physical restraint, and italicized those that deal with rights (for those that deal with both I have done both). My count: 9 to 4, respectively.

You're right, and I apologize. This topic had been discussed before, and in those other threads it was made abundantly clear that "rights" were the issue, and not "physical restraint.
I'm not clear on your reason for sting this. Are you saying that previous threads made you mistake this thread for one that was about rights, or that previous threads show that this one is about rights, regardless of whether they are actually mentioned?

Yup. You see the word "freedom" and think that they're talking about physical restraint?
Of course. That's what fredom means (at least, that is, according to your own cite, 70% of what freedom means).

Do you really think a new CD format that makes ripping difficult will really result in people being incapable of movement? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
What is dizzying here is how you get from "physical restraint" to "incapable of movement". If people are prevented from ripping CD's, then clearly there is a physical action (ripping CD's) that they are being restrained from doing. Of course that does not mean that they are now incapable of movement.

Seems to me that you are the one misconstruing the argument. Critical1 made it quite clear that he was talking about freedom.
Yes, and so was I. Please note, for future reference, Mr. Ryan, that there is more than one definition for "freedom".
Okay, let me spell this out even more clearly. Critical1 made it clear that he was talking about freedom in the sense of physical restraint rather than loss of rights.

And BTW, you should note for future reference that if someone says that "X will result in a loss of Y" and Y has two meanings, it is an insufficient rebuttal to show that X does not result in the loss of one type of Y. If you think that freedom has two meanings, and you don't think that this takes away freedom, then you need to show that it takes away neither type of freedom.

Again with your belief that words have only one definition. I suggest you purchase yourself a dictionary.
Since I doubt that any of them will explain how any form of the word "anus" applies to a valid criticism of an attempted rebuttal, perhaps yopu should explain it to me.

You stated that if Napster were truly responsible for a drop in sales, then we should have seen it as soon as Napster was started up.
Cite?

So let me get this straight: Because PLD did not formulate his comments to your exact specifications and requirements, he is incorrect?
I never said that. I said that what he said was irrelevant to the issue at hand, and that if he were stating it because it was relevant to some other issue, he should have made it explicit what that issue was. The word "incorrect" never appeared in this discussion.

WAM's stated time period was "since Napster began". PLD pointed out that, yes, there WAS a slump in sales "since Napster began".
My reading of "slump since Napster began" is "sales are now lower than they were when Napster began". "There was some period in which sales decreased that occurred ofter Napster began" is such a weak statement that I would not consider it a legitimate interpretation. The word "since" implies that all time following the event is being considered, as opposed to "after" which implies that a particular time following the event is being considered. WAM said that there hasn't been a slump since, and pldennison showed that there was a slump after. There's a big difference. For instance, "I've earned $500 after graduating from college" means something completely different from "I've earned $500 since graduating from college".

'Twasn't an argument, sweet cheeks. It was a simple statement of fact.
The time of the rise of popularity of Napster and the beginning of the drop in record sales are both sufficiently inexact that a statement regarding their coincidence is more an opinion than a fact. Regardless of the nature of the statements, however, they were given in support of a particular point of view and so are an argument.

Eliahna

10-05-2001, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by musicguy
You know, I'm really not against fair use either but I wouldn't be surprised if it is banished, given all of the abuse. I couldn't care less if someone takes a CD that I have created and converts it to MP3 so they can listen to it on the computer or portable player, whatever... But when I see my friends and my own material on Napster, knowing that we will not get paid for the downloads, it irks me.

Somehow, many people have determined that it is not only ok, but some sort of "right" to take for free what is not theirs. These people would punish their children for stealing a candy bar, but don't think twice about loading pirated software onto a computer. Do people really believe that they can justify this becuase they don't like the company(s) that own the rights to it. I really just don't get it.

Musicguy, you seem to be working on the assumption that all the people who download your music will do so instead of buying your CD. This just isn't so.

When I read about songs in various places on the net, often I am curious to hear the song, either to participate in a discussion of it, or just to hear it and know what it's like. I download it, listen to it... if I like it, I'll buy the CD. If I dislike it, I delete it. I would never buy a CD without hearing at least one song first, and since I don't listen to the radio or watch a lot of TV, downloading MP3's is the only way I get to hear current music. I don't download and keep, I download, play and delete or buy. That's all. I'm not the only one. Yes, lots of people will never again buy a CD because of MP3's, but there are plenty who use MP3's as a sort of "radio station" where they pick the songs. Just because I can hear Kylie Minogue singing Outta My Head a couple of times a day on the radio doesn't mean I'm not going to buy the single if I like it, and I see MP3s as a similar concept.

The other thing I use MP3 trading for is to get digital copies of songs I have on cassette, or to replace CDs and tapes that have been destroyed over the years. This had better not be illegal, since I've already paid my money for the right to listen to the songs, and I'm not going to do it twice. Sometimes, it's nearly impossible to find the CD's in stores too, since they're so old. Also, I don't know where else to go to get copies of B-Sides that were on cassette and cd singles that have been destroyed. When I say "trading", I don't distribute MP3s. I just download them.

Die hard fans aren't going to use MP3s instead of buying the CD. An example of the abuse of the willingness of die hard fans to own every release by their heros is Metallica, who release, what, 4 different versions of every single they put out. As a former Metallica fan, I've become increasingly disgusted with their money-grubbing over the last few years, fueled by the multi-releases of their singles, and culminating in their anti-Napster crusade. I will never buy another Metallica recording as long as I live, and I won't be downloading their MP3's either. As far as I'm concerned, any band that is so disrespectful to their fans and so greedy deserves to sink into obscurity.

capacitor

10-05-2001, 08:17 PM

Record companies claim that because of Napster and other programs like them, sales went down.

How about these factors:

--Record companies releasing about 12% fewer new CDs than last year.
--Record companies releasing so few singles that Billboard magazine for the first time allow airplay-only songs in the Hot 100 chart.
--The quality of CDs released, for the most part, are awful.
--Then the record companies claim that the recession as a factor, notwithstanding the fact that the movie industry made more money at a rate higher than inflation.

Bad business practices, plus the poor self-promotion on the internet, are what plagues the record industry. In contrast, the movie industry integrated Internet interaction with the traditional ad campaign very well. Witness the success of The Blair Witch Project. Then, the DVDs of movies are now priced reasonably, as opposed to the CDs, which, except at discount stores, are still as high as four years ago.

The Ryan

10-05-2001, 08:23 PM

What's an airplay-only song? Is that a song that is not available for purchase?

emarkp

10-05-2001, 08:56 PM

Of course, now's the right time to post a link to a great short story, The Right to Read (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html).

capacitor

10-07-2001, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by The Ryan
What's an airplay-only song? Is that a song that is not available for purchase?

It is a song only available on CD, not as a separate single. The current #1 song in Billboard Hot 100, "Fallin" by Alicia Keys, is a song you can only get from her CD, or from old school Napster--taping what's playing on the radio.

AHunter3

10-07-2001, 11:10 PM

I have a library card. I got it for free.

Along with the books for which they are known, the public library system has lots of music on CDs. (Presumably they acquired them legally).

I get to check out the CDs that the library owns, and play them, without paying the library, the artist, the recording label company, or anyone else.

OK, certainly there are differences. I can listen to one particular physical CD that the library lent to me, but no one else can do so until I return it. If the library wants to be able to supply several people with the same CD concurrently, the library must purchase or otherwise legally acquire more copies of the CD in question.

Still, it does poke a hole in the idea that the wrongness of Napster comes from people having access to tunes without the artist or recording industry getting paid for it.

The digital world, and the ability to copy and transfer files, changes some of our conventional notions of possession. Suddenly I can give you something I have and yet I still have it too. This has ramifications for artists (and software authors and so forth), and for the rest of us, since if the artists and whatnot stop making what they make because they aren't getting paid, we don't get any new music or software or etc.

On the other hand, the prices we once paid to buy a piece of plastic that had to be manufactured out of materials in order for us to hear sound seem inappropriate now that it is clear that we don't need anything physical, we just want the bloody bits and bytes which don't cost the recording industry anything to manufacture.

I have said it before and I will say it again: the existing players in the recording industry, should they decide that they wish to survive, had better set up web sites and start selling their repertoire online for download. And if they don't, they will be replaced by others who are able to scrape up the initial cash to record and promote the artists.

The CD is dead.

RTFirefly

10-08-2001, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by pldennison
Again, most corporations operate at a tiny profit margin,e ven the giants. In the most recent quarter Warner Music Group saw EBITDA of $87 million on revenue of $895 million. That's down 11% from the prior year quarter, BTW. That's 9% for that division, and that's one of the better companies.
That's not a tiny profit margin. Grocery chains used to have a profit margin of 1-2% (maybe still do; I just haven't kept up). Now that's tiny. And yet there are still an abundance of places to buy groceries.
[quote]
[QUOTE]come on it costs like a dime to press a cd.

Right. And the music on the CD appears on it by magic, never having been produced by human beings, played on costly musical instruments, or laid onto digital or magnetic tape in expensive recording studios. Oh, and all the artwork, packaging, distribution, advertising, and promotion is free and appears by magic as well. Remarkable, no?
The point about the expensive recording studios is well taken, since that's the part that the record companies provide that actually adds value.

As far as advertising and promotion are concerned, exactly how does that benefit me, the consumer? The radio stations would still find music to fill the airwaves with, absent such efforts; it might not be the same music as results from all that advertising and promotion, but that might be a good thing, you never know.

'Distribution' - in a Web-based age, this shouldn't cost much anymore. The 'distribution' costs are all about the companies' defending their interests. Again, why should I pay for this? (I'm starting to feel like Manny in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress when the reporters ask him whether Luna shouldn't be taxed to pay for space travel, police protection, and armed forces.)

Artwork and packaging - there's at least an argument here, but sorry, but I was there for the golden age of all that stuff (Sticky Fingers, School's Out), and it's gone forever. Nowadays, kids carry the CDs around in a big CD wallet, and the jewel cases with their artwork, such as it is, are on a shelf at home, gathering dust. So I don't see a particularly large market to whom this represents significant value added.

And the musicians - if you could put forward a case that most musicians actually benefit from the lock the recording companies currently have on the industry, then you'd actually have something. But bands make their serious money, not from recording (many actually wind up in debt to the record companies for the privilege of having them record their albums, I understand - but you'd know more about this than I would) but from touring. How would that be affected if the record companies fell apart? Nada. There would still be radio stations playing songs, so there would still be hits, and there would still be bands touring, playing those hits, making money through their concerts, selling tickets and t-shirts.

So I should pay for the recording studios. Fine. But much of this other stuff is questionable, and some of it, you're asking me to pay for stuff that benefits only them.

RTFirefly

10-08-2001, 05:14 AM

At 6:08am, I always forget to preview. $#!^. [/quote]

RTFirefly

10-08-2001, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by pldennison
Again, most corporations operate at a tiny profit margin,e ven the giants. In the most recent quarter Warner Music Group saw EBITDA of $87 million on revenue of $895 million. That's down 11% from the prior year quarter, BTW. That's 9% for that division, and that's one of the better companies.
That's not a tiny profit margin. Grocery chains used to have a profit margin of 1-2% (maybe still do; I just haven't kept up). Now that's tiny. And yet there are still an abundance of places to buy groceries.

come on it costs like a dime to press a cd.

Right. And the music on the CD appears on it by magic, never having been produced by human beings, played on costly musical instruments, or laid onto digital or magnetic tape in expensive recording studios. Oh, and all the artwork, packaging, distribution, advertising, and promotion is free and appears by magic as well. Remarkable, no?
The point about the expensive recording studios is well taken, since that's the part that the record companies provide that actually adds value.

As far as advertising and promotion are concerned, exactly how does that benefit me, the consumer? The radio stations would still find music to fill the airwaves with, absent such efforts; it might not be the same music as results from all that advertising and promotion, but that might be a good thing, you never know.

'Distribution' - in a Web-based age, this shouldn't cost much anymore. The 'distribution' costs are all about the companies' defending their interests. Again, why should I pay for this? (I'm starting to feel like Manny in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress when the reporters ask him whether Luna shouldn't be taxed to pay for space travel, police protection, and armed forces.)

Artwork and packaging - there's at least an argument here, but sorry, but I was there for the golden age of all that stuff (Sticky Fingers, School's Out), and it's gone forever. Nowadays, kids carry the CDs around in a big CD wallet, and the jewel cases with their artwork, such as it is, are on a shelf at home, gathering dust. So I don't see a particularly large market to whom this represents significant value added.

And the musicians - if you could put forward a case that most musicians actually benefit from the lock the recording companies currently have on the industry, then you'd actually have something. But bands make their serious money, not from recording (many actually wind up in debt to the record companies for the privilege of having them record their albums, I understand - but you'd know more about this than I would) but from touring. How would that be affected if the record companies fell apart? Nada. There would still be radio stations playing songs, so there would still be hits, and there would still be bands touring, playing those hits, making money through their concerts, selling tickets and t-shirts.

So I should pay for the recording studios. Fine. But much of this other stuff is questionable, and some of it, you're asking me to pay for stuff that benefits only them.

pldennison

10-08-2001, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by RTFirefly
Originally posted by pldennison
Again, most corporations operate at a tiny profit margin,e ven the giants. In the most recent quarter Warner Music Group saw EBITDA of $87 million on revenue of $895 million. That's down 11% from the prior year quarter, BTW. That's 9% for that division, and that's one of the better companies.
That's not a tiny profit margin. Grocery chains used to have a profit margin of 1-2% (maybe still do; I just haven't kept up). Now that's tiny. And yet there are still an abundance of places to buy groceries.

Well, I did say that that was one of the best, being part of giant AOL Time Warner. That's why there has been and continues to be consolidation in the record industry--any given label is likely to be unprofitable enough or marginally profitable enough that they can easily be snapped up by one of the media giants.

The comparison to grocery stores is, while taken in the spirit in which it is offered, not precisely valid. Grocery stores operate on a much smaller scale than record companies, and their products are perishable. CDs are not. A comparison to food wholesalers might be more apt, but even then, we're dealing with a product which spoils on the shelf eventually, as opposed to food. :)

As far as advertising and promotion are concerned, exactly how does that benefit me, the consumer?

It doesn't matter if it benefits you or not--the record company isn't about to just write off that cost. They're going to try to recover it. Just like the movie studios, soft drink manufacturers, the auto makers, the sneaker producers . . . you pay for advertising/promotion costs with nearly every product you buy. Why should music be any different? Why do people seem to have this idea that music should be treated differently just because it's so fun to listen to?

'Distribution' - in a Web-based age, this shouldn't cost much anymore.

I disagree, to an extent. I, too, would like to be able to download any album I want to buy, but that isn't the case right now; and, until there is some way for rightsholders to protect their legitimate copyright interests, it won't be. So for now, you have to get the product from point A to point B, and that costs money. It's a huge part of any product -- why do you think you have to pay S&H charges for mail-order products, or delivery costs for furniture? If it wasn't for distrubution costs, and the costs of maintaining a physical inventory, Amazon.com would be in the black and Pets.com would still be in business.

I hate to sound like a broken flat black vinyl analog-encoded music recording, but you pay these same costs with every product you buy, and I see no compelling reason why music should be any different.

Artwork and packaging - there's at least an argument here, but sorry, but I was there for the golden age of all that stuff . . . Nowadays, kids carry the CDs around in a big CD wallet, and the jewel cases with their artwork, such as it is, are on a shelf at home, gathering dust. So I don't see a particularly large market to whom this represents significant value added.

I agree that the record companies could probably reduce the packaging, but -- once again -- they can't eliminate it completely (they at least have to identify the artist, title and track names, along with catalog numbers, copyright info, etc.). That has to be put somewhere. And they have to recoup that cost. Sure, everyone could adopt the simplest possible packaging, but producers have to have some way to distinguish one CD from another in the marketplace. Obviously, the days of elaborate Roger Dean album covers are gone, but if two CDs look exactly alike on the rock, why would you, while browsing, stop to look at either one of them?

Plus, there are other considerations tied in with the packaging, such as:

1) Retail display. Remember what it took to get rid of the longboxes? Retailers liked being able to display two rows of longboxes side-by-side in an existing bay for vinyl. When the companies all went to jewel cases, retailers had to retrofit their displays to accommodate. Guess who paid for that? Making major industry-wide changes to packaging would only make CDs more expensive in the short term, at least to consumers.

2) Security. There was a bit of a hew and cry when the industry switched to jewel cases because they would be easier to steal. I don't know what kind of numbers are available on industry losses due to shrink, but the fact remains that any change in packaging is going to have to account for possible theft.

3) I have no idea how many CDs Opal buys.

But bands make their serious money, not from recording . . . but from touring. How would that be affected if the record companies fell apart? Nada.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But it isn't true. Just as the label fronts the money for the album, the label fronts the money for the tour. At just about every level, that's label money being spent. At the smallest levels, the label rents the band a van, they drive it themselves, and they get a per diem for hotels (maybe) and food. Maybe some local promotion is undertaken in each city--morning show appearances, a meet-and-greet at a record store, etc. At the larger levels, there are enormously expensive logistics, insurance, and travel costs, all paid for by the label.

The bands make their money through publishing (if they're the songwriters) and merchandising (t-shirts, stickers, whatever) until they make it big enough that their upfront/touring/promotion costs are recouped and their per-unit sales start to add up. Whatever the case, though, I'm not about defending industry practices, or making the labels the victims and the bands the villains, or whatever. I'm just pointing out that bringing a recording to market is an expensive proposition. This pernicious legend that the record companies clear $15.00 in profit from every $17.99 CD does nothing to increase understanding on any side of this debate.

So I should pay for the recording studios. Fine. But much of this other stuff is questionable, and some of it, you're asking me to pay for stuff that benefits only them.

I don't feel that it differs significantly from any other product I buy.