EMI to Use Audible Magic to Track Web Piracy

Courtesy of the LA Times online...


October 30, 2002

EMI to Use Audible Magic to Track Web Piracy



By Jon Healey, Times Staff Writer


Looking for more help battling Internet piracy, EMI Recorded Music announced plans Tuesday to work with a Bay Area company that tracks unauthorized copying of music online.

The label, home to such artists as the Beatles, the Beach Boys and Garth Brooks, expects to launch an anti-piracy project with Audible Magic Corp. of Los Gatos this year, the companies announced.

"We're going to use [the technology] to look at different ways of keeping track of what's going on with our content, whether it's uses that we've authorized or uses that are stealing from our artists," said Jay Samit, senior vice president of new media at EMI.

Audible Magic identifies music files as they're passing through the Internet, comparing a small sample of each file against the company's database of audio "fingerprints," or unique sonic characteristics. Chief Executive Vance Ikezoye said the Recording Industry Assn. of America has been using his company's technology to gather evidence of copyright infringement for its lawsuits against online file-sharing networks.

The technology can't stop people from making unauthorized copies of music, Ikezoye said, but it could be an effective deterrent when combined with some of the other anti-piracy tools the labels have been exploring. "We can be used as a tool to understand both where the opportunities to affect [piracy] are and maybe how effective those techniques are," he said.

The monitoring services also could help EMI give its artists a clearer picture of what's happening to their music online. Several of the company's biggest acts, including the Beatles, have refused to make their music available through legitimate online music services despite pressure from the label to support alternatives to the unauthorized outlets.

Audio fingerprinting technology also has been used to combat piracy by CD-pressing firms. In the latest development, the RIAA announced Tuesday that Cinram International Inc. of Toronto, a major CD replicator, has agreed to pay $10 million to settle piracy claims.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-emi30oct30,0,1371470.story?coll=la-headlines-business

 

Boy, the labels just wont give up. When will they learn that the best way to eliminate piracy is to PRICE THE MUSIC RIGHT TO BEGIN WITH.

If music was priced and marketed right there would be no NEED for piracy.

People want the Single back, when they only like one song by an artist.
People want Cds to be under 10.00
People want the mix they hear on the radio,

This isnt that hard, you record executives!!

 

Exactly right, Mike. The labels are the biggest hypocrites in the world.

 

Delete "biggest"...insert "richest".

 

Think about it -- the major labels are spending big bucks to essentially prevent people from listening to their music. At the same time they scratch their heads & wonder why sales are down, then point their fingers at downloading as the culprit. Meanwhile, many fine artists are being let go and many completed recordings are not being released because these same labels deem them to not be commercial enough. Now that all the major recording labels are owned by business conglomerates, the object is not to release increased varities of music, but rather to make the most money they can from the fewest numbers of diluted products aimed at the most common denominator in the market place.

 

Support all INDIE labels, whatever types of music you listen to...
I try not to give my money to the majors, there are lots of indie labels out ther who need our support.

 

Not when $$$ clouds their thinking...

For all you record execs reading this, what about it??? There has got to be at least one active big name artist reading this as well. What about it?

 

What about our oldies? The majors have them locked up, and they know it.

 

Sort of got us by the balls.

 

Sorry guys, but these are some of the most absurd, self-justifying statements I've ever heard:

To all the filesharers/CD rippers who aren't just doing it to sample before you buy:

These are totally skewed arguments. I've been buying records since the 60s, and when I was a kid, department stores were just begining to carry records at a discount. If you wanted anything besides the biggest releases or top 40 singles you had to go to a record store and pay LIST price. (And only a couple of songs from any album were available as singles at all.)
In most cities, discount record stores did not exist until the 70s, and there were no USED record stores until late 70s. There was no ebay or Goldmine, so if something was OOP you were SOL. And before JEM records in the early 70s, if you wanted an import you pretty much had to go to Europe or Japan to get it at all.

Today, every time I walk into my local Wherehouse store there's a whole rack of CD singles - many more titles than were readily available on 45 (outside of at an expensive Record Shop) when I was a kid. There are plenty of internet retailers that sell just about anything you want from anywhere you want. There is ebay, half.com, Goldmine, etc. for OOPs. It's a LOT easier to find what you want today than it was even 10 years ago, no matter how obscure what you want is, in print or OOP. So music is a LOT easier to obtain through legitimate sources than it ever has been before.

And except for the "almost anybody can release a record" days of the 60s, SOMEONE has been complaining that the labels are putting out "diluted products aimed at the most common denominator in the market place" forever. They always HAVE. This is NOTHING new. However, today, ANY band can record a CD on a cheap digital recorder and offer it over the internet. So the POTENTIAL exists for a lot more music being available than EVER before, no matter WHAT the labels do.

"Think about it" is right. The labels are NOT spending big bucks to keep you from LISTENING to their music. They WANT you to listen to their music. They are spending big bucks to try to keep you from OWNING their music for free.

To say that "best way to eliminate piracy is to PRICE THE MUSIC RIGHT TO BEGIN WITH" is like saying the best way to eliminate car theft is to give the cars away. What you're really saying is " If the music I wanted was available in the form I wanted it in, in the medium I wanted it in, and the price was low enough that I could buy it without having to sacrifice anything else, I wouldn't have any desire to steal it." Sorry, but no mater how unreasonable or overpriced the labels are, they do not create a NEED for piracy, any more than car manufacturers create a NEED for car thieves or chop shops.

In the past you needed a tape recorder to copy music. Until the mid-70s, you pretty much had to have a reel-to-reel, and even with cheap cassette recorders, the whole process was too intimidating and too much of a hassle for most people - so if people wanted a tape for the car, most just bought pre-recorded tapes rather than buy LPs and record their own. Which is why cassette sales eclipsed LP sales so quickly. (I decided recording my own copies was too much of a hassle and just bought both.) But there was no widespread "sharing" of reel-to-reel or cassette tapes, and chances are, you didn't know anyone with the song/record you wanted anyway. So reel-to-reel and cassette tapes never really touched the recording industry, even though they were initially afraid they WOULD. They DIDN'T because you had to BUY a tape recorder and find SOMEONE with the source material to copy. Not a viable method of obtaining free music for Joe Public. (And compared to CDs or MP3s, even cassettes were a pain in the ass.) For the most part, before the digital age, if you wanted a particular record or tape for free you had to go into a store and PHYSICALLY steal it. This is called "shoplifting" and it can put you in jail.

Now we are in an information age and it is simple and easy for almost anyone to burn CDs or share files. You don't HAVE to go into a store and physically steal records/tapes to get them free - you just get a copy from somewhere. Which is easy to do - with the entire internet at your disposal, you can usually find someone willing to burn a CD, and since Napster, all you have to do is locate an MP3 file. And the labels are going crazy over it - this is exactly what they THOUGHT would happen with tapes. The difference is, so MANY people own or have access to computers, compared to relatively few who owned or had access to tape recorders. And once you learn how to burn a CD or share a file, it's a lot easier than trying to record an LP or radio broadcast. (And if you wanted to copy a tape you had to have TWO recorders, or, later, a dual-well deck.)

Well, just because obtaining a digital copy is easier and safer than shoplifting, the filesharing/CD burning camp seems to be able to rationalize away the illegality and the moral question and find ways to blame the record companies. I guess shoplifters find someone to blame, too. I mean, if I'm stealling something, there must be a valid reason I'm doing it, and it MUST be somebody ELSE'S fault, right? You don't want ME to take responsibilty for it, do you??? I BLAME SOCIETY!!! Yeah, right.

Why can't you all just be honest about it? You ARE stealing. What you are doing IS illegal, even if you don't think it should be, and it is not a god-given right, even though you act like it IS. YOU GUYS are the hypocrites, NOT the record companies. Your moral decisions are your own affair, and I really don't care if you download the files or share CDRs or whatever, even though I figure that EVERYONE ends up paying for it in the long run. (As long as the labels are spending money to stop you, and creating watermarks, etc, and blocking digital transmission of hi-rez media, which affects ALL of us, what you are doing is NOT exactly a victimless crime.)

HOWEVER, I DO get sick of hearing how what YOU are doing is the FAULT of the record companies. That is an incredibly stupid argument, and I doubt even YOU really BELIEVE it. The record companies aren't exactly holding a gun to your head making you download files. THEY are trying to stop you. YOU have decided to do this of your own free will. At least accept the responsibility for your own actions instead of trying to blame someone else. It's like listening to a bunch of little kids whining "It's not MY fault." I can't help but think if you all did not agree (on some level) with the arguments the record companies advance AGAINST what you are doing, that you would not feel the need to be so VOCAL about how it's all their fault in the first place. The bottom line is, no matter how greedy or unfair the labels are, you can't win a price war against FREE, and I don't really think people who won't buy the CD now would pay $8-$10 for it either. Once you get a taste of FREE it's very hard to fork up your own hard-earned cash for something.

NO, "the object is not to release increased varities of music" - it IS "to make the most money they can from the fewest numbers of diluted products aimed at the most common denominator in the market place" this is what companies DO. You guys act like you think record companies should exist to serve YOUR wants/needs. WHY SHOULD THEY? This is a capitalist society, and MOST of us ARE greedy self-serving bastards (and I include myself here) when it comes down to it. NO company exists to serve YOU. Why should RECORD companies be any different? Face it, you just like the idea of free music. It doesn't have anything to DO with the RECORD COMPANIES. Why can't you just say, "I don't care if it is legal or if it is fair or if it is reasonable or if it affects anyone else. I care about ME and what I want, and I WANT FREE MUSIC. ME ME ME ME ME!"

Be HONEST about it. You do what you do because you CAN. Everything else you say is just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

 

Now I am realizing that what I said isn't true and I apologize.

 

dwmann, well said.

mud-

 

Dwman....

People have been downloading music to their homes since 1925.

It was called RADIO then, and many people recorded Radio music on home disc cutters to have a record of a program they especially liked.

The record industry went BESERK when Radio came out on a national scale.
They cried that Radio would KILL the record industry. Who would BUY records when they were broadcast for free and people could make their OWN records??

As we all know, all those arguements proved not false , but 360% upside down. Radio INCREASED sales. It was proven in study after study, and shown in the growth of the record industry from mom and pop shops to huge national corporations.

Heres something you may not know.... as reported in Pro Sound News, an industry publication.

When Napster was at its peak, EMI, Sony and Universal hired an independant Media consulting company to find out just how much they were REALLY losing to home downloading, to have ammunition to go to court and close down Napster.

Guess what? The study showed that Sales INCREASED during periods of Heavy Napster activity. Napster was acting as a FREE SAMPLING service for the labels!!! This cost the record companies NOTHING, something that they previously paid for.

When people found a music they liked on Napster, the generally BOUGHT the Cd. Thats what the study proved.

When Napster was officially shut down, the next month, sales were down 17%.

Downloading is nothing but the radio of the 21st Century. Its just the 1895 mentality of the Record Industry hasnt changed---and that will be their demise.

 

Now I really agree with Mikey. Downloading is essentially the radio of the 21st Century.

 

Jeez, where do I begin. Have you *looked* at those recently? Have you really really paid attention to the CD single section? What's there? Lots of rap remixes, uhh, the occasional pop single if you're *really* lucky. The singles market is dead, plain and simple, and you're certainly not going to see any indie groups in those racks.

Except that isn't true. At all. Y'see, back in the sixties, there was the *concept* of regional success...that is, a band could record for some small, dip**** label, and have reasonable distribution into the stores of the area. Let's not even begin to discuss the fact that unfortunately the "technical standard" for popular music is far higher today than it was in the halcyon, scratchy-mono-45 days of the 60's. Lo-fi might be an underground movement, but if one isn't willing to accept that aesthetic, one has to buy some seriously-expensive equiptment. Not to mention that most distributers won't give you a chance, and that you might even be barred from selling your own CDRs on eBay.

They're spending excessive amounts of cash a) on the cultivation of relatively few "big name" acts, because it's cheaper and easier to promote a few warhorses than many smaller acts b) on the elimination of *any* potential form of competition, whether it be file sharing or independent distribution (in the guise of "artist's rights") c) lobbying congress to enact laws like the DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act. Because, let's remember, the LABELS own the copyrights in most cases.

Except he's totally not saying that, at all, and that totally isn't a valid conclusion. If Toyota decides to price the Corolla at $100,000, people don't have to buy it, but if suddenly the ONLY cars you can get new are $100,000, the consumer--if not put off buying entirely--is definitely forced to make the expenditure count. Price fixing isn't pretty. Price fixing is what we're confronted with.

But you could do it. You could you could you could. And many did. ANd "home taping was killing music" for several years.

So because it's easier to do, NOW it's a problem? Since when has comparitive ease (especially since we're dealing with the difference between "insanely easy" and "super insanely easy") made something morally better or worse?

Oh boo hoo hoo, labels getting bitchslapped by technology...they might make only seventy billion dollars this year.

Frankly, I have little sympathy for them. I honestly believe that if the music industry didn't have the image it does, people would be a lot less blase about DWIP (Downloading Without Intent to Purchase). That said, the music industry is the ****ing evil empire to most people...possibly only the Church of Scientology and the MPAA have worse public images, and the MPAA's is due more to Jack Valenti's endless dire pronouncements than any sort of real, limiting action.

Again, the ease of use argument. So?

People smoke pot occasionally too. That's illegal. I guess they should be shipped off to Grandma Prison.

Excellent. Lovely. Yes, I'm stealing. You go bend over and take it up the ass...I'll thank god that I didn't buy "Oranges and Lemons" because I found I didn't like it by downloading tracks from the album. While you're being cornholed, I'll be listening to strange, German covers of American songs, that I have no intent on ever purchasing. You know what? I don't feel terribly morally in the wrong here. ****, most of the CDs I buy (and I own a lot of CDs) don't earn the artist one pretty penny, as I buy 'em good and used (which may or may not be illegal in a few year's time). I'm sorry that I put Tom Petty out on the street because the three Petty CDs I own (Full Moon Fever, Torpedos, and Hard Promises) are second-hand MFSLs...I guess the "Pack Up the Plantation: Live!" set I downloaded via Audiogalaxy is just that extra roach crawling in his dumpster-found meal in gutter city.

Oh wait, but I've been to four of his concerts...and I own two Tom Petty shirts. No matter. Shoot me, I'm guilty.

I do believe it. But let's qualify something here. I like CDs. I don't like MP3s. Consequently, most of the music downloading I do is indeed "sampling"...i.e, do I like this enough to buy it? That said, there's a lot of stuff I've found that I DON'T desire enough to buy (i.e. the cool-ass Japanese cover of "Guess I'm Dumb" I have lurking around here somewhere)...I don't feel particularly guilty for having it. At all. Not even on a *deep, personal level*. It's the same argument that doesn't really work for most piracy...if it weren't available for free, would you have ever bothered with it?

What?

I think most of them would find it a far more attractive proposition, though, and this isn't about forcing people to do something...it's about increasing likelyhood. Because there're a LOT of people out there, and extra likelyhood is really all you need to generate ****mounds of cash.

Replace "free" with "heroin" and "something" for "methadone," and this makes sense. Otherwise, it really isn't based in much.

Then why should *I*?

"Face it?"

Well, I'll just take your word for it that I'm deluded, then.

 

My beef with the record companies is that they want to take draconian measures to prevent piracy, that keep me from doing perfectly reasonable things.They're just overboard.

Now they get to infect my computer if they think I'm stealing their stuff??

They get to break my computer if I try to play Celine on it, even if I *bought* the CD (perish the thought)???

They want to put me in jail if I defeat copy protection in order to make myself a compilation disk, or to "remaster" something I think they've screwed up, even if it's only for my own benefit and uses source material I've already paid for?

Record companies have rights. But so do consumers. (And who's looking out for the musicians? Record companies?)

Just say no.

 

The only thing I have to say on the subject of P2P networks is that i've bought and discovered more music then ever. Someone will come up with a work around for any security measures they put in.

 

Music companies want their cake and eat it to.

As much as they want to create new ways to listen to music, and provide it for our choice to purchase it, they want to limit it's distribution, insofar as it's paid for, by consumers, under control of their muddled, theiving "legal" methods, that maximize profits on "their sets of books".

The Music Companies of today, were born out of the blood and sweat of Others. Usually, this blood and sweat was literally beaten out of people by thugs of Organized Crime, with extensive criminal backgrounds. These guys were the early "A&R" representatives. It was a very effective way to distribute music.

But as this became frowned upon, they exchanged their fists and baseball bats, for cash, drugs, and teams of lawyers. Big change, huh ?

Just because, today, these "grandchildren", have Ivy League degrees and wear tailored clothing, and have codified their criminal behavior in a body of Law, doesn't make them any better, now, than they were then. Their goals haven't changed...just cleaned up to make them...ahem...respectable.
Lawyers have replaced the Mob muscle.

That they don't care about anyone elses rights, is called capitalism.

Like I said, things haven't changed much...they just are more socially acceptable.

 

They HAVE gone too far. Thats why I have so little sympathy for their "losses" which they caused themselves by the price gougeing of the last 20 years.

They were even legally convicted of that!!!

 

Gee ... I wish someone would post a thread, every once in awhile, that generates a little passion on the part of the responders ... in stead of these blase threads.

 

So if I go to the library, take out a book, read it, and return it without paying one cent, is that considered "stealing"? After all, the libriary paid $24.95 for that copy, which will be borrowed and read free of charge by hundreds of people. While I won't get to keep the book, I still enjoyed it just as much as someone who went to the bookstore and bought it. I don't remember the book publishers ever crying about how librabries are "killing" their industry. I think it's time for the music industry to stop crying wolf about being "killed", and try to use whatever technology is available to make as much music as possible available their customers.

 

You mean I have to return my MP3s? Ah, shoot, I thought I was onto something good there. Here I was all along just keeping them.

And that radio thingy is a really good tool to sample music. I wanted to hear this particular track once, and only had to listen for 15 years before they played it! Too bad I didn't have a tape in the deck at the time. Yeah, they're just like Napster.

Seriously, while I agree the labels would be wiser to spend their time adapting to the new technological reality rather than trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle, none of these justifications for online piracy have cut any mustard with me yet. They're rationalizations, not justifications.

Yeah, it's fun, and yeah, I've done it, but that doesn't make it any less of an ethical cheat. I can rationalize speeding all day long, and I sure do it, but I can't *justify* it.

Next analogy, please.

Ryan

 

DAVID GOODWIN! Nice work!