This'll evoke some Grrrrr's

Read on.....

http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews/gtnews/TGAM/20030130/TWDVDD

 

Grrrrrrr is an understatement here Khorn.

 

Since Dark Side of the Moon was on the Billboard top 200 chart for something like 20 years straight , why would anyone need to copy it? Doesn't *everyone* already own at least one copy?

 

Man, the record companies are just Hell Bent on Copy Protection, arent they.

They are in for a RUDE awakening. If an honest consumer cant play his new 18.99$ Cd on his Cd drive or rip it to his IPOD, hes going to RETURN the CD, and if they dont take it back, hes never gonna buy another one from that company. Thats what I'd do. i paid 300$ for an IPOD.....who is EMI or SONY to say I can no longer use it for my music THAT I BOUGHT!!!!!


Copy protection ISNT the answer!!!

 

I dunno guys, seems like this article is FUD against SACD - there ain't nothing new here about SACD that we didn't already know from day one of SACD's introduction.

Starting off the article about SACD, then having the "beef" of the Microsoft anti-copy material in the middle, then going back to close with SACD again seems a bit - no, a lot - unfair to SACD.

 

Also, the idea that there is any such thing as a copy protection scheme that can't be hacked and defeated is a fool's notion. And Mikey's right: put in a scheme that makes regular CD's unplayable on a PC, and returns and economic disaster loom. This has been tried before on selected releases, to resounding failure. And as Ray points out, there are gazillions of DSOTM out there; what's a new, copy-protected disc going to mean? Nothing.

I'm also at a loss as to why anyone would think the Stones SACD's would be any kind of *triumph* for the record industry. Any conversion to the hybrid format would take years, and I still can't imagine Collectables, Rhino or Ace going that way anytime soon, let alone the cheapo special products discs discounted at WalMart that account for more than a little industry profit. And since regular SACD and DVD-Audio show no signs of becoming mainstream formats soon, the fact that these can't be copied is fairly meaningless, IMO. This doesn't even take into account the ripping enthusiast's fallback plan: simply track down used redbooks and burn them instead, a surefire way for the majors to lose sales of new product.

ED

 

There's a way to copy just about anything. It doesn't stop much, because it creates anamosity among the buyers who will be more than excited when they find new and exciting ways to copy it anyway. Give it time, and the reason to copy a disc will be enough to drive hardware sales. They'll be a DVD drive who's firmware will be flashed to accept SACD. Then DVD-A drives can easilly copy any SACD.

Put the money in the pocket of the artists and development. Not into security. It just doesn't work that way. Leave the damn music alone. :angry:

 

There is a whole world of music lovers who don't care to ever own DSOTM!

Everyone,

There is *always* a way to copy your music. It may not be hi-res, and it may be cumbersome, but you can still copy your music.

 

This is from the L.A. Times.


By Lamont Dozier
Lamont Dozier is a songwriter, record producer and recording artist.

January 26 2003

I'm a songwriter. That's how I've made a living. More than 40 years ago, when I was 20 years old, I walked into Berry Gordy Jr.'s Motown recording studio in Detroit and signed on as an artist, producer and songwriter.

I began writing with Brian Holland. As Motown grew, Brian's brother, Eddie, joined us to meet the demand for new songs. Together, we pioneered an innovative approach to producing music that gave birth to what the world now calls the Motown sound.

Berry had worked on the Ford assembly line, and that's how he ran Motown Records. Everybody punched a clock, and finished songs were critiqued in "quality control" meetings.

With an in-house band, an in-house studio and in-house songwriting-production teams, Motown became the most successful production line in the history of pop music -- turning out one hit song after another. In 1964-67, we had a run of 13 No. 1 hits for the Supremes.

Like Henry Ford, who made cars for ordinary people, we wrote songs to reach out to the average person. The public embraced our approach -- as did recording artists. In addition to the Supremes and the Four Tops, numerous artists recorded our songs, from Martha and the Vandellas and Marvin Gaye to the Who, the Beatles, Aerosmith and countless others.

It is gratifying to have so many great artists record our songs. It is even more gratifying to see my two sons starting out in the music business. I like to think that they take inspiration from their father's success.

For a kid growing up in 1950s Detroit, setting out to become a songwriter was tough enough. But today's youth face a different set of challenges from an entirely new source. Some call it using the Internet to "share" songs.

I call it plain stealing.

There have been a lot of lawsuits about this, and I'm involved in one of them. I feel very strongly that writers and artists are being robbed of their livelihoods; it's why I got involved in a lawsuit on behalf of writers and copyright owners like me. But lawsuits alone don't solve these problems. It's about fairness and the future of American music.

For almost a century, songs have been subject to a compulsory license that allows anyone to record a song after its initial release by paying a royalty to the copyright owner for each copy of the recording that is made. The rate is now 8 cents. That law was expressly extended seven years ago to cover Internet downloads.

I've seen people put a dollar, or even five dollars, in the guitar case of a sidewalk singer. So why not pay 8 cents to inspire a new generation of songwriters so that they too can succeed? If not, why would talented young folks like my sons risk pursuing careers as songwriters?

A number of Web sites -- EMusic, FullAudio, Listen and Streamwaves, to name just a few -- have rejected the "get it free" mantra and are offering music on a licensed basis that compensates the creators. By patronizing those sites rather than the unlicensed sites, people can rest assured that the creators of the songs they love are being properly compensated.

The courts have said: "Stop! In the name of the law." But more than that is needed to save the future of music. For music lovers who may be tempted to download music without paying, I appeal to you: "Stop! In the Name of Love" -- so that the people who work every day to make music can keep making the music we all love.

 

Amen...

But many people feel it is OK to steal music. Many people feel it is OK to steal cars or break into houses and steal from the wealthy

 

I'm with Lamont.

I don't need to copy my CDs. I wouldn't be allowed to play them at work, I don't use them in the car, and I consider making copies for friends of anything that's commercially available theft.

 

I rarely copy CDs. In fact the last time I copied anything was to make a convenient (yet 3 cd) set from my Beatles CD single and EP set. I really don't care about ripping anything because if I want something, I'll get the cd/dvd-a/sacd.

The last copied item that was made for me was of the Dylan SACD (before I had a player) so I could hear the new mix. I now own the SACD.

Anyway, my thoughts on this article are, all PR aside, all of these new technologies will be cracked. In fact, despite Sony's claims, we'll know SACD has a shot at replacing CD when someone cracks SACD's encryption. It will mean some kid out there was aware enough and cared enough about SACD to crack the code.

- Gabe

 

Problem is there is a whole culture and even industry built up around exactly that. It has become an accepted practice in a huge segment of our society.

Up here they are trying to implement tax on recording media which if done in a fair manner could help artists. Unfortunately there are a couple of problems one being that many of these discs and tapes they want to tax are not being used for music at all but for other legitimate uses such as computer file (non music) storage. In those cases, which are probably the majority (hard drives for example) it is unfair to place a "music tax" on people who have no intention to reproduce music. The bigger problem is the piggy-oink politicians who want to use this as a general tax grab and none of the money will find its way to the artists at all, it will just be collected in their name.

 

I totally agree, all the money that's being spent on copy protection schemes is a waste. We are being flooded with DVD copies from Asia which are identical to the originals bit by bit and it's only a matter of months till sacd is cracked too, it all depends on how popular it gets.
Copy protection is not a solution for anything.
The music industry doesn't want to give up their very high profits and for this very reson they will lose everything.
Also I don't buy that crap about the artist not making money, as far as I know they get paid even before they record anything, so waht's next??
"If you don't keep paying $18 for all our remasters there will be a famine in Africa, and the Brazilian rainforest will be destroyed"

 

Recordings artists get an advance against future royalties. It's usually enough to live on while recording and that's it. If the music is being stolen and not purchased then the artist will not receive future royalties and will in fact remain in debt to the record company for the advance. Lamont Dozier is a songwriter, not a recording artist.

 

I don't.

 

I just read that the manufacturing cost for a CD is doubled or more than doubled when one of these so-called copy protection schemes is applied.

 

Of course, noone here copies their CDs. We are all good citizens, aren't we?

We don't even NEED fair use!

 

I believe you, most probably the manufacturing cost will skyrocket to 50 cents.

 

I like to make my own compilations. I do not just accept what the companies dole out to us. I don't like to program a CD. I want to be able to just put on what I want to hear. I can do that with CD-R.

And it's not stealing if you are making copies of your legaly purchased music for your personal use.

 

Anyone have numbers on CD units produced by the majors per year?

 

Where's LEE?
An SACD thread w/o him, is like... An DVD-A thread w/o him!
We need SACD Champion, too address this.

 

And many more copy copyrighted programs onto VHS tapes...including movies. The cassete tape industry didn't kill the industry...neither will CDR.

 

The theft isn't in copying music, it is in downloading music for free.

 

When I pay my 12 to 16 dollars for a new cd, I am buying the music, not a little plastic disc. I have the right to do with it what I will. If I want to sell it to a used cd store, sell it to a friend, copy it for my brother, copy it for the car, burn it (with fire), or throw it away, that is my right. I paid for it. If somebody wants a copy of a cd I have, I let them have it. If they like it, they will more than likely go out and buy MORE cds by that artist.

Case in point: A few years ago my dad of all people let me borrow Pink Floyd DSOTM. I didnt really care for it, but a few months later I borrowed it again, listened to it 8 or 10 times, decided I like it, and had him copy it for me. Then I went out and BOUGHT The Wall, The Wall Live, Animals, The Final Cut (bleh), Echoes, and Wish You Were Here. I think Columbia and PF made their money off of me. I have done this with several artist, such as Eric Clapton, Phish, The Allman Brothers Band, and Bob Dylan.

Also, it is worth noting that musicians make tons of money when they go on tour. Anyone notice the 80 dollars t-shirts, programs, cds and other crap on sale at concerts. Maybe if this stuff was cheaper, and the cds cost less, people wouldnt care about copying cds, they would just go out and buy them.

The way I look at it is I support the music industry, and if I want to get copies of certain cds or let people copy my cds, that is my right. What is the difference between buying a used cd for 6 bucks and getting a copy from a friend? The artist has already received royalties on the cd, and will receive nothing on any sale after the first one, am I right?