Neil Young's new cd-you can't copy to cd-r

Malc, You and I are on the same page here. However, I read that the sound quality is compromised on these cds. This is not acceptable.

 

And counterfeiters have a problem making knock-offs of copy protected CD's and DVD's? I don't think so. Every 12 year old knows how to get around these copy protection efforts. And I expect that a hi-rez PCM 5.1 copy of an SACD disk will still sound mighty good.

 

The overwhelming problem the majors have is in preventing counterfeiting of cds all around the world. I've heard that in some countries sales through pirate copies are greater than through legit copies!

Digital copy protection means squat to these "pirates"who sell their "product" through street corners. They'll either take an analog feed and redigitize it or wait for a workaround from a computer guru.

Rather than alienating their customers who want to make a copy or two perhaps they should concentrate their efforts on the pirates.

 

what 'new' neil young cd?

 

The title is "Are You Passionate?".

 

EXACTLY, but this is not recognized by a corporate America (publically owned labels) that focuses solely on quarterly profits. This business reality will only be recognized by labels/bands w/ a vision and willingness to sacrifice short term profits for substantially larger long term gains. As Mr. Bill Graham had the pleasure of saying soooo many times, "Ladies and Gentlemen... I give you.... The Grateful Dead".

-Jeffrey

 

Dave Matthews made it big due to boot tapes. In the early days, people were singing along to his stuff before it was released!

Phish has prospered too. If I'm not mistaken, they allow taping at their shows.

 

EXACTLY, these are two excellent examples of bands w/ a vision that goes way beyond quarterly profits. Both bands show great concern for the welfare of their fans..... the only reason they exist. Enormous effort goes into planning their concert tours so that their fans have the best experience possible. The loyalty they show to their fans will ultimately be paid back maaaaany times over!

Mike, taping at Phish shows is now a requirement.

-Jeffrey

 

I'm sure that my opinion on this is bound to piss everyone off, but personally, I think that, since the advent of digital copying, everyone who makes a copy of in-print copyrighted material is complicating my life.
“Fair use” gives you the right to make copies of copyrighted works for personal use. The doctrine was developed to address analog copies by VCRs and cassette decks. Technically, digital copies of CDs should be burned on a legitimate CD recorder. Royalties on the blank discs have been paid. You aren’t really supposed to burn copies on computers. The cost of the blanks does not include the royalty. Every time you burn a CD on a computer, you’re cheating.

Regardless of HOW you create a copy:
· You can't make a copy and sell it. That is piracy.

· You can't make a copy and give it away. Not even just one. The "Not for resale" clause does NOT give you the right to distribute free copies to your friends. Technically, that is piracy, too. Because if you could give away one, you could give away 100,000. It's the same principle. Saying "I didn't SELL it is just a cop out." Let your friend buy his own copy. Every time you give a friend a copy of an in-print CD you are costing the label a potential sale. Unless your friend decides to spend $15 just to get the artwork. That's not how "fair use" works.

· You can’t lend your copy to your friend and let him or her copy it. You might as well just make the copy yourself and give it away.

· You can't make a copy and sell or give away the original. Once you no longer own the original, you no longer have a right to own the copy. Because once you no longer own the original, the copy you made is no longer a legal copy of something you own -it's just a pirated disc.

Do I think CDs are overpriced? YES. Do I think the labels shaft the public? YES. However, just because the labels suck doesn’t give anyone the right to be a small-scale pirate. And that is what most copiers are. Let’s face it. Record companies are GREEDY. If people start copying their product, they are GOING to react and create stupid schemes to protect their product. I don’t know why people are surprised by that. If a label will fight an artist over one cent per unit, they will certainly look askance at multiple digital copies of their product. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant. That’s the way it is in real life.

Let's face it - if most copiers were JUST making copies to use as back-ups, or to create compilations, nobody would CARE. And that is ALL "fair use" gives you the right to do. But not many copiers can honestly say "I just make copies for archival purposes, or to use at the office." Copiers make copies for friends. Copiers make copies and sell the originals. Maybe that hurts sales and maybe it doesn't, but the labels THINK it does, so they don't like it.

It’s not a moral issue as far as I’m concerned. Not even a legal one. I see nothing wrong with bootlegs, whatever the laws say. For the most part, I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do as long as no one else has to pay for it. I don’t care if you drink too much or do drugs or are hooked on porno rags or like to wear a rubber boat on your head, as long as it doesn’t affect ME. When it DOES affect ME, like if you get drunk and slam into my car while wearing your little rubber boat hat, I RESENT IT.

And I RESENT copiers who abuse the ‘fair use’ principle. I wish you'd all stop it. If you guys weren't running around making ILLEGAL copies of CDs the majors would have no motivation to place copy-protection schemes on CDs or DVD or VHS or anything else. Nobody would care if we traded COPIES of OOP discs or boots on this forum. And I would not have to buy six expensive interconnects to get sound out of a 5.1 SACD or DVD-A player, or have to rely on the player's internal converters, because there would be a digital port on the player. And I wouldn't have to worry about CDs that won't play on my CD player.

COPIERS - I BLAME YOU FOR THIS! Just because the labels suck doesn’t give anyone the right to be a small-scale pirate or to abuse the “fair use” doctrine. And that is what a LOT of copiers are doing. Of COURSE the labels are going to react. They are giant monolithic corporations that react to EVERYTHING. And THAT affects ME. I’M PAYING FOR IT, and everyone who legitimately records compilations or office copies is paying for it, too. I don’t think anyone has a right to affect my life because they are too cheap to buy their own copy of a CD, or think buying CDs, copying, and selling them is a way to deal with high CD prices. If you can’t afford your own, do without. I’ve done without many times over the years, and have little sympathy for those who can’t or won’t.

The point is, what the labels are doing sucks, but it ALWAYS HAS. It ALWAYS WILL. This is nothing NEW. However, if there were not such widespread abuse of the "fair use" doctrine they would not waste the time, money, and effort it takes to develop copy-protection schemes that screw up CDs, or refuse to allow digital copies of high res formats.

Anyway, the next time you read about some company putting some screwy copy thing on a CD, don’t waste your time whining about the record companies. They are just doing what record companies do, and you already know they don’t care about you, anyway. Instead, go yell at your friend with his computer and his little CD burner who has a whole library of pirated discs and MP3 files. If it weren’t for people like HIM, people like you and me wouldn’t have to worry about any of this in the first place.

 

WHO WANTS TO COPY THE DAMN THING ANYWAY?
IT IS ONE OF THE WORST PIECES OF CRAP, MUSICALLY SPEAKING,
IN A LONG TIME!!!!!

 

But you can use the Music CD-R's on computer CD burners as well.

 

You mean Keyboard & Mouse Wizard, Gary! I did it with copy and paste.

 

dwmann, tell us how you really feel?

 

Whenever I think of the Record Company pouting over their thougths that they willl lose $$ from people making CD copies, I think of all the money I spent to buy the 1200+ Cd's in my collection, many of which were $18.99 each, and quite a few I bought for just one or two good songs and the rest on the disc were forgettable. I also think of my various Kinks, Elvis Costello, Dire Straits cd's and many more that I could name that I had to buy all over again when they came out with digitally remastered versions that were supposed to sound much better than the original cd's. If the record company cant get it right the first time, and release a better version later- why dont they offer a rebate on the new version so we can turn in the obsolete old disc and buy the better new one at a lower price? Or do they think we are all millionaires who can afford to keep buying the latest versions of the best sounding discs that they release?

 

Amen. He can't sing that well anymore either. I wonder how much he likes the CD medium now?

 

Amen brother Dwmann! I totally agree.

 

Has anybody thought to ask Steve his thoughts on this? Music piracy doesn't just hurt faceless corporations. "Little guys" further down the chain--meaning engineers, musicians, studio staff, ect., all stand to lose if fewer copies of a CD are sold. And whereas I, too, enjoy making CD-R's, I certainly understand a record company's desire to protect it's property.

And whereas the law states that copies can be made for personal use, there's no law that says the record companies have to make it easy for us to do that, especially in light of the fact in college dorms all over the U.S. [the world?] one copy of a CD is passed around to hundreds of people. From what I'm told, the real heroes on college campuses are those who never buy anything, but rather download from the net and borrow from friends. Waay coool, dude!

 

There's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over...

 

Of COURSE music piracy hurts these people. I just refuse to see what I do as music piracy. Call it denial, but I know that if I hadn't given my friend copies of (say) Freak Out! and Absolutely Free, he certainly wouldn't have proceded to go out and buy the entire Zappa catelogue. I know there's no grey area with regard to the legal system in this matter, but at a certain point one really must stop caring.

One *also* must realize--and I'm sure I've stated this before--is that there're people out there for whom music is nothing more than a commodity. Maybe they realllly like to read, or something. In any case, this person doesn't care about the CD-buying issue; they want the one or two songs they want, and they want them for free. They're not amoral; they just don't want to be involved in the complexities of this issue, which is to me perfectly understandable. Some people--and the record companies, post-Thriller, and in severe denial about this--simply *don't* view music, and at the baser issue the PURCHASING of music, as a driving force in their lives.

As for what Dwmann said, do you actually think that by ceasing this narsty little activity of ours, that the record companies would turn beaming to their worldwide audience and CUT OUT the crap? No! No resistence means a sense of victory, which probably mean little steel pins on the read side of the CD designed to destroy CDRW lenses, or something of the sort. And I apologize that I'm inconviniencing you by copying CDs, but I think the pros outweigh the cons, eh?

-D

 

It's bad enough that most CD's out there sounds like ... well Shait! Now This?!!

I agree with the first posts that state that the best way to make your voice heard is with your wallet. Hey throughout my lifetime I've spent way more than I should "afford" on purchasing of CD's (& records - Which, let's not forget, ARE WAY OVERPRICED!!!!) Yesterday I went to TOWER and Purchased Rhinos Nuggets Sampler CD (18 tracks) priced @$$18.99 - a buck per song - after taxes I walked out of there having Paid $20.00 plus dollars for ONE CD - (ONE CD!!!! - and how much does it cost to manufacture them????) - Yes I understand no-one is pointing a gun @my head forcing me to buy this, SO If I do, as a consumer, why the hell should I be restricted from making personal copies for myself ??? In this case, I don't even care for half of the songs in the compilation, and yes I purchased it with the INTENT of extracting about 1/2 of the songs and making my own "16 bit" compilation! - Something I do on a regular basis - being an LA resident, I spend way too much time in my car, and thus prefer to make my own CD-R compilations as opposed to having to carry my entire -OVERPRICED- cd collection in the car (YES, I refuse to carry my entire CD collection, including lots of DCC's & MFSL's everywhere I go; Having spent a small fortune on them can you blame me??!!) Guess what? Most of us, don't get the luxury to go home, to our "listening rooms" and sit there for hours in audiophile heaven. For the average listener - ME- The car is where we ultimately do most of our music listening. If the record companies (CD manufacturers etc.) force me into not being able to do this with my CD's, beleive me (I DON'T THINK I SPEAK ONLY FOR MYSELF) The CD will be a commodity that will lose it's attractiveness - VERY Quickly!!. Ultimately (WHEN, I TIRE OF BENDING OVER FOR THE RECORD CO's) the only choice that I will have to aqcuire certain songs for personal CD-R collections; is to download them from some internet source!! (GUESS WHAT??? That is possible, will continue to be possible and . . . FOR FREE - Something that I am very opposed to at the moment!)

 

Steve? Are you reading this thread? Unless I miss my bet, I figure that you're going to come out in favor of what Neil Young [and others] have done re: copy protecting their work. You, as an engineer, stand to lose probably more than anyone should illegal copying cut into sales. If artists and record companies have to cut back costs due to illegal copying, the engineer is one guy who's probably going to be asked to cut corners so as to save on time/charges.

As regards giving friends copies of Frank Zappa records, imagine if those copies you gave them were near perfect copies of the original instead of hissy cassette tapes. How many of your friends would feel compelled to rush out and buy original copies?

Let's face it. We may not like it, but [most] record companies are in business to make money. And artists/musicians have every right to make a living from their work and quit their day jobs. Making copies for personal use harms no one and is legal, but that doesn't mean that we have a God-given right to do so. And given the technology that exists today, the same technology that allows for one copy for personal use also allows for hundreds [thousands] of copies to be passed out in college dorms all over the U.S. So in an effort to stop the loss in sales of thousands of units, some artists and companies are taking steps to protect their property. If it were any other business we'd all be nodding our heads in agreement. But because it's music and we love music we for some reason feel that our rights are being violated. I'm unhappy with the current situation, but I for one don't see my rights as being violated.

 

I agree with you , Ron...

I agree one hundred percent! That is why I don’t download, or shoplift CD's. If I borrow a CD, from a friend or relative (that I really like) I go buy my own copy! I pay good money (yes sometimes way more than anyone should on mediocre sounding Rhino comps and the like). And yes maybe after a few or many years, When I upgrade my 3rd copy of Kind Of Blue or God Forbid - I get sick of certain albums (like- Nirvana, PearlJam, Boston etc.) Guess what???. I may (or may not!) want to burn that one song I like and then possibly accumulate enough old CD’s so that I can go sell or trade @ the local mom&pop used record shop or maybe even a huge chain like the Wherehouse (were I’ll probably have to bend over & grab my knees) and then they can turn around and re-sell (@400% profit) But I don’t worry because the artists and record companies continue to make money from these practices right?? No, I guess I hurt them more, financially, by burning a few songs for personal use. But wait Maybe I can actually turn the tables around and sell that OOP MFSL and make 4 times the amount that I paid, then the money will be going exactly where it belongs! (The artist?) No Siree!! it will be going right into my wallet! Hell yeah! Hmmm… I wonder if/when the record companies are going to start crying over me eBaying my OOP copy of the Beatles mini “White Album” – (“Waahh… We sold it to him @$30.00 and he just sold it for $150.00!! Wah–Waahh, We want our share, - We want our MONEY!!!)
And I agree that artists/musicians have every right to make a living from their work and quit their day jobs. But I think it’s the record companies that need to be reminded of that fact and not the consumer. I am the one who goes out of my way (sometimes way out of my way!!) to go see the little or unknown bands play live music whenever possible. I will buy that CD directly from the drummer on the side of the stage and yes I will sometimes pay big bucks on overpriced concert tickets and buy my wife that…err$70.00 Steely Dan Tour Jersey (OUCH!). This Is how I support the artist directly. If the record companies have somehow convinced MR. Neil Young that restricting CD copying will cover his bottom line, then so be it. But in my opinion, This doesn’t make it True and it definitely doesn’t make it right.

 

No. I do not think the record companies would be any less a-holes than they are now. They would still overcharge and put out lousy releases. But they WOULD lose any financial motivation to screw up legitimate CDs with half-baked copy protection schemes. I don't think ANYONE (including you) can SERIOUSLY suggest that the widespread abuse of the fair use doctrine is some kind of legitimate "moral resistance" to the big bad evil record companies. Even though a lot of people seem to use this as a convenient rationalization. And it IS causing the record companies to react, and it IS causing those who just want to make compilations and back-up copies to suffer for the actions of those who have a "something for nothing" attitude.

Eventually, the record companies will find a copy scheme that works. Or everything will go SACD or DVD-A, and we will not be given access to the technology required to make copies. SOMETING will happen. We are talking BIG $$$. The record companies can't afford to lose this one. And that will be the end of back-up copies and compilations, and every other legitimate application of "fair use" And, since you will STILL be able to make analog copies, the record companies will not be in technical violation of "fair use."
The point of my original post was not to try convince anyone not to burn free CDs. I know that isn't going to happen. I just wanted to point out that doing so is a totally selfish act that is going to have serious consequences for everyone who loves music before it's all over. The widespread violatiion of "fair use" may be great for those who are getting free music, but it's giving the labels a reason and the amunition they need to abolish 'fair use' altogether. Believe me, they would like NOTHING better. So in the end, EVERYONE ends up paying for what YOU are doing.

The truth is, I don't own a CD burner and could care less about copying ANYTHING. I'm a collector. I want the real thing and the artwork. However, there are a lot of serious music lovers who love home-compilations, and others who don't want to have to take Elvis 24 Karat Hits in the car. These people NEED to be able to make copies. And the time is coming when they will not be able to do that. And I think that is a shame.

 

dwmann,

You argue the abuse of the 'Fair Use' doctrine by copiers motivates the record companies to copy-protect, legislate, and limit digital technology, which in turn drives up costs to the consumer (you).

I disagree. I think the monopolistic record companies are charging high prices because a) they can, they're a monopoly, and b) those monies fund their fight against downloading and digital copying, which threatens their monopoly.

The argument against monopolies is they are bad for the consumer, less choice, unfair pricing, no competition pushing the growth of the service or goods. Yet recent history's trend of deregulation seems to have promulgated monopolies.

The monopoly in the music industry is about distribution. Right now four large corporations control this distribution (and profit).

I think the future is artists producing themselves and controlling their own distribution. I think that's a good thing, a stimulus to more and better art, with fairer prices to the consumer.

I believe in copyright. But I think 'Fair Use' should encompass any personal use, including copying. I believe downloading, burning, and sharing actually create interest and sales. Bootlegging does hurt sales, but there are better ways to stop bootlegging than copy-protection and limiting digital technology.

For example, there are tons of drugs crossing the Mexican border into the U.S. It's not a lack of law, it's a lack of law-enforcement personnel. Well, catch some big-time bootleggers, make it much riskier to do the crime. Make them do the time. The money the record industry spends to fight copying is better spent searching out and prosecuting the big-time offenders. (I practically never hear of big-time busts of bootleggers).

It would also behoove the industry to make their product a cut above what the bootlegger can produce, and consumer-friendly, to boot. They should do all they can to entice the consumer away from CDR's and bootlegs, with great artwork, better fidelity, great customer service, a consumer-friendly disc, everything they can think of (including helping make personal copies).

We have entered the Information Age, yet we are still adhering to outdated copyright law. The law needs to be changed to reflect a democracy, wherein electronic access to copyrighted information is not controlled by a few corporations at great cost to the consumer.

BTW, what's your take on second-hand stores? Used books, records, thousands of stores and flea markets across the land. And the person/company owning the copyright gets nada, zilch. [A whole industry where the product is TAXED A SECOND TIME (no wonder the government is not critical of that!).] But the product expands, the customer base grows. The cost of doing business. But future sales will be greater, not less.

My 2¢. Dan