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

Sunday morning Doonesbury comic, pertinent to this discussion:

<Doonesbury 020721>

 

I agree. The "buzz" from downloaded files and shared CD-R's can get some/many people to buy the original. But I also think that many more people will be satisfied with a copy, with a net result of lost sales.

Yes, so-called "bootlegging" cuts into sales. But equally hurtful to record companies, artists, engineers, etc., is the CD-R burned from either downloaded sources or from an original copy. Why? Because these copies are innocently passed around to thousands upon thousands of people in college dorms and offices all over the country [world]. These people aren't "bootleggers"--just friends passing stuff around to not only turn friends on to the music, but to also save friends a few bucks.

The point is that technology's a double-edged sword. Yes, it's great to be able to make quality copies for the car or make great comps from original CD's. But that same technology also makes it possible for unlimited copies to be made and innocently passed around. And the record companies ON DOWN [artists, engineers, etc.] are going to be hurt. So for obvious reasons they want to protect their property.

I'm finding it a bit frustrating reading this thread. One, we don't have a God-given right to make copies of anything. I truly wish we did, but be don't. Two, the record companies aren't doing anything that we ourselves wouldn't do if our property was being taken from us without any compensation.

 

What about friends passing around originals among themselves? They need to buy only one copy of everything then share. The net effect, to the record companies at least, is the same as buying an original, making copies, then passing the clones around among friends. The only difference is that there are more copies in circulation for the latter. But only one original is sold in either case.

 

First of all, I don't think record companies are tring to develop copy protection schemes to combat bootleggers or counterfeiters. These people may be a source of irritation, but in the long term have little effect on the bottom line. They are trying to develop copy protection schemes to combat people who make copies of CDs for friends art school, work, etc., who buy CDs, copy, then sell them to used CD stores, and to prevent people from sharing digital files on the internet.

The labels THINK all this copying and sharing is hurting sales in a big way. No one is going to change their minds by arguing about it - not you, not me, not the artists themselves. NO ONE. And as long as they think it is hurting sales they are going to ACT as if it is. That is really all we are concerned with here. Whether or not this type of copying has an adverse affect on sales, as the labels claim, or expands sales as some others claim, is IRRELEVANT.

Let's be realistic. They DO make product a cut above what most bootleggers and counterfeiters produce. As for customer service and better fidelity, you can't provide much customer service on a piece of plastic, and providing better fidelity accomplishes nothing if everytime you improve the sound hundreds of thousands of people copy the discs. and that is what the labels think is happening, whether it is or not. (and we all know it IS, to some extent, anyway.)

Come the revolution, when everything is free, when nobody owns anything, and we all love each other without prejudice or selfish motives. maybe that will come to pass. Until then, realize that "the Information Age" is a new thing, and the corporations just haven't figured out how to control it or harness it for their own ends yet. I, for one, am confident that they will. And then the idea of "free information" will be something you read about in history books. The Internet is already a lot less "free" than it was a few years ago, and they're passing more Internet legislation every day. Enjoy it while you can.

I think second-hand stores and resale shops are great. and garage sales. However, in the past, someone bought something, and then sold it to someone else. Nobody COPIED the item. Now the labels are convinced that people are buying CDs, copying them, selling them to resale shops who sell them to another person WHO COPIES THE DISC and resells it, etc. They are arguing this creates an endless cycle that affects sales, and NOW they are going after resellers, too. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS TRUE OR NOT. THE LABELS THINK IT IS TRUE. And if they have their way, used CD stores will be a thing of the past, because they will be too much of a hassle to operate.

My point is that copiers, and Napster/Napster clones may be providing SOME people with a lot of free music and they have been very in-your-face and vocal about it. Do you REALLY believe that the labels, which are a HUGE monopolistic GREEDY conglomerate, are going to let a bunch of kids and computer geeks (no offense - I'm in software, too) get over on them and laugh about it????? FORGET how YOU feel about it. That's how the LABELS feel about it. And they have money and power and political connections, whereas all you (in the general sense of "you" - nothing personal) have is a computer and a CD burner. Think you're going to win THAT one?

"Fair use" legislation was written to protect HARWARE vendors. VCR and cassette deck manufacturers. You and I were given the right to make copies FOR PERSONAL USE by EXTENSION. IT IS A LOOPHOLE. The labels have ALWAYS been unhappy about it. And now the copiers and Napster/Napster clones are giving the labels AMMUNITION they can use to defeat that legislation. One way or another. And I and people like me are going to suffer for it. It will affect EVERYONE.

It's like you're walking down the street with someone and there's a big, mean dog asleep in front of you. The person you're walking with kicks the dog. The dog isn't going to stop and ask you who kicked him. He's going to bite someone. And that's where the record companies are at right now. They have been kicked, or think they have, and are looking for someone to bite. They don't CARE who it is. And before it's all over, copies for personal use will be a thing of the past. Either they will find a copy protection scheme that works, put everything into a new format and gaurd the technology, or they will defeat "fair use" in the courts. WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT COPIERS AND NAPSTER/NAPSTER CLONES.

I can't blame the dog for biting the first person he sees, because that is what dogs DO. It's instinct. And I can't blame the labels for fighting digital copies. That is what huge monopolistic conglomerates do. It's instinct. BUT I CAN BLAME THE GET-SOMETHING-FOR-NOTHING-I'M-GETTING-OVER-ON-THE-EVIL-RECORD-COMPANIES COPIERS FOR BEING SO STUPID, OBVIOUS, FLAGRANT, AND VOCAL ABOUT IT. It's like cable TV. When only a few people were stealing the signal it wasn't worth the time and money fight it. When it became widespread, it gave the cable companies the incentive to develop special boxes and broadcast scrambled signals and press for stiff criminal penalties on the individual. The labels aren't going to take it lying down. Everyone who just wants to make legitimate personal copies and compilations is going too get screwed over. And the repercussions of it all are going to extend far beyond the music industry.

And it doesn't matter if downloading and sharing is good for the music industry or not. You will NEVER convince the labels it is to their benefit as long as it's free.

 

You know something, dwmann? I've read all your posts on this thread and I'm still not exactly sure what your point is. It seems like you're saying that the record companies have the mistaken impression that all this downloading and passing around of CD-R's is hurting their sales when in fact it isn't. So even though all this downloading/passing around of CD-R's really isn't hurting them, they're reacting like a big dog that got stepped on and are developing copy-protection schemes that will hurt all of us.

As I've said twice already, if it were your property that was being taken without any compensation to you, you'd do something about it. Why would you expect record companies to behave any differently?

 

Of course they do. The conterfeiters in Eastern Europe, Asia and to some extent, South America, are the primary target of copy protection with respect to all forms of digital media - music, video and software. All industries which delivery goods via this form are losing millions in revenue. The rest are small beer in comparison.

Regards,
Geoff

 

Pirating is a huge problem in China. If you've ever been there, it's everywhere, and the quality can really suck. I bought a handful of DVD's for $3 apiece (after some haggling). Half were VHS dubs, some had permanent subtitles, and one was videotaped in the theater. Half of them wouldn't play certain parts or would stop altogether at certain points. You get what you pay for...

 

On the one taped in a theater, did you see the heads of the moviegoers and hear the noise of popcorn crunching? A friend of mine got a disc "produced" in a theater with the camera not set up straight. He and family had to watch it with their head tilted to the side. They may need to see a chiropractor if they keep watching discs like this.

 

They're getting better, doing something called Telesynching. They put a wireless mic at the booth, off the sound board, the film gets "captured" from a well-focused mini-cam.

 

CD-buying ISSUE??? Complexities of this issue??? baser issue of PURCHASING music as a driving force???

Are you SERIOUS????

If "music is nothing more than a commodity" as you claim (by the way, the record companies agree with you) then how can you expect not to have to PAY for it??? Where I live (on the planet Earth in the USA in the state of Texas in the city of Houston) commodities cost MONEY. If you live somewhere where everything is free, let me know where it is and I'll quit my job and move there tomorrow. In the meantime, what is so complex about walking into a store, pulling out your wallet, and PAYING for something you want? You don't exactly have to be a rocket scientist to buy something. If you want free music, listen to the radio. If you want to listen to a particular song on a long-term basis at any particular time you want to hear it, then as far as I'm concerned you should pay for the privilege. Unless the artists themselves are expressly distributing the song for free. Otherwise you're stiffing everyone involved in the creation of the song - not just the record company.

How would you like it if you were an artist of some kind trying to make a living at your art and every time you created something I duplicated it and gave it away to any one who was interested? Or if the company you worked for refused to pay you because they didn't want to get involved in "the baser issue" of issuing pay checks? I agree there's some severe denial going on here. But I don't think it's the record companies that are the guilty ones.

 

dwmann,

He was simply stating that there are people who could give a rat's ass about music in general and don't see the rationality in buying a whole $15.99 CD for just one or two songs they can get for free on the internet. They don't care how it sounds. They don't care about the artists royalties, the legalities of file sharing, the implications of it, or anything about the industry like we do. This is the AVERAGE consumer. These people see TV and radio and wonder why, if they are free, why not music? The record companies are run by nothing but greedy bean-counters anyway, right?

 

I heard that some pirates even managed to smuggle the films out of the theaters for direct transfers.

 

Oh, I understood alright. And if that really IS the AVERAGE consumer, then I guess the record companies aren't just crying wolf and it really IS affecting their income. That thought will make me sleep better at night when everything is copy-protected and "fair use" is dead.

 

They've been doing that for years. My wife managed a movie theater in the late 70's and early 80's. She had offers even then (she never took them). Bottom line, the pirates slip the projectionist and theater manager several hundread dollars. They deliver the film to a reproduction studio and ususally hang around until duplication is complete. The manager returns the film to the theater where it is available for the next days showing. They need the theater manager to return the film (having the keys and alarm codes), and the projectionist to handle it (just in case a splice needs to be made for the next afternoons showing).

By the way - these are NOT the kind of people that you decide to play "good citizen" with, and turn them in, unless you really don't mind the witness protection program or care too much about friends and relatives you leave behind....

 

Hey dwmann,

When you quote somebody, please leave their name in the quote so we can more easily follow this thread!

-Jeffrey

 

First of all, I believe the labels ARE being hurt by widespread downloading and CD copying. I'm not talking about songs artists release as free downloads to get exposure or people who download or copy discs temporarily to "try before you buy" and I'm not talking about pirates in China or South America. I'm talking about average Joe Public who is getting a lot of music for free to use on a long term basis. Kids and college students who used to make up a large chunk of the market who no longer buy anything. or buy an occaisonal disc and share it with all their friends. When I was in 9th grade, EVERYONE had at least four LPs: Ten Years After SHHH, James Gang RIDES AGAIN, Badfinger STRAIGHT UP, and WHO'S Next. That's a couple of hundred copies of these discs at one school. Now you can buy one copy of each and share. I don't know if it is as bad as the labels think it is. It really doesn't matter. As long as the labels THINK this is costing them a lot of money they are going to fight it. And yes, everyone will be hurt in the end.

Every time a new protection scheme comes out I read on this board, in the audio magazines, and everywhere else about how terrible it is, because the discs won't play or the music is distorted, etc. I think it's terrible too. And every time some teenager defeats a copy scheme with a felt-tip, everyone cheers about it and talks about how they will never find a foolproof scheme. We all think it's funny. But I think we are missing the larger issue.

Companies have been afraid of unauthorized copies since the first consumer reel to reels. It has never been the problem they claimed it would be because the technology did not exist to make quick, convenient, perfect copies. Even recording cassettes was a hassle. Now almost everyone who has a computer has a CD burner.

A lot of people are using their burners to copy discs and to burn downloaded files. Napster was a highly visible slap in the face to the labels, and even some members of congress who have supported "fair use" are begining to waver in the face of all the claims the record companies are making about lost revenue. Now the labels are talking about going after the used CD shops and prosecuting individuals. And we complain about the monolithic practices of monopolistic corporations and debate whether or not what they are doing or trying to do is reasonable or fair. We are focusing on the record companies.

The bottom line is that people are abusing "fair use" in a widespread and vocal way. My point is, it really does not matter if what the labels are doing or trying to do is reasonable or fair, or if the abusers have any justification for what they are doing. I personally believe the labels are justified in trying to stop abuse of "fair use" but that is just MY opinion. I know that the people who are abusing this privilege will disagree, and have hundreds of rationalizations why what they are doing is acceptable. I also think that whatever the labels finally do to stop abuse of "fair use" will result in the end of "fair use" as we know it. That will affect ME and YOU in an adverse way, even if we never engage in the activity the labels are trying to stop.

So I think that each time we read about a new protection scheme or a move to suppress "fair use" in the courts we should direct or attention to the copiers and downloaders who are causing all the commotion in the first place. They are in the process of screwing everything up for everyone and I think it's time THEY get blamed. No matter how evil you think the labels are, they are trying to protect income from property that belongs to them, which they have a right to do in the USA. Being huge monopolistic corporations with a lot of clout and money, they will probably try once again to defeat "fair use" and this time they may succeed, because Napster made the issue visible nationally. And the labels are getting more pissed off about it every day.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that no matter WHAT your attitude towards the record companies, it is in YOUR best intrest to vocally oppose those who ABUSE "fair use." And that whether or not the labels are really getting hurt by it all doesn't really matter. This country, and our court system is based on what people BELIEVE is true. Real truth has nothing to do with anything. So even if the labels are wrong and all this widespread sharing is good for business (which I think is a crock) as long as the Napster clones are out there sharing files and all your friends are sharing discs, it LOOKS like the labels may be right.

In the short term, sharing files and discs may seem like a great idea, but Napster was one of the STUPIDEST things to come out of the computer age. It brought the whole thing out in the open and put the spotlight on everyone who abuses "fair use." It's one thing for a few people to share copies of something, but when millions of people are doing it someone is going to stop it somehow. And the solution is not going to be directed at just the abusers. It will affect everyone. What it comes down to that everyone who copies a disc or shares a file is putting YOU that much closer to not being able to make copies of anything. Right or wrong, that is how it IS. And I think everyone who is interested in music needs to look at that REAL hard.