Copy-protected CD makers lose battle

One thing to watch is how the industry responds. The only thing this case did is force labelling on the industry. As long as they post that the CD's don't work in CDR drives or DVD drives on the disc or insert, they can keep doing it. I think that this was really just a test case. The real challenge will be when a top 40 artist does it. Then, we'll see just how effective it is. Ultimately, the courts can't force the music industry to produce CD's that work in every drive anymore than they can force cosumers to buy them if they don't want to.

 

I'd have to disagree with you here. There's another (greater) force working against the so-called "copy-protected" cds: Philips. Ironically, Philips, the co-inventor of compact disc technology and sole licensor, is also against the 3 main CP CDs.

All three main "copy protection" schemes use various tricks to basically keep CD-ROMs from being able to read these discs. (It really is not copy protection at all; more like selective read inhibition). Unfortunately for them, the alterations take the discs out of the specification for a true CD; opening a completely new can of worms...

The ball is completely in Philips' court. It has already announced that future Philips CD-ROM/CD players will be able to read even these discs. In addition, it can force these publishers to remove the CD logo from their discs. At first, this might not prove to be much of a problem, since they are pretty ubituous already, and since no one really looks for a logo before purchasing. However, Philips, could also sue these publishers for failing to comply with an accepted standard.

The Digital Milennium Copyright Act really doesn't even apply here, since again, they aren't actually restricting copying, but playback. The DMCA doesn't restrict playback at all.

In addition, since these discs purposely introduce errors or bad blocks, it could also affect their longevity. Discs that play normally at first may not play after normal wear and tear on the disc. What would still be readable by the error correction on a normal disc, may not on a disc that is not only damaged, but also too far out of the normal CD specifications.

Ultimately, the record companies are shooting themselves in both feet. It has already become quite clear that they have completely fallen behind the times. Not only do they not understand the root cause of their problems, but they seem to be repeating a mistake that was already made twice--trying to regulate their own customers...how dumb is that?

Home video and audio recording were supposed to kill the movie and music industries 20 years ago...did it happen? What's the real difference now? There is none. The real problem with the industry is their lack of quality programming and their inablility to understand the new distribution of media....the internet.

Comments?
x34

 

This whole thing irritates me. I don't steal music, but I do expect to be able to listen something I buy on my computer, which happens to be a better "sound system" than my stereo. If I can't do that, I don't plan on buying very many more CD's. I really stopped buying CD's for awhile. It wasn't until I got my current computer about 2 1/2 years ago that I really started buying them again. I know a lot of people will buy stuff either way; I'm not one of them. I'm sure I would still buy a CD every now and then, but not as many as I do now (which still isn't all that many). And I can guarantee you that if I was trying to decide between two CD's, one that will play on my computer and the other that won't, I know which one I would be more likely to buy. For example, I've been thinking about picking up some Rolling Stones stuff and some U2 stuff here lately. If the U2 CD is copy protected and the Rolling Stones isn't, I'm buying the Rolling Stones. I don't imagine I'm the only one who would do that. Certainly record companies have to understand that. If I were a record company exec, I certainly wouldn't want to be the first to jump headlong into copy protecting CD's. I'd like to see the sales numbers after something like that was done (assuming that the protected CD's were marked as such). I suspect they will see a drop in sales overall, and companies that don't do it may even see a slight increase.

 

I have an honest-to-God question here then for everyone. What do you expect to happen if copying en masse is allowed? How will musicians pay themselves?

I'm not in total disagreement with the concept of trading songs via the internet, but I do think that regulation is inevitable. The comparison to cassettes and videos is not a good one because, ultimately, you are limited by the equipment you own. Sure, you could buy a $10,000 cassette copying device and hand out copies to all your friends, but that still only encompasses a few hundred or maybe 1,000.

There is nothing really comparable in the audio or video industry because a song that you copy and make available to friends (or total strangers for that matter) could easily be downloaded thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of times. And, you can do it without any special equipment of your own.

Assuming everyone here realizes that if all music was free, most musicians wouldn't be playing, how do you balance it so they can still make a living?

 

Just thought I would share this link of a C|Net Article about the topic with you: http://music.cnet.com/music/0-1652424-8-8529522-1.html

Fat Chucks has an index of "Currupt CDs"

 

Johnny: Interesting article. One thing that strikes me as really wierd is the "fair use" concept in copying. I understand it when making a copy for yourself, but fair use doesn't protect you from making copies for someone else. Even in MP3 trading scenarios, you, the copier, are liable for the losses to the copyright owner because you were aware that copying was taking place.

It would be tantamount to setting out a box full of jewelry on your driveway with a sign (oh and ads in the paper) saying "FREE" and then claiming the losses on your insurance.

Fair use was intended to protect the end user from copying CD's for his/her own purpose - to cassette for example or for long-term storage. It wasn't intended to protect you from copyright infringement by allowing you to make copies for everyone who wanted them.

 

You make a good point here Jeff. At what point do we draw the line? I mean I enjoy getting a few MP3's of bands I want to know more about, because if I really like what I hear I will go out and buy the CD. But in the end I guess the musicians are the ones who get screwed in this whole thing. It sucks because a lot of us use MP3's as a way to listen to bands that we would NEVER hear on the radio. To me that's what makes the concept so cool and useful.

As a side note, I have bought more CD's since the introduction to MP3's than ever before. Of course this may have something to do with the fact that I have graduated and have a little more residual income.

 

Jeff, using this logic, shouldn't all programmers be out of a job? Bootleg software has been available for years.

 

First, I'm not dogging the concept of MP3's. I think it is a good concept and it works for exactly what you said, Drewdog. I use it myself. However, shouldn't you, in theory, be able to determine whether or not you like a band or artist by a 1 min. snippet via Real Audio? Does it REALLY require a full MP3 to do that? I'm not convinced. Nevertheless, I see the inherent value.

Cohen: I don't think software is applicable mainly because of the nature of music. Bootleg software still only applies to one group of people - those who copy it and who have computers. The audience for music is FAR larger.

Second, one reason software is so expensive is because of bootlegging. Ultimately, music could be headed down the same road. Everyone complains about the cost of CD's, but downloading MP3's for free won't fix that problem. It will only increase the cost because of losses in the industry.

The other issue is that programmers still get work making software. Musicians, in reality, are in business for themselves. Not all musicians are going to work for an ad agency making jingles and, even if they did, that wouldn't exactly constitute an artistic endeavor. Programmers have the option of working at a company and programming for them for money. Musicians can't make money playing cover gigs and still releasing records, touring, etc. The logistics don't make that possible.

 

Jeff,

This theory would be good if websites actually gave decent 1 minute length quality Real Audio samples.

But most (all?) don't. CDnow.com has ****ty quality sounding real audio and windows media that are about 30 seconds long in most cases. The thing that baffles me even more is the fact that often times I have found that CDnow seems to just randomly select what part of the songs they will let you sample. Like half of the time you will get a sample that doesn't include the chorus and the catchiest part of the songs...it'll be the last 30 seconds of a song that includes 5 seconds of the song fading out. Also, in poor quality files, how are hip hop fans really gonna know how hard the beats hit, etc? Another thing is, most websites don't have samples for a lot of CDs, and on most websites i've found, they only have samples of the first few songs...not the whole CD.

 

That's not true at all. I don't buy an album unless I like most of the songs, and it's stuff I won't get tired of quickly.

If I download a couple of songs by a band, listen to it, and keep on wanting ot hear more, I always buy it. If not... well, I'd have been throwing my money away.

I don't see why you're so upset about it. I may be coming from a lay perspective, but from what I've seen among my friends... small artists fare much better now. Mp3's are much more effective than word-of-mouth.

It's the canned-studio-radio crap that's going to take a beating. And I have trouble shedding a tear for Columbia.

 

This has really gotten interesting...

Copying "en masse" via P2P has become viable because the music industries were content rest on their laurels instead of embracing (then) cutting-edge technology. Still, there are no signs that the music and video industries are losing money because of it. In fact, since recordable CDs and peer-to-peer applications came into the picture, their sales have gone up every year. My guess is that most people use services like these to sample the music they want where they want. We did the same thing when I was in school- swap tapes. It was a kind of grass-roots advertising for the music industry and they reaped the benefits--just like they are doing now.

I myself really like the ability to hear a song or album before I buy it. I remember when Blockbuster Music was around, they would allow you to listen to an entire album (and not just selected portions of tracks). I found myself buying the majority of my CDs there, even though they were horribly overpriced. I saved enough there though, by not buying albums with only one good song on them. I like that some websites allow you to do something similar, but as SirCharlesFan noted, the cuts are very short and often, only selected songs are available- not the entire album. Give me something to help me make a decision; it doesn't even have to be hi-fidelity or even stereo for that matter. A 45 second cut of the end of the song doesn't cut it, when I can easily go elsewhere to listen to the song (which incidentally, I end up doing).

The point I was trying to make earlier was that, like before, the record industry is fighting something that could easily make them even more money in the future. I know dubbing cassettes and VHS tapes weren't perfect copies, but back then it was just as serious an issue, since there was no such thing as a perfect media anyway. The movie industry fought DVD for the longest time, now that they finally accepted it; it has become a cash cow for them.

The main reason software is so expensive is that there isn't the same demand for software products as there are for DVDs and CDs, and the increasing amount of development effort needed as it becomes more complex, not because of piracy. The software industry long ago learned that the amount of time, effort, and money being put into copy-protection schemes wasn't worth the amount they were probably losing. Most of these protections were defeated quickly, meaning they would be fighting an ever-changing battle to keep a very small percentage of people from using their warez. Keep in mind also, that a large percentage of the small percentage of people who pirate ANYTHING didn't intend on purchasing it in the first place.

I just don't understand the point of going after your own customers. This is a dangerous thing to try to enforce. If you ignore what your customers want, they will go elsewhere. I can understand shutting down P2P sites that freely allow the distribution of music (although it’s not as large of a problem as people suggest), but restricting the ability to playback music in the manner I choose when they don't even offer an alternative?

Artists deserve to make money, of course. But is this really about the artists losing money here, or the record industry in a losing battle to regain its control over how music is distributed? I choose the latter.

x34

 

Nice points here, haven. I really think that most people do the same.

The record industry (and movie and television industries for that matter) have spent increasing amounts of money to promote increasingly BAD music over that last 10 years or so. Quantity, not quality, has become the norm. Although sales and average CD selling prices are increasing every year, I don't really think that the average artist is making any more with the major labels than before; and not because of mp3.

x34

 

On this, I totally agree. CDNow and Amazon are how I find CD's from artists on labels that I like. I am totally in favor of better clips on those types of sites.

I don't shed a tear for Columbia either, however, you are only looking at unsigned acts versus the Backstreet Boys. The one's that are most effected by MP3 downloading are the one's who don't sell 10 million copies, particularly songwriters.

Brittany Spears can take downloading because she is raking in profits from tours, merchandising, record sales and sponsorships. She (and other big artsists like her) have multiple sources of revenue. The small artists have virtually no revenue so MP3's are a viable source of promotion.

The problem is for the artists midway down the totem pole. They don't have the kind of revenues that can sustain them for long periods of time. If they lose record sales due to MP3's, they ultimately get dropped for poor sales. Since they don't have the opportunity to make the big dollars from sponsorships and merchandising like top 40 acts, they are caught in the middle. However, they aren't hurt nearly as bad as songwriters.

Writers (who don't perform) make up around 30% of the music industry. They are completely and solely dependant on revenues generated from album sales - roaylties and publishing. They get killed by downloads because they aren't making a ton of money.

Everyone wants to attack Metallica or the Backstreet Boys because they are easy targets, but no one realizes that they make up only about 2% of the total music industry. Most of the business is centered around smaller artists with fewer opportunities.

No argument on either point. My concern is really for those people who think music should be free for download at all times. There are plenty of sites that support free art of all kinds because they don't believe music belongs to anyone.

I'm glad you brought this up. The chief argument I always here is, "Well, they are selling more records than ever." This is true, however, the industry itself is shrinking. I was reading a great article a few months ago written by an industry person who is concerned with the size of the industry. Today, there are 6 record labels that own every other label out there other than some very small indie's.

That number could shrink to 2 now that the road has been cleared by a recent appellate court ruling allowing large media conglomerates to merge - AOL and GE for example.

Also, the number or artists signed yearly has reduced by nearly 25% since 1990. In essence, we have fewere choices than ever. Also, the average length an artist remains signed has dropped from right at 5 years to under 2. Record sales are increasing but mainly because the artists who sell records now sell far more than anyone ever has.

A Gold Record (500,000 copies sold) used to the benchmark for success. Today, if you don't do that on your first major label release, you better look for a new line of work. Those are the changes that most concern me and downloading will only cause the industry to shrink those percentages even further if they feel it is a threat to their long-term viability.

 

Warning - Long Rant. You've been warned.

I would like to point out a couple of little points that you seem to not notice:


1. There were many Musicians who were making a living long before the introduction of recorded music at all.

3. The unauthorised copying and distribution of recorded copyright materials has been going on since the introduction of the 1/4 inch reel-to-reel. I personaly started my formitive pirating by copying stuff off of the radio onto my little mono tape recorder at age 8 or so.

I then progressed on to copying all my sister's records onto tapes, making mix tapes from other peoples tapes, and then onto copying tapes from CD's. I then moved onto MP3's, but I guarantee that I've stolen 10x as many songs from other media as I have from Cd to MP3. The only difference is the quality, and it's organised nature.


So,


I ask you, what's different now? How much of this is conusmers becoming more flagrant, and how much is it just corporations cracking down, warping the laws for their own profit?

What particular type of song is most affected by the mp3? It's the Billboard top 100 type songs, the massive, mega hits. Mp3 downloaders will get these generic hits and, because they are generic, they'll feel no loyalty to going out an buying the rest of the artist's stuff.

So, the big-money hits are affected... This brings me to my next point, a seminal moment for the Music industry, and an onerous one at that:

1976's Frampton Comes Alive by Peter Frampton

this album sold over 6 million copies and was far and away the biggest selling album ever, at the time. This was when the Sony's of the world took notice and decided that music was a business that they could cultivate for big bucks. It was the end of any sort of variation and differentiation on the radio and in the media, as the big money lables were incapeable of judging music on merit, as they were only in it for the cash. Making a hit became an excersize in copying that which came before. RIP popular music.

As a part of the bigger picture, this is a part of a trend to alter the 'intelectual property' rights in subtle ways that only had any benefit to corporations:

1.) There is currently a chalenge before the supreme court. The arguement is:

from Wired

These extensions are most favorable to the corporations, as they, being 'eternal' entities, would reap risidual income in perputity. If you'd like at least a little bit of validation on this, read this Courtney Love written piece from Salon.

Want to know how it can be done right? For years, the Grateful Dead were #1 or #2 in terms of artist revinues, yet their albums never sold well, and they even set up a spot at their shows to encourage people to record and trade their shows! What was their secret? They spent years developing a unique product identity, both in the music and the culture, and traded on that, in the form of tickets for their shows.

This is not something that can be done with a 'Johnny Bravo' type approach (the Greg Brady one, not Cartoon Network's). This would, in fact, reward artists for actual work. Can anybody imagine what Madonna would do if she didn't have time to primp and pout, actually had to work somewhat regularly, and had to do more shows with less expensive tickets, in order to make enough money to support herself? Oh no, Bryan Wilson would have been forced to come out of his room sometime between 1969 and 1980, to actually work.

Jazz Musicians, the Bruce Springsteen's of the world, and other good, hard working artists would do just fine. The record labels, primadonnas, and those damn bastards De La Soul (who, long ago, I had the pleasure of waiting 4 hours to see a 2 song show from ) wouldn't do so well.

 

You know what, I'm gonna post the whole body of that Courtney Love article, cause I just read it again, and it was good.

 

...continued.

 

Holy cow, Otto...a link would have been fine for me

Seriously, though, good article. I was going to bring up some other points, but since that (very thorough) article touched on most of them, I won't re-hash them here…

As Otto stated earler (somewhere ) , most of the music being swapped is top 40 type bands, which as you stated earlier, are more likely to be able to sustain any "losses". I believe some of the sites listed the most popular downloads, and it appeared to be the case.

But I really don't understand how a download or swapped song can necessarily be constituted as a lost sale. If anything, its free advertising. In the worst-case senario, the user might not have bought the latest album, but could have generated enough intrest within that person to get them to purchase a concert ticket or see their latest crappy movie. More often than not, though, a downloaded song now will result in a music sale later.

From my experience, it has always seemed to be that those who like indie bands (or other non-mainstream music) are more likely to directly support these artists through direct record sales (did I say record?) and live performance revenue. I think they can actually thrive with swapping, since these guys usually don't have the advertising budgets to expose new people to their music.

Ironically enough, a few days ago I read/saw a story about artists who were getting ready to sue the RIAA for the way they have set up profit-sharing in their two new online-music initiatives. To make a long story short, the revenue that the artist would get for a downloaded song was the same as for an album, even though the costs associated with distributing music online don't have the same cost as a cd, for example. There's more to it...I'll post a link if I can find one...

x34

 

Otto: Good stuff. I'm not against the concept of MP3's or even the concept of basic sharing. (x34, this goes to your question as well). I made tape copies of CD's for years too. No big deal.

My issue is that, with sharing, you have the means to not only copy songs but distribute them to millions of people with no cost to yourself. IMO, that sets a pretty bad precident. I realize that it is mostly top 40 songs that are being traded, but remember that not all top 40 songs are written by the artist performing them.

The songwriters are absolutely dependant on record sales.

IMO, what this usually boils down to is the argument that the artists are rich and the industry is full of crooks so who cares if they suffer. The problem is that the loss of revenues erodes the quality and quantity of good music being produced.

Personally, I see the industry headed for a gigantic fall if they aren't careful. This recent court decision that allows the mega-mergers I discussed earlier could be a disaster for music lovers and the MP3 thing is in the mix.

I don't have a problem sharing. I have a problem when people think music should be free.