WP/AP: Music Industry Worried About CD Burning (RIAA speaks)

[DeepModem Mom]

Music Industry Worried About CD Burning
By Alex Veiga
The Associated Press
Sunday, August 14, 2005

Music copied onto blank recordable CDs is becoming a bigger threat to the bottom line of record stores and music labels than online file-sharing, the head of the recording industry's trade group said Friday.

"Burned" CDs accounted for 29 percent of all recorded music obtained by fans in 2004, compared to 16 percent attributed to downloads from online file-sharing networks, said Mitch Bainwol, chief executive for the Recording Industry Association of America.

The data, compiled by the market research firm NPD Group, suggested that about half of all recordings obtained by music fans in 2004 were due to authorized CD sales and about 4 percent from paid music downloads.

"CD burning is a problem that is really undermining sales," Bainwol said in an interview prior to speaking before about 750 members of the National Association of Recording Merchandisers in San Diego Friday.

Copy protection technology "is an answer to the problem that clearly the marketplace is going to see more of," he added....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081301087.html

[short bus president]

1. Hey, RIAA...

Who cares what you think?

[tjdee]

2. Crappy music is really the thing undermining sales, dummies!

The entertainment industry is in a huge rut, and their search for a scapegoat is hilarious.

Did they ever bother to see how many people were *taping* songs and creating *mix tapes* back in the day? I personally made and received dozens of mix tapes, and I don't remember the RIAA crying about it back in the mid nineties. :eyes:

[Mizmoon]

91. The bands my teen listens to are not on the radio

Anyone hear of "Alexis on Fire"? He and his friends love them and buy their stuff off of their website. The same for their other favorite, Hawthorne Heights - a local band. The closest thing to commercial music they like is "Groove Armada" - not exactly an FM staple either.

Brittney Spears and whoever make them want to puke. That's why they don't buy the RIAA's crapola records.

[MadHound]

125. Oh, back in the day I remember the RIAA raising a stink then

But the fact of the matter was that there wasn't a damn thing that they could do about it. No way to install copy protection on vinyl or tape, so they just whined and moaned and did nothing. People continued to tape, all under the rubric of the fair use law.

The only difference now is that a CD can be copy protected. Of course that throws the whole idea of fair use out the window, thus alienating people who are recording CDs for things like weddings, dances, etc. etc. In addition, with today's electronics and computers, copyright protection will be gotten around, one way or the other. If you've got a source playing the music, it will be recorded, there really is no way you can stop it.

[okieinpain]

140. yeah, but you couldn't send out a copy to a million people either.

that's what is happening today.

[okieinpain]

141. nope, nobody is making copies of crappy albums, sorry

It's the technology that is killing the record companies. they could drop some of the other bullshit and make them so cheap it's about the same thing as downloading and burning.

you know drop all of that art crap, forget the plastic, use paper. but of course that would put a lot of folks out of work.

[Beaverhausen]

144. Right. record companies, manufacturers, record stores are all impacted

Many people in the "industry" are hurt by this illegal copying.

I don't know why people can't see that.



Disclaimer: I'm a musician AND I work in the industry.

[Initech]

147. That's what I've been saying, damn it!

It pisses me off that the RIAA says that when they charge $25 for a Linkin Park or Audioslave CD and then people complain that the music sucks but they buy the frickin CDs anyways!

I just cut out the middle man and buy either used CDs, indie music, or really cheap CDs.

[mattclearing]

3. Yeah, the last copy-protection scheme was thwarted by a marker, right?

People will get around this. The music-buying community is smarter than the music-marketing community, and always will be.

The major labels give 15% of sales to artists, make them recoup all of their expenses, and then charge outrageous sums for the product and have the gall to bitch when piracy becomes an issue.

Suck it, RIAA.

[alfredo]

15. Janis Ian gives away a lot of music on her web site.

http://www.janisian.com/index.html

She's a real friend of the music fan.

[KDLarsen]

129. Don't forget the classic methods either..

.. holding down shift & having the CD in the machine when you start it up will also render the copy-protection useless.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

4. Oh yes, now I remember why I will never BUY a commercially produced CD

ever again. I'd like to see musicians counter this with methods to cut the RIAA out of the deal entirely. Make music available for download only. No pressing disc's ever again. Greedy f'ing bastards. If the musicians got a bigger cut, or the RIAA got less, I'd be more inclined to listen to some of their arguments. FUCK the RIAA. Fuck 'em in the ear.

[skids]

5. Attend shows and buy them at the band's booth.

...both attending the show and obtaining your copies there are a good way to support the band directly.

[AndyTiedye]

20. Some Bands Burn their own CDs. No Record Company Needed

That is what is really worrying the "music industry".
Anybody can be their own record company now.
The "music industry" is losing control of the musicians.

[Coventina]

6. Hey RIAA.... KISS. MY. ASS.

Just as an example, I purchased "Never Mind the Bullocks, Here's the Sex Pistols" on vinyl many years ago.

Then, many years after that I purchased it on magnetic tape, because the vinyl had deteriorated, and I had a tape deck in my car.

THEN, not so very long after that, everything went to CD and guss what? Sucker that I am, I bought it AGAIN on CD!!! I mean, what could I do? Vinyl and tape became dinosaurs almost overnight.

AND THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE!

So, RIAA, don't fucking tell ME that I, who have purchased your titles MULTIPLE TIMES do not have the right to make my own fucking CDs. And if I want to sometimes burn a copy for a friend, FUCKING DEAL WITH IT!!! You know, somehow book authors survive the existence of libraries. IT'S THE SAME FUCKING CONCEPT!

What is going to make you fuckers happy? Putting every last one of your customers in jail? Who will buy your crap then?

You are beyond contempt.

[genieroze]

83. Bingo, do you know how many copies of the same music I have

on different media? I literally have cases of vinyl in my garage, boxes of tapes and 8 tracks and shelves of CD's and copies I made of Cd's I LEGALLY own. I used to belong to Napster but their CD burning software Roxio kept on crashing my computer and clashing with Nero and I had to delete it. If your machine can handle the software it's a pretty good deal. Listen to all the music you want to for ten bucks a month and a buck more a song if you want to burn them. For about twenty bucks I could get a CD with ALL of the songs I want. What do they want me to do carry hundreds of Cd's in my car so I can listen to one song and change the CD and listen to a different song. I rather make a few Cd's with the songs I want to hear. In NJ they are trying to make smoking in ones car illegal because it's distracting. How distracting is switching Cd's?

[guruoo]

108. They're fooling themselves - copy protection is useless

[DiverDave]

143. Abso-GOD DAMNED-lutely

You NAILED it.
I have been saying the same damned thing for YEARS.
I have paid, in some cases, for the album, the cassette tape AND the CD.
And I cant download and listen to music that I have paid for MULTIPLE TIMES??

Up yours you greedy bastards, the RIAA can come and try and get money from me.

Buncha repukelicans, anyway.

[bemildred]

7. Copy Protection won't help sales either, dimwit.

It's been tried a few times now.
Sometimes you are just screwed.

[KDLarsen]

130. Agreed

I know a lot of people who had stopped buying CD's because of the copy-protection. I personally use my PC as a stereo, and if the Cd won't run properly on my PC, then the CD goes back to the store.

Heck, in a lot of cases I just rip the entire CD to mp3 files, so I can play games while listening to the music at the same time. And if a CD won't allow me to do that, I won't bother buying it.

[madrchsod]

8. well they better give ebay a call--

i`m buying vinyl and used cd`s on ebay..to bad the "music industry" sucks,,,gee what i want to see is another multi millionaire wannabe pimping his or her song with a bunch of tax write off rides. hell, that`s just one of the genre that totally sucks, i won`t start on the rest

[Flammable Materials]

88. Do you remember the botched campaign with Garth Brooks ...

... that attacked stores that sold used CDs?

Douchebags.

[Rich Hunt]

99. they don't take kindly to that, either

Sometimes the prices for used CDs, books, and especially vinyl (???) appear to me to be artificially inflated.

[msongs]

9. thieves will always justify their theft...the usual excuxes ->

I want it now because I am special and better than you wah wah wah wah...don't forget to change your diapers.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm


PS - if thieves come in your house without your consent and steal all your tech equipment that would be fine with you apparently, because the thieves do not want to pay the rip off prices or get stuck with something they don't like or thieves have been doing it all along back in the day anyway.

[Coventina]

11. *yawn*

Another self-righteous defender of coporate rulership.

:eyes:

[redstateblues]

12. Yeah -what about those greedy songwriters who are having to

wait tables and sell real estate because they are getting ripped off. Your post is the only one here that displays any real knowledge of the issue. Anyone who doesn't think we need intellectual property laws is foolish.

[Occulus]

16. I think we should have IP laws.

However, if you're going to argue that digital media falls under the same laws as print, broadcast, and nondigital recordings, please consider this:

Back in the 1980's in my area when I was a kid (SW Michigan) I remember my parents complaining about the telephone company. At the time, I think it was Michigan Bell. Specifically, they were upset about not being able to have more than one telephone in their house without paying for it. I seem to recall that the telephone company in their service area was forcing people who had their company as their local phone company (and guess what? It had made certain it was the only one in the 'local' calling area, and owned all the companies in the state beside that) to a) rent the phones they were going to use from the phone company and b) charged extra on the bill for each outlet in the home. These things were, from what I gather, not the only difficulties everyone had with the Bells, but I digress.

This was later declared illegal in court or somehow forcibly reversed and people were ever after able to have as many phones of as many types in their homes as they desired. I distinctly recall this entire episode from my childhood; in fact, I believe my mother still has one of those old black rental phones in her basement.

None of this is true for, to use a modern-day example, Microsoft. In fact, that has done exactly the opposite: once was the day you could install Windows 3.1 on your computers in your home (note the plural), and Microsoft was none the wiser; today, Windows XP must be a unique copy on each computer in one's home- regardless of whether they are networked and/or have internet access, or not. I personally find this to be an unacceptable intrusion; I should be able to install a paid copy of Microsoft Windows XP on each PC in my home.

They used to not prevent this, and now they do- the phone company used to prevent the same, and now, cannot. They are disallowed. Why is Microsoft treated differently? Because it's software, it's digital, it can be easily copied?

Like a phone line, right? Splice the signal, bing- a copy of the call, in real time. Can't have that, the phone company said, but the courts ruled against them. There are rumors Microsoft plans in the future to make Windows a service, that is, you'll pay a monthly license fee if you want to use it.

Imagine that, if you will: a monthly fee, for your PC. A bit like renting phones. And people who deride linux and filesharing and open source software for being free. It's insane, it's greed run amok, and it must stop, even if we have to bankrupt the litigators in the process.

I personally very much wish to see the RIAA dead, and gone, made a thing of the past, and forgotten- for good. It has begun to encroach upon things other than music, things that let people share things other than music, and now things that let people store things other than music. In every case, they end up wanting control, because for them, that equals profit.

When will we admit the truth, and begin to call it a cartel?

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. You are talking about the Bell break up

It was a monopoly. A lawsuit was filed and Bell had to let competitors sell phones and phone service. The advantages are in the technology we have available today. I still remember buying our first cordless phone shortly after the Bell breakup. But the disadvantage is a big one, IMO. Before the breakup, phones lasted literally forever. We still have a phone we bought (for $10!!) from the phone company nearly 25 years ago. It still works. And today I am about to start shopping for a new cordless phone - my second one this year.

So basically we have traded modern technology and cool phones for phones that work and last beyond the warranty period.

[Occulus]

81. Thanks for the refresher

Now- how does the RIAA *not* constitute a cartel?

[Horse with no Name]

120. Can you imagine in Bush's America

forcing a corporate monopoly to break up?
:rofl:

[K-W]

18. Have fun saving record industry execs jobs.

Because they fooled you into thinking preserving the current industry structure is good for artists.

[Sparkly]

49. How is breaking copyright law supposed to HELP artists?

A limited number of copies per CD seems fair to me. How do you think unlimited copying, which is breaking copyright law, will help artists?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

13. Hmmm. After reading your post, I thought you must have some

music on there you would be worried about getting ripped off.

I think you're safe.

:toast:

[NervousRex]

74. Hehehe...

C'mon, let's be fair...the stuff on that site is definitely bad enough to get corporate airplay....;-)

[SammyWinstonJack]

104. Ouch!

:yoiks:

[Occulus]

14. You only illustrate why you and others just don't get it

It isn't like the picture you painted at all because a flawless, effortless copy is being made. You can't do that with an object, like tech equipment, or in fact any material posession (unless you have a 3D printer for prototype parts, but those printers cost over ten grand apiece).

Not one person is denying any other of property in these cases. The only denial is that of potential profits and potential royalties. I've had a boycott of commercial music in place for about a decade now; I don't and won't even listen to music on the radio. I download the free tracks from artists who have released them willingly, but beyond that, I don't download RIAA member crap because that's what it is- CRAP, either because they release crap, or because they "bought in" to the system suing its own prior and current customers.

The RIAA has not, for many years runnig, and will not into the foreseeable future receive one cent from me in any way. They don't deserve, have not for some time now, and now that they're complaining about burning CDs (which I assume means they'll be going after blank CDs next, which AREN'T ONLY USED FOR MUSIC, by the way) they and their supporters and all their arguments against filesharing, for both the right and wrong reasons, can go stuff themselvesx.

They have LOST the argument with me as far as I am concerned. By jumping on people burning music onto CDs (where were they when EVERYONE was doing it on tapes back in the '80s.... HUH?????), and taking into account their prior actions, I feel it is safe to say that the blank CD, CD writers, and all the rest of the associated hardware and software are all about to be attacked.

The RIAA is wrong and always was, and this proves it for me beyond any doubt.

[K-W]

17. Contrary to popular belief there is no right to profit.

Songwriters will be just fine, they are the one piece of the industry that will survive any change, they supply the demand.

The issue here is whether we let the technology and the free market determine how music is produced and distributed or whether we let the recording industry continue to exploit artists and consumers the same way it did when it controlled the material means of musical distribution.

[mike_c]

19. I think this reply hits the nail on the head precisely....

This issue isn't about intellectual property-- that's a smokescreen the music industry is using to try and dress their pig up for general consumption. It's really about the industry losing it's ability to profit by controlling music distribution. The music industry can't even claim to deserve a payoff for innovation, like big pharma-- its sole source of profit is control of the means of distribution of other peoples' work. Even the artists' compensation is usually controlled by the industry's distribution monopoly. Likewise, the argument that the industry offers production services that enhance artists' opportunities fails because those opportunities are meant-- and permitted-- only to drive the control of demand for the industry's distribution monopoly. That business model is now a greed driven dinosaur trying to stay alive in a dramatically changed world. It is doomed to extinction, but it isn't going gracefully.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Using the state to extract rent.

The recording industry has ceased to perform a useful function as technology has eliminated the need for physical distribution using mass produced media such as records or cds. Rather than invest their huge profits in some other useful enterprise the recording industry, through its cartel organization RIAA, is attempting to use the force of the state to control all distribution of media. In effect it seeks to use the state to extract rent from every media exchange.

[redstateblues]

22. Songwriters will be fine as long as they don't expect to get paid

for their property. Everytime music is copied illegally a sonwriter gets ripped off. Come to Nashville and see how few songwriters are now able to make a living. I'm not sure what the solution is, but to blithely say songwriters will be fine ignores the ripple effect of the theft of intellectual property.

[Solon]

27. Those songwriters who are smart about it will not renew RIAA....

Contracts, which rip them off anyways. That is what the RIAA is upset about, they are going to lose the artists themselves soon, because the RIAA's method of distribution is becoming obsolete. The beauty of it is that the Artists and songwriters will now be able to SELL their OWN music at HIGHER PROFITS, but lower overhead than doing it through the RIAA. I have been boycotting the RIAA for over 5 years, because I REFUSE to buy a CD that cost 2 dollars to make for 11-15 dollars EACH. Hell some DVDs today are just as cheap, its getting ridiculous. An individual artist can now sell songs at 99 cents or less, giving the customer control of what songs they own(instead of buying blocks of 15 songs in albums, when you only wanted one song out of it), and the artist gets to keep more than 10 percent of the profit this time around.

[depakid]

65. Yep- that's one of the underlying issues

though as we can see from some of the language used by certain posters in this thread, they've bought the RIAA's propoganda hook line and especially sinker...

[Occulus]

80. And if their $,99 cent song sells 1,000,000 copies

of that song, that's a little less than a million bucks right there. Now consider the fact that people buying one song for $.99 would be likely to buy two or three by that same band (hey, they're there, it's only a dollar, why not, right?), and we're talking some pretty serious cash.

Now subtract the overhead for the website and the bandwidth. Ah, there's the rub; that kind of bandwidth gets expensive after a point. How does that problem get solved?

[boredofeducation]

124. Sounds like your confused

Running a website is cheap. Lets say that every 99 cent song it costs the artist 24 cents in overhead, might be a little high or little low, I am not sure. So for every 99 cent song that gets sold, they keep 75 cents. That is a better deal than the RIAA could ever come up with. Good artists make a dollar on every $15.00 CD that is sold. So if a customer buys 2 songs, the artist would make $1.50 and the customer would have paid $1.98. Not bad margins at all I would say.

The cost of bandwidth would already be figured into the overhead costs. Transfering 4MB files, will certainly not cost any more than 1/10th of a penny.

[sidpleasant]

121. RIAA is a trade association, not a music company

You seem to be operating under a serious misconception. Musicians don't sign "RIAA contracts", they sign contracts with Sony Music, BMG, etc. The RIAA is a trade association and lobbying group. It doesn't have a "method of distribution", it's member companies do.

[Occulus]

131. How, then, does the RIAA have standing to do ANYTHING

to consumers?

Who the FUCK are they to be making threats and scaring us all to death?

What right do they have?

[sidpleasant]

137. The RIAA is the music industry's trade association

It acts on behalf of it's members, just like the National Association of Chain Drug Stores acts on behalf of CVS / Walgreen / Eckerd for example. Almost every industry you can imagine has a trade association to lobby for it.

[short bus president]

29. Yep. And God Kills a Songwriter Every Time You Sing

Happy Birthday, too. :eyes:

[sendero]

38. I find it INCREDIBLY..

....hard to believe that a songwriter who was ever good enough to make a living at it is now not making a living because of copying/downloading.

I just don't buy it.

What has REALLY happened is that the chosen few are promoted into infinity (and most of them are talentless) and the real artists are COMPLETELY IGNORED by the music industry star-making machinery. If they don't think you are a million seller, you will get JACK.

The ones that are dumb enough to think copying/internet is the cause of their plight, well I just have no sympathy for them, they ought to know better.

[Sparkly]

47. Think about it.

It's not just songwriters -- it's performers, producers, publicists, everybody involved in the industry.

Yes, some are promoted by industry connections based on what sells and who got connections (and who got lucky). Same's true in other media. There are plenty of talented actors, singers, songwriters, etc. out there who didn't get a "break."

As with the publishing industry, the big companies have access to all the marketing channels; it's easy for them to distribute. That's just the way it is. Making it easy to steal copyright does NOT make it easier for independent companies to succeed, nor does it give new talent a "break."

[merwin]

52. Are you fucking kidding me? The average songwriter gets little to none of

the profits. The crappy deals that they are forced into by the giant record companies are making sure of that.

For proof, visit this site:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol17/issue41/music.labels.html

Remember that the songwriters don't normally own the songs they write. The record labels call it 'work for hire'. Basically, you are writing and recording songs for THEM.

The ONLY money that the artist makes is off of concerts and the cd's/shirts/etc that they sell at those concerts.

[Sparkly]

61. So, is illegal infringement of copyright the answer?

:shrug:

[merwin]

67. Seems to me like they're trying to prevent 'fair use'. If you bought an

album on Vinyl or tape, you should have the license to get a burned cd of that same album.

I'll present a parallel arguement. Let's say you bought Windows 95 (back in the old days) on floppy disks. It came on about 25 of them. Would it be illegal for you to borrow your friend's Windows 95 CD and install off of that? According to the RIAA's logic, it would be illegal, since you bought it on floppy disk you're only allowed to use floppy disks to install it. Forget about the fact that you bought a license to use the specified software, not a license to use the media that it comes on.

They are implementing ridiculous rules that go directly against existing laws and practices in order to turn a huge profit by exploiting people.

If you want to support the record companies that are exploiting the artists and consumers, by all means, buy the same album 20 times and be happy with it.

Sometimes when the government refuses to protect the people, it's up to the people to become informed and revolt.

[Sparkly]

72. "Fair use"

"Fair use" is defined by law. If you have a problem with that, challenge the law.

If you bought a vinyl Hendrix album in 1968, it doesn't mean you automatically deserve that same music delivered on CD. You bought what you bought. (It sometimes happens that software companies will give you a new "key" to reinstall a program on a new computer. That's good practice, but not license to pirate.)

What "ridiculous rules go directly against existing laws?" If such exist, you've got a class-action lawsuit.

[merwin]

93. DVD's for example.

You legally have the right to make a back up copy in case your original gets destroyed. However, it's illegal to make a backup copy of a DVD since you have to bypass the encryption to do so, therefore making it illegal to do something that I'm legally allowed to do under the law.

Citizens cannot just 'change the law' on this. That has been proven time and time again. The music/video industry is run by 4 or 5 companies, and anyone not signed under one of these 4 or 5 companies has about as much chance of making any money as they do of winning the lottery. It also means that they can make whatever ridiculous laws they want to. Yes, THEY make the laws. Their lobbyists actually do the writing of many of these ridiculous laws, and then bribe congressmen into passing them.

And yes, you do have the right to install any software that you buy on an unlimited number of computers, as long as it is only one one computer at a time. You do not legally have to request new keys each time.

[depakid]

68. Actually the answer is to revamp intellectual property laws

because in many industries, they've become not only abusive, but detrimental to the very puposes for with they were devised (and authorized by the Vonstitution) in the first place.

In the music industry, they've become abusive to artists and squelch creativity and diversity.

In the academic world, publishers have become parasites- adding little or no value, basically stealing from students, and preventing the dissemination of scholarly information- with hinders not only education and research, but advances in the state of the art in many fields...

[Sparkly]

75. I have to disagree with that.

They are not in the business of providing free materials, nor of fostering creativity and diversity. Businesses exist because they make a profit.

Companies seek out and market "creativity and diversity" to the extent they see trends selling. That's just the way it is. Same's true for breakfast cereal.

Academic publishing is a small niche; textbooks are expensive not because publishers are cheaters (otherwise they'd have huge competition) but because producing smaller quantities means higher costs, and hardbound books are expensive to begin with.

Nobody's in the business of denying other people knowledge. There are libraries, and the internet has made information FAR more accessible than it was when I was in school.

[depakid]

79. I suspect you haven't much actual experience

about how these industries work, because you've made a number of false statements and your reasoning is simplistic and your language use reflects "party line" or "talking point" memos on the topic.

As to academic publishing, ask pretty much ANY professor (or grad student familiar with the situation) what they think, and you'll find that the consensus is pretty much what I said in the previous post.

What you'd find is that these parasites DO deny knowledge- to the detriment of society, they extort huge fees from universities for their journals and the professors who write articles and chapters in texts get paid a PITTANCE- and are denied exposure for their work- which is really their stock in trade.

Similarly, though you claim familiarity with the recording industry from a musician's perspective, I'm guessing you must either be very succesful or haven't been out in the business for a while... or haven't had the pleasure of trying to get signed (and reading the standard deal) in a very long time.

Perhaps Courtney Love can enlighten you on this point.

See Courtney Love does the Math

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

[Sparkly]

85. Pffffft

You have no idea who you're talking to.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

[Coventina]

92. I worked as a secretary at a college, boy was that an eye opener!

You are right, the publishers of textbooks are evil, and use their power to extort money from students, teachers and schools, and they certainly DO impair the ability of teachers to educate.

I find it interesting that the poster in question didn't present any proof of how they know these textbook publishers are just good folks trying to get by.

[Indy Lurker]

101. Back in College

My professors required that you bought the book they wrote, and it seemed like they came out with a "new" book every few years.

[manic expression]

28. Please...

the thieves here are the corporate pigs who are denying people access to music. I have no problem with people getting music if the usual solution means paying ridiculous prices for a below-average product.

The people who are saying: "I'm special I want this and this" unfairly is the MUSIC INDUSTRY. You're criminalizing the people who are doing things in response to ludicrous practices.

[Sparkly]

44. "Corporate pigs who are denying people access to music."

Do people have a legal right to music without paying for it?

"You're criminalizing the people who are doing things in response to ludicrous practices."

I don't see how limiting the number of times a CD can be copied is a ludicrous practice. Is requiring payment for a book ludicrous practice?

"I'm special I want this and this" is NOT coming from the music industry, imho.

[manic expression]

77. However...

if publishers are charging ludicrous prices for very low-quality books, and people start to xerox them, I do not think the people are being unreasonable.

Most people want to listen to good music without buying a CD with a lot of crap on it for tons of money, especially when THEY actually have to worry about stuff like rent and food. Meanwhile, artists and songwriters are not bothered by the same trifles.

People should have to legal right to access music in a fair way. Doing it the industry's way is not fair, while doing what they CAN is IMO.

[mccoyn]

112. Brilliant, lets put the government in charge of art!

"People should have to legal right to access music in a fair way."

I think artists should have a legal right to provide music however they want whether that method is stupid or not.

[manic expression]

135. Unfair monopoly is not OK

and that is what the music industry is trying to do. Forcing people into paying high prices for questionable products is beyond greedy and there is no excuse for it.

[Occulus]

133. Not only is it ludicrous,

it's downright impossible. The CD does not know how many times it has been copied, nor does it know IF it is being copied or read. A CD is an inert piece of passive storage media, and not an 'active' technology- like a hard drive- itself.

Aside from that- do I or do I not actually own the physical elements of a hard disk that are altered into a usable pattern when they are written?

Do I or do I not actually own the media upon which the music or software is imprinted?

Do I or do I not actually own the hardware upon which that music is played?

If I can say 'yes' to all those questions (and I can) then there is NO content control possible after the point of sale, because I and I alone hold the keys to the kingdom. By screaming "content control", what some people here are suggesting is that it's okay for a private industry to come into my home and tell me how I will and will not use hardware that I paid, and paid somebody else, to own.

Aside from all this, there's no way for the industry to know if my copy of the software or music is legitimate; after all, I don't have to keep that PC connected to the internet to make copies. If I don't connect to the internet, there's no real way for them to know I have it, short of actually confiscating my hardware and examining it for themselves- which I will not allow them to do.

However, they've gone and made this about something other than filesharing or "illegal" copies by mentioning people copying CDs. They've made this about everyone who uses blank CDs and DVDs. Just yesterday, I bought a stack of 25 DVD+R discs (real good deal, too) and I thought to myself, "how long will it be before the RIAA limits how many I can buy at a time? How long until I have to send away TO THEM for blanks? How long until the price of blank rises to "compensate" the RIAA members for their "lost" sales?"

This is about content control, at the end. It's about an industry with such colossal hubris, such fantastic arrogance, that it believes it has the right to manipulate and affect what their own consumers do with their products after they are sold. I have no words. Simply no words.

It's almost as if they said, "we can, so we should." I'm NOT impressed, nor do I agree at all... which is why I haven't bought any music CDs, nor have I listened to the radio for any appreciable length of time, in ten years or so.

Oh, those blank DVDs I bought? I'm using them to burn the episodes of "Stargate SG-1", "Stargate Atlantis", and "Battlestar Galactica" (one of the best shows on TV, period) so I can watch them later after they air. When they're on, I'm at work.

Question for you:

I'm a Sci-Fi channel subscriber. I intend to record all those shows via the TV-in port on my PC, and then use software to edit out the commercials and make it one nice long uninterrupted 40-minute video. However, the scheduler software for the TV crashes, and I must record it manually until I fix the problem.

In the meantime, I miss a show and there's a hole in my collection. Now, because I am a Sci-Fi channel subscriber, is it legal for me to use the filesharing networks to fill in the gap(s) with downloaded files which are themselves recordings of the same channel broadcast, which I initially missed but intended to record myself? Keep in mind, those files are the very thing I myself would have had, had the scheduler software not crashed.

Would you agree, in such a case, that no infringement has occurred, that this falls under time or location shifting?

[brentspeak]

33. Bravo

The people who think it's OK to just take,take,take simply because movies and music are easily available on peer-to-peer ARE stealing, whether they believe it or not.

[Sparkly]

48. I agree, msongs.

Theft is theft, and that includes copyright.

[msongs]

54. thanks for the diaolg and I repeat, thieves will say anything to justify

their theft. and I don't care one way or the other if people who post here dislike what I create. no biggie. but the fact is that the majority of the rip off file thieves justify their own action by blaming the fault on others. those "corporate" record companies, those "crappy cd's with just a few good songs and lots of junk", those lousy artists who are not "worth paying", crummy copyright "laws". The mantra is heard over and over again, "they make me do it" boo hoo hoo it's not my fault.

I applaud those artists who encourage and want to provide files to share with tons of people. They give permission. Others do NOT give permission.

They key of course is what the thieves say when THEY are ripped off by somebody else. When somebody comes on their property, which by the way belongs to them only because of those "stupid" laws society has, then the worm turns, eh? The thieves are all in favor of something for nothing for them, but not something for nothing for other people.

But karma has a way of evening things out over time, so those who rip shall themselves be ripped, and then those people will not see the irony in it all as they cry like babies because this time it was THEM who got ripped.

Meanwhile, play on, download on, etc. To hell with those people who spend thousands of dollars for studio and production time so you can enjoy a few hours of...ripped off music :-)

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Sparkly]

57. I think two things play into it.

One is that music isn't tangible. You can't touch it -- it's sort of ethereal, so it can be harder for people to grasp that there are rights of ownership to it.

The second is the "because I CAN" factor. And when companies seek ways to stem that ("No, you can't!") people get mad. There are certain things we "can" do, some easier than others, that are nonetheless breaches of ownership. The ease of the theft bears no relation to the illegality of the theft.

I'm with you, msongs.

[powwowdancer]

90. name calling won't help...

Look, whether or not burning CD's is theft (either philosophically or legally) is immaterial. Pandora's box is open. The lid has been blown with enough C4 to put the rock of gibralter into orbit. This bell can't be un-rung. Yes, thievery is thievery, and there's no way to put a pretty face on it. The best you can do, (as a clandestine CD fiend), is rationalize. BUT, philosophical high ground is all that you've seized with your adherence to your admirable moral code. You can pay, say, $16 for "The Heffalump's" new CD, or you can plunk down a big, fat nickel for a blank CD and burn that puppy. You have two choices. Maintain your moral purity, (which now has a very tangible price), or avail yourself of this technology and accept lame rationalizations for why it's O.K. in order to balm your conscience. Sure, each member of The Heffalumps are multi-millionaires, while you're slogging away at $8.00 an hour in some hellish cubicle farm; I can see how sympathy might be in short supply. My ambiguities aside, it's gonna take something more substantial than calling each other names in cyberspace to make this whole situation more equitable all around; sad thing is, it won't be any of us who make that decision, (see my democratic socialist leanings bubbling up?) We won't even be consulted. The decision, if any, will be made for you by corporate entities which have no interest in your interests. It'll be handed down, carved in stone from the mountaintop by the god of corporate america, viz, the profit margin. This situation is simply one more example of "capitalist Darwinism," i.e., if you don't keep your capital happy, it'll go somewhere that WILL. The difference is, instead of you and I feeling the crunch, the evil "corporate whore" is. That's why all the vitriol throwing from our musical highwaymen! (Well, that and the natural human response to being called names and insulted). This issue sticks in the craw because, God help us, the defendant is the robber baron. I'll be curious to see how it plays out.

:dem:
powwowdancer out

[joeunderdog]

56. Anyone go to the beach lately and notice no boom box wars?

I was amazed. No one was listening to duped discs, stolen downloads or even good ol fashioned radio.

Kids nowadays put their $ into video, computers, etc. More excitement/dollar. I listened to albums when I got home from school, hunted for used records and did concerts. Now kids shoot villans and surf the web.

The RIAA lost me when they forced cd's upon us and skirted the fair play of capitalism by fixing prices. They didn't let market forces determine prices--their collusion did. People got priced-out and went to other areas. Sure they steal the music, and that ain't right, but now they just put their money into other things.

The RIAA may have missed their sweet spot. Kids brag about video games rather than the hot album.

[Sparkly]

59. The RIAA doesn't represent video games.

They represent recording companies.

If the appeal of videogames somehow hurts the music industry, that's one thing. If that drives down the cost of CDs, that's one thing. But illegal reproduction in violation of copyright is another thing.

That's all I'm sayin'.

[Occulus]

139. We know their past behavior, though.

THAT'S what at issue here. They weren't talking about people on filesharing networks this time- they were talking about CD burning. That's a much broader category. I can make a perfectly legit copy of a CD I buy today- IF I were to buy one, which I'm not about to- and thanks to "fair use" it's legal if I own a legit copy.

However, if they place protection on the CD which prevents my totally legit copy, I'm breaking the law in another way if I try to get around that. This is what they'vfe wanted since the whole filesharing thing started, but again, filesharing is beside the point. The point is, they're now speaking to the much broader category of people who burn copies onto their MP3 players, tapes for a Walkman, or to a compilation of legally purchased music.

The RIAA is signaling here that they're about to start a war- PR or otherwise- against CD copying in general. The problem is, the last five CDs I used were DVDs and were used for something other than music. Nevermind that, says the RIAA; we're talking to you, too.

I don't like what this cartel is trying to do. If they had their way, no recording of anything could be copied, ever, and any hardware for doing so would either be illegal or subject to their control and approval.

Nobody deserves that much power over American culture.

[Placebo]

148. ...

:eyes: :nopity: :dunce: :eyes:

[haktar]

10. Criminal, greedy Bastards!

Here in Germany i have to pay a fee for every recording capable device, whether it is a cd burner or a tape deck. Nevertheless my right to a private copy is limited. I'm not allowed to bypass a copy protection.

Dear RIAA: when you're at it, make all radio stations illegal. You have to see, i'm still able to record legally hundreds of digital radio programs over satellite and internet. Think of the damage i can cause to you with that. :sarcasm:

[shanti]

21. oh for crying out loud...

was there this big of an uproar over blank tapes???? the RIAA's greed is boundless!!

[jmowreader]

142. Yup. Sure was.

They went on and finally got something like a 25-cent surcharge per unit of recording media to compensate the artists for ripping them off. I mean, these fuckers were getting stupid with this shit: 25 cents surcharge on a reel of 2-inch Ampex 456 Grand Master. No one copies albums onto two-inch tape, but a lot of people made albums with it. But nooooooooo...send us the 25 cents on the off chance you might be out of cassettes to record songs off your AM radio, and decide to pull out a $200 reel of tape instead.

[ticapnews]

25. Maybe they ought to worry more about illegal Payola...

which allows garbage records to spin 120 times a week.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story?id=7504174

[leeroysphitz]

26. Lol. I've been ripping CD's

and reading up on DU all afternoon today... What a co-inky-dink.

[wli]

30. I'd be very willing to pay artists for mp3's on the internet

But definitely not in any scheme where the RIAA is involved.

[high density]

31. Bogus research

Music sales are down because pop music sucks.

[shugh514]

32. If you don't want your money to go to the RIAA

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

This is a great resource to find out if the money you spend on a CD is going to the RIAA. I stopped giving my money to the RIAA when they started to attack file sharing with lawsuits.

[lakeguy]

34. i haven't purchased a CD in a store or burned any freebies

in the past two years because the music is generally CRAP! only good shit i hear is mostly local and i buy their music when the chance comes. i don't know how "copy protection" will stop that...

[Dogmudgeon]

35. And women who don't sleep with me are breaking the law, too!

They're violating my rights.

They're committing a civil wrong. It's a tort, I say! A tort! And that is illegal.

They can, and will, be Prosecuted to the Fullest Extent of the Law (Enforced by Weight, not Volume. Does not include Tax, Tags, and Carrying Charges. Qualified applicants only. You must be a licensed driver to apply. Proof of insurance mandatory. Give me a 'C', a bouncy 'C').

And God will punish them most severely in the afterlife. They will be fat in the afterlife. They will have cellulite. They will have bad hair days forever. God told me this himself.

If the RIAA can invent morality and write laws, then I should be able to, as well.

--p!
Girls, you're off the hook.
You can thank me later.
Now go get busy and download that new Stones album for Daddy.

[Sparkly]

46. "If the RIAA can invent morality and write laws..."

They didn't write the laws.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.html

[Dogmudgeon]

87. That IS the law they wrote

The RIAA, MPAA, and the software companies.

They're rich. They decided they wanted to be morality entrepreneurs. They bought some legislation.

This went through Congress. The industry wrote its own law. It's a matter of record.

And the creators? They get the crumbs from the table.

It's the American Way (so-called).

--p!

[northzax]

94. you're actually comparing copyright violations to rape?

in a good way?

[Dogmudgeon]

105. Rape? Of whom?

No.

Rape is non-consensual, and no one is compelled to engage in sex for any reason. I described the absurdity of compelling behavior to benefit privileged, private individuals. Such is the modern process of using the the State for enforcement of private law.

There was no such thing as "criminal copyright infrigement" before these laws were passed. They were torts, or so-called "civil wrongs", and often they weren't even that. The criminal infringements that were around dealt with piracy, which used to be defined as commercial reproduction for sale and profit.

These private laws were all applied retroactively, as when Warner Brothers decided that they "owned" the song "Happy Birthday To You". (Credits on movies now say "Mildred and Patty Hill", but it's WB.)

It is now illegal to hire a clown or puppeteer troupe to come to your child's birthday and sing "Happy Birthday" without licensure from BMI/ASCAP and Warner Brothers/Seven Arts Publishing.

One of the sad things is that a great many creative artists now feel as if they have been ripped off, and that they "deserve" a cut of the privately-levied tax be turned over automatically. But the way the laws are written, this isn't the case. They have to establish that they tried to collect -- which only the companies can do. And when you go with a company, you usually end up owning them money.

The argument that is given to the public is that "creative people deserve to make money". Well, I deserve lots of sex. I deserve to be rich. I deserve to have not a care in the world. And I deserve to have laws written to enhance my life. And, of course, this isn't what a legal system is for. Why should it work that way just because certain private parties have wealth and power?

--p!

[northzax]

111. your argument holds water

only if you are creating something that someone else is getting rich off. You could compare yourself to a prostitute with a bad pimp, doing the work but someone else taking the profits, or an inventor who's invention was taken by someone else for profit, but not the way you put it. You don't deserveto get laid, or get rich, just as artists don't deserve to get paid. However, if an artist's work is being used by other people, they deserve to get paid. it's that simple.

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. This is what they said about cassette recorders, too.

That didn't kill the record companies; CD burners won't, either.

[Sparkly]

45. Cassette recordings produced severely degraded quality.

Digital technology doesn't.

It won't "kill" the companies, but it makes sense for them to limit the number of times a CD can be copied, and/or, increase their prices.

[LanternWaste]

118. I'm not sure how that enters into the moral argument....

I'm not sure how "degradation of quality" enters into the moral argument you're attempting to make.

During my HS days (80-84) we ALL taped albums we liked. No word from RIAA at the time (as far as I know of, anyway... maybe the suits were busy howling with righteous indignation about how the BetaMax was about to kill 'Television As We Know It')

We taped the album, stuck in the cassette player, listened to it and enjoyed it. It was more than common- it was standard practice. Not one complaint that I know of- by law enforcement, artists or even lawyers. Not one peep. Not one argument. Why was I not called a thief and a parasite then as opposed to the kids who d/l it now? The moral equation was precisely the same as it is now. The technology has advanced, but there is absolutely no moral difference I can perceive.

What is the precise and relevant moral difference (sans tech advances)?

[mccoyn]

119. The difference is costs.

When you copy your albums onto tapes for friends then a few people get music off from each album. The degradation of quality kept this in check. If a copy wasn't made from the original it was very poor quality. This protected the RIAA revenue stream.

When you copy a CD for your firends, they can go and copy it for their friends. Each copy is exactly the same and there is no degradation of quality. There is nothing protecting the RIAA revenue stream.

Given the high costs of attempting the enforce these situations and the differing costs of not enforcing them the RIAA is at liberty to treat each situation differently as they see fit. There is no moral quandry here, just a cost difference.

[trogdor]

126. So then you record your jams in real time.

Throw the CD into your PC, play it while running your recorder software, and you get a reasonably decent digital copy. Connect a turntable to your sound card (with a $25 preamp available from Radio Shack), and you can get reasonably decent copies of all your old vinyl, as long as the vinyl, your needle, and your turntable are in good condition. I'm listening to Farewell To Kings by Rush right now, transcribed from LP to MP3 in this manner. I figure the signal quality is good enough for car stereos, iPods, or boomboxes.

So my son's friends bring their laptops over and rape my hard drive for all my homemade MP3s. That should tell the RIAA plenty, which is that kids today prefer Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and the Rolling Stones (vinyl era) to Coldplay.

[LanternWaste]

145. Blasphemer!

How dare you sully the perfection of vinyl with digital oompha-loompha's!

Just kidding. Actually, I'd never thought about transferring my LP's to CD till you mentioned it, but it sounds like a great way to add longevity to my LP collection. Thanks for the input!

:yourock:


Maybe a new sig line is in order... "CD's killed Cover Art"

[Coventina]

37. This thread inspired me to go to my local Office Max

and purchase a bundle of 50 blank CDs, for $9.99.

BWHA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!

*rubbing hands gleefully*

[warrens]

39. No measure of how many people went out and bought the CD later?

Why would this be any worse than cassettes? Burned CDs don't last, they have crappy jewel cases, and they basically suck. They're cool to check out something, but when I like what I hear, I buy the real thing.

And to continue my rant, what I hear and like most of the time is NOT AVAILABLE IN STORES. Anyone seen the last two Steve Diggle albums in stores, or even online? No, you haven't, because I looked everywhere. Same with Ed Kuepper and until Dig, most of Brian Jonestown Massacre CDs.

Start running the joint like a business instead of a license to snort cocaine with rock stars, and maybe you'll start making some money, idiots.

[Sparkly]

43. My response

First, cassette recording produced severely degraded quality. Digital processes don't.

Second, even if a scan of a copyrighted photograph isn't as good a quality as the original, it doesn't mean it's not theft.

Third, if works are out of print, or difficult to obtain, it doesn't necessarily mean the recording rights are forfeited. That's just a legal burden you have to bear.

You might decide to go ahead and make a copy of a rare recording your friend owns for your own use, for example, but it doesn't make it legal.

[trogdor]

127. Reduce your burn speed.

As far as your software will allow. That makes more durable homemade CD's. It's worth the wait time.

[Sparkly]

40. I'm just amazed at the hostility here.

I'm a musician, my parents were musicians, and my Dad warned me early on that people would want me to give my work away and not think it deserved compensation. (He believed it was from a belief that God gave us talent by grace, and thus since we didn't earn it we should give it away.)

The music industry is no different than any other in the sense that it's profit-driven. And it's true that technology is a threat to their bottom line. Some may think "good" musicians will survive anyway. Others point out that many "good" ones can't get their music distributed. Stealing material whose rights don't belong to us is not a solution to either of those.

Nor will it go on forever. I think the limited-burning technology is fine, especially if it allows for iPods. If all CDs were to become copyright free, the prices would soar out of this world.

And a lot of talent would have to go out of business -- not only corporate giants, but small labels, too. Publishing is another example of this. Desktop publishing and digital printing processes has made it easy for many of us to publish books independently, and we get a greater percentage of every sale; the tradeoff is the difficulty in marketing and distribution. If fewer people bought books, it'd be even MORE difficult to get into distribution channels, more difficult to compete in marketing, and more difficult to sell, of course.

If anyone thinks it's wrong to steal other products they don't have rights to, then I guess the position is consistent. But just like misusing books, drawings, photographs, and other property that doesn't belong to you is wrong, so is illegally copying music. It's no different.

[warrens]

41. See my reply above

And are you saying I can't burn a best-of disc to listen to while traveling? Or a radio disc from CDs I bought?

[Sparkly]

42. Burning CDs

As I said, I think a limited ability to burn, as described in this article, is fair.

[GoneOffShore]

50. Limited burns aren't such a bad idea

as in backing up purchased music, etc.
Study done recently that pointed out people who download music are far more likely to buy an artist.

I personally will only buy music from an artist website, or at their concerts, unless it's a classical performance or an out of print jazz artist I particularly want. I've basically stopped buying at Amazon or any other reseller. I feel that the originator of the music is getting ripped off by the music "industry" and therefore won't support them.

[Sparkly]

51. I agree.

As for downloaded music leading to sales, that's a promotional right to those who own the rights. I choose to offer free content on my website to promote sales, but that doesn't mean I want people copying my published work to avoid paying for it.

If you don't buy from a retailer, it doesn't necessarily mean the original artist gets a greater cut. It depends on the particular contract.

[GoneOffShore]

53. If someone is selling

CD's at an appearance, and I'm talking small venue concerts, and generally independent artists isn't that better than buying from a big box retailer?

I think that in the past 3 years, I've put maybe 5 albums of music that I haven't paid for on my hard drive, listened once or twice and then dumped it because it really wasn't something I wanted to keep. Never re burnt to disk. I'm not sure where that puts me in the spectrum of down-loaders.

I believe in paying artists for what they do, so ethically by copying stuff I haven't bought, I'm in the wrong, but by dumping those tracks I think I'm alright. Maybe it's a question for Randy Cohen in the Ethicist.

[Sparkly]

55. Again, it depends on contracts.

If they're producing the CDs independently, they may be paying 55% to Amazon, whereas if you purchase from them directly, they get 100% (which only defrays the costs they've put into it, of course -- so even that isn't all profit).

However, if they're with a label with whom they've signed a contract, anything goes. They may have agreed to take 10% no matter who sells them. They may have agreed to take 5% for other sales, and 15% for those they sell. Or they may have been paid in part with "copies," where they get the full purchase price. Or they may have been paid an amount upfront, with only sales beyond that amount generating any further profit.

Some people actually want the ratings on Amazon.

I've actually had people ask me, "Is it better for you if I buy this here?" Nothing wrong with asking that.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

64. You are wrong.

"If you already purchased it, it becomes fair game." You do not own mechanical rights of reproduction. You may not reproduce it as a way to avoid purchase, and you may not reproduce it for sale. You may sell YOUR copy, and that's it.

This is about CD reproduction, not about reselling CDs you own. In other words, owning that CD does not provide license or copyright to its contents.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

70. Yes. n/t

[uppityperson]

84. Wrong. Not supposed to copy books either

You bought the rights to use it privately. It is called copywrite law. You buy 1 copy, can make a copy for your own private use, but not to copy to sell or even give away. You are not supposed to use it for a public performance, like a dance performance, without giving money to the producer. Some printed photos you can't copy either.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

115. Ahem.

[Indy Lurker]

58. If I step on a CD and it breaks, is it legal to download it?

If my $18 is buying a lifetime license, I should never have to buy the songs on that disc again.

If someone is charged with download songs, dosen't the govt have to prove they don't have a legit license to the songs?

[Sparkly]

60. No.

No, purchasing it is NOT a lifetime license.
No, the government wouldn't have to prove anything, whoever owns the rights would.
And yes, that's expensive and difficult to enforce when technology makes theft easy. So using technology to limit reproduction makes sense.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

116. What if, BEFORE I broke it, I made a backup or two?

Am I allowed to listen to those?

Or would you prefer that making those backups is forbidden to begin with, so I either have to buy another CD (not used; they want to outlaw that too) or do without?

[Sparkly]

122. Understand the law.

It's not about what I'd "prefer."

Yes, it's about reproduction to avoid purchase. Yes, some labels are limiting the number of times a CD can be copied, as discussed in the article. Yes, you could listen to your backup.

[depakid]

63. Just like cassette taping was a problem... oh, puleeese

....29 percent of all recorded music obtained by fans. LOL!

Do they take people for complete idiots? No wait, don't answer that....

Just one more example of how out of touch the industry is with ACTUAL trends in the market... and why they're ACTUALLY losing sales.

and props to the Post for having the editorial "discretion" to print such obvious propaganda. Yet another reason why they've lost all credibility- to the point of being laughed at.

[Sparkly]

66. So what's the problem with limiting the number of times a CD can be copied

? :shrug:

[depakid]

71. because your solution is to a virtually non-existant problem!

Some market research "firm" got paid to come up with some ridiculuous- and obviously false- data in order to get everyone all worked up and provides "evidence" for some "solution" that limits the way people use technology-

The reason sales have slumped has nothing to do with CD burning- any more than cassette taping had an impact on record sale (despite the same dire predictions).

The problem has to do with artists not getting heard... and you can chalk that up to radio consolodation- among other things (where were the major labels and the RIAA when the telecommunications bill was passed?).

I'll even go one step further- based on the economic analysis I have seen- in opeer reviewed papers which I have cited in several previous thread about sampling, when all is said and done, the exposure an artist gets from CD burning may even act to increase their sales when all of the numbers are crunched.

If that's true, then the "solution" is counter productive- and a lose/lose for all concerned!

[Sparkly]

76. And you know this because.....?

"Obviously false..." Do you have some link or data to back that up?

Why do you think record companies want to "limit the way people use technology?" And if they limit the number of times a CD can be copied, why is that a problem for you if there's no such reproduction happening anyway?

Again, cassettes and records are irrelevant -- both had significant degradation of sound that doesn't happen with digital technology.

Issues about commercial distribution are the same in many other industries. If I have the world's greatest wrinkle cream, do I have a right to get Macy's to put it on their cosmetics counter? Does ripping off Lancome help me sell my product?

Your argument that CD burning increases sales is one you should take to whoever produces or sells or owns rights to particular recordings. If it's a marketing tool, they will use it. But they don't forfeit their rights because YOU consider it a marketing tool for them -- it's still their choice.

[Occulus]

102. Your "solution" is impossible.

One cannot "limit" the number of times a CD has been copied unless one implements a hardware/software solution. Which will be cracked.

In the end, it is as simple as recording the output. With today's hardware and software, you can even playback to a file.

I'm getting tired of all the RIAA apologists ot understanding the most crucial point: filesharing and CD copying cannot be stopped. Not ever.

[Indy Lurker]

100. nothing as long the price is right.

If I buy a traditional CD, I have a very high quality .wav file that I can copy as many time as I want, and sell when I'm tired of it.

There is far less value in a lower quality .wma file that can only be copied 5 times, and can't be sold as used.


For me, it also impacts the way I listen to music.

I have uploaded 300 CD of music into my PC. Once a month, I'll burn a new CD to listen to in the car. It costs me around $0.25 for a blank.

With downloaded copy protection, I can only copy a song 5 times.

Yes, I could get an MP3 player, but that would cost $100, and then I have no way to add it to the car stero. I could use an FM adapter, but the sound quality would be like ...um... well FM.

For $30 I can buy 120 blank CD's which would sound teriffic, and outlast the life of the car.

Maybe if everyone listened to music on a computer, or a device that was designed for the new formats, it wouldn't be as big a deal.

[Rich Hunt]

73. don't you remember??

"Home taping is killing music!!!"

I get most of my music from pay download services...they're easier and less dull than P2P. Hasn't stopped busybodies from asking me "where I get all my music". Come to think of it, most people I know use one downloading service or another. P2P is a pain in the butt, unless someone has some rare or out-of-print thing that you've been looking all over for.

I'm wondering how much of the fuss is really about limiting people's selection of music and wanting to control the back catalog.

[Sparkly]

78. As long as copyright is respected, fine.

Home taping may well have impacted sales and sent prices upward. (And it may have "killed" some music in limiting what certain labels could risk, who knows?)

But as I've said, there was never before a way to skirt rights without significant degradation of sound quality. Digital technology has made it all different.

Don't think progress doesn't "kill" some aspects of music. For example, live performers used to have a trade, and even 100 years ago a piano was a common staple in middle class households; the phonograph and radio made them practically obsolete. Why would you want to pay for me to play Chopin for you, when you can get Andre Watts for $16.99? That's just the way it is. There are fewer artists heard, but they're far more accessible.

And there's an industry that controls their production and distribution, just as there are industries controlling production and distribution of many other products.

The fact that you can't see or touch music doesn't make it less a commodity than any other product.

[northzax]

96. I think it's worth noting, for clarification

that no one is talking about mix CDs. Even the RIAA doesn't bother with me making you a CD with my favourite songs, they know that is a marketing tool, so unless forced to by people who push the issue. The point is more the effect if I buy the Killers, say, and five of my frends, who 'refuse to support corporate music and the RIAA' ask me to burn them copies. that's a violation, and a clear one, that's 5 CDs that will never be sold, that's 5 people who enjoy the fruits of the Killers' labour without paying one red cent.

and I have a question for all the 'music sucks' people. if it's really so bad, WHY ARE YOU SHARING/DOWNLOADING/BURNING/STEALING (pick your option) it?

[sakabatou]

82. Give up... we're always going to find a way for music

[Il_Coniglietto]

86. How would this really solve anything?

If the number of copies is limited, what's to stop people from making mp3s of the songs onto a computer and just burning from those? If the RIAA makes it so that mp3s can't be made or they are poor quality, well, they'll have new problems and more of a backlash to deal with from us mp3 player carriers. If I buy a new CD, I should have the right to put those songs on my mp3 player. Which, in turn, would theoretically allow me to burn a copy from that for a friend.

Am I missing something here or does this just put us back at the beginning?

[Walt Starr]

89. I don't believe for a second that the minimal theft of IP from CD burning

and file sharing has a thing to do with faltering CD sales.

If you ask me, it's the crap that passes for music these days.

:shrug:

[LeftHander]

98. And TV too...has distracted and brainwashed America...

into not being able to concentrate long enough for the time it takes to listen to an entire album.

So they don't buy music anymore. they listen to radio that is puncuated every two minutes with obnioxiuous advertising.

It really isn't about the burning....it is really our sad excuse for a culture...our TV idiot nation.

[sleipnir]

95. The RIAA opened Pandora's Box with CD's and Digital Media

They just didn't know it at the time. Now, it's too late, they're trying to play catch up and it's over for them.

They should have started this current CD copy fight 5-7 years ago, now it's not going to happen.

The problem is, the RIAA is still holding onto the stinking corpse of their old business model: Album sales. They can't seem to get it through their head that with digital media, physical store-purchased albums are dead.

There will always be a War between the RIAA and everyone one else, until the RIAA gives up on album sales and moves onto legal downloads. The pirate community will always crack anything the RIAA throws at them. There are millions of pirates, and only a few hundred corporate drones producing copy protection software/hardware. The numbers are against the RIAA.

The RIAA keeps on starting their battles years too late, and then, like I said Pandora's Box is open and there is nothing left but hope.

[LeftHander]

97. As a recording musician.....

Let me first off state it is the responsibility not of the RIAA to do somehting about piracy and copyright abuse....it is the the abusers them selves.

The RIAA complains about CD burning ruining there profits. Well the same was said over and over when other music technologies were invented...

like wax, vinyl, cassettes....blah blah blah...

The only hope that musicians have to make a living at recording is to trust that people will stop stealing our music. Or if they can't do that then have decency to at least buy one of our disks sometime.

I am all for the try before buy....I know our CD will be ripped and burned and we will only achieve possibly 10% or our potential sales. So I only hope that our packaging...excellent art work, 8 page booklet with lyrics and photos would be something that people would care enough to have. (BTW - We are also planning on a vinyl release as well.)

Granted it is too easy to do... ut so was inthe 70's to go to friends house with a bunch of blank tapes sit and get stoned and record their albums.

Same activity, different time.

All in all musicians record companies need to stop worrying about those people that steal music. You can't stop it. Get smarter and market to the people who actually like to buy music. Who like to go to record shops, browse and talk about music...those are the people the RIAA should be more concerned with reaching. That group is getting smaller....but they still buy more music.

Also if you haven't noticed the cost of music has dropped to $9-$12 for a new CD. That is down from $15-20 of a few years ago. This puts a huge squeeze on smaller labels and independant releases....(the real concern for RIAA big mucks) The big corporate media don't like competition from small labels. Thus they lowered prices and profit margins to dangerously low levels to drive indies out of buisness. That is the real issue. CD burning is just a smokescreen.

with that said.

http://soul-amp.com

Buy our disk when it comes out September 1st.

[rocktivity]

103. DING DING DING! LeftHander, you're our grand prize winner!

...if you haven't noticed the cost of music has dropped to $9-$12 for a new CD...This puts a huge squeeze on smaller labels and independant releases (the real concern for RIAA big mucks)...

I recall reading a press release where the RIAA bragged about how they were doing this in hopes of reaching out to music fans and of reducing downloading. The technology is here to stay, and the RIAA needs to stop scapegoating and come to terms with the fact that it must either evolve or become extinct.

I used to make cassette copies of my vynil and CDs to play in my car. All of a sudden I'm stealing?

:headbang:
rocknation

[mvd]

113. Right now, "try before buy" is all I ask

I used to burn CDs from P2P, but I stopped. There are some sites (like on AOL music,) where you can preview an entire CD - but the problem is, many of the offerings are from well known artists. I'd like to see "try before buy" sites expanded.

I believe copying a CD for a friend will always be around. The RIAA would be better suited putting its time into making more songs available for legal downloading, reducing the price of legal downloads to 79 cents at the most (you can't compete with free, but I know I'd download more if prices were lower - I bet many would,) and giving the artists more control over their music. As far as making better music, I believe the music being put out by the RIAA can be improved - but I have found plenty to like in the mainstream. I've also found quite a few artists by looking around.

[trogdor]

128. P2P is a pain in the ass.

It's slow, since most sharers (if they're smart) limit their bandwidth. Lots of stuff is loaded up with Trojan horses and such, so it's kind of like having unprotected sex with prostitutes. A lot of stuff was also so error-ridden, or recorded at reduced bitrates, such that they were unlistenable.

Now, if the RIAA made the individual songs available at a reasonable price on a fast, reliable server, that would kill their current business model, which is to sell the one or two hit songs bundled with 14 more tracks of garbage and charge $16.95 retail. As long as there are enough suckers who shell out the $16.95, they have no incentive to switch.

[SoCalDem]

106. Kids have been doing this forever..

at least since there were cassette recorders.. They used to go in together to buy an album and then record tapes for everyone..

Music just costs too much.. a 2-song 45 used to cost under $1..and an LP with MANY great songs cost about $8..

I have never bought a CD, but I bet they cost more ..

[Renew Deal]

107. Good old sneakernet?

:shrug:

[MrSlayer]

109. A hearty "FUCK YOU!" to the RIAA.

Fucking scumbag thieves. They have a lot of balls crying with the pap and garbage they foist upon us. Most of the bands I listen to aren't RIAA bands anyway.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sentelle]

114. And they don't want to talk about people like me

Frankly I have not bought a CD in 10 years. Nor have I downloaded them, or done anything to run afoul of RIAA.

Too much mediocracy in Commercial music.

RIAA? Are you listening?

[mvd]

117. I buy CDs all the time

I have never and will never be as down as some people are about the current music scene. But there are many untapped listeners like you the RIAA could be targeting. I mentioned that in my above post. The RIAA should also be more consumer friendly. Not allowing returns if you don't like a CD isn't a good practice.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Orsino]

123. Crap theories about...

...the sales they think they ought to be earning do not interest me. They'll never prove any correlation between burned CDs and the CDs that burners would buy if they couldn't burn.

Bottom line: they want more of your money, and guilt is just the least vicious method they'll use to obtain it.

[Chovexani]

132. I've said it once, I've said it a million times

Fuck the RIAA. They're the biggest thieves of all.

Sales are bad because the "music" they are pushing fucking sucks. There's exactly two artists I listen to who are played on the radio (Gwen Stefani and Black Eyed Peas).

When they are pushing Ashlee fucking Simpson on the public and wondering why they're not selling like they used to, you know how out of touch with reality they are.

[kwolf68]

134. Sorry

When Brittney Spears can afford to spend $5,000 an hour to have a cup of coffee flown to her, these claims simply don't get sympathy from us schmucks out her paying for this insipid drivel.

[TexasBushwhacker]

149. So don't pay for it - BUT DON'T STEAL IT

Your doctor drives a Mercedes, so he doesn't deserve to get paid for his services? Since when is it okay to steal someone's work because they have a lifestyle you don't approve of?

The bottom line is that most of the illegal downloading and CD burning is being done by young people who have only so many entertainment dollars to spend, and then of course, there's the cost of BEER! People steal music and movies because they can, not because the quality is sub par. If you think someone's music isn't worth paying for, why would you even steal it?

[Rich Hunt]

136. look at the big picture

Does this mean they want to limit how many times you can burn a single song?? Does this mean you can't make multiple mixes for friends?

I mean, what does this remind you of? It sounds like "three strikes and you're out."

They don't even know what people use CD burners for. Plus, it's illogical - who is to say that CD burning just means that there is more music in circulation?

These people get more and more disingenuous with every new format. Plus I'd like to point out that they were in hysterics about P2P several years ago, and that never bore out, did it? They were advocating using pay download services, and now they're not happy with that. Well the question is: who are they? Who would be so unhappy with the new technology? Who has the most to lose? Some people have loads invested in physical distribution networks. Some of those people are acting like babies right now, basically.

[blueintenn]

138. Am I dreaming

or did an RIAA representative, when faced with a class action suit over the collusive (if that is a word) structure of the prices of CDs, not say that part of the reason a $1.50 CD sells for ~$15 is that the "cost of piracy" is built in? I seem to remember this vividly but maybe I am wrong.

I do remember getting the $13.98 settlement in the class action suit. Surely someone who remembers better than I can comment more intelligently on the subject...

BIT
:dunce:

[Rich Hunt]

146. ha

I sent my form in, and never got my money.