Buying music on a CD?? Be warned!! >:(

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Here's an interesting idea .... Find a copy protection method that limits distribution with out restricting the user. That way the end user still has free use, but the content providers still feel reasonable secure that their hi-fi files are distributed through "proper channels" Yes, there will be ways around it. But the rate will be much lower, and there won't be "broken" user devices.[/QB]

This technology is coming... it's called Palladium... it's courtesy of Microsoft, and there's going to be a LOT of resistance to it. The whole Digital Rights Management thing is going to come to a boil in the next few years.

The idea is that EVERYTHING gets encrypted, and in order to run/view/or listen to it you need a valid license, which you get over the internet from the content owner. If you pay for full access then you'll be able to listen to your music or watch your movie anywhere, but noone else will.

It also means that the content owner (company) can sell you limited licenses (that perhaps let you view a movie for 3 days only)

I personally would like to see the Recording Industry feel the pain of competition, and the Internet has the potential to offer artists a secure way of distributing their work completely outside the RIAA. At this point it's the wild west... a piracy free-for-all where the Vast Vast majority of people don't pay beans for the media they're acquiring. While it addresses the blatant abuse of the Recording Industry, it doesn't address the need of artists to maintain control of and gain materially from the dissemination of their work. It pains me to say it but Palladium looks to be a viable method of providing that control... and STILL leave the recording industry out in the cold.

IMO they have created this problem themselves, as the transition was made from Cassette to CD the industry RAISED prices, even though the media costs pennies to produce (more goes into packaging). Add to this the blatantly manipulitive practices they use when dealing with artists (I've heard that many artists don't make ANY money on CD sales... only on tours) and I end up feeling only GLEEFUL that the industry is teetering on the edge of collapse.

Another standard practice is packaging a single good song with a CD full of DOGS. Anastasia might have a great song in some people's opinion, but if the rest of the CD reeks, it will leave a bad taste in the mouth of buyers who feel they've just had to plunk down $15.00US for a single track.

The recording industry should be destroyed and replaced by a business model where artists are the controllers, not the manipulated... and users are presented with a purchasing system that is logical and fairly priced. I think there will be some pain to artists in the transition, but in the end I hope they will be MUCH better off without that industry heel on their neck.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Thoran: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: Here's an interesting idea .... Find a copy protection method that limits distribution with out restricting the user. That way the end user still has free use, but the content providers still feel reasonable secure that their hi-fi files are distributed through "proper channels" Yes, there will be ways around it. But the rate will be much lower, and there won't be "broken" user devices.

This technology is coming... it's called Palladium... it's courtesy of Microsoft, and there's going to be a LOT of resistance to it. The whole Digital Rights Management thing is going to come to a boil in the next few years.

The idea is that EVERYTHING gets encrypted, and in order to run/view/or listen to it you need a valid license, which you get over the internet from the content owner. If you pay for full access then you'll be able to listen to your music or watch your movie anywhere, but noone else will.

It also means that the content owner (company) can sell you limited licenses (that perhaps let you view a movie for 3 days only)

I personally would like to see the Recording Industry feel the pain of competition, and the Internet has the potential to offer artists a secure way of distributing their work completely outside the RIAA. At this point it's the wild west... a piracy free-for-all where the Vast Vast majority of people don't pay beans for the media they're acquiring. While it addresses the blatant abuse of the Recording Industry, it doesn't address the need of artists to maintain control of and gain materially from the dissemination of their work. It pains me to say it but Palladium looks to be a viable method of providing that control... and STILL leave the recording industry out in the cold.

IMO they have created this problem themselves, as the transition was made from Cassette to CD the industry RAISED prices, even though the media costs pennies to produce (more goes into packaging). Add to this the blatantly manipulitive practices they use when dealing with artists (I've heard that many artists don't make ANY money on CD sales... only on tours) and I end up feeling only GLEEFUL that the industry is teetering on the edge of collapse.

Another standard practice is packaging a single good song with a CD full of DOGS. Anastasia might have a great song in some people's opinion, but if the rest of the CD reeks, it will leave a bad taste in the mouth of buyers who feel they've just had to plunk down $15.00US for a single track.

The recording industry should be destroyed and replaced by a business model where artists are the controllers, not the manipulated... and users are presented with a purchasing system that is logical and fairly priced. I think there will be some pain to artists in the transition, but in the end I hope they will be MUCH better off without that industry heel on their neck.[/QB][/QUOTE]No. Palladium is much more intrusive, invasive, and down right insulting! Sorry all if my post seems a little vague and non tech. But I have an idea that may be a reasonable compromise for all players. It needs more development, though.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by andrewas: Funny, I always thought that when I bought a CD, I was buying the music, not the plastic.

You do not own the music no. The owner of the recording owns the music, the copyright holder owns the song. That's just the way it is.

Originally posted by Leonis: As for Magik's: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: I don't mind the artists wanting to make a profit, You all know I am a dedicated capitalist [img]smile.gif[/img] , what I do mind is them restricting my own use of a product that I have bought. I should be able to make my own mixes with music that I have paid for. That should entitle me to fair use. AND I should be able to use it on any device, not just specific makes and models. I do know that if the copy protection gets to be too big a pain in the ass, Ill just quit buying it.

I agree to fair use, but it has to be a two way street.
I should be able to leave my car unlocked like you used to be able to.

You still can, I don't see how this applies?

I should be able to carry my Leatherman on my person outside.

I don't know where you live but people here where I live have leatherman products on their belts, along with Buck and Case knives. They are tools and we can even wear them at work.

I should have been able to watch video tapes I bought forever and not have them deteriorate.

Again this has nothing to do with the music industry selling products that they know will cause problems to certain legitimate users. They should clearly label each CD that is protected that there is a good chance that you wont be able to use it unless you have a certain brand and model of player. They hide this detail because they know it will cost them sales. They print it in ultra small fonts if they print it at all. Sounds like deceptive marketing to me.

I should be able to cut down a tree on my own property if I need too.

Still can where I live. Again, I don't know where you are.

Laws are brought in because many people are too selfish to see the consequences of their actions in effect on those around them.

As society and technology changes, we too must change and adapt - protecting the average and innocent citizen as best we can.

If the trade off for instant, no-loss, music is a period of time where certain uses are restricted, how bad is that compared to the alternatives?
You want your cake and want to eat it too, but don't want others to have the same fair go.

Compromise on both sides in necessary, and IMHO, steps need to be taken to allow purchase and fair use while remaining copyrighted...tough call but surely it can be done?

Actually I ment my last comment "if copy protection gets to be too big a pain in the ass I'll quit buying" litterally, Music is not important enough to me personally to put that much work into just being able to listen to it. I'll stick with the radio. It is their product, but I'll be damned if I'll pay them to make my life more difficult.[/QUOTE]

[Timber Loftis]

Not to take up for the music industry, but isn't years of theft of this intellectual property the type of thing that it's responding to? I (used to) know people who think software piracy is a god-given right. Plus, I argue (perhaps unsuccessfully, but what the hell) that my software would cost less if the manufacturer didn't have to account for the profits lost to piracy.

I agree with Mr. Elder Orbs ( ) that if it gets too annoying, they'll lose me as a customer. On the other hand, I do not challenge the rights an artist has to his or her property.

Except to the extent that I will point out that all intellectual property (i.e. patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secrets), which are government-granted limited monopolies economically speaking, do usurp Smith's economic model. But, if we do allow you to patent your better mouse trap, we should equally protect your original song.

[ 11-12-2002, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Not to take up for the music industry, but isn't years of theft of this intellectual property the type of thing that it's responding to? I (used to) know people who think software piracy is a god-given right. Plus, I argue (perhaps unsuccessfully, but what the hell) that my software would cost less if the manufacturer didn't have to account for the profits lost to piracy. I agree with Mr. Elder Orbs ( ) that if it gets too annoying, they'll lose me as a customer. On the other hand, I do not challenge the rights an artist has to his or her property. Except to the extent that I will point out that all intellectual property (i.e. patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secrets), which are government-granted limited monopolies economically speaking, do usurp Smith's economic model. But, if we do allow you to patent your better mouse trap, we should equally protect your original song.

I would agree with you except that there wasn't much piracy back in the day when the Cassette->CD transition was taking place... the price change was pure monopolistic gouging. I realize there are several big labels in the RI, but when they all think and act the same you end up with an oligopoly... and I think that's what we have here. They're basically middlemen who've had both consumer and content creators by the short hairs... and have spent DECADES lining their pockets. Now they've lost control over half of the equation and they're whining like little babies. Do they lower their obscene margins to try to combat the problem? Do they improve their confrontational relationship with artists to try to get them on their side? NO... all they do is cry and plead for legislation to allow them to continue sticking it to everyone on BOTH sides.

They need to be eradicated, and if this is what it takes than so be it.

[ 11-12-2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Just to be perfectly clear here [img]smile.gif[/img] I do NOT pirate music, I wouldn't pirate music, but if I pay for a CD I expect to be able to pull songs off of it so that I can make my own compilations for my OWN use only. I also expect the CD to work in a CD player, that is any cd player weather it is in a PC or hanging from a belt or in my car. Anything less is too inconvenient for me to worry about.

[Timber Loftis]

I want to know why there was no such push in the days of cassette tapes. I mean, the typical High Fidelity type schtick was to make mix tapes for those friends and girlfriends/boyfriends you liked. Why was this not demonized? Is it that file swapping made this piracy really that much more prevalent? Maybe - I haven't seen the numbers.

I think what really rankles the industry is nowadays lots of people have the stuff before it even hits the stores. Case in point was the private computer screening of Star Wars AOTC that a friend of mine went to in Miami a few days before the movie opened (I dont think they had the whole movie - but they had lots of it).

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: Just to be perfectly clear here [img]smile.gif[/img] I do NOT pirate music, I wouldn't pirate music, but if I pay for a CD I expect to be able to pull songs off of it so that I can make my own compilations for my OWN use only. I also expect the CD to work in a CD player, that is any cd player weather it is in a PC or hanging from a belt or in my car. Anything less is too inconvenient for me to worry about.

And all fair expectations, and your right to use copyrighted material that you have bought in such a fashion. If you own a copyrighted material, you are free to make copies for your fair use. In education, this has even been held to include the distribution of such things to a classroom - but the education exceptions are pretty complicated. But, generally, you own a copy of the thing for your fair use, and can make copies as you please. Note that on a video, it specifically says copying is not permitted for *public* viewing or use.

Note that licensed material is not the same. With a license, you do not own a copy of the thing (program, etc) on the CD, only the right to use it. So, you have no right to make a copy of Windows - you only have bought the right to use the one copy in the box. Billy boy Gates was a smart MF, with smart MF lawyers I tell ya. If the record industry ever makes such an attempt with the way it treats its intellectual property, we're in for a helluva big battle.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I want to know why there was no such push in the days of cassette tapes. I mean, the typical High Fidelity type schtick was to make mix tapes for those friends and girlfriends/boyfriends you liked. Why was this not demonized? Is it that file swapping made this piracy really that much more prevalent? Maybe - I haven't seen the numbers.

I think it's a matter of scale. Making copies for your friends is one thing, but these days you can spread a tune from your computer to literally HUNDREDS of people in the course of a night. Music sharing today is several orders of magnitude worse than it was back in the tape days.

I also think that back then the RI thought such sharing of mix tapes HELPED sales but exposing people to new artists (which they then went out and bought albums of). These days there's no way you can argue that internet sharing is helping sales... since sharing is up and CD sales are WAY down.