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

[Ace of Spades]

Hmmm, I guess I'm the freak in the flock. I've burned dozens of CDs. And not a single one of them was music, a game, or anything else not intended to be burned. I refurbish old pcs for kids in my community, and I often need to find old drivers for their components. I figure if I want a certain CD or game, I'll pay for it at the local Media Play or wherever. People need to learn the difference between Freeware, Shareware, and Copyrighted material. Who do you think will be paying for the extra copy-protection? The honest consumer.

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.

[ 11-11-2002, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Yorick: Whatever. The proofs in the pudding. Anastasia's career suffered as a result of an unprecedented number of mp3 swaps of her single. Normally her single would have driven the album. But all people wanted was that one song....

Really? If I had known that, I would have pirated her awful song as well to make the statistics look even worse... I don't think there are many artists out there at the moment who are more annoying and less original as Anastacia, yuck. If pirating her song will help to get her off the radiostations, I'm game. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

...But seriously, you're probably right about there being many others who *are* pirating music and don't bother to buy the CD. But I don't even count them among real music fans, they download for the sake of downloading, for the sake of boasting about their 25GB of illegal mp3s to their fellow 1337-buddies. They probably wouldn't have bothered much with music either under legal circumstances, maybe less Top 40 CD-singles are sold and all... But I'd hardly call that a bad thing. And no, don't take my post too seriously and wait with writing down all the thoughtless flaws in my logic, I'm in a bit of a silly mood right now.

[ 11-11-2002, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Leonis]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Really? Well, I can only speak for myself, but I'm someone who spends most of his money on CD's... And yes, it's mostly indie music currently. And yes, most of that music I originally got by downloading, if only out of curiosity if it's worth to buy the CD; good record stores selling indie aren't that common in these parts and I have to order most of my CD's online; it's not that you can actually listen to it before buying if it wasn't for mp3's or the occasional online samples. I don't buy CD's blindly as I really don't want to run the risk of buying CD's that weren't really worth purchasing in the first place, only gathering dust after its first time in the CD-player. I'm not *that* rich. If it's really worth it, I'll buy the original CD in a normal store or online however or put it on my ever-growing "to buy"-list if my financial state doesn't allow me to buy them right away (I may be an idealistic and enthusiastic CD-collector, but I'm not stupid ).

Yes but you're a rare one Grojlach! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I enjoyed our previous discussion too. And agree on the mp3's as 'samplers' idea. It would be good if an artist can choose to release free lo-fi versions for trialing out, then buy the hi-fi if you like it - which is only valid with copy protection.

As for Magik's:

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.
I should be able to carry my Leatherman on my person outside.
I should have been able to watch video tapes I bought forever and not have them deteriorate.
I should be able to cut down a tree on my own property if I need too.

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?

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Leonis: quote: Originally posted by Grojlach: Really? Well, I can only speak for myself, but I'm someone who spends most of his money on CD's... And yes, it's mostly indie music currently. And yes, most of that music I originally got by downloading, if only out of curiosity if it's worth to buy the CD; good record stores selling indie aren't that common in these parts and I have to order most of my CD's online; it's not that you can actually listen to it before buying if it wasn't for mp3's or the occasional online samples. I don't buy CD's blindly as I really don't want to run the risk of buying CD's that weren't really worth purchasing in the first place, only gathering dust after its first time in the CD-player. I'm not *that* rich. If it's really worth it, I'll buy the original CD in a normal store or online however or put it on my ever-growing "to buy"-list if my financial state doesn't allow me to buy them right away (I may be an idealistic and enthusiastic CD-collector, but I'm not stupid ).

Yes but you're a rare one Grojlach! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I enjoyed our previous discussion too. And agree on the mp3's as 'samplers' idea. It would be good if an artist can choose to release free lo-fi versions for trialing out, then buy the hi-fi if you like it - which is only valid with copy protection.

As for Magik's:

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.
I should be able to carry my Leatherman on my person outside.
I should have been able to watch video tapes I bought forever and not have them deteriorate.
I should be able to cut down a tree on my own property if I need too.

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?[/QUOTE]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.

[ 11-11-2002, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Leonis the sage: quote: Originally posted by a person who doesn't want gun laws that protect society as a whole, let alone pesky music laws that protect the musics creators (do we see a trend here?): 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. I should be able to carry my Leatherman on my person outside. I should have been able to watch video tapes I bought forever and not have them deteriorate. I should be able to cut down a tree on my own property if I need too. 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?

This is a good post Leonis. Well said.

If I could add to it.

Magik, recorded music is a modern miracle. For millenia, if you wanted to hear an artists work, you would have had to seek them out and hear them. Their work could not be 'captured' for you to do with as you pleased.

Bear in mind, when you buy a CD, you buy the hardware - that particular CD. You may listen to the CD, but you do not buy the song. You may not reproduce and sell the song. You may not rerecord the song yourself and sell it without paying royalties. You may not take part of it and incorporate it into a new recording without permission or license. You may not use the song to generate income for yourself via advertising, playing it in your shop or any other means of enhancing your business, without paying an applicable relative license fee.

You own the right to use the product for personal listening enjoyment.

You do not own the song to do whatever you see fit with it.

[ 11-12-2002, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Leonis]

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.

That's what I said:

Originally posted by Leonis: 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?

[slackerboy]

one thing they dont seem to think about is that no level of copy protection will stop people from copying the music. all i have to do is run a cable from the headphone/lineout jack of an audio cdplayer, to the Linein jack on my sound card, record in .wav. and then convert to whatever audio format i want.
so in the end its all a waste of time.

[andrewas]

Originally posted by Yorick: Bear in mind, when you buy a CD, you buy the hardware - that particular CD. You may listen to the CD, but you do not buy the song. You may not reproduce and sell the song. You may not rerecord the song yourself and sell it without paying royalties. You may not take part of it and incorporate it into a new recording without permission or license. You may not use the song to generate income for yourself via advertising, playing it in your shop or any other means of enhancing your business, without paying an applicable relative license fee.

Funny, I always thought that when I bought a CD, I was buying the music, not the plastic. I thought I was buying the right to have those particular sounds come out of my speakers, for my own enjoyment.

By that reckoning - and I dont think that its unreasonable - limiting what I can play the CD in is beyond the rights of the company. Preventing me from making a personal backup is irritating as well, but I can live with that.

BTW - I am against this form of copy protection because it prevents me from playing the music the way I want to play it, not because it prevents me stealing it. It does not prevent me stealing it. I know of two ways to bypass this protection, and thats without studying it. It does prevent me buying a CD and sticking in in my PC, which is the closest thing I have to a sound system. In fact I dont actualy own any other means of playing a CD.

Also - isnt this the copy protection which was in the papers a few months ago because it was designed to disable PC-based CD-ROMS permanently?

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Not to mention the fact that the technology is still at the point where burning CD-R's inevitably wastes a bunch of CD-R's as a percentage of them simply fail to burn properly.

That's not a technology problem, it's a winblows problem. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

The only way I have personally seen a burn failure is a buffer underrun, which is pretty much inevitable once in a while when using winblows.