[RYCeT]

Personally I think that copy protected cd's is SUCK. It's just hurting the real customer. If I buy a cd's, I want to be able to:
1. make a copy so I won't scratch my originals
2. make a mixed cd.
3. play it in every source.
If making a mixed cd's for my girlfriend is illegal, **** THE LAWS.

Even with copy protected cd's, the pirates will find a way to copy the cd's. If they can't copy the cd's from US, they always be able to find cd's from other country that can be copied. That's why copy protected cd's are useless and crap. It won't stop piracy, it's just bothering us.

I believe the level of piracy in western country is tolerable. If you don't believe me, try to go to china or southeast asia. You can even find movies that hasn't been released yet on cinemas.

 

[Orpheus]

well.... yeah, you have a point.....

but are you willing to sacrifice the musician's livlihood to get what you want?--a change in the record business? cause that's what it is costing.

also, if you are looking for a change in the industry, don't count on it! look to the software industry for evidence..... we all know software are rip-offs....... $500 for some office software?--yeah right! ....so people start copying stuff... hell.... i think most consumer PC owners own more pirated software than legitimate. in fact, perhaps even a majority have never purchased a single non-game program yet! .............more piracy... less software sales................... no change in industry practices! ........software price never declines...... it increases to cover the company's profit margin!!! and that's what you'll get when you copy more CDs...... not a change in the industry.

and not only that... you're ignoring the fact that record piracy is illegal and just plain wrong! you cannot distribute music to people who have not paid for it! that's the whole premise of producing an album--that you will sell it for a profit. if people can freely copy your music without paying for it, why the hell would you want to make an ablum in the first place?

like someone said previously, mp3's actually increased his cd purchases..... but i assure you, he is in the minority. .....most people that have mp3's play more illegal copies than they own themselves.

now, we have been talking mostly about big record companies.... but what of a normal musician that wants to distribute his own music?--or the "indie" company? you think that $20/record is not justifed for their own personal expense? in my earlier post, i pointed out the numerous expenses an independent artist has to pay.... $20 IS NOT too much to earn a living! i think that if the same person charged $10/CD he would be losing money!

...you guys keep quoting material costs like CDs, jewel cases, printing.... but these are really insignificant compared to wages, studio costs, manager costs... etc. so forget material costs..... they aren't part of the equation at all.

 

[Nisbeth]

From what I know about this issue, the problem is that many record companies have spent tons of money on advertising. And it worked - for a while, because sales went up during the '90 (when the economy was doing great in the majority of the world) But now they've shot themselves in the foot, because they have to keep going. Almost every major release here is backed up by intensive tv-campains which still cost millions. And now the companies claim they do not sell anything if they do not carpet-bomb cosumers with commercials on tv and in magazines. The problem is that companies have not been good enough at looking at the future and embracing the options that technology offers, i.e. songs you can DL and keep for a limited time and they will then cease to play etc. They ARE trying to catch up, but they are not always keeping up with the development of technology. Let's hope they improve on this, because most people want to pay for music, but they want the flexibility that technologies such as mp3 can offer as well. I personally do not use mp3's for "serious" listening, but I have all my cd's as mp3's and I listen to them while I work at the computer or play them via the stereo if I just want some background noise when I'm running around the house doing other things. I would never buy music as mp3 only, but I like the flexibility of the format for this particular application. Up until now I have managed to stay away from copy-protected cd's, but they are becoming more and more common, and so I might have to buy them in the future, even if i'm not happy about it (but I'll NEVER pay full price, never I say

)

Another major part of the problem is that the biggest expenses when you record an album are all fixed costs: The studio time is the same, the ad campains are the same (well, almost) etc. regardless of whether the album is a success or a failure. As orpheus wrote, the cost of printing, pressing and so on are insignificant in comparison. The record companies will of course try to maximise their profit on one artist so they can invest in the next and hopefully make a profit there as well. In this respect they are no different from a bank or an insurance company!
The fixed costs argument is also why software is so expensive. You pay big money for thousands of man-hours of skilled, expensive labour to make a product you're not sure you can sell! (That's why I think software vendors should change their pricing schemes so there is an expensive commercial license and a cheap non-commercial license but that's another discussion

)

According to Danish legislation, if you have legally purchased/acquired information in digital form, you are granted permission to make as many copies as you like in a digital (read: lossless) format, provided the copies are used by you or members of your household. "Legally acquiring" also includes borrowing a cd from a friend or from the library, but you have to make the copies personally using your own equipment. So, you can borrow a cd from a friend and copy it, but you can only play it at home or in your car, and you can't lend or give away the copy to someone else. A the really stupid part: You can't copy one of your own cd's on your cdr and give your friend the copy, but you can lend him/her the cd so they can do it themselves - on their own equipment.

Another condition is that cracking any form of copy protection is not permitted.

But regarding copy protection in general: According to Danish legislation, if the cd you just bought cannot be copied, it is technically a defective product, because under Danish legislation you are allowed to copy it and you are not able to. What saves the record companies is this case is that they write on the cover that you are unable to copy, and so they have warned you in advance of the "defect". Law is complicated.....

Lastly, I think most of the anti-piracy groups mainly target commercial exploitation of copyrighted material, which I think is OK. Using pirated (stolen) software or music to make money for your own business is low in my opinion, but some would probably disagree with that distinction.

I have more on this topic, but that'll be later.

/U.

 

[Nisbeth]

A problem I've been thinking a lot about is if it is actually in my best interest as a consumer to refuse to buy protected cd's. If I don't, sales will drop even more, and so the record companies will assume pirating is becoming even more widespread and so they might spend even more money on developing new protection schemes - money which I have to pay. On the other hand, if I continue to buy cd's as if nothing happened, they will probably think that copy protection is OK with me, which it isn't, and continue. I still haven't come to a conclusion. Any thoughts on this?

/U.

 

[aos]

>>it increases to cover the company's profit margin!!! and that's what you'll get when you copy more CDs...... not a change in the industry

Well the company SHOULD change or go out of business! You shouldn't feel sorry for failure of a company that's slow to change. After all, if me or you don't learn new job skills, we'll be fired and unemployable. Why should a company have the right to keep the status quo when it doesn't extend the same right to either their customers (by liminiting their fair use rights) or their employees?

>>that record piracy is illegal and just plain wrong

Illegal is a fairly relative word. In some countries it's illegal to badmouth the president and that can land you in prison. Now I'm not saying all copying is fine and dandy, just that the issues are never as simple as some people may think. For example, I consider it a basic human right to be able to enjoy the greatest achievements of human mind such as some books and music. Even a broke man should be able to listen to say Beethoven's Fifth. Libraries do address this problem but in most countries they don't carry music. Now, I can afford (presently) and I do buy a lot of CDs. But if I make a copy for a friend living in a country where you cannot find anything in stores (read: can't buy even if you have the money), I have absolutely no qualms about it. Besides, I do pay a fee designed for that purpose on every blank CDR .

>>if people can freely copy your music without paying for it, why the hell would you want to make an ablum in the first place?

If the only reason you're making the music is to earn money, then you're in the wrong proffesion. An artist would create even if not paid for it. If the prevalent society opinion that if something can't be sold it's not worth making it the first place then you get the situation where there has been a huge drop in number of timeless pieces created in a century or so.

Now if you've become an artist so that you can get your pick of the chicks, that's an entirely different story

.

Nisbeth, I'm personally lucky that I already have most of the music I'm interested in (i.e. don't care about new music). If at some point I cannot make a copy of CD I buy and put it in my megachanger (and put original safely away), then I'll just stop buying them altogether. After all, stock market is having the worst performance since WW2, inflation is highest in over a decade, job prospects are bleak, why the hell give what little money you have to people who did this all to you? Just tune in the radio...

 

[Orpheus]

the danish have some weirdass laws!

i dunno man... it is obvious there is a need to deture people from distributing music that has not been paid for. in a capatalistic economy, free goods simply do not exist. there is a cost to everything.

nisbeth, how 'bout just continue buying CDs, but don't buy the copy-protected ones? that way the business can clearly see that copy-protected CDs don't sell.

but of course, my problem is.... the CDs i buy are select. they are music i want, and i don't buy junk. thus, when i hear music i want, i buy it immediately. it would be hard for me to protest copy-protected CDs since i wouldn't be able to resist buying music i want.

and i don't even know which CDs are copy-protected 'till i buy them. is there any way to tell from the cover?

anyway.... there is some light i think.... remember when almost all software was copy-protected 10-20 years ago? then copy2pc came along and then there were hacks and stuff.... and eventually copy protection went away. well, the same will probably eventually happen to music CDs... it'll just take another decade.

.............but now we got computer game cdroms that can't be copied.... and the whole cycle will start all over again.

so damn annoying.

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

If the only reason you're making the music is to earn money, then you're in the wrong proffesion. An artist would create even if not paid for it. If the prevalent society opinion that if something can't be sold it's not worth making it the first place then you get the situation where there has been a huge drop in number of timeless pieces created in a century or so.

....look, an artist has a right to make a living just like everyone else. period. you might think there is something romantic or noble about being a starving musician... but i'm sure those musicians would strongly disagree with you.

look at my signature. i give away my music for FREE. i don't even charge shipping. absolutely free. i do this for the music. but i can afford to do this because it is not my profession/career. most "musicians" cannot afford to do this. and hell, it would be nice to make some spending change anyway.

the point is.... you will hear less good music, because most musicians cannot afford to make a quality CD without some profit from CD sales.

i have the good fortune of owning all the equipment i need to produce a quality CD........ but i know that the majority of musicians are not so lucky.

 

[Nisbeth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus nisbeth, how 'bout just continue buying CDs, but don't buy the copy-protected ones? that way the business can clearly see that copy-protected CDs don't sell. but of course, my problem is.... the CDs i buy are select. they are music i want, and i don't buy junk. thus, when i hear music i want, i buy it immediately. it would be hard for me to protest copy-protected CDs since i wouldn't be able to resist buying music i want.

My problem as well. I don't buy music to support the artists but because I like their work.

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus and i don't even know which CDs are copy-protected 'till i buy them. is there any way to tell from the cover?

Here, there is a label on the cover and a small printed warning on the disc. As I said, if there wasn't you'd be buying a defective item, and so you'd be eligible for a refund within the standard two-year guarantee period as per our laws of consumer protection

. (And you're right, the law is stupid

. It was passed in a great big hurry about a year ago. Before that any and all copying of digital content was prohibited by law (because there's no degradation in quality), so you couldn't even copy a cd you bought and paid and use the copy in your car - and that was even more stupid

)

/U.

 

[aos]

>> ....look, an artist has a right to make a living just like everyone else. period. you might think there is something romantic or noble about being a starving musician... but i'm sure those musicians would strongly disagree with you.

Absolutely! What I'm saying is that an artist will create even if he (she) is not paid, not that they shouldn't be paid for what they do. My issue here is distribution of their art. And I believe that they should be paid very generously - I have the greatest respect for, I almost said their profession, them expressing themselves. I hate using words like "job" and "profession" in the same sentence as art. Also, you don't need to make a living from art in order to be an artist. It's just something that's in you, not necessarily what you chose to do in order to survive.

 

[Zanth]

Nice thread with some really good points. I'll add my two cents. In Canada, as grinch stated...it is LAW that all non-redbook (i.e. copy protected discs) are so indicated. In fact, in the US, if stores are not doing so they are breaking the law. What they are selling is NOT a CD. A CD conforms to the Phillips Redbook standard. If it is not redbook, its not a CD. It may use a compact disc type storage medium...but it is not a compact disc as defined by the creators and the world and hence it is false advertizing.

That said...I have a few cd's I want right now...including the new Rosanne Cash album and the new Ben Harper album. Both are copy-protected. Both are not presently in my collection, nor will they ever be. Yes I have the capability to rip this if I want, copy them if I want...but just because I know HOW to circumvent their technology does not make me feel RIGHT in buying the discs. If I buy them...it is a message to the RIAA. PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO BUY OUR DISCS NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE MESS WITH THE TECHNOLOGY.

The only way to fight this is with your wallet. Does it suck that I still don't have the new Harper album? Yeah...but sorry. Ben, if you want me to buy your stuff, go to an inde label...otherwise you and I are through. This goes for any artist who works this way. I'm telling you right now, I am a little frantic with the new Radiohead coming out soon and the new U2 album around the corner. Two of my favourite bands...but if that sticker appears...I'm going to pass. I'll go out and buy the vinyl release. What sucks is that I can see myself turning to vinyl exclusively out of necessity and moral principles, and not for any so-called superiority in sound.

Album prices are dumb. $20 bucks? No I'm sorry that is NOT fair. I'll give an example. I purchased the Fight Club Soundtrack when it was released, $23 bucks I think it was in Canada...3 months later...I picked up the DOUBLE DVD set for $25 bucks....AND it came with the soundtrack on the second DVD. Please explain how a double DVD set....a more expensive technology, more expensive packaging, more material AND my soundtrack all for $25 bucks...and the soundtrack was $23?

How about another example. Have you ever noticed how new releases are fairly cheap ($14.99 is a typical price for a popular album say...like the new Matthew Good album or likely the new Radiohead) and then 4 months later the price jacks to $23.99 in the bins? Does this seem strange? A near doubling of the cost?

Price fixing...profit gouging, bloody well extortion if you ask me.


CD technology gets CHEAPER every year yet prices have stayed the same. A high quality disc gold or black even, can be had for less than a quarter when purchased in large amounts. So...the media plus case is lets say $1.00. Printing costs or shipping...and I'm being generous...another $2.50 (this is actually double what it would cost as my dad is the publisher of a magazine and he sometimes will release a cdr with .wav and video and images in a the Nov-Dec issue and the total cost for HIM at a print run of 15 000 is less than 7 dollars total...including design, and media cost). We are looking at what is likely a total production cost of $3.50/disc. $1.00 is the typical profit for an artist...usually MUCH less....so now we are up to $4.50. I don't think retailers should receive more than the artists themselves...but lets make it equal just for fun...$5.50. So here we are...$5.50...you know who are we missing out on? the RIAA. Let's say...a wopping $5 bucks for add campaigns, studio time...editing etc...That still only brings the disc up to $10.50! Should they receive more than a $1.00 profit/disc when the artist does not get more? No...so we have new discs...not yet discounted to sell...for $11.50. Now then...where is the other $8.50 going....oh right....some RIAA VP's 4th house, mistresses condo and some coke habit. Damn, you know...maybe I have been a little rough on these RIAA folks... they NEED that extra cash for their prevalent drug habit. Sorry.


These prices ARE corrupt and the legislation they are PURCHASING in all first world countries is evil. It goes towards the corrupt nature of our so-called democratic governments and it speaks about the mentality of the corporations about the people....the vaunted consumers... Folks they think we are mindless lemmings....ready to buy whatever they feed us...be it McDonald's with some Coke...some Britney on the radio while sitting down next to a Starbuck's in some GAP wear.

The only way to combat this...to rebalance the scales is by fighting legally, civilally and efficiently...with our WALLETS.

 

[PatM]

I completely agree.

I buy substantial amounts of recorded music (and I've never lifted tunes from P2P services, more because of quality issues than anything else) but it will be a cold day in hell before I purchase a copy-protected CD.

Recording artists ought to be paying attention to this. The RIAA has stolen from them as well as their fans for years. This copy protection business is just the latest in a long series of tragicomic, inept moves by a moribund industry that simply refuses to wean itself from the days of easy sales and margins.

What is most frustrating is that today's technologies should be creating a renaissance in recorded music, to the benefit of all. But oh no, instead we are in the same deep hole as the broadband industry with dinosaurs blocking the way of progress. It's ...frustrating.

 

[skagen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nisbeth From what I know about this issue, the problem is that many record companies have spent tons of money on advertising........ Another major part of the problem is that the biggest expenses when you record an album are all fixed costs: The studio time is the same, the ad campains are the same (well, almost) etc. regardless of whether the album is a success or a failure. As orpheus wrote, the cost of printing, pressing and so on are insignificant in comparison.

I've worked in the music industry. At a retail price of $15, the coststo create the album are below $2 or $3, I think. What is killing these guys is poor distribution strategy and trying to CREATE demand for crappy music. The pends tonds of money on advetising and "promotion" ie bribing people to play stuff on the radio


Quote:

Originally posted by Nisbeth . The record companies will of course try to maximise their profit on one artist so they can invest in the next and hopefully make a profit there as well.

That's not necesarily the logical solution. DIVERSIFICATION is much smarter. Rather than pour tons of money into advertising in hopes of getting a hit (low percentage/high risk), they should be selecting good music and focusing on getting it into the distribution channel. Lower risk albums would be better for artists in the long run - they can command more perentage of profit. Also if artist are rushed into trying for a big success on day one, we get better music - major labels drop theri artists like scrap paper all the time.


Also, on a more general level, the record companies have done an awful job of creatig customer value. Why do you HAVE to buy a whole album if you want just one song? Singles used to be THE STANDARD, until album were created as a way to get you to pay more cash. As recently as the late 1980's most albums were comprised of 3-4 legit songs and 5-6 songs that were obviously "filler" to make up an album.

Why can you - in 2003 - still not just walk into a record store or go online and order a CD of songs that you pick, irregardless of the label? Even if its all on the same label, you can't.

When you look at the whole picture, you see that the music industry has been out to lunch for a while. The copy protection is an attempt to retain status quo, where they screw both us and the artists. The sooner that flawed system goes down the better. And unlike software industry, the corporate market DOES NOT, exist as an easy stick-up victim, to save the music companies from having to make real changes.

If you look at the film industry, they too are scared ****less about what happens to them as cheap bandwith becomes available. The too better start changing, instead of hoping that copy protection will save them from having to deliver REAL customer value like every other industry.

 

[arnett]

Quote:

Originally posted by dd3mon No in fact you are incorrect, and it is in the very link you pasted to me that this is provent. As posted previously, "fair use" does in fact apply to copies intended for personal use. I can take my cds and make 5,000 copies of them on cd-r, minidisc, casette, mp3, monkey audio, DAT, and anything else I like as long as I don't distribute, sell or broadcast the music to the general public.

I hoped not to have to do 'the analysis' of CD copying -- but I see I have no choice (actually, it’s good practice for my exam).

The judge in ALL copyright infringement cases would quote section 106 and 107 of the copyright act of 1976. Thus, we must go to the actual statute and see what it says.

Quote:

Sec. 106. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works * * * the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive right to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords . . .

Let’s start with something simple: when you BUY a CD, you do not own the copyright on it. If you buy a CD put out by Universal Music, then Universal Music holds the copyright -- not you.

The 'exclusive . . . reproduc[tion]' language in section 106 means that the copyright owner is the only one who can reproduce his own work. YOU do not have that right. Copying IS reproduction.

Thus, when one copies a copyrighted work, one reproduces it -- in violation of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder as stated in section 106.

Therefore, a person copying a CD is an infringer.

Now, 'fair use' is a defense that defendant/infringer will use to try and weasel out of the infringement. In reality, it is a very limited defense. Section107 deals with fair use.

Quote:

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use * * * the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

If it's not listed in the enumerated list above, your possibility of being sucessful in a claim fair use defense is extremely limited. If you don’t like this, write your congressperson and request a special exemption for music CD back-ups.

Ask yourself for the reasons for your copying: are you reporting the news when you copy a CD?
Are you currently teaching and need the CD for your music class?
Are you writing a review of the material?
Is your copying is for true research purposes?

Fact is, copying CDs for ‘personal use’ does not fit into any of the enumerated uses the legislature has established for a fair use defense. Therefore, you do not have much of a fair use defense.

But, even if you meet the section 107 enumerated uses above (i.e., teaching, research, etc.), the ct. will look to four other 'fair use' factors:
Quote:

1. The purpose and character of the use 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

As for the purpose of the use, copying only for personal use cuts in the infringer's favor.
But making an exact CD copy so you don't have to buy a new one and infringing the ENTIRE work favors the copyright holder.
The basic rule is that, the more ‘transformative’ the new work (i.e., the copy), the more likely a fair use defense will be successful. By making an exact copy of a song or a CD in its entirety, one is not transforming the copyrighted work at all.

Now, you might think that the copyright act of 1976 is not the REAL law used by the courts. I assure you it is. The 1976 act is the BIBLE of copyright -- including fair use (section 107).

I invite you to browse through the 1976 act and try to find phrases like "personal use," and "music copying." You will not find that language, however, because copying of CDs for ‘personal use’ is not specfically protected.

As I said in my original post, one's infringement will very likely not amount to anything. But that doesn't mean one is not an infringer.

If you believe my analysis is incorrect, that’s fine. Please offer YOUR legal analysis of section 106 and 107 of the copyright act of 1976.

But I don’t think, “It’s common knowledge” and “everyone knows that one can copy for personal use” will fly.

 

[Solude]

What do the kids say now a days? Powned is it

 

[PatM]

arnett:
Let me ask you a question. Is there any case law that directly supports your contention that making a personal copy of purchased, copyrighted CD is an infringement of copyright statutes?

And, if there is, why does the music industry need to resort to copy protection schemes?