[Orpheus]

because it's impossible to enforce these laws. at least with copy protection, they can reduce piracy a little.

 

[Nisbeth]

Quote:

Originally posted by skagen 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.

I didn't intend for it to sound like an endorsement, because it definately wasn't! I was merely stating how it is, not how it should be. I very much agree with your suggestions for creating more value for the customer.


Quote:

Originally posted by skagen 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.

But IME the film industry is trying. With DVD, they have the option of including lots of extras with a movie, and after a slow start they've finally figured out that people are willing to pay for these extras and so we'll see more of that in the future. Not excatly the final solution to the problem, but a step in the right direction, perhaps

/U.

 

[arnett]

Quote:

Originally posted by 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?

Because copyright law is 'code' law, the statutes themselves are simply codified versions of case law. Those are the rules.

Please note that there IS an exception for back-ups of computer programs onto CD (section 117). This is, perhaps, where some of the confusion in this issue lies. But computer programs are not CDs.

Regardless, as I have stated repeatedly, the technical law and the practical law in copyright are quite different. Many people, like some head-fi members, don’t even realize they’re infringing. And chances are they'll never be held liable for it. So I don't think anyone should lose sleep over this issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by PatM And, if there is, why does the music industry need to resort to copy protection schemes? [/B]

The litigation costs often prohibit the copyright holder (i.e., record companies) from bringing suits against small-time infringers. Even if the copyright holder is awarded statutory damages, there's a collection problem: most infringers are younger guys who don't have a lot of money.

The best way for the copyright holders to prevent copying is to do something with the medium itself. Probably one reason Sony pushes SACD -- you can't copy the SACD layer (to date, anyway).

 

[arnett]

edit . . .

 

[TimSchirmer]

I will NEVER buy a cd with copy protection in any form.

Thankfully, I am into underground music, so therefore I can buy CD's directly from the artist. I shop at second-hand stores for older stuff.

The only format I'm willing to buy new at this point is vinyl.