I Won't Buy a "Copy Controlled" Album

[Agent1]

Much like the title says, I'm not going to buy a CD that says it is "Copy Controlled". If these record companies would learn the simple fact that if you can hear it, you can copy it, they might stop inconveniencing the common consumers like you or I.

I bought CHSIB from England and once it was shipped and arrived, I listened and liked it a lot. I copied the tracks from the CD onto my hard drive and listen to those instead of taking the CD out of the case every time. There is nothing about this that is "stealing" or illegal, so I don't have a problem with it.

I liked CHSIB enough that I planned on buying another copy from a local store so that they would see people here liked it. However, when I walked into the store and picked up the CD, it mentioned on the front that it was "Copy Controlled" and to check an EMI site for information. I put the CD down and left. I'm not going to support any company that uses this sort of thing on their CDs, and Meat Loaf's music is no exception. I love listening to it, but I will have to live with what I already have if all of the CDs in the future are "copy controlled" like this one.

[Juan Llanos]

I supossed that this post finally is going to be move to "The Fight Club".

I waited for a long long time for a real new album of Meat, so when it cames I move the earth to get it, I have a germany copy (with copy control), I brought it to a Barcelona shop who has to ordered from Germany... I'm don't mind the copy control, maybe in other disc I'll think it about it, but not with Meat....

The Spanish edition doesn't have the copy control (I belive, I don't yet buy it)

[little_dancer]

Forgive my naivity, but what is the difference between a 'copy controlled' CD and a regular one ( apart from the obvious- that it can't be copied) Is one of inferior quality- i.e would one wear out faster?
Just curious, I don't know much about CD technology.

[Winston]

I supossed that this post finally is going to be move to "The Fight Club".

If I get involved maybe :twisted:

[evil nickname]

I supossed that this post finally is going to be move to "The Fight Club".

Why should it? Agent1 has a vaild point, and instead of assuming it'll turn out nasty, you could encourage a normal debate about this...

Forgive my naivity, but what is the difference between a 'copy controlled' CD and a regular one ( apart from the obvious- that it can't be copied) Is one of inferior quality- i.e would one wear out faster?
Just curious, I don't know much about CD technology.

[geek mode]The main difference between a normal CD and a copy-controlled one is that a copy-controled CD is not a CD. It's just a little plastic disc, which looks and behaves like a CD, but isn't.
Copy protection works usally by manipulating the Table of Contents (T.O.C.) of the disc (the information where the tracks start, etc). By doing that, PC's can't read the CD -- and there you have the 'wanted' result. The main thought being here: "If you can't play it with your computer, you can't copy it".
Still, you might ask, why isn't it a CD? Simple: by manipulating the T.O.C., the resulting disc does not meet the so-called 'Red Book' standard, to which all CD's must comply. By doing that, the potential CD has just reduced itself to a ordinary plastic disc.
Please do note that copy protected discs may not carry the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo. That logo is reserved for all data-carriagers which do comply to the Red Book Standard. CDs.
This does, by the way, not mean that copy protected discs sound worse than CDs.[/geek mode]

But like Agent1 said -- copy protection is useless. If one wants to copy a CD, and he/she is determined enough to do it, he/she WILL succeed.
And to all you record companies I say: Yes, go ahead and blame us consumers for declining sales. Go ahead and protect your 'CDs'. That will help. Because, the decline in sales could have certainly nothing to do with an overkill of over-compressed, pre-chewed and cover-infested albums by those so-called (manufactured) 'pop stars'. Instead of signing all the final candidates of your local 'pop idol' contests, sign one or two really good acts who deserve a contract.
And give us value for money dammit! Make those CD's worth being bought!
All what copy protection will result to, is that you can't legally create audiofiles from your own collection for use on your own pc/portable mp3-player, angry customers, and an even further decrease of sales.

So. That's of my chest.

William


http://ukcdr.org/images/corrupt-disc.png (http://ukcdr.org/issues/cd/quick/)

[Vickip]

Forgive my naivity, but what is the difference between a 'copy controlled' CD and a regular one ( apart from the obvious- that it can't be copied) Is one of inferior quality- i.e would one wear out faster?
Just curious, I don't know much about CD technology.

I have no idea ....
the DIST CD single I bought is Copy Controlled, and I don't think there's any difference in the quality.

Vicki

[Winston]

The only difference is that it can't be copied. There is no difference in the quality of the CD.

[little_dancer]

Thanks for the info guys (This explains why I couldn't play my CD at work, or in my friends car- I'm glad to know it isn't just the CD I bought)
thanks again for the information, Vicki, and Evil Nickname!
cheers
Leah

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Accordig to the law,every time you copy media,it is an illegal bootleg.
There is one exception to the rule.If you but a piece of media for somebody who does not have a suitable player,you can copy the media onto another format for that person.
For instance,if you buy your brother a DVD and he does not own a DVD player,you can legally copy the DVD onto a VHS tape for him.The only clause is that you must also give your brother the original DVD to prove that he is entitled to own the copy.

[shadow1000001]

I can totally understand why they are making them "copy controlled". I like to copy tracks to my hard drive and listen to them too, unfortunately, people will also upload them to Bearshare and other file sharing sites which people will download to their hard drives and then never buy the album which ends up hurting the artist in the end.
In my opinion, in order to protect the artist, I can live with a "little inconvience".


Maria

[Fire Ball]

Adding my 2 cents or maybe not my 2 cents, CHSIB has been downloaded
off the internet 2,500,000 times. So far, that is 2 weeks ago.

ML

[evil nickname]

:twisted: Accordig to the law,every time you copy media,it is an illegal bootleg.
There is one exception to the rule.If you but a piece of media for somebody who does not have a suitable player,you can copy the media onto another format for that person.

Hmm.... strange. According to my law, I'm entitled to make a copy for private use, practice and study. Your DVD-example is kinda badly chosen, by the way, since to my knowledge, you can't record the output from a DVD player to a vcr. Protected also. You could make a DVD-rip for use on your PC, however...

I can totally understand why they are making them "copy controlled". I like to copy tracks to my hard drive and listen to them too, unfortunately, people will also upload them to Bearshare and other file sharing sites which people will download to their hard drives and then never buy the album which ends up hurting the artist in the end.
In my opinion, in order to protect the artist, I can live with a "little inconvience".

I guess you just touched on the sole reason for the copy protection/disc corruption... file sharing. I do also 'rip' my entire collection to my harddrive (37GB so far), and I never share my own rips. I do however download some songs from p2p-networks to sample albums I've got my eye (and ears) on...
But unlike you, I'm very set against the 'little inconvience' of not being able to rip my own CDs. What's the use of portable mp3-players if all CDs end up being copy corrupted?

[edit: Fire Ball posted while I was posting]

Adding my 2 cents or maybe not my 2 cents, CHSIB has been downloaded
off the internet 2,500,000 times. So far, that is 2 weeks ago.

I've seen it around ever since it was first released in Europe... (don't wory, I bought it, hell, you even personally signed it in Amsterdam)
But may I ask where you got the precise amount of downloads? Afaik, you can't monitor the p2p networks, and even if you could, it sounds like a huge pile of corporate BS to me, maybe just intended to scare you...

And by the way, what is your point of view on this matter? I really like to know...


William

[Jayd]

Much that I disagree with the amount that record companies charge for their products, copying anything, either it a cd, DVD, or VHS it is copyright theft and is illegal. It hurts the careers of performers and artists too, not just the record companies. Maybe the ideal solution is not that far off. But any Meat album I get hold of would have to be the original anyway. Buying the album shiows your utter support.

[heat]

Adding my 2 cents or maybe not my 2 cents, CHSIB has been downloaded
off the internet 2,500,000 times. So far, that is 2 weeks ago.

ML

Bloody hell.... 8O

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Accordig to the law,every time you copy media,it is an illegal bootleg.
There is one exception to the rule.If you but a piece of media for somebody who does not have a suitable player,you can copy the media onto another format for that person.

Hmm.... strange. According to my law, I'm entitled to make a copy for private use, practice and study. Your DVD-example is kinda badly chosen, by the way, since to my knowledge, you can't record the output from a DVD player to a vcr. Protected also. You could make a DVD-rip for use on your PC, however...


That might be Dutch law,but it's certainly not British law.
If you were allowed to make endless copies of a CD for yourself,the CD would never wear out.Therefore it would never need replacing,therefore effecting sales.

Sorry for the badly chosen example.It was the one given to me by the authorities when I looked into this a while ago :roll: .They seemed to think that it got the message over pretty well :wink: .

[libertine]

I'm no lawyer, nor am I a copyright expert, but I am a librarian-in-training ;)
I think US copyright law allows the legal owner of the item (be it software, movie, music album, etc) to make a copy for backup purposes. But don't quote me :? in case I've gotten in way off base...

That said, I didn't copy CD's for other people or to file sharing services for no other altruistic reason than 1) I didn't have the technology until recently and 2) after I got it, it simply never occurred to me to do so... Then I met Kasim and we talked about the reality of an artist's "share" of record sales. Sharing entire albums without compensating the artist seems like my boss asking me to work for free. Not gonna make me a happy camper...

Besides, you'd have to pry the CHSIB and QPQ discs off the CD players as well... Not bl**dy likely to happen any time soon :lmao:

[Chris]

Under UK law, you can copy media providing it for for your own use only!!

This has never been an issue before because, prior to the launch of home cd-copying technology, all copies have been analogue copies adn therefore reduce in quality each time. The authorities seldom do anything as there would be too much of an outcry if (for example) the general public were told that they can no longer tape CD's onto cassette to play in the car etc. etc.

Personally the only issue i have with copy-protected CD's is the quality of the player software that is included!!! I use my PC for home entertainment rather than stereo and have it hooked up to the tv for playing DVD's etc. I cna play my copy protected version of CHSIB ont he PC but i must use the player that comes on the cd rather than using winamp or similar which is configured to my own personal requirements.

I hae a protected CD which is in the car and use a normal unprotected one on the PC.

[Juan Llanos]

Adding my 2 cents or maybe not my 2 cents, CHSIB has been downloaded
off the internet 2,500,000 times. So far, that is 2 weeks ago.

ML

2,500,000!!! I don't know if it's a good or a bad news.... this meams that people still renember you, but they didn't loving you...

[evil nickname]

That might be Dutch law,but it's certainly not British law.
If you were allowed to make endless copies of a CD for yourself,the CD would never wear out.Therefore it would never need replacing,therefore effecting sales.

Sure is Dutch law :) did some research on it (for all you Dutchies: it's available on my website), so I'm pretty sure how it works.

Being brutally honest now, I really think that is most pathetic argument I've heard as to why it should not be allowed to make a copy of a CD you bought (well, actually that is not quite true either, you buy the right to own a piece of plastic and to play the music that is contained on it). It's like putting a sticker on it: "Thank you for buying this CD. Play it and buy it agian!"
That sounds like an open invitation to make crappy CDs that wear out after a week, in order to boost sales.

Under UK law, you can copy media providing it for for your own use only!!

This has never been an issue before because, prior to the launch of home cd-copying technology, all copies have been analogue copies adn therefore reduce in quality each time. The authorities seldom do anything as there would be too much of an outcry if (for example) the general public were told that they can no longer tape CD's onto cassette to play in the car etc. etc.

True. "Home taping is killing music". I do have a promotial copy of Midnight at the Lost and Found with that printed on the back...

Personally the only issue i have with copy-protected CD's is the quality of the player software that is included!

I'm not so concerned about the software. I'm more concerned about the awful quality of those .wma files. Which are, in turn, also DRM-protected.

2,500,000!!! I don't know if it's a good or a bad news.... this meams that people still renember you, but they didn't loving you...

Once again, I don't believe that amount. That does not mean I do not believe that people don't download CHSIB, but with the fact that it is practically impossible to track *all* downloads, I'd like to send that figure back to the department of unbelievable fairytales.
If it were true, however... way to go Meat! Two and a half million people wanted to check out your new album :)

On a last personal note:
I'm very concerned about the way this copy corruption crap is headed. Boycotting those 'CD's is one of the options to do something about it, but seeing the responses to this topic (and similar topics on other boards), I don't think that enough people realize what is going on...
I just see a lot of people blindly accepting corporate BS. Here in The Netherlands, everytime I hear that sales of CDs have gone down, they blame downloading directly. They never even start to consider the option there might be something structurally wrong with, say, the prices, the value-for-money-factor, or other factors. No, it's straigh away "downloading is killing music". I know for a fact that ever since I got the option to 'pre-listen' albums before buying them I am a) never disappointed with what I buy, and b) buying more CDs on a yearly basis.
But as far as those record executives are concerned... that never happened.

William

[mariella]

Adding my 2 cents or maybe not my 2 cents, CHSIB has been downloaded
off the internet 2,500,000 times. So far, that is 2 weeks ago.

ML
Seems like a Lot more than just your '2 cents', yes.
But a very impressive number, so that's the 'good part', I gues.

Great day to you,

Mariella

[shadow1000001]

Adding my 2 cents or maybe not my 2 cents, CHSIB has been downloaded
off the internet 2,500,000 times. So far, that is 2 weeks ago.

ML


I wonder how many of these people will actually buy the album. Probably not many.


Maria

[Vickip]

Adding my 2 cents or maybe not my 2 cents, CHSIB has been downloaded
off the internet 2,500,000 times. So far, that is 2 weeks ago.

ML


I wonder how many of these people will actually buy the album. Probably not many.


Maria

I know .. that's the sad thing :(
Vicki

[Michel]

Adding my 2 cents or maybe not my 2 cents, CHSIB has been downloaded
off the internet 2,500,000 times. So far, that is 2 weeks ago.

ML

But there is a simple reason for that. Fans always buy the CD of there favourite artist. People who like the music, but are not fans will not buy the CD, because it is too expensive. CD's are very expensive, a normal DVD is cheaper. If you make CD's a few euro's/dollars cheaper, people will buy more original CD's.

About the copy control. It is easy to crack. I also ripped the CD and put the songs on my hard disk. Not for sharing, but just for listening to it. I've done that with every Meat CD.

[little_dancer]

Yes Maria and Vicki, that's the problem at hand-many people will not buy ANY Cd's they will ONLY copy. Hopefully the technology WILL improve so that the CD's will be compatible to all players, but not copy-able, Is this possible?

My own opinion: I don't copy CD's so it doesn't really affect me. It's too bad I can't listen to many of these copy-protected Cd's in the car, but it's a minor inconvenience compared to a major industry problem. (industry problem- the illegal copying, and sharing of copy-righted materials)

[Vickip]

But there is a simple reason for that. Fans always buy the CD of there favourite artist. People who like the music, but are not fans will not buy the CD, because it is too expensive. CD's are very expensive, a normal DVD is cheaper. If you make CD's a few euro's/dollars cheaper, people will buy more original CD's.


That's a very good point Michel. I've read that some of the bigger record companies in the U.S. are reducing their prices .... and hopefully that will help.

Vicki

[Vickip]

Yes Maria and Vicki, that's the problem at hand-many people will not buy ANY Cd's they will ONLY copy. Hopefully the technology WILL improve so that the CD's will be compatible to all players, but not copy-able, Is this possible?

My own opinion: I don't copy CD's so it doesn't really affect me. It's too bad I can't listen to many of these copy-protected Cd's in the car, but it's a minor inconvenience compared to a major industry problem. (industry problem- the illegal copying, and sharing of copy-righted materials)

Absolutely Leah.
I don't copy CD's either, and hope you're right and they can improve the technology.

Vicki

[little_dancer]

ok, maybe this is an unpopular thing to say (please don't hurt me!) but I don't think CD's are too expensive. Yes, 20.00/CD (canadian) is a lot of money for me - I am a dancer- we make VERY little.
BUT Apartments are WAY too expensive, Groceries are WAY too expensive- Heck, even busfare is WAY too expensive- that's just the economy that we live in...I don't mind saving up a little to get my favorite CD, it bothers me FAR less than saving up to take the bus every day (if you buy the discount bus pass in Toronto- the cheapest pass you can- it costs 1086.00/year!!!)
I know CD's are expensive if you only consider the actual material they are made out of, but don't forget what the real purpose of a CD is -MUSIC- there's almost nothing I wouldn't pay for great MUSIC...I'd rather see the prices go down for a lot of other things, I don't mind paying for a great CD>
sorry if that is unpopular, it's just another side of the coin :D
I REALLY don't want to sound preachy or argumentative- I know people may have a strong objection to what I've said in this post- PLEASE don't get angry- I respect everybody's opinion!

Having said that - if prices go down slightly, I'd certainly be thrilled!

[Vickip]

sorry if that is unpopular, it's just another side of the coin :D
I REALLY don't want to sound preachy or argumentative- I know people may have a strong objection to what I've said in this post- PLEASE don't get angry- I respect everybody's opinion!

Why do you say you're sorry?
You're entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else here on the forum, and I for one would never get angry :)

Personally ... CDs aren't expensive to me either.

I was agreeing with Michel that it is an issue with some people in both the US and other countries, and perhaps something else that the record companies need to look into.

Vicki

[shadow1000001]

sorry if that is unpopular, it's just another side of the coin :D
I REALLY don't want to sound preachy or argumentative- I know people may have a strong objection to what I've said in this post- PLEASE don't get angry- I respect everybody's opinion!

Why do you say you're sorry?
You're entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else here on the forum, and I for one would never get angry :)

Personally ... CDs aren't expensive to me either.

I was agreeing with Michel that it is an issue with some people in both the US and other countries, and perhaps something else that the record companies need to look into.

Vicki

Vicki is right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's what makes us different :D
I don't find CD's expensive either. If yu want it bad enough, you will get it no matter what the cost. A price drop would be nice but not necessary.
Michel does have a really valid point. Like Vicki said, it would be nice if the record companies would look into that.

Maria

[Vickip]

sorry if that is unpopular, it's just another side of the coin :D
I REALLY don't want to sound preachy or argumentative- I know people may have a strong objection to what I've said in this post- PLEASE don't get angry- I respect everybody's opinion!

Why do you say you're sorry?
You're entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else here on the forum, and I for one would never get angry :)

Personally ... CDs aren't expensive to me either.

I was agreeing with Michel that it is an issue with some people in both the US and other countries, and perhaps something else that the record companies need to look into.

Vicki

Vicki is right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's what makes us different :D
I don't find CD's expensive either. If yu want it bad enough, you will get it no matter what the cost. A price drop would be nice but not necessary.
Michel does have a really valid point. Like Vicki said, it would be nice if the record companies would look into that.

Maria

Thanks Maria :))
Vicki

[shadow1000001]

You're quite welcome Vicki :D


Maria

[little_dancer]

Vicki is right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's what makes us different
I don't find CD's expensive either. If yu want it bad enough, you will get it no matter what the cost. A price drop would be nice but not necessary.
Michel does have a really valid point. Like Vicki said, it would be nice if the record companies would look into that.

Yes, I think Michel is correct as well, a lower price would be a strong incentive for people to purchase the original as opposed to a copy (which invariably are fairly low quality at any rate)

Don't worry guys- I only overstated the apologies because the issue can be quite inflammatory, I know most people here to be VERY respectfull of other people's views- I didn't expect anybody to get mad, I just wanted to be clear that it was only my opinion :D

[Vickip]

Vicki is right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's what makes us different
I don't find CD's expensive either. If yu want it bad enough, you will get it no matter what the cost. A price drop would be nice but not necessary.
Michel does have a really valid point. Like Vicki said, it would be nice if the record companies would look into that.

Yes, I think Michel is correct as well, a lower price would be a strong incentive for people to purchase the original as opposed to a copy (which invariably are fairly low quality at any rate)

Don't worry guys- I only overstated the apologies because the issue can be quite inflammatory, I know most people here to be VERY respectfull of other people's views- I didn't expect anybody to get mad, I just wanted to be clear that it was only my opinion :D

:))
Vicki

[Chris]

I agree with both of the statements on here!!

Personally I do not feel that they are expensive BUT in terms of how much profit is made solely by the record companies from each CD, they are excessivly priced.

Surely it is not beyond the grasp of the executives to reduce the profit margin slightly and improve sales.

[evil nickname]

OK, now that everyone agrees on agreeing... can we get back on topic?

I remember me taking the time trying to smack the point across that no-one will benefit from copy corruption (neither us consumers, nor artists or record companies), and then my effort seems to get lost in show of agreement.

Any views on the 'real' topic?

[Agent1]

Adding my 2 cents or maybe not my 2 cents, CHSIB has been downloaded off the internet 2,500,000 times. So far, that is 2 weeks ago.

Now if only there was some way to get all of those people to go out and buy the CD :)

But the main point I'm trying to make is that "copy controlled" albums will never stop people who really want to copy the music and post it on the Internet for anyone to download. It just inconveniences those people who want to make use of their properly-purchased CDs. I don't know how many of your fans feel the same way as me, but I know quite a few people who won't buy any CD that has any sort of "copy protection" on it. You might want to talk to your record label about that.

Anyway, I still have my copy from the England release, so all is not lost ;) Hope you come to Winnipeg to perform one more time :)

[shadow1000001]

OK, now that everyone agrees on agreeing... can we get back on topic?

I remember me taking the time trying to smack the point across that no-one will benefit from copy corruption (neither us consumers, nor artists or record companies), and then my effort seems to get lost in show of agreement.

Any views on the 'real' topic?

Sorry Evil, you are right. We did go a little off topic. :D
I have re-read all your post on the subject and I will agree that you have some very valid points but there has to be other ways of dealing with this issue other than boycotting copy controlled CDs. That just seems, to me anyway, that you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. If every record album comes out with CC then does that mean that none of us will ever buy a CD again? It just doesn't make sense. As I said before, I don't mind putting up with a "little inconvience" to protect the artist but I do understand that not alot of people will agree with me. Alot of people will see it as a major inconvience. So I guess what I'm saying is that there has to be another way around this.


Maria

[Michel]

Copy Controll doesn't work. You can always find a way to crack it and to copy or rip the CD. People who buy the original CD are the only people who have problems with it, because it won't play on some CD-players.

[shadow1000001]

Copy Controll doesn't work. You can always find a way to crack it and to copy or rip the CD. People who buy the original CD are the only people who have problems with it, because it won't play on some CD-players.

I never had a problem with this CD. It plays in all my players, computer and DVD player.

[little_dancer]

Evil: well, I don't remember anybody agreeing about agreeing (that would make us pretty daft) I think people were talking about other issues relating to copy control ie. lower prices as an incentive.

In response uniquely to your post, however:

I hadn't actually heard anything about copy control untill reading your post (and thank you for gving me the information) Afterwards, however, I went and did a little research on the topic. You are absolutely correct, a copy controlled Cd does not meet the standards of cd's and is therefore not legally classifiable as a CD. In addition, despite the claims of EMI's website, these discs will not play in all players. (I for one cannot play these discs in my DVD player, my walkman, or my friend's car). They are not Cd's.
I also agree with your statement RE: the low-quality coke/pesi genre of music. I don't know when record companies will wisen up to the fact that WE don't want to buy the crap that these plastic pop stars 'sing'. I use the term 'sing' very loosely here.

Here's where you and I differ, though, Evil.
I will buy these copy-controlled Cd's for artists like Meat Loaf, Tom Waits, and my other favorite artists. They are artists, and I do not believe that the public has the right to illegally copy their work.

Now, will copy controlled CD's prevent their work from being illegally copied? Absolutely not, as you and others have eloquently pointed out, (and are correct in doing so) any CD that can be played, can be copied. I won't mention here all the methodes people are currently using to rip copy-controlled CD's (although there are allready downloadable programs to steal the information from the disc, in a way that removes the errors)

Here's the thing, I feel you're missing. People are stealing music. Whether or not this affects sales is really not relevant-(to my point, obviously it is relevant to the artist, and the record company) what is relevant is the fact that people seem to believe that they have the RIGHT to take music for free. Artists copyright their work because they make their living on what they create. It is wrong for people to believe that buying an album gives them all the rights to that album, it only gives you the priviledge of listening to it. There is a real moral delema going on in the world right now re: the rights of artists. I, for one, do not believe that an artist's work is public property. I really can't blame them for taking any measures that are available to them to prevent music piracy, even if you are not the type of person to upload these files for shareware, most seem to be. Copy-protection is annoying, but this is a case of a few bad apples spoiling it for everybody. If people are willing to steal music, the rest of us are going to have to put up with the incovenience of copy-protected CD's


well that's my loonie's worth (get it, loonie? canadian dollar? long post :lol: :lol: sorry, I'll stick with dancing.)

[Vickip]

Here's the thing, I feel you're missing. People are stealing music. Whether or not this affects sales is really not relevant-(to my point, obviously it is relevant to the artist, and the record company) what is relevant is the fact that people seem to believe that they have the RIGHT to take music for free. Artists copyright their work because they make their living on what they create. It is wrong for people to believe that buying an album gives them all the rights to that album, it only gives you the priviledge of listening to it. There is a real moral delema going on in the world right now re: the rights of artists. I, for one, do not believe that an artist's work is public property. I really can't blame them for taking any measures that are available to them to prevent music piracy, even if you are not the type of person to upload these files for shareware, most seem to be. Copy-protection is annoying, but this is a case of a few bad apples spoiling it for everybody. If people are willing to steal music, the rest of us are going to have to put up with the incovenience of copy-protected CD's



Very well said Leah .... you are absolutely right !!
Vicki

[shadow1000001]

You are right Leah. There is a moral dilema going on. I am not the type of person to upload files so the copy controling is not a real issue for me. The only way to stop it is to go after the file sharing sites themselves, not the record companies. They are just trying to protect their investments which is totally understandable.

[evil nickname]

Well, agreed :)

Here's where you and I differ, though, Evil.
I will buy these copy-controlled Cd's for artists like Meat Loaf, Tom Waits, and my other favorite artists. They are artists, and I do not believe that the public has the right to illegally copy their work.

I never said I didn't buy them. I got some (CHSIB included). And I also never said that the public has the right to illegally copying CDs, or other copyrighted work for that matter.
I was making the case that copy corruption does not allow me to make legimate copies for private use. I've encoded almost all my CDs so I can listen to them more easily on my PC - and that is where I play music the most. According to Dutch law, that's entirely legal. I just don't like my rights being taken away...

(although there are allready downloadable programs to steal the information from the disc, in a way that removes the errors)

I strongly object to the word 'steal' in this context. Copies made for private use, parctice or study are legal (The Netherlands again), so it's not stealing.

Here's the thing, I feel you're missing. People are stealing music. Whether or not this affects sales is really not relevant-(to my point, obviously it is relevant to the artist, and the record company) what is relevant is the fact that people seem to believe that they have the RIGHT to take music for free.

I never touched on the 'stealing' thing for, imo, a good reason. It's quicksand. I do download music from the internet. Like most people do. However, I mostly download music to 'pre-listen' an album I'm interested in. If I like it, I buy it. If I don't -- why keep it? This is what *I* do. And I don't expect a lot of people do the same.
Technically, I'm still a 'thief', since I take copyright material, which is most likely made available without the copyrights-holder's consent. Although it may not be completly honest/legal, but I think that morally I'm doing pretty well.

Artists copyright their work because they make their living on what they create. [...] I really can't blame them for taking any measures that are available to them to prevent music piracy, [...] Copy-protection is annoying, but this is a case of a few bad apples spoiling it for everybody. If people are willing to steal music, the rest of us are going to have to put up with the incovenience of copy-protected CD's

Yes, artists make their living of their works (be it music, paintings, or whatever). And no, it's not wrong to protect your income, but I don't believe that copy protection is the ultimate answer. There are, and always will be, ways to circumvent them. The added inconvienance of 'CDs' that aren't proper CDs, and therefore will not play on all CD-players, is in my not so humble opinion only resulting in more people eventually not buying CDs. Why buy something that should come with a warning: "You won't be able to play this album with your discman, auto-radio, PC, and other non-standard CD-players (and some assorted standard CD players). Also you won't be able to make digital audio files for use on your portable audio player." I hardly use my regular CD-player, and once there are portable audio devices which support Ogg Vorbis (http://www.vorbis.com), I'm definatly buying one. So why should I buy something I won't be able to use in the way I want to / that is of not much use to me due to the way its designed? I might just as well download it for free from the internet.

And finally, slightly OT, but FYI:
People don't have to copyright anything. This is done automatically if you create 'a work of art, literature of science' (Dutch Law again, but I'd be surprised if that isn't the international approach). This reply, is copyrighted by me, I don't have to add a '©' or nothing. That's just how it works.
And shareware is software, that is distributed free of charge for testing. If you decide you like the software, and continue to use it, you are legally required to pay a registration fee.

William
[jeez... these kinds of posts take forever to write]

[edit: Shadow was posting in the time it tookme to type up all this]

I am not the type of person to upload files so the copy controling is not a real issue for me. The only way to stop it is to go after the file sharing sites themselves, not the record companies.

Copy protection / disc corruption may become an issue for you once you change your equipment, or a new version of protection comes out which won't work with your equipment. Just that it isn't one now is no reason just to dismiss it. That's like saying "screw the ecosystem, I'll be long gone when the bubble finally bursts".
And yes, rolling up the fileshare-sytems would propably do the trick, although I don't believe that will ever happen.

[shadow1000001]

Well, agreed :)





I was making the case that copy corruption does not allow me to make legimate copies for private use. I've encoded almost all my CDs so I can listen to them more easily on my PC - and that is where I play music the most. According to Dutch law, that's entirely legal. I just don't like my rights being taken away...





I never touched on the 'stealing' thing for, imo, a good reason. It's quicksand. I do download music from the internet. Like most people do. However, I mostly download music to 'pre-listen' an album I'm interested in. If I like it, I buy it. If I don't -- why keep it? This is what *I* do. And I don't expect a lot of people do the same.
Technically, I'm still a 'thief', since I take copyright material, which is most likely made available without the copyrights-holder's consent. Although it may not be completly honest/legal, but I think that morally I'm doing pretty well.





And finally, slightly OT, but FYI:
People don't have to copyright anything. This is done automatically if you create 'a work of art, literature of science' (Dutch Law again, but I'd be surprised if that isn't the international approach). This reply, is copyrighted by me, I don't have to add a '©' or nothing. That's just how it works.
And shareware is software, that is distributed free of charge for testing. If you decide you like the software, and continue to use it, you are legally required to pay a registration fee.

William
[jeez... these kinds of posts take forever to write]



Hi William,
I just want to touch on a couple of points that you made. I do totally understand the point that you made about having your rights taken away but it does come down to the point of record companies protecting their artists and income. Because of people uploading their files, it's spoiled for the rest of us that don't.

Alot of people will download to pre-listen to decide if they want to buy the album so why can't there be a system in place that just a portion of the song is downloaded instead of the whole thing. You can normally get an idea if you like the song after a minute or two. (At least I do)

The final point I want to touch on was your last. Alot of shareware software can be obtained for free but it's not just for testing. I won't name names here but some companies will let you use it for free if you run the ad supported version without having to pay a registration fee ever.


I guess that I got my "loonies" worth too :D

Maria


Evil posted while I was trying to type this up :)

I'm not saying that I am dismissing this issue because it works well with the equipment that I have. What I am trying to say is that I would like to see some kind of resolution to this issue somewhere in the near future. You are right, I might be more upset if it affected me more than what it does now but I wouldn't be mad at the record companies, I would get upset at the shareware providers for screwing it up for me, the honest consumer.

I will get off my soapbox now, for a little while :D

[little_dancer]

Evil nickname-
I'm awfully sorry if what I wrote came across as calling you a thief, or lumping you in with those who steal music. I re read my post, and I see why it may have come across that way, but it was unintentional :oops:

What I was trying (in a somewhat inarticulate way) to do was establish 'the other side of the coin' as in : why would artists condone the use of copy-protected CD's. It was addressed to you because it involved the post you had made with regards to the technical details (thank you for those details, by the way). Where I did use the word 'steal' (a very strong term) it was in reference to those who use the tracks on shareware programs, which I personally disagree with, not those who use the information for other players.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, please know that I did not intend for you to take the post as directed to you re: music stealing, I was only addressing the technical issues you posted with the other side of things: shareware and the like.

I do apreciate you putting the details in laymens terms for people like me who do not have a great deal of technical reference.
ps
what's wrong with agreeing with each other :lol:

[evil nickname]

The final point I want to touch on was your last. Alot of shareware software can be obtained for free but it's not just for testing. I won't name names here but some companies will let you use it for free if you run the ad supported version without having to pay a registration fee ever.

And you just picked out the one of the angles I forgot to cover in my answer. Please let me rephrase:
Shareware is software, that is distributed free of charge, which either
* works only for a limited amount of time, after which you have to register and pay to keep using it;
* has a limited capabilties in comparison to the full/registered version.;
* works without limitations, but if continue to use it, you are legally required to pay a registration fee of some sort (eveything is permitted: cash, postcards, email of appreciation, etc);
* works without limitations, but shows ads.
It is in most cases allowed to pass (unmodified) copies on to friends, family etc.

I think I covered all angles now. Good research does pay of sometimes :)

Evil posted while I was trying to type this up :)

Quite annoying, isn't it? It just happened again, so here we go:

I'm awfully sorry if what I wrote came across as calling you a thief, [...] What I was trying (in a somewhat inarticulate way) to do was establish 'the other side of the coin' as in : why would artists condone the use of copy-protected CD's.

I understood what you tried to say, so no offence taken. I just strongly objected to the use of 'stealing' in context of making copies, for that is under certain circumstances completly legal.
I kept on using it as a refference, since it does seem to bring the message across.

I do apreciate you putting the details in laymens terms for people like me who do not have a great deal of technical reference.
ps
what's wrong with agreeing with each other :lol:

Thank you, I'm trying the best as I can to do just that. I know I'm a geek (call it self-knowledge ;), and am thoroughly aware that most around here are not. This whole debate is about an issue I'm very interested in/concerned about, so I think it is in my benefit to keep it on such a level that everyone can understand it and share their views about it.

And there is nothing wrong with agreeing, but I just don't see the use of posts which just do that: agreeing with what is said above. I know it is something likely to happen on a forum, cause their are few other options that just adding another '(I)CHSIB(M)", "YTTWROOMM" to the list... but I just don't like that... I'm more of a 'say something which contributes to the discussion' kind of poster... but hey, that's just me :)

William
(and here's for hoping I won't have to edit again!)

[shadow1000001]

The final point I want to touch on was your last. Alot of shareware software can be obtained for free but it's not just for testing. I won't name names here but some companies will let you use it for free if you run the ad supported version without having to pay a registration fee ever.

And you just picked out the one of the angles I forgot to cover in my answer. Please let me rephrase:
Shareware is software, that is distributed free of charge, which either
* works only for a limited amount of time, after which you have to register and pay to keep using it;
* has a limited capabilties in comparison to the full/registered version.;
* works without limitations, but if continue to use it, you are legally required to pay a registration fee of some sort (eveything is permitted: cash, postcards, email of appreciation, etc);
* works without limitations, but shows ads.
It is in most cases allowed to pass (unmodified) copies on to friends, family etc.

I think I covered all angles now. Good research does pay of sometimes :)

Evil posted while I was trying to type this up :)

Quite annoying, isn't it?


Yes it is quite annoying :D

So since rolling on the shareware companies is not a viable option at this point and time what else can we do? There has got to be other options here that we are missing.

[evil nickname]

Yes it is quite annoying :D

So since rolling on the shareware companies is not a viable option at this point and time what else can we do? There has got to be other options here that we are missing.

I know, check my previous post :)

But after reading this reply, I think you were using the term shareware to refer to the peer-2-peer / download programs, right?
Quite a different thing, since there are a lot of good shareware programs out there (winzip, etc).
But rolling up the download-programs will be quite a difficult thing to do, cause these usually know what they're doing, and got a big legal team to back em up...

(and as I type "back it up" I hear the chorus of "Do It" going "Bag it up". LOL)

[little_dancer]

I personally have no problem with people agreeing with each other and do not find it annoying...having said that...

Evil, since you seem to be more knowlegeable

(and by the way every good person is a geek about something, I am a dance geek, you are a tech geek, my bf is a music geek, it's all good baby :D )

How exactly would a sharware program work in terms of income? I know that the clients must pay a user fee for this type of program, but are the artists getting payed by the download (in a peer to peer situation), or is it the shareware owner who benefits? (please excuse me if I am using the wrong terms, here)

I am still unclear as to how paying for a shareware program entitles you to share the music you download with others, can you clarify this for me?

thanks,
Leah

oh and OT as well, I didn't mean that artists had to copyright their own work, I was trying to explain why copyright was to their advantage. And in terms of copyright law, you are correct - but, the original artist always has to prove 'date of origination' which is why they often send a copy to themselves through registered mail...I am well versed in Canadian copyright law as I am a dancer/choreographer and need to take measures to ensure that movement vocabulary is not stolen from pieces I create :)

[shadow1000001]

Yes, I do use shareware as a term for peer 2 peer or file sharing. Sorry for any confusion :oops:
I went back over some of the posts and there still isn't really any viable options here. I really don't think that boycotting is an option. All you end up doing is hurting the artist. In regards to the statement that "downloading is killing music" I think that it's definately a part of it. I wouldn't say that it's 100% of it. The rising costs of CDs isn't helping either.


Maria, who really needs to get ready for work now :wink:

[Sue K]

ok, maybe this is an unpopular thing to say (please don't hurt me!) but I don't think CD's are too expensive. Yes, 20.00/CD (canadian) is a lot of money for me - I am a dancer- we make VERY little.
BUT Apartments are WAY too expensive, Groceries are WAY too expensive- Heck, even busfare is WAY too expensive- that's just the economy that we live in...I don't mind saving up a little to get my favorite CD, it bothers me FAR less than saving up to take the bus every day (if you buy the discount bus pass in Toronto- the cheapest pass you can- it costs 1086.00/year!!!)
I know CD's are expensive if you only consider the actual material they are made out of, but don't forget what the real purpose of a CD is -MUSIC- there's almost nothing I wouldn't pay for great MUSIC...I'd rather see the prices go down for a lot of other things, I don't mind paying for a great CD>
sorry if that is unpopular, it's just another side of the coin :D
I REALLY don't want to sound preachy or argumentative- I know people may have a strong objection to what I've said in this post- PLEASE don't get angry- I respect everybody's opinion!

Having said that - if prices go down slightly, I'd certainly be thrilled!

..yes..it would be nice if the price in EVERYthing would go down.. :-) ...

while reading thru the posts ..i tried thinking 40 years back to what i paid for Beatles LPs and i have to think it was about...6 american dollars or so...i really can't remember... but if that is what it was...paying 11.99 for Meat's "LP" a week ago...seems an appropriate rise in pricing with the "cost of living" for 40 years...

as for the rest...i don't copy..i buy a cd...and tote the wee light little thing back and forth to work with me in a carry case....in fact i tote up to 15 cds back and forth to work with me...thinking about it..lol...powers that be bless technology..the thoughts of carrying 15 LPS back and forth is a back breaking thought...lol...

bottom line to me...the sales of cds is a part of how artists make their money... and altho one would copy a cd for their own use...there are some that would not...

i can't see getting angry about record companies and artists wanting to protect their income....

crim..the IRS keeps taking my money...what am i supposed to do??? takes some of the money being made by the record companies and the artist too...what are we ALL supposed to do???

[evil nickname]

How exactly would a sharware program work in terms of income? I know that the clients must pay a user fee for this type of program, but are the artists getting payed by the download (in a peer to peer situation), or is it the shareware owner who benefits? (please excuse me if I am using the wrong terms, here)

As I posted earlier, shareware is not the correct term for p2p-filesharing software. That being said: with most filesharing-software like Kazaa, limewire, Napster (seems to be coming back in a legal form), soulseek, or pick your brand, no-one is required to pay for using them. There are some programs where you can buy 'benefits' (faster downloads, no waiting queue (sp?)).
Since there is no money be transfered, no one will get any money from it. How the companies/organisations who exploit these services make their money, I don't know, and frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. [/bogart]

There are some legal posibilities to aquire digital audio files, like Rhapsody, Pressplay, eMusic, etc. Here you have to pay for what you download. In one way or the other, that money ends up where it should be.

To summarize:
Filesharing = illegal = no one pay = no one gets money
Legal download services = legal (duh!) = you pay for what you download = whoever is entitled to money from downloads gets it

William

(for everyone who can read Dutch, research papers on copyright, software licences (including shareware) and legal audio downloads are available at my website, under projects > research)

[Lady B]

Adding my 2 cents or maybe not my 2 cents, CHSIB has been downloaded
off the internet 2,500,000 times. So far, that is 2 weeks ago.

ML

Part of me wants to cheer this like crazy but the other part is really concerned for you regarding copyrite infringement. As a songwriter myself (albeit amateur tho' working on a demo for publishing of several) I'm really having to think about this but can't really give any opinion at the moment because I don't know all the laws regarding royalties and all the downloading of music. Learning, but give me time.

Lady B

[little_dancer]

thanks again for the information Evil, that clarifies things for me.:D

[evil nickname]

Came across an article (here (http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=2&aid=918100652_5311_lead_story)), with an statement I fully agree with:

"What if they put copy protection in the disc and it doesn't ... reverse the decline of CD sales?" asked Phil Leigh, an analyst at Inside Digital Media. "If it doesn't help it's likely to hurt by just annoying people."

How true that is.

[jcmoorehead]

Ok I buy my albums, i currently have 7 Meat Loaf Albums. Now heres the problem with copy protection.

I own a Portable MP3 Player. Now this means I have to record my albums onto my PC as MP3s and then put them onto my MP3 Player. This used to be easy. But now they are bring in stupid ideas that will make this illegal?

I mean MP3 players arn't cheap! And neither are Albums. And if I pay for the Album why shouldnt I be able to put it onto my MP3 Player? I dont want to lug around a Portable CD Player when my MP3 Player is half the size and half the weight. But now these copy protection rules are making it nearly impossible for me to do this simple thing.

I think that there DEFINATELY should be somewhere you can pay like 75p per track you want to download. This would put more interest into music and make it easier.

[Shane]

But there is a simple reason for that. Fans always buy the CD of there favourite artist. People who like the music, but are not fans will not buy the CD, because it is too expensive. CD's are very expensive, a normal DVD is cheaper. If you make CD's a few euro's/dollars cheaper, people will buy more original CD's.

About the copy control. It is easy to crack. I also ripped the CD and put the songs on my hard disk. Not for sharing, but just for listening to it. I've done that with every Meat CD.

That's interesting...in New Zealand, DVDs are much more expensive than cds. Album CDs in New Zealand can be found for as little as $US9, depending on where you buy. The upper price limit for CDs in NZ is about $US24, with 2CD compilations generally being the only CDs that cost more. However, for DVDs that is usually the average price, and often they are more. A very small number of DVDs can be found for about $US16 but certainly no less. In New Zealand, the price of CHSIB ranges from about $US15 to about $US18.

I copied the CD for someone who I was sure would purchase (and since has purchased) the album. I used a computer at the university where I work, and Windows Media Player for the ripping. It was slow but had no other problems. The version I used was the German version, which has the copy control logo on it. I have now received the Australian version which does not have the logo or any other similar logo.

[evil nickname]

That's interesting...in New Zealand, DVDs are much more expensive than cds. Album CDs in New Zealand can be found for as little as $US9, depending on where you buy. The upper price limit for CDs in NZ is about $US24, with 2CD compilations generally being the only CDs that cost more. However, for DVDs that is usually the average price, and often they are more. A very small number of DVDs can be found for about $US16 but certainly no less. In New Zealand, the price of CHSIB ranges from about $US15 to about $US18.

Wow. Here in The Netherlands, new/recent CDs cost anywhere between €16 and 24, but most chain-stores sell at €21.99 or something. My favorite shop is decently priced, with most CDs being about €18.99. And I still think it's too much. I remember there was a time when most CDs didn't cost more than NLG 39.99 - €17.8.
I haven't seen CHSIB for anything under €19 for the regular edition (without the bonus disk).
DVDs? I don't have a clue. Rarely buy them...

I do think the Euro is more expensive that the US Dollar at the moment, by the way

The version I used was the German version, which has the copy control logo on it. I have now received the Australian version which does not have the logo or any other similar logo.

Oh, I ripped that version alright. But since I also ordered the Australian edition (give me bonus tracks) -- seems like I'm ripping again, just to be sure. I think there are a few minor clicks to be heard in my rips.

But good to know that Australia is not joining in in this copy scam. At least, not in this case.

[R.]

This is more general talk about "copy controlled" CDs, not exactly CHSIB related, and therefore OffTopic.

[original sin]

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to make a copy for my own use of something I already have brought and paid for - i like to keep my favourite albums indoors and in the car.
I think this rather different to downloading stuff that is copyrighted or trying to record a live performance.

[Sue K]

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to make a copy for my own use of something I already have brought and paid for - i like to keep my favourite albums indoors and in the car.
I think this rather different to downloading stuff that is copyrighted or trying to record a live performance.

Yes, have to agree with you, Sin. In the day, I would tape from my LPs in order to play them at work. Couldn't very well drag my stereo in on a daily basis.. 8-O ... ! I never gave it a second thought. And now thinking back a couple years, I did tape LIVE AROUND THE WORLD so I could listen to it on my tape playing walkman. I think for your own use is fine.

[Alice]

I would like to add a bit.
Copy Controlled cds actually CAN be copied. When I put it in my cd-rom it automatically loads its player but it shows (!) 128 kbit - very low bitrate, so it seems like it reduces the quality when you play it through their player. I shut down this player and open my own - EasyCD for example. Then it plays it with almost no problems - it only halts for few seconds on first 10th second of the first song.

To copy I can open for example program called Easy cd Creator and it easily copy tracks from the cd to hard drive.

So all the money major labels spend on copy controlled program are spent for nothing or they just steal them and then show in the papers that they spent them to make this "control".

Also copy controlled cd can't be more than 60 minutes long because player and program itself takes too much space of the cd.

So there are some things to think about really... :roll: