I Won't Buy a "Copy Controlled" Album

[Vickip]

Originally Posted by 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)

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
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]

Originally Posted by little_dancer

sorry if that is unpopular, it's just another side of the coin
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]

Originally Posted by Vickip

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
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]

Originally Posted by shadow1000001

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.

Maria

Thanks Maria
Vicki

[shadow1000001]

You're quite welcome Vicki


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

[Vickip]

Originally Posted by little_dancer

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

Sorry Evil, you are right. We did go a little off topic.
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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 sorry, I'll stick with dancing.)

[Vickip]

Originally Posted by little_dancer

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 :)

Originally Posted by little_dancer

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...

Originally Posted by little_dancer

(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.

Originally Posted by little_dancer

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.

Originally Posted by little_dancer

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, 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]

Originally Posted by shadow1000001

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]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

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

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

[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

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

[evil nickname]

Originally Posted by 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 :)

Originally Posted by shadow1000001

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

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

Originally Posted by little_dancer

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.

Originally Posted by little_dancer

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]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

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 :)

Quite annoying, isn't it?

Yes it is quite annoying

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]

Originally Posted by shadow1000001

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 )

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
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