2. music
  3. 1009398045

Copy-protected CDs - philosophical discussion

My previous copy-protection thread probably deserves a follow-up since the issue is just as troubling ethically/legally/philosophically as it is technically.

Record companies are selling CDs which do not play on a PC's CD player. However, the CDs are not identified as such and, according to at least one source, may have trouble playing on high-end systems and car CD players.

Here's the news story:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6604222.html

Here's an unofficial list of copy-protected CDs, authored by a guy whose opinion on the matter should be quite obvious:
http://fatchucks.com/corruptcds/corrupt.html

Reserving the technical discussion and "can you actually hear it" discussions for my previous thread, what are your feelings on the softer side of this issue, especially given the vast amount of software that we collectively gave/received over the past couple of weeks?

Don't hold back, now!

FWIW, my take is that this is just another case of technology scaring the crap out of a lumbering entrenched industry with severely dated business models because the geeks are infinitely smarter and more creative than the suits can ever hope to be. Just like the lawsuit against Napster, it may succeed in its immediate goal (for a month or so), but misses the real point completely. Alienating customers who are not criminals is bad business. For many of us Audiogoners, I imagine the presence of "all but inaudible" distortion on a recording is reason enough to avoid it like the plague. The music business is not about “clicks and pops”; it's about music.
powerste

Showing 2 responses by kthomas

kthomas
911 posts
 
I agree with the points that, as a major music label, it's logical that they're trying look at some way to stop the proliferation of CD copying and that, for the vast majority of their buying public, the impact on sound quality is not a major issue. Certainly the impact on sound quality induced by copy protection isn't going to be worse than all the compression and fabrication that is put on a lot of the major releases already, the same stuff that has audiophiles lamenting the recording "quality" of most releases. I think the Telarc's and MFSL's of the world know who's buttering their bread and it will be a long time before they put copy protection on their products.

I also think it's true that the major labels are reacting to this like dinosaurs - they know something needs to be done, but they want to patch the problem instead of getting caught up with the times and reinventing the product, at the risk of destroying their cash cow, the CD with a retail price of $16.99. That's what annoys me to no end - they want to debilitate their current product without offering up any incentive to the customer. I buy a lot of CDs - easily 100+ a year. I make copies of all of them to put in CD changers in my system as well as in my car. I like having the original copy (I could borrow tons of CDs from the library or from friends to reduce my cost if I wanted to and felt right about it, but I don't). I shop for good prices - 20% off at the local outlet, the CD clubs, etc. In other words, I'm a prime example of why the current model is a cash cow for the companies. Now they want to change (in all negative ways) the model for me without offering me anything positive. Even if I don't take this as an inherent accusation that I am part of the problem, this is bad business. Gee, I'm sorry that it's going to cost you to "catch up" and to transform your business model, but you know what - that's what it's going to take if you want me to continue pumping $2000 a year into your market. Every other service I purchase gives me more each year for less, so it's not going to work for the music industry to give me less for the same amount.

So far I haven't encountered a copy protected CD, so I continue with the same model I've used for several years now. If and when it becomes a regular encounter, I will change the model. I would like to change the model by industry incentive - define a service that's worth the price (and there is a huge market for people willing to pay for a service) and meets my needs. If that isn't what's offered, then at a minimum I'll take a break from buying new CDs until some other model is defined.

Maybe the new model will be the new hi-rez formats, brought down to current CD prices - a hi-rez format with copy protection at the same price might be an example of give-and-take. -Kirk

kthomas
911 posts
 
So what, specifically, do people recommend we do as consumers to not just roll over and accept encryption and watermarking? I don't imagine anybody on this forum wanting either of these, but it seems just as apparent that the major players are going to bring it to us, like it or not. Call it corporate greed or whatever, it's deep-pocketed corporations who have a huge revenue stream to protect and, having woken up, they're going to do something even if audiophiles don't like it, so what are we going to do? Will we just stop buying the "tainted" product? Will we say "this is war" and start leveraging the efforts of the hackers to utilize the product as we see fit, whether that's to make personal copies to protect your investment or dozens of copies to give to friends for "evaluation"? Anybody planning on suing Sony or organizing a class action suit?
More to discover