TalkAwhile - The Folk Corporation Forum

Having just put one of my daughter's CD's onto my cd player (on the PC), I discovered that it's a) copy protected and b) unplayable for me as a result.  :-X

What are your views on copy protection schemes?

I believe there's an argument that if the CD carries the 'compact disc digital audio' trademark and cannot be played in a player with the trademark, then the CD contravenes the Sale of Goods Act. Some CDs are now marked as copy protected.
I don't know if the argument was ever pursued as a legal case.

For what it's worth, I support the arguments against piracy, particularly when it's struggling artists trying to make a living, but I don't see how they can justify forcing consumers to pay for a CD copy AND an mp3 copy of the same recording.

Personally I think it is pretty naughty putting copy protection onto a CD that stops it playing on a PC, since I've been playing CDs on various PCs for about 8 years now, and like many people have got used to that.

Likewise I don't really see why having paid for a CD I should have to pay twice to make a copy for the car, since I don't play it indoors and in the car simultaneously.

I think all the companies that do this are going to start with this scheme is to simply generate evn more demand in the "black market" for copy-unprotected disks. I suspect most peoples ears can't tell the difference on an analogue recording, at least in a car or bedroom or kichen player type environment, so people will just revert to making analogue recordings where they have to, and then play the resultant CD, MD or MP3 on whatever kit comes along. And the companies that do rigidly copy protect will find themselves with large stocks of unsold CDs.

I know this is Mark's question to answer, so apologies, feel free to delete this. But there are still ways to stuff the paranoid copy protectors:

1) when you insert a CD into a PC keep your finger on SHIFT, it will stop autoplays. Then you can play it as normal.

2) If you download a track and it is copy potected, burn it to a CD as an audio track (best to do this with a whole bunch) and then rip the CD as a collection of MP3s. No copy protection!

It's our music so we should be able to listen to it however we like  >:( :D

This particular CD (by Staind - no comments please, haven't heard it yet) just jumbles up all the tracks if you play it on a pc. Stopped me dead from even caring if the music was any good. I'd have to hook up a cd player and analogue play it through the line-in socket. Far too much trouble.

Hmmmm... A difficult one this.

I feel that unless the copy protection works well, it's not worth doing. 

I have a feeling, I mentioned the fact I had been approached to buy an album that had been bootlegged, and was due royalties from the bootleg!

I copy music all the time, for purposes that are justified, and sometimes not so.

I feel also that if you love music, a copy is just not as good. For many reasons including the sleeve etc. That was the beauty of original (pre cassette) vinyl - the cover, and the impossibility of conveniently copying them. ;)

I do feel very strongly that the artists needs protecting somehow against bootlegging.

Mark. ???

Bootlegging, yes it's an issue. Those people who copy music and have no intention of buying are thiefs.

Copying as a buyer, grey area - I have been given copies and then gone on to buy the originals, and if it weren't for copies then there would be a few artists that I would never have bought anything of. Show Of Hands encourage copying as they trust the integrity of their fans to buy more stuff, but when the audience is younger and/or a dishonest crowd then it would be a risk.

Copying your own music to play elsewhere to yourself - resounding yes. Can't see why not.

Many years ago, a record label attempted to get round the matter of people copying their records by selling MCPS stamps (like we used to get on the old 78s), to be affixed to the cassette itself.  The effect of the stamp was to make a bootleg legal.

I think that there are some unanswered questions in this matter which could well do with being explored.

The scheme eventually failed to catch on, partly because of other record companies' apathy about it and partly also because of the apathy of the buyers.

Quite right. I mainly make 2nd copies of CDs I own for the car, and the odd copy to give to a friend to help get them into an artist.

I have a couple of well-paid friends who seem to think that they shouldn't have to buy CDs any more, and they should just get me to copy all mine. One of them decided the queue at the merch desk was "too long" at a recent concert (I think there were 3 people in it), and followed through with an email 2 days later for me to make him a copy of the one I had bought. I somehow keep on forgetting to, especially since the said CD is readily available from the artist's website!

Illegal copying can be very costly to small labels / artist's own labels and can impact future releases.  In reality I can't believe it hits the huge multi-nationals too much, they just don't like the idea of people getting away with it.  Having said that, to my way of thinking it is disrespectful to the artist to rip off the fruits of their labours whatever label they are on.  Perhaps I feel like this because I buy mainly non-mainstream stuff.

Jon

This topic has been kicked about on the board for a while now! It is worth repeating that the only worthwhile study into the purchasing habits of people who do copy stuff show that they buy more CDs, on average, than people who do not.

Perhaps the large entertainment corporations ought to concentrate more on bringing those people who produce the thousands of pirated CDs, Tapes and DVDs that can be found on market stalls up mand down the land, rather than bugger about annoying those of us who DO buy the legitimate copies. >:(

Large Entertainment Multi Nationals - don't you just love 'em? :-X

Maybe they could even consider making a seriously reasonable pricing policy!

I got FC's Angel Delight and a few others from Ian and Steph's lovely selling space for 9 quid 50 each.

I've seen CDs in the UK (when I've been there on visits) at maybe 15 or 20 quid.

Go figure, eh?

Mark, yep... good topic to keep going.... not just market survey data, but also attitude survey and maybe even a behavioural survey of the record companies.... who knows?!

Without wishing to get too wishy washy & wet liberal about the whole malarkey - it's down to individual attitudes and responsibility. In a world where "never paying any tax for the last twenty years" (and I quote) is seen as a badge of honour, the theft of 'art' is inevitable. If you feel that one should not even have the opportunity to listen to something unless you have paid for the privelige, then you're going to be a fairly unlistened-to artist. I would hope that anyone who had the opportunity to listen to (say) Show of Hands on a 'boot' and really liked it would explore the back catalogue legitimately through purchase. On the other hand, I've been given a whole collection of burned CDs which I'm working through at the moment and have no intention of actually buying any of them - why would I need to get the whole Steely Dan 4 CD box set when it's been dropped in my lap? Again, on the other hand, why would I buy the new U2 album when I've had an opportunity to listen to it and I don't like it? On yet another hand (I think I'm up to four now...) we burned a CD for a friend and she not only immediately bought the legitimate copies from the band's own website, she also did some paid-for downloads and went to a couple of their gigs. I guess it all comes down to where you want to donate your money - artist, record company (they're not all evil, you know - someone had to find the budget for "In Real Time"), your mate down the pub (this usually counts as a 'lack of money' for the former two rather than an income for him/her) or a shady bunch of pirates (no offence Puggs  ::) ) who will spend it on crack whores and semtex. Moral dilemma ahoy....
Skirky   

The root of the problem here is record company greed.  If the majors were prepared to offer download albums at a reasonable price, taking into account that they will not have to pay to have the discs pressed, packaged, transported and sold, that might eliminate some of the perceived problem.

Another solutaion would be to stop artists spending ludicrous sums recording albums and also feeling compelled to use 65 minutes or so: 35 minutes of good tracks better than 60 of mediocre.  The 4 months spent recording Sgt Peppers in 1967 was seen as extraordinary.  Now it is commmonplace for 4 months to be used up trying out 10 different studios to get the right bass drum sound etc for some of the bigger bands.

Finally, why do record companies compalin about pirating but at the same time make burner installed computers CD RWs etc etc?

I doubt you're referring to the same CDs though in this case.... ;) If so - where? :o Bit of a generalisation there....

On the other hand, I've seen the self-same CDs that you do list above for 9 quid or less - these days one is very silly if you don't shop around.


They do?....tell me where I can buy a PC from a record company? :D

Drifting slightly, but the reason LP's were forty minutes long in the first place was so they could fit two pieces of twenty minute music on each side - that having been proved, through trial and error on the parts of the likes of Mozart, was the optimum length of concentration time that audiences were likely to put up with. Hence "Supper's Ready"  ::) And the live version of 'Sloth'.
Cheers
Skirky

I thought the real reason was because you could only get 20 minutes on each side of a 12" disc.....you couldn't squeeze 30 minutes on if you wanted to? :-X :-\

The clue is in the question...that's the way they were designed - d'you really think they came out like that just to provide a good 45+33=78 equation?  ;)

Not sure that I agree with you - weren't 78's the predecessor of 33s?.....and how long did you get on 78s?.... ;)

Certainly nowhere near as long as on 33s (obviously ;) )....but they then realised that you got better sound from 33s....so they slowed 'em down.

At what point did the research reveal that 20 minutes a side was 'about right'?....after they produced 78s?.... ;) Sorry, can't accept that!

Ok, thanks to Skirky, I've remembered that Sony make laptops..... :-[, but the point still stands because no one would buy a laptop these days that didn't come with a CD burner, would they? ;)

Ever wondered why Deutsche Gramophon LP's had one piece of music (movement) per side? No, really, I'm not making this up.... :o It's because they were in the business of releasing classical pieces, which had been, over time, worked out at twenty minutes optimum duration till folk started getting restless, calling for ice creams, that sort of thing. All that pop nonsense didn't come along till way later. You just can't get the shellac since the war, incidentally... ::)

I know you're not making it up.....I knew that too.... ;)

But what I thought I knew - and it's borne out by the fact that DG started producing 78s before the 33s - was that this research was done before producing 78s....in other words, the optimum was the length of 2x78s, not 2x33s. ;)

Then technology overtook the research.....

because that was the only technology available at the time. ok, so you're right...again... >:( ;)

I recall a few 33's did last up to about 30min per side, but these were of the Ktel cheap compilation variety. They did it by sqeezing the grooves closer together and to do that they had to seriously restrict the dynamic range. but then these discs were not sold to music lovers, or for that matter people with any taste whatsoever, so they got away with it.

20 min per side was about right, for whatever reason.

Steve

Well, thankfully, not much of the FC stock costs above a tenner.... but I got The Wood And The Wire from MVC in Barnsley when I was visiting folks there, and it was 15 quid, all bar the penny.  No doubt, I could have got it cheaper, but would have had to order it.... MVC isn't a cheap place, like any chain outlet. :(

Just to drag this a bit closer to on-topic (re; copying anyway), and to add some data to the "attitudes" survey.  My first FC album was a copy of The Wood and The Wire given to me by my father immediately after my first FC gig...

I now have a good dozen FC albums/compliations, but have never quite gotten around to buying an official copy of TW&TW...  Although I do mean to cos I miss the sleeve notes, and especially the credits as to who does what on each track...

And I've been to Cropredy and 2 further gigs and joined this happy place in the 2 years since that seminal day....  Or is it just one year?   Could well be, you know!

In my particular case, I think they've gained more than they've lost.  Oh for the good old days when one would spend all day with a bunch of albums and a cassette putting together a 90 minute compliation for a friend of "stuff I think you'll like"...  There was an honesty to the old hand-written inlay cards.  It all gets a bit grey and fuzzy now the artwork can be so easily copied along with the music.  And I will NEVER support the mass-production of ripped-off CDs that you get in markets etc...

I kinda disagree with the idea that bootlegged albums are costly to small bands. If they're too small to get TV/Radio airtime, then the easiest way for them to build a big fan base is for people who have the CD to copy it round. If there are only 10 or 20 copies sold to whichever record shop, then they'll run out too soon for it to have a big impact.

Once the bands have a big fan base, then of course it is in their interest to remove all copies of their music. And yes, that music is their work, and copying it is immoral etc. etc. I don't disagree with that - but I still have copied/ripped albums.

If there was a local band and I wanted their CD, I'd check out a borrowed/copied CD, and then if it appealed, I'd go out and buy the CD. But when it comes to bands like Metallica whining that they can't afford to feed their children because of people copying their albums, I just lose all sympathy for the record companies and the bands that do that.

Shifting to real life, the first folk I listened to [save Steeleye live, when I was aged.. small] was on a compilation tape that Kaylakins made for me. And yes, that is copying. And illegal. But given that the amount of money I have/will continue to put back into those bands is far higher than what they lost, I think that much is to be encouraged.

Being poor and studenty, and having poor and studenty friends, the act of buying a CD, ripping and then returning it is fairly commonplace. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on that, but my opinion on that I guess is similar. It just seems a bit cheekier.

Not to mention my Tull collection, upwards of 15 CDs and growing, all because of the loan of a copy of a compilation...

I'll get me coat now.

Steve!

I'm sure  we have met before/ perhaps it was in atent at cropredy? I know your face... :)

Cheers,

Mark

Some interesting issues there - not least the suggestion that creating a large fan base, few of whom have actually bought anything, would help a 'small band' in the short term. Personally, I'd prefer if we in SftBH could afford to pay the studio, inlay printer, CD manufacturer etc, but I'm willing to listen to all theories and suggestions. I'm also a bit confused at where the the cut off point is at which a band becomes 'big' and then can start retrieving pirate copies and then, presumably, go out the other side of bigness (become 'huge'?) and are to be criticised for 'whining' about copying  ???. However, although I fully agree that a copied best-of from a friend can be a gateway to a whole universe of buying-ness, frankly, being poor and/or studenty doesn't give you any more right or moral justification to burn half a dozen copies of (say) Dave Swarbrick's last album, than not being arsed to queue at a merchandise stand does. As I say, I'm open to persuasion, after all, that's one of the points of being here and taking part in the first place  :)
Cheers
Skirky   

You can get CD's that can be printed onto direct - neither they or the printers to do that are expensive. As to a CD manufacturer, how many were you thinking of running off? Any decent home pc system can create 20-30 CD's a day and the boxes to produce multiples at once are not that expensive either.

A quick look at google immediatly showed several commercial cd-copiers, http://www.rivierapublishing.co.uk/ being one example.

I wasn't quite sure what to say on this issue, but I think you've just about got it right Shane.

Thankyou

Jude

Still not 'free' though, are they?  ::)
We learned a lot from the first album and we'll be doing things slightly differently for the new one.
Cheers
SK

Nothing is free, not even if you do it yourself. At least you'll know your costs and be able to calculate a reasonable price so that you can break even or make a profit on the sale of some CD's.

Cheers Andy, some more to think about...

Well spotted, Mark. We have met, at Cropredy last year, in a tent. Can you remember which tent?

Hi Andy,

Well, the tent I spend most of my time in is David Hughes's?

Mark

That's the one. The best tent to be in. Not quite as good as a shed of course (sorry, way off topic!)

Steve
(not Andy)

Dragging this back on topic (well trying too  ::) )

Copy protection schemes suck. If I've bought the LP/Tape/CD/DVD then its mine to do with as I please!

cheers

MikeC

Well said Mike! :)

But the material on it isn't.... legally speaking.

Your money pays for the work involved, true, but it doesn't entitle you to copy it.  There's a notice to that effect on the labels of these things.

Personally, I like the scheme that Kingsway Music had in the late 70s and early 80s... the stamps thing.

Basically, the artists should get their royalties, and the publishers theirs, and so on.  But if you make a copy, and if you were willing to pay for the right to do that (which is the effect of the scheme that Kingsway set up), then once those royalties are paid (and acknowledged in the form of a stamp, say...) then there should be no problem making the copy.  The process should be cheaper since the company don't have to manufacture the sold unit... why can't they do this?  It was a brilliant idea, and like most brilliant ideas, the industry shoved it aside.

David,
Ignoring the points/stamps bit for a minute. (valid thought they are)

Are you saying that by transferring (copying by another word) any CD onto my iPod I am breaking the law? If not then what is the difference between transferring a CD onto my iPod and copying the same CD onto a CDR to listen to on the move as I do with my iPod? I'm not clear as to the difference.

Now I accept that there is a difference between copying (sorry transferring  ;) ;)), for personal use and copying for others , (and this is where the problem lies and where I admit I don't have a solution) but restricting me to using a CD (download or whatever medium) to a single type of usage is wrong in my book.

cheers


MikeC

P.S. I didn't want to copy his post here but Skirky said all I wanted to earlier in this thread so read backwards folks

Pre-iPod, I copied about 400 CDs onto CDR to play in the car. When the iPod arrived I put everything on that......what was I to do with all those burned CDR copies? Throw them away? No of course not, I gave them to Skirky. So whilst they were originally for personal use (and therefore not illegal as I understand it), when I passed them on they became counterfeit. Which is a bit odd.

Possibly technically not, since there was no financial transaction involved.

And there's where the problem arises. (sorry, you lot sort the dichotomy out. I'm too p***ed!)

If you go by the absolute letter of the law, you are not allowed to make a copy at all, but there are grey areas that the law seems to turn a blind eye to, like making a backup copy for yourself, or giving the pianist a photocopy while you hold the original in your hand to sing from.

You certainly cannot pass on copies to anybody else, even if no money is involved.

Paul

Sorry folks - -as much as I agreed with Randle's post, it was certainly libellous.....and therefore I have removed it, with sadness. :'(

No problem Chris im used to it by now

An article I read today (might have been in PC World mag) said that even backup copies of your own CD's are illegal. Bananas.

So.... All of us with iPods & similar are breaking the law too?  Unless we downloaded the tracks from paid-for sources...

Correct. As the law stands, if you make a copy you are breaking the law.

Paul

It was PCW mag (May issue, page 45), there was a link to
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm

According to the author's contact with the UK Patent Office he was under the impression owning an iPod was technically breaking the law before you even download a track.

There was a court case against Sony with regard to Betamax (!) which fell because the recordings were temporary - as long as it is erased, all is ok.

But this is all outdated rubbish really.

Sorry but I have to quote the great Mr MacEnroe here. "You must be joking"

Has the world gone completely mad?

YES!

Err. the quote is "You cannot be serious!".

It's obviously a good idea to protect the interests of artists and the company that sells their wares, but as I said, I reckon these are outdated measures.

Mind you it woul dhelp if CD's containing 40 year-old 39-minute albums were not priced at 14.99 in the shops!

Err, he actually said both quotes several times but the Serious one is the one everyone tends to remember.

Wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment re 40 yr old CDs at full price tho Andy.

Does that mean that great work, like any antique or ancient artifact have a decreasing value over time? Why is music any different? Because you expect it on a plate? Because the money has been made over time, it does not mean it has to be given away, surely?

Mark.

P.S. Do you have any idea as to the costs of making a CD, releasing it and hoping that you are going to make a profit?

Umm for what it's worth, it is hard enough for most artists to get paid any sales royalties from record companies especially when the catalogue has been sold several times over and obviously each new company wants to recoup the money spent on acquiring the catalogue.

They don't have the inclination to track down the bands involved from early catalogues. And those bands certainly don't have the legal clout or the money to fund legal costs for what might be a trivial amount to a record co. but a helpful amount to the artist.

This is a bit off topic probably, but I do feel that copies made and passed on do affect sales.

Actually I'm just having a grumble here as I am trying to track lost stuff. It's all very well being a lost legend ::), but a broke lost legend is not much fun.

Jude

To release a CD, you price it so that the costs of making the recording, preparing the sleeve and the production run will be recouped as quickly as possible - and indeed hopefully so that the costs are recouped! No label I have ever come across was a charity and those that are non-profit organsiations perish, such is the way of the world.

But when it is a re-re-rerelease, and all the costs of recording etc have been recouped decades ago, and some of the artists are indeed lost to us and won't get paid any royalties, the profits just go to the record company, who have, in a lot of r-r-r's bought the music outright and are now just hammering the fans for a few more quid.

It's not Fairport I'm thinking of here, but, let's use The Beatles as an example. Albums much shorter than current CD's are sold at £9.99 or more when I remember buying them on vinyl at Woolies for 7/6". Thats 37.5p - in their heyday. How can anyone justify £9.99?

Jude, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to offend in any way. I'd never recommend to anyone that they take profits from you. If it's any consolation, I'm a broke lost legend too, albeit in a different field.

But my central point was that when ridiculous prices are being charged by the labels to be paid straight into their coffers, it's hardly surprising that r-r-r's get copied.

I'll just shut up now.

Yes, hopefully the internet will also provide a means of independant artists selling their music? The current price of around £10/12 is o.k. That's without dealer and record company cuts! Trouble is, for every one CD that is sold where it's production costs are recouped, there are probably another ten or more that don't!

I have given this issue a lot of thought and I have personal ideas that I don't really wish to discuss here. These involve techniques that makes making copying more difficult. But to find a system that is absolutely faultless is almost impossible.

Mark.

I have a vague recollection of hearing about a website that is supposed to help artists track missing royalties. I really can't remember anything more and I have a feeling it was relying on record companies volunteering information. Perhaps the Musician's Union can help.

Clive

www.royaltiesreunited.co.uk is the name of the website.

Nothing comes free, and any new web based idea/company that is allegedly working "for" the writer, is actually only doing a job (or part of a job) for a fee or % of the writers/artists due money or royalty.

It's hard when your sales are only a few thousand. Thats where it becomes harder to recoup royalties. They get lost in the system and appear insignificant to major labels and PRS.

If you want a job doing, do it yourself. Why do you think F.C., Tull, SoH, etc. do it solo?

Mark

Hmmm... looks good. Not sure how it works? They claim it does not cost you anything to find out if you are due royalties. But I'm suspicious there is a catch. Trouble is, this only works if you get repeated air play. Lots of it.  :-\

mmm well the initiative has been set up by Phonographic Performance Limited - PPL, PAMRA, AURA, Equity, MU and MPG. it was done to try to find certain performers who were due royalty payments and couldn't be traced. so I don't think that there is a catch?

I am already a member of PAMRA & PPL but it looks like a useful website


Jude

Lets hope so? It's rare! ;D

Why not. 7/6 then was worth a damn sight more than £9.99 is now. I'd ask how you can justify to yourself not paying the going rate for the music, be it made 30 years ago or 3.

No, really, I mean 'Catch 22' - it's so old school now. I photocopied the whole thing for a friend just the other day so he wouldn't have to buy the paperback.... :-X   

I saw Chris Smithers last year at Trowbridge, and then on the BBC coverage of the Sidmouth Festival. The Beeb interviewed him and he talked about how the internet has helped him make a living. He said he can make a living now by performing and selling stuff on the web, without the need for a recording contract.

How good a living I don't know, he did't say, but he looked happy enough.  :)

Steve

Thanks Steve,

It seems that it's becoming more common. :)

Mark

I remember reading about the Beeb attempting to trace the accordionist who had recorded the "Captain Pugwash" title music.  Apparently, they owed him hundreds of thousands, but had no record of who he was or where he lived.

Tell them it was me and if they want they can start sending me the money right now ( i also wrote Hey Jude and Good Vibrations)

people might stop getting round copy protection when artists and record compamies stop treating the record buying public like shite
  for instance the Finn Brothers new cd is about to be re released with a bonus dvd and extra tracks,thanks emi
 i wish i'd downloaded it now

Surely that's good of the record company? Giving those that purchase it something extra for doing so?.... ???

Or did you mean re-release?..... ;)

There are those albums that you buy on CD when they come out. 

A few months later there is the enhanced version, and a bit later the enhanced enhanced version.  Yes you get more tracks etc, but you have to buy the damn thing again to get them!

Not to mention the CD's you buy at full price when they come out, only to find them at £4.99 or so a while later.

Do I learn?

I think Jim meant, he bought the CD without the extras? Only to not get them on the re-released copy?
 :-\

Mark is right,being a fan of all things Finn I bought the cd on release and it doesnt half brass me off when record companys pull this sort of stunt
  i assume that the artists are informed about this, so this particular rip off happens with their blessing
  i'm not too bothered about cds appearing, after a couple of months, at hugely reduced prices ,becuase i know that discounting after a period of grace nearly always happens but if its a record i want, then, am i prepared to wait and see?
 usually not

  the fact is most of these extras are not worth bothering with,watch once,never again
how many people bought paul maccartneys new version of let it be with the bonus disc and managed to listen to the bonus disc all the way through,not many i'll bet

stilll irks thoughbut

I doubt it..... ::)
I bet contracts for albums give the artist no say at all in any re-release....I know Fairport's didn't - even in the good ol' days when they got semi-decent dosh for Liege & lief.... >:(

Yep foolishly I bought the full bells n all version of the DVD Master & Commander about £14 I think, ever watched the other makin of disk? No.

Could have got the film alone version about a fortnight later £9.

Film hugely disappointin anyway; who ever did the screen play can't have read many of the books as he didn't get any humour in at all. Separate issue I know.

Actually with everything being digital it amazes me it is possible to copy anything copyrighted at all. Surely you'd think the companies would find ways of makin their products uncopyable?

Puggs

I  did...............twice

randy ,youre even madder than i thought

Cheers Jim. Ill take that as a compliment ;D

In which case surely it's just a simple choice of "Do I want to pay (say) £14.99 for a DVD of rehearsals and promos with a free Finn Brothers CD thrown in?". Notwithstanding that it would have been very tricky to include the live performances with the original before they'd actually done them  ::)
Skirky
(Just once for the 'Let It Be' extra CD for me...)

"Nope"....skip....."Nope"......skip....."Nope".......skip......."Nope".........skip.....etc etc.