copy protection schemes

[Andy]

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. 

What are your views on copy protection schemes?

[clive]

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.

[Keith Taylor]

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. 
What are your views on copy protection schemes?

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.

[Keith]

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 

[Andy]

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.

[Liam Schwilik]

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.

[Keith]

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.

[David Andrews]

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.

[Keith Taylor]

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

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!

[JonHirst]

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

[Mark]

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?

[David Andrews]

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?

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?!

[Shane (Skirky)]

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.

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   

[Mr Cat (Lewis)]

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?

[Chris]

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.

I doubt you're referring to the same CDs though in this case.... If so - where? 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.

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

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

[Shane (Skirky)]

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

[Chris]

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'.

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?

[Shane (Skirky)]

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'.

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?

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? 

[Chris]

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!

[Chris]

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

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

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?