RSS
Twitter
More Musicians Recognizing Copy Protection Is A Bad Thing
from the now-they-realize dept
It's not like it hasn't been said before, but it appears that more musicians are recognizing that copy protection hurts everyone -- and they're even going to the NY Times Op/Ed page to say so: "Conscientious fans, who buy music legally because it's the right thing to do, just get insulted. They've made the choice not to steal their music, and the labels thank them by giving them an inferior product hampered by software that's at best a nuisance, and at worst a security threat. As for musicians, we are left to wonder how many more people could be listening to our music if it weren't such a hassle, and how many more iPods might have our albums on them if our labels hadn't sabotaged our releases with cumbersome software." Of course, the recording industry still refuses to admit that copy protection could be anything but wonderful.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
No copy protection until we're famous?
Basically they say that "the band" weighed copy protection against marketting and marketting won: "but we are also the sort of band that hasn't yet gotten the full attention of MTV and major commercial radio stations" which only seems to say that if they were as popular as U2 then there'd be no problem with burdening their CD with draconian protection techniques. What's even more insulting is that CDs are going for almost the cost of DVDs! Where is all that money going?!?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No copy protection until we're famous?
It's not going to the artists...
http://www.indie-music.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=820
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No copy protection until we're famous?
Almost the cost of DVDs? I took my daughter to buy a present for a friend and she wanted to get the sound track to "The Music Man" as it's her friend's favorite musical; at Borders the soundtrack CD cost $2.00 MORE than the DVD of the movie!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No copy protection until we're famous?
How do you think they are paying the legal fees???? duh.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No copy protection until we're famous?
How do you think they pay for the software on the disk that prevents copying??? Raise the price of course!!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No copy protection until we're famous?
borders has some of the worst prices on cd's. I think the price of a cd at borders says more about borders than the RIAA. I'm surprised anyone buys cd's there at all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No copy protection until we're famous?
My read of it was that he was acknowledging that they weren't rich and famous, so that if they were, their views might be different.
I find it a refreshing thought, that he's admitting that if he was rich and famous he might (but not definetly would) feel different...and now, he'll never know.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
change of heart
I'm a professional musician, and early on I was reflexively against copying, believing that it was simply theft of intellectual property.
Since then I've realized that it isn't that simple. I agree that the RIAA is mainly concerned with preservation of its monopoly; any concern they have for musicians is strictly limited to what will support this agenda. They extract their pound of flesh, and in return for this, they provide little more than inflated CD prices. The prices continue to rise, and the musician's share is miniscule.
And business as conducted by the major labels would do the Mafia proud.
I also agree that, ironically, copying will often lead to regular CD purchases. It's also possible that reasonable CD prices may also encourage more CD purchases, but the RIAA will prevent that any way they can.
It seems that the only solution for a musician is to go off the grid, give shows, and sell your own home-brewed stuff. The Grateful Dead is a prominent example. They did quite well, and I never heard them whining about bootlegging or copying.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: change of heart
You may not have heard that just last week the Grateful dead was threatening lawsuits to shut down a website that allowed for free downloading of their music. After a very loud and negative response from their hordes of fans they rethought this position. They realized that when the fans said that they wouldn't go to shows or buy any more music if the free music was taken away that they were serious. Now that is a market economy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Grateful Dead
unfortunately, at least ONE of the members of the Grateful Dead was a bit upset that archive.org had some pristine soundboard recordings for free.(I suspect it was Bob Weir...I've often heard he's a jerk). So me and my friends help the band make $50million each year because they had the "once we're done with the music, it's free" attitude and then somebody decides they need extra cheese on their Whopper(--Chris Rock) and that what was once permitted is not so clearly so any more. But yeah, at least Phil Lesh and Mickey Hart still have the attitude.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: change of heart
"...I also agree that, ironically, copying will often lead to regular CD purchases..."
Dave, prior to this Sony fiasco, I would have agreed with you. But, and speaking for myself alone here, they've killed my will to continue to try to be an upstanding citizen...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No CDs this Christmas
For the first time I can remember, there are no CDs on my Christmas list. I just can't be bothered to tell people not to buy copy-protected CDs. Thank you music companies for treating the buying public as criminals. You won't be making money from me this Christmas.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Copy Protection
Why worry about it. Within weeks if not days of a new scheme being introduced a work around is available for those who want it and know hwere to look. Also since copy protection violates the fair usage laws the DCMA is not worth its weight in the paper it was written on. there is a 1993 law that guarranteees you the right to make archival copies of your legally purchased media, and until that law is recinded DCMA is pretty much useless to stop you from removing copy protection to protect your already give rights to archival copies. However it is a pain to pirates and it should be.
Let them copy protect all they want. It has yet to affect my life in any major way.... when it does.. i'll find a way around it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Copy Protection
Pain to the pirates. The people that crack copyright protection are more able to create it than the company's that use it.the whole thing is a joke the albums than Sony protected are the most downloaded albums on the net.Its time that the recording industries realize they are burning their own bridges.Artist will choose labels that don't use this crap before ones that do. why because those albums will sell! how many people now will not buy any BGM releases? does EMI really think that Sony didn't ruin their market by this? In short SONY ruined the name of all labels that even want to try to introduce copyright protection.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Copy Protection
Within weeks? Days?? You jest!!
There's a company that keeps track of p2p networks for the recording industry. I think they're called 'overpeer' or something.
Anyhow, it turns out that the average time from a CD being released to it showing up on the p2p networks is about 6 minutes.
The average time if the song is only available copy-protected (iTunes-only release or copy protected disks) is still only 6 minutes.
Weeks? Ha!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment