<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;cds&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>30 Years Of The CD, Of Digital Piracy, And Of Music Industry Cluelessness</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/10023520751/30-years-cd-digital-piracy-music-industry-cluelessness.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/10023520751/30-years-cd-digital-piracy-music-industry-cluelessness.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>A post on The Next Web reminds us that <a href="http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/10/01/the-first-commerically-available-cd-album-player-released-30-years-ago-today/">the CD is thirty years old this month</a>.  As the history there explains, work began back in the 1970s at both Philips and Sony on an optical recording medium for music, which culminated in a joint standard launched in 1982.  The key attribute of the compact disc was not so much its small size -- although that was the most obvious difference from earlier vinyl -- but that fact that it stored music in a digital, rather than analog format.
</p><p>
At the time, that probably seemed a technical detail to most people, but it had two profound consequences.  First, it began <a href="http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/081611thirty">the shift from a world of analogue music recordings -- LPs and tapes -- to one that was digital</a>.  And secondly, it created the pre-condition for the rise of file sharing in the 1990s once the MP3 compression technology had been devised, and the Internet became available to general users -- especially younger ones.  Services like Napster would not have been nearly so popular had there not been convenient digital files on CDs just sitting there, waiting to be ripped, uploaded and shared.  And the reason it was so easy to do that was because CDs came without any copy protection mechanisms whatsoever.
</p><p>
So how on earth did Philips, Sony and the entire music industry make what must appear in retrospect such a huge blunder?  Why did they not worry about people copying files from these new CDs?  The answer is very simple: because at the time the CD was launched, there was nothing you could copy a CD to.  
</p><p>
One year after the CD's commercial appearance, IBM launched its first version of the PC that had an internal hard disc, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer_XT">IBM PC XT</a>.  Its capacity?  A roomy 10 Mbytes.  The CD holds around 700 Mbytes, meaning that uncompressed songs typically require around 50 Mbytes of storage each.  The cost of any hard disc capable of storing even a single song was so great back in those days, that the idea of digital piracy was self-evidently absurd, since it would have been far cheaper to buy another copy of the CD than a hard disc to store it on.
</p><p>
But what that failed to take into account was the steady and precipitous reduction in the price per Mbyte of hard disc storage that would take place over the next few decades.  Today we have reached the point where you can buy a 1 Terabyte hard disc for around $80; that means the cost to store the contents of an entire CD as MP3 files is about $0.005 -- and still dropping.
</p><p>
The CD therefore stands as a wonderful symbol of the music industry's inability to see the deeper, underlying trends in technology, and where they would take us.  Back then, it meant that nobody was worried about the idea that people would copy digital files from CDs and share them, because they forgot that technology would make possible tomorrow the things that seemed impossible today.  Now it means the copyright industries are still trying to preserve unsustainable 20th century business models instead of planning for the incredible technologies we will have in 10, 20 or even 30 years time.  They only have to look at the history of the CD and digital piracy to see just how far things can go -- and how wrong our current assumptions can be.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a>
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/10023520751/30-years-cd-digital-piracy-music-industry-cluelessness.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/10023520751/30-years-cd-digital-piracy-music-industry-cluelessness.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/10023520751/30-years-cd-digital-piracy-music-industry-cluelessness.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>didn't-see-that-one-coming</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121018/10023520751</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:22:53 PST</pubDate>
<title>Even Thieves Are Ignoring DVDs And CDs As Worthless</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/02370517339/even-thieves-are-ignoring-dvds-cds-as-worthless.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/02370517339/even-thieves-are-ignoring-dvds-cds-as-worthless.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been kind of funny to see that the various "public service announcement" videos that have been created and/or used by the government lately (see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvQFnSnhg7U" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=cx8obpx4844&#038;annotation_id=annotation_938004&#038;feature=iv&#038;v=6YScoXn31Mg" target="_blank">here</a> for example) show people selling counterfeit DVDs on the street.  There's a reason for this, of course.  The <i>one</i> study that suggests any kind of link between movie infringement and organized crime/terrorism was based on some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/00493313981/whos-funding-more-terrorism-downloaders-hollywood.shtml">really out-of-date</a> reports of connections between... counterfeit street vendors.  But that was all from over a decade ago.  Of course, as we noted many, many years ago, there's no significant business in selling counterfeit DVDs and CDs any more, because of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070319/012548.shtml">competition</a> from free file sharing sites.
<br /><br />
In fact, it's gotten so bad that a new report shows that <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21542438" target="_blank">burglars in the UK are basically ignoring DVDs and CDs these days</a>, as there's just not enough ROI on grabbing your dated movie collection.  The Economist article linked above includes this handy dandy graphic to show you the trend over the past few years:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/fGvp3"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/fGvp3.png" /></a>
</center>
So can we stop trying to link reports of online file sharing to street sales of physical DVDs and CDs already?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/02370517339/even-thieves-are-ignoring-dvds-cds-as-worthless.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/02370517339/even-thieves-are-ignoring-dvds-cds-as-worthless.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/02370517339/even-thieves-are-ignoring-dvds-cds-as-worthless.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>let-'em-go</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120109/02370517339</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 07:36:38 PDT</pubDate>
<title>RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110517/22252614309/riaa-calls-4th-amendment-passe-pushes-warrantless-searches.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110517/22252614309/riaa-calls-4th-amendment-passe-pushes-warrantless-searches.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Wow.  It's been obvious to plenty of people for quite some time that the RIAA and the MPAA don't much care about things like free speech and due process rights afforded to people under the Constitution (see COICA and the PROTECT IP Act).  But, I hadn't realized they'd gone so far as to blatantly disregard something like the 4th Amendment.  Obviously, as we've been discussing lately, it seems like all three branches of the federal government have decided to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110517/12313814301/4th-amendment-what-4th-amendment-supremes-say-police-can-create-conditions-to-enter-home-without-warrant.shtml">crush the 4th Amendment</a>, but they usually try to at least pretend that they're paying attention to the Constitution.
<br /><br />
Not any more, apparently.
<br /><br />
The RIAA has been pushing the state of California to pass a new law that <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-piracy-searches-20110518,0,1268259,full.story" target="_blank">would allow completely warrantless searches for law enforcement</a>, allowing them to enter and search any CD or DVD manufacturing plant without either notice or a court order.
<br /><br />
Yes, let's repeat that: the RIAA is pushing a law that would let law enforcement, without any oversight, without any probable cause, without any notice, enter and search any company premises that involves pressing CDs or DVDs, in order to assure that they're legal.  Oh, and if said law enforcement discovers repeat violations, fines can be up to $250,000.
<br /><br />
The RIAA claims that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here because of all the recent attacks on the 4th Amendment by the courts:
<blockquote><i>
The RIAA argued that courts had carved out 4th Amendment exceptions already. So far, it said, warrantless searches have been allowed at such businesses as automobile junkyards and repair shops, mines, gun and liquor stores, nursing homes, massage parlors, pawn shops and wholesale fish dealers.
<br /><br />
The common trait, the trade group contended, was that the businesses were in "closely regulated" industries in which "the pervasiveness and regularity of the government's regulation reduces the owner's expectation of privacy in his business records."
</i></blockquote>
It gets worse.  The RIAA's Marcus Cohen honestly makes this sound like it's no big deal:
<blockquote><i>
"We're literally talking about walking into a plant, walking up to the line and ensuring that, indeed, the discs are in compliance," he said. "I don't think the scope of the search is something a regulator needs to be worried about."
</i></blockquote>
Oh really?  And how about the RIAA member labels?  How about, in exchange, they let some of us walk into their offices, take a look at their books and ensure that their royalty payments to artists are in compliance?  I don't think the scope of such a review is anything to be worried about, right?
<br /><br />
And, here's the crazy thing.  Despite numerous legal experts saying that the bill is almost certainly unconstitutional, it sounds like it has a decent chance of passing.  It's sponsored by California state Senator Alex Padilla and has already been approved by two separate committees, and will be heard on the Senate floor on Monday.  If it passes there, it'll go to the Assembly.  You can see the full text of the bill, <a href="http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20110SB55098AMD" target="_blank">SB 550</a> at that link, or embedded below.
<br /><br />
It's really an astounding showing of the sense of entitlement of the RIAA that it feels that the 4th Amendment shouldn't apply.  The RIAA and its member labels should be ashamed of themselves.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110517/22252614309/riaa-calls-4th-amendment-passe-pushes-warrantless-searches.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110517/22252614309/riaa-calls-4th-amendment-passe-pushes-warrantless-searches.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110517/22252614309/riaa-calls-4th-amendment-passe-pushes-warrantless-searches.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>entitlement?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110517/22252614309</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:35:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>You Would Think The Recording Industry's Main Magazine Wouldn't Copy Other's Works Without Permission</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/17452113659/you-would-think-recording-industrys-main-magazine-wouldnt-copy-others-works-without-permission.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/17452113659/you-would-think-recording-industrys-main-magazine-wouldnt-copy-others-works-without-permission.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, well, well.  While I actually enjoy Billboard Magazine, and think that the current management there is doing some interesting things (and actually has a somewhat forward-looking attitude) even if they occasionally write <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0028137983.shtml">bizarre hit pieces</a> on me, it still is the magazine for the legacy recording industry in many ways.  So I have to admit a bit of amusement in seeing that it apparently copied a <a href="http://www.blackrimglasses.com/2011/03/28/death-to-the-shiny-disc/" target="_blank">blog post from Ethan Kaplan</a> and posted it  <a href="http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/guest-post-ethan-kaplan-wishes-death-to-1005097602.story" target="_blank">as a "guest post" on their own site</a>... but did so <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/ethank/statuses/52524366566653953" target="_blank">entirely without permission from Kaplan</a>.
<br><br>
Kaplan is being cool about it, saying he's happy to have it reposted, but would have liked Billboard to have asked him first.  You would think that a magazine that believes so strongly in copyright law would have done so.  But, I guess it's one of those situations where it doesn't seem like such a big deal when "we" do it.  It's only when those dirty "others" do it that it's "theft."
<br><br>
Anyway, as with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110228/23321413304/leaving-major-record-label-seeing-how-music-business-is-thriving.shtml">other thoughts by Kaplan</a>, I highly recommend this post as well, though, you should probably <a href="http://www.blackrimglasses.com/2011/03/28/death-to-the-shiny-disc/" target="_blank">read the original on his own site</a>, rather than giving Billboard the traffic.  The post discusses Kaplan's discussion of why it's time to kill off the shiny plastic disc (and how he once made that suggestion at Warner Music... and was rapped on the knuckles for it, since "the shiny disk still paid for my shiny servers.")
<br><br>
The crux of Kaplan's argument:
<blockquote><i>
Consider for a moment the amount of supply chain management, staffing and processes in place just to produce a CD and get it out to third party retail. And consider the CD itself: a 74 minute bit conveyance mechanism that is pretty much disposable. They are often used just once: to rip the bits.
<br><br>
So in the end, the CD is this:
<br><br>
A once major source of high margin revenue which is now taking disproportionate back line expense to prop up, in order to justify the size of an industry which does not exist anymore. And even if that expense is not significant in hard numbers, the inertia it creates at the resultant diverted and stifled innovation sure is.
<br><br>
It's time to kill it. Bring it out back and shoot it. And then really take a look at what is left.
</i></blockquote>
Go read the full thing (at Kaplan's site).  It's well worth it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/17452113659/you-would-think-recording-industrys-main-magazine-wouldnt-copy-others-works-without-permission.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/17452113659/you-would-think-recording-industrys-main-magazine-wouldnt-copy-others-works-without-permission.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/17452113659/you-would-think-recording-industrys-main-magazine-wouldnt-copy-others-works-without-permission.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wouldn't-you?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110328/17452113659</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:43:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Shanghai 'Crackdown' On Bootleg Discs Just Moves Them Underground</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1809379203.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1809379203.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many years, we've pointed out the futility of the entertainment industry's constant focus on "shutting down" any source of unauthorized material.  Every time they do so, the content sharing continues to grow -- it just moves further underground and makes it that much more difficult for the industry to actually use it to their own advantage.  It appears this happens not just online, but offline as well.  We've noted recently that China has been paying lip service to external pressures to "crack down" on infringement, often by using copyright and patent laws to go after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100312/1843418546.shtml">foreign companies</a> as well.  But it appears to also be playing itself out in other ways.
<br /><br />
The NY Times is covering how Chinese officials have been going around to DVD and CD shops that have lots of unauthorized bootlegs, and telling them that for the World Expo (which begins May 1), they need to stop selling that content so directly.  It appears most of the shops all responded in nearly identical ways: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/business/global/28piracy.html?src=twt&#038;twt=nytimestech" target="_blank">cutting their stores in half by putting up a wall in the middle</a>, then placing legitimate discs upfront, and putting all the bootlegs on the other side of the wall, with a "secret" doorway.  The effort was so consistent that some accuse Chinese officials of suggesting this to store owners.   Some stores readily admit that after the Expo ends, they'll tear down the wall and return to a single storefront.
<br /><br />
Either way, it's quite similar to what we've seen online.  You can "crackdown" all you want, and it never actually slows down the trade in unauthorized content.  It just moves it further underground... or, perhaps, behind a (not so) secret wall.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1809379203.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1809379203.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1809379203.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-that's-useful</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100427/1809379203</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:07:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Too Little Too Late: Universal Music Finally Realizes That Maybe CDs Were Too Expensive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100318/1239478621.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100318/1239478621.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://730group.com" target="_blank">David Herron</a> alerts us to the news that it's finally occurred to the brain trust at Universal Music that, perhaps, CD prices were too high.  They've <a href="http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i56ed42b9a46f85547ba4182604223121" target="_blank">introduced a "new pricing structure,"</a> which effectively means they've lowered the suggested retail prices on many CDs to between $6 and $10.  Amusingly, the article quotes an anonymous person at a competitor who doesn't like this at all:
<blockquote><i>
"Why does Universal feel the need to get below $10?"
</i></blockquote>
Uh, perhaps because the market is shrinking because people find it too expensive otherwise. Either way, this move seems like way too little, way too late.  Doing this in the late 90s might have been a start, but this isn't going to get people who have stopped buying CDs back into a plastic disc fix.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100318/1239478621.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100318/1239478621.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100318/1239478621.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you're-about-a-decade-behind</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100318/1239478621</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:03:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Universal Music Gets A New CEO... Who Thinks CDs Are The Future</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1404228153.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1404228153.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ What's up with Vivendi?  We're still amazed that the French conglomerate that own Universal Music didn't step up and fire CEO Doug Morris back in 2007 when he came out and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/011720.shtml">confessed</a> that not only was he <i>clueless</i> about the most important change in the music business (the rise of digital), but that he was too clueless to even know how to hire people who could help:
<blockquote><i>
"There's no one in the record company that's a technologist," Morris explains. "That's a misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They didn't. They just didn't know what to do. It's like if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?"
<br><Br>
Personally, I would hire a vet. But to Morris, even that wasn't an option. "We didn't know who to hire," he says, becoming more agitated. "I wouldn't be able to recognize a good technology person -- anyone with a good bullshit story would have gotten past me." Morris' almost willful cluelessness is telling. "He wasn't prepared for a business that was going to be so totally disrupted by technology," says a longtime industry insider who has worked with Morris. "He just doesn't have that kind of mind."
</i></blockquote>
How does any board of directors let that person stay in place as CEO, in charge of guiding the largest music label in the world into the modern era, when that CEO admits he's so clueless on the most important thing impacting the industry that he doesn't even know who to turn to to help?
<br><Br>
Well, now, it looks like Universal is finally getting a new CEO -- but not because Morris has finally been given the boot -- he's still sticking around and gradually easing out of his role as he "mentors" <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/business/media/11music.html" target="_blank">incoming CEO Lucian Grainge</a>, who has headed the company's international division until now.  So, what's Grainge's take on the future?
<blockquote><i>
"I believe that the CD will out-survive me as a format," Mr. Grainge said in an interview.
</i></blockquote>
Yeah, good luck with that.  Between you and Warner Music <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100210/1131198110.shtml">opting-out</a> of online streaming services, it's as if the major record labels are simply trying to accelerate their own demise.  Have they taken out life insurance policies on themselves?  In the meantime, Vivendi, who's watching over Universal Music these days?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1404228153.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1404228153.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1404228153.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100212/1404228153</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:05:38 PST</pubDate>
<title>This Has To Be A Joke: Music Duo Claims It Won't Sell CDs Again Until 'Piracy' Is Stopped</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0334228025.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0334228025.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Someone who prefers to remain anonymous sent over this odd story of a musical duo who put up a notice on the band's website claiming that, due to "piracy," they were <a href="http://www.brandtmorain.com/" target="_blank">no longer going to sell CDs</a>.  But the reasoning makes no sense at all:
<blockquote><i>
NOTICE:  Due to uncontrolled Music Piracy, [Our album] 
will no longer be sold to the general public.  We refuse to cater to thieves and criminals.   When the Worldwide Piracy problems is solved, then we 
will begin sales once again.
</i></blockquote>
Notice I chopped out the name of the band/album, because this seems so outlandish that I'm wondering if it's just a publicity stunt.  Or a joke.  It seems like it must be, because the basic logic of the statement above is so backwards as to defy reason.  By not selling a CD, you're basically telling people the only way to get the album is through unauthorized channels.  At least offering the CD lets some people buy it.  Claiming that not selling it is a way to avoid "catering to thieves and criminals" makes no sense, since all it does is make it that much more difficult for anyone to support the band legally.  That's why I'm guessing this is some sort of joke.  The band also has a Twitter account (again, not linking to it on purpose), which is filled with a ton of articles about unauthorized access to content (many of them very old articles) with commentary that is somewhat amusing for how far off the mark it is.  For example, one Twitter message "blames 'piracy'" on some of Nine Inch Nails' experiments -- the ones that are making the band <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/1408273588.shtml">lots of money</a>.  So, again, I'm wondering if this is just some sort of reverse psychology attempt by a band to get people to download their stuff.  Seems like there are more effective ways of doing that.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0334228025.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0334228025.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0334228025.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>um,-huh?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100203/0334228025</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:23:41 PST</pubDate>
<title>Canadian Record Labels Get Indie Record Store Owner To Plead Guilty... For Getting Rare CDs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0820517387.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0820517387.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reader Vincent Clement alerts us to yet another story of a copyright overreach up in Canada, this time involving the owner of a small independent record shop in Ottawa who was <a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Record+store+owner+pleads+guilty+Copyright+charge+over+bootleg/2343560/story.html" target="_blank">charged with copyright infringement</a> and has pleaded guilty, rather than fight it.  The details are a bit confusing, but it sounds like the police raided his shop, and took a bunch of CDs, claiming they violated copyright -- but reports suggest that these are mostly <a href="http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/12/15/12167366.html" target="_blank">legal imports</a> that simply haven't been packaged for sale in Canada.  In some cases, the "infringing" CDs were actually CDs of a local band that the store owner himself helped finance.  In other words, these are the sorts of CDs you can find in pretty much any independent record store, and are the sorts of things purchased by true fans and collectors who want to own <i>everything</i> they can get.  These aren't the types of products that are "pirated" or bought by people looking to avoid supporting a band.  It's the opposite.  But, the Canadian record labels and police have now "cracked down."  Hope this makes the US politicians claiming that Canada is a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0233316649.shtml">piracy haven</a> happy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0820517387.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0820517387.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0820517387.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>those-darn-pirates?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091216/0820517387</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:56:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1151227026.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1151227026.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=ronalddumsfeld">Dark Helmet</a> alerts us to the news that our good friend <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&#038;cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=lily+allen">Lily Allen</a> is <a href="http://www.nme.com/news/lily-allen/48488" target="_blank">back in the news discussing file sharing again</a>.  Tragically, it does not appear that she's used her "time off" to better understand copyright issues very much.  Unlike nearly everyone else who complains about copyright infringement, she's apparently "all for" infringing on her copyrights, just so long as you pay <i>someone</i> -- even if it's the guy on the street selling the counterfeit CDs.  Seriously:
<blockquote><i>
"If someone comes up with a burnt copy of my CD and offers it to you for &pound;4 I haven't a problem with that as long as the person buying it places some kind of value on my music."
</i></blockquote>
Yes, so while some musicians have said they're fine with non-commercial file sharing, but are against anyone selling their unauthorized works, Ms. Allen seems to have taken the opposite approach.  Counterfeit all you want, just as long as you profit from it.  Yeah.  Someone should explain to her the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091109/1521136859.shtml">difference between price and value</a>, and also the benefits of word of mouth marketing.  But, it doesn't seem like she's much interested in actually understanding this stuff, so if you want to help her understand, maybe go set up a shop selling burned copies of her CDs, and see what happens.
<br /><br />
Of course, if we take this seriously, it shows how little she's thought this through.  Her earlier complaint was that when people file share, they don't provide money back to the artists and the labels.  Of course, when counterfeiters are selling on the street, the same thing is true, but suddenly it's okay?  At what point does the world realize that Ms. Allen doesn't know what she's talking about?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1151227026.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1151227026.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1151227026.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>confusion</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091120/1151227026</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:13:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is It Illegal To Posess Unmarked CDs In Texas?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090807/0258575802.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090807/0258575802.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=btr1701">btr1701</a> points us to an odd (and slightly disturbing) story about a prisoner in Texas.  Most of the story is about the fact that the guy is <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/breaking/6562918.html" target="_new">ridiculously obese</a> and had been able to sneak a gun into prison in between flabs of skin, which was totally missed on a bunch of searches.  But, btr1701 points out that the reason the guy was arrested in the first place was because he was apparently selling bootleg CDs.  According to the article, he was "charged with possessing or selling unlabeled recordings."  Now, I can sort of, maybe, kinda see why <i>selling</i> unlabeled recordings could be a violation of the law (though, even that seems questionable).  But, <b>possessing</b> unlabeled recordings?  How is that against the law?  Does this mean that anyone who burns some music to a blank CD-R could be in trouble?  Anyone in Texas have any more details on the real story here, because I'm hoping there's more to it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090807/0258575802.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090807/0258575802.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090807/0258575802.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>be-careful...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090807/0258575802</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Aug 2009 05:26:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Radiohead's Thom Yorke Explains How Recording Industry Milked CD Business</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1726455790.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1726455790.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ JJ sends in a short <a href="http://www.twentyfourbit.com/post/156651731/radioheads-thom-yorke-dishes-on-cd-hatred-and-the" target="_new">quote from Radiohead's Thom Yorke</a> about the music business:
<blockquote><i>
"There's a process of natural selection going on right now. The music business was waiting to die in its current form about twenty years ago. But then, hallelujah, the CD turned up and kept it going for a bit. But basically, it was dead."
</i></blockquote>
Bingo.  The "recording industry" has basically been a "sell plastic discs" industry for way too long, and used the monopoly rents it received from the government to significantly overprice its products, and then lived fat and happy for many years.  So, of course, when better, more efficient formats for distribution, recording, promotion and listening came along, it wanted absolutely nothing to do with them, because they didn't present the same sort of monopoly rents.
<br /><br />
And, that, of course has been the point we've been trying to make here for quite some time.  This has always been a business model issue.  The record labels lived off the CD business for so long that it refused to recognize that a better, more efficient system was showing up, because it meant giving up some easy profits.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1726455790.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1726455790.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1726455790.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>quotable</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090806/1726455790</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:50:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Once Again: The Music Industry Does Not Equal The CD Business</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0244175750.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0244175750.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have been sending in Charles Blow's NYTimes column about the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/opinion/01blow.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all" target="_new">supposed "death" of the music industry</a>.  However, Blow makes the most basic of errors: he appears to equate the music industry with the recording industry.  He accepts RIAA numbers of when "sales peaked," not realizing that he's only talking about sales of a segment of the wider music industry.  Yet as recent studies both from <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090617/1138185267.shtml">outside</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090723/0351345633.shtml">inside</a> the music industry have shown, the overall music ecosystem has been getting larger in terms of dollar volume.  Money may be shifting away from CDs, but it's not shifting away from music-related commerce.  But, I guess that's what happens when you rely on just the RIAA for your data...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0244175750.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0244175750.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0244175750.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>get-that-straight</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090803/0244175750</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>EMI Stops Selling CDs To Indie Record Stores</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090712/2256015518.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090712/2256015518.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apparently, EMI has had enough of independent record stores.  Via <a href="http://digg.com/music/EMI_refuses_to_sell_music_to_Mom_Pop_stores" target="_new">Digg</a> come reports that <a href="http://www.waynerosso.com/2009/06/30/emi-to-mom-pops-eat-cake/" target="_new">EMI has been calling various smaller independent record stores</a>  and telling them that it won't sell them product directly any more.  Instead, they'll have to source it from third parties -- meaning that it will be more expensive.  Basically, this means most of those stores will carry fewer EMI CDs. Of course, some might argue that this won't really mean much, since independent record stores are smaller (and don't always sell as much major label product), but it still seems like an odd choice by EMI.  You would think the company would be working overtime to keep the few retail channels pushing its product happy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090712/2256015518.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090712/2256015518.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090712/2256015518.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you're-on-your-own</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090712/2256015518</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 15:55:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TuneCore, Amazon Team Up To Make It Even Easier &#038; Cheaper For Bands To Sell CDs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1513314986.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1513314986.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Continuing the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/0213544923.shtml">theme</a> of this week about the new ecosystem of companies out there making it ever and ever easier for musicians to do everything a label used to do for them, comes the news (submitted by zealeus) that <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/05/amazon-to-unveil-on-demand-cd-printing-service-with-tunecore/" target="_new">Amazon and TuneCore have teamed up to make it incredibly easy and cheap to sell CDs on demand</a>.   TuneCore is a very popular service with indie bands, helping them get their content onto various music services -- and now they're adding the ability to do incredibly cheap CDs-on-demand via Amazon.   The whole thing costs a grand total of $31/year.  Wired does some math, and recognizes that at a price point of $8.98 for the CD, a band only needs to sell <i>nine</i> CDs a year to break even.  Nine.  While some may say the CD market is dying, if you can offer it at almost no cost to the band, why not have it as an option?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1513314986.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1513314986.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1513314986.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>label?-what-for?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090522/1513314986</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 May 2009 22:41:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Coldplay Giving Away Free CD At Shows And Free Downloads</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/1213174742.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/1213174742.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have sent in the news that Coldplay is doing a promotion whereby they'll be <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8028478.stm" target="_new">giving away a free CD at every live show</a> and will also make the tracks available for free download on the band's website.  The album itself is live tracks recorded during the current tour. As the band notes:
<blockquote><i>
"Playing live is what we love. This album is a thank you to our fans - the people who give us a reason to do it and make it happen."
</i></blockquote>
It's great to see another well-known band learn that "free" can have quite a bit of value, though this does seem a bit more gimmicky than any well-thought-out strategy.  Giving away a physical product is nice, but expensive, and unlikely to be a difference maker for those going to shows.  Still, it is nice to see a band not freaking out about free and looking for more ways to actually connect with and reward their fans, rather than trying to punish them like some others.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/1213174742.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/1213174742.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/1213174742.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that-evil-free-stuff</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090504/1213174742</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:35:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Despite Declining CD Sales, CD Baby Experiences Growth in 2008</title>
<dc:creator>Blaise Alleyne</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090124/2225163523.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090124/2225163523.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While CD sales <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090102/1911093271.shtml">dropped 14%</a> overall in 2008, CD Baby -- a popular online music store that lets independent artists sell music directly to fans -- <a href="http://cdbaby.org/stories/09/01/15/8158752.html">actually saw an <em>increase</em> of 2%</a>. In addition to selling physical discs, CD Baby offers optional digital distribution through iTunes, Amazon MP3, Napster, Rhapsody, eMusic, etc. and directly through their website. Still, almost 30% of albums last year were <em>only</em> offered as physical discs (though, some of these artists probably use other companies for digital distribution). While growth in digital sales was predictably larger (45%), even a small increase in CD sales in the face of the broader <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090124/0814363512.shtml">crisis</a> is a sign that CD Baby is doing something right. 
<br /><br />
There are a few reasons why CD Baby could be having better luck with CDs than the rest of the industry. First, a lot of independent artists are discovered through live performances, and the CD has yet to be replaced as the standard format to sell music at shows. The credit card swipers that CD Baby offers artists accounted for $2.4 million worth of revenue last year (though, that includes sales of other merchandise too). Second, CD Baby seems to be taking advantage of the long tail, with minimal setup fees, minimal starting requirements (artists only need to mail in 5 CDs to start selling) and short-run <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080807/0208401921.shtml">duplication services</a>, though they haven't released enough data to confirm how distributed their sales have been. Lastly, great customer service and a sense of humour can't hurt (e.g. an order confirmation email starts, "your CD has been gently taken from our CD Baby shelves with sterilized contamination-free gloves and placed onto a satin pillow..."). Although it doesn't make any sense to base an entire business model on selling CDs, there's still money to be made for artists and companies using CDs as <em>part</em> of their model.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090124/2225163523.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090124/2225163523.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090124/2225163523.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-dead-yet</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090124/2225163523</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:35:50 PST</pubDate>
<title>Canadian Blank CD Levy To Increase By Another 38%</title>
<dc:creator>Blaise Alleyne</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081205/1952423036.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081205/1952423036.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Copyright Board of Canada has <a href="http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2008/12/levy-increase.html">decided to increase the levy on blank CDs from 21 cents to 29 cents each</a>. The levy is a sort of "you're a criminal tax" that assumes blank CDs are going to be used for unauthorized copying. Blank CDs in Canada are now often more expensive than blank DVDs (which have no levy and hold more data), and most of that cost goes directly to the record industry. In 2006, about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060227/0211220.shtml">70%</a> went to the labels, but it seems like even more now, with actual price of CD-Rs dropping. With a 21 cent levy, a pack of <a href="http://www.sonnam.com/detail.asp?S=985936165&#038;prod_gp=12&#038;prod_code=108&#038;prod_ID=MED-SUN-80M-50S">50 CD-Rs</a> sells for about $12 before tax. That's 24 cents per CD-R -- <em>87.5% of the price</em> goes to the record industry. And that's <em>before</em> the 8 cent increase.
<br /><br />
The board notes that sales of blank CDs are declining, but <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3562/125/">justifies the increase</a> by arguing that compression allows people to store more songs on a CD. Meanwhile, there's no levy on <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080111/145553.shtml">digital audio players</a> (the Canadian record industry was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070916/213136.shtml">worried</a> it would legalize downloading and seemed to prefer to push for tougher <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080612/1017381387.shtml">copyright</a> legislation instead). What's going to happen when the Copyright Board realizes that blank CD sales are likely declining, not because everyone is using compression, but because less people are using CDs? This "you're a criminal tax" has always been a short-term band-aid solution that's not going to fix the record industry's problem. Do Canadians really need to pay the record industry $30 million a year for the right to burn a few songs onto a CD every now and then? Luckily, the current government has expressed a desire to cancel the levy, though we'll have to wait and see if they can follow through.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081205/1952423036.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081205/1952423036.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081205/1952423036.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you're-a-criminal</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081205/1952423036</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Another Band Starts Bundling Scarce And Infinite Goods</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081010/1357592518.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081010/1357592518.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030912/1032238.shtml">years</a> we've been talking about a variety of business models that bands can use to still make money, even if their music is free -- often by focusing on the scarcities that they can sell.  A big one, is access to the band.  One of the first ideas we pointed out was how bands could effectively set up a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030912/1032238.shtml">fan club</a> that fans could buy into that would give them special features: early access to concert tickets, backstage passes, private concerts, early access to music, view of the music creation process, chance to chat with band members, etc.  All of those things are then made more valuable if there are more fans, so giving away the music only helps that business grow.
<br /><br />
One of our readers, Kyle, points us to an experiment by the band Mudvayne that doesn't get all the way there, but does seem to move in that direction.  The band has <a href="http://www.ticketnews.com/Mudvayne-tour-plays-New-Game-with-ticket-program09817453" target="_new">started a program called "The Album is The Ticket"</a> that gives people a reason to buy the actual, physical album.  When you do, you're given a code that lets them go to a website, get a one-year free membership into the band's "fan club" that includes early access to the best tickets at concerts.  The band doesn't appear to have taken it to the level of also giving away and promoting free music, but hopefully they'll recognize that doing so would increase the demand for this kind of program.  What the band is doing, effectively, is recognizing that they need to give people a real reason to buy the CD -- and that goes beyond music (because people can get the music for free).  So rather than just focusing on the CD itself and what comes in the jewel case, they've recognized that by giving people a code they can also give them access to additional services.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081010/1357592518.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081010/1357592518.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081010/1357592518.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081010/1357592518</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 7 Aug 2008 19:08:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>CD Duplicator Buys CD Baby; Recognizing A Digital Future</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080807/0208401921.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080807/0208401921.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lots of folks who follow the music space are aware of CD Baby, who has helped independent artists sell their music for years.  It basically was a one stop shop for many independent artists, getting their music available in a variety of different places, for either download or physical CD sale.  Earlier this week, the company was <a href="http://www.playbackstl.com/content/view/7882/234/" target="_new">bought out by Disc Makers</a>, the aptly named company that manufactures CDs and DVDs for independent musicians and filmmakers.  The two companies had worked together as partners for many years.  Still, what strikes me as most interesting about this is that Disc Makers clearly is recognizing that relying on the physical disc reproducing business to keep growing is a likely to be a losing bet.  So, it appears to have come up with a decent plan for positioning itself for the changing market.  If only other businesses were willing to do that.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080807/0208401921.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080807/0208401921.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080807/0208401921.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>changing-times,-changing-business-models</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080807/0208401921</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:54:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Trent Reznor Gives People A Reason To Buy Latest CD Even Though It's Free Online</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080725/0215281791.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080725/0215281791.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's getting rather repetitive to show what a good job Trent Reznor is doing in showing how Nine Inch Nails is embracing the new business models available to the music industry, but he's doing such a consistently good job of it, it's so useful as an example.  The latest move is that he's now releasing his last album, <i>The Slip</i>, which was offered <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080505/0908591030.shtml">as a totally free download</a>, <a href="http://theslip.nin.com/physical/" target="_new">as a special limited edition CD/DVD and deluxe vinyl</a>.  In other words, like he's done multiple times in the past, he's giving fans a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070418/031040.shtml">reason</a> to buy the physical media beyond just the music.  In this case, it's to get a <i>numbered</i> copy, limited to 250,000 that includes a ton of extras.
<br /><br />
Sure, there will be plenty of people who don't want it and are perfectly happy with just the music.  And Reznor seems perfectly fine with that.  However, other fans will want this unique package for themselves.  Given how <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080304/162842435.shtml">well</a> Reznor has done with "limited edition" physical media, it seems quite likely that this will also be a huge success for Reznor.  And, of course, we're not even touching on all the money he'll make from Nine Inch Nails concert gigs.  So why do we have the music industry running around like crazy saying that if music is available for free no one can make any money?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080725/0215281791.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080725/0215281791.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080725/0215281791.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>keeps-showing-how-he-gets-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080725/0215281791</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:41:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Newly Independent Pop Band McFly Gives Away Free CD With Newspaper</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080627/0135431533.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080627/0135431533.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month we wrote about the British pop band McFly, who had announced that it was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1729081241.shtml">ditching its record label</a>, because the label wasn't interested in experimenting with new ways to get music to fans.  So now that the band is independent, it's jumped right on the bandwagon of experimentation.  In fact, it's following the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070629/163147.shtml">footsteps</a> of Prince, back before he started <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080626/0044421521.shtml">freaking out</a>.  That is, they've done a deal with a big UK newspaper to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7472226.stm" target="_new">distribute copies of their new album for free with the newspaper</a> (thanks to Nick for sending this in).  As we've noted in the past, this is a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070724/234444.shtml">fantastic strategy</a> for both newspapers and musicians.  It helps both sides quite a bit, which is exactly what the band sees, noting that they just want to get more fans, and are hoping more will come see them on their latest tour.
<br /><br />
Yet, of course, it's not making some happy: specifically those who have based their entire business models around the concept of selling plastic discs.  Music retailers flipped out when Prince did this, and it's likely that they'll be upset about McFly as well.  But, you don't jump into the next generation by appeasing the old generation.  Also, the article quotes a former recording industry exec who complains that if bands keep doing this, record labels will lose money and won't be able to find and promote new bands.  That's missing the point, of course.  It assumes that it's the record labels skilled hand that is necessary in finding and promoting new bands -- which is not true at all.  The same guy also suggests (in a video on the site) that record labels also won't want to give tour support.  That's also quite ridiculous.  If the band is making so much more money from concerts now, the smart label will still give tour support, after making sure that it gets a cut of the touring revenue as well.  And, if the record labels decide not to do it, then have no fear that concert promoters will <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/005432.shtml">step in</a> and provide the necessary support in their place.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080627/0135431533.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080627/0135431533.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080627/0135431533.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-all-in-the-tour</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080627/0135431533</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:31:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Is Selling A CD You Found In The Trash Copyright Infringement?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080207/131317200.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080207/131317200.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Various courts have held that by putting something in the trash, you are relinquishing your ownership of those goods.  However, apparently that might not apply to music.  William Patry has the story on an unfortunate decision by our court system, suggesting that if you find a CD in the trash and sell it <a href="http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/crime-of-selling-abandoned-copies.html" target="_new">you may be charged with copyright infringement</a>.  The story of the case is as follows: BMG famously offers a CD and DVD "club" that sends out new CDs and DVDs on a regular basis to subscribers.  Sometimes those subscribers move and cannot be found or for whatever reason the discs are determined to be "undeliverable."   BMG so devalues its own discs that it has told the post office to throw out the undeliverable discs, rather than spend the postage to have them sent back to BMG.  The post office dumps the discs in its dumpsters -- at which point a Postal Service employee dumpster dives to rescue them.  He then goes and sells those discs to local stores, cashing in to the tune of nearly $80,000.  This gets discovered, and he gets charged with mail fraud before settling on charges of copyright infringement.
<br /><br />
However, what no one seems to clearly explain is where the infringement is?  BMG instructed the CDs to be thrown out.  The Post Office threw them out.  At that point, the property has been relinquished by BMG and the Post Office, so it would appear that anyone who finds the discs wouldn't be committing any kind of infringement (or, for that matter, fraud) in selling them.  A lower court ruling was especially bizarre, in demanding that the guy give up all the money he earned to BMG due to the "lost opportunity" to BMG in selling the music.  As we've discussed at length before a "lost opportunity" is not an actual loss and it's not a crime.  It's simply a marketing challenge.  Otherwise, just about any business could be guilty of creating a "lost opportunity" for any competitor.  The pizza shop down the street creates a "lost opportunity" every time I eat there instead of the deli.  Hell, just buying one musician's CD rather than another's creates a "lost opportunity."  So, it's ridiculous to equate a "lost opportunity" to a crime -- and even worse when that "lost opportunity" was self-created by BMG <i>choosing</i> to throw out the discs.
<br /><br />
Luckily, the Appeals Court tossed out the "lost opportunity" part, but as Patry notes, it doesn't appear that anyone questioned how the facts of this case could possibly be considered copyright infringement.  Selling used CDs is considered to be perfectly legal and non-infringing.  How is selling CDs that have been thrown in the garbage any different?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080207/131317200.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080207/131317200.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080207/131317200.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>so-sayeth-the-courts</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080207/131317200</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:26:10 PST</pubDate>
<title>Downloading Is Correlated With CD Purchases</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071105/101534.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071105/101534.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There&#39;s a new study out (<a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/">via</a> Michael Geist) about the <a href="http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/h_ip01456e.html">relationship between peer-to-peer downloading and CD purchases</a> in Canada. The authors found a positive relationship between downloading and CD purchasing. That is, those who downloaded more music also tended to purchase more CDs. It&#39;s important to keep in mind that correlation does not prove causation. In particular, I suspect that much of what we&#39;re observing here is simply the fact that people have varying levels of interest in music, and those who are more interested in music are likely to both download more songs and purchase more CDs. So these results by no means prove that peer-to-peer file-sharing isn&#39;t hurting the recording industry. On the other hand, it certainly belies the recording industry&#39;s simplistic claim that no one will buy their music if it&#39;s available for free on peer-to-peer sites. Clearly, there are a lot of music fans in Canada who have access to peer-to-peer networks and choose to pay money for CDs anyway. That might be because they want the extras that come with the physical CD, because they feel good about supporting their favorite band, or because they expect the audio files on the CD to be higher quality than the music they find online. Whatever the reasons, the recording industry should be figuring out how to capitalize on them, by coming up with new products that <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20030912/1032238.shtml">offer perks</a> you can&#39;t get from a peer-to-peer network.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071105/101534.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071105/101534.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071105/101534.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>correlation-is-not-causation</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071105/101534</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>