The Customer is Always Wrong

Stop buying CD's if you're so unhappy with their tactics. Once they feel the impact beyond what they feel today, they will have no choice but listen.

I havn't bought a brand new CD in 5 years. When I do by a CD I always buy then second hand.

I guess the bands don't make money off used second hand CD's..

New CD's are still being ripped. I don't get it... is it just a small % that are DRM protected? Once all are, will it be virtually impossible to rip CD's?

Don't forget though... nothing can stop the Digitial to Analog to Digital conversion.

There are ways, and will continue to be ways, to get around DRM. However, this is not the solution to the problem and is actually counter-productive. The huge number of people that fight to crack/bypass DRM is giving the RIAA fodder to claim that file-sharing is killing their profits. As they have more money as an organized force against us normal citizens, they will continue to gain the legislative advantage, and will kill the freedom of the internet.

Because of file-sharing of copyright materials, we have the DMCA which cripples legitimate business, at times. If you are unhappy with the pricing, stop buying CD's, but do not ruin the internet for the rest of us.

No, determined people will always get around DRM. Same like pirates will always get their hands on new movies. All DRM does is hurt the person who plans to use their music legally... e.g. copy music to their MP3 player to listen to it at the health club, or to put it on their MP3 enabled CD-Deck in their car.

get a CD walkman for the GYM and a regualar CD player for your car, no one said you need to have an MP3 player.

"get a CD walkman for the GYM and a regualar CD player for your car, no one said you need to have an MP3 player."
That was smart. So you are saying that I do not have the right to listen to skip free music while running/jogging or cutting the grass.

they make skip free CD players. mine doesn't skip.

CDs are a dead technology same as vinyl & 8-track tape. Music is a file at point of manufacture and a file at point-of-use: the industry clings to the physical medium only because they're trying to justify their own middle-man role which has also been supplanted by technology.

Musicans no longer need the services of conventional labels: it's an antiquated layer that just doesn't want to let go of a profitable thing, so they are corrupting legislation & the marketplace (they so claim to worship) in hopes of delaying their demise. So far they've had great success.

What is slowly developing and the musicians do need are support services that manage the business side of their work but leave rights in the hands of musicians. It'll be good for musicians and consumers - just not for old-school labels who still have power only out of the inertia of old habits ... habits of both consumers & musicians.

The responsible thing for consumers to do is support the new flavor of publishing by buying from musicians who do retain their own rights, like Magnatunes. Consumers who continue to patronize the big-5 labels have no right to loudly complain about how the big-5 do business: consumers enable the bad behavior of the old-school labels. And consumers need to tell their fav artists to use different publishing methods then support those methods.

I'm sorry but you are going to have to explain this to me like I'm a 3 year old, because there are certain thing that you have said that have not made any sense. ?? how is that? If I go to the music store I still see them there? So how does the musician get his music out there for us to listen? What about people in rural areas?This still doesn't mention anything about what you are talking about. If they drop the labels, how does the music get to the people?I'm at work right now but I will check it out, however this is not a solution for people in rural areas or people without PCs or technophobic older people...you get the idea. So you still need CDs and CD Players, Beta was better than VHS but VHS trumped it anyways. Same thing could happen to MP3 players Nah, not really but just a thought.

No way that CD's are a dead technology. CDs did replace vinyl records, but vinyl is still kicking. Just not nearly as prevalent. 8-track tapes were just a bad idea to begin with. Terrible fidelity and transport design. The CD, however, is still very much the standard and will be useful for a while to come.

Just because you can download music files onto a hard drive doesn't mean CDs are dead. How long has it been said that we will be in a paperless society? Yet books, magazines, manuals, memos and such still proliferate? Why? Because there will always be a demand for data to be on a hard copy. Right now the CD is the most solid format for a hard copy of digital data, including music. It will not be replaced by download sites. It will only be replaced by another hard copy medium.

Not only are CDs not dying but the technology is growing. There are SACDs that use 24 bit audio instead of the standard 16 bit. There is also DVD-Audio that's gaining ground. Yeah I know DVDs are CDs, but the technology is the same. Storing data on a read only disk to be read digitally by a laser. You might be happy with transferring music data on hard drives and recordable media where they can be erased, but that doesn't speak for all of us.

Everything else you said was spot on. The big record labels are indeed going to be a dying breed and so much the better. They have done more to interfere with the music industry and it's creative conscience than anybody. Including Congress.

A bundled response to both AtomicZero & SRFireside :

Dead as a distribution standard for the industry, is what I meant. Along with the bricks & morter stores that sell them. And "dead like vinyl" means "dead like vinyl" - as in still around, but not the standard mode of conveyance.

People switch between forms of physical medium more readily then into "I can't see it or hold it" medium, so dropping the CD will be slower, but your print media comparison doesn't wash because reading from paper is a wholly different experience than reading from a fixed monitor. The listening experience of digital music stored on plastic vs. in flashram or HDD is the identical experience - only the handling is worse with the physical plastic thingy.

When you buy software do you get in your car, drive to store, checkout with a box holding a disc holding a file, go home and discard everything but the file? It's the reality many consumers continue to prefer but they pay extra for the incredibly inefficient ritual of it. Ditto for music: a laberinth of wasteful physical creation, wasteful physical transport, and wasteful physical end-user handling just to play the exact same file that could have been delivered digitally. Of course not everyone is connected yet, but people have been screaming for the capability for years now my CD collection has been in a moldy box in storage for even longer: I never want to touch them again. It startles me that this is surprising to BBRers this late in the game.

Wanting something hard copy has little to do with the "see it, hold it" comparison with print media. If that were the case radio would have destroyed vinyl decades ago (interestingly enough there was a scare about that exact thing happening). Hard copy means you have an uncompressed and true to the original medium that holds the music. Then you also have the album art and liner notes and such, which still account for something for many people who want something more tangible than just the song.

Sure digital transfers are here to stay and will continue to gain ground, but it won't replace the hard copy. All the downloading that has been going on over the years and CD sales are still on the rise. Also not everybody wants to just be in an enclosed society where you do all of your music shopping from home. There is also a social element to going outsides in the sunshine and going to a store. It's even healthy to do so. And also there is a sort of totem experience with having the music in your hands that many people still feel. Just like back when vinyl records were the rage and you would put the record on with the album sleeve in your hands looking at the cover art or lyrics on the inside jacket. I'm telling you these experiences are still a lot stronger than the convenience of the Internet age to people as a whole.

hey if you don't want your CDs I'll take them off your hands. I have no issue with MP3s, Limewire, Napster and whatever I do my share, but I still to my share of buying and I believe CDs will be the primary medium for music and DVDs for a few more decades.

OK AtomicZero, let me see how you "logic" and "advice" will crack this: CD - about 16 normal tracks max, my MP3 player - thousands of tracks. Will you suggest we take our CD library with us too? My good workout is over 2 hours, that is 120 minutes or more, cd holds - 74minutes. Cmon dude, go back to your record label heaquarters. The days of loan sharks - sorrry, big record labels - are OVER.

i agree, it is real simple folk's, we need customers that are literate.

Protected WMA > Burn to CD(RW) > Rip to the format of your choice > Do what you want with it

Unfortunately even this method is outlawed by most music services' TOS.

That's true until a different music model comes out, many sites offer up "non-DRM" music. Support them and they will have to change their business model as well.

Just a short list:
»ind-music.com/

»magnatune.com/

»allofmp3.com/ - Not sure about the legal on that one

You know, I could 'f-in care less what their TOS is. If
I want the song, I'll fire up Audacity and record it as
it streams, or play the DRM track in WMP while recording.
Then I have an unprotected copy I can do anything with.

Vista is supposed to have hardware level DRM that will
prevent this sort of thing, as well as surrender more
control over what you can do with your computer to the
music, movie and software companies. Well I have news
for them and Microsoft: I won't be buying Vista, nor
any computer that comes with it. If push comes to shove,
I will go with Linux as my next OS (assuming that I want
to replace the computer I have now, which is fine for my
needs.)

The quality of the music will suffer from the recompression. Not to mention, all of the music sold with DRM are HIGHLY compressed. I think it's funny how people will buy a $300.00 USD iPOD to listen to music that has as much fidelity as a cassette tape.

The only site I have seen that has nice quality mp3s is allofmp3.com's OEEX selections. But who knows of the legality of that site.

on the CD's, tapes, LP's, 8 tracks, whatever... You do not and have never 'owned' these songs - you have simply been granted a usage license in exchange for the fees you paid when you bought the delivery e.g. cd, tape etc. device.

So now they licensing rules are being restricted and people are screaming about it. That's fair to complain about the continuing restrictions on usability that consumers have previously enjoyed, but 'they' are totally within their rights to assign whatever restrictions they choose to. You as an educated consumer can choose to not purchase their offerings.

I'm not defending the RIAA or anyone, just saying that no consumer has ever 'owned' the music they've purchased.

Maybe we've never "owned" the music, but we've always been able to format shift... radio to cassette, LP to cassette, CD to cassette, now CD to CD or MP3, download to CD or MP3, etc.

DRM takes away an ability we've had for decades. And it only hurts the consumer. It doesn't stop pirates, AT ALL.

Screw the customer, lose the customer.

And I agree 100% with you that the fair use rights have been reduced substantially. And that sucks.

Funny thing is that all of commercials I have heard about new CD & DVD sales say "Own it now".

LOL. That's true. I have never thought about that before.

Not if those restrictions get in the way of fair use. Copyright law not only gives copyright holders rights in how they can be compensated for their work it also gives plenty of exceptions to those rights. Just because you own the copyrights to a song doesn't mean you have absolute control over what happens to it. Quite the opposite. Owning the copyright only means you get credit for the work and that you have the right to be paid your share when someone makes money off your work. Everything else is fluff.

I believe that copyright law also entitles the creator or copyright holder rights to how he/she/it distributes their work, correct?

Not really. Copyright law gives the copyright holders rights to essentially do whatever they want to the work they own. Copyright law also gives the copyright holder prerogative on many fronts regarding others selling or making derisions from their work. However there is also a long list of exemptions in copyright law that allow others to do many thinks with the copyrighted works regardless of the copyright holders prerogative or consent.

The crux of it all is if you make money off of a copyrighted work you owe royalties to the copyright holder. They get a share of your profits. You also have to give credit to who did the work and who owns the work. Aside from that you can promote, distribute, package, remix, remake the work to your heart's content. Copyright holder has no control over that. Just control over getting paid for you using their material.

SRFireside Great posts explaining copyright law and the purpose of why it exists.However I do have a question concerning the post of another member, as to how grey an area this can become concerning taper friendly bands.

quote:

---

Swilliams Said: on the CD's, tapes, LP's, 8 tracks, whatever... You do not and have never 'owned' these songs - you have simply been granted a usage license in exchange for the fees you paid when you bought the delivery e.g. cd, tape etc. device.

---

1.)Who exactly owns what, when bands encourage taping and trading of concerts (bootlegs)? The Grateful Dead were notorious for encouraging their fans to do so, as long as these shows were not sold-gaining profit?

These shows taped, shared and traded by fans.Shows taped in New York as an example, were shared or trade for shows in Miami,Houstan,Longbeach...etc
The labels hated that,Yet the band did not lose $0.01 because of bootlegging,actually it increased concert goers.Fans paid the admission ticket rate.Concerts sold out,T-shirts sales were made.Sorry off topic, back to the copyright question asked.What are your thoughts on that.?

Normally when a band encourages taping that means that they own the copyrights to their music and are giving the okay for people to make live tapes and pass them around. Essentially the copyright holder is the one who can make that call. If, say for instance, the Grateful Dead were to announce their okay for people to tape them and they didn't own the copyrights to their music the real copyright owner (record label most likely) would come down with their own demand.

Metallica and Chumbawamba had the same attitude about their music. While Metallica (or rather drummer Lars) have denounced that the Chumbas are so dedicated about letting people do what they want with their music they made their label VERY nervous after their big hit Tubthumping (thinking nobody would buy the record and just pirate it). Interesting how their fears were unfounded.

Copyright law is something that I could spend a lifetime studying and still not understand. I did pull this quote off the gov't's copyright website though:

»www.copyright.gov

---

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution.

---

Now, I did skim through the actual text of the statute to see excatly what that "exclusive right of distribution" entails, but I couldn't find anything specific in all the legalese. At least not according to the concept I had of it. Regardless, I'm sure the distribution thing isn't cut and dried. And I wouldn't be too surprised if the gov't. was just blowing smoke with that FAQ of theirs.

Yeah, that's the trick. The definition of "distribution" is definitely a grey area that I believe the RIAA and others are exploiting.

quote:

---

but 'they' are totally within their rights to assign whatever restrictions they choose to. You as an educated consumer can choose to not purchase their offerings.

---

I totally agree. The problem is that when sales drop, they blame piracy instead of their own anti-consumer tactics. They still have never given me a legal way to buy the MP3s that I want. I really like the price and ease of use of the iTunes store, but have no use for encrypted music in that format. It doesn't work on my portable Sony walkman, it doesn't work in my Phatbox (car mp3), and doesn't work on my MP3 playing DVD player. The only format I can collect music in that works with all my toys is MP3.

I could burn to CD then re-rip, but that defeats the cost effectiveness, convenience and performance (and if I might add, highlights the stupidity of DRM in the first place) If they can't offer the product I want, I simply won't buy, nor collect the music. I'll just listen to satellite radio in my car or the commercial free digital music channels included with my cable service. You'd be surprised how tired you can get of music when it's in heavy rotation anyway.

The recording industry has sucked the fun out of collecting music. They only have themselves to blame for lost profit.

-- Rob

If you want to purchase music online without DRM, check out these services selling MP3s:

emusic
»emusic.com/

Audio Lunchbox
»www.audiolunchbox.com/

Bleep
»www.bleep.com/

Live Downloads
»www.livedownloads.com/

GREAT SITES! and about the legallity of allofmp3.com....

They may or may not pay royalties depending on who you believe (probably not), however as far as I know they have been challenged in court - a law suit was filed by the district attorney in moscow and they did win. It has to do with their on the fly encoding - you are copying the music from them, they are not copying the music to you which is a nice little loophole in russian copyright law making it perfectly legal. And since the transaction is taking place in russia... its like importing a cd from russia to the US, perfectly legal (as far as I understand it, lawyers chime in!). Lastly, even if illegal - since they are in russia, there's no way they're giving out ip addresses to the RIAA who has no legal leverage over them. And by the way, I was recently in Moscow, and when you go into shops the majority of CDs for sale are pirates - some times they even have the pirates (with their off color printing) next to the real ones, with the real ones being 800 rubles and the pirate being 60 rubles, hmmm I wonder which one most people choose...

Not so sure the correct route is to stop buying CDs especially CDs with DRM. May be better to stop buying from the DRM crippled services like iTunes and Napster. Would be even wiser to return for FULL refund any DRM crippled CDS purchased. Not buying DRM infected crap would send a clear message to RIAA that informed consumers don't want these product lines. Personally I still buy CDS and rip to mp3 or ogg for personal use, but if I come across a DRM CD artist is not good enough for my collection and I return. So far every store has accepted my return will full refunds.

Male to male headphone cord with an audio-out/audio-in sound card beats all of this drm crap. Like what was said earlier, digital to analog to digital. There is NO drm that can stop that. Besides if they do disable the ability to record music somehow ob that particular machine all you hav to do then is use one computer for playing the music and another for recording. I have 4 windows computers and 2 linux computers......... so if you want some......COME GET SOME lmao!

*Edit*oooopsss I posted in wrong place.