As audiophiles, we generally deplore the restrictions that the music business is trying to impose on new formats and equipment, such as watermarking and restricting digital outputs. But does the recording industry have a leg to stand on with their suspicion that we all might be potential pirates?
COMMENTS
I have never download music. My son has made copies of songs but his purchase of music in LP or CD format has continued. The purchase of used LP's may have had some impact on his new CD's but that's because he can get more music he wants for his money. The sound quality of downloads is a joke.
Yes, taking music is theft. It is no more right to download music than it is to sneak into a high priced seminar. The argument that the music is in the public domain is pure bunk. If it is right to steal music, then why can't an artist come to your house and steal your lawn mower? I have no problem with CD-burners being used to create your own "favorites" disks, if the music comes from CDs that you have already purchased. I blame these music thieves as the reason that we all have to buy new processors or receivers to handle the six analog outs from a DVD-A or SACD disk player. It is silly that I can play a digital bit stream from a CD or DVD, but have to have a whole new setup to play the newer formats. I have a $6000 processor that cannot handle the new formats because a bunch of snot-nosed thieves want to steal music. It is pure BS.
The record companies are trying to protect their copywritten materials by means fair and foul. I understand the desire to protect corporate assets, but this cannot be done via suppression of First Amendment rights. The DMCA has got to go.
While I hate the Idea of watermarks on a recording, I must agree to the protection ofIntellectual property. Lets put it this way, if I scaned the whole Stereophile magazine each month and put it out on the web for free to all who want it, how long will the writers write? I do wish for a better method of distribution, I feel that artist rights need also be considered. The other draw back to free on the webb, is that all to many new and emerging artists end up being just another blip on a endless sea of MP3 files, with nothing helping them reach the recognition they may (or may not) deserve. The new econmy seemed to be based on it is all free, you do not have to pay for anything. I work for money to feed my family, so does the music and entertainment folks!
The core issue is the control of intellectual property. The compensation for our enjoyment of the product (music) of that intellectual property is money. The money pays the mucisians, pays for the recording equipment, pays for distribution and marketing, etc. The motivation to produce and deliver high quality music would soon be lost and we will be confined in MP3 drivel land at best. It still amazes me that the computer and software industries are so concerned about piracy of their intellectual property, but present such a cavalier attitude when it comes to the property of others.
I want the best copy available of the recordings I like. This often means I end up buying many versions, special pressings, etc. So the record companies are getting paid over and over for the same thing. They are the real pirates.
We audiophiles aren't interested in the degradation in quality that can be brought on by pirating music. The legions of "napsters" and ".mp3s" out there are interested in instant entertainment rather than a quality listening experience. We audiophiles will ultimately be pushed further to the fringe as the recording companies struggle to "protect" themsleves from this group.
In an unashamedly capitalistic and hedonistic nation like the US of A, paranoia is little more than a synonym for greed. Until recorded-music consumers quit buying their overpriced product, the recording industry will continue to run roughshod over each and every one of us. Now, as the ushers come forward, we will continue to worship with our tithes and offerings.
I wish some of those knuckleheads would do some research on how much actually gets pirated, how and where. What I think they will find is that if indeed piracy is losing them money (and that result is far from guaranteed), what they need to do is go after the fleamarkets in China, not CD buyers in the West. There is nothing worse than trying to come up with a solution to a problem that has not even been scientifically proven to exist, much less understood.
I am a very strong believer in intellectual property rights in a society that clearly isn't, witness Napster, et al. I believe the artists AND the labels both deserve fair compensation for their work; music is not and SHOULD not be free. That said, however, the labels and their attorneys do more to destroy their own rights with their various ham-fisted enforcement attempts than all the pirates in the world. Overly greedy business and legal moves on their part only feed the public at large's sense of being cheated, making hacking and outright piracy seem more and more justified. And then there's the idiocy of introducing a new recording approach aimed, it would seem, principally at audiophiles, but polluting it out of the chute with watermarking. Meanwhile, price gouging is rampant. Even in the Best Buys CDs average well over $10 per copy, while from my mail order "club" I can get as many quality recordings as I wish for well under $10, including S&H. I don't think "paranoia" is quite the right word; let's try "extreme greed."
At every turn, the recording industry fails to see that most users wish to record music for one of two reasons. First, people want to transform media, i.e., record songs from CDs to MP3s so that they can be more portable(or from LPs to CD for the car). Or they may go ahead and make a copy for a friend, which is hardly making a profit for the copier. Further, in most cases, this copy is for a _music loving_ friend, who is much more likely to go out and buy more of that artist's work!
In my opinion, they should defend their rights but at he same time not back away from the cause of the problem. They should provide the music at consumer-friendly prices, like $5-8 USD SACD/CD prices and they will see their sales fly. But instead they increase the prices at every opportunity, usng the introduction of SACD was a good excuse to hike the prices considerably. Reduce the price and there will be no reason for copies anymore. However, I am a firm believer that copying will continue forever, no matter what locks they build in.
On the one hand the idea of intellectual property is very old, and on the other hand people routinely rip and copy CDs today and they don't seem to care. If MP3 quality is good enough for the majority why would the public even bother to copy DVD-A or SACD?
The music industry is just simply paranoid. Their paranoia stems from their greed. Just lower the price of CDs to approximately $7.00 each and, in addition, offer single cuts for download at say $0.50 per cut and this crap about copy protection all goes away.
Peolpe have been copying records since the compact cassette was introduced. The real truth is much more sinister. It's the pipe dream of the entertainment industry to get EVERYTHING sold on a pay-per-play basis. In the old (pre-internet) days, this was pretty much impossible. But now, it's perfectly feasible. They can require a credit card number to be registered, or you have to keep on re-activating a digital key of some sort. And this can be required even for CDs you purchase, not just for downloads. Remember, they only have to bribe (or funnel enough campaign contributions) to a few key members of Congress to make this a reality.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources |  |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 Stereophile
