Sony's new Copywrite Method-PC users only-Ha Ha
From slashdot:Natoi writes "Sony is leaving Mac and **nix users out in the cold with their new copyright method called Label Gate CD copyright system. You'd have to be running Windows and use a Sony developed proprietary software to listen to CD's published by Sony starting next year." This seems a little extreme to me, since sitting at the computer just to listen to music is stupid. What about car stereos and high-fidelity CD players?
Here IDG's full artice on the sceme:<a href="http://www.idg.net/ic_965667_1794_9-10000.html"; target="_blank">IDG: Sony's new copywrite method</a>
Here's what I think. Even though I'm not a PC user, I think this is a load of crap. Buying a cd then having to pay again just to copy to your computer. Silly and stupid. This will be circumvented very quickly when it comes out.
Here IDG's full artice on the sceme:<a href="http://www.idg.net/ic_965667_1794_9-10000.html"; target="_blank">IDG: Sony's new copywrite method</a>
Here's what I think. Even though I'm not a PC user, I think this is a load of crap. Buying a cd then having to pay again just to copy to your computer. Silly and stupid. This will be circumvented very quickly when it comes out.
Comments
<strong>Betamax? Minidisc? Memory Stick? All this proprietary stuff that appeals to only a limited audience. Who's going to bother? Sony will never learn.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, but the difference between those techs and this one is that they offered at least some advantage. This? It SCREAMS denial of personal freedom while none of the others did. This thing is going to fall so flat, it's not even funny.
<strong>Betamax? Minidisc? Memory Stick? All this proprietary stuff that appeals to only a limited audience. Who's going to bother? Sony will never learn.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dont be to quick to criticize the minidisc format. It is extremely popular in Asia and continues to dominate mp3 in terms of number of users.
While I agree that you should be able to listen to your music however you want to once you buy it, SOMETHING has to be done about this situation. People aren't being honest and are ripping off the people who have to feed their kids off the money they make from records.
I am a songwriter/producer. I often spend days at a time on songs without sleep perfecting them, doing overdubs, mixing, etc. Producers, musicians, and engineers put ALOT of work into an album. How can you sit there and tell me it's alright to fire up a P2P app, download my songs, and not give me any money that i have worked to earn?
That is the exact same thing as walking into a clothing store, taking some pants and shirts, and walking out without giving anyone even a penny.
Whether you think the product is overpriced or not, thats a different agrument. Gucci and Armani clothing prices are rediculous, but your not walking into their stores and walking out with free merchandise.
Dont be surprised that these companies are trying to do something about it. Sony could make a better effort than something like that, but i respect that they're trying.
Albums take a lot of work, time, and effort. You are a theif if you steal someone's work. Simple.
<strong>i agree there has to be something done about this whole MP3 business. It's killing the music industry and its going to effect you in a way you might now have suspected.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are a whole lot of things killing the industry right now. File sharing is a convenient scapegoat because it might actually have an effect, and it's a much easier thing to target than the indies who control access to radio, or the producers who spend $2 million in failed efforts to invent pop starlets.
Since you are eager to establish that the treatment of songwriters by record labels is a different issue, I will insist that the existence of MP3s is a different issue than that of piracy. I know. I have something like 20GB of MP3s ripped from my personal collection of CDs. I do not have any file sharing software installed on my machine, and the last time someone did install something like that (Napster, actually) it was to download some songs to interest me in buying more CDs. Which I did.
Under the current scheme of things, CDs can be copied, songs chopped up, processed and reassembled, or set as scores to movies, etc. This is how art is created, whether it's DJ software chopping up a song on a Mac or your brain chopping up a song in your head. If you suppress this process, you suppress art (not completely, of course, because it's hard to copy protect music once it leaves a speaker cone).
[quote]<strong>I am a songwriter/producer. I often spend days at a time on songs without sleep perfecting them, doing overdubs, mixing, etc. Producers, musicians, and engineers put ALOT of work into an album. How can you sit there and tell me it's alright to fire up a P2P app, download my songs, and not give me any money that i have worked to earn?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a side issue. The issue is Sony using Yet Another Copy Protection mechanism, and the implications are that, for example, someone you know might not be able to appreciate all your hard work because they happen to have a Mac. If they bought the CD at a store with a policy like the ones in my town have, they won't be able to get a refund. Isn't profiting from selling items to people who can't enjoy them also a form of theft? Because I guarantee you that Sony, like the others who've tried this, will make these things look like CDs, and they'll be stocked among CDs, and any warning that they are not CDs will be confined to small print, or printed somewhere where it can't be read until the plastic lock and the shink wrap are off, removing any possibility of a refund. Worse: What if this form of copy protection actually destroys noncompliant players, as some of these nonstandard formats have done? It's theft and destruction of property then, and it involves real, concrete materials that cost much more than a CD.
[quote]<strong>That is the exact same thing as walking into a clothing store, taking some pants and shirts, and walking out without giving anyone even a penny.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, no, because the logistics of reproducing digital content are much simpler, and the cost is much lower. It's not FREE! the way some people seem to believe (I would like to present the students hogging 1/3 of the UI's network resources - two T3s - with the bandwidth bill for their KaZaA servers, but that's probably not going to happen soon), but a lost sale is not the same as a stolen material good. It's a much smaller violation.
I wouldn't be surprised if file sharing has impacted CD sales for the simple reason that people get to try before they buy. The record industry bitterly opposed those listening booths in stores, too, because they wanted CD sales to be predicated absolutely on marketing. If the buyer later discovered that they didn't like the album, it didn't matter: The money had been made. This allowed studios to get away with albums that had one hit and 11 afterthoughts, and charge for 12 songs.
[quote]<strong>Dont be surprised that these companies are trying to do something about it. Sony could make a better effort than something like that, but i respect that they're trying.
Albums take a lot of work, time, and effort. You are a theif if you steal someone's work. Simple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a musician myself, I'm not unsympathetic. However, good intentions and a buck get you coffee. This effort by Sony has horrible side effects that cannot be dismissed or downplayed. One of them, ironically enough, is that it guarantees that the number of CDs I buy from Sony after this year will drop to zero: My Mac is my CD player. If I can't even play a CD, let alone use it in the legal and ethical manner in which I'm accustomed to using CDs, I'm not going to buy it, and the affected artists aren't going to get my money even if I would have liked the album enough to buy it on CD. The only way I could get the music would be through pirate channels, and then of course I wouldn't be compensating the artist (to whatever degree Sony actually does, but I'll respect your appeal not to bring that into consideration). There's a crime in there somewhere.
[ 11-23-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Some time ago a hard cover book cost about 1 USD to print, the paper costs skyrocketed, they doubled and some, so now a hardcover book costs about 2-2.50 to print. They sell for 25-40USD, and the pre-press preparation only gets cheaper. That's a book, what do you think the printing costs for a nice CD Jewel case are? 50, 75 cents in volume, maybe a dollar? An author gets 8-12 percent, what does a musician get, after deductions for studio time, video shoots, promotional expenses? Musicians have been getting raped for a long time. Unless you have a mega hit, you don't make money on your first album. The studios claim they don't make money either, but how can that be when a CD sells in the 10-25USD range? Who owns the recording studio, the promotional companies, has ties to the video industry, the concerts etc etc? A new artist could literally sell 1 million albums (at 15USD a piece) for a gross profit of 15Million, yet at that point, the labels claim to have barely broken even, and the artist is usually forgiven some production "expenses" -- so that they might make 100-500K -- however, it's only if they're locked into a longer term contract. It starts to look a lot like a racket, and the record companies would rather no one look at it that way.
MP3 does indeed become a scapegoat, an interesting distraction for the rest of us while a few very powerful media groups work out some very restrictive distribution schemes, not just technologically, but legally.
Look at the once booming pager industry. now it is in shambles due to advancement in mobile phones.
Music companies need to adapt or shape out. MP3s are here to stay and they need to utilise it to stay profitable.
Im talking about the people who copy their friend's CD's, download my music on Kaza, those people. Let me make this clear. I DON'T agree with the measure Sony is taking, but something has to be done that will make my music only be able to be played by the people who buy it.
People are dishonest, and they think that something so simple as download a song of mine online is harmless. Its wrong and it has to be stopped. Its not a scape goat. There are other problems elsewhere that need to be resolved, but you are kidding yourself if you think illegal file sharing isnt having a huge impact on the industry (and in turn, the quality of the music YOU'LL listen to in the future)
-Craig
<strong>I feel the point of my post was misinterpreted. I want people whom have bought my music to listen to it in any way, shape or form. I want you to be able to rip it from CD, put it on your mp3 player, make mixes on CDs with other music you've purchased, and all the great stuff you can do with digital music these days.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was not misinterpreted. It was simply read in the context of the thread subject. Good intentions and a buck get you coffee. If you want all of the above for your listeners, then you don't want what the major labels (including Sony) are trying to do. In practical terms, good intentions - and for the sake of argument I will assume that Sony's intentions are pure - are nothing. Digital media is law, as Lawrence Lessig has argued, and if the Sony format doesn't allow music to be used the way you want it to be used, then what you want doesn't matter.
If you want some way to stem piracy and protect fair use, you want to oppose this and look for something closer to your intent. That was the thrust of my response.
[quote]<strong>Im talking about the people who copy their friend's CD's, download my music on Kaza, those people. Let me make this clear. I DON'T agree with the measure Sony is taking, but something has to be done that will make my music only be able to be played by the people who buy it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you disagree with Sony's action. Then what is your argument? That thieves are bad?!
[quote]<strong>People are dishonest, and they think that something so simple as download a song of mine online is harmless. Its wrong and it has to be stopped. Its not a scape goat. There are other problems elsewhere that need to be resolved, but you are kidding yourself if you think illegal file sharing isnt having a huge impact on the industry (and in turn, the quality of the music YOU'LL listen to in the future)</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no proven impact on the industry, partly because those "other problems" introduce so much noise. Nor is it proven that consumers are so crazy about online music because they're dishonest. The industry hasn't even tried the obvious experimental control of providing an alternative that's (roughly) as flexible and easy to use as Napster was - a Google for music, if you will. There is a huge, unexplored middle ground here. The people using KaZaA can't spontaneously generate ways to remunerate the artists. That's for the labels to do. The big labels are spooked because the trend toward searchable, pervasively distributed databases of online music runs absolutely counter to the top-down, financially intensive system they've built up, but that's just too bad.
Speaking as a member of an as yet unsigned band with no interest in signing to a major label (a small label is another issue) I think things are heading in a direction that's much friendlier to the little guy. It's much easier to get exposure with a system that's at once massively decentralized and easily searched. The sharing networks have also been a valuable place for rare, imported and out of print works, which would simply be inaccessible under the old system.
Look at Wilco: They got dumped by their major label (who bought the indy they were signed to) because their album was too far "out there," so they posted it online, got a contract as a result, and released "Yankee Foxtrot Hotel" to rave reviews and good sales. This is why the majors are afraid. They should be. They don't hate online music just because of piracy, they hate it because it takes away a great deal of the control they currently have, and places it in the hands of smaller presses, artists, and consumers. Hip hop artists have used and endorsed these approaches enthusiastically precisely because it lets them effectively route around the old system. The emerging online model is not intrinsically harmful to artists. It's not intrinsically beneficial, either. It has some evolving to do, but I see plenty of promise. Frankly, the major label/big radio/MTV triumvirate has become so bloated and so far removed from the surrounding culture that I don't mind any threat that forces it to sit up and take note.
There is currently too much piracy. I agree 100% with that. But I don't agree with the premise that we are forced to accept either KaZaA or the major labels as they currently do business. Both are fundamentally broken. And what the majors want is what Sony is doing, which should be terrifying to anyone independent or (truly) alternative. Piracy might impact what music I get to listen to, but the major labels do as well, and they want much more impact than they currently have.
[ 11-23-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]
[ 11-23-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]
[ 11-23-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
A system that would let you listen to song only on a computer and iPod would be fine. Maybe Apple could become the darling of the record industry. All the CDs are create on a Mac and now they could only be listened to on a Mac. This would easily get back at people who say there isn't enough software for Mac. Because now, audio CDs would only work for Mac!
Okay, this probably won't and shouldn't happen, but it would be cool if iTunes would work with these disks
[ 11-23-2002: Message edited by: jante99 ]</p>
<strong>Betamax? Minidisc? Memory Stick? All this proprietary stuff that appeals to only a limited audience. Who's going to bother? Sony will never learn.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to chime in, it should be noted that both Betamax and VHS were formats proposed around the same time by Sony and Panasonic respectively. Betamax was a superior format, offering better quality. Sony still has a 'beta' line for professionals called Betacam. Betacam SP continues to be the workhorse of the industy, while digital Betacam and HDCam are absolutely gorgeous.
VHS was the last format war Panasonic ever won against Sony, however, DVCPro vs. DVCam is shaping up to be quite interesting....
Of course, this is much different than those, and if I do recall, this is Sony's first digital rights management format, which completely separates it and places it into its own category.
WHY are the record labels so unwilling to embrace downloadable digital music? I submit this for your consideration: what if the record labels simply STOPPED making CD's? Just make the whole album available for download in a compressed archive format (either high quality mp3 or even AIFF) for a reasonable fee...say $5. Maybe come up with a way to download the album art and lyrics in a suitable form to print out and place in a jewel case yourself (although I would only care about the music itself). How much overhead would this save the labels in terms of pressing, packaging, shipping, etc?
And as another point, the killer app for broadband sure seems to be mostly song and movie swapping via P2P. Maybe demand for a service like this would push BB providers to build out to areas not served yet. And if you could dl the album for cheap money, fewer (maybe) people would be devouring bandwidth serving up 100's of GB of pirated music.
I can only venture to guess that maintaining the server capacity for this would cost a HELL of a lot less than the current business model for music distribution. They could probably even maintain a similar (if not larger)profit margin while giving the consumer a huge break on price. Because at the end of the day, the pricing really is what drives the piracy. $19.99 for a DVD at Best Buy (with all the extra goodies) is a good price in my opinion. $18 for the new Justin Timberlake
A) not everyone has a computer
C) not everyone that has a computer AND internet have a fast connection and are willing to sit through the wait
D) you cant expect people that are computer illeterate to just be able to find what they are looking for online
E) CD's audio is still superior to that of a compressed mp3. Unless the Mp3 is at a really high bit rate in which the size of it is no longer tiny.
It would take software designed by apple for macs and windows to make it simple enough for everyone, which wouldnt happen and besides, the fact is that alot of people just cant or wont get their music online.
And not that i really believe you, VanDeWaals, when you say you go out and buy the CD later, but millions of other people arent going out and buying it after they copy it. And i cant believe people are trying to say that file sharing really isnt doing anything to the industry and that all of us are just using it as a scape goat... blah blah. Does that make any sense? No. Companies are pouring billions of dollars into stopping it. That wouldnt be happening if it wasnt really a problem.
I've talked to songwriters, record executives, and producers alike who all agree that it's killing them.
If your excuse for why record sales aren't as high as they were a few years ago is something like "all music these days suck" i must point out that there is a pretty good choice finally. If you dont like the pop music, the explosion of the "the-bands" is great, the strokes, the hives, the vines. Theyre all making GREAT music, and for all the hiphop/rap junkies, there is plenty of good stuff in that ballpark for you to go out and get. There really is a great deal of good music to be listened to, once payed for that is.
I understand the music listeners here are enjoying the present time where you can get your music for free, and not pay a dime to the people who made it, but you have to understand the people are losing jobs, less people are getting signed (which totally blows the theory of the industry getting better for the "little guy" out of the water), and less money is being used to create and promote records.
All because your excuses for stealing music. Good work.
[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: TommyBrando ]</p>
<strong>i agree there has to be something done about this whole MP3 business. It's killing the music industry and its going to effect you in a way you might now have suspected. Since the record labels are making less and less money as a result of people stealing their product (i.e. downloading mp3's, copying friend's cds, etc.) they will begin to sign less bands, put less money into the production of albums, so on and so forth. In the end, the stealing is going to effect YOU as well as the industry.
While I agree that you should be able to listen to your music however you want to once you buy it, SOMETHING has to be done about this situation. People aren't being honest and are ripping off the people who have to feed their kids off the money they make from records.
I am a songwriter/producer. I often spend days at a time on songs without sleep perfecting them, doing overdubs, mixing, etc. Producers, musicians, and engineers put ALOT of work into an album. How can you sit there and tell me it's alright to fire up a P2P app, download my songs, and not give me any money that i have worked to earn?
That is the exact same thing as walking into a clothing store, taking some pants and shirts, and walking out without giving anyone even a penny.
Whether you think the product is overpriced or not, thats a different agrument. Gucci and Armani clothing prices are rediculous, but your not walking into their stores and walking out with free merchandise.
Dont be surprised that these companies are trying to do something about it. Sony could make a better effort than something like that, but i respect that they're trying.
Albums take a lot of work, time, and effort. You are a theif if you steal someone's work. Simple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmmm.... trying hard not to flame.....
First and foremost, mp3's and filesharing are not killing the music industry. A fanatical devotion to ripping off their own artists, calling their customers thiefs, and finally overcharing for antiquated media is what is killing the music industry.
As a songwriter I'm sure you must know that in order to record your own songs the record company first wants you to sign over all rights to them. They then want to pay you a reduced royalty rate if you record them because they will deem it less likely you are going to have a "hit" since you are not using their proven songsmiths. New record contracts would literally treat you as nothing more than a paid session artist record one time at one place, even if the recordings are your own material that you have created, but had to sign over.
As for the amount of time that you spend creating your album, that is all good and well but you should let your musical philosophy be a means of calling others thieves. What I mean by this is that most music, is just that... music. If you honestly believe the typical good musician needs all this extra time and "perfecting" then you have bought the hype. Music is just a performance at a time and place. It is often the same guys strumming the same notes the same way on similar instruments.
I find this most humorous because most bands have very little time and money to record an album. The results often sell just as well or often better than the over hyped, took 2 years, 5 studios, 8 producers, etc. to create them albums.
I am a musician and I know the work that goes into performances. I also know the work that goes into taking mediocre people and making them great, declaring them "legends" and cranking the hype machine up to 20. I don't need it and don't want to pay for it. If you can't get the hook to your song down and mixed right in a reasonable amount of time and cost then oh well because there are only about a few hundred thousand other artists out there vying for my time, attention and dollars.
On top of it I am not even really paying for music that is truly presented live. Rather it is artifice and then I am expected to pay EXTRA for something that could not be recreated live. In otherwords a great musician is great quickly and inexpensively. For better or worse their are a crapload of them out there and thus you don't make much money doing it. Get over it. I can listen to several people sing performance quality at any karoke bar. I have found "great" guitarists, singers, drummers all over the place.
I don't piss and moan that most songs have 3 to 4 chords, and are 3-3/5 minutes long. However I don't treat it like some messanic art that should require huge amounts of time and money to create either.
In person I am quite humorous and I have had several dozen people encourage me to be a "stand up comedian." Well I have seen the club circuit and if $50, some crappy food and a few free beers were my asperations I would go for it. I don't put down those that do go for it, but I won't listen to their complaints about time, money, etc. either.
I'll pass...
Nick
[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
Personally, I enjoy buying CD's, a little too much, truth be told, and books, and movies (though most of the time I just rent those). For me Books and music share interesting parallels. Libraries and Xerox, and Gutenberg.org, have not stopped me from buying books, and CD-r and MP3, and Dolby-C cassette before that, did not ever stop me from buying CD's. I have been a very good customer, but I too have stolen a CD or two. About a dozen among, wait for it, almost 400 CD's (mebbe that's why I never seem to have money for a new computer?). That's a lot of discs, and a lot of second-hand discs too.
I think that people who buy music will continue to buy it and those that steal it, for the majority of them, would never buy it in the first place.
So something has to be done to limit "sharing", but I don't want it done to me, I paid a lot of money for my music collection, and will probably pay a lot of money for the additions I make to it, I want to play my discs the way I want to play them. Thanks. If I can't, I WILL start stealing music.
having you trying to explain the way record contracts and music production work, etc. is like trying to have a 5 year old kid explain what the molecular buildup of uranium is.
find a topic you know moreabout rather than flaming on one you don't know about.
[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: TommyBrando ]</p>
A more clever answer of the audio industry will be to promote DVD R audio, to increase the gap of qualitie between a MP3 file and a DVD R audio. The problem is that there is not many DVD R audio reader (i have one, but i have not any DVD R audio), and that DVD R audio are interesting only if you have a very high quality amp and HP. Otherwise you will notice a big difference with a CD.
Last thing i have buy many CD (some hundreds) but never download any MP3 file.