DVD Players will not be able to play future Universal Audio CDs! (1 Viewer)

[Ted Todorov]

I agree that applying excessive copy protection to CDs is not a good option, and as a producer, the last thing I want is to inconvenience legitimate users of my product, but there has to be some way of protecting the very substantial investment I have made, both in time and money, by curbing unauthorised use of that product

Jeff,
No one can disagree with most of that (I would substitute illegal copying for unauthorized use, a loaded phrase if ever there was one).
My suggestion is simple -- charge a fair price and you will sharply reduce piracy, including that of the professional pirates who are not going to be deterred by any "copy protection" scheme.
I haven't been buying too many CDs lately (too busy buying DVDs), so I was shocked when I went to Tower Records last week to buy a last minute birthday gift, choosing the appropriately titled Birthday Concert by Jaco Pastorius and was charged well over $20 including the tax. We are talking about a six year old album of a ~20 year old concert, by a dead artist with a relative production cost of zero -- someone (Thank God!) had plugged in a decent quality tape machine into the console and taped the concert. I bought the exact same CD from the exact same Tower Records when it came out for $12. What happened -- did Jaco's ghost suddenly renegotiate his deal with Warner? This is greed, pure and simple, and no, it isn't going to maximize their profits, because for the next time I want to give a CD as a present, I'll get a whole bunch of CDs from my favorite local band http://lessansculottes.com and know that they instead of the record conglomerate will get the (much more reasonable) cost of the CDs!
If one could go to Tower and buy full priced CDs for $10 instead of $20 we wouldn't be having this conversation because no one would bother pirating. Considering that Warner and MGM are selling DVDs of movies, which unlike the Jaco CD cost tens of millions of dollars to produce for $14 to $19 list with street prices often going bellow $10 is it any wonder that while the DVD industry sky rockets the CD industry is going down the tubes?
Ted

 

[Derek Miner]

You people have make a good point. Price something good, and it will sell.

Are they ever going to learn on CDs? DVDs can be bought for $20-$30 new, and used they still command over $10 each. A new CD costs around $12-$17, but used, an $8-$9 price tag is too much. Perhaps a small, select group of titles that are still big sellers can get that much, but most discs are sitting untouched in a bin where they won't even move for $5.

 

[Scott Strang]

Early this year I read in Medialine about some music companies secretly selling copy protected discs and I wasn't surprised.

But this decision by Universal to sell these things is a decision I think they'll live to regret.

Some of the studios are in serious need of attitude

realignments. But the problem is that retail stores may refuse to take back CD's since they're opened by the consumer.

 

[Ryan Spaight]

You know, the really ironic part of this is that I've always been the anti-piracy poster boy. I've never used Napster. I tried to discourage my friends from doing so. I pay for my shareware. I don't download warez. I'm basically an honest guy.

Now Universal rolls up its sleeves and smashes my face in with a crowbar marked "This CD won't work on any of your players because we think you're a pirate." Well, thanks very much.

Is it terribly insane to think that you should be *rewarded* for buying the retail product, not punished? After all, the pirates aren't going to buy the silly thing, anyway -- they'll just download it off MusicCity or Morpheus or whatever the flavor-of-the-week IP-theft Nirvana is. The honest people will buy the disc and get shafted when it doesn't work.

Here's the great part -- in order to get a functional copy of a new Universal album, I'll have to download it and burn a CD. If I have to do that anyway, why bother buying it? Guess it's time to strap on the eye-patch and buy a parrot.

Ryan

 

[Carlo_M]

I think it's very important to point out that it is the music studios that are making money hand over fist. Most of the musicians I know personally are second-tier moneymakers, not selling in the millions but in the thousands to hundreds of thousands. They definitely aren't swimming in money.

Didn't Courtney Love (I know, not the greatest source) have a rampage a little while back about how the studios are ripping off the artists?

 

[Jon_B]

Guess it's time to strap on the eye-patch and buy a parrot.

I'm not going to buy a new cd player just so I can play these new copy protected discs. I don't know what the solution is for the record companies. I know they have lost money because they didn't take the mp3 format seriously. But somehow it doesn't seem right for them to try to makes us pay for their mistake. They need to roll with the punches and come up with something that is worth buying.
Jon

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Didn't Courtney Love (I know, not the greatest source) have a rampage a little while back about how the studios are ripping off the artists?

No question she's got a valid argument, but that's beside the point in this case.

I would be ecstatically happy to buy CDs (or very high-quality downloads -- no crappy 128k MP3s -- with no usage restrictions*) directly from the artists, and in fact have done exactly that several times. (Pete Townshend and Marillion have some great stuff for sale on their websites.)

But I won't buy this crippleware, even directly from the artist with the artist getting 100% of the proceeds. It's a slap in the face to the customer.

Ryan

* Don't get me started on the new music download sites the majors are starting up. You can buy music on a subscription basis, but you can only listen to it on a single computer, can't copy it to a portable player or digital jukebox, and can't copy it to CD. And if you cancel your subscription, you can't listen to the music you paid for any more. Gee, sounds like a great deal, but no thanks.

 

[Scott Strang]

Good new music is getting harder to find. Music is a very subjective thing, but some of the new stuff out there is pure shit.

For example, while down in New Orleans, my wife wanted the new Destiny's Child album. At $18.99 plus tax she simply said forget it. A DVD with a 2 hour flick and extras often cost less. And to add insult to injury, many new releases are simply mastered too hot. I have some CD's where the level stays constantly at 0db. The music doesn't sound compressed. Hmm maybe that's why I hear distortion.

 

[John Beavers]

I was taking comfort in the fact that I don't have many Unverisal titles on CD, but with the above list of companies affiliated with Universal, having Verve on that list sucks, I've got a ton of Verve Jazz releases.

The other thing I found out is that they have been releasing titles without the warning about copy protection. Their marketing department apparently wanted to see how many CDs would be returned with and without the warning label. This is consumer fraud as far as I'm concerned. I go buy a Verve title and it plays fine on my car stereo; I don't get around to playing it on the home system for a couple of months and then I find out it won't play...too bad, I'm shit out of luck I guess.

 

[Jeremy Anderson]

Despite what the industry would like you to believe, it's a pain in the ass to download an entire album even with a high speed connection. Then you've got to check the tracks to make sure the quality is worth keeping. It's just easier to buy it.

I have to disagree with that. Anyone used to using the newsgroups (where MP3's have been traded LONG before point-to-point) can tell you how easy it is to tag 8 albums or more with a cable modem and go to work, knowing that it'll all be on your hard drive when you get home. I've never used Napster or Morpheus or any of that...

However, out of the MP3 albums I have, if I hear a band on an indie label that I like, I usually buy it. Recently, I bought Glen Phillips' ABULUM and several No Use For A Name albums based on MP3's I downloaded. The reason -- I refuse to contribute to the big studios anymore. I would rather support bands that need the money. And since the music I listen to is mostly punk, I think I'm safe from the copy protection...

 

[Will_B]

I know the intent is for the majors to get people to buy the same album over and over again (one for home, one for the office, one for the car), so they can have fewer and fewer acts on their roster while making as much money.

Only majors would want this copy protection.

The majors can afford the payola to get radio stations to play their "hits." Therefore they don't need people to turn their friends onto the music through the making of comp tapes (comp discs) and the like. They have the radio stations handling their promotion for them. I realize that the payola is no longer direct cash to the radio stations, but rather it is in the form of artist promotions - stations are supplied with concert tickets (which actually come out of the artists' paycheck, not out of the label at all, to keep it from looking like payola) and car giveaways and stuff like that, with the tacit understanding that they will dictate the albums they play.

So who can afford the loss of grassroots popularity that copy protection causes? Only the majors.

But every independent or smaller label that can't afford the payola to get their music on the radio wants their music to spread grassroots.

I'm not worried. I'm not a fan of Brittney.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

First, the pricing argument is a load of crap. If people can get something for free, they will, especially entertainment. I could offer my product for $5 and there would still be more people stealing it than buying, no matter how much "value" I add to the packaging. As I said earlier, this is a phenomenon that is strangely pretty limited in its practice on consumer goods. I doubt many people would try to steal a nice meal from a restaurant if they felt the price was too high, or steal a car they didn't want to pay for. In those cases if they did, there would be legal ramifications.

I agree that modifying an existing standard is kind of bunk, and would not be surprised if some major artists simply refused to release their products on CD any more. I also agree that stopping file sharing is not feasable, but if the industry were to get legal rulings that would slap a flat $25,000 fine on anyone caught doing it, after a few people were caught - especially if the ISPs were held responsible as well - there would be a disincentive to do this. It wouldn't erradicate the problem, but it would certainly help. I don't think the industry will bother though, instead, you'll get copy protected software, despite any complaining from the consumers, and the pricing will go up as a result, not down. Music is not an essential service.

Equating the cost of production between music and movies doesn't hold either, since when a consumer buys music, chances are they will be using it a lot more than a movie title, and movie revenues are also derived from theatrical presentation, not just home video sales.

If you try to rip them off, they'll turn around and do the same to you.

This is the kind of logic that escapes me. As a consumer you have two choices, buy the product or not. If you don't agree with the price, you don't buy it. That does not give you the right to take it any more than someone has the right to walk into your house and take your stereo if they don't like what it would cost to buy one. The argument that the artist loses nothing because someone wouldn't buy the product anyway is false. Every person who is enjoying the benefits of the work should be providing compensation for that convenience, either directly (by paying for the product) or indirectly (utilising a service that pays for its use). Anything other than that is simply morally and ethically wrong.

 

[Ted Todorov]

I'm not worried. I'm not a fan of Brittney.

Unfortunately Universal sells more than just bubble gum pop. They own Verve which has a huge Jazz library and Deutsche Grammophon which has the premier Classical library. This is a huge deal.

Ted

 

[Ted Todorov]

First, the pricing argument is a load of crap. If people can get something for free, they will, especially entertainment. I could offer my product for $5 and there would still be more people stealing it than buying, no matter how much "value" I add to the packaging. As I said earlier, this is a phenomenon that is strangely pretty limited in its practice on consumer goods. I doubt many people would try to steal a nice meal from a restaurant if they felt the price was too high

$5 happens to be exactly what the professional pirates, with their tables Wall Street sell pirated CDs for. They would be out of business. You can say the pricing argument is a load of crap all you want, but it is the stone cold truth.

The reason that no one offers "pirated" restaurant food for a cheaper price is because the "pirated" food would be inferior. If someone can cook as well as a high class chef and sell their oxtail ravioli with black truffles for a lot less, more power to them -- they can open their own restaurant.

People are more than willing to pay for value when it comes to music -- they will pay $15, $25, $100, $200 for concert seats depending on the band, they will want to have legitimate copies of the music they love. Witness all the arguments over keepcases and cover art on HTF -- people want to hold a good product in their hands.

Ted

 

[Tom Rhea]

Or else, unviersal should lose the right to call, label, or classify their discs as cd's.

That's an excellent point. Isn't that "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo supposed to mean that it's playable in ANY player displaying the same symbol? If Universal uses it on these things, somebody should sue them.

 

[Todd Hochard]

I can always choose the original alternative to music- Silence.
This would give me an excuse to finally learn how to play like Stevie Ray, anyway. Why listen to music, when you can MAKE it?
If copy protection infringes on my ability to use what I've purchased when, where, and how I see fit (without stealing, of course), then I'll stop buying it. I'd bet there are several million like me.
I have to agree with Ted on the pricing thing. In my consumer mind, CDs shouldn't cost more than DVDs. To me, there's less value in the content, and time-wise, there's less content. As such, I don't buy a lot of CDs anymore. If they were

 

[Lyle_JP]

Don't get me started on the new music download sites the majors are starting up. You can buy music on a subscription basis, but you can only listen to it on a single computer, can't copy it to a portable player or digital jukebox, and can't copy it to CD. And if you cancel your subscription, you can't listen to the music you paid for any more. Gee, sounds like a great deal, but no thanks.

Wow. Sounds like the audio version of DIVX. We all know how well that product went over with consumers. :rolleyes
-Lyle J.P.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The reason that no one offers "pirated" restaurant food for a cheaper price is because the "pirated" food would be inferior. If someone can cook as well as a high class chef and sell their oxtail ravioli with black truffles for a lot less, more power to them -- they can open their own restaurant.

And yet you think it's fine for people to steal the work done by talented musicians just because it is technically possible to clone their finished product? Explain to me the logic here. Both require a degree of skill beyond the ordinary. Both require years of dedication to master, yet one is acceptable to cloned and sold by pirates, while the other should be encouraged to start their own restaurant and charge what they like? Hmm...

 

[Ryan Wright]

I can buy a stolen TV for a lot less than a new one.

You cannot reasonably equate copyright infringement with theft. It is not possible to steal intellectual property. Infringe upon it, yes, but steal, no. Despite what the industry would have you believe, the definition of "theft" is posted above and it absolutely states that an item must be removed. If you make a perfect clone of an item and leave the original alone, then nothing has been stolen.

 

[WoodyH]

I don't know if this link has been posted yet (found the link on As the Apple Turns, remembered seeing this thread, but haven't read the entire thing yet), but you can e-mail feedback (polite, please) to Universal Music Group at this page.
Here's the text that I sent -

Greetings -
I would like to respectfully request that you cease any future plans to incorporate the copy protection methods used on your upcoming releases (as widely reported across the 'net). While I understand music piracy is an issue that needs to be addresed, I don't believe that a copy protection scheme that renders a CD unplayable in a wide range of devices (from computers to DVD players to some CD players) is the best option to use.
I for one will discontinue buying any future releases that use this form of copy protection (and possibly others) - and as a DJ (see Link Removed for more info) with somewhere close to 1100 CD's in my personal collection, that would both impact my music choices and, in some admittedly small way, your profit margin.
Thank you for your consideration.
Michael "Woody" Hanscom
Link Removed