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

[Damin J Toell]

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.

that claim just doesn't hold up to reality. i constantly see mp3s posted online for albums that are easily available for under $10 at Tower.

DJ

 

[Will_B]

I don't know how their audio department is doing, but here's how they are hurting in their video dept, from Videotropic.com:

12/19/2001

Universal breaks a record: With a combination of a strong slate of titles and the recent upswing in home video sales (see our news item yesterday), Universal has become the first studio to break a billion dollars in North American sales during a single quarter. The accomplishment was largely on the strength of sales of five titles: The Grinch, The Mummy Returns, Jurassic Park III, Shrek, and The Land Before Time: The Big Freeze. There were 60 million total units sold, a third of them in the DVD format

 

[Ted Todorov]

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...

I defy you to produce where I said it was OK to steal music. I am not defending piracy in any way shape or form. When I complained about the high price of a Jaco Pastorius CD, I didn't say "I'll burn a copy the next time", I said I'll shop elsewhere, for other music the next time. Big difference.

And while it is certainly unfair to ask you to base your business model on the fact of piracy, it is one of many factors you have to take into account. What is more important though is that the optimal price for maximizing profit may not be higher one, which is what I was trying to convey with my CD to DVD comparison.

As opposed to Ryan I do think that musicians should be able to profit from their recordings, not just their performances. But I agree absolutely that we will get better music when bands record it on their own computers and the record company is left out of the equation (and $5000 is way too much -- I think that with $2000+ you can buy a good Mac and ProTools -- the stuff that costs money is studio space, microphones, instruments, engineering/production expertise). For all but the most established veteran acts, Napster & its successors do nothing bad (and possibly quite a bit of good in terms of promotion) as compared to the rape these artists undergo at the hands of the record companies. Every single one of my professional musician friends feels this way.

Ted

 

[Ted Todorov]

that claim just doesn't hold up to reality. i constantly see mp3s posted online for albums that are easily available for under $10 at Tower.

But their mere existence in no way proves that actual sales are being lost. For that to happen the Number-Of-People-Who-Downloaded-The-MP3-and therefore-didn't-buy-the-CD-they-absolutely-positively-would-have-bought-otherwise has to greater than the Number-Of-People-Who-Downloaded-The-MP3-and therefore-DID-buy-CD because they liked what they heard! Yes there are plenty of people pirating even cheap music, but they wouldn't have bought it in the first place!
Ted

 

[Ryan Spaight]

I've got to side with Jeff on the pricing issue. If people think they can steal something and get away with it, no matter how cheap the legitimate product, they will. If you price CDs at $5 (a ridiculous and unprofitable number, BTW -- even indies have to charge around ten bucks to balance the books), people will still download it for free if they can, and probably make up some BS rationalization about "not supporting big corporations" to delude themselves into thinking they're doing the right thing.

(Aside #1 -- Yes, Ryan W., I said steal -- you are getting a product with a fair market value without paying. Just like stealing cable, or rigging up an illegal power tap. Neither of those are tangible items, but it's still theft. If you're saying recorded music has no fair market value, then you're wandering off into territory I'm not willing to follow.)

(Aside #2 -- If you're paying $19 for a CD, you're shopping at the wrong store. Someone mentioned the new Destiny's Child album. At Best Buy, it's $13.99. The Jaco Pastorius album is $15.99. Shop around.)

Ten thousand fans at $20 a pop (a small, cheap concert) would bring in $200k. Even if three quarters went to expenses, $50k for a 5 member band for one night of playing is huge.

Um, in my book, 10,000 people is not a small concert, it's a big arena show. I doubt many acts could play to 10,000 people based on Internet word-of-mouth alone. There aren't many acts who could sell 10,000 seats even with major-label support.

Ryan

 

[Ryan Wright]

As opposed to Ryan I do think that musicians should be able to profit from their recordings, not just their performances.

Woah - I didn't say that. I said we may be moving to a world where an artist releases (as in, by choice) everything for free and profits quite handsomely off of concerts alone. I said that this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. But nowhere did I say, nor do I believe that a musician should not be able to profit from their recordings...

I'm against the piracy just as much as the next guy. However I'm also a realist: Piracy is a fact of life. There is very little you can do about it. While it's not "theft", it's still "infringement", and it's still wrong. At the same time, however, it's not the end of the world: With all this talk about everyone trading Britney Spears albums, the little tart is still making millions. The piracy certainly isn't putting her in the poorhouse. Metallica pitched a fit, but they're still filthy rich. Again, that doesn't make the piracy right, but it does prove that P2P file sharing is not the end of the world as we know it. CDs are still flying off the shelves.

Since it's not hurting big names, what about everyone else? All of the small time musicians I know love P2P file sharing - they can get their music out to millions for nothing as opposed to playing in bars. They're already giving the music away to anyone who will hear it in an effort to get known, so the Internet and P2P sharing is great for them.

That leaves the artists in the middle. I can't speak for these people because I don't know the details behind any of them, but I'd imagine they're doing no worse than if P2P had never come along.

 

[Dave F]

If you don't like this, the worst thing to do is not buy the cd's!

Universal told retailers that it would honor refunds on all returned discs -- even for CDs that have been opened.

If you hate this, as I do, buy these cd's, open them & return them! Hit'em where it hurts - the pocketbook.
-Dave

 

[Ryan Wright]

Yes, Ryan W., I said steal -- you are getting a product with a fair market value without paying. Just like stealing cable, or rigging up an illegal power tap. Neither of those are tangible items, but it's still theft. If you're saying recorded music has no fair market value, then you're wandering off into territory I'm not willing to follow.

No, it's not theft, not by any definition of the word. Look it up yourself. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=theft
Rigging up an illegal power tap is most certainly theft because you are actually removing the power from it's source and using it up.
No, I'm not saying recorded music has no fair market value. Of course it has value. Yet, copying it is not theft. It's copyright infringement, and there's a huge difference: Theft involves the removal of something. Hiding a CD under your jacket and removing it from a record store is theft. You will be arrested and thrown in jail for theft. You can not be arrested and thrown in jail for copying a CD, unless you're making thousands of copies, in which case you're participating in the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials, which is yet another charge alltogether.
I realize this is only a nitpick over words, but it's an important distinction to make.
Some questions:
1. If I memorize a song and sing it in my head, is that theft? How about if I sing it out loud for all to hear?
2. If I'm a really good guitar player and play my own version of "Enter Sandman", is that theft? What if I record it and play it back for my friends? What if I give it away for free to a thousand people over the Internet? Metallica certainly wouldn't lose a penny. Nobody is going to download my inferior version and then decide they don't need the CD. Yet I would still be in trouble for copyright infringement.

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Ryan W.,
I still think if you can steal cable (which you most certainly can), you can steal copyrighted music. But we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Most of the time someone uses the "it's not theft" argument, it's to somehow justify IP infringement (or whatever) as being OK. "Well, it's not stealing, so it's all right." I realize you're not doing that, but many do.
The point is that Napster-type operations are illegal. They may be diffcult to prosecute as they get less centralized, but they still offer the ability to circumvent copyright on a massive scale.
Have a look at www.musiccity.com and their weaselly disclaimers about how they don't condone copyright infringement, after page after page of hype about how great it is for "sharing" music. It's like selling food but not condoning eating. Blatant, nauseating hypocrisy.
The result of this sort of activity is this new mutant, unusable CD. Honest people are punished while the pirates go on as usual. For that reason, if no other, the "music sharing is great" crowd gets no sympathy from me.
Ryan S.

 

[Cynthia]

I'm sure retail stores will be seeing a lot of returns.

I'm another who thinks Napster-like programs are a good thing for sales. I've bought more CDs in the past two years than I ever have - simply because file sharing allows me to sample so many different artists. I'm not going to buy something if I don't know what I'm getting. If I like the artist, I'm going to buy their album.

Which leads to something else that's been discussed here. CDs are hugely overpriced. I hardly ever buy any that aren't used. I can't justify spending $17.99 for something that's simply factory-sealed when I can buy something that's opened, in perfect condition for $5. CD prices just keep going up and rather than looking at their pricing, record companies turn the blame on piracy.

I have nothing to substantiate my argument other than my own experiences and from what I've heard from other music lovers. The people I know that use P2P file-sharing programs are the ones with the biggest "legal" CD collections.

 

[Damin J Toell]

But their mere existence in no way proves that actual sales are being lost. For that to happen the Number-Of-People-Who-Downloaded-The-MP3-and therefore-didn't-buy-the-CD-they-absolutely-positively-would-have-bought-otherwise has to greater than the Number-Of-People-Who-Downloaded-The-MP3-and therefore-DID-buy-CD because they liked what they heard! Yes there are plenty of people pirating even cheap music, but they wouldn't have bought it in the first place!

that's all well and good, but you're arguing against a straw man. i never claimed that the mere existance of pirating means that sales are being lost. you claimed that "no one would bother pirating" $10 CDs. this is what i responded to and disputed. i made no claims about actual loss of sales.

DJ

 

[Charles J P]

My first impression was the same as a few other posters here. If the new "CD" dont meet redbook standards, how are they going to sell them as CDs? I also agree with the last poster... there are two kinds of people out there people who will buy CDs regardless of Napsterization of music and people who will not buy CDs regardless of Napsterization of music. My parents do not buy VHS tapes, CDs, DVDs or any other form of recorded content. If they want to watch a movie, they turn on the TV, if they want to listen to music they turn on the radio. If they want to listen/watch it again, they record it. I know that MPAA/RIAA would argue that its not my parents their worried about, but teens and 20-somethings with 100 gigabytes of MP3s and DIVX movies ripped from DVD on their computer. But, the same philosophy applies. Kids are either going to steal music or buy it, but the kinds of kids who now steal music are the kind of kids who would never pay for the CD anyway.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

an artist releases (as in, by choice) everything for free and profits quite handsomely off of concerts alone.

I've heard this one before too, and it also makes no sense. To start with, not all songwriters are musicians, in fact most popular songs are written by people other than the artists. Secondly, touring is done to support album sales. Thirdly, well for this I'll use a little analogy to see if this makes any sense to you.

You get a job a Chrysler building cars, but in order to do the job, you have to pay for all the parts, and do all the work to put the car together. You then give the car away. Next, in order to make any money and recoup the investment you made in building the car, you have to live on a bus and do demos of the car night after night, but you also have to pay for all the personnel, security, and so forth needed to do your sales tour. I don't think anyone in their right mind would agree to working this way.

As for the "they're all rich anyway" argument, that is precisely the kind of logic I expect from a naive teenager. 99% of the musicians in this world are living on shoestring budgets, where every sale means dinner or no dinner. For those that are making big money, they also have a right to be pissed off, since losing millions in sales means their retirement fund is being lost - don't forget that most artists do not have careers that are decades long. They have obviously got something that is in high demand, and deserve to be able to capitalise on it - this isn't a socialist state where the artist is expected to work for the good of the common man.

For those that aren't going to buy the disc anyway, I have no problem denying them free access to the material, why should they deserve to have access to it? They can try to get it played on the radio if they are that concerned about it. If they want the convenience of having a copy for themselves they can damn well pay for it. Otherwise they can do without. No pay, no play, just like every other activity in life.

It's one thing to have an artist distribute demo material to promote sales, but in that case the artist has control over what and where the free material is made available. Posting entire albums to the net is theft, no matter how you want to justify it as infringement or fair use.

 

[Gordon Wakim]

Um, in my book, 10,000 people is not a small concert, it's a big arena show. I doubt many acts could play to 10,000 people based on Internet word-of-mouth alone. There aren't many acts who could sell 10,000 seats even with major-label support.

Ryan, I do not know what stadiums or arenas you go to, but here in Detroit, MI, 10,000 would be a small show. The Pontiac Silverdome holds 80,000, The Palace is about 30,000, Joe Louis Arena 35,000+ heck even the ballpark can hold upwards of 40,000.

 

[Dave F]

Link Removed

-Dave

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Capacity Hockey: 19,983, Basketball - 20,153; Concerts - 21,666; Ice Shows - 14,416; Circus - 19,259

The Link Removed lists capacity as "20,000+".
As far as I'm concerned, a big arena holds 20-25,000, a medium-sized arena holds 10-20,000, and a small arena holds less than 10,000.
Heck, Madison Square Garden only holds 20,000. United Center holds about 20,000. Staples Center holds 20,000.
I don't know of an arena that holds significantly more than 25,000.
The Silverdome is, of course, a stadium, which is literally a whole different ballpark.
In any event (hah - stop me before I pun again!), 10,000 is a big show. I can't fathom 10,000 people being a "small show."
Ryan

 

[John_Berger]

This is fascinating.
Everyone is freaking out about the "loss" of money to studios due to file sharing. Frankly, I don't care about the studios' loss of revenue since they've been ripping off the consumer since the late 1980s. (Their bull***t promise "to reduce popular CD prices as the cost of manufacturing drops" comes to mind.)
My concern is that I no longer have the right to the fair use of any CD that I buy that is copy protected.
One of the first things that I do when I buy a CD is I rip it to 44/160 or 44/192 MP3s and I put the CD away for protective storage. When I have enough MP3s for fill a data CD, they all get burned to the CD. I have archived most of my Christmas and classical library this way. If you get on Gnutella, you will not see my files being shared.
Now here come the big, bad record studios and the studio a$$ kissers that I've been seeing (on this thread as well) who instantly equate the desire to rip legally-owned CDs to MP3 as an automatic equivalent to file sharing. These are the same people who are defending the illegal violation of my fair use rights to use that CD for my own purposes as I see fit. My words of contempt for these individuals goes beyond what the moderators would let me say.
Copy protections of any kind - on video, CD, DVD, CD-ROM, whatever - are an insult to the end consumer because (A) all copy protections (yes, every single one) get broken shortly after they're released anyway, (B) they prevent people from exercizing their legal rights to an archival backup of the media that they legally purchased, and (C) they prevent people from exercizing their legal rights to "fair use" of the media that they legally purchased.
To all of you pro-copy-protection (aka. anti-consumer) people, keep this in mind -- I can still rip a copy-protected CD by using the analog connection of my CD-ROM drive instead of the digital connection. And if that doesn't work, I can use the line-in, manually create .WAV files, and convert them to MP3 with almost the same clarity as CDs ripped from directly from the drive. Well, that copy protection was really worth all of that effort to develop, wasn't it? I'm glad that they didn't just make CDs cheaper instead, oh boy!

 

[Jon_W]

I have to start of by saying I have little sympathy for the huge music companies leading the fight to eliminate mp3 file sharing. Are CDs too expensive? Yes. Are most things too expesive? Yes. File sharing is simply the most lucrative technology to hit the music industry since the CD. Most people in North America are consumers, thus they want to buy things, collect things, etc. File sharing has not stopped me from buying CDs. If movie sharing ever comes into existence such a technology would not stop me from buying movies. I like they whole feel of buying something genuine or offical. I consider mp3s to be great promotional tools for studios. I have discovered numerous bands that I would never have heard of if not for mp3s. Will I buy ever cd from ever band I hear? I don't think so. But I can tell you that mp3s have caused me to buy more CDs than I ever would have before.

Large corporations have got marketing and mass consumer culture down to such a fine art I can't imagine that mp3s or pirated music or movies would ever push them out of business. W

 

[Jon_W]

I have to start off by saying I have little sympathy for the huge music companies leading the fight to eliminate mp3 file sharing. Are CDs too expensive? Yes. Are most things too expesive? Yes. File sharing is simply the most lucrative technology to hit the music industry since the CD. Most people in North America are consumers, thus they want to buy things, collect things, etc. File sharing has not stopped me from buying CDs. If movie sharing ever comes into existence such a technology would not stop me from buying movies. I like they whole feel of buying something genuine or offical. I consider mp3s to be great promotional tools for studios. I have discovered numerous bands that I would never have heard of if not for mp3s. Will I buy ever cd from ever band I hear? I don't think so. But I can tell you that mp3s have caused me to buy more CDs than I ever would have before.

Large corporations have got marketing and mass consumer culture down to such a fine art I can't imagine that mp3s or pirated music or movies would ever push them out of business. What about the large music companies pushing smaller ones out of business. I don't see peopel crying over that. I don't see people complaining about the fact that four or five music companies control an overwhelming majority of industy's market share. If artists, producers, or whoever else think that filing sharing is the biggest threat I would respectively say their mistaken. Maybe the people in the industry should start to demand a littel more of the profits.

The whole isue is very hard to deal with for both consumers and music industy. May this debate will act as a wake up call for some people. Whatever happens I think we can all agree that the studios will survive. Mp3s will not kill the music industy. Things will be shaken up and IMHO that is a good thing. Just remember the VCR did not kill the movie collecting industry. I think we can all realize that.

 

[Rob Robinson]

"Every person who is enjoying the benefits of the work should be providing compensation for that convenience"

fine. this is totally resonable.

$18.99 for a cd however, is not.

The fact that cd's cost more than tapes is fucked. I can not concieve that a tape, with all of it's moving parts, costs less to duplicate (and display in a POP environment) than a cd.

We're paying $19 a disk for HUGE executive bonuses period. The artists get fucked- except for the Fred Dursts and Brittneys of the world, (who technically aren't even artists), the engineers get fucked, everyone in the food chain get's fucked except for Vivendi Universal, which is now one of 5 to 6 major content corporations on the planet.

The fact that they are releasing "CD's" which don't adhere to industry standard STANDARDS should be proof alone that the mega-consolidation happening in the media world is criminal. Defying all logic, things are getting more expensive by orders of great magnitude, while the costs to produce are shrinking by equally large margins.

we're paying for astronomical executive bonuses (and helping fund more consolidation) with our $19 "CD" purchases...

NO MORE.

I don't care if you call me a "theif", call me an artist rapist, or delete my HTF account- there is 100% NO WAY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH that in the off chance I actually find a piece of corporate rubbish catchy that I am putitng $19 in the corporate coffers.

I'll buy it used, I'll use morpehus, I'll dupe it from the office, or, better yet, perhaps I'll go back to my teenage punk rock elitism and stop purchasing any CDs with a corporate barcode on them.

and you people that have the nerve to even pretend that any real chunk of that $18.99 ends up in the hands of the people that actually made the music you're listening too- i'd appreciate if you pass whatever you're smoking this way.