Copy-protected CDs - philosophical discussion

My earlier posts were written to express what I believe to be the attitude of the major recording labels. The heart of my hypothetical proposal is to exchange an absolute safeguard against unauthorized copying for a dramatic lowering in consumer prices. Cornfedboy has pointed out several valid problems with my position. It may not be financially viable and it is doubtful that the recording corporations would actually lower their prices.

Another point I was trying to get across is that audiophiles represent a very small percentage of the music buying public. Rightly or not, our fascination with sound quality is not widely shared. I point to the emergence of the MP3 format as evidence of what the general public is willing to accept regarding sound quality. Tireguy points out that there are several audiophile oriented music companies, but I would speculate that the combined sales of the six labels he mentioned in a decade is less than the sales of Sony/Columbia in any given week. The audiophile market is a very minor blip on the screen. It's a niche market that can easily be taken over by the major labels. Mosiac has done a marvelous job with their comphrehensive jazz reissues. How long did it take for Sony/Columbia to recognize the market opportunity and start limiting Mosiac's access to their catalog while they simultaneously released the reissues on their own Legacy label?

I make the assumption that any copy protection encoding will be audible under some set of circumstances. Whether we like it or not, it probably will be an important element of the music distribution future.

I agree with the points that, as a major music label, it's logical that they're trying look at some way to stop the proliferation of CD copying and that, for the vast majority of their buying public, the impact on sound quality is not a major issue. Certainly the impact on sound quality induced by copy protection isn't going to be worse than all the compression and fabrication that is put on a lot of the major releases already, the same stuff that has audiophiles lamenting the recording "quality" of most releases. I think the Telarc's and MFSL's of the world know who's buttering their bread and it will be a long time before they put copy protection on their products.

I also think it's true that the major labels are reacting to this like dinosaurs - they know something needs to be done, but they want to patch the problem instead of getting caught up with the times and reinventing the product, at the risk of destroying their cash cow, the CD with a retail price of $16.99. That's what annoys me to no end - they want to debilitate their current product without offering up any incentive to the customer. I buy a lot of CDs - easily 100+ a year. I make copies of all of them to put in CD changers in my system as well as in my car. I like having the original copy (I could borrow tons of CDs from the library or from friends to reduce my cost if I wanted to and felt right about it, but I don't). I shop for good prices - 20% off at the local outlet, the CD clubs, etc. In other words, I'm a prime example of why the current model is a cash cow for the companies. Now they want to change (in all negative ways) the model for me without offering me anything positive. Even if I don't take this as an inherent accusation that I am part of the problem, this is bad business. Gee, I'm sorry that it's going to cost you to "catch up" and to transform your business model, but you know what - that's what it's going to take if you want me to continue pumping $2000 a year into your market. Every other service I purchase gives me more each year for less, so it's not going to work for the music industry to give me less for the same amount.

So far I haven't encountered a copy protected CD, so I continue with the same model I've used for several years now. If and when it becomes a regular encounter, I will change the model. I would like to change the model by industry incentive - define a service that's worth the price (and there is a huge market for people willing to pay for a service) and meets my needs. If that isn't what's offered, then at a minimum I'll take a break from buying new CDs until some other model is defined.

Maybe the new model will be the new hi-rez formats, brought down to current CD prices - a hi-rez format with copy protection at the same price might be an example of give-and-take. -Kirk

ahem.... stepping back up on her soapbox...
well, we are CONSUMERS here and don't really care about the record labels continuing efforts to make money off everyone else's back!
If we roll over and just accept it, then shame on us.
and Tim, I appreciate yer passion!
aj

With all due respect, the idea that once we buy a cd we own it and can do with it whatever we please is absurd. We are talking about copyrighted material and I find it interesting that in this entire discussion only one fleeting mention has been made of the rights of the artist. Every illegal copy that is made of a recording does in fact cheat the artist of income that he is entitled to by contract with the record company. Even in cases where not every copy sold means a piece for the artist, a recording's profitability definitely means better chances of another recording contract for that artist.

The unfortunately prevalent corporate greed should not be confused with the rights of artists; and while it is difficult to feel a whole lot of sympathy for pop artists who earn millions for putting out dreck, there are many especially in the jazz and classical fields, who are far from being properly compensated for work that is inspired and brilliant. There is a long history of abuse of artists and musicians by the industry and these artist's rights should be protected.

I believe that we are probably entitled to make copies of recordings for personal use; unfortunately there is a lot of copying going on that is not for personal use. As I left my relative's home a couple of days ago, he hands me a stack of copies of cd's that he made for me "for the road". A nice gesture to be sure, but I had to ask myself: "why on earth should these artists, and yes, even the record companies, not be compensated for their work?". I think they should.

As far as encrypting or watermarking is concerned, I don't know what the answer is. What a shame that we may have to deal with something that degrades the sonics of a musical project; as an audiophile I find that unacceptable. I suspect that a solution will be found; I can't believe that with the fact that more and more consumers are using their computer to play music, that the record companies will shoot themselves in the foot like that. I have not heard any watermarked CD's that I am aware of, so I will reserve judgement.

The last thing that I am interested in is helping corporations profit at the unfair expense of the consumer; but I am very interested in doing what I can to make sure that an artist receives the compensation that he/she is entitled to.

Happy New Year.

Frogman, you bring up some interesting points, but at the same time not many people are burning CD's for resale. I don't agree with copying CD's period, but many here enjoy a "spare" copy for the vehicle which is wrong and they should not do it, but I don't think you are going to change them. Hackers hack everything, if encryption is going to be what happens those who break laws will continue to break laws and in the end the only people who will suffer and pay for it are honest consumers like most all of us here, sad eh?