Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
But it means they signed with SOMEBODY who wasn't their friend, and it
also means they didn't bother to buy their copyrights back when they became rich enough to do so. Ian Anderson is a VERY succesful SUPER rich business man in the UK. He knows what he's doing. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
In rec.audio.pro, Pooh Bear
wrote: WideGlide wrote: I just bought a new cd, 2004 release. From your description - if it contains said 'copy control technolgy' - it therefore doesn't conform to the 'red book' standard for audio CDs and the maker can be prosecuted for mis-selling if they suggest it is an 'audio CD'. They may have chosen to use a sticker to advise this. If not - they are trading illegally. Does Philips have any claim on the actual redbook format, as far as patent protection or such? Would such protection have run out by now? I wonder if Philips would have any legal ground for claiming that this is an "almost-redbook" format that intentionally violates the standard, but that has enough of the CD technology in it that it's covered under Philips' intellectual property, and is used outside of both the letter and the spirit of Philips' intent. I wonder if Philips' or other recording industry attorneys are reading this thread.... ----- http://mindspring.com/~benbradley |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
In article ,
Ben Bradley wrote: Does Philips have any claim on the actual redbook format, as far as patent protection or such? No, they do not. What they do have, indefinitely, is trademark protection of the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo (there are various versions referring to specific types of discs). Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc Would such protection have run out by now? Trademark protection never "runs out" unless the responsible party chooses to allow others to use it. Unfortunately, many people interpret this as a mandate for litigation, which it isn't. I wonder if Philips' or other recording industry attorneys are reading this thread.... Some sources indicate that Philips will make recorders which explicitly defeat copy protection schemes that are counter to their requirements... |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
james wrote:
In article , reddred wrote: I bet Ian Anderson is thrilled that from here on out all of his back catalog on EMI will be made to sound like ****. I don't hold the artists harmless. Fresh young neophytes, sometimes I can forgive them for the lopsided contracts they sign. Seasoned superstars, who represent the very essence of what constitutes success in the entertainment industry, ought to know better. Contracts are often signed in the former state and by the latter era the artist you seek to hold responsible for the actions of a corporation who long ago bought out the original record company's library has little to no control over product releases. -- ha |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
I've really never understood the whole copy protection thing. If you
want a given CD, you have the choice of either downloading it off Kazzaa or buying it. In the case of a copy-protected CD, if you buy it, there all all kinds of restrictions on it (won't play in certain players, may contain degraded audio, may not play on your computer or you may have to use the record company's buggy software to play it on your computer, can't make compilations from it, etc.). So, if you buy a copy-protected CD, the record company has ensured that you are saddled with a number of problems and restrictions. ON THE OTHER HAND, if you just download it, you don't have all those problems and restrictions. The only logical conclusion to draw is that the record companies are trying to encourage people to download music off Kazzaa instead of buying it. But that obviously doesn't make sense. So, I'm befuddled. Have the record companies really thought this stuff through? Personally, I had never downloaded a song off Kazzaa until they started selling copy-protected CD's. I do, however, load my own CD's into my computer and listen to them while I browse or work. I can't do that with copy-protected CD's. So, on a few occassions now, I've actually purchased CD's (often without really paying attention to whether they were copy protected), then found out they won't work on my computer, so I've gone and downloaded the whole album that I just bought. It seems very odd. I suspect a lot of people just skip the "buying the CD" part of it. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
In article ,
hank alrich wrote: Contracts are often signed in the former state and by the latter era the artist you seek to hold responsible for the actions of a corporation who long ago bought out the original record company's library has little to no control over product releases. Of course, I understand that. But it would help matters enourmously if more artists would be more outspoken about their views. For instance, an artist could come out publicly and give a dissenting opinion... Ian Anderson could be lurking here, or his producer, let's say... If I heard from the horse's mouth whether or not the artist agrees with the way his works are being distributed, it would dramatically affect my opinion on the matter. I know where Courtney Love stands on these issues, I just wish that artists I *liked* would be as open and forward like she. I know where Metallica stands (they pretty much assume that anyone listening to their music is a thief at heart.) I know a few others who were already disgusted with the idea of surrendering their rights to an A&R agent in the first place and started out on their own terms (only one really successful example, Rockin Babe records, though.) I know where I stand for my own work, but it's just too bad I don't have any real talent, since it's meaningless. But I'm sure I'd choose to do without commercial success if it meant surrendering my distribution rights to anyone, in any way shape or form. But I'm not normal. Likewise, I'd be homeless before I'd sign up with a homeowner's association. I don't think anyone should ever give up any rights whatsoever, and if they do, assuming the individual is literate and of a sound mind when they do, I feel justified in holding them responsible for the consequences of their own actions. In this case, the effect at the end of the day is that I do not purchase a copy of a certain album. Unfortunate that the album happens to be a candidate for my list of 100 essential albums, or that it's by an artist who is in my top 10 acts of all time. It's not MY fault, and it's not totally EMI's fault. The artist shares responsibility, and I'd like to read in an interview that the artist doesn't like it one bit, doesn't think you should buy that version of the record, etc. I'd like to believe that the artists considers the defective EMI version in the same context as the cassette tape version from Saudi Arabia. (I don't know if those are as common as they used to be). What I don't want to hear is that the artist is happy as a clam that there's this crappy version of the record for sale out there. If they *know* what's going on and they *approve* of it, well, there goes my business, and you won't be getting my $300.00 when you play at Caesar's Palace either, get it? I really wish I could hear from these artists that they don't like what EMI done to their song. From where I sit, it looks like just about every one of them thinks the whole game is just hunky dory. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
know where Courtney Love stands on these issues, I just wish that
artists I *liked* would be as open and forward like she. You know what she SAYS about these issues. yet she signed with a major and her income comes from SALES of her late husband's catalog. You want people to say "please take my income?" --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"james" wrote in message
news:%7L6c.19177$uh.8283@fed1read02... I don't think anyone should ever give up any rights whatsoever, and if they do, assuming the individual is literate and of a sound mind when they do, I feel justified in holding them responsible for the consequences of their own actions. In this case, the effect at the end of the day is that I do not purchase a copy of a certain album. That's kind of dumb. If everyone held that view, you never even would've heard of Jethro Tull, because they never would've been signed. It is absolutely *not* the band's fault that EMI bought their back catalog and is now releasing it in a substandard format. Not only is it in no way their fault, they couldn't do anything about it if they wanted to. ryanm |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"EggHd" wrote in message
... Do we really know that the copy protection is causing this? Yes, beyond any shadow of a doubt. CDs don't have that problem, but these are not CDs. At least not according to the (S-P) standard. CDs with copy protection are not Redbook compliant, and therefore are not guaranteed to work at all in standards compliant players. Sony is (or was, I haven't kept up with it) pursuing litigation against several labels releasing these discs with the CD logo on them, because they aren't complaint and don't work in standard players. If it doesn't play absolutely the same in any device carrying the CD logo, then it's not a CD and cannot contain the logo. Additionally, in the players where it does work, many (and I mean *many*) people have reported clicks and pops, skipping tracks, and tracks that freeze the player or just refuse to play. And it's not only old gear, as EMI is claiming, it is old gear, new gear, etc. The point, though, is if it doesn't play back in *any* player that is complaint with the standard, then it's being advertised as something it is not. That's fraud (not to mention unlicensed use of the CD mark), which is a worse crime than illegal downloading. Especially considering the scale at which it is being committed. This isn't thousands of people stealing a single copy, it's one company releasing thousands of fraudulent discs. If a company like Microsoft (who everyone loves to hate) had done something like this, you can bet that they would be in court already. ryanm |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"james" wrote in message
news:ZGF6c.18826$uh.17084@fed1read02... Uh oh. There's the rub. The candy box clearly says "warning: contains lark's vomit." Actually, the *real* rub is that many retailers refuse to give you your money back on them, because there is nothing physically wrong with the disc, and you have broken the sealed packaging. What we need now is someone willing to put as much money into an education campaign about this problem as the RIAA has put into "educating" people about the "dangers" of downloading (it is supporting terrorism, isn't it?). ryanm |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message
news:gJw6c.38655$Cb.583253@attbi_s51... I agree with every thing you said EXCEPT the Kazaa thing. That will only reinforce their claim that copy protection is needed. Don't fight your enemy by becoming like them. And I disagree with you because: if sales of copy protected cds fall dramatically below non-protected cds while the number of downloads of songs released on copy protected cds rises, they will see the reality of the situation. Not that they are losing sales to piracy (although that is likely to be the first thing they start yelling), but that they are losing sales *specifically of copy protected music* to piracy, while other, non-protected disc sales continue to thrive. Apple has already shown that people will pay for music given the opportunity, which pretty much makes the copy protected discs a waste of time and money. The people who will buy it will buy it, as long as it's readily available. Those who won't buy it never will, no matter how cheap or easy it becomes. But that's the same as it ever was, so why introduce a new thorn in everyone's side when it is obviously only hurting sales? Well, at least you can be sure that they'll blame those lost sales on downloading... ryanm |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1079738549k@trad... Copy protection of music is an attempt to prevent it from getting to Kazzaa. Except that even my 8 year old knows that won't work. "But it only takes one person to put it out there for everyone to be able to download it, right?" Took her about 40 seconds to figure out the stupidity of that move, and those guys are paid 6 figure salaries to come up with this stuff. ryanm |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
In Article , "WideGlide"
wrote: I just bought a new cd, 2004 release. I noticed on the cd cover is says at the bottom "copy controlled - this disc contains Copy Control technology - on some equipment, for example car CD players, playback problems may be encountered". Ok, so I play the cd in my home stereo cd player (fairly cheap consumer Sony) and it sounds good initially. But after a while, I feel I could hear occasional digital "clicks and pops"... randomly and not too often, but indeed heard some stuff going on here and there. But then I get to the last 4 tunes, and there is a noticeable bad noise throughout the songs... a repetitive "chop chop chop" noise... a digital type noise. I then played the cd on a different newer Sony consumer CD/DVD player, same exact thing. Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is causing trouble. What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else had any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of it.... and my initial impression is not a good one. Hmm, 1. How old is your CD player? 2. How many minutes of music is on the CD? Regards, Ty Ford For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews, click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
ryanm wrote:
"EggHd" wrote in message ... Do we really know that the copy protection is causing this? Yes, beyond any shadow of a doubt. CDs don't have that problem, but these are not CDs. My mother purchased a copy-protected Andrea Boccelli CD (don't ask WHY they'd copy-protect that), which would not play at all on her old Yamaha bitscream player. I took it, put it into the old Philips here, made a digital dub onto the HHb recorder, and I get a clean CD-R dub that plays without any problem on her machine. It is mildly ironic that legitimate users need to make copies in order to use copy-protected discs. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
In article ,
ryanm wrote: That's kind of dumb. If everyone held that view, you never even would've heard of Jethro Tull, because they never would've been signed. Okay, it's not fair for acts from the '60s and '70s because the barriers to entry for music distribution were impossibly high for anyone to do ANYTHING independently. Today, the industry players are struggling to do anything possible keep those barriers just as high, but things are a little bit different now. With a little work and skill, your *demos* today can be better than your production work would have been 20 years ago. They couldn't do anything about it if they wanted to. Horse ****. They could mention it in an interview or something. Unless I hear otherwise, I assume it's the band's idea! If the artists themselves would give a damn, the status quo could shift overnight from it's anti-consumer direction. You never hear a single word of dissent from the artists about the state of the industry. Why is that? Until I see evidence otherwise, I will continue to assume that everything is just fine with the artists, and I'll ultimately decide it's not the RIAA I'm opposed to; it's the artists themselves who are opposed to me being a consumer of their product. I won't do business with anyone who makes it clear that they consider me a criminal first, and a customer second. That includes my favorite musical acts, if it must. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
In article ,
ryanm wrote: "james" wrote in message news:ZGF6c.18826$uh.17084@fed1read02... Uh oh. There's the rub. The candy box clearly says "warning: contains lark's vomit." Actually, the *real* rub is that many retailers refuse to give you your money back on them, because there is nothing physically wrong with the disc, and you have broken the sealed packaging. Right at that moment, is where you've literally got grounds to press a federal case. (I don't truly believe it will end with a record exec in prison for ten years, but it *should*.) Someone sold you a defective product, across state lines, and when confronted with the facts they refused to remedy the situation. Setting aside for the moment that it's a consumer product, and it's not defective in way that's dangerous, it's still a serious crime. If a company institutionalizes a serious crime, and knowingly operates in this way, you've got a corrupt organization. The higest levels of authority in that enterprise who know, or who *should* know that this crime is being perpetrated, should be the ones held responsible. Add interstate commerce and mail fraud to the rap sheet in this case. What we need now is someone willing to put as much money into an education campaign about this problem as the RIAA has put into "educating" people about the "dangers" of downloading (it is supporting terrorism, isn't it?). So where are the artists? Giving their tacit support, I say. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"james" wrote in message news:sS_6c.20004$uh.17003@fed1read02... In article , ryanm wrote: That's kind of dumb. If everyone held that view, you never even would've heard of Jethro Tull, because they never would've been signed. Okay, it's not fair for acts from the '60s and '70s because the barriers to entry for music distribution were impossibly high for anyone to do ANYTHING independently. Today, the industry players are struggling to do anything possible keep those barriers just as high, but things are a little bit different now. With a little work and skill, your *demos* today can be better than your production work would have been 20 years ago. They couldn't do anything about it if they wanted to. Horse ****. They could mention it in an interview or something. "Please don't buy my new cd. I know that I'm losing all leverage for getting anything out of these guys next time around, but there's a principle involved and I don't need money anyway." Riiight. Unless I hear otherwise, I assume it's the band's idea! Wrong. Bad assumption, considering the decisions are made by the suits. If the artists themselves would give a damn, the status quo could shift overnight from it's anti-consumer direction. Wrong again. It's a little more complicated than that. Firstly, if you are a pop musician, it's like most jobs, you can be replaced. And you will be. You never hear a single word of dissent from the artists about the state of the industry. First of all, you do, but you're talking about a bunch of people who like their jobs and don't want to go back to food service or used car sales or whatever. I won't do business with anyone who makes it clear that they consider me a criminal first, and a customer second. That includes my favorite musical acts, if it must. As is your right, maybe you should wait and see if the n. america release of 'stormwatch' is copy controlled or not. jb |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
james wrote:
Uh oh. There's the rub. The candy box clearly says "warning: contains lark's vomit." So it can't actually be called a CDAD; and since it's packaged like a standard CD maybe Philips could trademark the look of the CD much like Gibson has with the Les Paul. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"james" wrote in message
news:sS_6c.20004$uh.17003@fed1read02... Okay, it's not fair for acts from the '60s and '70s because the barriers to entry for music distribution were impossibly high for anyone to do ANYTHING independently. Today, the industry players are struggling to do anything possible keep those barriers just as high, but things are a little bit different now. With a little work and skill, your *demos* today can be better than your production work would have been 20 years ago. But somehow, not even the full scale productions of today can be fairly compared to the older recordings, which were captured on "inferior" equipment using old methodologies, but still manage to rule. Horse ****. It's true. They could mention it in an interview or something. And other than appeasing you, that would have absolutely no effect. Unless I hear otherwise, I assume it's the band's idea! That's a stupid assumption, bubba. If the artists themselves would give a damn, the status quo could shift overnight from it's anti-consumer direction. Incorrect, the bands likely *do* give a damn, these stupid decisions by the label affect *their* sales, which affects whether or not their contracts get extended, how much money the label puts into their next tour, etc. The bottom line is that the label doesn't ask and doesn't offer the artist the choice, they just do it. Complaining would only make life harder for the artist and would have no affect whatsoever on the labels decision to release on a CC disc. You never hear a single word of dissent from the artists about the state of the industry. Why is that? Because they don't want to go back to waiting tables? Because being a downtrodden artist, under the foot of The Man (tm) is still better than delivering pizzas? Until I see evidence otherwise, I will continue to assume that everything is just fine with the artists, and I'll ultimately decide it's not the RIAA I'm opposed to; it's the artists themselves who are opposed to me being a consumer of their product. Then you are a part of the problem, not part of the solution. I won't do business with anyone who makes it clear that they consider me a criminal first, and a customer second. That includes my favorite musical acts, if it must. Your anger is misdirected. ryanm |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... It is mildly ironic that legitimate users need to make copies in order to use copy-protected discs. Mildly? They're *encouraging* piracy. I guess it gives them something to blame for their dropping sales numbers. ryanm |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1079787159k@trad... They'll probalby exchange it for another copy of the same disk. That also may not play, but at least you've raised your small voice, caused a little trouble, and created an un-retail-saleable copy of the product. And then you can sell your second copy on eBay. I hate that, though. If I bother to drive my ass to the store to return something, I don't want another one, I want my friggin money back, but no one will give it back anymore, will they? They all want to give you a store credit, so that they can keep the money and just let you decide what you wanted to spend it on later. If the purchase was for more than $20 I'll usually make a scene until they give me my money back. I'm not embarrassed (I'm a lead singer, I don't possess the capacity to be embarrassedg), but the store manager usually is. ryanm |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1079787311k@trad... So do the orignal poster a favor. Offer that if he sends your kid the original disk, you'll send him back a copy that he can play, and upload, and freely copy for others who are tempted to buy the official release. So far, I haven't taught her how to get around copy protection schemes, or even given her access to a CD burner. If she wants a compilation, I'll make it for her. Kids have a limited capacity for good judgment, despite their inherent desire to Do The Right Thing (tm), so I figure that whole can of worms can wait until a later date. But the OP can almost surely go to Kazaa and get the same tracks at a higher quality than his CC disc, and if not, he can absolutely go to the alt.binaries.music or alt.binaries.sounds hierarchies and, if it isn't already posted in high quality wavs, request it. He's likely to find it in the alt.binaries.sounds.wav.music.1970s group. ; ) ryanm |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
In article ,
reddred wrote: They could mention it in an interview or something. "Please don't buy my new cd. I know that I'm losing all leverage for getting anything out of these guys next time around, but there's a principle involved and I don't need money anyway." Riiight. Yep. That would win my respect, absolutely. The reissue from the chicken**** outfit that my ex-producer sold out to is crap. First of all, you do, but you're talking about a bunch of people who like their jobs and don't want to go back to food service or used car sales or whatever. I'm thinking the people who don't risk that would lead the way. I don't think Ian Anderson would have to flip burgers if he happened to mention to his producer that he'd like EMI to stop distributing defective discs with his name on them. Seems like a problem that could be fixed, should be fixed, and needs to be fixed. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
In article ,
ryanm wrote: They could mention it in an interview or something. And other than appeasing you, that would have absolutely no effect. No. I'm very definitely not alone in wanting a shift in the status quo of the entertainment industry. I'd go as far as to suggest there's a movement starting. There are a lot of people who are quite unhappy that the entertainment industry can effect fundamental changes in the most fundamental of laws. Unless I hear otherwise, I assume it's the band's idea! That's a stupid assumption, bubba. Why? I have exactly two ways I can participate in this game: 1. I can choose not to spend my money on a product. 2. I can publicly state my reason for making the choice. I'm not going to go through umpteen layers of middlemen who pass the buck. I think the artist has more control than is generally perceived. Somebody with "supergroup" status is more than just a financial stake for a label. Malkovitch says he wants to be a puppeteer, poof, he's a puppeteer, get it? If the artists themselves would give a damn, the status quo could shift overnight from it's anti-consumer direction. Incorrect, the bands likely *do* give a damn, these stupid decisions by the label affect *their* sales, which affects whether or not their contracts get extended, how much money the label puts into their next tour, etc. The bottom line is that the label doesn't ask and doesn't offer the artist the choice, they just do it. Complaining would only make life harder for the artist and would have no affect whatsoever on the labels decision to release on a CC disc. I don't actually believe they even make a nominal effort. You're assuming they have no control, that they are ignored by their producers, etc. But I don't really think anyone bothers to try. I don't really believe the conversation has ever taken place between Anderson and his agent about whether the Stormwatch re-release is defective, period. I'd like to believe this discussion on USENET reaches one of their ears, and causes one of them to make that phone call. You never hear a single word of dissent from the artists about the state of the industry. Why is that? Because they don't want to go back to waiting tables? Because being a downtrodden artist, under the foot of The Man (tm) is still better than delivering pizzas? Until I see evidence otherwise, I will continue to assume that everything is just fine with the artists, and I'll ultimately decide it's not the RIAA I'm opposed to; it's the artists themselves who are opposed to me being a consumer of their product. Then you are a part of the problem, not part of the solution. What? That's insulting. I WANT to be part of the problem. I want it to be a problem for the producer that they are selling a defective product. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
In article ,
I hate that, though. If I bother to drive my ass to the store to return something, I don't want another one, I want my friggin money back, but no one will give it back anymore, will they? Interesting. The premise was that they assume you bought a CD, copied it, and then returned it. But these are copy-proof discs, right? |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
(james) writes:
I'm thinking the people who don't risk that would lead the way. I don't think Ian Anderson would have to flip burgers if he happened to mention to his producer that he'd like EMI to stop distributing defective discs with his name on them. Seems like a problem that could be fixed, should be fixed, and needs to be fixed. George Michael is taking an interesting approach. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36178.html |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
james wrote:
With a little work and skill, your *demos* today can be better than your production work would have been 20 years ago. I suppose that's why people keep showing up here asking how to get their stuff to sound as good as stuff from that bygone era, the production capabilities of which you dismiss. Have you ever actually done a full-on production with the likes of a good analog deck and a good console? Something like a Studer and an API? An Otari and a Trident 80 Series? Spec sheets do not make, produce, or record and mix music. Lots of comtemporary production can't hold a ****pot for lots of stuff done thirty years ago. -- hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose" |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
In article writes: there really were people who would buy a record or CD, copy it, and then return it for a refund. The store near my college was so used to it, that their policy was they'd give a cheerful 80% refund (or maybe it was store credit) within 1 week of purchase. They called that "insurance" I'd call it "rental fee" for sure, but there's probably a law against that, so they call it "customer satisfaction assurance." I presume it went right back into stock after it was returned. After they "sold" the same CD five times, they were in the clear. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"james" wrote in message
news:Tl27c.20034$uh.5321@fed1read02... No. I'm very definitely not alone in wanting a shift in the status quo of the entertainment industry. I'd go as far as to suggest there's a movement starting. There are a lot of people who are quite unhappy that the entertainment industry can effect fundamental changes in the most fundamental of laws. None of which has anything to do with the real world, where the rest of us live. That's a stupid assumption, bubba. Why? Becaue it isn't based on reality? I have exactly two ways I can participate in this game: 1. I can choose not to spend my money on a product. 2. I can publicly state my reason for making the choice. What's your point? What does that have to do with assuming that releasing on CC discs is the artist's idea? I'm not going to go through umpteen layers of middlemen who pass the buck. I think the artist has more control than is generally perceived. Somebody with "supergroup" status is more than just a financial stake for a label. Malkovitch says he wants to be a puppeteer, poof, he's a puppeteer, get it? Psssst... that was a movie. I don't actually believe they even make a nominal effort. You're assuming they have no control, that they are ignored by their producers, etc. But I don't really think anyone bothers to try. I don't really believe the conversation has ever taken place between Anderson and his agent about whether the Stormwatch re-release is defective, period. I'd like to believe this discussion on USENET reaches one of their ears, and causes one of them to make that phone call. You're not listening. They're not going to bring it up because it is a known sore spot with the labels right now. The best way to get yourself fired is to take the side of "the enemy" with your boss. No, they aren't bringing it up, and they are unlikely to, because they want to keep recording music for a living. Releasing music on crappy CC discs is better than not releasing any music at all. Then you are a part of the problem, not part of the solution. What? That's insulting. I WANT to be part of the problem. I want it to be a problem for the producer that they are selling a defective product. The RIAA *is* the problem, and so are you as long as you lay the blame anywhere but squarely on them. They paid millions of dollars to fund research on the copy control technology (and are passing the cost on to the consumer, of course), and have spent more money in an effort to convince the labels that it will reduce piracy of their releases. The RIAA must be stopped. ryanm |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"james" wrote in message
news:dd27c.20033$uh.6621@fed1read02... Yep. That would win my respect, absolutely. The reissue from the chicken**** outfit that my ex-producer sold out to is crap. And it would win the artist a new job delivering pizzas. I'm thinking the people who don't risk that would lead the way. I don't think Ian Anderson would have to flip burgers if he happened to mention to his producer that he'd like EMI to stop distributing defective discs with his name on them. Seems like a problem that could be fixed, should be fixed, and needs to be fixed. Again, you're not listening. The labels haven't had any respect for the opinions of the artists in decades, why would they change now? It's not like Anderson can threaten to not release any more music, because EMI isn't who publishes him. EMI simply bought the back catalog, and is now free to distribute it however they want. I don't know what makes you think they would even take a meeting with Anderson, they don't have any kind of relationship with him, they simply bought an asset and are releasing it how they see fit. ryanm |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1079817799k@trad... Not in this case (or even with opened software) because it's quite possible that you: - listened to it and just plain didn't like it - copied it (so simple only a child can do it) and don't need it - really want it, and they want to keep your money and have you try again just in case it's really defective. Ah, but it's a "copy controlled" disc, I *couldn't* have copied it, right? g Also, "I didn't like it" is enough reason to return other types of products (other than consumables that have been partially consumed), why isn't it the same with music? Since we've turned music into a commodity, it should be treated like all other commodities. I doubt that in the case of intellectual property, they'll even give you store credit. Only an exchange for another of the same. I wouldn't mind store credit since I'd eventually use it anyway, maybe even that same day. I've bought hardware at places like Best Buy and returned it for a cash refund with no problem. I don't care what kind of product it is, if I want my money back, I should be able to get my money back. I usually can, it's just that some places make you work for it. It didn't used to be that way, but unfortunately too many bad apples have spoiled the bunch. Believe it or not, there really were people who would buy a record or CD, copy it, and then return it for a refund. That's not the reason why record stores are in business. Yeah, but that's been going on since vinyl, that's nothing new. The no cash refunds thing is new, though. That's why we have libraries, and why some music stores have listening stations - Usually they're loaded with only for the top selling items, but at least you can listen to other cuts on the CD besides the one you hear on the radio to see if it's a one-hit wonder or if there's more material on there that you might like. What if I don't want to drive all the way to the store to find out if there's anything worth hearing on the newest Backstreet album? We have the tech, why can't I preview the songs at home without breaking the law in the process? ryanm |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
james wrote:
With a little work and skill, your *demos* today can be better than your production work would have been 20 years ago. Can but oh-so-rarely are... |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Copy Control Technology"...??? bad cd audio
Of course, the point is that only one person in the world has to do
that, and then everyone else can just use their peer to peer program of choice to download it. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it works. The only way that a copy protection scheme could work to stop piracy is if either: (1) it couldn't be defeated by *anybody*; or (2) there wasn't an easy way to share the file with the world once the protection was defeated. The record companies are delusional if they think the former point is true with respect to anything they've come up with so far (or likely will come up with in the future), and the latter point obviously isn't true because that's what the whole copy protection thing is trying to put an end to. The result is that copy protection only ends up encouraging that which it seeks to eliminate (i.e. illegal downloads). Dumb, dumb, dumb. (Mike Rivers) wrote... So do the orignal poster a favor. Offer that if he sends your kid the original disk, you'll send him back a copy that he can play, and upload, and freely copy for others who are tempted to buy the official release. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
WTB Audio Control crossover modules | Car Audio | |||
New Audio Editing Software, Dexster | Pro Audio | |||
System balance for LP? | Audio Opinions | |||
What is a Distressor ? | Pro Audio |