Music Forum / A Rant at Record Companies

A few days ago I went to buy the Funeral for a Friend and Electric Soft Parade albums. Making my way home, I noticed a copy control sticker on both of the albums (well hidden on both as well). I'd seen similar stuff on other records before and it had never stopped me copying onto computer before.... but with these records I couldn't. Which, for me, is more than slightly annoying as around a year ago I bought an mp3 player for £305. Because I don't own a cd player, this basically means I can't listen to these albums while at school. And my mp3 player is now rendered completely useless.

So that's what has brought about this rant.

Why do record companies continue to assume that internet = bad and in doing so abuse honest customers such as myself who don't copy cds. Granted, I often download songs - this is either to see whether or not I like them (if I do, I buy the records), or as rare or live recordings I can't otherwise get my hands on, or as pre-release for an album that I'm certain to buy on the day of its release. It is completely unacceptable that record companies (such as BMG) cannot operate a system whereby you buy downloading rights for particular music. Whether they like it or not, there will always be ways of getting music onto computer when it can be played on stereos (record from line in) and there will always be ways of passing it around, whether it be through p2p software, email or messengers. So, consequently, I will not be buying any albums with copy control on, but I will be downloading them and not paying for them. Unless it is a Coldplay album.

I'm done.

I haven't bought CD's for two years... MP3 player and CD burner...

What I find incredibly ironic is that they allow MP3 players to be assembled and distributed, but you cannot download the media which is played on them. Granted the manufacturers don't know if what you will do is illegal or not, what's the point?

So yeah, now downloading music is like finding a needle in a haystack, you only come across a non-looped quality song every once and a while. Sucks.

Greedy bastards.

There are some sites where you can legally download music, like Napster, now i think its 99 cents a song in the US. Also, if you download realone player, you can save any CD to it and burn the CD or download it to an MP3 player from there.

Oh and i used to download songs from KaZaa, but about a month ago, my friend was sued for about $5,000, and that was for six songs! So i decided i didn't want to get sued so now i borrow my friends CDs and download them to realone player(completely legal), and burn them from there.

^ You can't even copy them with real player anymore. That's what my rant is all about. So I can't get them onto my mp3.

I've considered getting an MP3 player but I have well over 250 CD's. so I have 2 CD players and stuff. I only have like 10 MP3's...
The MP3 player I want can hold 7,500..

You can't even copy them with real player anymore

Wow. Thats so fuckin stupid.

Oh and i used to download songs from KaZaa, but about a month ago, my friend was sued for about $5,000, and that was for six songs! So i decided i didn't want to get sued so now i borrow my friends CDs and download them to realone player(completely legal), and burn them from there.

Where does it say about this rule?

Oh and i used to download songs from KaZaa, but about a month ago, my friend was sued for about $5,000, and that was for six songs! So i decided i didn't want to get sued so now i borrow my friends CDs and download them to realone player(completely legal), and burn them from there.

Bollocks. They're only prosecuting people who have more than 1,000 songs.

RIAA sues us for Dling and SHARING them. But you'll never know the goverment can hack into your computer. (Boy is it good to have firewall). Go DL a song and transfer it from "My Shared Folder" to another folder like "My Music"

Dumb fucks

I have my own take on the record companies. It starts about 18 years ago when CD's were first pushing their way onto the consumer marketplace. Being 'old' I actually remember this time and the switch from vinyl. At the time the average album cost between $10-$12 Cdn. When CD's came out the record companies made a big deal to tell us that the cost of producing a CD was much, much greater than the cost of producing a vinyl LP, and accordingly bumped the price to around $20 an album. Now at the time the cost of producing a CD may have been higher, but given what we know today about the cost of burning CD's at home with a home computer, I doubt it. Anyhow, even if the cost was higher it certainly dropped at some point in time, however the consumer conscious record companies did not see fit to pass the savings in cost on to the buyer. I say fuck them and they deserve what they're getting. My only conundrum on this battlefront is the artist who gets lost in the mix. The fact of the matter is that you're average starting recording contract really screws the artists as well. The only artists who make real money on their recordings are the mega acts who have been successful enough to renogotiate contracts. The average starting out band makes most of their dough off touring. If the record companies want to get the consumer back, they'd better start being consumer friendly and stop waging war against us. I'm sure these uncopyable CD's are not so well protected if you know what you are doing. Check around and I'm sure you can find a way around it.

BTW, I live in Canada and according to our copywrite law it is actually legal here to borrow a CD and make a copy of it for your own personal use. It was a rather recent amendment as well. So I don't break any laws by copying music, however it is still a moral issue.

i agree with that, toon. They seriously are a diseased industry. Which is why I make it a point to go to shows, and not buy CD's, ever. I did DL many many songs, But I pay my part to artists whenever I can, and buying a CD just isn't helping them all that much...

Free enterprise means that industries control their own prices. It also means that there are many choices for the consumer who will look for the best deal they can find. CD's can cost as much as $20 if you buy them new from music stores like Tower Records. You can get them for less than $10 though if you're willing to look around for the best deals and buy used. You can buy CDs for less than $5 sometimes on e-bay. Once you've bought a $10 CD or a $5 CD, it seems ridiculous to pay $20 for another one of similar value. So less and less people buy CDs new for higher prices when they can get them through other means for less. In one sense, file sharing is just the cheapest way to get music now. Why even pay $10 for what you can get for free? As long as file sharing is available, the consumer should take advantage of it. This is free market capitalism. The record companies are against file-sharing because if they don't stop it, their sales will eventually reach zero. They have to protect their future as an industry. That's the business side of it and in that sense the record companies have every right to try to stop file sharing however possible. Whether in court, or on the CDs themselves.

For the consumer, not only does file sharing make economic sense, but it provides the kind of freedom in musical choice that wasn't available before. I used to find new bands on the radio. Well now that I can search for bands online and hear their songs on demand, I can't go back to listening to the radio. The try before you buy philosophy is what kept me downloading songs because I could tell whether the CD was worth the money to me or not. Now that we have that kind of freedom, it will never go back to the way it was before no matter how much the record companies want it to. The record companies need consumers and the consumers still want music. Neither one can have there way if both are going to coexist so there has to be some kind of compromise. If file sharing is illegal than let's say it is and close down the networks. If it's legal than there has to be a way to protect the music industry and ensure that new music can still be recorded and distributed. But this sortof half-legal 'do so at your own risk' nonsense is not helping anybody. Somebody needs to make a decision on the legality of file sharing and the record companies need to admit that taking 1 or 2 dollars off the price of CDs does not represent an acceptable compromise.

As for copy protection, the question is whether you are buying the music or the CD. The record companies believe your money buys you the CD and nothing else. The reason you have an MP3 player is because of the half-legality of file sharing, copying, downloading, etc. It has never been made explicitly illegal so companies naturally produced products that capitalize on the current situation. All the more reason why the issue should stop residing in limbo.

Copy protecting CDs is truly a stupid, stupid thing to do - and it is utterly pointless.

In fact, Phillips (the company responsible for controlling the CD-standard) feels that by copy-protecting a CD, the CD no longer lives up to the CD standard and therefor cannot be marketed as a CD.

How interesting...

And of course the record industry sucks, everyone knows that.

I personally think the RIAA is kicking itself for essentially screwing over a lucrative Internet sharing industry. Universal owns MP3.com, they were smart and got their hand in a market where demand will become increasingly stronger, thus giving them another outlet to make MORE money. If they can't have a stake in it, then they're going to outlaw it altogether. Screwing them and the artists over even more.

They could have teamed up with the labels and created a joint-venture into Internet-sharing, getting MORE money than they already make. But, of course, they failed to realize how much they could have made off of Kazaa, Napster, etc. Instead of bitching and turning AGAINST the people who supply them with money, they could have turned it around in their favor.

Those fucking RIAA morons.

Dennis Miller: I don't want to go on a rant, here, but America's foreign policy makes about as much sense as Beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam. I mean when a neo-conservative defenestrates it's like Raskolnikov filibuster deoxymonohydroxinate...

[Peter is watching this on TV]

Peter Griffin: What the hell does rant mean?

Here are some nice articles about file sharing and the recording industry. They certainly present a radical point of view but they aren't without precedent either.

Civil Disobediance
iTunes

Some of the things on www.riaa.com make me sick.

Turtleman i like pigs

I was just reading an article about this and found an interesting quote:

"The focus of the industry needs to shift from Soundscan numbers to downloads," said Draiman. "It's the way of the future. You can smell it coming. Stop fighting it, because you can't." - http://www.sfgate.co.../11/MN12066.DTL

I don't think it could have been said any better, and coming from a musician makes it one hundred times better.

The recording industry is screwed if they continue along the "we're going to intimidate you to stop downloading!"

First, computer geeks will always be smarter than anything the RIAA can produce. Sorry, but if you find a way to stop downloading, a new way will be found.

Second, if you're going to publically attack normal people in the courts, there is a public backlash. People now view the RIAA unfavorably, and that will cause the US Legislature to act a certainly different way than if the RIAA fought a PR battle.