Just Say No To Copy-Protected CDs [Archive]

Ed Hansberry

07-14-2003, 01:00 AM

<a href="http://www.fatchucks.com">http://www.fatchucks.com</a> I think I am in good company here when I say I abhor copy protected CDs. I simply won't purchase them because it means I can't listen to them on my laptop or Pocket PC. I have started looking at Fat Chuck's site before buying to make sure I don't accidentally get one. Of course, I don't have to worry about this nonsense when I buy from <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12983">CD Baby</a>, and I do try to avoid the RIAA whenever possible, but the truth of it is, even some of the <a href="http://www.lisagermano.com/">obscure</a> stuff I listen to has the RIAA's hooks in it. On that note go to the <a href="http://www.riaa.com">RIAA's site</a>. :roll: It is not under siege right now so the home page will actually load, though that could change any minute. Look at the front page. There are a few images of artists then words like piracy, illegal, how-to-report piracy and a whole section on legal cases. Yeah, they look like they care about consumers. :soapbox: But I digress. Buy what you want and don't share it illegally. It really is taking money out of the artists pocket, though if I could pay more artists directly, like I can <a href="http://www.aimeemann.com/home.html">Aimee Mann</a> I would. Bankrupting the RIAA would just be icing on the cake. Whatever you do though, don't buy anything, no matter how much you like it, if it inhibits you from listening to it when ever and wherever you want!

dean_shan

07-14-2003, 01:14 AM

Down with RIAA :!: I want to change my CDs into mp3.

marlof

07-14-2003, 01:18 AM

I very much dislike copy protected CDs as well. I'm not as much bothered with no being able to play the content on a Pocket PC (having access to a Mac is really a benefit here; I can rip all copy protected CDs, with the exception of the first song in some CDs), but very much bothered by the fact that my old CD player can't handle some of those copy protected CDs. And if a CD can't be played on a CD player, it sucks.

ctmagnus

07-14-2003, 01:55 AM

I got bit by this (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14546). However, with this particular two-CD set (Chimera by Delerium) disc two is not copy-controlled and I was able to rip all but the last two tracks on disc one.

Ainvar

07-14-2003, 02:25 AM

I use Alcohole 120% for ripping copyprotected cds. When I buy a game I like to make copies of it so I dont turn the original one into a floor mat with my abusive hand of destruction. I do this for my audio cds too for the card since I will toss them about when looking for one. This program seems to work 99.9% of the time and they keep it updated pretty good. I heard about this on the screensavers savers show one night and tried it out.

Here is the link for it
http://www.alcohol-soft.com/

Hope this helps for some of the cds you want and cant find without some little dumb riaa crap mixed in it

szamot

07-14-2003, 03:06 AM

RIAA is just just like any other mafia trying to line its pockets. IFor me it will be a cold day in hell, and I will ski it first, before I buy another CD they are pimpin'.

CameronK

07-14-2003, 03:27 AM

While it's not right for everyone, I'm using a subscription service called Rhapsody (http://www.listen.com/) (owned by Real). It seems to work really well for my purposes, and has a good selection of the music I listen to (Alternative Rock). Making a CD is easy too, I just drag and drop the music into the "Burn CD" box, and click burn. It charges me $.80 per song that I burn, which I think is very reasonable. You also can listen to an unlimited amount of music per month, which is great (some service's like AOL's only allow 20 downloads and 20 streams per month). Anyway, if you're thinking about going legit, I'd strongly suggest Rhapsody. They've got a preview version of their software which limits music to first 30 seconds, as well as limits your radio selections and streams them at 20k.

Gerard

07-14-2003, 03:31 AM

When a favourite band of mine recently went to copy protection of a particularly egregious sort, where it automatically installs a 'player' on the PC, I got a little bit upset. Then I started up Audio Grabber, used a line-out from my standalone CD player, and recorded each track very nicely thank you very much. With preset levels carefully set, AG separates the tracks accurately, and as it recorded I just typed in the track names. Protection? As long as there's a line-out on my CD player I think not.

Thing is, I just about never use my stereo, unless I'm running a line out from my iPAQ. My CD collection has a lot more dust than fingerprints. So when I pay $24 for a locally produced independent release, I expect to be able to rip it and listed from a CF card, period. Seems more and more little companies disagree. Oh well, whatever. Doesn't take having a big brain, criminal tendencies, nor even a Mac to grab MP3 tracks, just a little time, once.

Chris Spera

07-14-2003, 04:03 AM

Here, here, Ed!!

I had made this decision long before you made your post; but I agree 100%. I will never buy a CD that is copy protected. I want to be able to listen to my music where and when I want, in the format that I want it in. I want it in mp3, or WMA or what ever, and I want it on my Pocket PC, or my Rio or what ever animal I want it on.

Thanks for making this post. I agree with everything you've said.

Christopher Spera

ricksfiona

07-14-2003, 04:50 AM

fletch

07-14-2003, 05:01 AM

Actually, you're not taking money away from the artist. They get paid up front for their efforts. Unless they make a deal to get a percentage of the sales, which I believe rarely, if ever happens. They have a contract to make a certain number of albums and are paid for that.

I don't think thats quite true. Usually the record company will forward an advance of the artists cut of the sales to contribute towards recording costs or other expenses. Then the record companies retains the artist's commission on sales until the advance is repaid.
The artist's album sales cut is normally minimal. Even the big bands make most of their money from touring and merchandise.

A lot of people (and artists) think a better model for the record companies would be to take a chunk out of the merchandising/touring and give away the music.

What really erks me about the current model is that the record companies are trying to have it both ways. On one hand, as a consumer, you are buying limited consumer rights to the music (ie you cant play it to public audiences without permission etc), and on the other hand they are now saying that you are buying the media itself (hence can't copy it to your pda) - which one is it???

kiwi

07-14-2003, 05:08 AM

fletch

07-14-2003, 05:10 AM

Oh yeah, and by copy protecting CDs while NOT offerring any other formats the industry is seriously stiffling technological innovation. As well as dicating consumers lifestyles.

I use SD cards and/or WIFI/Bluetooth for my home stereo, car stereo, PDA (which is my MP3 player/walkman) and digtial camera. I don't like large (compared to SD) bits of mechanical spinning media.

jimski

07-14-2003, 05:32 AM

http://www.fatchucks.com

I have started looking at Fat Chuck's site before buying to make sure I don't accidentally get one.

Forgive my ignorance (I have only burned a dozen or so CD's to date without incident) but aren't Copy Protected CD's clearly identified on the "outside" of the package and if purchasing online, shouldn't this restriction be clearly stated? This only seems right (and legal) to me.

Consumers should have a right to know waht limitation or restrictions are placed on the product before purchasing.

Either way, maybe the answer is to purchase the Copy Protected CD's, open them and then return them. Wonder how long Best Buy will put up with this before they ban Copy Protected CD's.

jornadaholic

07-14-2003, 05:54 AM

heh..

I recently got the New Metallica :rock on dude!: CD for my birthday and used MusicMatch to copy it to my HDD to make listening easier. I found it ironic that it was not copy protected.. since the Metallica boys were behind the banning of Napster etc.

yup lars(metallicas drummer) even said that they chose not to copy protect it because they didnt want to limit the way people listen to their music... im suprised microsoft doesnt push for copanys to not protect their cds that kinda works against microsofts windows media center pcs

and o yah ST.ANGER ROCKS :rock on dude!: !!

juni

07-14-2003, 05:56 AM

Good, I was wondering if there is a website listing copy-protected cds. :)

Janak Parekh

07-14-2003, 07:14 AM

Forgive my ignorance (I have only burned a dozen or so CD's to date without incident) but aren't Copy Protected CD's clearly identified on the "outside" of the package and if purchasing online, shouldn't this restriction be clearly stated? This only seems right (and legal) to me.
I agree. Unfortunately, you can't easily tell from an online reseller... :cry:

Does anyone know a online reseller in N. America that does tell you if the CD is copy protected?

(By the way, the US has by far the least # of copy-protected CDs. The RIAA has aggressively started pushing copy-protection everywhere else, but they're holding back here so far.)

--janak

Duncan

07-14-2003, 07:52 AM

Does anyone know a online reseller in N. America that does tell you if the CD is copy protected?

Theoretically of course there is no such thing as a copy-protected CD. If it has copy protection on it than it cannot be called a CD (yonks ago a discussion on a BBC programme had a rep from Phillips explain that the CD standard was 'broken' by CP). Some brightspark reported a branch of (Virgin? HMV?) to Trading Standards for selling CP 'CDs' as the real thing... never did find out what happened next...!

Oleander

07-14-2003, 08:56 AM

I know of an initiative here i Denmark between the music industry and the public libraries, to put every piece of music (Danish) thats been published since 1970 on the web for download for a modest amount of money (1-2 $ per track).

Right now they are halfway thru the scanning phase.

Why, oh why, can't the american music industry do the same thing?

I think i know the answer, but i really don't want to go wash my mouth with soap.. :evil:

dMores

07-14-2003, 09:36 AM

$15 for an album. I don't think so.if you buy them in stores in europe, they're definately above EUR20, some even at EUR30.
i'm anxious to get my mac, i'll definately check out that i-download-mp3-for-cheap thing :)

juni

07-14-2003, 10:18 AM

'm anxious to get my mac, i'll definately check out that i-download-mp3-for-cheap thing

Not available in Europe... :(

bjornkeizers

07-14-2003, 11:36 AM

I've long since been of the opinion that the RIAA is satan's own plaything, sent here to torture us consumers. Hell will indeed freeze over before I buy a copy protected CD.. or anything else from companys that try to limit our consumer rights like copying CD's

Ed Hansberry

07-14-2003, 12:34 PM

Jason Dunn

07-14-2003, 02:38 PM

Usually the record company will forward an advance of the artists cut of the sales to contribute towards recording costs or other expenses. Then the record companies retains the artist's commission on sales until the advance is repaid. The artist's album sales cut is normally minimal. Even the big bands make most of their money from touring and merchandise.

Right - I think most royalties work the same, no matter what industry they're in. I receive an advance for writing Faster Smarter Digital Video (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735618739/jasondunn-20), but it's not like it was "free money" - I don't see any further royalties from the book until it sells enough to pay back the advance I was first given.

Jason Dunn

07-14-2003, 02:41 PM

Either way, maybe the answer is to purchase the Copy Protected CD's, open them and then return them. Wonder how long Best Buy will put up with this before they ban Copy Protected CD's.

That's exactly what I plan to do if I ever run into one in my purchasing :twisted: - so far it hasn't happened yet. :D

sprawlgeek

07-14-2003, 03:25 PM

ditto all.

for me its about time/space.

I dont have time to listen at home....I dont have the space to haul around my cd player along with cds, pdas, cell phones etc. One device serves all. I purchase my cds, but rip them to mp3s to listen during my spare time....

sprawlgeek

konfoo

07-14-2003, 05:28 PM

It costs around 50c to get an album in a jewel case with glossy insert, cd printing, and delivery onto the store shelf.

That's a $19.50 profit for a $20 CD. Who is getting ripped off here???

I have to note that the artist only gets a small part of that. The rest goes to the label. And most labels shortchange artists too. Like overbilling them for their own launch parties and events. $50 limo ride? Well, that was $95 on the bill.

The RIAA moans that they lost money to piracy but that is a bunch od FUD. The piracy numbers are much lower than they hype. Record companies still make a profit.

What the FUD is good for, is keeping the cost to the consumer up, since now we have to pay for all the new copyprotection methods (which was a 1-off cost anyways).

If no-one realized, the recording industry and RIAA pulled the exact same stunt when CDs first came out. Back then the $15-20 cost of a CD was justified with the excuse that 'this is a new technology and it will take some time for prices to come down as more production facilities roll out at reduced costs'.

Bull. Prices never came down.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of power these jokers (who can't even keep their website from being DoS'd) in the music industry hold.

paqman_lover

07-14-2003, 05:29 PM

Back before anyone had heard of napster/file shareing (fall 97) there was an article that ran in my college's newspaper that broke down in dollars and cents where the price of a CD goes to. I can't remember the specific amounts but for every $15 cd, like $1.25 went to the artist and about $0.50 went to production costs because i remember thinking "interesting-there's less than $2 of actual cost in the price of a CD" though i might have used something stronger than "interesting" at the time. :lol:

The RIAA realizes that with the advent of the internet that the primary reason for their existance is quickly ending. They no longer have a choke-hold on deciding if an act makes it or not.

I've yet to run into a copy-protected CD but then again i hardly buy any CD's since I no longer have access to file-shareing programs where i could sample the artist's work before buying it.

Dr. Grabow

07-14-2003, 07:27 PM

Since rights have value, even if it may only be nominal, it would seem that copy-protected CDs should be priced substantially lower than non-protected CDs, as obviously you are getting less value as you no longer have the right (or ability) to transform the music to an .mp3

I would accept a market where a copy-protected version of a CD sold for $6, for all those who will never play it in anything but a home stereo, and the "unlocked " version was also available, clearly marked, for $9, for the rest of us. Of couse, the figures are just an example, but what I *won't* accept is paying the same or near the same for a protected CD! And far better to just not buy them, period.

Dr. Grabow

07-14-2003, 07:33 PM

Not to belabor my previous point, but years ago I recall there was at least some PC software which was offered in a lower-cost copy protected version, and a higher cost unlocked version, back in the days of the 5.25" floppies. It was consumer pressure that led to the abandonment of copy protection by Lotus and others (remember the "unlock" floppy they started providing?), so in theory it can happen again with music CDs if there is enough pressure! That was a much smaller market in the '80s for computer software than today's general music market though ...

Thanks for listening.

bjornkeizers

07-15-2003, 09:58 AM

I would accept a market where a copy-protected version of a CD sold for $6, for all those who will never play it in anything but a home stereo, and the "unlocked " version was also available, clearly marked, for $9, for the rest of us.

Couldn't agree more. But I would like to add that some people can't play copy protected CD's on their home equipment either.. like certain radios, or car audio equipment.. copy protection is a bad thing, no matter how you look at it, and I for one would like to see them ditch it alltogether.

Janak Parekh

07-15-2003, 04:15 PM

Not to belabor my previous point, but years ago I recall there was at least some PC software which was offered in a lower-cost copy protected version, and a higher cost unlocked version, back in the days of the 5.25" floppies.
You're thinking of the original Sidekick. The non-copy-protected version cost about twice as much as the copy-protected version.

It would indeed be interesting to apply that model to CDs. The RIAA will never allow that, however.

--janak

dolphs

10-15-2003, 08:38 AM

I was just thinking the other day about these people that are being sued for downloading music. Well I've never had time to do it and I probably don't have the patience to find where to do it. I've been paying for records, CDs, concert tickets, and assorted crap since 1971 so they've all made plenty of money off me over the years. These Hollywood media pukes have always complained about "home copying" and now downloading as well as anything else they think might keep them from lining their pockets with people's money. As for this "you're robbing artists" crap, there may be a lot of people downloading but there are plenty of people still spending money on music too. Yea sales may be down but guess what, so is everything else! While they are making a little less money the rest of us are getting laid off from our jobs and making NO money. But sueing music fans? As a paying customer I find that totally unacceptable. I think it calls for an immediate response with overwhelming force. I think the real problem here is that we have a generation of kids who have simply learned to accept being robbed by these massive media companies who've become so skilled at marketing. Young consumers don't even realize the power they have. If, suddenly, a few million of the little bone heads (I will do my part too) would organize a Ban All Media Month (oh, you could call it BAMM) and refuse to buy ANYTHING (music, software, games, DVDs, sunglasses, running shoes, you name it), copy protected or not, until charges against fans were dropped as well as ANY inhibit that would prevent a purchaser from enjoying his product IN ANY WAY HE WANTED, all this crap would stop real quick. But that's just me talking. Oh, and since I am on a rant here, the only money grubbers who are higher on the slime scale than the music pukes are the bloody software and computer game pukes. How much money have you spent on that crap that never worked! A TWO MONTH ban on all of them!

hollis_f

10-15-2003, 01:21 PM

But sueing music fans? As a paying customer I find that totally unacceptable.
As a paying customer I find it quite acceptable to catch and punish criminals.

I know several people who do not buy CDs any more. All of their music is downloaded from the Net. And these aren't poor people - most of them earn more than I do. One side-effect of their thieving is that it gives the record companies a great excuse to keep CD prices artificially high (Hey, kids, it ain't our fault, it's all those pirates that are responsible). As is the case with all stealing - the honest people end up paying more to subsidise the criminals.

And it's not just in monetary terms that we pay - we have to put up with copy-protection schemes that prevent us from playing our legitimate CDs on some equipment or stop us from making fair-use duplicates.

Jacob

10-15-2003, 03:56 PM

One side-effect of their thieving is that it gives the record companies a great excuse to keep CD prices artificially high (Hey, kids, it ain't our fault, it's all those pirates that are responsible). As is the case with all stealing - the honest people end up paying more to subsidise the criminals.

And it's not just in monetary terms that we pay - we have to put up with copy-protection schemes that prevent us from playing our legitimate CDs on some equipment or stop us from making fair-use duplicates.

Part of the problem is that it that the RIAA uses it as too much of an excuse though - and just because piracy is wrong doesn't give them the right to use it as an excuse to gouge their paying customers.

I don't believe for a minute that the recording industry is losing as much money as they claim due to piracy. They use piracy as an excuse and not the fact that they have been artificially keeping the price of CDs up for how long?

Frankly, when good music is released(IMO it has only happened once or twice in the past 4 years) I'll buy it, but I think the music industry needs to start bringing out some good music first. There are those who will pirate no matter what and there are those who just won't pay for a CD not because they don't have the money, but because there isn't sufficient value there.

The RIAA should work on adding value in their service and product and then maybe I'd buy some music more than every 2 years.

JvanEkris

10-15-2003, 06:06 PM

I know several people who do not buy CDs any more. All of their music is downloaded from the Net. And these aren't poor people - most of them earn more than I do. One side-effect of their thieving is that it gives the record companies a great excuse to keep CD prices artificially high (Hey, kids, it ain't our fault, it's all those pirates that are responsible). As is the case with all stealing - the honest people end up paying more to subsidise the criminals.Stupid thing is that the use of the Kazaa/Gnutella network has dropped about 25% since the actions of the RIAA started. On the other hand, CD sales dropped another 10%. These figures tell me that there is absolutely no relation between the amount of music being downloaded and the sales of CD's. Ergo, the RIAA isn't doing much good to boost sales. Economy and high prices are a more likely cause for their drop in sales.....

And it's not just in monetary terms that we pay - we have to put up with copy-protection schemes that prevent us from playing our legitimate CDs on some equipment or stop us from making fair-use duplicates.That's why i download exactly the same music i just bought. I want to play my music on my PDA.