Dismiss Notice

Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

a spinoff of SMASH's scurvy pirate thread...(copy protection etc..)

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by jasonbraatz, Nov 13, 2002.


  1. jasonbraatz

    jasonbraatz

    Oct 18, 2000
    Oakland, CA
    fast forward 5 years in the future:

    lets say that the record labels get their way. all cd's coming from the major labels are now copy protected, and you can only play them in newer cd players (built from, lets say, today and 5 years from today). lets say they come out with new DVD/CD drives that let you play dvds and cds in your computer still but prevent copying aside from analog, or the copy protection involves scrambling the cd so that it loads like a program, with the songs encrypted inside, and when you put the CD in the drive the artwork pops up and you can hit PLAY and the cd plays, but you CAN'T rip it.



    what then?


    do you think the public will just buy it, stop copying music, and, effectively, return to the state of vinyl records.


    or will something else happen? do you think the general populus might reject this? if so, what then?


    my roommate and i were discussing this last night, and we thought that this might result in something where instead of buying a record in a store, you download the music from the bands website, bypassing the record company entirely. or maybe people will just start buying indie records instead of stuff from big labels. maybe a new label or label coalition will form of non-copy protected music.


    it's kind of like the microsoft vs. open source deal...

    and, for the record, i'm against copy protection, but i do think people shouldn't be able to get music for free.
     
  2. If CDs can't be pirated, people will just use tapes.

    No one seems to have thought of that, yeah it might be a bit more trouble, but people are STILL going to do it if they want to. I doesn't seem worth the trouble they put into it.
     
  3. lemonadeisgood

    lemonadeisgood

    Aug 22, 2001
    Canada
    I don't think they can stop it. Someone will ALWAYS find ways of ripping the music.

    Let's see, we can either go pay $20 for a shiney peice of plastic, or we can take 2 minutes to download the whole cd for free. Hmm... such a moral dillema. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Here's the thing: the current state of affairs benefits indie labels by affording them and their artists greater exposure.

    MP3-trading doesn't begin to cut into CD sales until you get to the mega-platinum level, which is where record companies start to make their profits. So, for smaller acts signed to major labels, it means less label support--which does suck.

    You'll notice that you almost never see indie labels represented in these anti-MP3 consortia and symposia.
     
  5. jasonbraatz

    jasonbraatz

    Oct 18, 2000
    Oakland, CA

    yeah. the moral dillema is that you are a thief and shouldn't be allowed to call yourself a musician.

    but then again, maybe you won't ever be on a cd that you want people to buy. but i am, and will be on a bunch more in the future, and you have just pissed me off.

    :mad:
     
  6. 72beetle

    72beetle

    Jun 10, 2001
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Ah, but is he a thief or is he a free advertiser? If he would have actually gone out and bought the CD, then yes, you are deprived of the 14 cents that the label would have eventually kicked down to you. If he never had any intention of paying for the CD in the first place, then he's just giving you exposure to the people around him, who may or may not go out and buy the CD - which is better odds than you'd get if they'd never heard your stuff in the first place.

    I fully support musicians getting paid what they are owed. That's exactly why I am opposed to the RIAA dynasty and think that artists should distribute and promote for themselves. This is not the 70's, when the majors had the only distribution avenues locked up.

    There will always be music pirates (think of all the songs that got taped off the radio when you were a kid), and there will always be paying customers. The trick is to use the pirates to attract the customers, not antagonizing the customers to hinder the pirates. One is called viral marketing, the other is called professional suicide.

    -72
     
  7. lemonadeisgood

    lemonadeisgood

    Aug 22, 2001
    Canada
    Musicians should NOT be making the kind of money they make anyways, same with proffesional sports players. They get paid unbeleivable amounts of money for playing a sport when people who go out and save lives get paid no wheres close to what jocks get paid. Maybe if people weren't so damn materialistic they would realize this.

    Go ahead, call me a communist. :rolleyes:
     
  8. Communist. You wanted me to.

    How did you go from music piracy to professional sports? Flawed. Stick to the arguement. And have you ever been a professional musician or athlete? Do you know any? What basis can you prove your arguement? Or are you just saying something...just to have something to say.

    Anyway, I think there will be something else. If you can get the 1's and 0's to make sound coming out of your speakers, then you can record it. Plain and simple. Sort of like capturing images..etc.
     
  9. lemonadeisgood

    lemonadeisgood

    Aug 22, 2001
    Canada
    I was called a theif, of course I'm going to state my point of view.

    Proffesional musicians and proffesional athletes can easily be compared. They both make tons of money for something that is NOT important. Sure I think music is important, but not THAT important.

    Of course I'm not saying that all musicians and all athletes become filthy rich, but it seems that its only the wealthy ones who bitch & moan about music piracy affecting them because it might cost them a couple BMW's.
     
  10. embellisher

    embellisher Holy Ghost filled Bass Player Staff Member Supporting Member

    Theft is wrong, no matter how much wealth the person being stolen from has accumulated.
     
  11. jasonbraatz

    jasonbraatz

    Oct 18, 2000
    Oakland, CA

    more exposure is definitely good, but there still hasn't been a band that's really 'made it' through mp3 support alone. tours cost money, and to do music full time you really need to tour (or sell tons of cd's, but lots of times the people who download mp3's don't buy cd's), and MAKE MONEY touring. (enough to want to keep doing it instead of goign back to your day job)


    unfortunately, money makes or breaks bands, regardless of how many fans they have. if the fans don't come to shows and buy cd's, they're done.


    so, would copy protection possibly level the playing field? if they made it so that you went online to download music instead of buying it at a store - wouldn't that make indie labels and individual bands just as big as sony/columbia/rca/etc?
     
  12. jasonbraatz

    jasonbraatz

    Oct 18, 2000
    Oakland, CA

    so now what, you're freakin ROBIN HOOD or something?! stealing is stealing, PERIOD.


    edit: this isn't what i wanted this thread to be about. hypothetically imagine that you can't duplicate a cd by any other mean than the old fashioned cd to tape or hooking up the headphone out of your discman to the line in of your computer.
     
  13. BFunk

    BFunk Supporting Member

    But when the distribution channels are controlled by a small number of large corporations, and they abuse the hell out of thier power, isn't that a form of stealing from the consumer? (I don't care if it is legal, there are lots of immoral laws.)

    I say that you not only have a right to steal from these pr*cks, you have a moral obligation too. If you are concerned about the artists welfare, go to thier concerts and buy a t-shirt.
     
  14. jasonbraatz

    jasonbraatz

    Oct 18, 2000
    Oakland, CA

    you're serious?
     
  15. 72beetle

    72beetle

    Jun 10, 2001
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Have you seen what the VAST majority of professional musicians actually make? You're blanketing an entire profession with numbers that maybe only apply to 2 percent of the artists.

    The big bags of money you hear about musicians getting are ADVANCES - once the costs of everything involved with producing, promoting, and touring get paid back, the artists usually end up making less than a Burger King manager. The very elite few that are stupid-rich got that way by having longevity.

    What do the vast majority artists make the most money on? Concert merchandise. THAT'S why you should go to concerts, and buy CD's and T-shirts and bumper stickers and stuff at the venue.

    You need to get informed before you get vocal. You're not presenting a good case for your argument.

    -72
     
  16. A lot of artists on majors don't even own the rights to their songs. The label does, the only thing that majors offered as opposed to indies is that majors have potentially bottomless distribution oppurtunites. Now the Internet offers even greater distribution for a fraction of the price. Now aritists can bring the music to the people without the exhorbatant cd prices, at $8 a pop or so. Most of the money made off CDs from majors goes into the CEO's pockets, young bands think that if they sign to a major they can hit it big, which they can, majors can set them up with high-rolling bands and huge publicity, but if none of it pays off the band could end up owing huge sums of money to the label. The basic rule of economics is that those that adapt to new changes survive, instead of exploiting this situation for the better, the RIAA is whining to the Supreme Court like a kid whose broken his own toy. Fools...


    As for pro musicians vs pro athletes. Most pro musicians, either session or big pop acts, have trouble making ends meet. Those that are still around usually have had to deal with crippling financial losses caused by label machinations or crappy management. As far as I know, pro athletes generally don't have this problem. Just slap their name some cologne or a poster or something and they're set to retire.



    www.negativland.com
    Check out the articles. Educate yo 'selve
     
  17. The way I see it, the major label system is designed to cater to naive and deeply lazy young bands who, once they feel they've achieved success, can start living The Good Life (cue appropriate Joe Walsh tune here). Since Big Brother A&R Man is taking care of them, they don't have to do anything but show up at the gig, do promo events, and snort lots of blow (and labels want their acts to be addicts, because low- and mid-level addicts are always in desperate financial straits and thus are more willing to produce product). Obviously, the majors know they can rob the bands blind at this point.

    Unfortunately, we all have to sell ourselves. Period. The model of a guy like Martin Sexton, whose entire touring rig is a Suburban with a trailer yet nets easily as much as platinum-sellers due to virtually no overhead, is ultimately more sustainable.
     
  18. BFunk

    BFunk Supporting Member

    What the major labels have, more than anything else, is there marketing power. They use this power to influence other big corporations that own most of the radio stations in the US, companies like Clearchannel. These two groups make it almost impossible for Indies and thier bands get a chance to be heard. The collossal record companies decide along with these mega-radio companies what you will hear. And it is all based on what a group of 13 year olds say after they hear 10 second of a song played by some marketing exec. Add to that the fact that the industry is driven more by who-knows-who and who-owes-who than anything resembling talent. That's why I say it is our OBLIGATION to help dismantle the system.

    Like 72Beetle says, go to the concerts and buy merchandise. (Or buy the merch online.) This goes directly to the artist. This is how they get paid.

    If you want to see how the majors treat most artists, I suggest you read this article.
     
  19. moley

    moley

    Sep 5, 2002
    Hampshire, UK
    I dunno about you guys, but I really prefer to buy albums on CD than to download 'em... I just like having the whole product - with booklet etc. - it's all part of it. To me, the cover & artwork and general presentation is part of the album, I like having the whole thing, with the credits & lyrics etc, and I would choose that over downloading 'em any day. The money doesn't bother me, I'm happy to pay for an artist's work, to give something in return for what they've made.
     
  20. Same here. My downloading is preview-only. If I don't like it after 10 or so listens, I delete it. Otherwise, I'll buy it.