|
|
| Gazza |
Music companies test ways to combat copying of CDs
Seeking methods that block illegal file sharing without upsetting customers
By GUY DIXON
Thursday, January 30, 2003 � Print Edition, Page B14
Out of Our Heads and the rest of the Rolling Stones' catalogue of 1960s albums hit stores late last year, remastered, repackaged and ready for fans to shell out yet again for their favourite discs.
The main draw was their improved sound. Mick Jagger's voice refound the edge it seemed to have only on vinyl. Brian Jones's backing sitar had a new ring. Even Keith Richards' vocals resonated.
But a small technological advance remained hidden beneath the backbeats, a digital code of copyright protection, which the music industry may use as one of its new Trojan horses in the war against illegal copying and file sharing.
The Stones CDs can be played on any ordinary CD player. But they also have an overlapping Super Audio CD layer, developed by Sony and Philips, which only audiophile-targeted SACD players can read. This layer also has elaborate copyright protection features built into the technology, preventing mass copying.
"The SACD technology cannot be ripped, cannot be file shared on the Internet," said David Kawakami, who heads the Sony's SACD program in the United States. "The way the music is digitally encoded on that disc is a different system than is used on a CD. It is encrypted, and therefore it can not be read by a PC drive. It can only be read by licensed compliant SACD players."
Yet on so-called hybrid discs, such as the Stones reissues that are both SACDs and CDs, the CD layer within the disc acts like any ordinary CD. That layer can still be copied on a computer and transmitted over the Internet.
As the media and electronics industries see it, this is one of the "self-help" measures, as one recording industry insider described it, to combat piracy, but that could also change dramatically the way in which consumers are able to access the very music they buy.
The strategy among record companies, software and electronics companies, along with the ever self-protective film industry, has been to continually drop dollups of anticopying technology into electronics devices and CDs themselves in order to see which stick in the marketplace -- or which ones end up annoying consumers least.
Some emerging technologies such as SACD and DVD-Audio have protective features built-in, like those already widely used in video DVDs and DVD players. Then there is also the copyright technology being incorporated into ordinary CDs -- known as the standard, "red book" CD format -- which is mainly based on how a PC's CD drive reads a music disc.
Microsoft Corp., for instance, recently announced a new technology that can be used by record companies and encoded onto the discs allowing record labels to limit the amount of personal copying a record buyer can do.
Universal and EMI said at a splashy announcement in Cannes, France, nearly two weeks ago that they are adopting the technology. The U.S. pressing of Sinead O'Connor's disc Sean-Nos Nua has an earlier version of the Microsoft system.
But to placate consumers angry at any limitations on the use of the music they bought, the Microsoft technology allows record companies to put additional features, such as artist interviews, bonus tracks or enhanced playback function on to the so-called "second session" of the music, which computer CD drives read.
In other words, if customers can get a bonus video or 5.1-channel surround-sound capabilities from a disc, will they care if they can't make multiple copies of a disc on their PC? That's the muddy waters of consumer sentiment that record companies are venturing further and further into.
Despite the talk, for instance, by EMI Recorded Music executive Jay Samit that "music fans want to enjoy their music anywhere, anytime," consumers will be faced with various limitations on the music they buy.
The technology "is evolving weekly. You have to understand that we've had to reinvent the business," said Brian Robertson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association. He noted that Canadian record companies have lost $250-million in lost CD sales because of piracy over the past four years.
The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents major record labels, has said that it doesn't support lobbying efforts in Washington to enact new laws that would ensure that electronics and software makers include copyright protection-reading devices in their CD disc drives.
Instead, the RIAA, which largely sets the agenda for the Canadian music industry given its sheer influence over the huge American market, says that it is looking for consumers to decide which kind of copyright protection measures catch on with record buyers, while the industry continues, at the same time, to push consumers to those measures.
In this sense, the Stones reissues were a coup, not only for introducing the high-end SACD technology to a larger market, but in injecting as least the seed of copyright protection within a larger CD-buying market.
The trend will only continue. Other hybrid SACD-CD remasters are due in the coming months, such as 15 albums of Bob Dylan's back catalogue and a hybrid reissue of Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon.
"It's certainly of great interest to record companies," Mr. Kawakami said. "One of the goals of the record industry was to design a format that would be robust enough to stand up in a very different world than the world that the CD came into."
In addition to copy protection, a visible "watermark" can also be printed on SACDs as an antipiracy measure so that buyers can see that the discs are factory-fresh. Currently the hybrid SACDs don't include this marking.
with thanks to expectingrain.com |
|
|
| scope |
This whole subject pisses me off. It wasn't a problem when I copied my albums to cassette or CD's to cassette before CD players were common place in cars. Because of the ability to distribute quickly and freely over the net, they are up in arms. How about the fact that CD prices remain incredibly high and have not really come down that much from when they first appeared and those 'development costs' had to be recovered. Discs that aren't on sale go for 18-20 bucks. That's crazy. They are greedy bastards.
I'd like to know how they come up with their figure for lost revenue. Just because a CD was copied or available on the net, are they assuming that the same person would have bought the disc? Not necessarily true for me. Do they even consider that perhaps someone will become turned on to a new artist and hence begin to purchase future CD's, as well as pay for high price tickets to attend concerts? Probably not.
I know, why not get the maunfacturers to stop making hardware and software to make and copy discs. Oh wait, they are some of the same folks (i.e. Sony) and they want to have it both ways and make more money.
Ok, my rant is over. Time to go home, crank up some Stones, and chill. |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
Nah Scope...keep talking...I like it |
|
|
| Stones Fan, Gar |
So tired of music companies carrying on so about copying music. Cassette taping would be the downfall of recorded music, was it? CD burners would ruin the music industry, has it? Nothing in the world is better than holding that new Cd in your hand, sealed with all it's goodness just for me! But, sometimes people will download music, HORRORS! Usually a song they heard on the radio from a group whose CD they will most likely buy. Or it something out of print or rare or a boot. Something to share. Ok, make all things secure from copying, all things. No more Zerox, no more Polaroid, no cloning, and no video tapes, VCRs,CD burners or cassette recorders. Wouldn't that make for a pleasant world? Give the artists the money, buy Cds that you like. Download what you need. Thanks. Just one opinion. |
|
|
| stewed & Keefed |
AND A VERY GOOD OPINION IT IS. |
|
|
| mikecooper |
you are right but you aren't.
because you might have burned a cd you then might have became a fan, and bought tickets to a concert but the thing is labels dont make money off tickets only product sold and trust me as someone who has worked with labels for over a decade they are always looking for ways to make money.
i saw the articles about record labels losing money over cd burning. how?? i wouldnt have all the stones bootlegs i have if i had to buy them. would i have dropped 30 for a single and 50ish for a double? no way and the same goes for legit cd's.
bottom line for years the lables made tons of cash because you and i and everyone else went out and re-bought our lp's and tapes and got them on cd and now the labels dont have that fat cash.
remember cd prices were to go down??
i bought my first cd - jimi hendrix are you... in 1983-84 it was a import because at that time only special stores had cds and say 50 tops. it cost 35.00!!
over time cd's were to drop to the price of lp's around 10.00 but never did unless they sold 5 million copies or more or were a cut out.
then labels said that cd prices were on target because of inflation.
no it is all about greed!!
thats why the dat died! (could make a copy as equall of original) Mini-disc (same reason).
In the broadcasting industry we use mini disc's everyday, and more than likley account for 60% of mini disc sales.
I was talking to a friend the other day and said in my life time i think we will see a couple things happen.
1. record stores and record labels die
2. the same thing with the us post office.
record labels just want to find out the next thing for you to spend your money on and re buy your collection on.
for record labels its all about greed!!
|
|
|
| Stones Fan, Gar |
I can not agree more with you Mike. Greed is the key word. I don't have but one bootleg because of the cost. The one I do have I downloaded. Artists need to take charge, make their own music they should sell it to. Maybe this is way to impossible at this point in time. I'd buy a downloadable album, if it were something I liked, from a artist if they could bypass record companies. Like I said, buy what you like, download what you need. Now, I am copying my old stuff to CDs. What will be next? As far as record lables and the post office going the way of horse and buggy, how much is a postage stamp these days? I haven't bought one in a while. |
|
|
| mikecooper |
It was nice to see that the black crows did the album live at the greek with jimmy page (i have not heard this, but not the point) and the cd you could only get via the web.....till it sold so well that their label put it out in stores.
so what is the answer???
i think no one knows.
people just need to wake up as times change, times change.
consumers are sick of buying crap albums for 2-3 songs they like.
|
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
scope wrote:
This whole subject pisses me off. It wasn't a problem when I copied my albums to cassette or CD's to cassette before CD players were common place in cars. Because of the ability to distribute quickly and freely over the net, they are up in arms. How about the fact that CD prices remain incredibly high and have not really come down that much from when they first appeared and those 'development costs' had to be recovered. Discs that aren't on sale go for 18-20 bucks. That's crazy. They are greedy bastards.
I'd like to know how they come up with their figure for lost revenue. Just because a CD was copied or available on the net, are they assuming that the same person would have bought the disc? Not necessarily true for me. Do they even consider that perhaps someone will become turned on to a new artist and hence begin to purchase future CD's, as well as pay for high price tickets to attend concerts? Probably not.
I know, why not get the maunfacturers to stop making hardware and software to make and copy discs. Oh wait, they are some of the same folks (i.e. Sony) and they want to have it both ways and make more money.
Ok, my rant is over. Time to go home, crank up some Stones, and chill.
Here, here!....Bloody record companies have always treated the buyer with nothing but contempt. As far as I'm concerned, once I hand over the money for a CD, DVD, or whatever it's mine to do what I want with it. Two layered discs? Here's a question for Stones Professor, or Stonesthrow if they catch this thread. Does this mean that my CD player,(not a SACD), is unable to actually reproduce this much hyped DSD sound? And if this is the case there should be more than a web site advertised on the liner notes to inform the buyer. Only, I really felt that I was hearing a discernable difference.
[Edited by gypsymofo60] |
|
|
| Stonesprofessor |
The NON-SACD layer on the hybrid discs burns like a 'normal' CD [and still retains the 'heightened' quality of that layer, since THAT was acheived at the intial mastering level of the process] ..apparently the SACD level will NOT...Does anyone know ANYone with a SACD player/system??? |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
Thanks for the prompt reply. So what you're saying is; The SACD layer,(for want of a better term),wont burn without the correct equip. But am I imagining an improved sound on my ordinary CD player. Or do I need an SACD player to realise any true benefit. OH! I found UK Aftermath DSD, Yiiiiippppppeeeeeeeeee! Didn't have no money or card on me though such is life booooooooooooooooooooooo! Someone on here has an SACD, but I can't remember who, it might be Stonesthrow, I thought it was you. Cheers! |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
GMF-- I believe you are correct that the SACD layer won't be heard without an SACD player and compatible receiver. Furthermore, even if you had both, recording from an SACD to a regular cd burner will not allow you to hear the superior SACD layer on the recorded cd. It would be similar to recording a stereo record onto a mono tape recorder. For the time being anyway, you aren't going to hear SACD except on the original factory disc and then only with an SACD player and compatible receiver. BTW, I, too, would love to hear from anybody with the player and receiver to give us an idea just how much better the SACD layer actually sounds. Technophiles, please share your experience.
If the greed factor of the record companies is removed from the cd production process, cds would probably be priced at less than $10.00 and perhaps closer to $5.00 because I understand that the cost of mass producing the cds is less than $1.00 per unit. Even with royalties, distribution, advertising, and marketing costs factored in, the cost is nowhere near $15.00 to $20.00 per. If they kept the prices down to $5-7.00, I think they be surprised at just how many more units could be sold and how much less incentive there would be for people to resort to resort to piracy. Of course having maybe one or two good songs on a $20.00 cd may also have something to do with it as well.
Remember the settlement of the class action collusion law suit against the record companies? They have been begging people to give up all sorts of personal information in exchange for possibly getting back an absolute maximum of $20.00. If there are more than a certain number of claimants, the amount would be so low that nobody would get any at all. The settlement money would go to some sort of charity. Even though they got caught breaking the law, they might come away with the possibility of a tax writeoff, good p.r. for charitable contributions, loads of personal information about cd buyers for use later, and the ability to keep doing what they had been doing. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.
I'll try not to break my leg getting down from my soapbox.
|
|
|
| Cant Catch Me |
Too bad the Stones CDs are being used to test this new "anti-piracy" technology because the only way to fight that insidious shit is to boycott it.
If everybody refused to buy CDs with any sort of "copy protection" then the record companies would drop that particular version of the technology immediately. Or if people returned the CDs as defective once they realized that they'd bought CDs with limited functionality (and purposefully limited, that's the kicker, you could even say they were intentionally harmed.)
The Supreme Court (in the U.S. anyway) has upheld the consumer's right to "fair use" copying, so the only avenue the record companies have left is through technology and consumers will have to fight it if they want to preserve their rights!
|
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
Thanks Stonesthrow, it's such a shame to see how complicated all this is becoming. As far as DSD(SACD) is concerned, I feel it is only right,( morally), to inform the music buying public what they can trully expect from these discs on standard equipment. Someone on here recently was telling us about their thoughts on SACD after purchasing a player, and I think- a reciever to boot. |
|
|
| egon |
just a matter of time before you can rip a sacd.
i it can be done with dvd's, it can be done with cd's |
|
|
| SeerSuckersuit |
I have both the SACD player and receiver ..
You do need at least the player to hear the enhanced sound and this can be heard through a stereo receiver (2 channel). But to hear the surround sound (5 channel) you also need the receiver. With both, it sounds like your in the middle of a recording session with the band. But, it takes more money. They got you coming and going with these SACD's.
[Edited by SeerSuckersuit] |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]