30 Years Of The CD, Of Digital Piracy, And Of Music Industry Cluelessness
from the didn't-see-that-one-coming dept
A post on The Next Web reminds us that the CD is thirty years old this month. As the history there explains, work began back in the 1970s at both Philips and Sony on an optical recording medium for music, which culminated in a joint standard launched in 1982. The key attribute of the compact disc was not so much its small size -- although that was the most obvious difference from earlier vinyl -- but that fact that it stored music in a digital, rather than analog format.
At the time, that probably seemed a technical detail to most people, but it had two profound consequences. First, it began the shift from a world of analogue music recordings -- LPs and tapes -- to one that was digital. And secondly, it created the pre-condition for the rise of file sharing in the 1990s once the MP3 compression technology had been devised, and the Internet became available to general users -- especially younger ones. Services like Napster would not have been nearly so popular had there not been convenient digital files on CDs just sitting there, waiting to be ripped, uploaded and shared. And the reason it was so easy to do that was because CDs came without any copy protection mechanisms whatsoever.
So how on earth did Philips, Sony and the entire music industry make what must appear in retrospect such a huge blunder? Why did they not worry about people copying files from these new CDs? The answer is very simple: because at the time the CD was launched, there was nothing you could copy a CD to.
One year after the CD's commercial appearance, IBM launched its first version of the PC that had an internal hard disc, the IBM PC XT. Its capacity? A roomy 10 Mbytes. The CD holds around 700 Mbytes, meaning that uncompressed songs typically require around 50 Mbytes of storage each. The cost of any hard disc capable of storing even a single song was so great back in those days, that the idea of digital piracy was self-evidently absurd, since it would have been far cheaper to buy another copy of the CD than a hard disc to store it on.
But what that failed to take into account was the steady and precipitous reduction in the price per Mbyte of hard disc storage that would take place over the next few decades. Today we have reached the point where you can buy a 1 Terabyte hard disc for around $80; that means the cost to store the contents of an entire CD as MP3 files is about $0.005 -- and still dropping.
The CD therefore stands as a wonderful symbol of the music industry's inability to see the deeper, underlying trends in technology, and where they would take us. Back then, it meant that nobody was worried about the idea that people would copy digital files from CDs and share them, because they forgot that technology would make possible tomorrow the things that seemed impossible today. Now it means the copyright industries are still trying to preserve unsustainable 20th century business models instead of planning for the incredible technologies we will have in 10, 20 or even 30 years time. They only have to look at the history of the CD and digital piracy to see just how far things can go -- and how wrong our current assumptions can be.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cds, drm, innovation, music industry, predictions, technology
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Buy this crap? You gotta be kidding me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If an artist likes artistic freedom, it's best to remain independent of any label involvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I don't understand is why there are so many commercial radio stations still playing big 3 music: hits of the 70s 80s etc. It's almost like someone's paying them to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 19th, 2012 @ 7:48pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you suggesting they should have found a way to make each some 4TB big, to stop piracy? ;)
Seriously though, you can get really caught up in looking at the delivery method and totally forget about the product. People don't by shiny plastic discs to decorate their rooms, their buy them for the music on them.
It's all about the music, hard disk size isn't relevant to people's enjoyment of the music, or desire to have it. It's a red herring to even go down that road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not saying the industry has been *smart* about much, but I don't see how they could have predicted the past 30 years with any accuracy (and I wouldn't want the transition to digital changed if they could have predicted all this).
The real issue is their insistence that the digital reality somehow play by physical rules. That misses all the benefits and opportunities that make my mother say "It's the Jetsons" in disbelief about video chat, while penalizing an entire generation for being excited by--and interfacing with--21st century realities.
The history is nice--and I'm glad they didn't see it coming--I'm just not sure how they could have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Free album download at www.facebook.com/chancius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well Moore's law was already well known in 1980 and had been going strong for around 15 years.
Andrei Sakharov had already predicted the world wide web.
The internet already existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yep. That Al Gore was way ahead of his time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only true Americans run your casinos!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
they should have seen this coming a mile away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh ???
The article explains that the reason there was no copy protection on CDs, is because there was not enough storage space in the consumer world to make copying feasible. Hard disk space is not relevant to people enjoying music, but it was relevant when deciding whether or not to release a product that could be easily copied. If the cost of the copy is several times that of just buying a new original, then there is no need to worry about copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh ???
The real issue in the end is that computers ended up with CD drives (best way to distribute software), and it wasn't long before people were trying to figure out ways to copy the music and move it to their hard drives. The rest is history - but still not the point.
All of that concentrates on the delivery system, and forgets that people don't want to copy a random bunch of 1s and 0s for fun. They want the music, the music is key. 78 record, album, 45 single, 8 track, cassette, CD, digital, or brain wave injection, the song remains the same. Focusing exclusively on the distribution side of the deal is probably the best way possible to entirely miss the point of music.
I can't imagine why Techdirt spends tons of time on the distribution, and none of the time on the music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
Several reasons. The first is the one that's most obvious - while there's plenty of great music out there, it's the marketing and distribution methods that need work. The problem is how to get music into the hands of potential fans in the way they want it, not the music itself.
On top of that, this isn't a music blog. This is a blog for comment on stories about legal, technical and business issues, which sometimes happens to include those of the music industry. The genre, production style or quality of music being discussed is irrelevant to the scope here. There's plenty of other blogs that focus solely on the music if that's what you want.
The third is that the distribution IS the story nowadays. From legal online alternatives to SOPA to torrents to CD sales statistics, every problem story has to do with the distribution of the music. You don't read too many stories about problems with the creation and recording of music, because that's not the side of the process that's having so many problems recently.
Oh, and if you think that CD drives on computers was the big problem, you're the one chasing a red herring...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
"Oh, and if you think that CD drives on computers was the big problem, you're the one chasing a red herring..."
No, I didn't say it was "THE" problem, it just happened to be the way that CD drives actually really got wide purchase in the marketplace. At the time (back before you were born, I am sure), people were way more likely to have a CD drive on their computer than a CD player in their house. The prices for a naked CD drive in a computer was much lower than a dressed up player model for your home. It didn't take long for that to change.
CD burners were also a big deal, the ability for a computer to have two CD drives, one reader and one burner, and to knock out decent digital copies much faster than the play time was another significant part of how CD drives changed piracy.
"The third is that the distribution IS the story nowadays. "
No, you guys are making it the story. The story is the music, and for many, the incredible slowdown in production. While some areas are turning stuff out quickly (most of it seems to be quickly forgotten... sad that), the main areas of music such as rock, R&B, and top40 style play lists are often very short of new material. When you have less to distribute, then distribution is only a sideline story.
Remember, the distribution changes, but the song remains the same.
"On top of that, this isn't a music blog."
Well, considering the music industry appears to be topic number 1, it's hard to imagine in not being. I am not talking about music reviews, as much as a more open scope look at music industry as a whole. The myopic stare at the navel of distribution really kills most decent dicussions, because it seems too many here are focused on the rote process of distribution, and not those of actually assuring there is a product.
"The first is the one that's most obvious - while there's plenty of great music out there, it's the marketing and distribution methods that need work."
Correction: There is plenty of music out there. Greatness isn't that obvious.
I left your first point for last because you almost hit it on the head, and then promptly got lost again. "marketing and distribution" doesn't mean only distribution. If it was only about distribution, every band in the world would be equally well known everywhere, and everyone would have their music already. The distribution allows for that. So clearly, the getting the music to the fan / consumer as a pure rote process is more than handled. Spending time refining the process isn't going to do much at this point, it's all but perfected already.
Marketing is really the key in the game, and marketing starts with... product.
Ignoring product, and ignoring the effect of product on the rest of the process is to entirely miss the point of the process. There seems to be a denial here that the product matters at all, yet we know how product and the marketing of it are the principal reason why the labels are still the top dogs by far, and the material they distribution commercially is some of the widest pirated stuff as well.
It's all about the product. The rest is the greasy bits that are unimportant without it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
Yeah.
No doubt when you start your first job you will learn the hard way. It's called "would you like an apple pie with that?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
Marketing is a kind of product itself. An actual deliverable is a totally different beast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
Ignoring product, and ignoring the effect of product on the rest of the process is to entirely miss the point of the process.
All true. Marketing is only successful if you have a thing to sell.
There seems to be a denial here that the product matters at all, yet we know how product and the marketing of it are the principal reason why the labels are still the top dogs by far, and the material they distribution commercially is some of the widest pirated stuff as well.
Product and marketing are the key reason the big producers are on the top. And piracy and counterfeiting are responsible for hundreds of consumer deaths.
It if often said that a good salesman can sell you your own watch, for twice what you initially paid for it. The product is important, and (honest) marketing depends on the inherent salability of the product.
Marketing takes something sellable, and makes it more appealing. Add a cartoon character, make silly commercials, double the price, and you can make a killing on Cardboard-Os, even though they come from the exact same production line that makes Generic Cardboard Rings.
The labels don't have the market cornered on quality/salability. They certainly have sellable product, but the key culprit is the marketing. For the longest time, they had the market cornered on marketing - if they didn't push it, it didn't sell. They're losing their stranglehold there. Quality aside, we would have never heard of Gotye or PSY if they retained the stranglehold on marketing.
The labels have a solid position from inertia, but the edifice is crumbling. Selling yourself on any degree of scale has always been about getting the attention of the curators. The labels had dominance because they controlled the curators. They're losing control because they still think their curators are the only curators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
Huh. Last I checked, this article wasn't about the point of music, it was about industries failing to adapt. The rest of your points stand fairly well however. DRM may or may not have been beyond the capabilities of the playback hardware at the time, and I'm in no position to make a call on that, but it's certainly worth considering. If your CD players cost an extra 100$ for this 'functionality', they would have sunk their own product after all.
"I can't imagine why Techdirt spends tons of time on the distribution, and none of the time on the music."
That one is easy. Techdirt discusses tech, not music. Music is completely irrelevant to the point of tech dirt. HOW you get your music is relevant. You may have taken a wrong turn at the lolcats if you ended up here. For future reference, turn right at the lolcats to get to music blogs/news. Turning left gets you to tech blogs/news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
yes, but in a discussion of successful business models and future planning, you have to consider the whole thing, not just the parts you like. Distribution of nothing leads to nothing.
" You may have taken a wrong turn at the lolcats if you ended up here. For future reference, turn right at the lolcats to get to music blogs/news. Turning left gets you to tech blogs/news."
No, rather, I remember that I had to walk past some stuff to get to this point, and without it, this wouldn't be relevant. A discussion that tries to define success only be distribution is doomed to be nothing but a series of red herrings, each more magnificent than the last, because you forget that the people want the music, not the method.
So yes, discussion the methods are fun. Understanding the method as party of a larger process is key.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eviscerating the times because you're looking at the sports section...
That's another article.
You're basically whining that the New York Times doesn't have news on world events while responding to a Sports article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
What does the end 'product' have to do with staying current on technology and trying to make technology work FOR you instead of AGAINST you? The 'product' exists. It IS. Every single publisher can disappear in a giant ball of flame right now, and their product will STILL exist. "Music" is completely irrelevant here, and only shows up because this is about the music INDUSTRY.
I honestly can't figure out why you want to talk about music here anyways. The product exists, and there is great demand for said product. The major publishers aren't having problems propping up their business model because no one likes Justin Beiber (Hint: Just because you hate him doesn't mean he doesn't have a large market that loves him).
The only reason "music" can enter this discussion is if you want to push some sort of "I hate popular music" agenda and blame music that everyone else loves for a failed business model.
The product is a pure given. Why do you want to discuss it here? Go to a music site to discuss the music of music. Here, at best, you might get the technology of music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
For staying current, it's not really an issue in many senses. There is no benefit to rushing towards the next failing format (the music industury still remember such wonderful ideas as 8 track and DAT tapes. The music doesn't require bleeding edge technology to deliver.
Since most music is currently available for sale online, they have clearly moved with technology. They aren't ahead of it, they are riding along with it. I don't really think that anything they would have done differently would change the piracy landscape.
"The product is a pure given. Why do you want to discuss it here? "
It's not to discuss product by itself. Rather, the understanding that the product is often the reason why things are either successful or not. A great product and a horrible distribution method may still work out, while a horrible product with great distribution may end up as nothing. So any discussion of the business methods in play must start by looking at the source material (and really the artist that made them) to see if it's related to profile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
That's another funny one!
A great product and a horrible distribution method may still work out
Only if there's no better distribution method competing with it. The record labels seem to either understand this or have been just forced into it by Apple and Amazon, but the movie studios still don't seem to get it. There will always be another system distributing the same content, so theirs needs to be at least that good to compete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
You missed the point. Regardless of their being a better distribution method (and that is debatable, as always), a great musical product will always find it's way to the people who want it. A crappy musical product, even with the best distribution in the universe, is still crap.
Ask Marcus. He has the whole internet to distribute his stuff, and guess what: nobody wants it.
All the distribution in the world doesn't mean shit if the product is shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
Correct, but you're arguing with a strawman. Nobody, anywhere, is saying that people are happy with music they don't like as long as the distribution is good. I think several people have already explained to you why the quality of the music isn't the topic here. If you don't get it by now you probably won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No delivery system - no music - quite simple really - how come you don't get it?
(Unless of course you finally realised the consequences of the fact that LIVE music can't be pirated)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny, after a few years and CDs had gone mainstream the price of CDs didn't go down. In fact they went up even after the distributors admitted the cost of manufacturing them was a fraction of the previous formats.
And when they could no longer justify the high cost of a CD album that only contain one cover song they roll out the 'enhanced' CD's...which also contained the infamous rootkits.
There is no argument that can be made about how filesharing is hurting the big music houses that will make me feel sorry for them. They have been ruthless in maximizing their profit and jealously guard antiquated business models.
If the music companies had spent their money on a new distribution system in stead of buying laws and congressman they might have become a viable profit center instead of an antiquated cash cow that requires convoluted laws just to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then Apple swooped in and ate their lunches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would you mind linking to the dictionary that states that? The ones written in the English language, rather than the industry sycophant dialect you seem to speak, state something rather different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you play a movie on a private livestream and share the link only with close friends you chat with regularly, but have never seen in person, is that "sharing" or "distributing?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sharing and distibuting
Sharing can be a very effective way to distribute stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As in that small group of personal friends that own shares in (say) IBM, or Microsoft or...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All of these are examples of illegal copying as defined by the RIAA.
You are completely, perfectly ignorant of your side of this debate, let alone about why TechDirt "loves to use" the terms they do, let alone why people "pirate" and who they "pirate" from.
I agree with you that mass distribution is wrong in a way that sharing with friends is not. But I'm not going to even bother discussing the subject with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If anything they need to become more innovative, as we have seen on this site and many others there are a large number of ways they could still make a lot of money for there artists, but the greed to make all that money now immediately and not to allow the market to slowly start supporting a new system is not in there book of common sense.
If anything as people look and invent new ways to share , some that will eventually make sharing anonymous , they lose the chance to start growing a new system to generate money, and as with every modern invention, once it is created there is no putting it back in it's box.
I suspect that the movie/music/book/game/software producers have a few years to implement a system that provides what the customer wants at a reasonable price, yes they might not make as much as they did in the past but something is better than nothing.
And before anyone says different just take a look at Steam, they have cornered the games market and made more money for the producers of games than the producers could ever have made otherwise, to the extent that people are buying games they possibly will never play, and why? ...becasue the sytem is easy to use and works and is not so expensive that the majority of the population cannot pay.
Now the movies industry has a challenge , but with the fact that they only release around 10 real hits every year for the last few years i suspect they will have a bigger challenge.
Music is also easy to resolve if the studios just got toghter and created a site that sold or made available every single track every created and charged a very low price.
Software, well we see what is happening with mobile phones where software is free and then a fee charged for wither the next few levels or for dlc.Or software programs that are a few cents or a few dollars, the days of high prices for software is over but happily more programmers can now make money from a very easy distribution path i.e the app stores.
And finally books. Here i have a problem as the publishers and authors seem to feel they are owed a living, just because they write. Yes it does take time to write a book and the ideas are sometimes hard or complicate to put down on paper that the average person can understand or have fun understanding.If anything i see the publishers and authors having to swallow there pride and accept that the cost of moving into the new age is going to be books that are very very cheap, and free to share. And if they cannot make money from that they will be one of the millions of writers who have never made a penny from writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
On the flip side if you grew up in a house like mine where most of the wiring was done in the 1970's with outlets attached to switches, and one of them just happened to be a light dimmer, you could turn on High Speed dubbing and dim the switch to make Cher sound like a man (Believe was the song).
Either way it was fun to mess around with that kind if thing. I was very grateful we could share tapes and swap CD's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
It was implied by the generaol thrust of the argument - but maybe it could have been said explicitly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
Some of us recorded from boom box to boom box and we didn't care.
If the rise of MP3's and Netflix streaming have taught us anything, it is that most people simply don't give a crap about quality.
It's the social networking that's really important (if anything). Rubes have access to old school bulletin boards with a much bigger audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
And my Netflix streaming looks awesome. Better than DVD. It's Youtube that usually looks like crap.
Quality isn't everything, but it's something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them eat dirt!
DVD isn't the current standard of quality.
You kind of just proved my point for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them eat dirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
Thank you - you just demonstrated how clueless you are.
The quality degradation from ONE copy is nothing to worry about - true - but here we are talking about many generations of copy. Digital files can be copied and re-copied forever and always remain the same. It IS a huge difference.
Why do you think that the record companies freaked out over DAT - demanding such huge restrictions on it that it was stillborn as a technology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them eat dirt! again
They're idiots just like you are.
You are applying an industry insiders perspective to people that are more interested in price and convenience and will gladly tolerate tinny little transistor radios.
That's why no "high quality audio" formats ever gained any traction. That's why low bitrate MP3 became the defacto standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
For that matter, shared files can get pretty glitchy. They don't lose "quality" but they degrade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Pirating" Chipmonk music old school...and fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They would still need to change their business to a cheaper and more flexible model in the long run!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually - no. The tech of the time could just about hack digital. Adding DRM would not have been feasible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
THEY tortured me and twisted me into what I am. I NEVER DID ANYTHING TO ANYONE. I'M ON THE DEATH LIST. WHAT DO I DO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ON TOP OF THAT, THERE WAS A NEIGHBOR WHO I GOT INTO A FIGHT WITH THAT WAS FORMER MILITARY. THEY TWISTED ME INTO SOMETHING I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AND I STILL HAVEN'T HURT ANYONE. CAN YOU HELP ME AT ALL?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On top of that, if copy protection and region coding and the like had been implemented, I guarantee it would be as effective as the ones on a standard DVD. In other words, when the need arose they would be easily bypassable and barely a speed bump in the road to those wishing to use the CD in a way not pre-ordained by the labels. Mid-90s DRM on DVDs only acts as an mild inconvenience to paying customers, and isn't even noticed by pirates. I doubt that early 80s DRM on CD would have been even that effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the content industry to block videos like this puts in in conflict with most of society. Such use of music does not in any way effect the conten industries income.
This article is closer to the reality of file sharing, than the its is theft of the content providers. With the use of probable music players largely replacing radio, file sharing, either over the Internet or by direct connection and portable media is the way that people discover music. They go on to buy the music that they like, but cannot afford to every track that they only listen to once.
The legacy content industry doe snot know how its industry actually works at the customer level, and will eventually lose to direct to fan models if it keeps on its current course. With the dropping costs and increasing capacity of flash devices, the direct to fan model could work without the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even though both the movie and video game industry put out products which required more storage capacity, that still didn't curb digital transfers. Digital storage costs less and less; you can buy TB's worth of storage for less than $100. Besides, even if tomorrow the music industry's new standard somehow took up 100+ TB, people would simply down-convert it to wav/flac/mp3 and that would be the end of it.
Instead of music labels trying to wage war against technology, which is a fool's errand to begin with, perhaps they should rethink their entire strategy. What do they have to sell besides a song or music album? There must be a lot of unexplored opportunities if they'd care enough to venture out and discover them. But no ...they're content with rushing product to the market, appealing to the lowest common denominator, so who's fault is it when sales take a nosedive?
How much longer will this charade with the music labels continue? How many more times will they hawk their back catalogs and force-feed the market its patented brand of corporate-manufactured garbage? ...Then again, who cares either way. If they want to fail, let 'em. Someone else will pick up the the ball and run with it, similar to how Nintendo resurrected the VG industry after Atari crashed it back in the 80's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Been there, done that.
I did that with some snippets from Star Trek movies back in the day. The movies were on VHS and I used an 8-bit sound blaster sound card to do the capture.
I still have those sound files 20 years later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It takes something like 10 lines of code to render it useless.
They spent more time figuring out how to stuff more advertising into customers living rooms, and warnings that making a copy of something you paid for is a crime.
More development was spent on making sure they could make things unskippable than protecting the content. They assumed no one would defeat their system, it would be to hard to do.
They cranked that dial up with BluRay plastic discs, now they have control over how and where you can watch it. They went out of their way to make the technology less computer friendly and alienating the people willing to pay them money even more. People purchased new movies only to find out their $300+ player won't play it because they refuse to release updates for the security on that one, but buy version 2.0 and you can watch them... until the next new version comes out.
They are blinded by their need for control rather than any thought of would this piss me off if I was the consumer?
They see people who pay them money as the enemy, because everyone just wants to "steal" from them. The more they do to lock it down the more people they push over to the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite.
It exists but it exist in a grey area and the tech isn't being printed on the back of t-shirts like it was for DVD.
Still more trouble than your average n00b is likely to tolerate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The CD is older than me?!
The second content creators, in order words, authors, artists, and studios, begin catching on to the patterns of technological progress, the vast majority of those actually responsible for creating new content will abandon the "big labels" and self-publish, promoting themselves with the newer digital commission model, pay-what-you-want model, or freemium/subscription style business models.
the old control-based publisher business model relying on the purchase of physical medium riddled with copy-restrictions is going to fail soon enough, despite any lobbying and arm-twisting the old media conglomerates may attempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The CD is older than me?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The CD is older than me?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The subscription services are conspiring with the legacy publishers to spread content out over the available channel in an effort to get people to subscribe for more channels. This is pushing people to cheaper alternatives, and piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It costs a fortune and it isn't effective, so what is the point. You have to laugh at the blu-ray guys continuing to create new DRM schemes at our expense, annoying us with required firmware upgrades for every brand new disk, all while charging extortionist prices for physical disks.
Whats to love here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.boycottso ny.us/?p=49
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
From a slightly different perspective of course, but I get so few opportunities to blog whore that I couldn't pass it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only the most dedicated music lover can tell the difference between a quality ripped mp3 and the most awesomest of awesome lossless codec. And even then, it takes a decent helping of expensive hardware. News flash, the other 99.9% of us aren't trained to hear the almost indistinguishable difference *AND* we don't have hardware that plays back well enough for it to actually be distinguishable.
Of course, most older mp3's were pretty crappy rips and anyone can tell the difference. Not all mp3 rips are created equal. If you don't have high end hardware and can tell the difference between your CD and your mp3, it's a poor rip, and certainly isn't the fault of the format. So stop making it sound like the plebes just aren't sophisticated enough to enjoy proper music.
As the tools exist and proliferate to make better copies, the average quality rises. Boombox to boombox recording happened because they didn't have better tools. Poor quality mp3 rips showed up because they didn't have better tools. Now, you can get mp3's that sound close enough to the same to a CD that very very few people can notice any difference at all, and even then, they'll misjudge which is the CD and which is the mp3 sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: get real.
If the problem is stated as music copying and sharing, then it became a problem with the cassette recorder. It has not destroyed the music industry in its 40+ years of existence.
The record industry started complaining about piracy as soon as the cassette became marginally suitable for music recording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: get real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An opportunity wasted as well.
Then the CD came along and the earliest generations of material was awe-inspiring in that regard. A drum was a drum, that stood out the way a percussion instrument should. And then some jackass figured they'd compress the sound to make it sound "louder" so they stood out when people did trial listening in stores, which leads us to today when the music is so compressed it's total trash, a mush of compressed noise instead of a proper dynamic piece of music.
The industry should have just focused on quality and continued to focus on quality and not worried about whether or not it could be copied. People buy stuff because they feel it's worth buying, but these days not even audiophiles buy mainstream CD's, because they sound like crap. Well, that and because they hold artists that are crap too, if we're talking major labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
You're right about the loudness war. The geniuses over at the major labels decided that music wasn't loud enough, hence the 'brick wall of death' you get when you view most new songs via a DAW. They need to do this in order to compensate for an obvious lack of skill in songwriting, composing and performance. It's much like someone who takes a picture, uploads it to their PC and then turns up the brightness/contrast in order to hide flaws and blemishes, destroying the integrity of the picture in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
This is completely false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
Audio frequency range of LP vs CD -- A visual comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
It's a glorified opinion piece written by an electrical engineer who is a member of the AES. I provided it as a form of shorthand.
I have never read a single statement by any reputable EE that stated that the dynamic range of a vinyl recording was superior to that of a CD. Not one. All of the tales of digital audio being inferior to vinyl are written by audiophiles who rely, not on science, but on subjective opinions and informal listening tests.
Furthermore, the era of vinyl records was conterminous with the era of magnetic tape, which is known, conclusively, to have a dynamic range of 55 dB without resorting to companding, while the cd has 90-96 dB
And a youtube video about frequency range differences is completely irrelevant to the claim you were making, which was about dynamic range.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
They care but only after they understand where the headaches come from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
Do you have a reference for that? Not trying to be belligerent, I've just never seen any evidence for all these claims that LP is better than CD, and I would really like to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
Even so, what use is greater frequency range outside the range of human hearing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
CDs have a higher signal to noise ratio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An opportunity wasted as well.
There may be some of that, but it's also been found that most people prefer the sound of compressed (loudness increased) music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, who says CDs couldn't be copied?
However, rather than a digital copy, it was an analog copy made to cassette tape (and before that reel tape). Copying of music has been going on since at least the 1960s! In fact the CD's forced the tape industry to come out with metal particle tapes (as opposed to oxide tapes) to get better quality.
The music industry introduced the CD which was a huge improvement in quality, and eventually people weren't happy with lesser quality tape copies, so they would buy the CD even though they may have it on tape.
The same is true for movies. Once VHS (and even Betamax)tapes came out they were quite routinely copied.
Even from the 70s the copying of music has been a wide spread 'problem' (used to, for the most part, be called fair use). What the music and movie industries have failed to understand is that the 'illegal activity' actually ends up helping them far more than it hurts them. Why? Because in many cases those who get a low quality copy (MP3) will end up buying a high quality copy.
Well that would be true with two changes that the Music Industry (and Movie Industry) could make today, that would greatly reduce the desire to illegally copy music.
1. Provide High Quality lossless files for a reasonable price, probably around 25 - 50 cents a song. No they wouldn't lose money. In the days of CD's and Tapes before them the industry had to pay for manufacturing of the CD's, manufacturing of the Album Art and inserts, jewel cases, assembly, packaging, warehousing, delivery... There were risks if the album didn't sell as projected. Today other than the recording and mastering costs (which are negligible compared to all the other costs of providing a physical real product) the industry has no real costs. However, to date they have tried to maintain the cost for a digital copy at or above the cost to provide a physical copy.
2. Eliminate DRM. DRM is a huge deterrent to a lot of people (including me). I refuse to be treated like a criminal for spending my money on a product. Almost every version of DRM ever put out has been broken within hours, so all DRM does is punish those willing to pay for your product.
I no longer buy music or movies due to the DRM. In fact I also only very rarely buy software that is DRM'd. Preferring instead to install Open Source and send a donation to the Creator / Maintainers. See I am willing to pay, but I am not willing to pay for the privilege of being treated like a criminal. In fact worse than a criminal who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When you purchase a DRM'd product you are treated as a known thief with 0 rights. I refuse to pay to be treated like that.
The music industry made their dinner, now they are choking on it and that is just fine by me. I have no intention of performing the Heimlich on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um, who says CDs couldn't be copied?
Where is the DRM? There isn't any.
Self justification for piracy, perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Um, who says CDs couldn't be copied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Um, who says CDs couldn't be copied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Um, who says CDs couldn't be copied?
You people. He never said anything about piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You forgot a factor
The cost to consumers for that 'protection' would have been in more expensive machines to decode the protection.
Why would Sony et al want to raise their cost of production, or in fact be unable to deliver a product when they did if the product would have had to decode the CD data?
Author, get back to us once you have a memo from inside the firms backing up what you are just guessing at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pricing
It could be argued that the CD, and it's convenience, democratized access to Hi-Fi, and it's huge profit margin greatly benefited the smaller and middle-ground musical artists by getting them major-market attention they might not have otherwise seen.
As the production costs came down, too, the independent labels were able to find a more competitive ground to work from, enabling them to offer quality goods at reasonable prices while still profiting the label enough to carry on and grow.
And, I suspect that it was mostly the Olde Men at the top of the Major Labels who failed to grasp the potential value of lossless duplication at home.
"Wanna tape an LP? Well, okay, we'll kick a little, demand a tax on the tape media, and carry on as usual. Wait: They can make a perfect duplicate of a CD? That's more troubling! What? They can copy a CD, compress it, and transmit it to the rest of the world!? This is WAR!"
disclosure: I worked for HMV Canada for five years in the early-mid 90s. I know what the costs and pricing models looked like in those days, so I know that the majors were making much bank during those years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pricing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pricing
I also have other things from my youth downloaded and burned off that were never made available on CD, such as the "Star Trek" stories from Power Records (I still have my vinyls of those).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/internet-and-technology
https://www.facebook.com/govgaryj ohnson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
30 Years of Digital and The 92% Solution
The bottom line is that the music played in inverted polarity sounds harsh and two dimensional which is probable the major reason that some music-lovers still believe (without knowing the real reason) that analog music media (that plays in the correct polarity over 99.9999 +% of the time and would also sound bad if played in inverted polarity) sounds better than digital media, when in fact it doesn’t sound as good. That often causes music-lovers to spend untold sums of money and time trying to smooth out the edgy and somewhat irritating and flat sound of digital media. This should be an object lesson on how an entire industry with its experts and electrical engineers can get it wrong and not do anything about if for over 32 years and counting!
But there’s some good news here because in many cases, all one has to do is reverse the connections of all their speakers wires at one end only to correct the mistake that’s free for the doing. For more on how do that, see the homepage of my website: http://www.AudioGeorge.com and scroll down to just below the credit cards I accept. Many in the music industry agree with me. I’m know in the industry as The Perfect Polarity Pundit Chief Polarity Buster of the Polarity Police and come companies send me their digital media/components to check its polarity, and do that pro bono for the sake of the music. I've written two monographs that go into great detail about the problem at: http://www.ThePolarityList.com, http://www.AbsolutePolarity.com, and http://www.PolarityGeorge.com.
Respectfully submitted,
George S. Louis, Esq., CEO
Digital Systems & Solutions
President San Diego Audio Society (SDAS)
Website: www.AudoGeorge.com
Phone: 619-401-9876
1573 Kimberly Woods Dr.
El Cajon, CA 92020-7261
[ link to this | view in chronology ]