EVER since cassette tapes made recording accessible to the masses back in the 1980s, record labels and music pirates have been fighting for a long time. The labels- and rightly so, I might add- argue that piracy costs them considerable amounts of money, totaling some $4.3 billion (U.S.) in 2001 alone (according to the IFPI). With analogue recording, the fight was low-key, since the copies of the material were always qualitatively inferior to the original, but with the advent of CD’s and digital copying, the copies, more or less, could sound almost exactly like the original with the copies easier to make. This has the labels fighting in overdrive to stop piracy, because the labels no longer have the qualitative edge over the pirates and it is now easier for pirates to spread their copies around. One of the measures record companies- particularly those owned/distributed by England Music International (EMI), like Virgin, Sextant, Capitol and Parlophone- are taking is introducing Copy Control Technology (CCT) on their new discs. CCT is supposedly designed to prevent programs like Windows Media Player or RealOne from reading (and thus copying) the disc, but, according to some, CCT prevents the disc from being played on certain systems, and, in other cases, damages them.
Now, you’re not going to get argument from me that piracy has to be stopped- record industry people need to make a living too. However, measures like CCT go too far to stop piracy, and organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have been spouting untruths about what people do with their discs, developments that leave the customer fuming. The following are a list of myths spouted by the RIAA and EMI and the actual truths about the practices.
Of everything I read about this issue, there was one little point that stuck out from EMI Australia’s FAQ page about Copy Control. One of the FAQ’s asked the company if they believed CCT would actually be successful. “We didn’t think we’d be 100% successful from the start…however, the decision to make a copy becomes a conscious- and illegal- one.” Another source has an E-Mail delivered from EMI Germany basically labels their own customers as pirates, almost laughing at them for bemoaning “the loss of free music” (never mind that the poor schmucks actually bought the thing). Then, there’s a development out of Britain that requires people to go right up to the Secretary of State in order to sue a record company over defective CCT material. What gives?
You see EMI- and essentially, the RIAA- is assuming that everyone who copies an album intends on distributing it illegally. This is not the case: in many countries (including the U.S. and Britain), law allows the customer allowed to make as many copies of their own material as they want, as long as it is solely for themselves. So if people want to create their own playlists on their computer out of their legally bought CD’s (which is what I do, by the way), law allows them to. Copying a CCT album is no different: the customer bought it legally and thus should be allowed to make, for themselves, a copy of the album if they want. What the customer shouldn’t be able to do is encode it on a CD-R and sell it for profit, or make it available online. CCT infringes on the customer’s legal right to make themselves a copy of the disc, and thus goes too far in stopping pirates.
Yeah, this one surprised me too. I’m not much of a technical guy, but according to various sources- including Phillips, the creator of the CD- CCT discs do not “abide by the standards of a CD”. I don’t know the whole details surrounding it, but, from what I gather, because CCT discs cannot be read/played on any system, they do not count as “CD’s”. Want proof? Look a CCT album, like the latest from Radiohead (“Hail To The Thief”) or Sky (“Picture Perfect”) and then look at a non-CCT album like Radiohead’s “OK Computer” or Michelle Branch’s “Hotel Paper”. Notice anything different? The CCT albums do not carry the familiar “compact disc” logo found on non-CCT discs, and this is because they do not count as CD’s.
Irrelevant? Well, a man in Brazil successfully sued EMI and Sony for fraudulently selling CCT discs as CD’s, since the disc he acquired did not play in his car stereo. Many others around the globe have shared similar complaints. Furthermore, the sound quality of CCT discs- when played on the computer through its own “player”- is vastly inferior to when it is played on CD players. This is not just the realm of audio purists- I’ve noticed the reduction in quality, and you’re talking to a guy who couldn’t tell the difference between songs ripped at 64kbps and those ripped at 192. This is because songs are streamed from the disc instead of actually being played from them (from what I gather) at 40kbps, or nearly the same as dial-up streams (I think they’re at 36 or something). This means the CCT discs are at an inferior overall quality than actual CD’s (since actual CD’s can be played anywhere), yet they’re being sold at the same prices. Furthermore, it’s highly likely that new measures of CCT means that the discs will require the latest computers to work (just how the latest computer games do), and, at $20 per disc, spending $1500 just to play one CD just isn’t logical. This is how companies want to treat their loyal customers? No wonder there’s many hopping mad.
This is what spawned the latest RIAA lawsuits: they believe KaZaA users who offer songs for download offer them only for illegal downloads (i.e., they download instead of buy). It may be a murky issue, but I don’t think offering the songs is illegal, just downloading them without paying for them is (by the way, I’m NOT a KaZaA user and have never offered songs online). I mean, if someone already owns an album, they technically should be able to download the songs as well (since, logically, you can’t steal something you already own).
There could be several reasons why one would do this. One, the CCT albums: this would allow the customer to have a copy (just for themselves) of their own album on their own computer, since it is inconvenient for them to go through the hassles of copying the album (or their computer simply can’t). Two, if someone loses or damages their legally purchased CD before having the opportunity to back it up (by ripping it to their computer), they should be able to download the tracks to replace them. Like I said, these people are downloading material they’ve already paid for, and they’re not taking them outright away from the provider, so, in effect, they’re just “stealing from themselves”, which is logically impossible. Also, songs by artists like the RCSoundminers, who offer free music, should be able to shared legally, since the band- or the RIAA- is not losing any money.
However, I am no lawyer, so this is just inconclusive.
As I’ve stated before, I’m no advocate of piracy and I’m behind the labels all the way in trying to stop it: I just simply do not agree with how they’re going about it. CCT albums infringe on people’s legal rights to have copies for themselves and they present a poorer quality than regular CD’s, because few people have the time/capabilities of making those copies. Also, trying to stop file-sharing programs is a losing battle- as long as there is digital media, there will be file-sharing, and the RIAA should be aware that it could actually benefit them.
Here’s what I’m recommending:
1. Make it policy for record labels to offer 1/3-2/3 of an album for free online, and have their own, legal, file-sharing service. This is because several people download to “preview” albums before buying it, which could be very beneficial for record labels. This way, people will be sure that the $20 or so will be spent wisely instead of it being “thrown around blindly”, because people will be able to sample potential purchases. Add to that their own file-sharing service (which will only allow songs offered by the labels to be traded), and another benefit of file-sharing- people discovering unknown bands- will also come to light. Labels should realize people have more options than just the radio at their dispersal to find new talent, and it might even lead to bands like Dredg, who have no hope for radio play, actually getting sales because people have now discovered who they are. Any band will tell you that exposure is key to their livelihood: well, file-sharing provides exposure, and ample exposure, so it would be- to put it frankly- stupid for labels to pass this up.
2. Have a special online code for people to replace legally purchased albums, or just for them to have a legal copy of it. Ten years ago, if people lost/damaged their CD’s, they’d have to buy another copy, which they might not have the money to do so. Now, people can just replace them for free and potentially hassle-free because of downloading. So, to counter this, record labels could offer a special code found inside the packaging allowing the one who bought the CD to replace their damaged or lost copy at no cost, since they shouldn’t have to pay for it again. Or, if labels are worried about pirates, they could simply limit the “replacement” to 1/3-2/3 of an album, with the tracks specified by the user. Also, if labels wish to keep using CCT, they could use this feature to allow people who do things legally with their music- i.e. ripping them for playlists- to still be able to continue doing so, even if it is with a limited number of tracks. It may not be “ideal” in that case, but it’s better than it is now.
3. Lower Prices- Especially In Poor Countries. One of the things I noticed from the IFPI’s anti-piracy report is that predominantly poor countries have the highest rates of piracy. Why? This is because- most likely- black market products are cheaper than the legal original, the latter of which because the populace simply cannot afford. So, to counter this, labels should lower the prices, especially in the poor countries. CD’s are becoming cheaper to produce, especially with CD-R capabilities, and if labels used those tactics- even if it is inconvenient- in poor countries, they just might beat the black market. Yeah, I’d like it if I didn’t have to pay $20+ for each CD myself, but I live in a country where I can make that in just a few hours with the lowest allowed wages. People in Bhutan, who make $7 a day, cannot compete with that, so they’re much more willing to spend the prices offered by pirates. It might seem awkward for labels to use the same tricks pirates use- like mass CD-R production labs in garages- but it will at least allow them to compete with pirates, and they’ll be legal copies. They need to learn they can’t use the same methods in Sudan that they use in Canada, because the market expectations are different.
Is There An End In Sight? I hope so. Loyal customers shouldn’t be angered by anti-piracy measures- the pirates should be. Maybe my ideas won’t work, or maybe they will: all I know is that there has to be a solution that can make everyone happy, since current conditions leave too many angry. I do know Microsoft is planning on creating a Media Player which can copy CD’s but prevent them from being shared and/or put on a CD-R, which is encouraging news in a world with CCT. The point is labels need to go about things differently or else they won’t have any customers in the near future.
-DG
(Sources: various, though special thanks to Fedge.net for leading me to many of them)