Music Industry Worried About CD-Burning --AP

By ALEX VEIGA, AP Business Writer
Fri Aug 12,10:22 PM ET



Music copied onto blank recordable CDs is becoming a bigger threat to the bottom line of record stores and music labels than online file-sharing, the head of the recording industry's trade group said Friday.

"Burned" CDs accounted for 29 percent of all recorded music obtained by fans in 2004, compared to 16 percent attributed to downloads from online file-sharing networks, said Mitch Bainwol, chief executive for the Recording Industry Association of America.

The data, compiled by the market research firm NPD Group, suggested that about half of all recordings obtained by music fans in 2004 were due to authorized CD sales and about 4 percent from paid music downloads.

"CD burning is a problem that is really undermining sales," Bainwol said in an interview prior to speaking before about 750 members of the National Association of Recording Merchandisers in San Diego Friday.

Copy protection technology "is an answer to the problem that clearly the marketplace is going to see more of," he added.

Album sales in the North America are down about 7 percent this year compared with a year ago, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Yet the recording industry has seen a lift from online music sales, which when factored in with album and sales of CD singles increased overall music sales through July to 21 percent over last year.

The focus on CD burning Friday was welcomed by Alayna Hill-Alderman, who said she has seen music CD sales slide in recent years while sales of blank recordable CDs have soared.

"We are feeling the decline in our store sales, especially with regard to R&B and the hip-hop world," said Hill-Alderman, co-owner of Record Archive, a two-store company operating in Rochester, N.Y. "It's all due to burning. We've lost tremendous amounts of those sales to flea markets and bodegas."

After experimenting with copy-protected CDs in Europe and Latin America in recent years, some record labels have begun releasing albums in North America with similar copy restrictions. The CDs typically allow users to burn no more than a handful of copies.

Velvet Revolver's "Contraband," released last year, was equipped with such copy-protection technology and grabbed the top sales spot in its debut week.

Some saw that as a sign music fans didn't mind CDs with copy restrictions. But other releases since, such as the latest Foo Fighters album, have sometimes spawned fan complaints that the restrictions go too far or create technology conflicts with portable audio devices.

Simon Wright, chief executive of Virgin Entertainment Group International, which oversees the Virgin chain of music stores, said he's in favor of labels releasing more albums in a copy-protected CD format, regardless of the potential for consumer backlash.

"If, particularly, the technology allows two-to-three burns, that's well within acceptable limits and I don't think why consumers should have any complaints," Wright said.

"We are feeling the decline in our store sales, especially with regard to R&B and the hip-hop world," said Hill-Alderman, co-owner of Record Archive, a two-store company operating in Rochester, N.Y. "It's all due to burning. We've lost tremendous amounts of those sales to flea markets and bodegas."

I thought they said it was all due to
P2P. Once again they patently avoid
mentioning reasons like crappy releases,
consumer backlash for the lawsuits etc.
It MUST be those dirty thieves.
I'm sure our useless boycott is having
no impact whatsoever.
The "Whole Truth" should be REQUIRED in
the press, as well as the Courts.


"Velvet Revolver's "Contraband," released last year, was equipped with such copy-protection technology and grabbed the top sales spot in its debut week."

It also topped the download charts
at the same time ( Big Champaign ).
Great technology. The article skips that
annoying little portion of the truth.
Top Sales, as well as high DL volume.
Tell us again of the damage sharing does.


Some saw that as a sign music fans didn't mind CDs with copy restrictions. But other releases since, such as the latest Foo Fighters album, have sometimes spawned fan complaints that the restrictions go too far or create technology conflicts with portable audio devices.

Another current album that is top
of Big Champaign's DL charts. Once
again this shows just how effective
the technology is at keeping a release
from the "dirty thieves"
This also is another example of how
the technology ...

1. Has NOT hurt the sales of a
major release
2. Really cheeses off consumers.

""If, particularly, the technology allows two-to-three burns, that's well within acceptable limits and I don't think why consumers should have any complaints," Wright said."

Ask people that DON'T wear a suit every
day. They'll tell you why.

"It's all due to burning. We've lost tremendous amounts of those sales to flea markets and bodegas."

Well, they're tallking about commercial gain here. That really is a rip-off. The noncommercial copying done by individuals is covered by AHRA, no?

"Well, they're tallking about commercial gain here. That really is a rip-off. The noncommercial copying done by individuals is covered by AHRA, no? "

Copying for cmmercial gain is a ripoff, true.
Most of us THINK P2P is non-commercial
copying, but as we have been seeing, the
almighty "law" may or may not agree.

I guess my point was that there are so
many other factors that are costing them
and they know it. They only mention the
ones that further the goals of control and
restriction.

CD Burning is a thing of the past for me. I have burned a few mixes here and there, and remastered my old LP albums. But Now, I have an iPod, and the days of burning mix CDs and creating MP3 CDs are over.

But what the music industry should do is to protect intellectual properties the right way---Protect the product from getting it in the hands of another person while the person does not have the license to listen to the music, while in the meantime, create an easy flow of the music I purchase through my computer.

Since my CD Burning days are over, what the industry should focus on is proper DRM measures that protects the media, while it is invisible to the consumers and yet it allows the flowage of media from Computer, to MP3 player, to a TV Stereo, to my Laptop, and back to my computer again and again. But I would still import my old CD collection.

But how will it protect my old CDs? Watermark the ripped recordings. This is done by "Fingerprinting", in which you buy an MP3, register it by fingerprinting the MP3 player with your "Fingerprint" profile. If the "Fingerprint" on the file matches the "Fingerprint" on the MP3 player, it will accept it. If it doesn't, it won't accept it. MP3 players can only have up to 1 fingerprint per player, and can only "De-Fingerprinted" by the conputer that fingerprinted the MP3 player.

But as far as CD Burning, I think that CD-Rs should be taken off the shelves, due to enviornmental reasons and the fact that consumers are burning unprotected copies of the album. However, New CDs should truely be Copy Protected, making a "Writing area" on the disk. It is also Rippable, but in a secure mode. When this CD is ripped, the program watermarks the ripped media with the fingerprint and puts in the same security code as the music that's downloaded. It also watermarkes the CD on the "write area", so that when it's ripped again, no other computer can rip this CD but the computer that ripped the music on.

When it comes to burning, it can only burned to CD-RWs. These CDs can only work with players that have the secure fingerprinting technique on it, and can only be copied by the computer that burned it on.

Also, this is an interoperable DRM, and unlike other DRMs, it will encrypt MP3s, OGGs, WMAs, AACs, and even WAV files.

That way, consumers can still feel listen to the music the way they want to, while it does protect the intellectual property rights.

JDonahue, your reply is self centered and naive. I don't have nor do I want an Ipod. DRM is a pipe dream that is the 21st equivalent of snake oil. So for a few Ipods all CD-Rs should be eliminated? Besides you're missing the next leap in data storage. Even ipods are now coming out with flash memory. This media, which works in digital cameras as well as memory sticks and music players is bridging the gap between different types of devices. CD-Rs and DVD-Rs will get bypassed and will go the way of the 8-Track, in a natural progression of technological evoulution. In a year or two Ipods will be going for 25 bucks in the discount bin.

CDs are not the ultimate in sound quality. 16 bits is probably too low for best reproduction. But it is better than compressed files like MP3s and iTunes.

Anybody who thinks we should ditch CDs for DRM'd compressed files must be more deaf than I, even with my left ear hearing loss from a too loud Frank Zappa concert years ago.

Just from a sound quality standpoint, this is a "risky scheme."

I think they should lock their stuff down so tight that nobody can listen to it or use it. that way people will be forced to quit buying it.

"CD burning is a problem that is really undermining sales," Bainwol said "

SALES SALES SALES...the goddam farringasaurus! Can someone please go smash him in the teeth?

The word "sales" was used 11 times in the above article. Why don't we just minimize our vocabulary to a few words...everyone just walking about saying, "sales", "sell", "money", "buy".

Ya knopw it sounds crazy..but sometimes I hope that there is a God and some of this apocolyptical stuff comes to pass to set the human race on it's greedy ass.

Look look looky here....look at the contradictions and hypocrisy!

You go on to say...

"But as far as CD Burning, I think that CD-Rs should be taken off the shelves, due to enviornmental reasons and the fact that consumers are burning unprotected copies of the album"

Yeah? Well what about the people who haven't done what you have done already
when you said,....

"CD Burning is a thing of the past for me. I have burned a few mixes here and there, and remastered my old LP albums. But Now, I have an iPod, and the days of burning mix CDs and creating MP3 CDs are over."

Oh I see it was only "ok" for you to do it and now because you have no reason to do it...it should be outlawed? You sound educated by the RIAA. Same logic.

"It is also Rippable....", "When this CD is ripped...", "watermarks the ripped media", ", "when it's ripped again", "no other computer can rip this", "ripped the music on"

LOL..you like saying the word "rip"? I'm starting to think you are trying to be funny.

"These CDs can only work with players that have the secure fingerprinting technique on it,"

I got a fingerprint for ya right ova here! Click on the link below to view it...

http://www.freewebs.com/si-c-k/middle_finger.jpg

Shmoo,

Another story developing "Soccer mom fighting back"

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050814/NEWS02/508140316/1020/NEWS04

Jdonahue has stated a position that most uf us are in complete disagreement
with. He also stated this opinion WITHOUT insulting anyone, without profanity, without attacking our position.

He constructed his opinion well.

Now, let's show him why we think he is
wrong in a similar fashion. He deserves
that, even though we think hes wrong.

Calmly.

"I think they should lock their stuff down so tight that nobody can listen to it or use it. that way people will be forced to quit buying it."

BTW, CapDunsel
I completely believe that they will,
and people are already staying away,
more and more each day.

JD,
One of the many problems with DRM is
"Fair Use".
It is not preserved.
While, right now, they are working on
ways to simply limit copying, they won't
stop there. There is a looooong history
of " Taking A Mile " when given an inch.
To accept limited copying now opens
the door for them to take that mile.
When I buy ( *sigh* license ) that CD
I feel I DESERVE the right to copy it
FOR MY PERSONAL USE as many times,
and to any device I see fit.

By trying to take that right from me
they have lost 1 regular purchaser.
( one tiny cut ). They are losing more
every day, by adding more and more
restrictions.

DRM will never work.
Someone will ALWAYS find a way around it.
Always.

Eliminate blanks ???
So I can't make photo CD's of my family
photo collection ?
So I can't make my own home DVD's ?
So I can't back up large mounts of my
own personal data, which has nothing
to do with RIAA, MPAA or any other AA
they can come up with ??

Nope.

This looks like desperation in the
highest order on their parts. I can't
wait to see John Q. Publics reaction
if they can no longer get blank media.

Hey Cap, I hope they DO eliminate CD's

Hee Hee
Return of prohibition.
Nice.

I did. I'll repeat. they don't want me to listen to their music. that's fine by me. let them lock it down so that nobody can listen to it, then we will see how much they whine about sales dropping.

this is how the system was working...

I can hear whatever they are paying for that particular day on the radio and it doesn't cost me anything. what's the difference in that and getting it from kazaa? If I really like it and want it I'm going to by it anyway.

this is how they want the system to work now...

I should have to pay to listen to the radio. I should have to pay to get their music for home use. I should have to pay to listen to it in my car. I can't ever play it on my computer. I should have to pay if I listen to it at a business, I should have to pay if I hear music someone is playing as they drive by my house or pass me in a car.... and for all of this paying, they give us ashley simpson, 50 cents worth, the back door boys etc.

I don't think I like where they're going with this and I'm not likely to pay for it.

"I should have to pay to listen to the radio. I should have to pay to get their music for home use. I should have to pay to listen to it in my car. I can't ever ..... "

Yup,
That is their ultimate goal, imho.
Allowing them that first little step ..
( Well, a few restrictions seem fair, I guess ), will open the door for the
ultimate " Pay for Play " future that
you describe.

JD,
The "Industry" like to whine that this
is for the benefit of the "Artists".
Some of us have seen their standard
contracts, some have even had the
sad misfortune to have survived
signing one of those contracts.
Artists don't get squat.

If you Google about for some industry
stats, you will find that they, as an
INDUSTRY have made record profits
again, this year.
This tells me that a lot of money has
gone from JQ Publics hands, to the
record labels. A WHOLE lot.
And yet ...
Artists are broke.
Who is responsible for paying the artist.
The record label.
The "middleman" as it were.
Money leaves JQ Public's hands,
goes to the monkey in the middle, yet
doesn't reach the artists.
So,
where does that indicate the problem is ?

All this DL, P2P, going broke crap is
all a smokescreen for their REAL problem.

The internet can make the middleman a moot point.
LOL a Captain Dunsel, if you will.

No blank media for the public ??
No blank media for those truly
independent musicians and artists that
do NOT WANT to sign a pact with the
devil.
If devices required fingerprinting to
play media, to insure it's "legitimacy"
how can they guarantee that a non-
affilliated artists creation will play ?
Are they not just as "legitimate" ?

Well sadly, I see an answer for that
problem as well.
The Non-affiliated may have to purchase
"licensed" blanks ( at a price, of course )
to be able to distribute their own works.

Silly ??

How else could the non-industry artists
survive in the DRM future you describe ?

Any one else, my brain is starting to hurt.

Soccer moms of the world unite!! One mom can change the world!!! Thanks, otech, for the link.

"I think that CD-Rs should be taken off the shelves, due to enviornmental reasons and the fact that consumers are burning unprotected copies of the album."

Oh, I see. The 250,000 or so independent acts that want to burn their own music and give it away or sell it lose this ability to protect to 500(?) major label acts that are left.

This idea is anti-competitive, monopolistic, and a threat to the entire DIY community of artists that have correctly determined they don't need the studios or record labels at all.

The RIAA is much more worried about us than sharers. The indies are outselling Warner and EMI. They can't sue us, so they'll try to take away or tax our tools.

otech Great article! We'll be keeping tabs on this one.

the reason for the decline in record sales?

Virtually all that they're selling right now is CRAP!!!

Too bad the EFF doesn't get involved in "soccer mom" cases like this one.

Certainly a cause to donate ...

"This idea is anti-competitive, monopolistic, and a threat to the entire DIY community of artists that have correctly determined they don't need the studios or record labels at all.

The RIAA is much more worried about us than sharers. The indies are outselling Warner and EMI. They can't sue us, so they'll try to take away or tax our tools."

George speaks the TRUTH we have preached all along!

Well, yeah , especially since more and more artists are doing it Indie Style....riaa can't compete, and isn't that refreshing?

Best quote of the day....

"I would love to see a mom fighting one of these," the judge said.

JDonahue:

I wanted to bring up some serious and irreconcilable concerns with your proposed scheme (which actually IS fairplay DRM if I read this correctly).

For reference, here is your quote:

"Watermark the ripped recordings. This is done by "Fingerprinting", in which you buy an MP3, register it by fingerprinting the MP3 player with your "Fingerprint" profile. If the "Fingerprint" on the file matches the "Fingerprint" on the MP3 player, it will accept it. If it doesn't, it won't accept it"

I am a power user and a mac user, as such I have 5 media players on my system, 3 of them open source, in order to make the most of my media experience.

I bring this up because your proposed system would completely ban my open source players, which happen to be more useful than their proprietary counterparts.

The other practical and perfectly legal use it kills for me is my ability to use open formats, or to use non-approved tools to repair my files, what about conversion between filetypes, or the transformative remix or resampling of a file?.

Then there is the fact that i've gone through 5 portable compressed audio players (3 due to defect).

The biggest problem with this is it shuts out open source by default, as open source would not be necessarily "robust" to be compliant, since it's code is designed specifically to facilitate reverse engineering.

The GPL software I use on my mac is necessary to maintain compatibility with the normal "PC" world, do you suggest I abandon it?

My friend makes and distributes anime music videos, which have never been C&D'd by the RIAA. What should he do?

some other notes: besides the rejection of open source, in order for this "fingerprint" system to work, all existing hardware would have to be destroyed, and/or a new file format would have to be engineered.. one which would not be adopted because it would not offer significant gains above it's already established breathren.

"The internet can make the middleman a moot point.
LOL a Captain Dunsel, if you will."

BTW,
No offense at all intended to our own regular CaptDunsel.

"some other notes: besides the rejection of open source, in order for this "fingerprint" system to work, all existing hardware would have to be destroyed, and/or a new file format would have to be engineered.. one which would not be adopted because it would not offer significant gains above it's already established breathren."

SDMI considered this - the plan there was to simply stop the manufacture of nonrestricted hardware, and let normal obsolescence and breakage take care of the rest.

It does make sense - if the objective is not to prevent well-funded, professional pirates. SDMI wasn't aimed at those. It was supposed to prevent casual infringement of the type where someone rips a CD and puts it online, or makes a copy for a friend. It is assumed a casual infringer is not going to spent £30 on ebay for an old pre-restriction CD player, and more for a portable MP3 player, and certinly not the £40 for a cheap USB-audio device (it was expected that computer sound cards would one say have watermark-detectors in hardware on the inputs that would disable recording of 'infringing' content, such as a wedding video with background music.

Another thing that JDonahue's "proposals" would eliminate is regular old CD-ROMS. They would now be illegal because they can't "write" to his "write area".

But the RIAA couldn't sue you now because that, my friends, would be ex post facto, something expressly prohibited by the Constitution. So I suggest we all start hoarding CD-ROMS in case this idiot ever sees him "dream" realized.

As much as it was necessary to bitch about this at the beginning (because the whole CD-R issue is what got me into this in the first place three years ago), it's necessary to remember one thing:

I wouldn't worry about any of this until Sony stops making CD burners and the blank CD-Rs. If the RIAA can't persuade Sony to stop making them, then they don't have a chance in hell of convincing the rest of us to stop using them.

The soccer mom is named Patricia Santangelo. Sounds I-talian to me. I told ya, we're a stubborn bunch and do not suffer injustice lightly.

Mitch Brainwol is a lying twerp that deserves to be fired from his job for being such a moron.

Most of the CD's I burn don't even have music on them. I use writeable CD's mostly to store or archive data for safe keeping and transport. If CD-R's are removed from the market this would seriously impact my work. I guess they are not taking in to account the potential loss of sales from money going to find alternate data storage that could be spent on CD's. (suprising since the Recording Industry is so good at inventing missed sales)

They want to tax CD-R's just like in Canada. Obvious. Even if you use them for personal stuff. Free money for the RIAA.

It's all about the moola.

Personal to Mitch Brainwoes....Blah blah blah blah blah. And to Simon Wright I'm sure we can squeeze in a few blah blah blahs for you too, hypocrite.

Last couple years they were bitching about P2P and now it's back to square one by blaming CD burning.

When I burn CDs it's for copying songs off my old band's tapes and CDs recorded long ago, or a album that the RIAA will never see fit to release ever again cuz they only sold 10 copies of it in the past (Bill Amesbury and The Brains come to mind). Know why sales are off? We do not buy the copy protect CD anymore cuz it goes against my prinicples, and i did buy the Velvet Revolver...on vinyl. And to me, copy protect CDs are nothing more than corrupt CDs that won't let you play them on the computer anyway. And what about the Dual Disc? The major labels answer to the 8 track, Dual Disc don't play in the car stereo either.

So lets puts this BS to rest folks. As long as we have crap like Ashlee Simpson or Back Street bois and rap acts, Music sales will coninue to go down. And keep putting those Copy protect cds out Sony Baloney and EMI cuz you will be getting them back when nobody buys or cant play them.

But I bet they would all sound good in the CD Shredder.....

I know of your concerns.

But you have to get the fact.

There are dirty pirates who make 300,000 copies and sell them to flea markets. We've got these to worry about, because that's why music is so expensive these days.

And for your concerns about the DRM, you need to know of this. The DRM schemes that they are using today is closed source, which means that they would only work on certain devices. That is the problem, because this prohibits consumers from buying certain devices. And, I think that prohibiting your consumers from using someone else's devices is, I think, is anticompetitive myself. Consumers want to just buy a track, and throw it onto their players. Consumers want to backup their media. Consumers want to make unlimited copies of their media for personal usages, such as personal edits, or even, putting two of the same tracks, or even mess it up! Consumers want an unobstructive flow of their media from their computers, to their devices, and back on to the computers again without that dreaded "DRM" message popping up on the screen. Unlike other DRMs, this DRM scheme will let you do all that of the above, while in the same time, kick out these dirty "Make-300,000-copies-and-sell-the-stolen-work" pirates.

And, by the way, that fingerprinting on the MP3 player is heavily encrypted to prevent identify theft. And, those watermarks on the music is invisible to the consumers, and it will remain on there, even though the consumer has compressed the music.

Sure. Anything can be cracked. There's no silver bullet to this. But my DRM is the answer to the protection problem today, and it is "very close" to the silver bullet. And, the copy protected CDs that I am talking about is the ones that you can rip, instead of those crappy "second-session WMAs" that you can. Unlike Sony BMG's copy protected CDs, My copy protected CDs allow you to make unlimited personal copies of the disk, but prevents the copies from working on other people. You can even e-mail your music to the other friends for secondary "sharage" rights for limited amount of plays. Once all these plays are up, instead of getting an error message to your friend, a message will kindly say: "Would you like to buy this music?", and once your friend pays a fee, your friend will keep that copy. It will happen even though that track is obsolete. However, you can't email your friends edited music, since it would be unfair to the record labels. But if your friend buys it, your friend can mess with that music in anyway he/she can, because your friend paid for it.

I know about your concerns about DRM, but again, you need to get the big picture. There are pirates out there making thousands of copies and re-selling them away. We need to stop this. That's why I am support for security for the content providers. But the security has to be in the way, so that you can still fully do what you want to do with your music.

And about your concerns about not making family albums on CDs or DVDs, you can rip them freely on your hard drive. There are digital cameras out there that will import right from your camera to your PC as a digital picture file that you can save to whatever medium you wish. You can store them on your jump drive, as well as rip them to your hard drive. And, concerning about your DRM acting up on your photo albums, it will actually reconize whether this CD is copyrighted or not. If it is not copyrighted, it won't DRM your photo albums. But if it is, it will DRM it to prevent from giving it to other people, while still allowing you to do what you want to do with your music.

"There are dirty pirates who make 300,000 copies and sell them to flea markets."

Or get them directly from the record clubs. I wonder how hard it is to get your music into this distribution stream.

"There are pirates out there making thousands of copies and re-selling them away. We need to stop this. That's why I am support for security for the content providers. But the security has to be in the way, so that you can still fully do what you want to do with your music."

DRM is a waste of time and money. It hasn't even slowed the pirates down because they get the tracks directly from the studios.

"If it is not copyrighted, it won't DRM your photo albums. But if it is, it will DRM it to prevent from giving it to other people, while still allowing you to do what you want to do with your music."

My music is copyrighted. I don't want to prevent it from spreading, I want it to spread as far as possible. Go protect someone else.

Of course, while we entertain the concept of "protecting the work" (or as I like to think of it, keeping soemeone from taking what I lawfully stole first), why don't we keep it simple.

For all those that want to protect, why not continue to sell those "super CD" format discs? If that isn't secure enough, keep it in the vault. Don't release it at all. This would surely meet the goal wouldn't it?

But the rule is: Take the consumer's rights away from them, and it will cost you a consumer. That's the rule that these holders have to face. That's where my DRM scheme is. Protect the work, while still allowing consumers flexible usage with the media.

Allowing that, will allow new innovations, new ways to enjoy music, and who knows! You protect your works to make profits, but you need to allow flexibility, because consumers will find new ways, and it's great for the tech industry. DRM your products, but you still need to allow your consumers to purchase it for full use of the product and allow your consumer to use the technology that your consumer has. But the rule: Consumers should NOT use technology to make thousands of copies to give to someone else in full. That's the only rule that you should put on, and my proposed DRM scheme allows flexibility.

"My copy protected CDs allow you to make unlimited personal copies of the disk, but prevents the copies from working on other people. You can even e-mail your music to the other friends for secondary "sharage" rights for limited amount of plays."

Contradiction?

"If it is not copyrighted, it won't DRM your photo albums. But if it is, it will DRM it to prevent from giving it to other people, while still allowing you to do what you want to do with your music."

Problems arise still, what if you copyrighted your work and want it to be shared? Why force DRM instead of making it an option if you were to actually develope this (IMO heavily flawed if I read all the posts correctly) DRM scheme?

My DRM will allow files to be shared only on legal sharing sites that are licensed. But the people picking up the file would pay a fee (usually, 99 cents or less), after the trial plays.

"Best quote of the day....

"I would love to see a mom fighting one of these," the judge said."

Why is that the best quote of the day? It sounds to me like the judge is indicating a bias in favor of the defendant. Would you be pleased if the judge had indicated a bias towards the RIAA?

"As long as we have crap like Ashlee Simpson or Back Street bois and rap acts"

We've always had crap like this - remember The Archies and The Bay City Rollers? The problem is that the majors don't seem to able to offer much that has content and substance - your Pink Floyd's and Rolling Stones por ejemplo.

JDonahue - you are living in a pipe dream. DRM will never stop serious counterfeiters, it can only stop non techy folk who are regular consumers. Don't you know that? Even if counterfeiters can't circument DRM (which they will always be able to do), there is always the analog hole. You can't stop it. You must acknowledge this fact.

"My DRM will allow files to be shared only on legal sharing sites that are licensed. "

Explain? Are sites like dmusic ones that would be allowed? Would the "licenced" be determined by the person who created the content?

Hell, yeah, mroop--I'd love to see a judge biased in favor of the RIAA. That's why I'm here, bud. I think it means that at least the judge has an open mind. I would hope this doesn't turn out to be another summary judgment. Leflaw seems to believe this issue will be settled in the courts. Can you think of a better defendant (except maybe a dead person, of course)?

Reply to JDonahue:

"There are dirty pirates who make 300,000 copies and sell them to flea markets. We've got these to worry about, because that's why music is so expensive these days"

And these people are not capable of financing the creation of nonrestricted hardware? I know of a tactic i could use on my mac to pirate cd's in this manner, but it doesn't give me the fair uses I discussed earlier... it's called disk utility. I could "image" the disk (a bit for bit copy, drm and all) and reproduce that image ad infinitum, but the power user and the little guy still gets shafted even if i were to make the hypothetical 300,000 copies.

As for your watermark system working with open source.. open source license agreements require developers to divulge source code to anyone who asks.. this includes the so called "DRM compliance" code, which could then be quickly hacked by the most novice cs110 student and placed into a circumvention tool in violation of the DMCA.
Therefore, open source would NEVER be licensed for such a scheme and would be marginalized, as is already happening with DVD, DVD-Audio, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray.

Already we run into more issues:

now you have to regulate not only players, but imaging tools, the firmware in drives, the entire os, the pc hardware, and because of the Gnu Public License's provisions, none of this DRM would be secure if it allowed compatibility with open source.

If open source simply ignored the watermarks it would be either a circumvention device, or if not litigated against, it would produce a leakage rate guaranteed to provide both p2p nets and massive factory pirates all the drm-free goods they need.

Maybe if law enforcement would enforce the law and arrest the "dirty pirates who make 300,000 copies and sell at flea markets" then we wouldn't need to worry about all this BS. But they won't. They won't do it because these people can pay the fine.

It used to be that copyright was used to stop people from selling something they didn't have the right to sell. Today it's commercial copyright infringement. These people making money off of an artists work are the ones that are causing all the problems, not those that download the music for free. But, in the fevered minds of the RIAA and others, those downloading for free are the ones to sue since most of them don't have the $2000 or so that they settle for. Commerical pirates would just pay the fine and move on to another flea market.

"The Recording Industry Association Of America (RIAA) has released a new report, in conjunction with research firm the NPD Group, claiming that burned copies of albums are an even bigger threat to the industry than illegal file sharing. Burned CD-R copies of albums made up 29 percent of all recorded music acquired by fans last year, said RIAA chief Mitch Bainwol. Only 16 percent came from file-sharing networks.

The study claims that only about half of all recordings music fans obtained in 2004 were legal CD purchases, with four percent coming from legal music downloads. Additionally, 12 percent of all households burn CDs, with 17 percent burning over 10 every month.

Bainwol spoke to the National Association Of Record Merchandisers in San Diego last Friday, saying that the industry needs to "to demonstrate adaptability to move the debate beyond issues of 'models' to the core questions of property and right versus wrong."

From http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=107636

Note to Bainwol...GO " F " YOURSELF MITCH!

Also, on these core issues of right vs. wrong...got it solved for you Itchy Bunghole (aka Mitch Bainwol)...we're right, you're wrong.

Problem solved.

Next act!

"...move the debate beyond issues of 'models' to the core questions of property and right versus wrong."

I've been waiting for years for the industry to discuss right and wrong.

"Take the consumer's rights away from them, and it will cost you a consumer. That's the rule that these holders have to face. That's where my DRM scheme is."

You don't seem to understand. We don't want it, we won't buy it.

"Protect the work, while still allowing consumers flexible usage with the media."

Protect the work from what? Public exposure? Possible fans? People that might actually like it?

Will the media be flexible enough to shove up the RIAA's ass?

"Will the media be flexible enough to shove up the RIAA's ass?"

I think the question is not will, since it is inevitible, but when.

Users expect to be able to do things with content that are, technicly, illegal. Even recording a TV program without explicit permission from the copyright holder is against a literal reading of copyright law - remember fair use is not a right, it is a defence, it doesn't come into effect until after someone is sued.

Welcome everyone been gone awhile now back let me just say this I don't burn music unless it's free of DRM and independent So Na,Na,Na. mitch go cry in the corner cause I also burn software not the microsucks kind I'm talking linux baby can't get anymore open source than that yea, So now what does the corporate whiners have to say about my demographics giving them the proverbial middle finger we are far and wide like global lol. even us geeks have it figured out lol.

Welcome back!

"There are dirty pirates who make 300,000 copies and sell them to flea markets. We've got these to worry about, because that's why music is so expensive these days."

Gee then why are all the RIAA cops and lawyers busy trying to see who's sharing what in P2P programs rather than going out and busting said Flea Markets?? I haven't heard of ANY busts at a Flea Market, have you?? If so, give a link to the article.

Oh, and JDonahue, if DRM doesn't expire when the copyright expires, I feel it is unconstitutional. Copyrights were provided "FOR LIMITED TIMES". Locking up a copyrighted work forever on a CD should be considered a crime, not downloading for personal use.

"The problem is that the majors don't seem to able to offer much that has content and substance - your Pink Floyd's and Rolling Stones "

That's because today artists must make it on the major label right away, or they are dropped. Artists no longer are developed. If Bruce Springsteen started his career today, he would be dropped like a hot potato after the release of his first recording bombed like it initally did back in the 70's.

"remember fair use is not a right, it is a defence, it doesn't come into effect until after someone is sued."

Since it is written into the Copyright code, I believe it is MUCH MORE than JUST a defense.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=Fair%20Use&url=/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-notes.html

Or go here and type in "Fair Use" and hit search:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/uscode17.html

"Since it is written into the Copyright code, I believe it is MUCH MORE than JUST a defense."

Fair use is a defense. Stop playing lawyer, you just sound stupid.

Of course fair use is a defense if you are sued. But it is just as much a guideline for behavior to avoid being sued. As such it is not a defense, it is a statutory definition of public rights. It is also the borderline of the limits of copyright protection. I exercise fair use rights every time I copy a newspaper article in the library. I've never been sued, nor has anyone else who copied a newspaper article in the library. I've never needed a defense. Fair use is not a defense to me. It is a right.

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. [bAnother way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement. If your use qualifies under the definition above, and as defined more specifically later in this chapter, then your use would not be considered an illegal infringement.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html

Google "fair use is a defense" for more information.

More about the NPD group

http://prosoundnews.com/articles/article_2300.shtml

mroop
Stupid is as stupid does. You didn't even bother to look at the code. That's because your such a moron you think you know it all.

Look out mroop is going to throw his diaper at anyone that disagrees with it.

Thanks shadowmom

"The study claims that only about half of all recordings music fans obtained in 2004 were legal CD purchases, with four percent coming from legal music downloads. Additionally, 12 percent of all households burn CDs, with 17 percent burning over 10 every month."

More music is being copied, because the technology is easier than making a cassette copy of a vinyl LP. Downloading via p2p or burning a CD is fundamentally the same activity. The "core question of property and right versus wrong" is the same -- the question was asked and answered a long time ago. The industry accepted, dragging their heels all the way, that people were going to copy recordings, and a tax was put on blank media. The question was not right or wrong, the question was how much the levy would be.

Trying to introduce this question of moral right and wrong NOW is an exercise in futility. People my age grew up taping records. Kids of people my age have grown up with even more prevalent copying. I think this behavior is part of our DNA now. Trying to convince people otherwise is against nature.

"Gee then why are all the RIAA cops and lawyers busy trying to see who's sharing what in P2P programs rather than going out and busting said Flea Markets??"

Because it's easier and less costly.

ATTN: JDonahue

quoting your post

"My DRM will allow files to be shared only on legal sharing sites that are licensed. But the people picking up the file would pay a fee (usually, 99 cents or less), after the trial plays."

1st off, what if I want to copyright my work, but yet make it available for free? DRM has and will always be as effective as trying to put toothpaste back into a tube by hand, or putting the Genie back in the bottle so to speak.

RIAA music has failed and warranted boycott way before DRM even became prevalent in their music. I personally am in agreement to others here that hope they lock it down even worse. The non-technical customers need to have something that breaks through the barrier of thier ignorance and shows them "holy shit, I'm getting screwed over here, I can't do what I used to be able to do with what I paid for, forget it, I'm not buying anymore of thier products".

RIAA music failed not long after 1995 IMO when they really started compressing, limiting, hard clipping, and allowing otherwise incredibly egregious recording malpractice on just about every artist release affiliated by them.

I don't accept crap thats recorded at -3Dd RMS, to me thats WORSE than DRM, because the music itself, is literally destroyed in numerous ways. It would be like instead of buying a Picasso painting original, I purchased a photocopied one that was taken through 8 panes of multi-colored glass, in terms of its resemblance or fidelity to the original. That alone is more than enough reason for me to refuse their ridiculous works that they have the audacity to call "legitimate music".