mlukfc.com Forums - View Single Post

little_dancer · 02 Oct 2003, 19:41

Evil: well, I don't remember anybody agreeing about agreeing (that would make us pretty daft) I think people were talking about other issues relating to copy control ie. lower prices as an incentive.

In response uniquely to your post, however:

I hadn't actually heard anything about copy control untill reading your post (and thank you for gving me the information) Afterwards, however, I went and did a little research on the topic. You are absolutely correct, a copy controlled Cd does not meet the standards of cd's and is therefore not legally classifiable as a CD. In addition, despite the claims of EMI's website, these discs will not play in all players. (I for one cannot play these discs in my DVD player, my walkman, or my friend's car). They are not Cd's.
I also agree with your statement RE: the low-quality coke/pesi genre of music. I don't know when record companies will wisen up to the fact that WE don't want to buy the crap that these plastic pop stars 'sing'. I use the term 'sing' very loosely here.

Here's where you and I differ, though, Evil.
I will buy these copy-controlled Cd's for artists like Meat Loaf, Tom Waits, and my other favorite artists. They are artists, and I do not believe that the public has the right to illegally copy their work.

Now, will copy controlled CD's prevent their work from being illegally copied? Absolutely not, as you and others have eloquently pointed out, (and are correct in doing so) any CD that can be played, can be copied. I won't mention here all the methodes people are currently using to rip copy-controlled CD's (although there are allready downloadable programs to steal the information from the disc, in a way that removes the errors)

Here's the thing, I feel you're missing. People are stealing music. Whether or not this affects sales is really not relevant-(to my point, obviously it is relevant to the artist, and the record company) what is relevant is the fact that people seem to believe that they have the RIGHT to take music for free. Artists copyright their work because they make their living on what they create. It is wrong for people to believe that buying an album gives them all the rights to that album, it only gives you the priviledge of listening to it. There is a real moral delema going on in the world right now re: the rights of artists. I, for one, do not believe that an artist's work is public property. I really can't blame them for taking any measures that are available to them to prevent music piracy, even if you are not the type of person to upload these files for shareware, most seem to be. Copy-protection is annoying, but this is a case of a few bad apples spoiling it for everybody. If people are willing to steal music, the rest of us are going to have to put up with the incovenience of copy-protected CD's

well that's my loonie's worth (get it, loonie? canadian dollar? long post

sorry, I'll stick with dancing.)

02 Oct 2003, 19:41	#40
little_dancer Super Loafer Join Date: 23.06.2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 363	Evil: well, I don't remember anybody agreeing about agreeing (that would make us pretty daft) I think people were talking about other issues relating to copy control ie. lower prices as an incentive. In response uniquely to your post, however: I hadn't actually heard anything about copy control untill reading your post (and thank you for gving me the information) Afterwards, however, I went and did a little research on the topic. You are absolutely correct, a copy controlled Cd does not meet the standards of cd's and is therefore not legally classifiable as a CD. In addition, despite the claims of EMI's website, these discs will not play in all players. (I for one cannot play these discs in my DVD player, my walkman, or my friend's car). They are not Cd's. I also agree with your statement RE: the low-quality coke/pesi genre of music. I don't know when record companies will wisen up to the fact that WE don't want to buy the crap that these plastic pop stars 'sing'. I use the term 'sing' very loosely here. Here's where you and I differ, though, Evil. I will buy these copy-controlled Cd's for artists like Meat Loaf, Tom Waits, and my other favorite artists. They are artists, and I do not believe that the public has the right to illegally copy their work. Now, will copy controlled CD's prevent their work from being illegally copied? Absolutely not, as you and others have eloquently pointed out, (and are correct in doing so) any CD that can be played, can be copied. I won't mention here all the methodes people are currently using to rip copy-controlled CD's (although there are allready downloadable programs to steal the information from the disc, in a way that removes the errors) Here's the thing, I feel you're missing. People are stealing music. Whether or not this affects sales is really not relevant-(to my point, obviously it is relevant to the artist, and the record company) what is relevant is the fact that people seem to believe that they have the RIGHT to take music for free. Artists copyright their work because they make their living on what they create. It is wrong for people to believe that buying an album gives them all the rights to that album, it only gives you the priviledge of listening to it. There is a real moral delema going on in the world right now re: the rights of artists. I, for one, do not believe that an artist's work is public property. I really can't blame them for taking any measures that are available to them to prevent music piracy, even if you are not the type of person to upload these files for shareware, most seem to be. Copy-protection is annoying, but this is a case of a few bad apples spoiling it for everybody. If people are willing to steal music, the rest of us are going to have to put up with the incovenience of copy-protected CD's well that's my loonie's worth (get it, loonie? canadian dollar? long post sorry, I'll stick with dancing.)