To me this is good news. It's doesn't sound like "copy protection" it sounds like good marketing. My viewpoint on the whole napster/file sharing battle has been this. If you can't beat 'em join 'em and use it to your advantage. I get tired of going to AES conventions and such and listening to record execs crying about everybody downloading their songs for free and every kid in the world now has a PC with a CD burner....blahh..blah..blahhh...whine..whine...pout. Yes, I agree this is part of their income and it effects...that part of their income. The thing I never hear them mention is how their income on "publishing rights" has decreased. It's actually a means of mass advertising that they're getting for "free". Most large companies would love to get free advertisement to market their product. Here they have it and they're crying about the dollar per CD they're losing from the CD sales. The whole time they're not telling you the other part is now they've exponentially increased their fan base who intern is paying $60+ to go see their artist in concert and buying a $2 T-shirt at $75 a pop. I'm happy to see someone finally caught onto the advantages of free mass marketing. Now wouldn't that be ironic that someday someone like Napster turns around and starts charging THEM, for their customers using their service, thus making them pay for advertisement.?

I stay out of these discussions for the most part, mostly because I see both sides of the issue pretty clearly. As an artist, my record sales have suffered significantly because of free downloads. To the point that we sent a letter out to fans about 3 years back, telling them that if they were going to support free downloads of my music, I'd have to quit making music.
It works both ways.
I realize you don't hang out here much Red, but I tend to post related industry reports on occasion, so it's posted more as an FYI from me rather than a topic of discussion for me.
Copyright stuff tends to get really bloody really fast around here.

Interesting article; how do they plan to not allow copying or restrict this? I dont understand that part.

There are two sets of information on the CD - audio tracks that will play on normal players, but have some level of copy protection, and digtally encrypted information that can only be accessed from the computer when you install their software.

When you put the CD in your PC, it installs a driver that is always active from that point foward. This driver examines all CD's and if they have the copy protection, the driver prevents access to the regular (unencrypted) audio tracks.

The idea is that the extra content provided in the encrypted material (video's, extra music, etc.) will encourage people to accept the EULA and allow the software to be installed and thus prevent copying of the material. The encrypted music is also done thru digital rights management, so they can control how it gets spread.

--Scott

So what happens when i put the CD in my computer and i have permanently shut off all automatic execution or installation from all optical drives? I won't get that driver installed on my computer. Won't i still be able to run any ripping software and access the audio tracks as normal?

If the data can be played, it can be read and copied too. No copy protection can get past this issue.

For that matter, probably most of the people out there doing file sharing wouldn't notice the quality hit if the music passed through D/A & A/D conversions along the way. One could always take the headphone output from the CD player and send the analog signal into the computer sound card's line in and make an analog recording free from any copy protection scheme whatsoever, then make new unprotected MP3 files or CDs from these recordings. Only the pickiest listeners would notice the difference.

So, what's the point?

Educating users about the evils of free redistribution and their responsibilities as consumers is potentially much more effective than copy protection. Spot definately got it right by sending that letter out to his fans.

Grrr...

I have to say, as a music consumer, that I refuse to buy any CD with "copy protection". I've been buying CD's since they appeared as a format, and as a matter of principle have no pirated music on my computer - I actually have backed up my entire music library, more than 400 CD's, as WAV files on two hard drives. I can listen to my music from any computer in the house, and can easily do MP3 conversions when I want to listen on my portable player.

I have owned one copy protected CD - Radiohead's "Hail to the Thief". I think the method inserts small digital "errors" that are meant to prevent digital copying from a computer, but supposedly allow it to be played on consumer stereo equipment. Sure enough, it took a couple of days for me to find a program able to back up the CD to my hard drive. The real problem is, that the original CD has predictable "clicks" in the audio when played on my consumer equipment (a Sony stereo, and a Hitachi DVD player), that occur at the same places on various tracks. This turned out to be true for the replacement disc from the music store - same clicks, same places. Of course, I can't get a refund, even though the product is defective. Ironically, I created a CD with the tracks I had ripped on to my hard drive and it plays flawlessly.

Is this what record companies want? Now, I walk into a store, find a CD I's like to buy (I still buy 1-2/month), and .... it has a copy protection warning. I put it back. That simple.

By the way, I'm skeptical about Sunncomm. "Backup" to me means a 1:1 digital copy of the source, so that if my original fails to play, I can create a new CD of the same quality. I don't think it will allow me to do this, because it would defeat the purpose of copy protecting it in the first place.

I realize it is difficult to balance the needs of copyright holders and comsumers, and I do believe that downloading music (and software) from Kazaa is essentially theft. Perhaps in my younger (and less financially secure) days I would have a hard drive full of stolen music! That being said, I feel I have purchased the right to make a true backup copy of any media I own.

rant over...
Kevin.

That being said, I feel I have purchased the right to make a true backup copy of any media I own.
You have, this is part of what Fair Use is about, allowing you to make a single, personal use copy of licensed digital media.

Most consumer CD players now have spdif digital outs, that are meant to connect to home entertainment systems. So what's in this copy protection scheme to stop me from recording into my sound cards spdif input into an app like Sound Forge, and then save it as an .MP3 with no copy protection? It sounds like to me, the only one's they're effecting is people who do extraction through the use of a CDrom drive. And how long will this last until someone releases software that ignores the encrypted copy protection? I mean there's already software out there that will allow you to make DVD movie copies and that had similar copy protection techniques.

Actually, there's numerous freeware audio extractors out there that ignore any of the available copy protection, and happily rip the CD to the hard drive.

Kevin.

Likewise, it appears that any decent CD reader will simply cope with any protected disc (at least, all of them I've encountered so far). All of my Plextors treat every single protected disc just like an ordinary one, with no special software required. Just fire up Easy CD or Nero (after preventing autoplay for certain discs) and copy. And, pleasantly enough, any copies made this way do not appear to include the protection.

I do not, and have never, pirated music (or software, or anything else). But I do make copies of my CDs for use in the car, as well as for authorized use in a small theatre where I volunteer, and I resent any attempt by the labels to limit my perfectly reasonable copying needs. It's even more frustrating when, here in Canada, the courts have consistently taken the side of consumers in copying/downloading cases.

Spot has the right idea in communicating with fans: make the relationship as personal as possible, emphasize the consequences of piracy, but then show respect for your fans. I definitely think that this approach will be much more successful than using technology to alienate listeners.

What SPOT says is no doubt true in the USA but very much not so in Australia. This issue received a bit of press coverage last week.
Technically an iPod is bascially useless here. ARIA made it quite clear that they had no interest in having the law changed either even though they said they wouldn't sue for making a copy for personal use.
As the law stands the ONLY way you can play your music in an iPod or any mp3 device is if you bought the music as an mp3 that came with the right to copy to another device, except Apple cannot sell into Australia!
Of course if Australian law makes it a criminal as opposed to civil offence to breach copyright then even ARIAs assurance mean little. Imagine this scenario, driving along the road and you get stopped by the police, they can't find anything to book you for but hey what about those cassettes in the glove box? Maybe you think I have a vivid imagination, well given that in most states of Oz the police are on public record for planting evidence then this happening is more than likely.
Bob.

Spot,

Please understand I'm not trying to fuel the fire. My ignorance is really nothing more than, well, ignorance. It seems there are a growing number of musicians who applaud "filesharing" as a catalyst for change in the music industry. While they recognize they are cutting their own throats as well, they seem confident this is a step, albeit illegal, in the right direction. The popular argument seems to be that the mega-giant labels are controlling the creativity of musicians and ultimately deciding what the world wants to hear rather than the opposite. As I recall, you were/are signed with Wyndham Hill. Do you feel you have complete control over your music and if so, do you feel there is any validity to the claims of creative opression by other musicians?
Ultimately, is there any possiblity that something so devastating to the recording industry (and artists alike) might open the door for a new beginning? Perhaps an industry where musicians such as yourself are considered mainstream by virtue of consumer demand?
Please forgive me, it's difficult to articualte with little knowledge of the recording industry. I'm certainly not advocating piracy. Being related to a software designer, I'm well aware of the impact of software piracy. It just seems like the recording industry is in dire need of a shaking. I suspect there are countless talented musicians who will never be known unless smaller labels have an opportunity to flourish. I don't know if I've made much sense but I think I represent the average uninformed consumer. The difference is, the average uninformed consumer doesn't have the opportunity to corner Douglas Spotted Eagle and talk his ear off!

Thanks.

I NEVER, EVER have felt creative oppression by my label. I think that's a buncha hooey for the most part. I can't COUNT the number of times I've heard bands say "We had a chance to sign with so-n'-so, but we didn't cuz they wanted to change our sound.
I started out with a band that was opening for ZZ Top before they made it huge. We had a small spec deal with Chrysalis. They only asked us to change our image for photos, nothing more. They liked our sound, gave us some cash. We failed with just under 60K records sold.
I signed with Windham Hill. They only asked me to do one small thing with my music. And it was a good one small thing.
I signed with Virgin when BMG bought Windham Hill. I'm still with Virgin today.

The recording industry IS in need of a shaking, no doubt. But having that shaking come at the expense of people stealing from the very artists they claim to "Love" isn't right. I keep trying to put it in the realm of analog. If you lose your car, do you have the right to steal another? If you want to test taste a Snickers bar, is it acceptable to walk into Safeway and open one, bite it, and not pay for it? Maybe you didn't like it today, but you'll try again tomorrow? You like a book that you got from the library, so do you copy all the pages of that book and put them on your shelf?
Dumb people compare copying music to going to the library and borrowing books. It ain't the same. There is one book, one reader that can use it, and then it's returned. Music ripped and posted on the web isn't like that. One buyer, rips the music, and then it's propigated like a virus around the world to WHO KNOWS?? how many people are enjoying the music for free...
Bullshit it helps fuel record sales. Fuels some. not many. I was originally ecstatic when I learned of Douglas Spotted Eagle Radio on the web. I was furious to find out that for the year following it's inception, my sales declined exponentially.
So, I'm in favor of protection, because people just aren't honest when they don't have to be, I used to believe otherwise but now I don't. I think people will often do what they can in the solitude of their homes. "Why buy the milk when you can have the cow for free?" You might have to work a *little* harder for a few minutes, but eventually, you've got a lot of milk.

"Dumb people compare copying music to going to the library and borrowing books. It ain't the same. There is one book, one reader that can use it, and then it's returned. Music ripped and posted on the web isn't like that. One buyer, rips the music, and then it's propigated like a virus around the world to WHO KNOWS?? how many people are enjoying the music for free..."

"people just aren't honest when they don't have to be, I used to believe otherwise but now I don't. I think people will often do what they can in the solitude of their homes. "Why buy the milk when you can have the cow for free?" You might have to work a *little* harder for a few minutes, but eventually, you've got a lot of milk. "

I agree 100% (hope I didn't give you the impression I didn't.)
I just wanted a first-hand opinion from a genuine labeled artist rather than speculation from someone who "heard from someone who knows someone who knows this guy in the business."

Thanks for the perspective Spot.

Lemme soften that just a *little* bit....there are honest people, and frankly, I'm pretty surprised at the number of people here who say that they don't have any illegal media or software or whatever else on their computers. That's pretty admirable since we're all a buncha computer geeks. While this forum is no means a cross section of society, it does represent a fair group of people, I suspect. It's somewhat odd, I have loaned gear to people in this forum and it's always been shipped back as good as it left. People here are pretty much in tune with a similar beat. I guess the communities are my "reality" measure of what people can be like, and that's a good thing. But outside of these small groups....