CDs usurp p2p as worst threat
p2pnet.net News:- Music burned onto CDs is becoming a bigger threat to both Big Music and record stores than p2p file-sharing.
This observation comes from RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) boss Mitch `The Don` Bainwol, speaking for his masters and the RIAA`s owners, the members of the Big Four record label cartel.
Home-made CDs accounted for 29% of all recorded music obtained by fans in 2004, compared to 16% attributed to downloads from online file-sharing networks, says Bainwol, quoted in an Associated Press story.
However, the source of these new data is none other than the NPD Group, a market research firm which appeared almost overnight in late 2003, claiming to be an authority on music and file sharing.
It doesn’t say how it was able to come up with such remarkably precise percentages.
As we wrote in another story, When we first came across it [the NPD] adidas International, International Flavors & Fragrance and Wrigley typified its client base, but it was nonetheless churning out `studies` and `reports` bolstering entertainment cartel party lines. We emailed NPD wondering how many years’ experience it had in the music research field and asked about the team of interviewers/statisticians we thought it must boast given the nature and number of its outpourings.
We never did hear back, and when we visited the NPD site, we weren’t able to find a single music, or other entertainment industry, client, although since then, the company has added movies, music, video, TV, etc, to the areas in which it claims expertise.
‘An answer to the problem’
Since then, the NPD has managed to gain favour with the record label cartel to the extent that it’s prepared a ‘report’ on its behalf.
Its findings, “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,” says AP, which has Bainwol telling 750 members of the National Association of Recording Merchandiser, “CD burning is a problem that is really undermining sales”
The solution? DRM. Copy protection technology “is an answer to the problem that clearly the marketplace is going to see more of,” according to The Don.
However, as the story emphasises, “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 appeared virtually simultaneously on the p2p networks.
“Some saw that as a sign music fans didn’t mind CDs with copy restrictions,” says the story. “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.”
DRM notwithstanding, the Foot Fighters, too, enjoy considerable popularity on the p2p networks.
Because the simple truth of the matter is: stopping people from copying music is a loser from the word Go. Anything which can be seen or heard can be recorded by one digital or analog means or another, and it will always be so.
Easy marks
As Iain Elder once suggested, Everyone can beat DRM, and you don’t even need to be a hacker. If you have a personal CD player, and a line-feed cable (with the small jack plugs), then you can rip the CD analogally.
Just connect one end of the line-feed to the headphone-out socket on your CD player and connect the other end to the line-in socket on your sound card. Play the CD, while recording using sound editing program. After each track is recorded, normalise the track volume, and then that’s basically it!”
However, this won’t stop the entertainment and software cartels from being easy marks for the makers of purported DRM (digital rights management) applications.
Nor will this burning news lead to a concerted attack on burner manufacturers and sellers such as Sony, one of the cartel owners which also makes camcorders, the bane of the major movie studios.
If there’s omething you think we should know, contact us – tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
The Don – File sharing, p2p criminals, p2pnet, March 12, 2005
Associated Press – MMusic Industry Worried About CD-Burning, August 12, 2005
another story – ‘iTunes is beating LimeWire’, p2pnet, June 7, 2005
virtually simultaneously – SunnComm’s ‘breakout’ year, p2pnet, February 17, 2005
considerable popularity – Foo Fighters, DRM and iPods, p2pnet, August 5, 2005
once suggested – Big Music’s Wish List, p2pnet, September 18, 2004
August 14th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
they’re grasping at straws
August 14th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
this is the start of the riaa’s push for a blank media tax
August 14th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Odd you should mention that…
A tax on esential media material was the solution when the EXACT SMAE ISSUE cropped up 150 years ago in england. And again in the “old west” with player pianos. And AGAIN in the last century with Audio Cassette tapes. And FREAKING AGAIN with the prevelance of cunsumer Video Cassette Recorders. And does anybody here remember XEROX?
Each media tax inclusion also saw a near isntant drop in the penalties for using the media. They went from jailable/killable offenses, to major property crimes, to misdemeanors that nobody gave a shit about.
And each time, the bad will that the whining bitch corporations/publishing houses had created with thier market base during years of hostile litigation and business practies did what? That’s right, resulted in them going out of business because they ha severely pissed of the one group they could not afford to: their CUSTOMERS! So new organizations sprung up to take advanteage of the new markets that the technology had created. Eventually THEY became the whining slimebags for the next tecchnology revolution…and history repeats again…
So I’m actually looking forward to such a tax. It will totally eliminate the legal and moral standing of the **AA cartels, resulting in THIER demise as well
August 14th, 2005 at 9:14 pm
They already have one in the US. You can not buy any blank media, be that cassette, vcr tape, cd, or dvd, without paying that tax. Strangely, at the time the tax was put into effect the reported reason was that the artist wasn’t getting paid. Hence the tax was to be distributed to the artist. However to date, no money has been distributed to any artist, in spite of lawsuits to get them to pay up and disburse the money.
August 14th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
The numbers don’t seem to add up, so they’ll look for something else. Or could this be to stop the fast growing indy market ?
August 14th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
AHRA
Short for the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, an amendment to the U.S. federal Copyright Act of 1976. According to the AHRA, the manufacturers and importers of digital audio recording devices and media must pay a royalty tax to the copyright holders of music that is presumably being copied in order to compensate them for lost royalties due to consumers copying audio recordings at home. The payments are made to the U.S. Copyright office, which then distributes the royalties accordingly. In exchange, the copyright holders waive the right to claim copyright infringement against consumers using audio recording devices in their homes for noncommercial use.
August 14th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
They already have one!!! It was put on all Blank cd’s tapes and video back in the 80’s when the AHRA became law. 2% of all gross sales of these items!!!
August 15th, 2005 at 12:19 am
“In exchange, the copyright holders waive the right to claim copyright infringement against consumers using audio recording devices in their homes for noncommercial use.”
Note it says ‘copyright holders.’ No mention of the artists here.
August 15th, 2005 at 12:31 am
It seems that this revealing ’study’ is laying the foundation for an attempt to further regulate the design, manufacture, and sales of media and recording devices so that in addition to putting a crimp in p2p distribution, also hamper (what is now) the perfectly legal practice of home recording for personal use.
The RIAA seems to conveniently forget that they are already being compensated for ‘home recording’ and that by doing so they have foregone any standing to take action against individuals for home recording.
One can see the conflict mounting in the area of internet radio. In the past, it was perfectly legal to tape broadcasts off of one’s FM receiver for personal use. You couldn’t then turn around and start selling copies of what had been taped, but you were not breaking any laws for just recording the broadcast for personal use.
The RIAA is whining about people ’streamripping’ internet radio stations. When challenged with the assertion that this is really the same thing as taping off the FM radio, they bring up the issue of ‘quality’, in the a 192kbs stream is tantamount to “CD-like quality” whereas over the air FM (with excellent reception) is more akin to 56 or 64kbs. However, having looked at the pertinent laws, regulations, etc, I have not seen any place in these legal documents where the concept of ‘quality’ enters into consideration as a criterion as to whether or not an instance of ‘home recording’ is within the scope of perimissibility or falls outside of it.
No doubt they are going to try and make efforts to make this whole thing far more complicated by introducing ‘quality’ into the debate.
–WRU
August 15th, 2005 at 12:50 am
There is absolutely no way these figures are accurate. It is impossible to know what music friends are swapping amongst themselves via the CD version of the mixtape, and it’s impossible to know how many of those people would have bought that music, or have been introduced to new artists by their friends and actually gone out and bought music because of CD swapping.
Once more, this is the music industry guessing a number and then multiplying it to come up with something that bolsters their arguments.
No doubt they are looking to get more corrupt politicians to implement new laws giving them money for blank media – most of which will not be used for music anyway.
August 15th, 2005 at 3:23 am
Thats right “copy write” holder. But if the artist isn’t the one holding the copy write then that technically means they are not the ones that own it. So if thats correct they have no grounds to sue either beacuse that piece of property no longer belongs to them but to the copy write holder. Or am I mistaken?
August 15th, 2005 at 7:35 am
To paraphrase their argument: “We don’t like fair use.. we want you to kill it.. and we have a convenient rationalization for you”