Music and your rights, pt. 2
Jan. 5th, 2006 08:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greatbear(This is part two in my multipart article discussing the changing landscape of the music industry and what it means for the listeners, the artists, and the recording industry itself. While I am no expert in the field, I've been an avid listener since a very young age, and I have been at least partially involved with most aspects of the process that gets music from an idea to your ears (performance, recording, engineering, radio, mastering, etc). I can look at this issue from every perspective. The thing is, I have my own opinions, many of which are being expressed in this series. I hope it's been entertaining, enlightening and not too boring.)
Your Friend - A Dying Breed
The Times They Are A-Changin'
The music and movie industries (taken together nowadays as 'the entertainment companies') had been tasting technology all along. Thing is, they had their own flavors, different from ours. Where the consumer saw the march of technology bringing them new features, conveniences and formats, the side the entertainment companies saw, particularly the movie industry, was a means to maximize their income from product. While this is always the goal for good business, for these guys it took on an even higher goal. Actually, it was more like a giant step backwards. At the beginning of my article, I said that before recording technology, movies, player pianos, etc, the musicians (and the agents, producers, exhibition hall owners and so forth) were compensated for each performance of their work. It was becoming technically feasible to make a return to the 'pay for play' model. The sticking point, however, was the hundred or so years that people had to get used to the notion of playing recorded music as often as they wanted without paying one red cent more. Even the record companies were used to this business model by now, having built up enormous manufacturing and distribution systems all over the world. It would be a tough sell.
DIVX The Bad
Around the time of DVD's introduction, the movie guys were concerned that handing out high quality digital versions of their content might not only put them in the same boat as the CD people, where not only would there be a chance that their movies could be copied, but would essentially last for generations and once purchased, would never have to be bought again. Tapes wear out, records get scratched, but an optical disc, if kept relatively good care of, would last forever. The market for used DVDs, like CDs, legal under the Fair Use Doctrine was huge, and successful. Time and time again the industry barons would fire off their lawyers at the local Record Trader stores claiming what they were doing was illegal and a cut into their profits. Time and time again, the courts ruled in favor of the stores. Fair Use was the law of the land, and it rocked the house. What if there was a way to somehow require the consumer to play their movies on a system tied to a payment mechanism? Enter DIgital Video eXpress, the brainchild of electronics superretailer Circuit City and a Hollywood entertainment law firm. DIVX, an extension to the DVD standard relied on a special player which connected to your phone line, and DIVX discs, DVD-like optical disks containing the movies, and a subscription. DIVX was touted as a cheaper alternative to DVD, which, like the CDs before them carried a considerable premium over their analog counterparts. The scheme worked like this: the media itself bore an enticingly low price, usually 5-6 dollars (as opposed to the 20-25 bucks for a DVD at the time). Once purchased and inserted into the player, a timer was started. You had a 48 hour period to view the disc continuously. For people who would buy a DVD and only watch it once, this was touted as a good deal. Subsequent views, whole or part, after that initial 48 hours cost approximately 2-3 dollars each. Still, according to the hype, a better deal than a more expensive DVD for casual viewers. For those wanting unlimited viewing, a one-time fee of, you guessed it, 20-25 dollars was charged to upgrade to DIVX Gold and the disc could be viewed indefinitely. The kickers, well, were numerous. Of course, a DIVX disc would not play in a standard DVD player. Also, if you decided to take your DIVX disk to your friend's place, who was also a DIVX subscriber, the disc, upon inserting in his player, would require the pay-to-play fee of 2-3 dollars, even though this disc might have been upgraded to Gold. Also, the market for used DIVX would be nonexistent, as any disc you would obtain would have to be paid for.
Word got out about DIVX. People only saw the cheaper prices charged for the discs. What was not made readily apparent was the limited viewing and extra costs, the additional 100 dollars that the 'enhanced' players cost and the essential worthlessness of your discs to anyone else. While DIVX was meant to be sold anywhere (it was being hawked to grocery stores, 7-11s, other electronics retailers, etc), an outfit like Best Buy was not too keen on selling a system that benefitted a competitor. DIVX became a one-trick pony, and when the truth was told via the early days of the internet and by word of mouth, it died a quiet death. People had about two years of being able to view their DIVX discs unti they became worthless upon the shutting down of the servers and infrastructure that ran the system. At least the DIVX players themselves could still function as a standard DVD player. While not a success by most measures, it was a demonstration that the technology could work and some (foolish) people would buy into it. It's all the entertainment companies needed.
DAT's Entertainment
Around the time that CD sales started to take in the 80s off and digital audio became the buzzword that everyone tuned in to, an effort was being made to upgrade the analog cassette recorder and bring it into the new digital world. It was a relatively short lived period in consumer electronics history, since the RIAA immediately voiced concerns that the tape decks would be used to created copies of commercial music and the specter of pristine generational copies worming their way across the landscape would devastate their business. Numerous carrots were offered to the music moguls in order to make the product a reality. The recording sample rate would not be the same as CD (48kHz vs 44.1kHz), making direct digital copies impossible. Royalties were tacked onto the blank media. Efforts were made to help in the making of prerecorded media that would play in the slightly lower-fidelity rate of 44.1kHz of CDs preventing digital transcribing. The RIAA kept shaking their head, relegating the DAT format to the realm of professional studios due to it's expense. Here was a case where the content providers managed to set the rules of the game against the hardware manufacturers to the point of beating back a viable form of technology.
Back To The Future
We are sitting at the edge of an incredible new world. Technology has given us new ways to discover, share and listen to music, the legality of which is not quite determinable in some cases. While fair use allowed us to do with our music what we wanted to, as long as we did not derive any financial gain as a result, other parts were not clear. Fair use was not clear on making copies and giving them to friends. While never enforced, the RIAA more or less turned their heads from the limited sharing that was going on. Sharing often made people aware of new music, and sales resulted from this. Thing is, 'sharing' was never envisioned on a worldwide scale involving millions of people. It was also ridiculously simple. Ripping CDs and sharing files only needed a few mouse-clicks using freely available software.
Exit Light, Enter Night
While the recording industry was being vocal for the longest time over any affronts to their business model, the artists themselves were never heard from in any widespread sense. This changed when the members of Metallica discovered a demo version of their song "I Disappear" was available through Napster. Investigating further, they discovered their entire catalog freely available via that service as well. Seeing their very livelihood in jeopardy, they set out to sue Napster for copyright infringement. The irony in this was that of all the bands to take up a cause against Napster, Metallica themselves owed their early success to people who would share taped copies of their first albums since airplay of Metallica in their beginning was essentially nonexistent. Instead of becoming a champion for artist's rights with regard to file sharing, Metallica, with Lars Ulrich coming across as whiney, greedy, out of touch with their first success and apparent proof that 'drummers are bummers'. Napster Bad!
With pressure against Napster mounting, the service instituted a file name filter which blocked searches of popular artists and songs. The service plodded along as people became creative in their naming of files, but in the meantime other, decentralized services sprang up like weeds practically overnight. File sharing grew by leaps and bounds. Napster finally folded, but it was too late. The genie was not only out of the bottle, but also going around and giving millions of people their every musical wish.
(In my next installment (which had already been halfway prepared but lost to a computer operator glitch) I will talk about the technical aspects of copy protection, the issues it creates and if it really makes a difference in 'piracy', and death of fair use as we know it. Your comments so far have been appreciated, and so far exactly in line with what I was hoping for. They are helping to write this series.)
Your Friend - A Dying Breed
The music and movie industries (taken together nowadays as 'the entertainment companies') had been tasting technology all along. Thing is, they had their own flavors, different from ours. Where the consumer saw the march of technology bringing them new features, conveniences and formats, the side the entertainment companies saw, particularly the movie industry, was a means to maximize their income from product. While this is always the goal for good business, for these guys it took on an even higher goal. Actually, it was more like a giant step backwards. At the beginning of my article, I said that before recording technology, movies, player pianos, etc, the musicians (and the agents, producers, exhibition hall owners and so forth) were compensated for each performance of their work. It was becoming technically feasible to make a return to the 'pay for play' model. The sticking point, however, was the hundred or so years that people had to get used to the notion of playing recorded music as often as they wanted without paying one red cent more. Even the record companies were used to this business model by now, having built up enormous manufacturing and distribution systems all over the world. It would be a tough sell.
Around the time of DVD's introduction, the movie guys were concerned that handing out high quality digital versions of their content might not only put them in the same boat as the CD people, where not only would there be a chance that their movies could be copied, but would essentially last for generations and once purchased, would never have to be bought again. Tapes wear out, records get scratched, but an optical disc, if kept relatively good care of, would last forever. The market for used DVDs, like CDs, legal under the Fair Use Doctrine was huge, and successful. Time and time again the industry barons would fire off their lawyers at the local Record Trader stores claiming what they were doing was illegal and a cut into their profits. Time and time again, the courts ruled in favor of the stores. Fair Use was the law of the land, and it rocked the house. What if there was a way to somehow require the consumer to play their movies on a system tied to a payment mechanism? Enter DIgital Video eXpress, the brainchild of electronics superretailer Circuit City and a Hollywood entertainment law firm. DIVX, an extension to the DVD standard relied on a special player which connected to your phone line, and DIVX discs, DVD-like optical disks containing the movies, and a subscription. DIVX was touted as a cheaper alternative to DVD, which, like the CDs before them carried a considerable premium over their analog counterparts. The scheme worked like this: the media itself bore an enticingly low price, usually 5-6 dollars (as opposed to the 20-25 bucks for a DVD at the time). Once purchased and inserted into the player, a timer was started. You had a 48 hour period to view the disc continuously. For people who would buy a DVD and only watch it once, this was touted as a good deal. Subsequent views, whole or part, after that initial 48 hours cost approximately 2-3 dollars each. Still, according to the hype, a better deal than a more expensive DVD for casual viewers. For those wanting unlimited viewing, a one-time fee of, you guessed it, 20-25 dollars was charged to upgrade to DIVX Gold and the disc could be viewed indefinitely. The kickers, well, were numerous. Of course, a DIVX disc would not play in a standard DVD player. Also, if you decided to take your DIVX disk to your friend's place, who was also a DIVX subscriber, the disc, upon inserting in his player, would require the pay-to-play fee of 2-3 dollars, even though this disc might have been upgraded to Gold. Also, the market for used DIVX would be nonexistent, as any disc you would obtain would have to be paid for.
Word got out about DIVX. People only saw the cheaper prices charged for the discs. What was not made readily apparent was the limited viewing and extra costs, the additional 100 dollars that the 'enhanced' players cost and the essential worthlessness of your discs to anyone else. While DIVX was meant to be sold anywhere (it was being hawked to grocery stores, 7-11s, other electronics retailers, etc), an outfit like Best Buy was not too keen on selling a system that benefitted a competitor. DIVX became a one-trick pony, and when the truth was told via the early days of the internet and by word of mouth, it died a quiet death. People had about two years of being able to view their DIVX discs unti they became worthless upon the shutting down of the servers and infrastructure that ran the system. At least the DIVX players themselves could still function as a standard DVD player. While not a success by most measures, it was a demonstration that the technology could work and some (foolish) people would buy into it. It's all the entertainment companies needed.
Around the time that CD sales started to take in the 80s off and digital audio became the buzzword that everyone tuned in to, an effort was being made to upgrade the analog cassette recorder and bring it into the new digital world. It was a relatively short lived period in consumer electronics history, since the RIAA immediately voiced concerns that the tape decks would be used to created copies of commercial music and the specter of pristine generational copies worming their way across the landscape would devastate their business. Numerous carrots were offered to the music moguls in order to make the product a reality. The recording sample rate would not be the same as CD (48kHz vs 44.1kHz), making direct digital copies impossible. Royalties were tacked onto the blank media. Efforts were made to help in the making of prerecorded media that would play in the slightly lower-fidelity rate of 44.1kHz of CDs preventing digital transcribing. The RIAA kept shaking their head, relegating the DAT format to the realm of professional studios due to it's expense. Here was a case where the content providers managed to set the rules of the game against the hardware manufacturers to the point of beating back a viable form of technology.
We are sitting at the edge of an incredible new world. Technology has given us new ways to discover, share and listen to music, the legality of which is not quite determinable in some cases. While fair use allowed us to do with our music what we wanted to, as long as we did not derive any financial gain as a result, other parts were not clear. Fair use was not clear on making copies and giving them to friends. While never enforced, the RIAA more or less turned their heads from the limited sharing that was going on. Sharing often made people aware of new music, and sales resulted from this. Thing is, 'sharing' was never envisioned on a worldwide scale involving millions of people. It was also ridiculously simple. Ripping CDs and sharing files only needed a few mouse-clicks using freely available software.
While the recording industry was being vocal for the longest time over any affronts to their business model, the artists themselves were never heard from in any widespread sense. This changed when the members of Metallica discovered a demo version of their song "I Disappear" was available through Napster. Investigating further, they discovered their entire catalog freely available via that service as well. Seeing their very livelihood in jeopardy, they set out to sue Napster for copyright infringement. The irony in this was that of all the bands to take up a cause against Napster, Metallica themselves owed their early success to people who would share taped copies of their first albums since airplay of Metallica in their beginning was essentially nonexistent. Instead of becoming a champion for artist's rights with regard to file sharing, Metallica, with Lars Ulrich coming across as whiney, greedy, out of touch with their first success and apparent proof that 'drummers are bummers'. Napster Bad!
With pressure against Napster mounting, the service instituted a file name filter which blocked searches of popular artists and songs. The service plodded along as people became creative in their naming of files, but in the meantime other, decentralized services sprang up like weeds practically overnight. File sharing grew by leaps and bounds. Napster finally folded, but it was too late. The genie was not only out of the bottle, but also going around and giving millions of people their every musical wish.
(In my next installment (which had already been halfway prepared but lost to a computer operator glitch) I will talk about the technical aspects of copy protection, the issues it creates and if it really makes a difference in 'piracy', and death of fair use as we know it. Your comments so far have been appreciated, and so far exactly in line with what I was hoping for. They are helping to write this series.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Oooh, you said...
Date: 2006-01-06 02:25 am (UTC)I'm especially fond of the "MP3: Good or Goblin?" bit with spokesperson Nutty McShithead from the Recording Association for Popsong Economics (R.A.P.E.).... ;)
We will hunt you down like dogs and fuck you 'til your de-ead!"
Re: Oooh, you said...
Date: 2006-01-06 04:40 am (UTC)