http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,...,RSS,RSS,00.asp


…and so on. This will never stop, no matter how stupid will be the actions.

Looks like an Windows only solution
http://www.xcp-aurora.com/xcp2.aspx

god what a waste of money. Instead of making albums more affordable they spend thousands of dollars on copy protection …. And a new album will be ripped and uploaded anyway before you can say "Stop stupid copy protection" on the day it is released… or before…

Doesn’t 5 years of copy protection that has never worked or stopped illegal sharing of music tell these managers something?

lol, ok I should have read about this system...

Obviously, no.

It does: the end for their company is near. Of course the investment into these so-called technologies are a waste and nothing can stop file sharing. But before the free communication era starts, the dinosaurs will play all their cards.

Oy... At least the music I'm discovering now is not usually on a Sony or BMG label. Smaller labels seem to get that copy protection is stupid, it's just the big boys that seem to be pig headed on the issue. Either way, copy protection or not, the music will be put on my hard drive. Somebody will always find a way around these copy protections so they really don't worry me anymore. They are just an annoyance and frustration.

Makes me wonder if artists will still bother to make CD's after the dinosaurs die, and if so, what sort of logistical and financial infrastructure will be put in place for the administration of the process.

Regards,
Madrigal

Artists may not always make CDs, but they'll always make music. And if the music is good, fans will be there to support the artists. Surely there is a "process" that bests the current system in which less than 10% of your money goes to artists.

Indeed, that was the intended gist of my original post. EDIT: What sort of details would you advocate?

Regards,
Madrigal

Is there any proof that CD sales are down due to file sharing or just copying music? That is, proof from a fairly objectionable third party, not a record company.

The last I heard, which was quite a while ago, record companies did not have any hard proof that filesharing/copying music had any effect on sales.

How much more expensive are CD's which have this encryption? I don't see how it would really affect cost. I mean, once the code is written it seems to me (with my limited computer knowledge) that adding encryption to CD's whouldn't increase the cost. At least, a minimal increase of a couple cents per disk seems like the most that costs would rise.

Actually, if the aforementioned record companies will raise the cost of the CDs, that would be even more ridiculous crap than ever.

What better copy protection scheme? Raise the price so no one can afford it. That way no one can buy it and copy to distribute it illeagly on the Internet.

I became middle-aged and willing and can afford to spend significant amount of money on music, but I have 3 restriction

1)
No DRM. I have enough trouble with computers just being keeps things to roll along with all the updates that goes on (most of them churned out by unsophisticated Taiwanese sweatshops, who do not even understand the concept of QA, but I digress). I am not gonna expose my cherished collection to the short terminism of companies that (I wish) might not even be around in ten years time.

2)
No poor mastering. That pretty much rules out everything after 1997-ish. This pretty much drives me back to 1980-1990s music and from rock into jazz and classical too. I do not mind, but I refuse to listen to a constant sound pressure I get from the current CD-s.

There was a online music shop on this forum a while back and they provide FLAC download. I would loved to spend some cash on their portal, but because tag along with the loudness race I will not spend a penny there.

3)
Reliable lossless quality, which again rules out p2p and allofmp3.com. Yes the latter has some serious quality issues (fake lossless files etc, most of them are stored in frigging nonsense MP3 format).

Now this pretty much means that although I am building my collection after much neglect (mainly due to the financial reasons of my youth), but I cannot support current music business despite the fact that simply paying for new music from lossless online music shops would be less tiring for me and I could spend more time on my girlfriend and other hobbies. Now I have to search 2nd hand shops and check release dates, end worst of all I have to give up on owning new materials.

The music business is driven by morons who clearly alienates people like me, who likes music and more importantly would spend on music.

Triza

I'm in my late twenties. It's amazing how much less I spend on music now than I did 7-10 years ago. It's not that I'm not "into" music, obviously I am if I'm here, or that I download stuff, but the fact that there's so few good releases now to spend money on.

Check this link out: The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales (PDF, 361kB)