Curse Missed Opportunities

Boing Boing reports that the most recent Coldplay CD comes with a couple little restrictions:

This CD cannot be burnt onto a CD or hard disc, nor can it be converted to an MP3.

This CD…might not play in…some DVD players…car stereos…portable CD players, Game Players….Although you can use your PC's Windows program to listen to certain tracks, this does not mean that the CD can be played in all PCs….This CD does not support Macintosh PC software.

After all that, the insert helpfully informs you that they won't refund or exchange the album. And this "special technology" is to help you "enjoy high quality music."

Now, depending where you get it, the store might well be willing to accept the disc back and offer a refund. But in light of the way increasing numbers of people consume music these days, I wonder whether this isn't a fraudulent (at the least deceptive) practice. I buy most of my music online for download these days, though once or twice a year I'll end up buying a physical CD. I pretty much never listen to music on the CD though—I keep my music on my hard drive and iPod and the physical CD filed away in a book in a closet somewhere. I'm not even sure anyone in my house owns a functional CD player not installed in a computer of some sort. Practically speaking, given the way I (and most people I know) consume music now, a CD I can't rip to a hard drive is no use to me. You might as well sell me a DVD region-coded for play only in Southeast Asia, with no notice until its home and unwrapped that I can't use it in the fashion or with the equipment I customarily do—and (reasonably, I think) took it for granted at the time of purchase that I'd be able to.

Now, looking at the rear cover, I do see some very tiny print hinting at a fraction of the limitations suggested on the insert. Though contra what's printed there, the rear cover seems to suggest that the disc will work with Macs, and never really says in so many words that you can't use the thing with your iPod at all. Any lawyers out there think a class-action suit against Virgin for manufacturing what many would consider a defective product without adequate notice would stand a chance? And if so, want to go halvsies on what's left of the settlement after the vast majority of buyers neglect to collect their $1.50 share of it?

Comments

[mediageek]

A Cold Play CD that includes software to keep you from playing it?

This practically writes its own punchlines.

[James]

It sounds to me like they're encouraging piracy rather than suppressing it. Someone will find a way into the CD and everyone will have an incentive to share it because the CD cannot do what they want it to do.

I buy all the music I listen to on CD. A couple a month, on average. I usually put the music on my hard drive for listening in the house and keep the disc in the car. Not matter how I feel about the music, I frankly have no use for a CD I can't put on my computer. I'm sure Coldplay is a fine group of talented young men, but there are plenty of equally talented artists. Lots of ambitious youngsters are willing to take their place. They might have a monopoly on their music, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly on entertainment.

[dead_elvis]

It has that big official "Compact Disc" logo. I seem to recall Philips threatening to take record companies to court over the fact that DRM-hobbled cds don't technically conform to the standard that the logo requires.

I personally won't purchase my music via download though, until they offer a non-lossy compression option.

[Rhywun]

And this "special technology" is to help you "enjoy high quality music."

Then what's it doing on a Coldplay disc? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

a CD I can't rip to a hard drive is no use to me

Me neither. What a stupid business decision.

[sam]

As a person who actually enjoys Coldplay's music, and as someone who considers the odds that Coldplay either actively wanted this or, for that matter, even had any idea about it beforehand, I feel kinda bad that they're getting hosed because the record company decided to use their cd as a test of their new (immensely stupid) technology. I doubt the record industry as a whole, not to mention the entertainment discussion industry (music mags, mtv, and other apparatus of culture) are nuanced and clever enough to realize that it's not Coldplay's fault when their new cd doesn't sell. It's a shame, really.

-sam

[infidel]

Coldplay sucks. Death Metal rules!!

I've tried purchasing my music through download, but have shied away from it because of DRM and fidelity issues. I rip my own MP3s mainly as a back-up.

Coldplay probably thinks it is a pioneer in anti-piracy measures.Coldplay and their record company will become an example of what not to do to their fans/customers. Does anybody remeber the VHS anti-pirating salvation of "Macrovision"? They never stopped anything.

Long live the underground!

[happyjuggler0]

And if so, want to go halvsies on what's left of the settlement after the vast majority of buyers neglect to collect their $1.50 share of it?

Ok, I've always wondered what happened to the leftovers in a suit when the average Joe didn't collect. I kinda assumed the lawyers get it. Do they? I'd love to see a law saying it goes back the company or person being sued though. Whatever happened to buyer beware?

If it didn't have problems playing in CD players and if they obviously stated on the cover (e.g. with a cover sticker on the plastic wrap) what they were doing so that buyers weren't subsidizing pirates (aka thieves), then this would be a good idea in my opinion.

[40 Year Old Virgin]

Do you know how I know you are gay? You listen to Coldplay!

[Shem]

Ok, I've always wondered what happened to the leftovers in a suit when the average Joe didn't collect.

In previous class-action suits against the music industry they've worked out something to address that. They'll agree to a threshold, say five dollars/party, and name a charity that's related to music in some way. If the amount paid out per party drops below that number, or if it doesn't and some people don't collect in a timely fashion, then the money is donated to the charity.

[Stephen Macklin]

"Free Minds and Free Markets."

For me the solution is simple just continue my consistent pattern of not buying it.

I do agree though that if they are going to put software on a CD that so greatly reduces its usability they ought to clearly inform you of that before you purchase. That way people could more easily tell what music to not buy because the label sucks.

Eventually when they have to charge $50 for a CD to cover their costs - because no one is buying them - they might get message.

[Nicktheknife]

I ripped the disc in question straight to my hard drive. Wonder if the barriers were added during subsequent pressings.

[Dave W.]

These suits are old news. A consumer suit (settled quickly I believe) was the first time I really heard of copy protection used on a music CD. It also may be why burdensome copy protection on music cds seems to be more onerous and prevalent in the UK.

I find it interesting that Mr. Sanchez wants to take this problem to the courts, rather than Congress. It seems like Congress would be in a better position to fashion a comprehensive remedy here, without having multiple class action suits windfall pots of money floating around in everybody's imagination.

I agree with the Sanchez approach here of focussing on courts rather than Congress. My reasoning is that Courts are better than Congress now at balancing the rights and prerogatives of companies that lobby against the rights and prerogatives of the general public.

I wonder if that is Mr. Sanchez's reasoning, too, or if he has some other reason (states rights?) for preferring the courts to congress. he must understand that if we just let people sue record companies then they could go out of business defending against frivlous suits by legal opportunists. Then there would be no more Coldplay records. Its okay, tho. We got plenty of lossless music for ya at the sig link.

[durandal]

I ripped the disc in question straight to my hard drive. Wonder if the barriers were added during subsequent pressings.

Depends on what you used to rip the disc. I've managed to rip a number of copy-protected CDs using cdparanoia under linux. Copy protection can result in a number of strange transport artefacts, especially at the beginning of the first track, and this can confuse some CD rippers.

I'm much more careful in scouring the label for copy-protection notices now though, to save myself the trouble 🙂

D.

[Ron Hardin]

You can sue in small claims court in Ohio, under the deceptive sales practices act, and win I think $200 without proving anything more than that, representing yourself.

The idea being to stamp out deceptive sales practices, not right a wrong.

[Jennifer]

I agree with the Sanchez approach here of focussing on courts rather than Congress. My reasoning is that Courts are better than Congress now at balancing the rights and prerogatives of companies that lobby against the rights and prerogatives of the general public. I wonder if that is Mr. Sanchez's reasoning, too, or if he has some other reason (states rights?) for preferring the courts to congress.

Perhaps because, historically, sales fraud was a matter for the courts to deal with, not matters calling for an act of Congress?

[Warren]

Sound like this NPR story I heard before X-mas. Well worth a listen.

[Jennifer]

Warren--

I read about Sony's root kits a few weeks ago, and I am STILL trying to figure out how the hell that is legal.

[Dave W.]

Good point, Jennifer, but a couple responsive comments to what you said:

1. "Fraud" seems like an awfully strong word if a disclaimer is printed on the CD. As such, fraud law may be limited and not fully helpful here in smoothing out the problems in this market. In other words, a solution that addresses "fraud" as that tort was historically developed at commonlaw may have neither the jurisdictional reach nor the appropriate remedies to optimally address what is going on with the CDs.

2. Further to point #1 about fraud: the problem here is that technology for playing CDs has shot way out ahead of what it was when the industry standards were made. A CD that would have been non-fraudulent to sell 10 years ago is now arguably fraud or some other legally cognizable deceptive practice. That is quite a modern problem because it is occasioned by technology that has shifted so radically and quickly. I think courts can and ultimately should deal with this challenge, but they will probably either have to expand the understanding of what "fraud" is, or else make up a new tort. I do not have a problem with this stuf, but I worry that you are too much of a T. to be happy with this kind of "judicial activism," J. Are you?

3. To the extent you are implying that Congress has no role in consumer affairs here, I am afraid history doesn't support that. When player pianos and phonorecords came about -- Congress took care of that. When cable tv came up, Congress took care of that. When photocopiers came into our libraries, Congress took care of that. Telephones: Congress. Masks for computer chips: Congress. Moral rights of artists: Congress (with an assist from some art-happy states). ICGOBYGTP (I could go on, but you get the point). Congress certainly has regulated in areas similar to this in the past, especially with the CD copy issue falling so close to the copyright jurisdiction that Congress clearly has had since the Constitution got ratified.

[Jennifer]

"Fraud" seems like an awfully strong word if a disclaimer is printed on the CD. As such, fraud law may be limited and not fully helpful here in smoothing out the problems in this market

I used to be a full-time eBay seller, and I still do an occasional sale to pick up extra money from time to time. I remember once some guy tried selling some high-tech thing--a game console or something--and spent much time describing what a fabulous machine it was. And then, at the very bottom of this description, in teeny-tiny letters, he wrote "I am only selling a picture of this machine; the winning bidder will get a photo of the machine e-mailed to them."

That tiny discliamer didn't change the fact that the seller was trying to commit fraud. I don't think the disclaimer on the Coldplay CD is much different.

I do not have a problem with this stuf, but I worry that you are too much of a T. to be happy with this kind of "judicial activism," J. Are you?

I don't consider this judicial activism, but enforcement of previosly existing laws against false or misleading sales techniques and advertising.

To the extent you are implying that Congress has no role in consumer affairs here, I am afraid history doesn't support that

This doesn't mean they SHOULD be involved with this sort of thing. Hell, Congress is taking it upon itself to ensure that professional athletes are following their game rules. Getting Congress involved with this would mean giving Congress even more power than it's already taken.

[joe]

Dave W.,

Fraud and deceptive advertising are already illegal. We don't need Congress to declare them illegal.

And even if this particular example of fradulant adverstising were not illegal, a bill passed by Congress would ex post facto.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: in cases in which a large company screws a large number of people a little bit each, it isn't in any one party's interest to file a lawsuit, and the only feasible method for making such behavior unprofitable for a company is a class action lawsuit, it which = horror of horrors! - the people who actually do the work, the evil blood drinking types with law degrees - are compensated for their effort. Hopefully, now that some of you libertoids have an ox that is getting gored, the reality of the situation, rather than the politics, will be a little more clear.

[Dave W.]

For example -- here is why you might want Congress (or at least a Feingold led Congress) involved:

It might be nice if Congress made a law that invalidated a CD maker's copyright in the songs when they do stuf like the rootkit stuf SONY did. That would be a nice remedy, punishing SONY for the rootkit damages and Chris Martin for getting into bed with SONY. Or maybe if Martin is innocent, then he should be the one to get the copyrights so that he can take them to another company that won't f**k around with his lisseners.

My point is that Congress has a lot more power to fashion these remedies than does the courts.

Another nice thing about this remedy from a libertarian perspective: all that SONY loses is a government-bestowed benefit (ie, its copyright). I know we have some anti-IPers running around HnR (Warren for one IIRC). This would be a nice margin for them to start tugging at if they really want to cut back on IP.

[Jennifer]

It might be nice if Congress made a law that invalidated a CD maker's copyright in the songs when they do stuf like the rootkit stuf SONY did.

How about taking advantage of existing laws to hold Sony liable for any damage the rootkit caused?

Dave, earlier you said that Congress was more likely to side with rich donors than common people. So why, then, do you think that giving MORE power to Congress will help the common folk?

[Dave W]

As Joe insightfully points out, there is not an either-or choice between courts and congress. Specifically, te courts can address things that have already happen and Congress is more suited to deal (if at all) prospectively.

However, one will tend to look less to the Courts to be less legally adventurous if Congress is going to be fixing the problem soon.

More history:

when VCRs / VTRs came into popularity, the issue of whether you the consumer could tape TV was settled in the US primarily by the courts and in the UK (and other places) by their "congresses" passing legislation. So you can do it either way. The fallout of the VCRs thing is that UK legislation was written much more narrowly than the corresponding fair use court opinion in the US. This is one reason that, to this day, things are more favorable to the copyright consumer in the US than the UK. There are consequences, maybe even foreseeable ones, depending upon how you balance the legislature role versus the judicial here.

[Dave W.]

D: It might be nice if Congress made a law that invalidated a CD maker's copyright in the songs when they do stuf like the rootkit stuf SONY did.
J: How about taking advantage of existing laws to hold Sony liable for any damage the rootkit caused?

They are doing that now. The settlements are all over GOOGLE news this morning. There are both pro's and con's to handling it this way. Here is how I see the pro's and con's:

Pro:
In theory everybody gets an amount of money corresponding to the damage they suffered as a result of the rootkit.

Con:

In practice, the money will go all over the place and will probably not be a good approximation of actual damages on a case by cases basis. This is because of transaction costs. In practice we are not going to line up all the class action plaintiffs so that we can hear a millions stories about lost documents and productivity on a case by cases basis. To compare, you can see why my loss of copyright plan entails a lot less transaction costs -- if somebody does a bad rootkit, then that work just goes into public domain -- the guilty parties suffer and the benefits are widely spread over the US population -- perhaps even more fairly than if some huge judgment went 60/40 to some lucky charity and the lawyers.

So far I have just identified the transaction costs associated with figuring out everybody's injuries, hiring lawyers, and identifying recipients (ie, the lucky charity). There are others, such as court time and co-ordination of multi-district litigation.

Besides transaction costs, there is uncertainty for the record companies. To refer back to one of my stories: when libraries wanted to know whether they could install copiers, Congress wrote some rules. they wrote some very specific rules on library copiers. At the end of the day, libraries knew *prospectively* what they could do and what they could not. They just had to memorize one set of rules for the entire US. Same with phonorecords and cable tv companies and restaurants that want to have a tv on. Congress wrote some rules for everybody to follow. Courts are not really structured to do that.

ALL THAT SAID: I still think this is a court issue, rather than a congress issue, but primarily because I think Congress is captive to moneyed interests and we, as a society, stopped being vigilant about that kind of thing decades ago. However, I am taking the time on this thread this morning to hopefully make y'all see that this media consolidation Reason luvs so much has a dark underside. Thank goodness they haven't found a way to lobby the judges the way they lobby the executive and legislative. Otherwise there would be nobody to turn to.

[Noname]

I work in the music business. A couple of thoughts:
1. The CD does not necessarily have a DRM on it just because the label says it does. It isn't unusual for the distributor to put this on the label and then not actually include the DRM software.
2. It isn't necessarily the artist's decision to use a DRM on their album. This is ultimately up to the distributor (by distributor, I mean Sony/BMG or one of the other two or three large companies that own most record labels and distribute most albums). It isn't unusual for the distributor to include a DRM without the artist's consent or even contrary to their expressed wishes. There usually isn't anything they can do about it because of the terms of the contract.

[Dave W.]

Response to Noname:

Artists do control the terms of their contracts. If an artists doesn't like the terms of any of the major label contracts then she can go indie. If she doesn't like the terms of major or minor label contracts, then she can go without a contract (which is what I have done for 16 years now).

I have some sympathy for Coldplay here because it may not have been easy to predict the consequences of their deal when the signed. For bands signing up now, they got no excuse. They are on notice and have been for a couple of years now.

Artists may not want this level of responsibility, but the libertarian world is big on responsibility.

FINAL NOTE: If artists truly cannot negotiate their record contracts, then that indicates an antitrust problem, which could be solved by some court imposed desolidation. If there are enuf record companies out there, then they cannot act in unison and real negotiation will begin anew.

[Baylen]

Whooda thunk a dude with a daughter named Apple could discriminate against Mac users like this...

[Jimbo]

Jennifer's previous careers have included stripping (and not furniture) and selling on e-bay, full-time (Hummels, I presume). And she needs to come up with "Cletus" as a redneck strawman for insurance purposes?! Jennifer you are the voice of poor white trash here, now and forever more.

[Jennifer]

If she doesn't like the terms of major or minor label contracts, then she can go without a contract (which is what I have done for 16 years now).

Languishing in musical obscurity may be fine for you, but don't you think it's arrogant to say that if you are content with a given situation, then so too should everybody else and fuck 'em if they don't?

[Jennifer]

Jimbo, I think you're on the wrong thread.

[Dave W.]

Languishing in musical obscurity may be fine for you, but don't you think it's arrogant to say that if you are content with a given situation, then so too should everybody else and fuck 'em if they don't?

My artistic integrity goes beyond Coldplay. That is a point in my favor and the market should respond by migrating from sucky Coldplay to my great (and free and lossless) stuf. If Coldplay wants to compete with me and my ilk on integrity, then they need to wait for the their contract to terminate and join the integrity team here.

Just because a consumer throws out the Coldplay cds and downloads a lot of Farces Wanna Mo instead, it doesn't amount to a fucking of Coldplay, any more than the historical lack of interest in FWM amounted to a fucking of them.

[Jennifer]

Dave, what you're saying is "What's good enough for me should be good enough for anybody." Isn't that arrogant?

[johnl]

The disk should burn fine on a Mac in iTunes. Here is a thread to someone who had trouble and responses from a few people who didn't.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=169394

If Warren's NPR article is the one I heard, they interview someone from My Morning Jacket. MMJ is burning themselves replacements for the customers who can't get the disk to work right. Somehow I don't think the guys from Coldplay could manage that. And that's not right, since MMJ is much easier on the ear. Amazon has the single "Off the Record" available for free:
http://tinyurl.com/a2yxm
So try it and think about buying Z.

[Dave W.]

I am saying that you don't know about my music because I did not sign on with a big record company that has good ties to radio, tv, print and internet media. I am saying that when I try to compete with artists who sign on with these companies (I think there are basically 5, worldwide), the market is so far out of whack that me (or people like me) never get our foot in the door. Music has suffered because of this and Coldplay is a good example of the bad hegemonic results you get. Now Coldplay's powerful benefactor is flexing its muscles vis-a-vis the consumers and the consumers are getting kranky and think ppl should be sympathetic to Coldplay?

I think it is time to be more sympathetic to the artists who aren't Coldplay and don't utilize SONY type tactics in the marketplace (the fm radio marketplace, the chain store marketplace, the live venue marketplace, the marketplace for soundtrack licensing, etc.). If you don't like my band, then maybe Clap Your Hands Say Yeah still has free downloads available. They did release the 2 best songs of 2005 ("Yellow Country Teeth" and "Over and Over"). And they did it without a record deal! If not me or them, then there are many more. The time is now.

[Jennifer]

I am saying that when I try to compete with artists who sign on with these companies (I think there are basically 5, worldwide), the market is so far out of whack that me (or people like me) never get our foot in the door.

How is that any different from a writer or cartoonist who complains, "My stuff only gets published on obscure blogs or independent 'zines, which is unfair because I can't compete with a writer or cartoonist who signs on with a major publishing company?"

[Jozef]

Funny. Just yesterday I wanted to purchase the new Enya CD from Amazon, but I couldn't find out whether it's DRMed or not. So instead of buying it I left Amazon feedback, demanding that they onclude such information; otherwise I'd buy my music from brick and mortar stores.

I don't mind DRM, as long as I'm forewarned and can use this information in my purchase decision.

[Jimbo]

Jennifer,

No, right thread, just delayed annoyance. Your comments just remind me of the chatter I hear whenever I'm forced to visit the DMV -- ignorant, loud, and repeated endlessly. And you also find folks to look down upon even though, by any objective measures, your choices or your personality disorders have placed you squarely at the low end of the totem pole.

[Jennifer]

For that matter, the Reason writers would get a lot more exposure if they wrote for a magazine with more readers than this one. Should they complain that they get less exposure than the folks who write for "People" magazine? And more importantly, should they blame some aspect of the law for this inequity?

[poco]

Jimbo, get bent. Thoroughly.

[zeiner]

Like a lot of people on this thread, I do not have much use for CDs after buying them. As soon I rip a CD and file it in a CD book.

I think that the record companies should make it easier for customers to rip CDs with no restrictions, at the same time have a public campaign to convince people that stealing music is wrong. My prediction is that most people would agree with the labels and start buying music legitimately for ethical reasons. There is always going to be a few bad apples that steal music, but I think that they will not out number the ones who buy their CDs legitimately. Besides, I think that the current way the labels are handling this is counterproductive.

[Allen]

I still don't get how this isn't a restriction in terms of the copyrights fair use clause. If I buy a copy of the albumn, why can I not create a back up copy for myself? Or, like others, burn a copy of it to listen to on my MP3 players while I'm biking? This whole restrictions mess with these new CDs has been a big turn off for me in buying music. I listen to my music on an MP3 while at work or working out + at home off of my PC. If I can't buy something and know it's going to work, I'm not going to bother buying it.

[Little Napoleon]

What's the big deal about protecting how one's product is used? It's like how if you use whipped cream propellant to get "high," it's a crime, but if you use it properly it's just whipped cream. What's the issue here?

[Jennifer]

Little Napoleon--

The problem, I think, is that they are selling a product that cannot be used in the traditional way, and furthermore not allowing customers who learn this the hard way to get a refund.

If I were prone to conspiracy theories, I'd swear the music industry was being run by Machiavellian music-haters who are deliberately trying to piss off every customer the music industry has.

[Dave W.]

"How is that any different from a writer or cartoonist who complains, "My stuff only gets published on obscure blogs or independent 'zines, which is unfair because I can't compete with a writer or cartoonist who signs on with a major publishing company?"

Because I am talking about lack of ability to compete caused by market consolidation. If there are lots of publishing houses and they don't talk to each other, then the author has no right to complain -- he gets a fair hearing by a decentralized group of people who act as a nice broad and deep proxy or surrogate for the consuming public.

Now, in your mind, decrease the number of worldwide publishing houses to 5. To make things worse, imagine that they communicate to some degree with each other. Now the author is getting a more centralized by a few individuals who probably think pretty alike and certainly know each other. This author does not consider that a fair hearing or that a fair surrogate of the consuming public has ever been sampled.

But, I am not complaining. I don't have the time. I am too busy working on yet another album, as I have done steadily over lots of records and 16 years. Exhorting you guys to stop feeling bad for Chris and to start finding some better music is not intended as complaint -- it is just plain old good advice.

[Corrections Dep't]

should be: more centrailzed hearing

[Jennifer]

Because I am talking about lack of ability to compete caused by market consolidation. If there are lots of publishing houses and they don't talk to each other, then the author has no right to complain -- he gets a fair hearing by a decentralized group of people who act as a nice broad and deep proxy or surrogate for the consuming public.

But with the Internet, this is no longer a problem. You don't need a megacorporation to put music on a Website, and if you either have a knack for self-promotion or your music is something a lot of people want you can actually find yourself with more fans than a band confined to a contract with a large company. So what's your problem? You almost sound like you hope bands that get big recording contracts get screwed over by the companies.

[Ed]

I wonder if the deplorable state of popular music is somehow related to the fact that no one appears to be actually listening to it.

[Corrections Dep't]

If I were prone to conspiracy theories, I'd swear the music industry was being run by Machiavellian music-haters who are deliberately trying to piss off every customer the music industry has.

Better theory: SONY knows the CD's days are numbered and that we will be getting digital, lossless music from them someday soon. What they don't know is the details of the copy protection. By details, I mean practical things like how difficult it will be when the user switches media players, computers or ipods. Things like how many copies or different devices or time zones are compatible with your file. Things like what happens if the user has a disk drive crash or a memory go defective. How many different devices can you send the file to. There is something of a trade-off here -- the more SONY protects from copying, the less convenient it will be for you.

Now, when the details of digital file sales are finally worked out between the mass consuming public and the record companies, there will be some kind of balance that is more or less favorable to SONY.

My theory is that SONY thinks this balance will depend upon our memories of recent media. If we focus on our college days of out of control sex and cassette dubbing, then SONY will get a bad deal, relatively speaking. On the other hand, if we are so desparate to get rid of the hassles that now come with cd's, then we might not "negotiate" as hard on how restrictive the digital file "sales" really are. I think that is what they are thinking anyway. It's not like some new major label is going to spring up now just to tell SONY that they can't treat Jennifer and Julian this way. That's how itsa supposeta work, but . . . that is only possible in a capitalist market, so it ain't gonna happen, no it ain't gonna happen.

[Dave W.]

You almost sound like you hope bands that get big recording contracts get screwed over by the companies.

I am not exactly the first artist to do Faust.

[Steve]

I pretty much never listen to music on the CD though?I keep my music on my hard drive and iPod and the physical CD filed away in a book in a closet somewhere. I'm not even sure anyone in my house owns a functional CD player not installed in a computer of some sort. Practically speaking, given the way I (and most people I know) consume music now, a CD I can't rip to a hard drive is no use to me.

Wow. I'm 28 years old, and I never felt old until I read that paragraph.

[Kraorh]

I'm wondering - do we know for a fact that the Coldplay CD was released this way in the US? Given the sales of that album, I'm surprised that only now people are realizing it has this problem. I also noticed that the link both Sanchez and Boing Boing referenced liked to a blogger in India. So however annoying this could be for people there, is this a problem for those of us in the States?

[Serafina]

This appears to be on an Indian release of the X&Y album (check the back cover on the link), which didn't have those restrictions in the US. For that matter, X&Y is available on the iTunes Music Store for download, so those rules don't make any sense. It seems to be a geographically limited issue.

[Jennifer]

Envy is not attractive, Dave.

[Eddy]

The Register has an article concerning the decline in sales and the increase in DRM. It seems cdparanoia is more than software, it's a condition suffered by record execs.

[jimmyboy]

I see from the fine print that Apple system 8 and 9 are supported but not OSX (which is needed for itunes music store (ITMS). While I believe the ultimate goal of the DRM movement is to get you all to pay each time you listen to a song, I think the current problem is largely a business dispute between Apple and the recording industry.

Virgin records (a subsidiary of EMI) has a long standing dispute with Apple because Apple refuses to license fairplay (Its DRM software). Virgin sued Apple over DRM, and lost (in France for anti-competitive paractices). In addition, the record industry has been leaning on Apple to raise its prices above .99 (I have seen 1.25 to 2.99, depending onthe cut, quoted as the levels they desire)

There is a relatively recent article on this at

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/11898486.htm

I noticed also by following the links in the story that the manufacturers have included the compact disc logo, which may earn them flak from Phillips who has looked unkindly in the past for expropriation of this trademark on discs that do not comply with the CD standard.

None of this addresses the other copyright issues addressed here. In fact, the existence of the DMCA encourages manufacturers to incorporate lame, unworkable protection schemes by criminalizing any attempt to circumvent them.

It also does not address the crippling of the disc on players other than the mac. These problems are more of a slam on the ongoing incompetence and laziness of some software developers. I can purchase a universal remote which can inderstand the codes of almost every controllable electronic device currently in existence. Surely there is sufficient profit margin in CD's for the minor engineering effort needed to make it universal.

My New Year's prediction is that Apple will license fairplay or will put WMA DRM on the ipod and this will go away.

BTW you can get the album (x&y) at the ITMS anyway sans the DRM software

[Dave W.]

Ummm, okay, I feel real bad for Chris Martin then if it will help me be attractive. Chris has had it way rougher than a genius of his caliber ever should. He needs more money than he has gotten thus far. Coldplay records, not gold, better, not platinum, still more precious: pure Rearden metal.

[Jennifer]

Dave, have you ever considered the simple possibility that the reason Coldplay sells more records than you is because the number of people willing to pay for their music is greater than the number of people willing to pay for yours? Not everything is a conspiracy, and not all the world's injustice is the fault of corporations.

[Dave W.]

I didn't say there was a conspiracy. So don't put words in my mouth. I have never wanted to sell any records. Still don't. So don't put words in my mouth. Never said I was jealous of Chris Martin. So don't put words in my mouth. I did say that Coldplay is hegemonic crap that is the end result of an unrecognized market failure. I stand by that.

[Jennifer]

I did say that Coldplay is hegemonic crap that is the end result of an unrecognized market failure. I stand by that.

Damn those market failures, forcing people to spend money on music they don't want. Damn the market! Damn it to hell!

[Jennifer]

And Dave--if what you said at 3:51 is true, then stop complaining about how the system makes it hard for you to get exposure, since you apparently don't care about that anyway.

[Dave W.]

I don't care where ppl spend their money, but the music industry has raised such a bunch of passive lisseners that they refuse to try anything but what they are pre-exposed to on tv or radio. I can guarantee you that if Coldplay was just some band with free music up (say: that Pavement ripoff and that thing about the clocks ticking) who never got signed, then you never would have heard of them and would be violently uncurious about going to their website. That is a problem, but one I will never be able to conclusively demonstrate because there is only one Coldplay and only one you. Of course you don't want to recognize the market failure here, J. -- it lives inside of you. It makes your life easier, if somewhat less aesthetically fulfilled.

[Dave W.]

And Dave--if what you said at 3:51 is true, then stop complaining about how the system makes it hard for you to get exposure, since you apparently don't care about that anyway.

Good question. Let me put it this way, if I could fix the music market, but the quid pro quo was that I had to destroy all my music and never write music or perform again, I would do it. I don't want to be a rock star. That is why I went to engineering school and law school, just to avoid the rock star trap. What I mostly want is for the population at large to consume and produce better quality music. My band is nothing in this larger picture and that is fine w/ me. My problem isn't that my band can't get exposure -- it is more broadly that people with better bands can't.

I also think it is misleading to look at only the failed bands that exist at any one time. What I mean is that music feeds on itself. If today's kids are exposed to better music, then they will make better music when it is their turn. In other words, I don't think it is a matter of looking at what unsuccessful bands have to offer right now, but rather what kinds of crazy new great music would be developed over time in a truer music sales market.

[Jennifer]

the music industry has raised such a bunch of passive lisseners that they refuse to try anything but what they are pre-exposed to on tv or radio. . . Of course you don't want to recognize the market failure here, J. -- it lives inside of you. It makes your life easier, if somewhat less aesthetically fulfilled.

Dave, I listen mostly to music that gets no radio play at all. (Prog rock and Goth stuff, mainly.) Yet many of the bands I like are, despite their lack of radio exposure or major record contracts, doing quite well, at least in the sense that they can make a living solely from their music. (And some became downright wealthy from it.) For all your talk of market failures and hegemonic crap, your main complaint boils down to "I'm not getting the recognition I deserve. How can Coldplay become popular in a world that also has me?"

[mediageek]

"If I were prone to conspiracy theories, I'd swear the music industry was being run by Machiavellian music-haters who are deliberately trying to piss off every customer the music industry has."

Exhibit A: System of a Down

[Randolph Carter]

Dave W.,
the problem (if it is a problem) is that most people don't care that much about what's going in to their ears. If putting a song on at a party will please the majority of people ther, that song (and record) will be purchased more.
People who do care look around and find good music.
Point in case - the White Stripes were hailed as some kind of new amazing thing because they didn't have a bassist but sounded like a full band. People loved their "gritty rock" sound. However, play the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion album "Orange" to the newly converted White Stripes fan, and it will usually be met with indifference or hostility. JSBX is no "wierder" than the White Stripes, but the White stripes have been more successfully promoted, people are more comfortable with it, and therefore more people decide to like it.

P.S. to Jennifer - Blind Guardian and Nightwish rock. hard.

[Some Guy]

Weird, I don't know anything about either of these bands, so I tab search on google, and come to this new kind of "musica site" for coldplay and system of a down.

http://www.google.com/musica?aid=PoXRq25fXKI&oi=musicr
is one such link.

Never heard of google doing this before.

RIAA is fucked.

[Dave W.]

Prog rock and goth both developed in a much better market climate. When I talk of 5 market players, I am not talking about the world Peter Gabriel or Chris Squier grew up in, when the market was healthy and variety was exploding. Nor am I talking about the kind of world where bands like Joy Division or Bauhaus (or Red Lorry Yellow Lorry or Christian Death or Swans) could be in teenager accessible places without yet the luxury of a major label deal.

Rather, I am talking about today's marketplace for new music. Outside of the Internet, it is crappier then it used to be. I am not sad for my band -- I am sad for my future children -- if things keep up like this (I don't think they will), then they will have to grow up with even more of a lowest-common-denominator-ey crowd than I did. Yuk (at least til I got to college). I have grand hopes that the Internet, in combination with reaching some kind of critical mass of cultural lameness, will get the variety and creativity pendulum swinging in the other direction -- sad to see ppl like J. want to put a damper on it with some kind of pity party for Chris Martin.

No, it is not all Coldplay's fault. There were bands every bit as sucky in 1975 or 1985. However, I am picking on them because they are supposed to be the annointed ones, if you know what I mean. I mean, I remember when U2 were the annointed ones. That was pretty cool. They made lots of good albums and a really great one. Then it was Radiohead and Pearl Jam -- those were the next generation of major label finds and it was okay -- not offended by the music, its ehhhh. Now Coldplay has been delivered as the next generation of that-sort-of-band. We are losing ground culturally.

[Jennifer]

I am talking about today's marketplace for new music. Outside of the Internet, it is crappier then it used to be.

None of the obscure or semi-obscure bands I listen to (and I consider Christian Death or Joy Division to be practically mass-market music) are anything I would likely have learned about if not for the Internet. Complaining about the limitations of radio and record companies while dismissing the Internet is like a horsetrader in 1920 complaining about how hard it is to use horses to travel and thus implying that ALL travel has become more difficult, because he's completely ignoring the automobile.

Also, Dave, your whole argument is based on pretending that something subjective is actually objective. Why is Pearl Jam "bad" instead of "good"? Because they were popular? What would they have to change to no longer be considered the lowest common denominator, according to you?

[mediageek]

"Blind Guardian and Nightwish rock. hard."

Indeed.

[johnl]

So now that the newcomers have stopped posting, we can go back to being our real selves.

[Dave W.]

Music, taken globally as a whole, has been getting steadily worse since 1966. That is an established fact. The only thing up for grabs here is causation.

[mediageek]

Dave, better look out your window. There's probably kids on your lawn, too.

[Qbryzan]

The only thing up for grabs here is causation.

The cause for the decline in music happened in 1974, with the release of the first Bad Company album.

Although really, the entire world has gone downhill ever since David Lee Roth left Van Halen.

[Jennifer]

So if Pearl Jam wants to appeal to a Higher Common Denominator, they should have written more insightful lyrics, like "Be bop a lula" or "Bop shoo-wop, be bop shoo-wop-wop-wop."

And ideally, keep each song under three minutes in length so it can be turned into a 45 and put on a jukebox, thus maximizing profits.

Got it.

[James]

Dave W: you completely lost me with that last one. Self-important claims of martyrdom to the cause of musical purity are one thing, but I think there a hell of a lot of good music out there, so much that I simply don't expect to ever hear it all even once.

Sure, there's a lot of crap, too, but most people are not especially sophisticated listeners and they don't build CD collections solely to impress pretentious rock critics. (In my view, the funniest part of Wilco documentary was the smug Rolling Stone critic who declared the record company "just didn't get it. And that's SAD.") When I was in high school, I bought records (vinyl, no less, which tells you old I am) out of the remainder bins just because I liked the covers. Hell, they only cost a buck or two, and I was thus introduced to Red Wedding, Gang of Four, and the Replacements. (Before they got all serious. Best liner note: "Stole most of this song from a guy who's never going to hear this record.")

Stop trying to describe the music business in apocalyptic terms. People play music. Other people listen. There was music long before there a record industry and there's plenty of eager listeners swimming clear of the mainstream. Nobody owes you an audience. You go out and find one as best as you can.

[Evan]

Somewhat less in the spotlight, Kings of Leon's latest CD did something similar. It wasn't quite as restrictive - it played in my car and on cd players - but you couldn't rip it via iTunes, etc. To play it on your PC, you had to use the program that came with it---which also allowed you to burn a few copies for backup. But when you tried to rip it via iTunes (which is what I do with all my CD's) the tracks came out skippy and unlistenable. I was ready to return it, since the little disclaimer on the outside of the packaging never mentioned not being able to use the CD with my pod...but then Apple, beautiful Apple, come out with a new version of iTunes, and it circumvented it somehow.

Maybe Apple can do the same with this one...

To hell with Coldplay, though. I remember listening to their first CD when it first came out, and I called them as "the next big thing". Then, on their 3rd CD, I hear about them whining and crying because their record label wouldn't give them 100% control. Then, this horseshit. Y'know, I doubt that Coldplay is as innocent as people seem to be assuming here. Coldplay is always whining about file sharing...so I am not surprised by this junk.

Not that I had any intentions of buying this latest CD. A la Jack Johnson, all their stuff just starts to sound the same. Blagh. Go spend your money on Sigur Ros or something else worthwhile.

I don't see how a class action lawsuit wouldn't hold up here.

[Evan]

"Music, taken globally as a whole, has been getting steadily worse since 1966. That is an established fact. The only thing up for grabs here is causation."

Either mediageek's hilarious "kids on your lawn" comment really hits home, or Dave's being sarcastic.

If it's the former, well, Jennifer is right: your entire argument is based on defining the subjective as objective. If music getting worse since '66 is a "fact", then what objective criteria do you use to judge music? What is the absolute, universal authority on music?

I have personal opinions regarding music and other things (as evinced in my previous post), but I don't harbor any illusions that those opinions are somehow objective in nature. 1+1=2 is a "fact". "Weezer sucks" is an opinion.

"Awww, good lord, Betty, would you look at those little rapskallions! I just watered that lawn!"

[jimmyboy]

I think that mas marketing is almost always necessary, or at least helpful, because that is how the brain works with music. While my musical taste is somewhat eclectic, I really like classical music and there is not much payola going on there--in general, people try to mass market a performing artist rather than a particular composer.

Yet I have only rarely really loved something at first hearing, or really understood it. More often, I have had to listen over and over again until the music seeps into my mind. The fact that I did this rather than listen to the radio does not say much about my ability in distinguishing good music from bad; it simply says that there isn't much such music on the air and so anyone with my taste is left to their own devices.

I watched the movie Amadeus a lot, because I loved Mozart's music. But I also grew to love Salieri's music, and ultimately bought an album of his overtures. If Salieri (who was very popular in his lifetime) had as much airtime (in the classical repertoire) I probably would have liked him more than Mozart. It's hard to admit this because I am revealing myself as a person of no taste.

Nor is the music that I love at first hearing a measure of "taste": for example, I can remember having to keep my cool in a high school kelture class when I first heard Eine Kleine Nachtmusik--I was flushed and agitated and worried that someone else might see how emotional I was getting--I can still vividly remember it. Yet "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, while nice, is hardly at the top of the heap of the classical canon--it is generally considered light but very pleasant fluff, and I have grown to regard it this way myself. In contrast, I was never bowled over by a late Beethoven string quartet.

In excursions to other forms, the results are not much better: Examples of songs I have liked on first hearing are mmmmbop, fight for your right to party, and that spice girls song--the one with "I'll tell ya what I want, what I really really want""--love at first sight--whereas it took me several listenings to like OK computer.

Finally, I go through "personal fads" which parallel in their structure I think the marketing fads that so characterize modern music. They are usually severely displaced either in time or in content: I started liking radiohead 2 or 3 years after everyone else, as I did Rufus Wainright, Korn and many others. Likewise, there was a point where I couldn't stop listening to Haydn's Sinfonia Concertante for violon and viola--can you imagine that?

My conclusion is that my way of appreciating music is no different than a kid in junior high, nor is my ability to discern between good and bad music--I just happen to have gotten a push in a different direction because it did not originate in the marketing blitz of a major record label.

So it seems to me that the fact that something is mass marketed and played over and over again is probably the reason that most good music is labeled as good music. Unless my own experience is totally different than most of the rest of humanity (and I don't think it is) then repetition is the primary reason we are able to appreciate most music, probably because we have to keep stimulating the same synapses to render them permanent.

[thoreau]

Music, taken globally as a whole, has been getting steadily worse since 1966. That is an established fact. The only thing up for grabs here is causation.

So, basically, you're the 1960's version of gaius marius.

[Eddy]

RIAA does have its foot on the throat of the music market. It's not that there has been a market failure, just a cartel that is slow to react to its own wishes. It's the old "yes, it's what we asked for but it isn't what we want" problem.

[Dave W.]

The 1966 thing was a joke, ppl. Jennifer is right as far as subjective things like music quality being hard to quantify for purposes of economic analysis. It is funny to watch you guys making this more about my band and less about how industry consolidation shaped how music went 1980-2005. I think things got worse, even though it would be absurd to ascribe a time or quantitative decline or to even try to get the big picture across by comparing just a couple bands.

I think it still makes sense to ask yourself whether music has gotten better or worse 80-05. I still vote worse, much worse. I hope things get better now that stuf goes up on the Internet, but the recent history has been one of decline, and I know a decline when I see one, which I imagine is the basis of the perceived similarity with GM's writing.

Actually, I think 2005 has been the best year in awhile. The slumping sales seem to be helping on the quality side. Mostly, it was nice finally getting a high speed connection (and consequently the first good radio since my college daze) and watching the JACK format swallow up stations trying to flog new crapmusic on the fm. Still, it is going to take awhile to get to the variety and innovation we saw back in the prog or goth days.

[Les]

It seems to me that while the music industry has changed, the variety and quality of music available has never been higher. I certainly wish I was in a band now, instead of the early 90's, considering what technology allows you to do these days. But, as in every time before, amongst the dull trend followers in pop music, there continue to be a few innovators who are very popular as well. And, as in every time before, there are plenty of mind-blowing musical artists out there that most of us have never heard of.

[Dave W.]

Les,

How would you know if the number of mindblowing artists is plenty or is insufficient? What signs would tell you that the artist pool is too small or too uncreative?

[emily]

You've said my point already. I do wanna know about it.

[Russ 2000]

I personally won't purchase my music via download though, until they offer a non-lossy compression option.

Lossless is a relative term. Even master tapes aren't lossless, strictly speaking.

[Russ 2000]

If anyone's still here, this is a pretty decent article touching on many things, including the obvious that people ignore: the market and human hearing.

http://stereophile.com/news/110104aeshirez/

[scape]

they won't refund or exchange the album.

Is this Coldplay and relation to the Coldplay that less than a year ago was bitching about greedy, evil corportate shareholders and those horrible profits that result from releasing CD's?

[dead_elvis]

Russ 2000-

Picky picky 😉 Of course I mean lossy relative to a cd that I would purchase.

Nice article, thanks.

[Russ 2000]

dead_elvis,

There is at least one service I know of that offers 256K downloads on some tracks.

[jaydee77ca]

The best surprise I got after opening a CD was when I bought Thirteenth Step by A Perfect Circle. I live in Canada and inside the CD was a note informing me that a portion of what I paid for the CD was given to the CRIA (http://www.cria.ca/) to support Canadian recording artists.

I wonder if the band knows that Celine Dion is making money off of their sales!

That was the last CD I bought and I will never buy another one again.

[kith Jayasena]

good
Strean CNN International| stream RT TV News | Aljazeera News English
http://sinethra.com

[kith Jayasena]

Strean CNN International| stream RT TV News | Aljazeera News English

http://sinethra.com

[Nike Dunk Low]

thanks