With all due respect, the idea that once we buy a cd we own it and can do with it whatever we please is absurd. We are talking about copyrighted material and I find it interesting that in this entire discussion only one fleeting mention has been made of the rights of the artist. Every illegal copy that is made of a recording does in fact cheat the artist of income that he is entitled to by contract with the record company. Even in cases where not every copy sold means a piece for the artist, a recording's profitability definitely means better chances of another recording contract for that artist.
The unfortunately prevalent corporate greed should not be confused with the rights of artists; and while it is difficult to feel a whole lot of sympathy for pop artists who earn millions for putting out dreck, there are many especially in the jazz and classical fields, who are far from being properly compensated for work that is inspired and brilliant. There is a long history of abuse of artists and musicians by the industry and these artist's rights should be protected.
I believe that we are probably entitled to make copies of recordings for personal use; unfortunately there is a lot of copying going on that is not for personal use. As I left my relative's home a couple of days ago, he hands me a stack of copies of cd's that he made for me "for the road". A nice gesture to be sure, but I had to ask myself: "why on earth should these artists, and yes, even the record companies, not be compensated for their work?". I think they should.
As far as encrypting or watermarking is concerned, I don't know what the answer is. What a shame that we may have to deal with something that degrades the sonics of a musical project; as an audiophile I find that unacceptable. I suspect that a solution will be found; I can't believe that with the fact that more and more consumers are using their computer to play music, that the record companies will shoot themselves in the foot like that. I have not heard any watermarked CD's that I am aware of, so I will reserve judgement.
The last thing that I am interested in is helping corporations profit at the unfair expense of the consumer; but I am very interested in doing what I can to make sure that an artist receives the compensation that he/she is entitled to.
Happy New Year.
The unfortunately prevalent corporate greed should not be confused with the rights of artists; and while it is difficult to feel a whole lot of sympathy for pop artists who earn millions for putting out dreck, there are many especially in the jazz and classical fields, who are far from being properly compensated for work that is inspired and brilliant. There is a long history of abuse of artists and musicians by the industry and these artist's rights should be protected.
I believe that we are probably entitled to make copies of recordings for personal use; unfortunately there is a lot of copying going on that is not for personal use. As I left my relative's home a couple of days ago, he hands me a stack of copies of cd's that he made for me "for the road". A nice gesture to be sure, but I had to ask myself: "why on earth should these artists, and yes, even the record companies, not be compensated for their work?". I think they should.
As far as encrypting or watermarking is concerned, I don't know what the answer is. What a shame that we may have to deal with something that degrades the sonics of a musical project; as an audiophile I find that unacceptable. I suspect that a solution will be found; I can't believe that with the fact that more and more consumers are using their computer to play music, that the record companies will shoot themselves in the foot like that. I have not heard any watermarked CD's that I am aware of, so I will reserve judgement.
The last thing that I am interested in is helping corporations profit at the unfair expense of the consumer; but I am very interested in doing what I can to make sure that an artist receives the compensation that he/she is entitled to.
Happy New Year.