Article: Digital Watermarks To Replace DRM?

[markr]

While I think you are spot-on on every point you make on this Chris, I really cannot fault the record labels for wanting to do it either. Their business is just about finished as they see it. They are operating in panic mode. I have believed it to be coming to where it looks like it is going now, for a long time. This opinion of mine was formed by my assumption that they would never change from the shoddiness of many of their practices. Now from their point of view, they really NEED to prove that their business is being stolen from them, rather than it being a demise caused their own lack of foresight, mismanagement, collusion with crappy radio cartels and mistreatment of artists. How about the fact that they still seem content with the CD format for audio, as if there couldn't be or hadn't already been something better with reference to the sound of what they sell? Arrogance.<br />

<br />

On the whole, I have no problem with their (or anyone else) watermarking music. I just don't think it will prove anything. They are going to do it, and they will catch people sharing illegally. That has always been something people do, and it always will be. People steal things too. But I didn't believe that the 'Napster noise' had much to do with the declining profits before and, well.... I said my piece about this new venture. <br />

<br />

If I have learned one thing about major record labels, it is that I will not get what I want from them. I'll get it from the artists. In the days of vinyl and mag tape, I was pretty close to being happy with the record companies. Things change. My buying fell off by well over 50% when almost all you could get was CD's. Most just sounded like crap to me, and I have demonstrated this 'fact' to many other people using vinyl and tape. I moved on to live music and being content with what I had collected or could add to that collection to supplement live sound. I am so glad that vinyl has had a resurgence in availability. Too bad it doesn't cost just $6 - $15 anymore. -have you figured out yet that I have never really liked CD's? The best thing the record labels have done in the last 20 years IMO, is to make the CD sound a bit better. After selling the same title to us 1 or 2 more times in the interim.... F 'em!<br />

<br />

I thank and praise the Deity for home and small commercial studios, and the entrepreneurs that run them, the small independent record stores (distribution) and the technology to make it possible because to me, music is like air. The only thing the big companies ever really brought consistently to the table was distribution. But they have this new thing now that I heard about: the internet. THAT is the big-dog on the block. I think they need to learn how to use it properly and treat us all right or just die. <br />

<br />

You GO Linn Records, HDDT, Beatport, and all of those brave enough to step to the next true High Fidelity source of music! <br />

<br />

Someday I will tell you what I really think, y'all.<br />

=)

[The Computer Audiophile]

I was thinking more about this and your comment about record companies getting us to buy the same title a couple times. This has been their gravy train for decades. With every new format many consumers repurchase their collections. It astounds me that the record companies don't see an opportunity to get consumers to repurchase their collections. When CDs came out the talk was all about "clean, crisp, compact disc." As false as the statement might have been most consumers jumped on the bandwagon. How about selling "twice the sound quality without leaving your house." The record companies have an opportunity to get consumers to repurchase their collections. I would consider the situation a win-win if I could purchase all my favorite music and download a true 24 bit / 96 KHz copy of it. The labels would make their money and I would be enjoying the music.

[markr]

...repurchase 'AGAIN'. One word says it all. Indeed, 24/96 would in my case cause a buying flurry - NO DRM though. .... I hope I made it clear that I didn't fall prey the last time a "real" format change happened (CD's). Though it did start out that way (insert picture of fish being hooked here.) I probably have less than 300 CD's compared to well over 1000 LP's.... <br />

<br />

Chris, you missed the fact that they (record companies) even figured-out a way to trigger a repurchase wave in consumers without having to change the distribution or recording format: "24 bit" CD remasters. I have quite a few of those (hooked-fish picture again) and am pretty well satisfied with them. I suspect that that is mainly due to the limitations of the equipment available to record with when the masters were recorded though. The "24 bit" remaster technique pretty well matches the sound that was available on LP..... I will leave SACD and HDCD alone, except to say that I knew too much about digital bit depth at the time those interim semi-formats were inserted into the lexicon to have fallen for it ( I'm NOT taking this statement back, but perhaps my opinion is due to the currently available catalog or recording options taken in SACD's case.... ). 24 bit is just enough, Period. I would relish the ability to purchase genuine 24 bit / 96 KHz master-quality audio (especially reissues) to the MAX too, Chris. I'll go one step further: I want the option to purchase the multitrack versions: the heck with those ham-handed recording techs! I want my own mix. But then, I've always been a dreamer.<br />

<br />

Please don't misunderstand me: If you bought-in to any step that I describe in my rantings, I don't want to chastise you, just connect with you. I want to find the best way to get great sound.<br />

<br />

RIGHT NOW: Watching this week's new release of Austin City Limits - The Kings of Leon and then Roky Erickson (13th Floor Elevators) - with Billy Gibbons (ZZ Top) backing him on guitar!!! God I love this town!