I didn't consider the idea of 12/24+ ripping speed. That's a very good point.
>> I love the image of reverting to cassette tape as an illustration of DRM: intentionally selling an inferior product - because you buisiness model no longer fits with reality.
> Just to be honest, as a musician I find this kind of statement rather rude.
How's that? CDs worked fine w/o DRM. LPs work fine w/o DRM.
Regressing to lossy media in order to extort (as opposed to solicit) money from fans seems regressive to me. It's a little like banning radio plays of songs, because people can (and did/do?) tape radio... while this is all more akin to libraries:if the product is any good -- free copies/samples will lead to more sales.
> Regressing to lossy media in order to extort (as opposed to solicit) money from fans seems regressive to me.
Small record labels in Zimbabwe are not extorting anything from their fans. This is a preposterous statement.
I've known literally thousands of musicians and labels and none of them have ever done DRM on any medium whatsoever. I'm not even sure why you are bringing up DRM. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
> I'm not even sure why you are bringing up DRM. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Well, technically, choosing cassette tapes as a medium over CDs, because tapes are harder to copy than CDs would be deploying "Analog Rights Management", rather than "Digital Rights Management". What they have in common, is that both DRMed distribution channels, and "ARMed" (like VHS, cassette tape) are an inferior product to the alternatives (such as CDs, non-DRMed laser disks/DVD etc).
The sub-thread was started with a comment to the effect that labels were choosing tapes over CDs, because CDs were to easy to rip (and hence were pirated). I think the point is relevant.
We can of course disagree on whether or not an industry (small or large) that needs to cripple its products in order for people to be willing to pay for it, is a sound one (no pun intended) or not.
> an industry (small or large) that needs to cripple its products in order for people to be willing to pay for it
you are very strange. your goal appears to be primarily to annoy me. I admitted that I found your comments rude, and you still keep going. do you get pleasure from this ? do you just look for any argument on the internet about piracy and then show up to argue ?
you even purposely INCLUDE small music labels in your statement above. this comes after me pointing out to you that none of the thousands of labels and musicians that I have known and worked with have done any of this DRM stuff that you are so obsessed about. none of them.
I'm sorry if I've offended you. My intention was to discuss the merits and demerits of rights management. My follow up comment was an effort to clear up my point of view, not necessarily to change yours. I'm not sure I did a good job of the former, considering your response -- but I don't think I've much to add at this point.
>> I love the image of reverting to cassette tape as an illustration of DRM: intentionally selling an inferior product - because you buisiness model no longer fits with reality.
> Just to be honest, as a musician I find this kind of statement rather rude.
How's that? CDs worked fine w/o DRM. LPs work fine w/o DRM.
Regressing to lossy media in order to extort (as opposed to solicit) money from fans seems regressive to me. It's a little like banning radio plays of songs, because people can (and did/do?) tape radio... while this is all more akin to libraries:if the product is any good -- free copies/samples will lead to more sales.