Friday, July 29, 2005

MUSIC AND COPY PROTECTION Does it really sell more records if the music can't be copied or can the reverse really be the case. In the 80's there was so much music coming out, it was impossible to try everything or to know which albums were treasures and which were stinkers. Every album I purchased was played and taped. The record went back on the shelf and we played only the tapes. One of my friends would make tapes for me of music he thought I would like. Each tape came with album names and artists credits written on them. The more I listened, the more my collection of albums grew because as I found music I liked I purchased more. Because tapes wear out, I wanted my own copies of the music. My current collection consists of over 1200 vinyl records and 800 CDs. Keeping this in mind, I do understand there are people out there who would not buy a single thing if they had a way to pirate it. However I believe there are many more people like me that use borrowed music to "try before we buy." For the most part, the public never hears of bands like Barclay James Harvest. The radio stations don't care to play them (I own over 12 albums from this band). I could go on about imported music, but that was one small example. As far as domestic music is concerned, the Grateful Dead sold thousands of albums by allowing fans to record their music live and pass it around. So my best guess is that the normal consumer will buy something if they like it and that means more record sales. The pirates will always find a way around the copy protection (maybe Abobe should pay attention too). So the only thing that copy protection truly does is make it a pain for the people already trying to be honest. Apple has shown that most people will do the right thing if you make it easy. The music industry needs to get a life. 4:19:18 PM    comment []