http://blogs.chron.com/brokenrecord/2008/07/four_mistakes_that_killed_the.html

Someone finally nails the real reasons the record industry has been hurting for so many years now.

I looked throught it abit and I do agree, especially with number 3. I rarely shop for music at big stores like Wal-Mart and focus more on used CD stores and others that specialize in music only.

I can't add much to the article than what's been said.

The market moved from vinyl to CD because of a great improvement in quality on low-end systems, and a great improvement in durability of media.  On even the best vinyl systems available in the 80s, the physical contact between the playback mechanism and the playback media meant that repeated plays of a record will eventually damage it.

But CD was Good Enough.

DAT failed - for playback, the lack of random access to the songs on a tape rendered it worse than CD.  Audio-quality-wise, CDs were Good Enough.  Nobody migrated from CD to DAT.

DAT also failed because, although it sounded better than cassette, it was DRM-hobbled, which defeated the main point of cassette -- easy dubbing.  For playing that homemade mixtape on the highway, cassettes were Good Enough.  Nobody migrated from cassette to DAT either. 

MiniDisc failed - it was more portable than CD, but audio-wise, it was worse than CD, and was DRM-hobbled.  Cassettes and CDs were Good Enough.

SACD failed - it was better than CD, but (DRM or not) only 1-2% of the market could actually tell the difference in audio quality.  CDs were Good Enough.

MP3 succeeded - audio quality was worse than CDs, but infinitely copyable, and so but the recording industry fought it (and still fights it) tooth and nail due to its lack of DRM and the "Not-Invented-Here" syndrome.  Not only were CDs Good Enough, but that at sufficiently high bitrates (128kbps on cheap speakers with a good encode, 192kbps for most people on headphones, and 320kpbs for most of the audiophile crowd if you can force 'em into a blind A/B test), even MP3s were Good Enough.

The music industry spent 20 years trying to come up with something Better, and they never realized that the market was happy with something that was Good Enough.  In hindsight, it turned out that the only way to made something better than a CD was to put better music on it. 

Great read.  Thanks for sharing it.  100% Accurate.

Plus I'm VERY glad we have something new on this board beyond "your favorite Urkel episode" or some such.

Interesting read and it's also worth reading the readers comments below it.

Me personally, I will not buy downloadable music until they raise the quality of the files. For a song to be the equivalent of CD quality ('Red Book' is the Audio CD standard) the music companies would need to either give a quality option of their MP3 or offer WAV files to people (uncompressed data and is approx. 30-50 MB long depending on the file size) so people have the choice to compress them how they wish.

Paying for 128 bit-rate MP3s does not cut it for me as I do know the difference between a 128 and 320 being the obsessive audio-phile as I am, lol.

Another interesting thing to note is where these companies get the source of their music from in order to make mp3s to sell to people. I have bought official CDs where the recordings on them come from inferior sources making them sound dull and quieter. This is why you can potentially have two mp3s from two CDs and have the 128 bit rate mp3 sounding better than the 320 bit rate.

The source and bit-rate go hand-in-hand. Until these matters are consistently regulated, I'm sticking with the plastic fantastic. :)

I agree 100% with the article. I still like to buy CD's when I can, mostly because I still like having physical copies of music, but MP3's are much more convenient.

I agree 100% with the article. I still like to buy CD's when I can, mostly because I still like having physical copies of music, but MP3's are much more convenient.


I agree.

MP3s are good to listen to on a portable MP3 player on the go but if I really want to enjoy my music at home, nothing can beat a CD player for audio quality. Besides, I've got more chance of accidentally deleting an MP3 on my computer than losing/accidentally throwing away a CD.  :)

I always go to used CD stores before I will go to a major store that sells brand new ones.  Many times, when I buy a CD brand new, I will see it used at a much lower price than what I paid in a pawn shop

With mp3s and other "easy to download for free" formats, it's any wonder why you still see CDs sold in stores for super high prices.  Regardless, I will still buy CDs.  I don't really like downloading mp3s unless I have the album or songs on CD, Vinyl, etc but most of the music I listen to isn't available over here

I could always import the CDs that I want, but paying over $50 for a CD just to get 1 or 2 songs I actually like?  Screw that.  I'll download the mp3s until I can get the actual CD at a fair price

Excellent article, read it yesterday from reddit. Pretty much nails it will all their points. I think the last one is not so much the fault of the record industry but more the radio industry as the 90s saw great change (in New Zealand too) with small radio companies being bought out by larger multi-nationals (now the 2 major New Zealand radio companies are Australian and Canadian owned). So I don't think this was a result of the recording industry, but their own fault, the fault of the radio industry, if that makes sense. But I agree with what is written there.

I'm also amazed at the cost of cds, import cds are very expensive in New Zealand, paying about NZ$35 for a single disc with 11 songs isn't justifiable, and of course the quality of cds, 20% killer, 80% filler. Why bother? And nowadays the actual cd just sits on a shelf as I burn all my bought cds to a more convenient format such as MP3 that can be played on my computer, on my mp3 player, etc. But even that "format shifting" is looked upon as "stealing".

Excellent article, read it yesterday from reddit. Pretty much nails it will all their points. I think the last one is not so much the fault of the record industry but more the radio industry as the 90s saw great change (in New Zealand too) with small radio companies being bought out by larger multi-nationals (now the 2 major New Zealand radio companies are Australian and Canadian owned). So I don't think this was a result of the recording industry, but their own fault, the fault of the radio industry, if that makes sense. But I agree with what is written there.


The problem with radio is it doesn't appear to be an authority on music like it used to be. There was a much reverred to DJ who died some time back called John Peel and everybody respected his opinion, he was in the business for the music.

I could not put my trust in a man like Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles or that Westwood bloke - their egos take over the minimal track list they regurgitate every single day.  :-\\

Chris Moyles, on his radio show, acts like he got bullied as a kid.  ;D

And nowadays the actual cd just sits on a shelf as I burn all my bought cds to a more convenient format such as MP3 that can be played on my computer, on my mp3 player, etc. But even that "format shifting" is looked upon as "stealing".


I'm no expert on how the law stands in NZ, but I think it must be a 'global' thing as it applies almost everywhere...it is not illegal to convert a CD to mp3 if it's for your own personal use...

But, once you start playing said mp3 to your friends, then you're violating the copyright law... ::)

But, once you start playing said mp3 to your friends, then you're violating the copyright law... ::)


Playing an mp3 track to a friend is violating copyright law? That's like playing a CD with people in the room, surely?  ???  ;D

Playing an mp3 track to a friend is violating copyright law? That's like playing a CD with people in the room, surely?  ???  ;D


The very same!

However, I think you'll get away with playing it to one (or possibly a few) friends...it's when you get to something like half a dozen people upwards that the problem starts...

It counts as 'unauthorised public performance' which strictly speaking, you need a licence for... ::)

The very same!

However, I think you'll get away with playing it to one (or possibly a few) friends...it's when you get to something like half a dozen people upwards that the problem starts...

It counts as 'unauthorised public performance' which strictly speaking, you need a licence for... ::)


Wow, so from what you are saying, when you have a party with music you are technically committing a copyright offence. It makes you wonder what the music industry had in mind for what people should do with their CDs.  ::) ;D

Wow, so from what you are saying, when you have a party with music you are technically committing a copyright offence. It makes you wonder what the music industry had in mind for what people should do with their CDs.  ::) ;D


Wonder no more.

The story is about books, but it was written several years before universities and textbook publishers came up with the idea of self-destructing textbooks, so as to ensure that every student, every year, would pay $50+ for their professor's Physics 101 book, and wouldn't even be able to return it to the bookstore for $25 and resale as a "used textbook".

In the music world, I've lost count (at a minimum, Google Video's "pay once view forever" service, Microsoft's PlaysForSure, Real's Rhapsody, and this week, it was Yahoo's DRM-based music service) of the number of DRM technologies that have gone dark.  People who pay for DRM-hobbled content always end up regretting it when the service shuts down, gets purchased by a competitor, or simply decides it can make more money doing something else for a change.

I'm not as extreme on intellectual property issue as Stallman is.  I'll gladly pay for MP3s or .WAVs of sufficiently high bitrate/quality.  But for content I'll want to listen to "forever", I'll partake of no DRM/subscription-based services, ever.  Any device containing technology for Digital Restrictions Management is defective by design, and its cost - however low the price - is always too high. 

Wow, so from what you are saying, when you have a party with music you are technically committing a copyright offence.


Technically, yes...that's how the law stands!  :D

(Mind you, you'd have to be pretty unlucky for the rozzers to come busting up the party to slap a warrant on you for committing this heinious crime...they'd more likely be concerned about there being too much noise!)

But in the pub/club trade, it's a big thing! 'Secret' PPL gestapo frequently crack down on unaware offenders...

The story is about books, but it was written several years before universities and textbook publishers came up with the idea of self-destructing textbooks, so as to ensure that every student, every year, would pay $50+ for their professor's Physics 101 book, and wouldn't even be able to return it to the bookstore for $25 and resale as a "used textbook".


'Self-destructing textbooks'...I can't quite push the 'Mission: Impossible' theme out of my head for some reason!  :D

This has always puzzled me...

Just say I buy a legit, kosher copy of a CD at full retail value and then, several years later, I take the thing to a car boot/thrift/garage sale and sell it...

Who'd be breaking the law? Me, for not passing on any royalties/copyright to the artist and publisher?

Or the person who bought it from me who, unwittingly or not, is doing the same?

Or both of us?  ???

Technically, yes...that's how the law stands!  :D

(Mind you, you'd have to be pretty unlucky for the rozzers to come busting up the party to slap a warrant on you for committing this heinious crime...they'd more likely be concerned about there being too much noise!)

But in the pub/club trade, it's a big thing! 'Secret' PPL gestapo frequently crack down on unaware offenders...


LOL!!!

Yes, we would be in more trouble for disturbance than anything else.

I could imagine the music industry getting uppity about the pubs and clubs. In fact, that reminds me of a time recently where I went out drinking with mates and, realising there was no music, I asked a girl to play some music on her phone mp3 player. Someone came over to us and asked her to turn it off! I asked why and he said because they haven't got a licence for music . . . Unreal, lol.

'Self-destructing textbooks'...I can't quite push the 'Mission: Impossible' theme out of my head for some reason!  :D

This has always puzzled me...

Just say I buy a legit, kosher copy of a CD at full retail value and then, several years later, I take the thing to a car boot/thrift/garage sale and sell it...

Who'd be breaking the law? Me, for not passing on any royalties/copyright to the artist and publisher?

Or the person who bought it from me who, unwittingly or not, is doing the same?

Or both of us?  ???


At the moment, none of you.

If you ripped a copy of the CD to MP3, and kept the MP3s after selling the CD, you're guilty of copyright infringement, but that has nothing to do with your right to resell a used CD.

But if you just bought a CD, listened to it a few times, and sold it at a garage sale, both you and the buyer are fine, because the "first sale doctrine" applies to CDs as well as books.  If it didn't, the used record stores would have been sued into oblivion decades ago.  Under the first sale doctrine, only the first sale of the item (typically a publisher/distributor selling books or CDs to a bookstore or record store) incurs liability for royalty payments.  From that point on, all sales are royalty-free.

Books are heavy and unwieldy things, and rather than return truckloads of unsold books to the publisher, bookstores will either punch a hole in the front cover, or tear off the front cover, and send back only the torn cover or the punched-out portion, and shovel the rest of the books to a paper recycler.  By sending in the torn-off covers, they declare to the publisher "here's physical proof that we didn't sell this book, so we don't owe you any royalties on this copy".  That's why you sometimes see warnings like "If you purchased this book without its cover, neither the author nor publisher received any royalties from your purchase.  Your bookseller is a very naughty person for selling books that he told us he'd destroyed, and if you knew about this and bought it anyway, so are you!"

Publishers of books hate the first sale doctrine too, but dead-tree books are pretty expensive (in both time and material) for small-scale copying.  CDs and DVDs, of course, are a whole different ballgame.

A few years from now, who knows?  The Music And Film Industries of America (MAFIA) have always hated the first sale doctrine, and are constantly trying to buy enough Congressmen to pass a law making music a licensed product (like software) rather than a sold product (as it currently exists).  At that point, the act of opening the shrinkwrap effectively binds you to the license, and all that MAFIA has to do to shut down the entire used CD/DVD market is to say "This product is licensed not sold.  This license is non-transferable." on the package.