Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]


Question: Tubular Bells 2003 copy protection :: Total Votes:40
Poll choices Votes Statistics
Buy it, because I think copy protection is a good idea and it stops people ripping of Mike's music. 8  [20.00%]
Buy it and keep it, but feel rather annoyed to have my rights as a consumer abused. 18  [45.00%]
Buy it and then take it back to the store for a refund to show the record company copy protection is not on. 4  [10.00%]
Buy it and then take it back to the store for a refund after ripping it. 3  [7.50%]
Totally ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. 5  [12.50%]
Download it without buying to make a protest against copy protection. 2  [5.00%]
Guests cannot vote


Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Tubular Bells 2003 copy protection, what will you do?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Gandalph Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: Aug. 2002
Posted: May 28 2003, 13:52

A contentious issue. But If we buy the CD and keep it, all future releases will probably be in this format.

--------------
Yet Another Mike Oldfield Web Site - http://www.dbennett.karoo.net
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Mike Chadwick Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 231
Joined: May 2003
Posted: May 28 2003, 14:20

I understand Mike and other artists that are making COPY PROTECT albums but it is sadly true - i do not have so much money,and i like do make myself some cd-r - i just can not......
ok, i have my copy of TB2003 but what poor people will do????????????


--------------
kik-eze kik-eze
Back to top
Profile PM 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: May 28 2003, 14:27

I vote for buying it then taking it back, though it may not be sensible to suggest returning it if you have no problems with it (they certainly have no legal obligation to refund your money if the product works fine).

Downloading it without buying it is something I'm not going to recommend, for two reasons - one is that it's illegal and if people want to show that honest record buyers are being affected by this copy protection, I don't believe that's the way to go - it just proves to the record company that they were right to copy protect it, and next time they'll try even harder to stop people, inevitably making it playable for even less honest listeners.
The second reason is that the record company won't necessarily have a record that you've done it, and even if they are able to access figures for how many times the album was downloaded, they won't know why. Buying the album and returning it to the store sends a clear message that you wanted to buy the album (which makes it better than not buying the album at all, as if people just don't buy it, they may conclude that there's just no interest in it) but that there was something wrong with it - some shops will even keep a record of the fact that it was returned because it was faulty rather than any other reason.

I know it may be tempting to make a copy of it before returning it in protest, but that would be very naughty, wouldn't it?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Blue Dolphin Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1232
Joined: Nov. 1999
Posted: May 28 2003, 15:28

I think it's a bit childish returning the cd after you bought it. Oke, I hate it doesn't play well on my cd-rom but it does fine on the normal cd-player.

Or maybe the record industry should promote better artists so people won't copy and download the music that much.  :cool:


--------------
-The mark of a good musician is to play one note and mean it-

Mike Oldfield - 1980
Back to top
Profile PM 
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1556
Joined: May 2002
Posted: May 28 2003, 19:20

But it won't play on some normal CD players, that's the point. I rushed home to find my Phillips CD player wouldn't even read it. I had to record it via a Playstation 2 on to a minidisc which I then play through my amp. I don't know about you but thats the sort of nonsence I could well do without after spending 15 quid. I would quite happily follow Korgscrews lead and take it back but the place I bought it from is 20 miles away, so anyway I've 'given' it to a friend.

The fact you can easily get round the copy protection just makes the whole thing that bit extra annoying and utterly pointless.

As far as downloading music is concerned its got little to do with the quality of music and everything to do with CD's being massively over priced. :( Rant over.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Mwongozi Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: May 2003
Posted: May 28 2003, 19:51

I think TB2003 broke my DVD player. :/

I put it in to try and play the CD, since my "normal" CD player won't touch it. It whirred and clicked (uh-oh, it doesn't normally click), and whirred some more, and then it gave up.

My DVD player won't play anything now.
Back to top
Profile PM 
maria Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 928
Joined: July 2002
Posted: May 28 2003, 20:23

i'm still eagerly waiting for my copy, but i'm clear that if it doesn't work, i'll return it to the shop and complain wherever we can do so, cause it seems to me a big absurd that one who is honestly paying for a cd has to go crazy to find out how to "use" it... or even worse... store it completely useless.
i said it before... as i'm paying for it, i just want to enjoy it.


--------------
...morning and evening i'm flying, i'm dreaming...
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
raven4x4x Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1535
Joined: Jan. 2002
Posted: May 29 2003, 05:52

Well, if I ever manage to get it in Australia, I certainly won't be taking it back. I'll just listen to it on my old CD player (probably 15-20 yrs old). If I can't listen to it on our hi-fi surround sound system on the DVD player then I don't see what choice I have but to burn it onto a CD-R, even if I do have to plug my CD player into the computer directly. Is anyone from the music industry reading? It has copy protection, so I have no choice but to make a copy. Does that make sence to anyone?

--------------
Thank-you for helping us help you help us all.
Back to top
Profile PM 
theweightless Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 601
Joined: April 2001
Posted: May 29 2003, 06:20

well i did not read all messages before voting and i voted for buying and just be annoyed about this protection...but if it won't play on normal cd player then there's no way i'm keeping the record..then i want my money back

--------------
ASMK
Back to top
Profile PM 
torbenyj Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 377
Joined: Jan. 2003
Posted: May 29 2003, 06:45

rip it with cdex
Back to top
Profile PM 
Blue Dolphin Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1232
Joined: Nov. 1999
Posted: May 29 2003, 10:05

The cd-player on which mine copy of TB2003 plays is a 10-15 year old Pioneer cd-player. It reads it good.

--------------
-The mark of a good musician is to play one note and mean it-

Mike Oldfield - 1980
Back to top
Profile PM 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: May 29 2003, 14:40

I don't see taking it back as childish at all. If the product doesn't work as a normal CD should, I'm just exercising my rights as a consumer in returning it.
If you hate the fact that it doesn't play properly in your computer, you should let the record company know that.

If that same computer had been supplied with a 110 volt power supply, would you say "Oh, well at least it works in the USA, I'll just go there to use it" or would you take it back demanding one that worked in the place where you use your computer most?

The record companies will not stop here, as these current methods don't stop copying. They will, with time, employ new methods, and those are almost certain to inconvenience even larger sectors of the record buying public.

I particularly disagree with their method of introducing large amounts of errors into the audio. Engineers work hard to make sure that their digital recordings are free of errors, yet a small number of cloth eared people see fit to put them in deliberately. The record companies are making people put up with second best - selling CDs with errors already present is like selling LPs which are half worn out (error correction is put into CD player so they can cope when the CD is scratched or dirty). I don't have any information yet on whether the copy protection employed on TB2003 uses this method.

The problem I see hear is people are happy to come to this board and whinge about the record company, but seem to be reluctant to actually do anything about it.
I'm amazed that the largest percentage of people here are willing to actually put up with having their rights abused.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Holger Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: Feb. 2003
Posted: May 29 2003, 16:55

Four people voted the first option? Do we have any Warner officials on this forum?  :p
Back to top
Profile PM 
Gandalph Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: Aug. 2002
Posted: May 29 2003, 19:19

Quote (Korgscrew @ May 29 2003, 14:40)
The problem I see hear is people are happy to come to this board and whinge about the record company, but seem to be reluctant to actually do anything about it.
I'm amazed that the largest percentage of people here are willing to actually put up with having their rights abused.

I am very surprised that so many people choose option 2. I can respect people who choose option 1 even though I don't agree with it myself. But I think it's ridiculous to spend good money on a product, be unhappy with it but do nothing about it and let the record company trample all over them like a doormat.

It is very interesting the way the stats break down at this point though. But I hope we get lots more votes to make this poll much more representative.

[By the way Korgscrew is it possible to edit my stupid spelling mistake in the first question? Should be off instead of of.]


--------------
Yet Another Mike Oldfield Web Site - http://www.dbennett.karoo.net
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
raven4x4x Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1535
Joined: Jan. 2002
Posted: May 30 2003, 02:52

I'm one of the people who chose option two, so I want to explain my choice. Where I live, in Australia, Mike might as well not exist. It took my 6 months to get Tres Lunas (and that was from Canada! ), so when I finally get TB2003 I'm not going to return it after going to the trouble to get friends in Europe to send it to us! Plus, who could I return it to?

Another reason I won't return it is that it probably works fine. I have another copy-protected CD: 18 by Moby. It works fine on CD player, DVD player and car CD player. The only thing it won't do is work on the computer. If it dosen't work for you then certainly complain, but I can put up with it until it annoys me.  

One thing I'm interested in: what if, because of this copy protection, a person cannot play the CD at all, in any of their players? They have paid for a product that is unuseable, and deliberately so. Is that a valid case for some sort of court action?


--------------
Thank-you for helping us help you help us all.
Back to top
Profile PM 
TOBY Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1556
Joined: May 2002
Posted: May 30 2003, 04:27

Well it won't play on my CD player so there you go. Its a valid case for returning it and getting my money back, I've given my copy away but I must admit the more I think about it and the more I hear these arguements the more I'm inclined to get it back and take it back, so to speak.
How hacked off would you be in Australia if after all the time and effort you put into getting yourself a copy it didn't play properly?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Anonymizeruk Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: April 2003
Posted: May 30 2003, 07:04

Fortunately, my TB2003 CD plays just fine in my main audio system, although my DVD player won't even read it.

The main annoyance is when listening to it on my PC. It uses the crappy 'player' software, and there is at least a 5 second gap between each track.

And, as others have said, it isn't hard to copy TB2003. You can simply fire-up a sound recording program, play the CD, and set your soundcard to record from your WAV output. 1 hour later, you have a WAV file which you can slice-up into tracks, and burn to a CD-R.

There we go. A copy protection system that can be circumvented in 5 lines of text.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Gandalph Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: Aug. 2002
Posted: May 30 2003, 09:12

To  Anonymizeruk:

I don't think you should have to take the time and effort to produce a working Redbook standard CD after you have already *PAID* for one.

And making a digital to analogue and back to digital copy the way you suggest produces a much lower quality copy any way. Then there is the problem if induced mains hum. So you paid a premium price for a CD and end up listening to something of second rate quality. Isn't the whole point of Mike recording Tubular Bells 2003 to make it perfect? And listening to a soundcard recording or the pre-ripped low quality version with large gaps in is not good enough in my opinion.

It is not the responsibility of the consumer to fix a broken product. It is the responsibility of the manufacture to provided a working product.


--------------
Yet Another Mike Oldfield Web Site - http://www.dbennett.karoo.net
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
SCprogfan
Unregistered





Posted: May 30 2003, 10:00

It's funny that I don't see anyone suggesting that you take your computer back to the store because it won't play CDs anymore!  Please don't take my comments the wrong way, but I have been increasingly amazed at how the progression of technology has been changing our perceptions of the way things are or should be.  It used to be that people played CDs in their CD players, and used their computers for, well, computing.  I use a $60 discman to play CDs on.  I purchased a $1000 computer to do some accounting, word processing, record multitrack audio, play games, surf the internet, etc.  It would make a very expensive CD player.  Now, the added convenience of listening to music on the computer is a great plus, but if I am actually doing some other task on it, I usually don't want to run the memory-hogging media player at the same time anyway.  (Though I sometimes do.  :) )  However, if you have purchased a CD that doesn't even work on your normal audio CD player, then by all means be annoyed and return the defective product.  Please understand that I agree that the copy protection is probably very annoying, but as some others have said, when I finally am able to get my hands on Bells2003 here in the U.S., I won't return it unless it is totally non-functioning.  These are just things from my point of view, thanks to everyone for always keeping up such lively discussions here.  Oh, and does anyone know about a release date for this part of the globe?
Back to top
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: May 30 2003, 14:46

My problem with it really centres around industry standards. We have an industry standard for CDs, called the Red Book (not to be confused with the Red Book of Hergest, a medieval welsh manuscript), and as long as a CD obeys what's laid down in the Red Book, it will play on any compatible device - those compatible devices include computers. What record companies are doing is engineering deliberately incompatible discs, with the intent of preventing certain people from listening to them, and that's not an attitude which I can agree with.
I would certainly suggest taking the computer back if it didn't play the Red Book CDs that it's been designed to play, but these aren't Red Book CDs. The record industry is, a bit like Microsoft, attempting to twist an industry standard so that they can have more control over how the products are used (and make more money from them as a result).

My issue with it isn't so much the simple fact it won't play in a few computers and CD players, but that it's not working because the record company has engineered it to not work - I see that as a step backwards, not forwards.

They were happy to agree with the industry standard when it was introduced, despite the fact that one of the selling points of digital audio was how flawless copies could be made. Funny that they didn't see the potential for abuse of the system back then...but that's because they were far more concerned with providing their customers with the highest quality, most convenient format they could, right? No, of course not - they just wanted to sell everyone the same albums all over again, and having an industry standard format helped that, as it made the albums available to the widest possible audience.

They don't actually care about quality at all - copy protection is lowest common denominator stuff, making a product that's just about good enough for most people (this goes for the industry's attitude to music as a whole). They don't really care about the music at all, they're concerned simply with selling it.
One particular thing they love is loyal fans, who even if offered a rather bad product, will still buy it because of their dedication to the artist. Recording artists on major labels are, unfortunately, rather like Ronald McDonald - friendly faces of what's really ruthless multinational business.

It would be lovely to think that they're doing this so that artists can be given their fair share of money for their work. It would take quite an act of imagination to think that, though - if they could pay artists any less, they would. In fact, they do - the record industry is rife with fraud, with huge sums of royalties often going 'missing' thanks to various 'accounting mistakes'.

There's a massive amount of profit on CDs - I guesstimated that, for the £15 I paid for Tubular Bells 2003, a good £10 of that was profit (basing my figures on them selling 100,000) - some of that going to the shop, perhaps as much as £5 of it (some of that would be covering their costs, which I didn't factor into the calculation) and the rest going to the record company. Mike would probably see about 40p of that, though as he uses his own studio, he also makes extra out of the studio costs. Now, you might think that, after they've sold that 100,000 copies and the costs needing to be covered have dropped, they might charge less...yes, of course - which is why the 30 year old Tubular Bells often sells for around £17 a copy. The only extra costs on that, after 30 years, are those of remastering and repackaging it, and I'm fairly sure they weren't that high...
So, let's not have any illusions of poor, starving, penniless record companies here (and if they try and kid anyone that the high prices are because of illegal copying, I'd be tempted to laugh...they've been charging a fortune for CDs since before it became a problem).
I actually think that dropping the prices would do a lot to help - I would guess that a lot of the illegal file sharing/copying that goes on is between young people who have trouble paying the sort of money that the companies are expecting for CDs, and don't feel that the record industry's current output is really worthy of that much of their hard earned cash (can anyone tell me if I'm going along the right lines here?).

I think it should also be borne in mind that while Warner Records may claim to be losing out to the internet, it's not all as bad as it seems. Some of you might have come across a little company called AOL who just happen to be the world's biggest internet service provider and who are...yup, you guessed it, part of AOL Time Warner, the same as Warner Records. They're making a massive amount of money out of the internet and could, I'm sure, work out a way of taking their revenue from internet file sharing rather than CD sales (how about a special, competitively priced, AOL account where the user can download a certain amount of free music every month?).
I also wonder how much of the dropping sales of music is actually down to the fact that people just don't want to buy what they're selling...it's obvious there's some reason that people don't feel that the music's worth paying for, maybe it's about time they worked out what that reason is.

I don't really agree with the illegal file sharing of albums (though people have a point when they say it can lead to sales as well - something else for the record companies to investigate), but I agree even less with the way the record companies are handling it.
My main feeling is that both the artist and the consumer should be given a fair deal, and I don't feel that at least the large record companies are giving that to either of them.
Back to top
Profile PM 
44 replies since May 28 2003, 13:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >






Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact

Mike Oldfield Tubular.net
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net