CD burnining and the state of Independence
Hey everyone. By now many of you may have noticed the sign below posted prominently in the store:
Friends Don’t Let Friends Burn CDs
It might seem like a victimless crime, but burning copies of your CDs for friends and family is not only illegal – and unethical – it is also one of the biggest reasons well over 350 independent record stores went out of business in the first half of 2005 alone. Please - do the right thing.
Western Washington’s Oldest Independent Record Store thanks you!
Typically, I’m very reluctant to get on a soapbox. Nobody likes to hear a business owner lecture their customers – particularly about subjects which directly affect their bottom line. However, nary a day goes by in the store when one of us doesn't overhear a customer say (some variation on): “Oh, don’t buy that – I’ll burn you a copy of mine”. Often they do this at the register! Most of the time it seems like folks don’t even realize what they’re saying in front of us. It is no different then going into the Co-op and saying: “Oh don’t buy those groceries – I’ll steal you some later”. Every time a customer burns a CD for someone else it’s like they are reaching into the till and taking out a twenty (or whatever).
Now, I know that the record industry gouges folks on the cost of CD’s. As an independent record store they are constantly raising their wholesale costs (to small stores like ours) without raising the list price correspondingly. Our margins (the difference between what something costs us and what we charge you) have shrunk considerably in the last two years. Additionally, in an effort to push their most popular (and profitable) artists, they consistently offer huge wholesale discounts to ‘Big Box’ retailers in an effort to move the greatest volume of product. They see independents like us as a nuisance – and raise their prices in an attempt to squeeze us out. The end result of this strategy as that there are fewer and fewer choices at most retail outlets. Try getting most of what we sell at Best Buy, Target or Walmart (those three count for a full 50% of all ‘bricks and mortar’ sales – and this percentage is growing every quarter) and you will be sadly disappointed. The cost to us for carrying the kind of eclectic and quality music we carry is enormous.
We are not the bad guys. We give a huge percentage of our profits back to the local community. We actually lost money last year and still gave away over $5,000 in scholarships, free concerts and movies, and donations to local causes. Additionally we provide free ticket services and advertising to any and all locally produced arts events.
OK – I’ve stepped off my soapbox. I hope you all feel like we are fulfilling our obligation as not just a record store but also as a community resource. We are committed to doing everything we can to avoid becoming the dinosaur that so many other record stores have become. We welcome all feedback and hope that you will let us know whenever you feel we’re not doing the best job possible.
5 Comments:
CDs are bulky inconvenient expensive nondurable and basically obsolete. And even before the proliferation of low cost CD burners, they failed to address the most fundamental issue of intellectual property and copyright - who owns the music?
What I see happening is that people are generally dumping their CD libraries in favor of easier-to-use hard-disc and flash-memory based technologies. And the most interesting aspect of this is that most people seem willing to accept a substantial cut in quality of sound in exchange for the added convenience. The truth is: most people started encoding their CD collections in lower resolution using formats like MP3 and WMA and AAC because until very recently hard drives and flash RAM seemed to be prohibitively expensive.
But the outcome of this format conversion has been that a lot of people people have determined that they do not actually need 16bit 44.1khz recordings - at 650 MB per disc - they are happy with MP3 at 320K.
For a lot of folks I know that just means loading their entire CD libraries into their iMacs or PCs and hooking those onto their iPods and MP3 players and to their stereo systems, via hardwire or low power FM links.
Then, after a while, they notice that the piles of CDs on the shelves and speakers and all over the place are really just in the way. And suddenly, the local record store gets another goldmine of used stuff for people to cherry-pick and load onto their own iPods and laptops.
But from the artist's POV the $4 or $8 used CD is not a sale, and in the end it is not really that much different from the buyer making a copy from someone else's CD. Cuz that is what it is, or what it was - someone else's CD. Artists don't make much off a new CD, but they make nothing at all when you sell a used one.
How we as a community of musicians audiences electronic publishers and shopkeepers deal with basic issues like digital rights management is going to have a lot more to do with the fate of "brick and mortar" music stores than $30 52X CD burners and spindles of 15 cent CDs.
Joe Breskin
360 385 3771
I've set myself a goal to have a license for all the music, software, video, what-have-you that I need to have a license for. The best way I know of to prove to the Digital Rights Cops (kicking in a door near you) is to have a CD on the shelf for everything I have on my laptop or iPod. (I insist on exercising my Fair Use rights to the fullest extent of the law, of course.) Those CDs might live in a box in a cool, dry place, but they're there. Some online music shops let you re-download a limited number of times, some don't. When your hard disk crashes, how do you recoup your musical investment?
When I'm exercising or diddling around the house, MP3 quality is certainly sufficient. The once a month I decide I want to pretend to be an audiophile, I go back to the CD shelf.
(And we all know that when you take that CD back to Quimpersound to be recycled that you remove those files from your hard drive, right? :-) )
Joe! Excellent points. You've clearly thought a lot about these issues and it's great for me to hear an informed opinion on the subjects at hand. While your message address many of the elements of the macro problem of copyright control I think a self-serving response is in order from the point of view of the independent record store. To make this response a bit more comprehensible relative to your comments, I'll reply in context below:
Joe Breskin wrote:
CDs are bulky inconvenient expensive nondurable and basically obsolete. And even before the proliferation of low cost CD burners, they failed to address the most fundamental issue of intellectual property and copyright - who owns the music?
[Steve]Obsolete is in the device of the holder. CDs may be moving towards obsolescence - or at least marginalized status, like LPs - but I think many in this community in particular would argue that it is their format of choice in spite of the fact that it may be in it's twilight as a consumer product. There are a *lot* of folks in this town who don't own computers or digital media players, which presume the owners possesion of a computer. There is also a not-insignificant portion of our community that, like myself, own computers but don't use them to listen to music. Finally, if they are truly obsolete then the issue of rampant burning and pirating would be moot. I'm not sure I understand your point about how they fail to address intellectual property rights issue - but it is certainly true in my mind that the question of "who owns the music" is central to any discussion of copyright issues.
[Steve]I want make one thing clear right now. I am in no way interested in defending US Copyright law. I think it's oppressive and illogical. I also think it is often ill-defined in point of law. It clearly serves to prop up corporate interests and does both musicians and their audience a disservice. You can disagree with the law or the basic tenants of capitalism - but, for better or for worse, I am beholden to both as a business. That's why I prefer to stress the *ethics* of particular behavior. I certainly respond better when asked to think about issues in that way. On that note, I think it's cleaner, and more literal, to talk about licenses rather than the container which hold them - be they CDs, LPs, Cassettes, Hard drives, iPods or whatever. When you buy a CD you have, in fact bought a license to the contents of that CD - not the piece of plastic. It's the same with a legal download of an album or song. You've bought the music - not the bits.
[Joe]What I see happening is that people are generally dumping their CD libraries in favor of easier-to-use hard-disc and flash-memory based technologies. And the most interesting aspect of this is that most people seem willing to accept a substantial cut in quality of sound in exchange for the added convenience. The truth is: most people started encoding their CD collections in lower resolution using formats like MP3 and WMA and AAC because until very recently hard drives and flash RAM seemed to be prohibitively expensive. But the outcome of this format conversion has been that a lot of people people have determined that they do not actually need 16bit 44.1khz recordings - at 650 MB per disc - they are happy with MP3 at 320K. For a lot of folks I know that just means loading their entire CD libraries into their iMacs or PCs and hooking those onto their iPods and MP3 players and to their stereo systems, via hardwire or low power FM links.
[Steve]I agree with this (though I think our community is doing this less than the national average). The acceptance of a lower sonic quality in exchange for convenience is something that I think about a lot and can be the subject of a whole 'nother thread entirely. For instance, while it's largely forgotten at this point, listeners traded quality for convenience when the switch was made from LPs to CDs initially. The sound quality of first generation digital recordings and mastering of existing recordings was horrendous. Of course, this is a complicated argument because of the nature of all analog formats and their inevitable degradation over time and their hyper-sensitivity to care. However, all things being equal, I far prefer my relatively "clean" copy of 'A Love Supreme' by Coltrane on LP than I do the recently remastered CD - and certainly better than MP3 encoded at any bitrate from any source. Like I said, a great conversation for another thread.
[Joe]Then, after a while, they notice that the piles of CDs on the shelves and speakers and all over the place are really just in the way. And suddenly, the local record store gets another goldmine of used stuff for people to cherry-pick and load onto their own iPods and laptops.
[Steve]Now this is the meat of the discussion from my point of view as a merchant. First of all, let me object to the term "goldmine". If used CDs (or any aspect of our business) were a "goldmine" we wouldn't be losing money - if it were a "goldmine" Walmart would be selling them. While it's true that we make a (small) profit selling used CDs, it's also true that it allows us to provide a lower cost option for people to get a license to the music that they want. Which brings us to the point of the ethics (never mind legality) of the scenario you describe above. People who engage in the behavior you describe own the license to the music on the CDs they bought. They then put that music in a different container (hard drive, iPod, etc.) - no problem there, they own the license they can put it in any container - or as many containers - as they like as long as it's for their own use. The ethical problem comes when they then profit by selling the music they have a license to (and have kept in a different container). This is fundamentally the ethical problem the consumer faces. As a merchant, I have no way to know whether the person selling me the license has kept a copy for themselves or not. Up until recently, this was almost a non-issue as the worst case scenario (from the point of view of ethics) was that the seller had made a cassette copy for themselves which, while still unethical, gave them in imperfect copy that was bound to degrade over time. Up until recently most folks who were selling us a license were doing just that - selling us the license only. In this community, that is largely the case (as near as I can tell from the anecdotal evidence I have). For example, I know both the customers who sold us the bulk of the CDs I was referring to in our newsletter this week. I know (what they told me) about the circumstances that led them to sell them to us and they boil down to this:
Person A: I'm broke and really need the money.
Person B: I'm moving and want to shed the CDs that I don't listen to anymore (and they need the money).
In neither of those cases do I believe that the music was kept in a different container before they sold me the license. In my case, whenever I find a vinyl copy of something I have on CD, I buy it and sell the CD. In that case, I've bought one license and sold the other.
[Joe]But from the artist's POV the $4 or $8 used CD is not a sale, and in the end it is not really that much different from the buyer making a copy from someone else's CD. Cuz that is what it is, or what it was - someone else's CD. Artists don't make much off a new CD, but they make nothing at all when you sell a used one.
[Steve]Ah, and there again we come to ethics. If all parties are behaving ethically (and legally) the artist was compensated when the license was sold originally, and there is still only the one, paid for, license in circulation. To use a simplified analogy here, when someone buys a car, Ford makes some money. When that car is sold, Ford doesn't profit any more. However, there is still only one car on the road - and Ford was paid for that car. To put it in a more comparable context, when someone buys a piece of art from a gallery the artist is paid. When that person decides to sell that piece of art there is clearly no expectation that the artist would get compensated again. Perhaps you believe they should be, I don't know. But, again, the legality (and in my mind, the ethics) of these situations is clear to me - as long as copies aren't made along the way, there's no problem.
[Steve]All of that being said, I'd like some acknowledgment of all the things we do as a responsible local business to help local musicians in any way we can. Specifically in regards to the used CD issue, we don't buy used copies of local artists copies. We try and protect the new product sales of local artists in this way. It's a small thing - but we do what we can in this regard. Also, we provide unfettered access to our racks for local artists. We never turn down a local artists project - no matter our personal opinions about it's artistic merit - we take all comers. We also promote local events in the form of free window space for flyers and free ticket services (we don't make a dime selling tickets to local events - its a pure community service). We've also helped underwrite some local shows so that local artists could rent the hall they were performing in. There are also the free concerts we underwrite and the scholarships we offer for local budding musicians to attend workshops. There's more, but my point in tooting our own horn here is to emphasize the fact, again, that we are not the enemy. Our policies in the store are legal, ethical and transparent - and our commitment to the community - and local musicians in particular - is significant.
[Joe]How we as a community of musicians audiences electronic publishers and shopkeepers deal with basic issues like digital rights management is going to have a lot more to do with the fate of "brick and mortar" music stores than $30 52X CD burners and spindles of 15 cent CDs.
[Steve]I agree that digital rights management, and copyright law in general, is the emergent problem to be solved - for all the constituents you mention. However I disagree that the fate of our local "bricks and mortar" store hinges on that battle right now. In fact, if we are to be around long enough for that to be our battle, we've got to solve the very real problem of illegal CD burning and piracy in general right now. If the legal and ethical arguments against CD copying don't sway someone, I hope the idea of keeping an independent music store alive in our town does. Selfish, yes. But I want the store around as long as possible not because it's a goldmine - most goldmines don't loose money - but because record stores are important to me. They've been my refuge and relief since I was in my teens and I think we have a lot to offer our community. It's my goal to fight to keep this store open and if anyone has any constructive ideas to help me fight that battle, I welcome them.
Having spent a small fortune on my collections over the years (vinyl, cassette, CD) and still spending, I have a BIG problem with the 18.95 price tage on a compact disc. I rarely buy CD's at these prices, choosing to buy small label inexpensive titles or collections. I have choose not to add alot titles to my collection due to these prices. I find it interesting that video DVD prices are comparable with a lot more production cost than a music disc. I realize movies hit the theatres and make money there but a am a true believe that if the price of music was more reasonable, people would buy more. I may be a dinosaur because I don't download music or have a MP3 player (yet) but personally I would but much more music if it was less expensive and I don't think I'm the only one.
It is interesting to me that DRM proponents often talk about the "artist's POV", since complaints about CD copying almost never come from the artists themselves (Yes, there are exceptions, which is why I said "almost", though I often get the nagging feeling that these artists are paid handsome kickbacks for taking the stance publicly.)
I have trouble feeling sorry for artists who claim to be losing money because of CD-copying. Witness the Grateful Dead, perhaps the most financially successful band of all time (These guys grossed something like 75 million a year in concert proceeds and merchandise, FOR 35+ YEARS. All the while encouraging "pirating" of their concert performances.) From an artist's or record company's perspective, allowing people to copy your music is simply good for business, despite the misleading and skewed reports from the terribly confused RIAA.
Our local record store is another matter. I sure do like having a place to go browse the latest offerings from a variety of record labels. I sure do like being able to pick up and look at the cover art while purchasing music. Most importantly, I like having a central place to hang out and just "talk music" with other music lovers.
So I buy CDs there. It's just as convenient as downloading, when all is said and done. And frankly, there is a lot more music that I find interesting available for purchase than there is available for download.
That said, I think it would be folly for a business to ignore the trend toward obsolescence of pre-pressed CDs. If they intend to survive the transition in the way people listen to music, small record stores need to find ways to sell individual songs, to burn collections of selected songs to a CD in real-time, and to deliver purchased content direct to portable storage devices, such as iPods and USB keychains.
One other thing -- it is not true that copying CDs is illegal in all cases. Check out, for example, the fine print on the cover of Devotchka's How It Ends, which you carry in-store. I would like the sign at the counter much better if it emphasized how important my business is to Quimper Sound, rather than how legal getting my music elsewhere might be.
Post a Comment
<< Home