Jeremiah Heilman's blog

Go ahead, kill CDs. They suck anyway.

You know what? I was pretty much done buying CD's anyway.

Here's a message for all of the record labels out there who want to blame illegal file sharing for flagging sales:

If you want to sell me something you first must make it worth buying.

I'm pretty much going to give up hope that the recording industry will ever wake up and embrace new technology. I just read some articles about new CD encryption schemes, like Sony's XCP, that restrict what users can do in the realm of copying CD or burning them to mp3 (or similar) format. These things all have different aspects - some let you copy only once, others let you burn only to DRM protected WMA files - but the end result is the same: removing our rights as license holders.

I suppose there are two things here that really piss me off. First is the ability of recording labels continually miss the techno boat, and second is their willingness to continually subvert what is holy and good.

Let me clarify the second point first. Sometimes I go to the library and pick up a book that has printed on the front cover, "This book has been copied onto acid free paper," or something entirely similar. Once upon a time, a million years ago, the library bought a book that was printed on paprus bleached white with acid. Now, in the present, the pages start to crumble and fall apart. So it begs the question: what did the library buy, the information in the book or the pages on which it was printed?

The information, obviously (otherwise all books would cost the same, or at least reflect their number of pages they contain). Just because the vessel falls apart doesn't mean we forfeit I right to know what is inside. So they copy the book and dispose of the original.

Right about this time my favorite CD, a recording of Saint-Saens' Symphony Number 3, started to skip (too many scratches). I polished it and burned a copy, which came out skip-free. I also ripped all the songs to mp3. My beef was the same as the library's: I didn't buy the piece of plastic, I bought the music on it. If the technology isn't capable of a little wear and tear then I'm going to find a medium that's a little more robust.

Then I took the time to rip everything else I owned, just in case.

The beautiful thing is this is prefectly legal, for many of the reasons I outlined above. But say you want to extend this arguementto DVD's. Turns out that's illegal. Not because you didn't buy a DVD or have a license to it's contents, but because the info is encrypted. You have to decrypt to burn, and that's against the law.

In summary: burning = OK, breaking encryption = not OK.

What a crock. This means that anyone can sell a CD, claim that its encrypted with a 0 bit scheme (i.e. all the ones become ones and the zeros become zeros), and it's suddenly illegal. What a crock. And all just to subvert my ability to demand that their POS plastic disks hold up a little better.

Of course, Sony wants to take it one step further and make it hard on copying, which brings me to my first point. Instead of trying to QUASH digital technology, why not try to embrace it?

I remember when my uncle Mark bought a CD player, back when they were four rack units tall and weighed half a ton. He had Madonna's "True Blue" album. I thought it was crap - you couldn't record to it like a tape deck, there wan't one in your car, and you weren't supposed to touch one side of the disk. About the only redeeming quality was the ability to skip to any song, instantly. (I was nine. The concept of digital quality still elluded me).

Advancements have answered most of these problems, but CD's still are not perfect. Disks still skip when jostled, they still scratch, and they still only contain one artist. That's what makes an mp3 player superior.

So why don't CD's come mixed mode, including the mp3's to expedite the process of porting them over to your mp3 gadget? I remember the shock and awe of a buddy coming to my dorm room to burn a copy of a live Phish album that he bought. It was only released as an mp3. He paid $7 or something for it, downloaded it, and tossed in on a CD to take home. I thought, WOW! Somebody releasing music as an mp3. Great idea!

But no, the only market for mp3's are total crap like iTunes and MusicMatch, along with all of their bogus restrictions on how many devices they can be put on, how long the license lasts, blah blah blah. I don't want to rent a song. I want it to be there in ten years when I'm in the mood for a little ol' timey stuff. And only being allowed to put it on five different devices - who the hell came up with that number? Do I really need to think of six perfectly plausible places I can possible want to hear a song in one day?

I try to be baffled by the apparent lack of common sense, but its just too hard. I know why they do it, to make money. They're married to this stupid album concept that just perfect for CDs. The reality of the situation is most recording artists are only good for one decent song anyway, and the other seven on the disk are total crap. But you can't charge $15 for one song, so you need some filler. I say let the one hit wonders shine. It adds variety.

Now that I've sufficiently vented my frustrations with the music market, let me reiterate: you want me to buy it? Make it worth buying. Ashley Simpson does NOT fall in that category. Stop recording her albums and use the money for something useful.

PS. No offense, Ashley. I'm sure you're a wonderful person, and I'd hate to ruin my chances with your sister, should that whole thing with Nick not last...