PCMag Digital Network
Seen a hot gadget?  Tell Us   
Contact Us  
Sites We Like
Gearlog on Twitter
Gearlog for Kindle
GoodCleanTech Recycling Superguide
Categories:  
broken_cd.jpg

The recording industry is not one to shy away from hard-nosed tactics to prevent the illegal distribution of its material online, but its latest strategy in regards to review copies might not win it any fans in the music-critic community.

It seems that certain CDs sent to reviewers now include spoken anti-piracy messages that are inserted into the middle of songs. While this might be a good deterrent for people looking to post songs online illegally, it has prompted backlash from aggravated music aficionados.

A reviewer on Komodo Rock, for example, recently gave a 2.2-out-of-10 rating to a Steve Lukather album, because all but two of the record's tracks were interrupted by voiceover piracy warnings.

The album is "pretty damn good," but the warnings are "destroying all the hard work Steve Lukather has put into the album," the reviewer wrote.



Review copies of movies have long included "not for distribution" notices, while award-show screeners have "for your consideration" signs overlaid at random intervals, but neither tactic take much away from the films. Other strategies the music industry has employed include standard warning labels, watermarking, producing CDs that cannot be ripped to computer hard drives, and even breaking up single songs into separate tracks.

I don't know that I would penalize the artist with a low review for what sounds like a great album, but I also haven't sat through a record with a dozen "piracy is illegal" interruptions. I can barely tolerate pre-roll Internet video commercials, so I imagine these notices would prompt some rage.

Mixx It Mixx It Digg It Digg It StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble Share More...

Content Recommendations from Evri
Posted by: Joe Win
January 16, 2008 6:18 PM

Well, at least he was able to review it?
hehe
Sadly we got to a point that piracy is runing everything...


Posted by: alan h
January 16, 2008 9:08 PM

I don't know, I think it's arguable that it's not piracy that's ruining everything, but inane anti-piracy measures that ruin everything for everyone, not just the pirates. ;)


Posted by: Red
January 16, 2008 11:29 PM

Umm, why can't the pirates just rip the songs and edit out the warnings?


Posted by: Michael
January 18, 2008 12:41 PM

And the music industry shoots itself in the foot once again!
This will probably stop the reviewer's copy from being usable, (but as Red pointed out, it could still be edited,) but it will not stop the retail version from being pirated. And it pisses off the reviewer. Even if some reviewer's copies are ending up on the web, how can insulting the integrity of all the reviewers, and earning bad reviews by not showcasing their wares in the best possible light, help their position? The last time I checked, you are supposed to "butter 'em up," not "piss 'em off!"
Pirates still thrive, and the music industry has one more wound to hemorrhage from. Smart move. Smart guys. (Not!)


Posted by: Leah
January 19, 2008 12:35 PM

...regret not using the InvisibleShield?


Posted by: rmottes
January 20, 2008 3:37 AM

I keep saying Indie, Indie, Indie!
There's a lot of great music out there at great prices that does not require you to put up with the RIAA's crap!


Posted by: brian h.
January 20, 2008 3:08 PM

poor legendary steve lukather from toto.


Posted by: Paul R
January 20, 2008 5:18 PM

This is why I only listen to the oldies. The artists are dieing or are already so rich they don't care anymore. Oh, wait a minute, Metalica were the first ones to complain, weren't they, and it's really the recording execs who are doing the lawsuits since their sixty million dollar houses all need painting or whatever? Oh well, the old music is still better, and the newest artists are all a bunch of out-of-control whiners. Just my opinion.


Posted by: brian h.
January 20, 2008 10:45 PM

surely you don't feel that way about the legendary steve lukather from toto.


Posted by: John
January 21, 2008 1:55 PM

And the RIA continues to dig its own grave. They continue to tick off the end user, and now the reviewers.

Keep up the good work in trying to force your old business model down everyones throat.


Posted by: Joe
January 24, 2008 4:44 PM

When RIAA started going after music sharers, I stopped buying music. After a while, I found could always find free music--on radio, my hundreds of old CDs, on my cable music channels. All they did was lose the money I used to spend on my favorite artists. Way to go, RIAA! Keep it up and you can bankrupt the music industry!


Posted by: Joe
May 27, 2008 10:26 PM

Someone forgot music an art for the ear.

Once in the mind, its there.

I buy music to support artists whom I feel adds value to my life.

I don't buy music to support their grandchildren.


* = required
    Remember Me?
  
Please keep your comments on topic. Intelligent, thoughtful comments and questions are appreciated. Comments that contain personal attacks or profanity may be edited or removed. Comments containing personal information such as phone numbers, credit card numbers, or addresses may be edited or removed. Comments with advertisements will be removed.


 
Info Centers
Special Offers
         
 
  Ziff Davis Home | Contact Us | Advertise | Link to Us | Newsletters | RSS Feeds | Ziff Davis Media International
Digital Edition Customer Service | Subscribe to PCMag Digital Edition | Reprints
AppScout | Cranky Geeks | DigitalLife | DL.TV | ExtremeTech | GearLog | GoodCleanTech | PC Magazine | PCMagCasts | Security Watch | Smart Device Central | TechSaver
AppScout Mobile | Gearlog Mobile | GoodCleanTech Mobile | PCMag.com Mobile
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Linking Policy | Contact Us
Copyright © 1996-2009 Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc. All Rights Reserved. PC Magazine, the PCMag.com logo and Gearlog are registered trademarks of Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis Media Inc. is prohibited.