RE: [TCLUG:12994] Local Media and DVD Stuff..

[Philip C Mendelsohn <mend0070@tc.umn.edu>]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Eric Hillman wrote:

>   I have, somewhere in my vast archive of periodicals, an excellent article
> on the secret history of the Compact Disc, written by one of the members of
> Negativland.  (http://www.negativland.org)

Well the history is not secret at all, so while I am sure there are some
decent facts in that article (which I shall read), I'm fairly confident
that the published articles in the JAES, IEEE, as well as the latest batch
of "reminiscence" articles by folks like Kees Immink from Philips and a
couple of the Sony guys are a little more objective.  Basically, Philips
was already working on the optical side of things -- remember the video
disc? (which was analog) -- and Sony had a better handle on some of the
encoding / encryption schemes.  CD originally came out of an honest
engineering effort to avoid the problems in electro-mechanical recording
(LP -- and I've got a books full of the math oriented mechanical
engineering behind things like tracing distortion, etc., for anyone who's
really bored to pore over!).

> developed, etc.  And the technology was not really taking hold in the
> market.  Remember, the CD, like the answering machine and the Space Shuttle,
> is 1970s technology.  As of, I think the year was 1983, maybe 1986, CD sales
> were minimal, barely even competitive with cassettes.

CDs still have not caught up with cassettes, which were introduced in
19*63*, if memory serves.  At that time, to be competitive with cassettes
would not have been a "barely even," it would have been a blazing success!

>   Not because everybody had suddenly become convinced that CDs were a great
> idea.  The record companies simply announced that they were no longer going
> to produce many major-label artists on LP any more, and they enacted,
> essentially, financial penalties on stores that continued to insist on
> stocking LPs.  The stores, and the consumers, had no choice but to go with
> the trend.

This is patently false.  In fact, major-labels artists are still released
on vinyl in other countries today.  The real reason is that the CD was a
boon for the retailer.  LP's were larger, and what is not often realized
is that even storing them in a distribution warehouse will result in some
breakage.  I mean, a box of LPs, sitting on a shelf, costs money to
someone because not all of them come out in one piece.  When offered
something that is less subject to returns because of the mechanical
vagaries of turntables, less subject to breakage, and physically smaller
(allowing either a larger inventory to be stored / displayed in the same
space, or someone to rent a smaller store), this is a no brainer for the
average retailer.

I have no proof other than personal recollection hanging around record
stores at that time, but there certainly was no talk of penalties for
stocking vinyl.  It phased out as CDs began to sell, and eventually they
started (*in the US!*) to release the "hot" artists only on CD to help
spur the move to CDs.  The difference between marketing and conspiracy is
subtle, I think, but the CD employed nothing but the techniques of the
former.

> However, this deal had some side effects that changed the music industry
> forever.  Among other things, royalties structures changed -- artists used
> to be garner royalties on a  per-LP-side basis.  With CD, artist earnings
> went down.  

This is also false, as can be seen by looking at laws on the books.  There
are different royalties, but the artist used to end up with about $1.00
from the sale of an $8.00 LP.  When the price doubled for CD's, the artist
royalties remained constant - about $1.00.  The artist's take didn't go
down, but the record companies take did go up.  Remember that it's cheaper
and easier for the retailer to move and store the things now, so where's
the extra money going?  Back to the record company.

> At the same time, once the initial investment in CD plants has
> been made, CDs are much, much cheaper to produce than LPs.  Quality control
> becomes easier, and mass-production is possible on such a scale that it
> costs Sony a fraction of a cent to press a single CD -- yet the average
> retail price of a CD was almost 3 times an LP, and never really came down
> again.

This is true, though a little exaggerated.  The cost is still a
significant fraction of a dollar, but it's certainly not what it used to
be with LPs.  Actually, it works out to be practically the same as
cassette.   But, it's not just Sony.  Anyone can mass-produce CD's and
scale provides the same economies it does in any business.

>  I expect
> they'll pull exactly the same stunt with DVD they did with CD, and the
> choice will be simple: you'll either buy their damned players and discs, or
> you'll have to start making your own movies.

I think you got that right!  The CD allowed them to "mine the
vaults," which is directly resposible for the rerelease of
"classic" recordings.  Heck, it's cheaper to sell something that's already
been paid for once than it is to invest in a new artist / recording.  DVD
is mining the vaults a second time.  Anyone that has bought an album again
on another format (I know I have) has played directly into their hands!

I don't want anyone to think that I've got anything against you or what
you said, but I will argue historical facts when they can in fact be
established.  I think our feelings are very similar about the whole deal,
but I do happen to know a few things about the history of CD.

Anyway, I'll just leave this whole CD/DVD thing (unless someone wants to
start a new list for it) with a piece of trivia:

The size of the CD was dictated by the marketing dept. at Philips.  Take a
CD and you'll find that it's diameter is awfully close to the diagonal of
a cassette (which, by the way, is nearly the size of a pack of
cigarettes.)  They thought it best to keep things to sizes that were
"comfortable".

Phil M.

 -- 
Life is complex:
It has real and imaginary components.
                     --Unknown