That
SCMS nonsense “evil” DAT and MD machines are crippled with. Ugh.
SCMS came to mind whilst I was typing that reply. IIRC first generation of DAT machines - under pressure from the music industry had their digital ports disabled, which was absurd and then
the equally absurd compromise of SCMS was introduced. Typically though, SCMS was only present on consumer and semi-pro DAT machines (which affected me). If you were able to afford a fully fledged professional unit, SCMS could be deactivated or it wouldn't even be implemented in the first place, which again underscores the disparity of who is affected by the entertainment industry's copyright restrictions - it's certainly not the determined pirate with the budget to purchase the professional range of products.
It was a headscratcher that SCMS was even foisted upon MD considering that the format
introduces compression to recordings anyway - unlike the 1:1 copies of DAT machines which gave the RIAA sleepless nights.
Speaking of compression formats…
And, of course, the only reason “evil” MP3 players exist is
to play pirated music. Right.
Do you remember the early 2000s adverts featuring artists such as Madonna and Missy Elliott where they pleaded with their fans to purchase their music legitimately and to refrain from illegal downloading? Conveniently, I cannot find those videos. Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough or perhaps they've been scrubbed from the Internet out of retroactive embarrassment they now provide.
In massive contrast to their peers, Public Enemy were ahead of their time and possessed the foresight in the late 90s to understand and recognise that online music could revolutionise the music industry and empower artists on an unprecedented and irreversible level. Their record company Def Jam (then owned by PolyGram: a subsidiary of Philips) revealed themselves as myopic and no longer a trailblazer when they issued the group with a take-down order over a remix MP3 album which they'd provided
for free to fans on their website.
Laughably, Def Jam and their owner, PolyGram had made Public Enemy's case and exposed themselves as unable to recognise that it was good promotion (along with goodwill) to tide over fans in lieu of a commercial release and it actually presented a method that could be monetised by the perceptive. A year later, Public Enemy would part ways with Def Jam - which came as no surprise to me given the MP3 incident.
Check out this contemporary NYT article in which Public Enemy's Chuck D discussed Def Jam's knee-jerk reaction and the emancipatory implications of online music.
You might also find this debate between Chuck D and Metallica's Lars Ulrich of interest:
