Slashdot Mirror
Gartner Survey: Consumers Don't Want Crippled CDs
robkill writes "According to GartnerG2, 77% of consumers believe they should be allowed to copy CD's for personal use in another device. 82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's. Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention. More details can be found in this PC World article."
return true
at a debate at the Oxford Union.
A brief but detailed summary can be found here: http://tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk/~nick/UnionDebate/
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I think it's sad that the RIAA already has 23% of the population convinced that they shouldn't be able to make a copy of a CD they own for personal use.
I was not touched there by an angel.
In other news, 99.92% of all customers don't want their products broken, according to a recent survey.
Somehow I venture to believe the respondents might answer somewhere closer to 100%.
Please.
They prefer to be called "digitally challenged" CDs.
Thank you.
82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's.
In other news, 18% of consumers are thrilled that their new computer came with a retractible cup-holder.
So, 23% of people polled think that if they buy a CD it should only play in 1 device? And 18% think that they should NOT be allowed to make backups?
Can we get some bleach for the gene pool please?
100% of RIAA and their cronies *want* Crippled CDs. Whose $ do you think politicians are going to listen to?
Michael Loves Me!
a poll recently uncovered that the majority of Americans think that property rights are still relevent and necessary for a functional civil society.....
I wonder what percentage of Joe Users out there have heard of the DMCA or have any idea about the war over fair use. Unless the public becomes educated on the problem, Senator Hollings has nothing to fear from the voter.
Lord, bless my users that they may stop being such fucking idiots!!
I'm all for respecting peoples' various levels of abilities, but if they think I'm going to build a small ramp to my CD tray just so their crippled CDs can play.. well they've got another thing coming.
Trolling is a art,
Heh, I'm suprised 82% of the american population knows what cd's are
Jesus saves, everyone else takes full damage from the fireball.
Here's a nice tall glass of "no kidding" to the good people at Gartner. I wish I could have seen the questionaire:
Do you prefer:
1. CDs that you can listen to however/whenever you want
2. CDs that destroy your CD-ROM's firmware
Here's a wakeup call for Hollywood and all of the Software firms: when an American buys something, even a CD, movie, or program, he/she thinks that they now own it. that's how it's always been. That's how it still is with books. That's how it's going to be with your products once people get tired of your DRM antics.
Thomas Galvin
"82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's."
I'm hoping the other 18% checked the 3) I don't understand this question option.
If 18% of the public believes they shouldn't have the right to back-up their own software, we should begin to panic.
Then again, 18% of the public probably believes in Santa Clause, including G. W. Bush, the Lesser.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
that constituents don't want corrupted congressmen.
let's see, who do you think will have more influence - a poll that shows roughly 80% of constituents don't want a certain 'feature' (half of those constituents will likely be democrat, half republican. halve that again for the actual numbers that will vote..)
OR
the HUGE amounts of contribution money donated by industry to congressional representatives to ensure their voice is heard fairly.
In order to clear up consumer rights issues, you must first clear up congressional responsibility issues. Stop allowing corporations to be treated as more important citizens than the actual voting citizens first.
This implies that 23% of people don't think they should be allowed to copy their own CD's and 18% don't think they should be able to make personal backup copies of CD's. Is this the result of brainwashing or does the RIAA actually employ that many people?
I suppose it's not too surpising or anything. This either proves that people in genearal are not complete idiots, or that they've finally had enough with the big compaines trying to dictate what they can and cannot do with media that they own.
Om, nomnomnom...
You should show at least a little sympathy for them. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Can you imagine what it must be like to spend your whole life stuck in a CD caddie?
I dont think those senators or the RIAA really care at all about what the general public thinks is fair/not-fair use of the products purchased. All these senators care about is the bottom dollar, and how many ben franklins are in their pocket. It would be nice if they really did care what their constituants (sp) thought, but the truth is they dont, wont, and never really did.
Why doesn't G2 survey the MPAA, RIAA, and their legislative lackeys to see how many of them care about what their customers/constituents want or believe?
- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
Polls are not news; information that moves polls is. There was a day when journalists shunned polls, now they are the basis for a story.
No, let's hope not. Personally, I'd rather see them maintain their delusions until they're no longer in office. After that, they can delude as they see fit.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.
The vast majority of voters won't care a bit. Yes, they'd like non-crippled CDs, but that won't sway their voting. People usually vote based on whether someone is Republican or Democratic - the stance the candidate takes on important issues is (depressingly) unimportant to most people.
The real question is whether or not people would buy a CD that was restricted. Sure, no one wants it, but will people skip over buying CDs which are copyprotected?
For those out there (RIAA, MPAA, congress) that believe people refuse to pay for something they could otherwise get for free, I have but two words:
BOTTLED WATER
One thing that the synopsis fails to include is the like:
60 percent said they should be able to give copies of CDs to members of their families.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the RIAA and their heavy handed tactics, nor of the major media companies that are wringing every last dime out of the transaction at the expense of the artist and the consumer. But, by the same token, if no one is buying cds anymore, what impetous is there for your favourite band to bother making one?
I saw a similar post the other day about Richard Harris. I thought it was a troll and ignored it, only to find out, several hours later, that it was for real.
You trolls are a pain
There's still two major problems.
1. Ignorance. Most people don't know that there are people in Congress being payed to take those rights away from them. That would involve complex actions like searching out information (hey, it's not like the major media outlet owned papers are covering this issue in depth). It might even require the average American to read at a high school level, and we all know that's a pipe dream. And thus they won't find it out till it's too late. Which leads into..
2. Apathy. Nobody stands up for their rights any more. Especially when it's a little thing like copying a CD. Then having chips implanted into their TVs to prevent them from deviously recording the show they'll be missing while working the second job to pay for all their new compliant electronics. Then having to pony up tax money for the much needed "Buy Jack Valenti a gold plated limo every six months" fund when even those measures don't save the entertainment industry from the greed, idiocy, and fraud of those running it. Then having the FBI wiretap all communications, open all mail, and sneak hidden cameras into every home to make sure no piracy is occuring. Well, that's the ones who don't get drafted for our wars to fight terrorism in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Western Europe, China, Mexico, Canada, and New York.
I mean, think about it.
/should/ be able to, whether they /wanted/ to, or whether they thought /others/ should be able to? The first two are night and day... and don't think that people won't respond differently to the third than the first. It's a matter of context.
Did the questions really ask whether they thought they
Manipulating a poll like this is extremely easy--and as easy to do by accident as on purpose. You can't rely on numbers like this.
Honestly, I've never met anyone that felt that they shouldn't be able to copy their music to another format. I realize I'm just a sheltered GNU/Linux geek and all that, but really...what did the other 23% or 18% (resp.) of people mean when they said they shouldn't copy music to other formats or make backups? Were they just ignorant that such things could be done? Were they really so afraid of some boogeyman of copyright enforcement that they think exists to track down and kill so-called pirates? Or do the RIAA and MPAA really account for that large of a chunk of our population?
Has anyone on
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Our extensive research has found that the majority of people like things that work and do not destroy their property if used in a normal manner. Hillary Rosen was reached for comment saying, "These results are flawed. Our focus groups have stated that they enjoy the crippled CDs... at least more than having their pubic hairs pulled out one by one."
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
To put it simply, it doesn't matter how many people believe this. What matters is, how many of the cited percentages are active voters, and for that matter, are willing to vote for someone else because of their Senator's stance on the issue.
We can cite polls and percentages all day, but until more people start excercising the right to vote, Hollings stance on the issue wont change.
I may be slightly off here, but I believe less than half the eligible population voted in the last presidential election.
The way I see it, those people who said they don't want to be able to do these things are mostly people who don't care. Not too computer savvy, and/or not too excited by music in general.
"Do you think you should be able to make backups of your music CDs to other media?"
"Well uh... no, I really don't care about that."
I'm sure there are some who have succombed to the propaganda, but probably not all, or even most, of the "no" people.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
100% of RIAA member companies don't give a damn what consumers think about crippled CDs as long as they keep shelling out $18.99 a crack for Britney et al.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
i think those numbers could be a little misleading. I want to know how the poll was conducted. I'm sure if it was an online deal, more people would think that they should be able to copy cd's. If, however, they surveyed kiddies at the local walmart, i don't think most people would care!
:)
on the flip side, though, who would say that they don't think they should be able to backup their music, unless they worked for the record companies?
So really the bottom line is - the poll is rather pointless. It's, like, duh
97% of all Americans want to sit at home while dump trucks pour hundred dollar bills into their swimming pools.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
In Denmark (where I live), it is legal to copy CDs for backup and personal use. Furthermore it is legal to lend your CDs to your friends, who may then copy them. It is even legal to copy CDs from your local library. All this copied music can be encoded as you choose, and as a result all my mp3s are legal.
This, of course, has caused tons of contreversy, but the fact is, that the Danish government has recognized the right of the individual to manipulate, compile and even share legally purchased music...
I am not sure if this harms the music industry, and there has been talk about putting a small price on getting CDs from the library, but for now, it is totally free, and totally legal.
Oh... btw - artist of course get the regular royalties from people getting their CDs at the library... so they DO earn some from it.
- Tha Lamer, Tha Bunny...
I doubt they give a shit about what the consumers want. Since they are so deep in the pocket of big bussiness, they will just dismiss the %77 as pirates, say that the polls are wrong as well as rigged, say it is proof they need more control, etc.
The truth is that they don't give a fuck about the what the regular consumer wants or thinks unless it is in theif favor such as giving them more control, more cash, a garentee of profit, etc.
I do not think there is anything we can do to change their views and say in the matter besides voting them out. You might be able to with Hollings, but unfortenitly Berman is in an area controlled by hollywood.
But while consumers are perturbed with this solution, the study found that 74 percent of those surveyed believed that if the music companies must distribute copy-protected CDs, they should contain warning labels. Which give good directions on where to find the latest tools to copy these uncopyable cds.
Live web cams
I want to make backup copies of my Certificates of Deposit! And then cash them all in.
sulli
RTFJ.
from the article (yes, i read it)
d -players .
>The copy-protected CDs limit users options--preventing them from making a copy of the CD to play in their car, for example, as one could with a cassette tape.
this is 100% BS.
Copy-protected CD do NOT stop someone from making a copy of the CD to play in their car, for example.
There is NO CD that can stop you from doing this.
1. Get a 1/8" to 1/8" cable from Radio Shack
2. Plug one end into a CD player that the CD plays in
3. Plug the other end into your computer
4. Hit "play" on the CD player at the same time you hit "record" on your computer's audio recording program.
99% of people will NOT be able to tell the difference when listening to the "unmakable" CD in their car.
They will, also, be able to make mixes.. that is, they can put tracks from MULTPILE "copy protected" circular-shiny-thingies-that-only-play-in-older-c
The only copy-protected music CD is the one that doesn't play in ANY CD player.
There is no way to stop me from copying the information from a media which allows me to hear, see, smell or taste. At least, not a copy which is "close enough" for me not to care that its a "perfect" copy.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
..is what are those 23 and 12 percentages THINKING?
In other news 77% of people (accourding to GartnerG3) have illegally copied music or had music copied for them. 68% of these people obtained the copied music via online sources while the others obtained it through the use of physical mediums such as CD-Rs. 100% of these people think 0$ was a reasonable price to pay for the copied CDs. 100% of these people feel CD protection would inhibit their ability to onbtain copied music at $0 and feel that said protection should not be allowed.
ps this is steamy load if you didn't figure that one out.
disclaimer: I copy and buy music, and I believe in a businesses rights to the works that are a product of their investment. I don't believe there are any good solutions widely available in the marketplace to close the gap between copy protection and fair usage.
It's good to see the industry shaman/guru/fortune tellers at Gartner stick to their comfortable pattern of stating the obvious:
* Desktop computers cost a wad of cash to support
* Servers cost a wad of cash to support
* Companies want their computer stuff for cheap (TCO or Total Cost of Ownership)
* Losing cusotmers is expensive (Customer relationship management)
* Huge databases will be the norm in a few years (I love how this one is always true)
and joining Gartner's other brilliant flashes of the obvious:
* Consumers want to be able to use the software/music/movies/whatever they buy!
Maybe I should write a few cheesy white papers like "Controling the transaction cost of email" or "Why having an accounting system is important" and put on a few webinars... the boom, I could hire a bunch of marketing flunk outs and sell seats in "executive briefings" or cobranded reports for big $$$...
I suppose I should lighten up on Gartner - they do serve a purpose: they make people want to spend inordinate ammounts of money on trendy software and therefore keep a lot of us slashdot types employed.
$G
-- $G
I think that making cripled CDs goes against the fair use rule. My cd player in my car eats CDs so that they are un-usable in about two weeks. I really like to make copies of the CDs that I own so that I can listen to them in the car instead of listeing to annoying radio. I should get a new player for the car.. perhaps even an MP3 player, but that isn't happening soon.
Something's rotten in Denmark!
sulli
RTFJ.
Of course, if You really cared about this issue, You'd not sit only at home and hope that politicians listen, but You'd get out there and support those who are fighting for You by joining the EFF.
Fight back!
1. Too costly
2. I can get (sometimes) lower quality stuff from free via P2P.
3. I'm afraid that it will be crippled
Combine #1 and #3 and #2 is the only choice left for me.
Some business models are just not meant to survive forever. The Recording Industry should have begun to realize this 4 or 5 years ago, when MP3's first began to become popular, but instead they missed the boat, and decided to fight anyone that got on the boat. Hurt your consumers. Hurt your musicians. Given the fact that many people see the Recording Industry as dishonest (anyone remember the fact that they were recently found guilty of price fixing?), it's no wonder why we don't feel the least bit guilty about downloading from Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.
Nevertheless, most people prefer to be honest, overall. If the music industry starts selling new MP3 songs for $1/song and old ones for $0.25/song, they would likely see their profits higher than ever before, and kazaa would simply become a fringe group of people.
LEAD PIPES!
Come to NYC and drink the tap water that has been sitting in 100 year old lead pipes before it comes out of your faucet. You will LOVE bottled water. Plus, you actually don't get free water unless you are sucking up the scummy lake or river water filled with parasites. Tap water is paid for by taxes. No matter what, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
that distributing mp3s on the net can help sales the same way that radio airtime helps increase an artist's exposure and boosts sales?
Case Study:
My mom comes by my appartment once in a while to say hi, and drop off a basket of fresh home baked muffins (thanks Mom). She hears, and likes the celtic songs playing on the stereo and asks who the artist is.
"It's a mix of artists I downloaded from the internet." I reply. Then burn a copy of the mp3s to a cd, and give it to her.
About a month later she has become hooked on a couple artists and has bought their cd's.
Variations of this scenario have played out a couple times and my mom has complained that every time I give her a CD of MP3s she ends up spending 100 bucks at A&B Sound.
I believe this is a common scenario. People download a bunch of songs and then every once in a while a particular artist strikes the right chord and they look for more music from that artist. The problem with the internet is that there is a lot of junk, and it is nearly impossible to download a whole album from one artist and get decent quality for every song. So many of us go out and by the CD.
Hilary Rosen Defeated at Oxford Union
As well as the water they supposedly get "for free"
2 52
my friend they also get an amount of flouride, chlorine, and arsenic in the same "free" water.
Not so in the bottled water (spring water, mineral water call it what you will).
Any short search on Google will bring up various pages by concerned groups interested in just what is in our "free" water... and why filtering it from your home or buying bottled water is a better idea than drinking straight from the tap.
One such article... about Arsenic levels in the "free" water of the USA:
http://www.ecoworld.org/Home/articles2.cfm?TID=
cheers
front
I do.
Really. I own two collector's editions of some very obscure music and I'd much rather play the backups than the original disks. So I make exact backups of them and then safely put the originals away.
I don't give them away to friends, I don't share them online through a P2P service, I don't do anything like that. I make a copy for the car and that's that. I want to keep the originals nice and safe; I use a copy for the car and Ogg for the computer.
When I buy a video game that requires me to use the CD, I try and use a copy as well, since I'd much rather risk accidently destroying a copy of my Warcraft III Collector's Edition (yeah, I know, Vivendi=Evil - quiet) then the original disk itself.
If I can figure out how to make a copy of UT2003 I'd do it to so I can let the original disks sit out of harms way (especially with the stupid "must have CD in the drive" shenanigans that often have disks out on top of the case during the burn of another disk or the install of something else - the joys of being a software developer under Windows - *sigh*).
Copy prohibition is only annoying for the legitimate purchases of content. The developers for UT2003 understood that and have admitted it in interviews. It's too bad that the publishing houses haven't figured that out yet and that I'm forced to have the stupid CD in my computer just so UT2003 can be convinced that even with a valid CD key I'm not some evil pirate.
When I buy music, I want to make an Ogg on my computer and a copy for my car. I then leave the disk safely away for potential future re-ripping and encoding to Ogg2 or the next great codec.
When my Dad buys a CD, he uses Roxio Easy-CD Creator to encode it to MP3 and then makes mixes of them for his car. My mother also encodes every CD she wants for easy access (although I don't know exactly what program she uses).
But notice that in these cases, we all legitamitely have the CD! I bought my copy of UT2003 and would be much obliged if Atari would trust me enough to use the game without the CD in the drive.
I have yet to see any of these restrictions doing anything to harm pirates. It just harms the honest consumer. I still buy CDs (a full four this year - and I haven't illegally downloaded anything else - and of those four, only two were through RIAA members) and support the companies that make games I like to play. But I still see the tracks available online, and know people who make copies of "copy protected" CDs simply to prove it's possible. And I'll bet all the real pirates of content and still happily selling their illegal $2 CDs out on the black market, laughing at means that only serve to force the honest user to either spend more money on additional CDs or give up functionality they've come to expect from their computers.
It annoys me.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Why should the artist, who performs a song once, get paid every time someone wants to hear that song? They expend no additional effort regardless of how many times a CD is copied or their music is played.
Consider programming, for example. Most programmers are paid to produce something, and very few, if any, receive royalties every time their programs are run. Why should it be any different for "artists" - who like programmers, are creative, but considerable better compensated considering the actual amount of work they do.
Notice that I'm not saying that performers shouldn't be compensated, but rather that they aren't entitled to be compensated for doing nothing. I have no problem with paying to see an artist performing live, because in that case, they are actually working. But how am I depriving an artist of their "fair share" if I copy a CD that I wouldn't have paid for in the first place? What if I don't buy CD's, but rather just listen to the radio? Am I stealing then? (I enjoy the music, but I didn't pay for it!) What's the difference?
What it comes down to is plain and simple greed. The record companies and artists want to be compensated for doing nothing.
I'm not saying that a musician's life isn't hard, but no one forced these people to become musicians. A career in music is not an entitlement. If you can't make a living as a musician, actually performing live, then maybe you shouldn't be in the business.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
1. Get a frog
2. ???
3. Profit!
The they all want to make copies for personal use, that isn't the real issue. It't the 95% of of those 82% who want make copies for others who didn't pay for the original material. If the rest of you had to make a living off royality per sale or use of your work instead of getting paid a salary or hourly you'd change your mind real quick.
I'm surprised its not higher.
Imagine that people just want to be able to do something that the law permits!?!
At least until RIAA eviscerates the fair use section of the Copyright Act
A local Best Buy retailer was inundated with a crowd of screaming teenagers and adults who couldn't wait to get their hands on a new CD containing the latest in digital restrictions management technology.
"It's so amazing how far music has come in the last 5 decades.", said 18-year-old Tricia James, clutching her copy of the new CD, a reissue of Three Dog Night's 1970 release, Naturally.
"It's always the consumers who drive initiatives like this.", commente Hilary Rosen, chairperson of the RIAA,at a press conference this Wednesday. "Our customers demand stringent limitations that prevent freeloaders from getting out of paying for another CD if their original store-bought CD becomes too scratched to play, and we deliver them. It adds value to our product."
"And this is just the tip of the iceberg", interjected the MPAA chairman, Jack Valenti. "This same technology can be applied to television, food, and even movies. I can't believe that in the 100-or-so years film has been around, theater operators didn't realize that people have TWO eyes, effectively giving them two identical copies of the same movie, one of which isn't being paid for. We are developing a simple, fair solution for this: either the theater patron will pay double the normal price of a movie, or they will be forced to wear a pirate-like eye patch."
"But aren't pirates the people you are trying to get rid of?" inquired a skeptic reporter from the Philadelphia Observer. Hilary Rosen quickly and conclusively answered this one by saying "Ha ha, yeah, I guess that's a little ironic isn't it? Yaarrgh, maytee!".
However the teenagers at the Grassy Park Best Buy aren't quite THAT optimistic. "Eye patches? I mean I'm all for some more rights management, but it'll be som endeaver to pull it off" said an unsure 15-year-old named Brian Coqueville. "Maybe if they start putting cool corporate logos on the patches, I'll be interested."
Jill Holmsworth, 21 still too giddy after the purchase of her new crippled disc to talk about anything else. "It's like almost an S&M thing for me. You no, like when someone ties you up and you're like No! No more! but deep down inside you love that stable,predictable feeling that the restraints give you. DRM is just like that, only they're DIGITAL restrictions, which are like ten times as good!"
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
wasn't in it for the music, they would probably stop being my favourite band.
There's plenty of bands out there that don't really care if people are buying cd's. People still go to concerts, enjoy their music, etc. Bands give away their mp3's free on the internet, just for exposure, or the joy of having people listen to what they've created. And for that matter, most bands signed by the RIAA never see any cash from CD sales anyway.
Presumably you are hinting towards the classic "if music is free then no one will produce new music" argument. (As we all KNOW, musicians certainly don't create music because they WANT TO or anything...)
Seriously though, come on. As though all creation of new music will cease if any harm should befall the good old system of distributing music solely via legally or technologically restricted plastic discs sold by content-monopoly-abusing middlemen.
That farfetched suggestion is, intentionally or not, the obvious implication of the rhetoric which you are using. It's also detrimental to productive consideration of the full range of issues involved.
Please, by all means contribute to debate on this issue, but be a little less melodramatic with your scenarios.
I know this is the digital age and all, but as I think someone pointed out above (albeit rather convoulutedly), 99% of the time you can't tell the difference between an analogue and a digital copy.
Only difference being, rip the CD on "Analogue Input" mode. Easy! If everyone did this instead of getting pissed about it, the RIAA would possibly get bored and wander off...and maybe design CDs glued into the jewel case or something.
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
Limited Edition, Artist's cut, Digitally enhanced, Riaa approved and endorsed for use in Optimal playback systems.
Remember that most criminal law is built upon that x-percent minority that would be out there doing vile things if the law wasn't in place. So citing examples of Good Citizens is meaningless. Otherwise I'd be walking around with my full auto Steyr Maddi AK-47.
Another important thing: you have to show definitive proof to the extent the new prohibition will work. On the fully automatic firearm ban you can say that outside a few extreme cases, it has worked pretty damn well in restricting the weapons from criminals. Harris and Klebold didn't have them.
But then compare that to the prohibition on alcohol: a law that was almost flagrantly disregarded by most people.
Now you have to show will [fill in the name of CD copyright protection law here] will either be like the former or the latter. Laws need to be effective and constructive. People won't follow the law just because it was done with good intentions.
(Of course you could say the firearm law isn't even that useful. But then you get into a question of what is effective law and what isn't. Given enough modivation a person can break any prohbition.)
What is music when you despise all sound?
According to a survey recently released by "Survey Sez!", a leading polling, survey and statistical trends analysis company, 97% of US Senators thought that the beliefs and interests of the American Public were completely irrelevent to their jobs and could safely be ignored. The company also sez! (tm) that several senators were unable to respond to their survey. The House of Representatives was also surveyed on the same subject but the results were less clear, with 70% of the representatives believing the same statement; 20% responding "Public? We dont need no steenking public!"; 17% responding "We'll pay attention to the public when the public pay us to." and 78% responding "The Public be Damned!" (totals do not add up to 100% because the checkboxes were filled out with crayon and the congresscritters don't seem to be able to stay in the lines).
At the same time, a survey of top corporate CEO's were asked about legislation on defining corporate legal rights with the following results. 78% responded: "Congress, We don't need no steenking congress"; 99% responded : "We don't elect them, but we sure as hell pay them, they'll do what we want.", 200% responded (this point was made so strongly (bribery of the persons taking the poll) that we needed to give it a few more percents) : "We don't give a flying f--k about congress, laws, people or much of anything else as long as our profits are good and we get paid what we think we are worth."
A group claiming to represent voters and consumers challenged the validity and even importance of the polls, but CEO Simon Sez! of "Survey Sez!" disputed their challenge and said that, as one of those surveyed, he knew that the process had to be valid and important. He further claimed, that given the results, he could only conclude that the only persons in the USA who deserved the right to vote were those who agreed with him (those disagreeing obviously disqualifying themselves by their obvious stupidity).
Simon Sez! sez!(tm) that he'd be introducing a new Constitution for the US to that effect. Congressional review is likely to take place at a special Constitutional Congress held on Sez!'s private island in the Caribbean. Sez! sez!(tm) that he has built a special resort^h^h^h^h^h conference center for that purpose and the discussion period is likely to last as long as the daiquiris do. A large supply of well educated and sexually attractive "pages" is also on hand to help the congresscritters in their deliberations. Ratification is expected quickly after the Constitutional Congress adjourns - as soon thereafter as his checks to the congresscritters clear.
The fact that our society is so money-driven leads people to make monetary gain their primary goal. Sure, I like making money, too, but if I also really liked what I did, I would be perfectly happy if the money I made was enough to get by on. Anything more than that would certainly be welcome, but I wouldn't fight to keep it.
Yeah, yeah, I know... I'm being just a wee bit too idealistic, and probably a bit hypocritical, but hey... when in Rome..
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
The problem with modern media is that the information you get is often so stripped of context that it is worthless. In this case, the numbers "77 say they should be able to copy CDs" has no meaning unless one knows exactly what questions wer asked, how was they were asked, who did the asking, whom was asked, and when?
For instance, if you ask, "Hey, user, would you like to watch movies over the Internet?" you migbt get results like, "Gartner finds 80% of online users ready to for Internet movies on demand." If you ask the same question of coal workers, however, you might find, "there is no support for Internet based movies." And, the real question is, "Would you like to watch movies over the Internet if it required an ISP account of between 100-250/month in order to supply the bandwidth?" Only by asking that question of the actual population which is to be affected could you get a meaningful answer.
Gartner is notorious for slanted and meaningless surveys, and without the actual report (which typically costs many thousands of dollars), we cannot evaluate what these numbers mean at all. Maybe they're good, but theey could just as easily be way off, in either direction.
Go figure.
First thing you learn in advertising is how you ask a question is just as important as the derived statistic. I want to know if they asked "do you think you should be able to copy a CD for yourself" (relatively neutral), "Do you think copying a CD should be allowed, as it is protected by US copywright law" (weighted for) or "do you think stealing music is wrong" (weighted against). I'd wager good money on the second. It's all about the quality of the questions, not the merit of the issue. 'Tho it's good to see we can throw meaningless numbers around just as much as the other guys.
Triv
Regardless of what legistlation is passed in the US, all other countries in the world have to deal with the same issues. Some of them will follow an example set by the US, some will follow the rules of the marketplace, but there will be countries where consumer's options will be severely limited.
This kind of copy-protection schemes are starting to emerge in Europe as well; just yesterday I saw a CD by Ian Van Dahl clearly marked as non-playable on PCs and Macs. I didn't buy the particular CD to test the validity of these claims, but that's down to personal choice rather than a market trend. I do not know whether the sales of the record have been impaired in any way.
Funny, though; the fact that it's unplayable in PCs and Macs is not explained in any way. It is left almost as an anomaly with the CD, with no symbol of value that would express increased protection, value or proof of originality. All it has is a little black box stating the obvious problem.
I imagine something like a "original audio recording - for stereo equipment only" holographic label or something a bit more upbeat could have given a better message to the consumers. On the other hand maybe we should be glad they didn't think of this?
Jouni
Jouni Mannonen | Game Designer, Consultant
> I want to whack something with a sword, and set something on fire. Does that make me a bad person?
38% of people polled said "no".
82 percent of people use the apostrophe incorrectly, for example, CD's instead of CDs.
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif'
Get literate, you morons.
As it is, the songwriter royalty system is based almost entirely on radio airplay "surveys". Voting rights in ASCAP and BMI are allocated based on royalties received, and as part of the membership agreement, artist agree not to challenge the system for determining royalties, further empowering the "haves" and disenfranchising the "have-nots". Add that to the creative accounting used by the record companies to recoup their advances from the artist royalties, and most artists never receive a royalty check. Artist royalties are the RIAA's smokescreen. The RIAA wants to maintain a tight control on the distribution of music, and maintain their power base.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
Just bout the new Donnas CD (Spend The Night) from Amazon.com. Pre-ordered it, even! And when it arrived, I found it would not even fire up in my Dell 8100 with a CD-RW drive! I wasted the money! What really sucks is that there was NO WAY for me to tell it was copy-protected BEFORE I ordered it. Otherwise, I simply wouldn't have bought it. The CD played ok on someone else's computer with no CD-RW, but on MY laptop, it simply wouldn't even run. Couldn't get it to play at all.
I'm returning it now for a refund, but I'm out the shipping charge. So, screw Atlantic records for perpetrating this crap on me as a consumer. I'm really tempted to rip the tracks using Audiograbber (which reads the copy-protected CD's audio tracks just fine, thank you very much!) and distribute them just out of spite. I spit on such tactics - pah!
A disgruntled customer,
Joe G.
Bishop, CA
Don't Die Wondering
She hears, and likes the celtic songs playing on the stereo and asks who the artist is.
Larry Bird?
John Havlecheck?
Bill Russell?
Robert Parrish?
I'm just dying to know.
83% of statistics are made up.
Really, though. Take even an introductory statistics class. Statistics is NOT an exact science. Somewhere in the process humans have to make decisions. All you can really conclude from this study is that Gartner was not paid by the RIAA.
I don't think you understand what this means. Gartner, even though it's stating the obvious, is a voice that some companies will only listen to.
I know a few companies, first hand, that have made their IT moves and practices, based on Gartner research. It's a trusted research group, and to make things work in a proposal, you just have to state, "stated in the Gartner research group". Then, managers and directors won't question the source. "Oh, if Gartner says so..."
"I have already voted, several times..."
RIAA has a tough time of counting the votes. If you buy crippleware, that counts as a "yes" vote for crippleware. If you don't buy crippleware, it's not really a "no" vote for crippleware, because any "no" votes are considered piracy.
An honest comparison would be the sales of otherwise identical albums, selling the crippled and uncrippled side-by-side for the same price. Until that happens, it's really like Saddam running against nobody in the Iraqi "election".
It seems to be that more and more in today's society, people don't matter. MONEY matters. The RIAA is doing anything and everything it can to make more money, and politicians are taking 'contributions' (which to me consitutes bribery in many cases) to introduce/help push/vote for legislation that screws people while allowing companies to make more money.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
I've got some older CDs that are now out of print, and *VERY* difficult to find. I would rather not risk having the CD get lost/stolen/damaged/whatever and not being able to replace it.
Why doesn't the RIAA/whoever allow out-of-print material to be released to emusic.com or something? They're not going to make CDs of the material again, why not let someone actually enjoy it? Hrmph.
Judging from the responses you got to that one, I would say you found the 18%!
1 /index.htm
l
For God's sake people, chlorinated tap water will likely contain fewer microbes than spring water, which comes out of the damned GROUND. If you're lucky. Know where aquafina and dasani come from? Chlorinated tap water with some salts added. So you're paying $2 a bottle for what you can get for (essentially) free. Morons.
If you have any questions about your tap water, you have the right to get the full results of the water testing, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm
Here is a link to LA's water.
http://www.ladwp.com/water/quality/Annual/AnnRep0
And here's New York's:
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/wsstate.htm
I would say a small fraction of the country actually lives in an area where the water is actually hazardous. Both NY and LA were pretty damned good, actually. I've done tests on water, you'd be surprised how good tap water is in most places.
But congratulations on swallowing the FUD of the bottled water industry! I suppose you'll follow suit with the **AA.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
True, there exists a percentage of voters who vote party lines, but I'd guess that that is a smaller percentage than you'd like to think. I would HOPE that people vote issues over party, but I also hope that people would vote issues more important than something like CD copying/backing up/whatever the hell you want to call it. Just because it's an issue to you doesn't mean it's an issue to everyone. There are people in this world who care about education, military spending, homeland security, and things such as that. I know MANY people that cross party lines to vote "meaningful" issues.
Don't let'em get away with it! If you live in Denmark, remember to support IDFR ...
"Initiativet Digitale ForbrugerRettigheder"
77% of consumers believe they should be allowed to copy CD's for personal use
Yeah but 99% of consumers will be totally unaware whether the CD in their hot little hands at Best Buy is "crippled" or not. Nor will they care enough to put it back if you pointed out the warning label. It's one thing to ask a question and to have people agree in principle...and quite another to gague the extent to which such an agreement might influence actual behavior. My guess is that it won't influence it enough to deter the RIAA from making a good go of crippled CDs.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
98.3% of people, when asked, would you like something for nothing, said "yes". When asked if they would also like to be able to give that something to their friends, for free as well, 82% replied "yes".
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
is their assertion that CD prices have to remain at their current levels because of the costs associated with marketing CDs. Ummm....if a given bands fans know a CD is coming out, why is there a need to market it? Tells me that the RIAA spends too much $$$ pushing crap on us that we wouldn't want to listen to any way, and they're making the rest of us pay for acts that didn't make the cut. WHy should I have to chip in an extra couple bucks to buy a CD when that money will go towards the failure that is about to become of The Ketchup Song?
They're too busy giving head to all of the Hollywood bigshots for that to happen...
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Christ, have none of you people heard of a LID?
I mean, I know frogs are smart enough to jump around out of hot water, but holy shit, I thought Humans were the dominant species here.
Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.
Since when did Senators Hollings and Berman give a shit about the concerns of the general public?
Berman's not a Senator, he's a Representative (Representative of what, remains to be seen).
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Either they will look at the poll result numbers, or they'll look at the sales figures as they drop.
People will catch on, and when they cant x-fer songs to their mp3 player, car, computer, whatever.. they'll just download them.
By doing this, the RIAA is essentially pushing their customers towards piracy.
In order to more accurately reflect the reality of crippled media, and since pirates probably don't buy those CD's, I'll rephrase your second one as
That's why I posted *BOTH* lines.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
their ass ... why is this news? This is fucking stupid - good article choice Timmy - you fuck.
Just the other day, I found that one of my audio CD's had made its way out of the case and rolled in beside the seat of my car. On its journey it seems to have acquired a rather nasty scar spanning the circular length of the CD.
Luckily, I have an MP3CD deck and had previously ripped all my audio CD's on to Mp3 disc.
If the original had been copy-crippled, my songs would have been lost. As it is, I retain an original copy (damaged or otherwise), and thus should be able to legally play my Mp3 disc to my heart's content.
The same theory applies to my software when I go out gaming, etc and usually use copies. If I accidentally leave a CD at a friend's, or a drunk somebody coats it in tequila, no problemo. The originals are all happily sitting on a carousel at home, unharmed, and again - quite legal.
Don't suspend the privileges of the whole due to the actions of the few - phorm
Most people think of AOL CD's as coasters but my 4-year-old thinks *any* CD is fair game! For some reason he thinks it's fun to run my music collection across the floor...
If I can't back up my bought-and-paid-for originals (for his use), I won't be buying music CD's anymore...
Quit your using the term crippled to adjectate the condition of a piece of plastic. The whitey use of crippled puts down our poeples suffering. I am also a victim of slavery and everyone is trying to diminish my sufferings and repamation claims. Peace.
Hollings and Berman et al would listen if there were numbers like "77%" and "82%" of citizens voting. Well, they might listen, if they cared -- but they might not care because they'd be working honest jobs instead of being elected officials, get it?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Once again, Gartner comes through with another gem of revolutionary intelligence, that everyone else already knew ...
*sigh*
So, if it's too easy to download an album, how about make the album bigger?
For example: I like quality in my CDs, so though I download music at 128kbps MP3s (or 192, if I can find it), if I find an album with three or more songs I like, I go out and buy it - then I get the higher quality, uncompressed 44.1kHz, 16-bit audio.
So, you ask, what happens when connection speeds are such that I can just download the entire uncompressed album?
Well, sure, that will happen, but how about the music industry stepping up to the challenge and offering more - more incentive to buy the full version? For instance, DVD-A (or SACD) with high resolution, multi-channel audio, and with some of the extra room on the album, maybe include a video or two. That would be worth purchase, 'cause either you have to compress the whole thing down horribly, or wait for a 9 GB download.
People will still strip off the audio and compress it to MP3s, or submix down to 2-channel and downconvert it, but the loss of quality becomes equivalent to the loss of quality with MP3s now... or even worse.
The RIAA wants me to buy more CDs rather than downloading them? Then, how about offer me something that makes it worthwhile for me to go purchase CDs.
-T
A lot on your mind... such as assheads? :)
-T
Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.
Yeah right. The only thing they are listening to is lobbyists.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
The reason why people buy DVDs even though they can't copy them is because there is little point in copying them for the average member of the public. You can't watch movies while you do something else as you can with music, so there's no need to really copy it; ever heard of a portable DVD player that lets you watch DVDs in high quality on the go? No, neither have I.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
No, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I would, however, like to interject some independent thought into the discussion, rather than repeating the mindless blather of both sides. It seems to me that I only see two sides represented in the comments: The RIAA Is Evil and P2P Users Are Thieves.... My purpose wasn't to flame, but rather, to try to introduce a different perspective in this debate.
In case you don't like the analogy: I'm also in a band that's "critically acclaimed" but not famous; we lose money every time we even think about music.) My most successful programmer friend guesses he makes about $200 US per hour.
Your cases are far from typical; the typical programmer makes about $25-35/hour, not $200. If I wanted to, I could probably come up with a list of musicians that make $2000/hour.
But this isn't the point. The point is that no one thinks about why we pay for some things and not others. Why don't we pay for radio? - after all, they are playing your music (if you're any good, but that's a different argument...). So why does it come to me for free, and benefit the advertisers, rather than the musicians? Well, we could argue that the musicians don't deserve any compensation, because they aren't actually doing any work when their songs are played on the radio.
If you are a musician, and music is what you sell, then you should be compensated every time someone hears it. But this model has problems, because of the distribution system currently in place ensures that those who don't make the music make the most from the music. If music is capable of being owned, then someone who buys a CD should own that music. But they don't. They aren't buying the music, and they can't do with it as they please. And the real problem is that there's no clear definition of what someone is buying when they buy the CD - Do they have the right to make a copy for a friend? (after all, the friend may not ever buy the CD, and the musician will not expend any additional effort...) Or are they merely limited to only personal enjoyment - that is, they can listen to the CD, but they can't share it...
The problem with the current model of compensation for musicians is that it rewards the most successful of musicians for doing very little work, while the hardest working musicians are often the least equitably compensated. The idea of continuing to profit from work already done is as capitalist as one can get - and yes, it is greedy - whether you or Corporate America profits from your work is a matter of contract. What's wrong with an even exchange of work and money?
And don't get started about the starving musician bit. Musicians sell what is easily acquired to those who have little real need for it. Hence the low rates of compensation. But it's not the compensation level that I take issue with, but rather the means. Even a greedy thief is still poor, but that doesn't mean he's not greedy by virtue of his lack of money.
So back to the original question: Why is it stealing to copy a friend's CD, but not to listen to the radio? Please explain, because I haven't compensated the artist in either situation.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I likewise backup my audio CDs, but unlike the previous "Me", I don't have many collectors editions (though I do have some obscure stuff). However, I do have a car, and a CD player in my bedroom, my gym bag, my office at work, my office at home (though I have the computer, and so use MP3s there some of the time), etc., and I occasionally even go over to friends' houses and bring a CD for them to listen to (no, I don't let them borrow it nor do I let them copy it... rather, they listen, and if they like it, they go out and buy it).
For all of these uses, I want to use a backup copy of the CD. I've worn out CDs, I've had them scratched, I've known friends who've had them stolen from their cars, etc.
Unlike the previous poster, I'm not referring primarily to collectors editions or tough to find CDs - I do _every_ CD I own, as soon as I get them (we've got a high-speed duplicator at work), and the original only gets to spin up once before it gets tucked safely away. For me, it's simple economics - how many CDs have you had to replace through theft, loss, damage? Maybe 5, maybe 10? That's somewhere between 50-150 dollars (depending on price). However, backup copies of those are going to be roughly .15 each, maybe less (buying blanks in bulk), so I spend a dollar and save a hundred, in a completely legal and legitimate way.
I'm not a pirate, but I'm not willing to just throw money away either.
-T
Your mom buys CDs...
Do you? (Your post doesn't mention you purchasing anything, just downloading celtic MP3s.)
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I wonder who paid for this survey? Since they knew it was not going to be a pro-RIAA result, I have to belive it was funded by someone who has an intrest in copying cds, or is fighting some of the BS that is going on.
Are you paranoid if you know that they just want to know everything you say and do?
question, is a VERY simple one.
ALL radio stations pay fee's for being on the air. Statistics are compiled on how often songs are played, and the copyright holders of those songs get cash money from the fee's that the stations pay. The money that the stations use for this, comes from advertisers, of course.
So radio is a paid medium. Just like TV. It just so happens that the payer, is not the consumer.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
You obviously don't have kids.
I have a couple of younger children. They are old enough to use the cd player (an old model my wife and I have decided they can trash), but not quite old enough to be absolutely careful with their cds (mostly kids music). Anyway, they are constantly scratching them (accidentally), or stepping on them (kids are notorious for not looking where they walk/fall), or any of a hundred other things you can do to destroy a CD when you have little to no understanding of what you are really doing. They aren't being intentionally destructive, but kids in general aren't careful. So, I don't give them originals EVER. They only get cd-r duplicates.
If I wasn't going to download and burn music before copy protection, why not after copy protection? Why should i buy an essientially crippled product when there is a better variety online, better price, and more convenience? Selling a crippled product isn't going to make me want to buy it especially when there are such simple alternatives
Of course, they probably didn't survey anyone at the RIAA or MPAA, did they?
Now, whenever I use that term, most people assume it's a nice way of saying "pirate copy." Thing is, many of my cds are imports or out-of-print obscurities, and I don't want to leave them in the car, where they get exposed to heat, scratching or possible theft. In fact, at $18USD a pop, I don't want to leave my regular cds in the car either, which is why I've got a holder with about 40 CDRs under my seat. It just makes life easier.
Since I'm already paying a hidden fee that the RIAA's been building in to the cost of cds since the PMRC hearings in the '80's, and I'm paying an extra tax built into the cost of the CDR discs thanks to RIAA lobbying, they're already gouging me twice for the privelege of doing something to which I'm legally entitled anyway.
With the advent of these "copy-proof" cds, I have yet to see any mention of either of those taxes going away. As far as I can tell, I'd still be paying both those premiums, even if every cd on the market was 100% copy-proof. God bless America.
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
14% of the respondents did not care and the other 9% live in fear that they will be eaten by Hilary Rosen for music piracy.
"Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention."
The same survey pointed out that this happened to be the same 77% that don't make large campaign contributions.
No. Just because the law says you are entitled to copy for fair use does NOT mean that the RIAA is forced to make it easy for you to copy for fair use. You have no right to tell the RIAA in what format they must release their material. They have rights too. They have the right to prevent ALL copying. If you don't like it, you have the right to choose not to buy their stuff.
Vote for Pedro
84% of males state they don't want to be kicked in the balls, 6% stated they had enjoyed their balls being kicked, while 10% were undecided on the matter.
#6495ED - cornflower blue
When you introduce a confounding variable into an experiment, it can screw up your findings big time. In this survey for instance, adults (18+) vs. kids (under 18). Chances are you'd get a very different percentage if you seperated these groups.
That's just the way it is. If your purchase receipts would not only break out sales tax, but advertising and promotion costs, corporate debt service cost, legal costs, corporate income tax, production cost, R&D cost, exec perk costs, blue collar labor and benefit costs, plant maintenance&operations costs, and bad karma costs, then we'd have a lot better idea of what we're doing when we buy something.
Always good to see pro-consumer reports and studies, even if they won't do much good (or are rather pointless)...
I am a total believer in having the freedom to make fair use of a purchase, even if it might have a small cost associated with it - however, what really is the point of such a survey...
You could probably find a reasonable percentage of people that think they should have a 'nuclear deterrent' for protecting their own property, doesn't mean that it should or would happen!!!
The point is not so much to reassure possible refunds if they are, but to raise their awareness that more and more customers are simply not willing to take this kind of shit.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
The music? What the fuck else are they supposed to be selling you when they sell you a CD? God man. PIRACY is not supposed to be an alternative offer. You can't say "well, i can download this for free from mr.mambo, what you going to do to up the ante?"
And you do realise that the other things like videos you mention, you could download those too.
Quality aside, they exist, but it's still different than say, an iPod. You won't typically put on a movie on low volume "in the background" or rip 20 DVDs and then shuffle play all the chapters.
Anyway... PortableDVDStore.com
Now, if I wanted to bring my movies to a party, etc, my originals are not allowed to leave my apartment. So a backup copy would be nice insurance if it goes missing or gets damaged.
I'm pooing as I write this. Gotta love 802.11. Thought you'd like to know!
Yeah but 99% of consumers will be totally unaware whether the CD in their hot little hands at Best Buy is "crippled" or not.
I was at BestBuy a month past to return a defective headset. Anyway, the fella in the line behind me had a "defective CD" that woudn't play in his girlfriend's computer. Anyway, I broke the news to him and explained that the CD was just "copy protected". So, he got to the front, the BestBuy person put it into a CD player and showed the customer that it did work -- and then stated that it isn't defective. An argument insued where the BestBuy person asserted that his girlfriend's computer was defective... after he lost the argument and BestBuy wouldn't take back the CD-ROM he asked me where I can get a list of CDs which are "Defective, but the store won't admit it". Anyway, I didn't know at the time but I told him to search. He said that he'd tell all his friends about the problem.
So, I think the behavior is going to change. This fella, I'm sure, told every one of his friends (starting about 1 min after he left the store and picked up his cell phone) about the problem. A few burned customers like this and we'll be OK.
The only problem is that he would not have known about the copy restriction if I hadn't told him.
So. How do we make this well known to the population? Is there a flyer that I can print out with a succinct description of the problem and a list of record labels / popular CDs which are crippled? This flyer can then be printed out by us geeks and put in poster boards, on cars out side of record stores, etc.
Ferry Tale?!?! The story of a ship?!?! or do you mean Fairy Tail, the story of a priest?
... transitional fossil ,I assume. Even if one was found people such as yourself will simply say that it is a new species not an intermittent one. That being said, since evolution is step-wise and not continuous, I doubt one will ever be found. Using your logic, unless you can provide a single example of God, religon will stay the fairy tale that it is. Oh and BTW your inability to spell does not lend credence to you beliefs. So, why do you embrace religon? Do you prefer the idea of inbreeding as opposed to moving from something lesser to something greater? Do you simply fear the consequences if you don't believe? Does it help your self-esteem to believe that you were uniquely created by God?
transitionall fossil
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
Now, where an album can be compressed down to less than 50 MB, it's easier for most people to just download it.
And why can't I say that they should up the ante? Why shouldn't they offer more for my dollar as the technology improves? This is a free market - if they can't offer product that's valuable enough, then people aren't going to buy it.
-T
With the inability of philipse to protect the CD media from the "clones"...
I just stoped to buy CD's because i can't be sure if the CD i'm buying is playable on my computer or not with CD Audio quality.
The stores place crypled CD's in the same racks as the Audio CD's and there aren't VISIBLE labels to warn punters of the diference.
They are selling cat for rabbit!
RIAA = CD Fraud Products